CAR_Public/181206.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, December 6, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 244

                            Headlines

ABBOTT HOME: Files Joint Bid for FLSA Class Cert.  in Wilson Suit
ACTION COLLECTION: McDaniel Sues over Debt Collection Practices
AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal Underway in Williams Class Suit
AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Pension Fund Suit Due Dec. 6
AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Suit by Medicine Pharmacy Settled

AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Vana & Stone Suit Out of Court's Docket
ANADARKO BASIN:  $6.9MM Deal in Antitrust Suit Gets Prelim. OK
ANSAFONE CONTACT: Brown Seeks Cert. of Call Center Workers Class
ASPEN INSURANCE: Kent Sues Over Highlands Holdings Merger
BENEFICIAL BANCORP: Faces Parshall Class Suit over Merger Deal

BETTER PLUMBING: Underpays Plumbers, Gonzalez and Abreu Allege
BREG INC: Hearron Seeks Unpaid Overtime under Labor Code
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Brighthouse Financial Dropped from Roycroft Suit
BRUCE HORNSTEIN: Meneghetti Sues over Debt Collection Practices
BRUNSWICK CORPORATION: Robles Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA

CA INC: Broadcom Acquisition-Related Suits Closed
CAMPING WORLD: Faces Ronge and Strougo Class Suits
CDK GLOBAL: Bid for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Underway
CDK GLOBAL: Bid to Drop Autoloop's Class Action Still Ongoing
CHARLES SCHWAB: Continues to Defend Crago Order Routing Class Suit

CHARLES SCHWAB: Dismissal in Total Bond Market Fund Suit Upheld
CLEVELAND, NC: Conner Moves to Certify 2 Classes of EMS Personnel
COOK COUNTY, IL: Hayes' Bid to Certify Class Continued to Dec. 18
CPI CARD: Settlement Hearing in N.Y. Suit Set for Feb. 5
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Trustees Sued over Sexual Harassment

DELICIOUS HOSPITALITY: Sued for Disabilities Act Breach
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Continues to Defend Michigan Class Suit
ENCORE RECEIVABLE: Kanehl Moves for Class Certification
ESTATE INFORMATION: Class Certification Sought in Thomas Suit
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Sues over Alleged Inaccurate Reporting

FACEBOOK INC: Sylwia Komorska Sues over Data Breach
FAMOUS FAMIGLIA: Rodriguez Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA
FGL HOLDINGS: Still Defends Brokerage Insurance Partners Suit
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Certification of Class Sought in Voeks Suit
FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Still Defends Georgia Class Action

FORD MOTOR: Van Moves to Certify Class in Sexual Harassment Suit
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Ridgell's Bid to Certify Two Classes Denied
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Still Defends Consolidated Suit in Conn.
FUELCO ENERGY: Segovia Renews Bid to Certify Class of Drivers
FULTON COUNTY, GA: Court Certifies Inmates' Overdetention Suit

GC SERVICES: Beaufrand Seeks Class Certification Under FDCPA
GC SERVICES: Jaber Seeks to Certify Class of Michigan Consumers
GCA EDUCATIONAL: Taylors Seek Minimum Wages and OT under FLSA
GEORGIA POWER: Bid to Stay Franchise Fee Suit Underway
GLOBAL TRUST: Fote Seeks Certification of Class Under "Damasco"

GLOBALSCAPE INC: Dec. 18 Final Approval Hearing in Giovagnoli Deal
GREENSKY INC: Dobek Sues over Misleading Financial Report
GREYHOUND LINES: Sued over Discriminatory Immigration Raids
GYM CONSULTING: Livingstone Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
HORIZON FREIGHT: Court Dismisses Ayyash Wage & Hour Suit

HUNTER ALLIED: Court Narrows Claims in Izaguirre Suit
HY'S LIVERY: Belgada Moves to Certify Class of Limousine Drivers
HYATT CORPORATION: Removed Insixiengmay Case to E.D. California
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Oral Argument in Fergus Suit Not Yet Scheduled
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Faces Grubb Lumber Class Action

JMR LANDSCAPING: Lazcon Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
KERYX BIOPHARMA: Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated Karth Suit
LANE BRYANT: Meo Seeks Overtime Pay for Store Managers
LYFT, INC: Removed Tecson Case to Northern District of California
MACA REST: Workers File Suit Alleging FLSA and NYLL Violations

MDL 2743: Cantu-Guerrero Appeals Ruling in Flooring Durability Suit
METLIFE INC: Appeal in Martin Class Suit Still Pending
METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Roycroft Class Suit
METLIFE INC: Miller Class Suit v. MLIC in New York Ongoing
METLIFE INC: Non-Certification of Sales Practices Claims Affirmed

METLIFE INC: Still Defends Julian & McKinney Class Suit
METLIFE INC: Still Defends Newman Class Action Suit in Illinois
METLIFE INC: Still Defends Parchmann Class Suit
METLIFE INC: Still Defends Voshall Class Suit in California
MICHAEL KORS: Lucas Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir.

NCB MANAGEMENT: Class Certification Sought in Rodriguez Suit
NELSON TREE: Neville Seeks Wages & Overtime under FLSA
NEW YORK: Guadagna Moves to Certify Class of GuildNet Enrollees
NORTH AMERICAN MIDWAY: Underpays Carnival Workers, Brits Says
OCLARO INC: Karri Suit over Lumentum Merger Deal Underway

OHIO NATIONAL: Veritas Seeks Trail Commissions for Dealers
PACIFIC BELL: Cal. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Hernandez
PANDORA MEDIA: Sciabacucchi Balks at Sirius XM Merger
PFIZER INC: Amendment to Suit over Intravenous Solution Filed
POPULAR INC: Discovery Ongoing in Diaz Class Action

PRIME COMMUNICATIONS: 4th Cir. Appeal Filed in Lorenzo Suit
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Ruling in PICA v. DB under Appeal
PVH CORP: Website not Accessible to Blind, Figueroa Says
RAJ MANUFACTURING: Cantoran Seeks Wages & OT under Labor Code
RENT-A-CENTER INC: Settlement Reached in Consolidated Hall Suit

SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Bund Suit
SELECT INCOME: Sinkula Balks at GOV MS REIT Merger Deal
SKC ENTERPRISES: Davis' Bid for Conditional Certification Denied
SKC ENTERPRISES: Davis's Bid to Certify Class Denied as Premature
SMYTHE CRAMER: Ohio App. Affirms Class Certification in Cantlin

SONUS NETWORKS: Miller Sues over Falsified Financial Report
SOUTHERN CONNECTIONS: Tyree Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
SUNOPTA INC: Full Payment Made in De Jesus Settlement
TESARO INC: LSI Files Securities Class Suit Over False Co. Reports
THESY, LLC: Tyksinski Sues over Cybersecurity Breach

TORCHMARK CORP: Arbitration Ongoing in Bruce Class Suit
TORCHMARK CORP: Faces Golz Class Action in California
TORCHMARK CORP: Unit Faces Joh Class Action in California
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Violates FDCPA, Thompson Suit Alleges
UNITED STATES: Class of Veterans Certified in Manker Suit

UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Navy, Marine Corps Veterans' Suit
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Inflates Prescription Drug Prices, Sohmer Says
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Loses Bid to Decertify Meal Period Class
WESTPAC BANKING: Australian Class Action Still Stayed
WORLD WRESTLING: Haynes Appeals Ruling in Retired Wrestlers' Suit

YAHOO! INC: Court Grants Final Approval of Wahl Settlement

                            *********

ABBOTT HOME: Files Joint Bid for FLSA Class Cert.  in Wilson Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Zoe Wilson and Stefanie Wilson and Defendants Abbott
Home Care Plus LLC, Abbott Home Care, Inc. and Paulette Klaiber
jointly seek conditional certification of the matter entitled
Wilson, et al. v. Abbott Home Care, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-00743-GCS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), as a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and to provide notice to the putative
class members.

The Parties will provide notice to the putative class members on
December 5, 2018, in accordance to their agreed schedule.  The
Defendants shall provide to the Plaintiffs a list (in Microsoft
Office Excel format) containing the names, last known addresses
(including zip code), and employment dates of all current and
former home health aides of the Defendants, who worked over 40
hours in any workweek since July 31, 2015.

The Plaintiffs' counsel shall mail the proposed notice and consent
to join to the individuals appearing on the list via First Class
U.S. Mail on December 5, 2018.  The opt-in period will close as to
the potential opt-in plaintiffs on February 4, 2019 ("Notice
Period").

The Parties also agree that nothing in the stipulated agreement or
the Defendants' subsequent cooperation with the conditional
certification constitutes a waiver of the Defendants' rights to
later oppose certification of a collective action or class action.
The Defendants reserve all rights to move to decertify this
collective action before or after the close of discovery.  The
Defendants do not concede the merits of any of the Plaintiffs'
claims and fully reserves the right to contest the liability
relating thereto.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Peter A. Contreras, Esq.
          CONTRERAS LAW, LLC
          PO Box 215
          Amlin, OH 43002
          Telephone: (614) 787-4878
          Facsimile: (614) 923-7369
          E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Stacy V. Pollock, Esq.
          MAZANEC, RASKIN & RYDER CO., L.P.A.
          175 South Third Street, Suite 1000
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 228-5931
          Facsimile: (614) 228-5934
          E-mail: spollock@mrrlaw.com


ACTION COLLECTION: McDaniel Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
TANYA MCDANIEL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ACTION COLLECTION AGENCIES, INC., a
Massachusetts incorporated company, d/b/a ACTION COLLECTION AGENCY
OF BOSTON, the Defendant, Case 2:18-cv-14459-KAM (S.D. Fla.),
alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is a Massachusetts
company doing business as Action Collection Agency of Boston, and
is engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts. The
Defendant operates from offices located at 16 Commerce Boulevard,
Middleboro, Massachusetts 02346. The Defendant regularly uses the
United States Postal Service and telephone in the collection of
consumer debts.

Defendant sought to collect a consumer debt from Plaintiff arising
from an alleged delinquency on a medical debt. The Defendant sought
to collect from Plaintiff an alleged debt incurred
by Plaintiff for personal, family, or household purposes. On or
about August 28, 2018, Defendant mailed or caused to be mailed to
Plaintiff a letter seeking payment of the alleged debt. Pursuant to
the FDCPA, Plaintiff is entitled to be free from the use of false,
deceptive or misleading means in Defendant's attempts to collect a
debt from Plaintiff. Defendant's Demand Letter falsely and
misleadingly pronounces Plaintiff's rights as it pertains to
whether the Defendant may contact her at her place of employment
regarding the debt, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Leo W. Desmond, Esq.
          Sovathary K. Jacobson, Esq.
          DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
          Vero Beach, FL 32963
          Telephone: (772) 231 9600
          Facsimile: (772) 231 0300
          E-mail: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com
                  jacobson@desmondlawfirm.com

AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal Underway in Williams Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that an appeal
by class action plaintiff Emielou Williams to the California State
Court of Appeal is ongoing.

On August 3, 2017, Plaintiff Emielou Williams filed a class action
complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California in the
County of Alameda on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated against Impax alleging violation of California Business
and Professions Code section 17200 by violating various California
wage and hour laws.

On October 10, 2017, Impax filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike
Class Allegations. On December 12, 2017, the Court overruled
Impax's Demurrer to Plaintiff's individual claims, however, it
struck all of Plaintiff's class allegations. On March 13, 2018,
Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint once again including
the same class allegations.

The Company filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike Class Allegations
on April 12, 2018, and oral argument concerning the motion was
heard on August 24, 2018. On September 20, 2018, the Court again
struck Plaintiff's class allegations; Plaintiff has appealed this
most recent order to the California State Court of Appeal.

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


AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Pension Fund Suit Due Dec. 6
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that Impax
Laboratories, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the class action suit filed
by New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York
City, Inc. Pension Fund, is due December 6, 2018.

On April 17, 2017, Lead Plaintiff New York Hotel Trades Council &
Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund filed an
amended class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated against Impax alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5.

On June 1, 2017, Impax filed its motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On September 7, 2018, the Court granted Impax's motion,
dismissing plaintiffs' claims without prejudice and with leave to
amend their complaint. On September 18, 2018, the Court entered a
Scheduling Order, providing that: plaintiffs' second amended
complaint is due to be filed October 26, 2018; Impax's motion to
dismiss is due December 6, 2018; plaintiffs' opposition thereto is
due January 17, 2019; and Impax's reply in support of its motion to
dismiss is due February 7, 2019.

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

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., formerly known as Atlas Holdings,
Inc. (the "Company"), was formed along with its wholly owned
subsidiary, K2 Merger Sub Corporation, a Delaware corporation
("Merger Sub"), on October 4, 2017, for the purpose of facilitating
the combination of Impax Laboratories, Inc. (now Impax
Laboratories, LLC), a Delaware corporation then listed on the
Nasdaq Stock Market ("Impax") and Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company ("Amneal").

AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Suit by Medicine Pharmacy Settled
---------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
has settled with the individual plaintiff in the class action suit
initiated by Medicine To Go Pharmacies, Inc., for a nominal
amount.

On January 31, 2017, Plaintiff Family Medicine Pharmacy LLC filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated against Impax alleging violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax
Prevention Act of 2005 (the "Telephone Consumer Protection Act").

On March 27, 2017, Impax filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
and plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2017. On July
18, 2017, the parties reached an agreement in principle regarding
the class settlement. On September 29, 2017, the District Court
preliminarily approved the proposed class settlement. The Court
held a hearing on March 6, 2018 and issued an order with final
approval of the proposed class settlement.

On February 14, 2017, Plaintiff Medicine To Go Pharmacies, Inc.
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated against Impax alleging violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

On April 17, 2017, Impax filed a motion to dismiss, transfer, or
stay this case in light of the first-filed case. This case was
transferred to the Southern District of Alabama. On September 15,
2017, the Court stayed this matter pending the final approval of
the class settlement. In October 2018, the Company settled with the
individual plaintiff (whose class claims were subsumed by and
released in connection with the settlement reached in the
earlier-filed Alabama action discussed above) for a nominal
amount.

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


AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Vana & Stone Suit Out of Court's Docket
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a court has
terminated the class action lawsuit filed by Susan Vana and David
Stone on its docket.

On December 12, 2017 and December 14, 2017, Plaintiffs Susan Vana
and David Stone, respectively, filed class action complaints in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
against Amneal and Impax alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 generally alleging
that the Registration Statement on Form S-4 related to the
Combination contains false and misleading statements and/or
omissions concerning the financial projections of Impax, Amneal,
and the combined company; Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC's valuation
analyses and Fairness Opinions relating to Impax and Amneal;
potential conflicts of interest associated with one of Impax's
financial advisors and the Combination with Amneal; and background
information of the proposed business combination, including
confidentiality agreements entered into by Impax in connection with
the Combination.

On April 4, 2018, plaintiffs filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order
voluntarily dismissing the actions and on April 5, 2018, the court
issued an order to dismiss the actions.

Plaintiffs did not file any petition for an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses by the court-ordered deadline of June 1, 2018.

The Court has now terminated the case on its docket.

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

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., formerly known as Atlas Holdings,
Inc. (the "Company"), was formed along with its wholly owned
subsidiary, K2 Merger Sub Corporation, a Delaware corporation
("Merger Sub"), on October 4, 2017, for the purpose of facilitating
the combination of Impax Laboratories, Inc. (now Impax
Laboratories, LLC), a Delaware corporation then listed on the
Nasdaq Stock Market ("Impax") and Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company ("Amneal").

ANADARKO BASIN:  $6.9MM Deal in Antitrust Suit Gets Prelim. OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Joe Heaton grants the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement and class certification for
settlement purposes in the matter titled IN RE ANADARKO BASIN OIL
AND GAS LEASE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 5:16-cv-00209-HE (W.D.
Okla.).

The litigation is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs
Edward Clark, Inc., Curtis Crandall, Amy Herzog, Mahony-Killian,
Inc., Ida Powers, and Brian Thieme, individually and on behalf of
the proposed class of mineral lessors, against Chesapeake Energy
Corp., Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., and Tom L. Ward for alleged
violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act by conspiring to fix,
raise, maintain or stabilize lease bonuses in the Mississippi Lime
Play of the Anadarko Basin Region, as described in Plaintiffs'
Amended Class Action Complaint.

The Plaintiffs and Defendants have reached an agreement to settle
this Litigation through the creation of a Settlement Fund in the
amount of $6,950,000.  On September 4, 2018, the Plaintiffs and
Defendants exchanged executed counterparts of the Settlement
Agreement dated as of September 4, 2018 memorializing the terms of
a proposed class settlement.

The Settlement Class is certified for settlement purposes only.
The certified Settlement Class is defined as:

     All persons and entities who sold, leased or otherwise
     assigned or transferred to Chesapeake or SandRidge, or any
     of their respective predecessors, subsidiaries, agents (such
     as landmen) or affiliates, mineral rights and/or working
     interests on lands within the Mississippi Lime Play, at any
     time between December 27, 2007 and April 1, 2013.  For
     purposes of this Settlement Class, the Mississippi Lime Play
     includes all depths and formations within the Oklahoma
     counties of Alfalfa, Blaine, Creek, Dewey, Ellis, Garfield,
     Grant, Harper, Kay, Kingfisher, Logan, Lincoln, Major,
     Noble, Osage, Pawnee, Payne, Tulsa, Washington, Woods, and
     Woodward, and the Kansas counties of Barber, Butler, Chase,
     Chautauqua, Cheyenne, Clark, Coffey, Comanche, Cowley,
     Dickinson, Edwards, Elk, Finney, Ford, Gove, Grant, Gray,
     Greenwood, Harper, Harvey, Haskell, Hodgeman, Kearny,
     Kingman, Kiowa, Lane, Logan, Lyon, Marion, McPherson, Meade,
     Montgomery, Morris, Ness, Pawnee, Pratt, Rawlins, Reno,
     Rice, Rush, Saline, Scott, Sedgwick, Seward, Sheridan,
     Sherman, Stafford, Stevens, Sumner, Thomas, Trego, Wallace,
     Wichita, Wilson, and Woodson.

     Excluded from the Class are Defendants, SandRidge, any
     parent, subsidiary, agent or affiliate thereof, their
     officers, directors, employees, and immediate families,
     federal and state governmental entities and
     instrumentalities of federal and state governments, and any
     individuals or entities from whom Chesapeake has already
     settled.

Judge Heaton appoints the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and
appoints their Counsel as Class Counsel.  The Court appoints
Markham Sherwood of KCC, LLC, as Claims Administrator.  The Court
further preliminarily approves the form and content of the proposed
Notice and the proposed Summary Notice.

A Final Fairness Hearing will be held on March 25, 2019, at 9:30
a.m.[CC]


ANSAFONE CONTACT: Brown Seeks Cert. of Call Center Workers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled LLOYD BROWN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. ANSAFONE CONTACT
CENTERS, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No.
5:18-cv-00490-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla.), seeks entry of an order
permitting, under Court supervision, notice to this class of
similarly situated employees:

     All persons employed as hourly paid call center employees
     for Defendant for the past three years (plus any applicable
     tolling) from the date of the Complaint to the present who
     were not paid full and proper overtime compensation for all
     hours worked due to Defendant's timekeeping practices.

The Complaint was originally filed on March 16, 2018.  See Lloyd
Brown, et al. v. Ansafone contact Centers, LLC, Case No.
5:18-cv-00126-JSM-PRL.  The Original Complaint was dismissed on May
24, 2018, pending the completion of mediation, and pursuant to the
parties' agreement, the statute of limitations was tolled through
the filing of the instant action, Case No. 5:18-cv-00490-JSM-PRL.
As such, the statute of limitations relates back three years prior
to the date of filing of the Original Complaint, namely, March 16,
2015.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah E. Storch, Esq.
          RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Telephone: (866) 344-9243
          Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
          E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com


ASPEN INSURANCE: Kent Sues Over Highlands Holdings Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kent, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Aspen Insurance Holdings Limited, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-10430 (S.D. N.Y., November 9, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on August
28, 2018, pursuant to which Aspen Insurance Holdings Limited will
be acquired by affiliates of Apollo Global Management, LLC.

On August 28, 2018, Aspen's Board of Directors (the "Board" or
"Individual Defendants") caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger with Highlands Holdings, Ltd. and
Highlands Merger Sub, Ltd. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, shareholders of Aspen will receive $42.75 in cash for
each share of Aspen common stock.

On November 6, 2018, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy
Statement, which scheduled a stockholder vote on the Proposed
Transaction for December 10, 2018, omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy
Statement false and misleading.

The Plaintiff owns Aspen common stock.

The Defendant Aspen is a Bermuda exempted company with offices
located at 590 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10022.
Aspen's common stock is traded on the NYSE under the ticker symbol
"AHL". Aspen was founded in 2002 and is a global specialty
insurance and reinsurance company.

The Individual Defendants are directors of Aspen. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      825 East Gate Boulevard, Ste. 300
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel: (516) 683-3516
      E-mail: tjm@rl-legal.com


BENEFICIAL BANCORP: Faces Parshall Class Suit over Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beneficial Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company has
been named as defendant in a class action suit entitled, Parshall
v. Farnesi et al.

On August 7, 2018, Beneficial and WSFS entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to
which Beneficial will merge with and into WSFS, with WSFS
continuing as the surviving corporation (the "Proposed
Transaction"). Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, each
share of Beneficial common stock issued and outstanding will be
converted into the right to receive (i) 0.3013 shares of WSFS
common stock and (ii) $2.93 in cash (the "Merger Consideration").

On October 19, 2018, a purported Beneficial stockholder filed a
putative derivative and class action lawsuit against Beneficial,
the members of the Beneficial board of directors and WSFS Bank in
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, on behalf of
himself and similarly situated Beneficial stockholders, and
derivatively on behalf of Beneficial, captioned Parshall v. Farnesi
et al., Case No.  

The plaintiff generally alleges that the Beneficial board of
directors breached its fiduciary obligations by approving the terms
of the merger, including allegedly inadequate merger consideration
and certain deal protection devices, and making materially
incomplete disclosures about the merger to Beneficial stockholders.


The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, unspecified damages, and an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

Beneficial Bancorp, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
consumer and commercial banking services to individuals,
businesses, and nonprofit organizations in Philadelphia and
Southern New Jersey area. The company was founded in 1853 and is
headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


BETTER PLUMBING: Underpays Plumbers, Gonzalez and Abreu Allege
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE R. GONZALEZ, and JOSE O. ABREU, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. A BETTER PLUMBING
SERVICE INC.; and DAVID WEEKLEY, Defendants, Case No.
0:18-cv-62615-DPG (S.D. Fla., Oct. 30, 2018) is an action against
the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as plumbers.

A Better Plumbing Service Inc. offers professional plumbing repairs
and installations, drain cleaning, leak detection, water heater
work and other general plumbing services for residential and
commercial properties.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


BREG INC: Hearron Seeks Unpaid Overtime under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL HEARRON, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THREDUP
INC., an unknown business; and DOES 1 through I 00, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No.: RG18928054 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 8, 2018),
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime and failed to
pay meal period premiums; and failed to pay minimum wages pursuant
to the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants directly hired and paid
wages and benefits to Plaintiff and the other class members. The
Defendants continue to employ hourly-paid or non-exempt employees
within the State of California. The Plaintiff and the other class
members worked over 8 hours in a day, and/or 40 hours in a week
during their employment with Defendants.

The Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of wage abuse
against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State
of California. This pattern and practice involved, inter alia,
failing to pay them for all regular and/or overtime wages earned
and for missed meal periods and rest breaks in violation of
California law, the lawsuit says.

Breg, Inc. manufactures and markets sports medicine products and
services for orthopedic patient care.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA  91203
          Telephone: (818) 265 1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265 1021

               - and -

          Amir Nayebdadash, Esq.
          Heather Davis, Esq.
          PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP
          136 Main Street, Suite A
          El Segundo, CA 90245

BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Brighthouse Financial Dropped from Roycroft Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that
Brighthouse Financial, Inc. has been dismissed from the case
entitled, Edward Roycroft v. Brighthouse Financial, Inc., et al.
(U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, filed June 18,
2018), without prejudice.

Edward Roycroft filed a purported class action against Brighthouse
Financial, Inc., MetLife, Inc., and Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company. The complaint alleges plaintiff is a beneficiary of a
Martindale-Hubbell group annuity contract and did not receive
payments plaintiff claims he was entitled to upon his retirement in
1999.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all beneficiaries who were
due annuity benefits pursuant to group annuity contracts and whose
annuity benefits were released from reserves.

Plaintiff's causes of action are for conversion, unjust enrichment,
an accounting and for a constructive trust. Plaintiff seeks
damages, attorneys' fees, declaratory and injunctive relief and
other equitable remedies.

In September 2018, plaintiff dismissed Brighthouse Financial, Inc.
from the action without prejudice.

Brighthouse Life Insurance Company, together with its subsidiaries,
provides individual annuities and life insurance products in the
United States and internationally. It operates through three
segments: Annuities, Life, and Run-off. The company was
incorporated in 1863 and is headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of
Brighthouse Holdings, LLC.


BRUCE HORNSTEIN: Meneghetti Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
SONIA MENEGHETTI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BRUCE HORNSTEIN, P.A., a Florida
Corporation, and BRUCE HORNSTEIN, individually, the Defendants,
Case 1:18-cv-24704-FAM (S.D. Fla., Nov. 9, 2018), alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices.

According to the complaint, Bbruce Hornstein, P.A. is a Florida
Corporation and law firm engaged in the business of collecting
consumer debts, which operates from offices located at 6961 Indian
Creek Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33141. The Defendants regularly
use the United States Postal Service and telephone in the
collection of consumer debt. The Defendants regularly collect or
attempt to collect consumer debts for other parties. Defendants are
"debt collectors" as defined in the FDCPA.

Defendants sought to collect a debt from Plaintiff arising from an
alleged debt incurred by Plaintiff for personal, family, or
household purposes; more specifically, the debt at issue was
allegedly incurred to Plaintiff's homeowner's association. On or
about August 14, 2018, Defendants sent a demand letter to Plaintiff
seeking to collect an alleged debt due to Plaintiff's homeowner's
association. The demand letter was on Defendant Law Firm's
letterhead signed by Defendant Hornstein.The Demand Letter was the
initial communication between Defendants and Plaintiff regarding
the amount of debt alleged to be owed as of August 14, 2018. The
Defendants' Demand Letter demanded Plaintiff pay
maintenance/assessments due to her homeowner's association. The
Demand Letter requested payment be sent to Defendant Law Firm's
office. The Defendants' Demand Letter falsely and misleadingly
states that Plaintiff must dispute the debt in writing despite the
clear wording of 15 U.S.C. section 1692g(a)(3) which contains no
writing requirement in order for the consumer to dispute the debt,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Leo W. Desmond, Esq.
          Sovathary K. Jacobson, Esq.
          DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
          Vero Beach, Florida 32963
          Telephone: 772 231 9600
          Facsimile: 772 231 0300
          E-mail: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com
          jacobson@desmondlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Simona Burshteyn, Esq.
          FIRST LEGAL, P.A.
          1930 Harrison Street, Suite 209
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Telephone: 954 998 1488
          Facsimile: 954 703 6577
          E-mail: sburshteyn@firstlegalpa.com

BRUNSWICK CORPORATION: Robles Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
SANDY ROBLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BRUNSWICK CORPORATION d/b/a MERCURY
MARINE, the Defendant,  Case No. 18-cv-1809 (E.D. Wisc., Nov. 15,
2018), seeks overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and Wisconsin wage and hour laws.

Specifically, Mercury Marine has a common policy and practice of
impermissibly rounding the start and end times of its hourly
employees' work hours so as to deny such employees for compensation
for all hours worked. As a result, Mercury Marine has denied
Plaintiff Sandy Robles and the putative class members overtime pay
in violation of the FLSA, as amended as well as overtime pay and
agreed-upon wages in violation of Wisconsin law, the lawsuit says.

The Brunswick Corporation, formerly known as the
Brunswick-Balke-Collender Company, is an American corporation that
has been active in developing, manufacturing and marketing a wide
variety of products since 1845.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
          Timothy Maynard, Esq.
          Hawks Quindel, S.C.
          222 East Erie, Suite 210
          P.O. Box 442
          Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
          Telephone: 414-271-8650
          Facsimile: 414-271-8442
          E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
                  smurshid@hq-law.com
                  tmaynard@hq-law.con

CA INC: Broadcom Acquisition-Related Suits Closed
-------------------------------------------------
CA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2018, that the Broadcom Acquisition-Related
suits have been closed.

Beginning on August 3, 2018, subsequent to the Company's
announcement of the Merger Agreement with Broadcom, four (4)
purported class action complaints were filed on behalf of the
Company's stockholders (the "Broadcom Acquisition-Related
Litigation"). These included:

     (i) Kelli Harvey v. Michael Gregoire, Jens Alder, Raymond
Bromark, Jean Hobby, Rohit Kapoor, Jeffrey Katz, Kay Koplovitz,
Christopher Lofgren, Richard Sulpizio, Laura Unger, Arthur
Weinbach, Collie Acquisition Corp., and Broadcom Inc., United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(1:18-cv-06996-JGK) (filed August 3, 2018);

    (ii) Vladimir Guzinsky Rev. Trust v. Michael P. Gregoire, Jens
Alder, Raymond J. Bromark, Jean M. Hobby, Rohit Kapoor, Jeffrey G.
Katz, Kay Koplovitz, Christopher B. Lofgren, Richard Sulpizio,
Laura S. Unger, and Arthur Weinbach, U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware (1:18-cv-01221-LPS) (filed August 9, 2018);

   (iii) Jacob Scheiner Retirement Account v. CA, Inc. Michael
Gregoire, Jens Alder, Raymond Bromark, Jean Hobby, Rohit Kapoor,
Jeffrey Katz, Kay Koplovitz, Christopher Lofgren, and Richard
Sulpizio, United States District Court for the District of Delaware
(1:18-cv-01251-LPS) (filed August 15, 2018); and

    (iv) Kenneth Gilley v. CA, Inc. Michael Gregoire, Jens Alder,
Raymond Bromark, Jean Hobby, Rohit Kapoor, Jeffrey Katz, Kay
Koplovitz, Christopher Lofgren, and Richard Sulpizio, U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware (1:18-cv-01286-LPS) (filed
August 22, 2018),
(collectively, the "Stockholder Actions").

The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the defendants from consummating
the proposed transaction, or, if the transaction was consummated,
the plaintiffs alternatively sought rescission and/or damages. The
plaintiffs also sought costs and fees associated with the suits.

CA, Inc. said, "To avoid the risk of the Stockholder Actions
delaying or adversely affecting the merger and to minimize the
expense of defending the Broadcom Acquisition-Related Litigation,
and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, on September 5,
2018, the Company made certain disclosures that supplemented and
revised those contained in the definitive proxy statement on
Schedule 14A filed by the Company with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 10, 2018. On September 24, 2018, each
of the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, and each
of the four (4) cases is now closed."

CA, Inc., doing business as CA technologies, develops, markets,
delivers, and licenses software products and services in the United
States and internationally. CA, Inc. was incorporated in 1974 and
is headquartered in New York, New York. As of November 5, 2018, CA,
Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Broadcom Inc.


CAMPING WORLD: Faces Ronge and Strougo Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018, that the company has been named as defendant in
two class action suits entitled, Ronge v. Camping World Holdings,
Inc. et al. and Strougo v. Camping World Holdings, Inc. et al.

On October 19, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit, captioned Ronge v. Camping World
Holdings, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against the company, certain of its
officers and directors, and Crestview Partners II GP, L.P. and
Crestview Advisors, L.L.C.  

On October 25, 2018, a different putative stockholder of the
Company filed a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Strougo v.
Camping World Holdings, Inc. et al., in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the company,
certain of its officers and directors, and Crestview Partners II
GP, L.P. and Crestview Advisors, L.L.C.

Both complaints allege that the company violated Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and rule 10b-5
thereunder, by making allegedly materially misleading statements or
omitting material facts necessary to make certain statements not
misleading related to the business, operations, and management of
the Company.  

Both lawsuits allege that certain of the company's officers and
directors violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, by allegedly acting as controlling persons of the
Company. The lawsuits bring claims on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of the company's class A common stock between March 8,
2017 and August 7, 2018, and seek compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, and any equitable or injunctive relief the court
deems just and proper.  

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims of
the plaintiffs and members of the putative class, and any liability
for the alleged claims is not currently probable or reasonably
estimable.

Camping World Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides a
portfolio of services, protection plans, products, and resources
for recreational vehicle (RV) owners and camping enthusiasts.
Camping World Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is
headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois.


CDK GLOBAL: Bid for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
CDK Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the putative
Dealership Class Plaintiffs and Reynolds and Reynolds filed a
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and for Conditional
Certification of the Proposed Settlement Class.

Teterboro Automall, Inc. d/b/a Teterboro Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram
("Teterboro") brought a putative class-action suit against CDK
Global, LLC and Reynolds and Reynolds. Teterboro's suit was
originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on October 19, 2017.

Since that time, several more putative class actions have been
filed in a variety of Federal District Courts, with substantively
similar allegations; all of them have been consolidated with the
MDL proceeding. On June 4, 2018, a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class made up of all
dealerships in the United States that directly or indirectly
purchase DMS or data integration services from CDK or Reynolds and
Reynolds.

The Company has moved to dismiss the complaint, or in the
alternative, compel arbitration of certain of the cases while
staying the remainder pending the outcome of those arbitration
proceedings. On October 23, 2018, the putative Dealership Class
Plaintiffs and Reynolds and Reynolds filed a Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Settlement and for Conditional Certification of the
Proposed Settlement Class.

Reynolds concurrently withdrew its previously filed motion to
compel arbitration of the Dealership class action (or, in the
alternative, to dismiss) as moot.

CDK Global, Inc. provides software and technology solutions for
automotive retailers in the United States and internationally. The
company operates through Retail Solutions North America,
Advertising North America, and CDK International segments. CDK
Global, Inc. is headquartered in Hoffman Estates, Illinois.


CDK GLOBAL: Bid to Drop Autoloop's Class Action Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
CDK Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the motion to
dismiss filed by CDK Global LLC in the putative class action suit
filed by Loop LLC d/b/a Autoloop, is currently under consideration
by the court.

Loop LLC d/b/a Autoloop ("Autoloop") brought suit against CDK
Global, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on April 9, 2018, but reserved its rights with respect to
remand to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin at the conclusion of the MDL proceedings.

On June 5, 2018, Autoloop amended its complaint as a putative class
action on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated
vendors. CDK Global, LLC has moved to dismiss Autoloop's claims;
that motion is currently under consideration by the court.

CDK Global, Inc. provides software and technology solutions for
automotive retailers in the United States and internationally. The
company operates through Retail Solutions North America,
Advertising North America, and CDK International segments. CDK
Global, Inc. is headquartered in Hoffman Estates, Illinois.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Continues to Defend Crago Order Routing Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Charles Schwab Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend the Crago Order Routing Litigation.

On July 13, 2016, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of a putative class of customers executing equity orders
through CS&Co. The lawsuit names CS&Co and The Charles Schwab
Corporation (CSC) as defendants and alleges that an agreement under
which CS&Co routed orders to UBS Securities LLC between July 13,
2011 and December 31, 2014 violated CS&Co's duty to seek best
execution.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, injunctive and
equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. After a first
amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint on August 14, 2017.

Defendants again moved to dismiss, and in a decision issued
December 5, 2017, the court denied the motion.

Defendants have answered the complaint to deny all allegations, and
intend to vigorously contest the lawsuit.

The Charles Schwab Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides
wealth management, securities brokerage, banking, asset management,
custody, and financial advisory services. The company operates
through two segments, Investor Services and Advisor Services. The
Charles Schwab Corporation was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Dismissal in Total Bond Market Fund Suit Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Charles Schwab Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a
three-judge panel upheld dismissal in the Total Bond Market Fund
litigation, with leave for plaintiff to pursue the claims in its
individual capacity.

On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund(TM).

Plaintiff's fourth amended complaint, filed on June 25, 2015,
asserts state law breach of contract and fiduciary duty claims and
names Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. (CSIM), Schwab
Investments (registrant and issuer of the fund's shares), and
certain current and former fund trustees as defendants. Allegations
include that the fund improperly deviated from its stated
investment objectives by investing in collateralized mortgage
obligations (CMOs) and investing more than 25% of fund assets in
CMOs and mortgage-backed securities without obtaining a fundholder
vote.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory and rescission damages,
unspecified equitable and injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys'
fees on behalf of a putative class of investors who held shares as
of August 31, 2007, and a putative class of investors who purchased
the shares between September 1, 2017 and February 27, 2009. In
decisions issued October 6, 2015 and February 23, 2016, the court
dismissed all claims with prejudice, holding that federal
securities law precluded plaintiff from pursuing such claims as a
class action.

Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and on September 14, 2018,
a 3-judge panel upheld dismissal, with leave for plaintiff to
pursue the claims in its individual capacity. Action by plaintiff,
including further appeal, remains pending.

The Charles Schwab Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides
wealth management, securities brokerage, banking, asset management,
custody, and financial advisory services. The company operates
through two segments, Investor Services and Advisor Services. The
Charles Schwab Corporation was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California.


CLEVELAND, NC: Conner Moves to Certify 2 Classes of EMS Personnel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled SARA B. CONNER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLEVELAND COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA a/k/a CLEVELAND COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00002-MR-WCM (W.D.N.C.), seeks conditional
certification of this collective action and authorization to send
an initial and a reminder Court-supervised Notice to all current
and former full-time EMS personnel, who work or have worked a
24-hours on/48-hours off hour schedule for Defendant anytime during
the period of January 2, 2015, to December 31, 2017. (The proposed
collective class members are hereinafter referred to as "Potential
Opt-In Plaintiffs").

Ms. Conner also seeks certification of a class of similarly
situated "24-hours on/48-hours off" personnel for a North Carolina
state law breach of contract claim under Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  (The proposed class members are
hereinafter referred to as "Putative Class Members").

Ms. Conner further asks that the Court grant these reliefs:

   A. Order the Defendant to produce a computer-readable data
      file containing the names, addresses, e-mail addresses,
      telephone numbers, and dates of employment for all
      Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs within seven days of the
      Court's Order;

   B. Authorize Notice under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) to
      Potential Opt-in Plaintiffs;

   C. Certify Conner's North Carolina state law breach of
      contract claim under Rule 23(b)(3);

   D. Appoint Plaintiff's Counsel as Class Counsel;

   E. Approve the proposed Notice forms under the provisions of
      29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and Rule 23;

   F. Authorize Plaintiff to send initial and reminder Notice
      forms, at her expense, by First Class U.S. Mail and e-mail
      to all Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs to inform them of their
      rights and options regarding this lawsuit;

   G. Order the posting of the Notice forms by Defendant at a
      location in each of Defendant's local CCEMS offices where
      Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members are
      likely to view it; and

   H. Provide Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs with forty-five (45)
      days after the date Notice forms are mailed to return a
      Consent to Join form opting in to this litigation and/or
      for Putative Class Members to notify Class Counsel of the
      decision to opt-out of the North Carolina state law class,
      unless the Parties agree to permit late filings or good
      cause can be shown as to why the form and/or opt-out
      notification was not returned prior to the deadline.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
          Craig L. Leis, Esq.
          GIBBONS LEIS, PLLC
          14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Suite 325
          Charlotte, NC 28277
          Telephone: (704) 612-0038
          E-mail: phil@gibbonsleis.com
                  craig@gibbonsleis.com


COOK COUNTY, IL: Hayes' Bid to Certify Class Continued to Dec. 18
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Robert W. Gettleman entered and continued to December
18, 2018, at 9:00 a.m., the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the lawsuit captioned Michael Hayes v. Thomas
Dart, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04657 (N.D. Ill.).

Thomas Dart is the Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois.[CC]



CPI CARD: Settlement Hearing in N.Y. Suit Set for Feb. 5
--------------------------------------------------------
CPI Card Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court has
scheduled a settlement hearing in the case entitled, In Re CPI Card
Group Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:16-CV-04531
(S.D.N.Y.), for February 5, 2019.

On June 15, 2016, two purported CPI stockholders filed putative
class action lawsuits captioned Vance, et al. v. CPI Card Group
Inc., et al. and Chipman, et al. v. CPI Card Group Inc. in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(the "Court") against CPI, certain of its former officers and
current and former directors, along with the sponsors of and the
financial institutions who served as underwriters for CPI’s
October 2015 initial public offering ("IPO").

The complaints, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of
CPI common stock pursuant to the October 8, 2015 Registration
Statement filed in connection with the IPO, assert claims under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act") and seek, among other things, damages and costs.


In particular, the complaints allege that the Registration
Statement contained false or misleading statements or omissions
regarding CPI's customers' (i) purchases of Europay, MasterCard and
VISA chip cards (collectively, "EMV(R) cards") during the first
half of fiscal year 2015 and resulting EMV(R) card inventory
levels; and (ii) capacity to purchase additional EMV(R) cards in
the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2015, and the remainder of the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. The complaints allege that
these actions artificially inflated the price of CPI common stock
issued pursuant to the IPO.

On August 30, 2016, the Court consolidated the Vance and Chipman
actions and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On October 17, 2016,
lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, asserting
the same claims for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act. The amended complaint is based principally on the
same theories as the original complaints, but adds allegations that
the Registration Statement contained inadequate risk disclosures
and failed to disclose (i) small and mid-size issuers'
slower-than-anticipated conversion to EMV(R) technology and (ii)
increased pricing pressure and competition CPI faced in the EMV(R)
market.

On November 16, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which was denied by the Court on October 30,
2017. On January 12, 2018, the Company filed an answer to the
amended complaint. On March 23, 2018, lead plaintiff filed his
motion for class certification. On June 11, 2018, the Company filed
an opposition to lead plaintiff's motion for class certification.

On July 31, 2018, the parties notified the Court that they had
reached an agreement in principle to settle the Class Action. On
September 21, 2018, the parties executed a stipulation and
agreement of settlement ("Stipulation") and lead plaintiff filed
with the Court his unopposed motion for authorization to notify the
settlement class of the proposed settlement. On October 1, 2018,
the Court provisionally denied lead plaintiff's motion without
prejudice to renew subject to certain revisions to the proposed
form of class notice.  

On October 15, 2018, lead plaintiff filed a renewed unopposed
motion for authorization to notify the class of the proposed
settlement and to schedule a hearing, with an amended proposed form
of notice. On October 22, 2018, the Court granted lead plaintiff's
renewed motion and approved amended form of notice to the class of
the proposed settlement. The Court scheduled the settlement hearing
for February 5, 2019.

The Company had a liability recorded as of September 30, 2018,
which is not material to the financial statements, and reflects the
Company’s estimate of the probable loss pursuant to an allocation
of the total agreed settlement amount. There was no liability
recorded as of December 31, 2017.

CPI Card Group Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in the
design, production, data personalization, packaging, and
fulfillment of financial payment cards. It operates through U.S.
Debit and Credit, U.S. Prepaid Debit, and U.K. Limited segments.
CPI Card Group Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in
Littleton, Colorado.


DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Trustees Sued over Sexual Harassment
-------------------------------------------------------
KRISTINA RAPUANO, VASSIKI CHAUHAN, SASHA BRIETZKE, ANNEMARIE BROWN,
ANDREA COURTNEY, and MARISSA EVANS c/o DOUGLAS, LEONARD & GARVEY,
P.C. 14 South Street, Suite 5 Concord, NH 03301 and JANE DOE c/o
DOUGLAS, LEONARD & GARVEY, P.C. 14 South Street, Suite 5 Concord,
NH 03301, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, vs. TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE 63 South Main
Street, Suite 301 Hanover, NH 03755, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01070 (Nov. 15, 2018), sues Trustees of Dartmouth College
pursuant to New Hampshire law to remedy the gender discrimination,
sexual assaults, and harassment they suffered.

In October 2017, Dartmouth was forced to publicly disclose the
existence of the investigation for the very first time after the
news was leaked to the media. Days later, on October 31, the New
Hampshire Attorney General opened a criminal investigation into the
allegations against the three professors. Dartmouth eventually
hired an outside attorney to conduct an "independent
investigation" in which Plaintiffs were told they would have a
voice.  Instead, Dartmouth unilaterally stopped the investigation
and allowed the three professors to retire and/or resign in July
2018, more than 15 months after Plaintiffs filed their initial
complaints.

According to the complaint, the seven Plaintiffs, each an exemplary
female scientist at the start of her career, came to Dartmouth to
contribute to a crucial and burgeoning field of academic study.
Plaintiffs were instead sexually harassed and sexually assaulted by
the Department's tenured professors and expected to tolerate
increasing levels of sexual predation. Plaintiffs want Dartmouth
College to enact meaningful reforms that will permit women to
engage in rigorous scientific study without fear of being sexually
harassed and sexually assaulted, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class:

          Charles G. Douglas, III, Esq.
          DOUGLAS, LEONARD & GARVEY, P.C.
          14 South Street, Suite 5
          Concord, NH 03301
          Telephone: (603) 224-1988
          Facsimile: (603) 229-1988
          E-mail: chuck@nhlawoffice.com

               - and -

          David Sanford, Esq.
          Nicole Wiitala, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31 st Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 402-5650
          Facsimile: (646) 402-5651
          E-mail: dsanford@sanfordheisler.com
                  nwiitala@sanfordheisler.com

               - and -

          Deborah K. Marcuse, Esq.
          Steven J. Kelley, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          400 Pratt Street, 8th Floor
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 834-7415
          Facsimile: (410) 834-7425
          E-mail: dmarcuse@sanfordheisler.com
                  skelly@sanfordheisler.com

DELICIOUS HOSPITALITY: Sued for Disabilities Act Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Delicious
Hospitality, LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Delicious Hospitality, LLC doing business as: Pasquale Jones,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10971 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 24, 2018).

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

Pasquale Jones is a small, wood-fired restaurant on Kenmare and
Mulberry Street. It offers a la carte dining for up to 7 guests.
The majority of the dining room is held for walk-ins, though they
offer a limited number of reservations.[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


DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Continues to Defend Michigan Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself from a putative class action suit
currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.

On November 10, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
against Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. and certain officers of the
Company.

Following the appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, an
amended complaint was filed on April 11, 2017. The amended
complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with public filings
made between February 29, 2016 and November 2, 2016 (the "potential
class period"). The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of
shareholders who purchased stock in the potential class period. The
complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May
24, 2017. The court issued orders denying the Company's motion to
dismiss on January 19, 2018 and the Company's motion for
reconsideration of its motion to dismiss on August 9, 2018.

The Company believes the complaint and allegations to be without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the action.
The Company is unable at this time to determine whether the outcome
of the litigation would have a material impact on its results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. operates as an independent specialty
pharmacy in the United States. The company stocks, dispenses, and
distributes prescriptions for various biotechnology and specialty
pharmaceutical manufacturers. The company was founded in 1975 and
is headquartered in Flint, Michigan.



ENCORE RECEIVABLE: Kanehl Moves for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
Marlene Kanehl and Patrick Bills move the Court to certify the
class described in the complaint of the lawsuit entitled MARLENE
KANEHL and PATRICK BILLS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. ENCORE RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT INC., Case No.
2:18-cv-01784-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further ask that the Court both
stay the motion for class certification and to grant them (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 Plaintiffs assert, 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 Plaintiffs tell 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 Plaintiffs assert 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 Plaintiffs are obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiffs
contend.

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 Plaintiffs argue.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives, and to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel. [CC]

The Plaintiffs are 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


ESTATE INFORMATION: Class Certification Sought in Thomas Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brandi Thomas moves the court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit entitled BRANDI THOMAS, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ESTATE INFORMATION
SERVICES LLC, d/b/a EIS COLLECTIONS, Case No. 2:18-cv-01779-LA
(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


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Sues over Alleged Inaccurate Reporting
------------------------------------------------------------
MORDECHAI PALACE on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers, the Plaintiff, vs. EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06372-KAM-SJB
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2018), seeks redress for illegal practices of
Experian Information Solutions, Inc. in violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a consumer who is the
victim of inaccurate reporting by Defendant Experian Information
Solutions, Inc., and has suffered particularized and concrete harm.
In January of 2015, USAA Savings Bank provided forgiveness of debt
and issued 1099-C tax forms, "Cancellation of Debt", for
Plaintiff's USAA Savings Bank accounts. The 1099-C tax forms
canceled the principal balances owed, excluding interest and fees.
Subsequently, USAA Savings Bank submitted the 1099-C tax forms to
the Internal Revenue Service, reporting the debts as cancelled by
USAA Savings Bank and as income attributable to Plaintiff. As a
result, the Plaintiff was obligated to pay taxes on the cancelled
debts.

The Defendant failed to delete information found to be inaccurate,
reinserted the information without following the NY FCRA, or failed
to properly investigate Plaintiff's disputes. The Defendant
Experian failed to promptly re-investigate and record the current
status of the disputed information and failed to promptly notify
the consumer of the result of its investigation, its decision on
the status of the information, and his rights pursuant to this
section in violation of NY FCRA, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law section
380-f(a). The Defendant failed to clearly note in all subsequent
consumer reports that the account in question is disputed by the
consumer in violation of NY FCRA, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law section
380-f(c)(3), the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Telephone: (516) 668-6945
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com

FACEBOOK INC: Sylwia Komorska Sues over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------
SYLWIA KOMORSKA, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. UIGGY, a currently unidentified
business entity, and FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Respondent in Discovery, the Defendant, Case No.: 2018CH14219 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty, Nov. 14, 2018), alleges that Defendant failed
to implement a reasonably adequate cybersecurity prevention,
detection, and response protocol.

According to the complaint, on or around June 2016, the Facebook
application Uiggy was the target of a Data Hack on its information
technology systems. This Data Breach resulted in unauthorized
outside parties gaining access to Uiggy users' sensitive and
confidential personal information, including their names, email
addresses, genders, Facebook social connections, & website activity
("PII"). Even though Uiggy was storing sensitive information that
it knew was of value to, and vulnerable to, cyber attackers, Uiggy
failed to take basic security precautions that could have prevented
the disclosure of its customers' PII.

Uiggy's lax cybersecurity procedures allowed hackers to obtain
access to Plaintiff's and other customers' PII. This PII should
have been secured by adequate levels of protection and should not
have been susceptible to unauthorized access. After accessing
Uiggy's IT systems, hackers were able to extract the PII for over
4.3 million Uiggy account holders. To this day, Defendant has
failed to notify Plaintiff that her PII was compromised in the Data
Breach. The Defendant has failed to implement any reasonable breach
notification process following the Data Breach.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Classes:

          Myles McGuire, Esq.
          Jad Sheikali, Esq.
          McGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601:
          Telephone: (312) 893 7002
          E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
                  jsheikali@mcgpc.com

FAMOUS FAMIGLIA: Rodriguez Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE ROJAS RODRIGUEZ and RAUL PABLO CANTU, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. FAMOUS
FAMIGLIA 169ST LLC, MOZA CORP., FAMIGLIA 43ST LLC, AFRIM "GINO"
IDRIZI and FRANK IDRIZI, Jointly and Severally, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-10520 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages and overtime premium pay owed to them pursuant
to both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are former delivery,
cleaning, porter and food prep employees at Defendants' pizzerias
located in Manhattan, New York. The Plaintiffs were not paid
minimum wages for all hours worked and were not paid overtime
premiums for hours worked over 40 in a given workweek.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the putative FLSA Collective and
Class:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          www.peltongraham.com
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700

FGL HOLDINGS: Still Defends Brokerage Insurance Partners Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
FGL Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that Brokerage Insurance Partners
has not filed any document in response to the Court's August 17,
2018 order as to whether the BIP Litigation will be consolidated
into related litigation, captioned Fidelity & Guaranty Life
Insurance Company v. Network Partners, et al., Case No. 17-cv-1508.


On June 30, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed
against FGL Insurance, FGL, and FS Holdco II Ltd in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland, captioned
Brokerage Insurance Partners v. Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance
Company, Fidelity & Guaranty Life, FS Holdco II Ltd, and John Doe,
No. 17-cv-1815.

The complaint alleges that FGL Insurance breached the terms of its
agency agreement with Brokerage Insurance Partners ("BIP") and
other agents by changing certain compensation terms. The complaint
asserts, among other causes of action, breach of contract,
defamation, tortious interference with contract, negligent
misrepresentation, and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO").  

The complaint seeks to certify a class composed of all persons who
entered into an agreement with FGL Insurance to sell life insurance
and who sold at least one life insurance policy between January 1,
2015 and January 1, 2017. The complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages in an amount not
presently determinable, among other forms of relief.

On September 1, 2017, FGL Insurance filed a counterclaim against
BIP and John and Jane Does 1-10, asserting, among other causes of
action, breach of contract, fraud, civil conspiracy and violations
of RICO. On September 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint, and on October 16, 2017, FGL Insurance filed an Amended
Counterclaim against BIP, Agent Does 1-10, and Other Person Does
1-10. The parties also filed cross-Motions to Dismiss in Part.

On August 17, 2018, the Court in the BIP Litigation denied all
pending Motions to Dismiss filed by all parties without prejudice,
pending a decision as to whether the BIP Litigation will be
consolidated into related litigation, captioned Fidelity & Guaranty
Life Insurance Company v. Network Partners, et al., Case No.
17-cv-1508.

On August 31, 2018, FGL filed its Answer to BIP's Amended
Complaint. Also on that date, FGL Insurance filed its Answer to
Amended Complaint, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim, Filed
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A).

As of September 30, 2018, BIP has not filed any document in
response to the Court's August 17, 2018 Order or to FGL Insurance's
filing.

FGL Holdings said, "As of the date of this report, the Company does
not have sufficient information to determine whether it has
exposure to any losses that would be either probable or reasonably
estimable."

FGL Holdings, through its subsidiaries, sells individual life
insurance products and annuities in the United States. The company
offers deferred annuities, including fixed indexed annuity
contracts and fixed rate annuity contracts; immediate annuities;
and life insurance products. FGL Holdings is based in Grand Cayman,
the Cayman Islands.


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Certification of Class Sought in Voeks Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Voeks moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit styled JULIE VOEKS, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FINANCIAL RECOVERY
SERVICES INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-01781-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


FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Still Defends Georgia Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
FleetCor 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 class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

On June 14, 2017, a shareholder filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's stock between February 5, 2016 and May 2,
2017.

On October 13, 2017, the shareholder filed an amended complaint
asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
February 4, 2016 and May 3, 2017. The complaint alleges that the
defendants made false or misleading statements regarding fee
charges and the reasons for its earnings and growth in certain
press releases and other public statements in violation of the
federal securities laws. Plaintiff seeks class certification,
unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

FleetCor Technologies said, "The Company disputes the allegations
in the complaint and intends to vigorously defend against the
claims."

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

FleetCor Technologies, Inc. provides commercial payment solutions
in North America, Latin America, Europe, and Australasia. The
company offers fuel payment solutions to businesses and government
entities that operate vehicle fleets, as well as to oil and leasing
companies, and fuel marketers. FleetCor Technologies, Inc. was
founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Peachtree Corners,
Georgia.


FORD MOTOR: Van Moves to Certify Class in Sexual Harassment Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned CHRISTIE VAN, et al. v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 1:14-cv-08708 (N.D. Ill.), renew their
motion for class certification of this class:

     All women working at the Ford Chicago Assembly Plant and
     Chicago Stamping Plant from January 2012 to present.

The Plaintiffs include 31 women, who work or worked at one or both
of Ford Motor Company's Chicago Assembly Plant and/or Chicago
Stamping Plant (the "Plants") between 2012 and the present.

As female employees at the Stamping and Assembly plants, the
Plaintiffs allege that they experienced blatant, egregious, severe
and pervasive sexual harassment and gender based discrimination
that characterizes the work environment to which women are and have
been subjected for many years.  The Plaintiffs have filed claims
alleging Violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in
that they have been sexually harassed and subjected to a hostile
workplace environment based on their gender.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint one or more of them as
Class Representatives, and to appoint Hunt & Associates, P.C., and
Romanucci & Blandin, LLC, as Class Counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Keith L. Hunt, Esq.
          Bradley E. Faber, Esq.
          HUNT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          Three First National Plaza
          70 W. Madison St., Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 558-1300
          E-mail: khunt@huntassoclaw.com
                  bfaber@huntassoclaw.com

               - and -

          Antonio M. Romanucci, Esq.
          Bhavani K. Raveendran, Esq.
          Nicolette A. Ward, Esq.
          ROMANUCCI & BLANDIN, LLC
          321 N. Clark Street, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 458-1000
          E-mail: aromanucci@rblaw.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eugene Scalia, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 955-8500
          E-mail: escalia@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Kathleen M. Nemechek, Esq.
          Timothy Millman, Esq.
          BERKOWITZ OLIVER WILLIAMS SHAW & EISENBRANDT LLP
          2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 561-7007
          E-mail: knemechek@berkowitzoliver.com
                  tmillman@berkowitzoliver.com

               - and -

          Karen Kies DeGrand, Esq.
          DONOHUE BROWN MATHEWSON & SMYTH LLC
          140 South Dearborn Street, Suite # 800
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 422-0900
          E-mail: karen.degrand@dbmslaw.com


FRONTIER AIRLINES: Ridgell's Bid to Certify Two Classes Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Percy Anderson denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification in the lawsuit entitled Andrea Ridgell v. Frontier
Airlines, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-04916-PA-AFM (C.D. Cal.).

Judge Anderson concludes that the Plaintiff has not satisfied Rule
23's requirements for either the Nationwide or Flight 1630 classes
she seeks the certify.  The Court, therefore, denies Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification.

The Plaintiff's operative First Amended Complaint ("1st AC")
asserts claims against Defendants Frontier Airlines, Inc.
("Frontier") and Airbus S.A.S. ("Airbus") arising out of a "fume"
or "bleed air" event occurring on her flight that she alleges
exposed her and her fellow passengers to toxic fumes.  The
Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated.  The classes which the Plaintiff
seeks to represent are defined as:

   * Nationwide Class:

     All persons in the United States who have flown in one of
     Defendants' aircraft that have experienced a bleed air
     event.

     Specifically excluded from this Class are Defendants, the
     officers, directors, or employees of Defendants, any entity
     in which Defendants have a controlling interest; and any
     affiliate, legal representative, heir, or assign of
     Defendants.  Also excluded any federal, state, or local
     governmental entities, any judicial officer presiding over
     this action and the members of his/her immediate family and
     judicial staff, and any juror assigned to this action.

   * Flight 1630 Class:

     All passengers in the United States who were on Frontier
     Airlines Flight 1630 on June 2, 2017.[CC]


FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Still Defends Consolidated Suit in Conn.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Frontier Communications Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the
company continues to defend itself in an amended consolidated class
action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

On April 30, 2018, an amended consolidated class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut on behalf of certain purported stockholders against
Frontier, certain of its current and former directors and officers
and the underwriters of certain Frontier securities offerings.

The complaint is brought on behalf of all persons who (1) acquired
Frontier common stock between February 6, 2015 and February 28,
2018, inclusive, and/or (2) acquired Frontier common stock or
Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock either in or traceable to
Frontier's offerings of common and preferred stock conducted on or
about June 2, 2015 and June 8, 2015.

The complaint asserts, among other things, violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, in connection with certain disclosures relating to the
CTF Acquisition. The complaint seeks, among other things, damages
and equitable and injunctive relief.

Frontier Communications said, "The company disputes the allegations
in the complaint and intends to vigorously defend against such
claims. Given that all of these matters are in the early stages of
litigation, we are unable to estimate a reasonably possible range
of loss, if any, that may result."

Frontier Communications Corporation provides communications
services to consumer, commercial, and wholesale customers in the
United States. It offers broadband, video, voice, and other
services and products through a combination of fiber and copper
based networks to consumer customers. 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.


FUELCO ENERGY: Segovia Renews Bid to Certify Class of Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled JUAN SEGOVIA and VICTOR
FLORES, Each Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. FUELCO ENERGY LLC, Case No. 5:17-cv-01246-FB-HJB (W.D.
Tex.), renews their motion for conditional certification of this
class:

     All Drivers and/or Operators/Frack Fuel Technicians since
     December 8, 2014.

Juan Segovia and Victor Flores brought this suit on behalf of
certain former and current Drivers and Operators of Fuelco Energy
LLC, to recover overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

In another motion, the Plaintiffs also moves for approval and
distribution of notice and for disclosure of contact information.
They ask, among other things, for a period of 90 days to distribute
the Notice and file Consent forms with the Court, and ask the Court
to direct the Defendant to provide the names, last known home and
work addresses, cell phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of
potential opt-in Plaintiffs no later than seven days after the date
of the entry of the Order granting the motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          W. Craig Stokley, Esq.
          STOKLEY PLLC
          Campbell Centre II
          8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 550
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 295-6414
          E-mail: cstokley@stokleypllc.com


FULTON COUNTY, GA: Court Certifies Inmates' Overdetention Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class in the case captioned Oswald
Thompson, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Sheriff Theodore Jackson and
Mark Adger, Defendants. Case No. 1:16-cv-04217. (N.D. Ga.).

The Plaintiffs in this putative class action are former inmates at
the jail. They allege that Fulton County Sheriff Theodore Jackson
and Fulton County Chief Jailer Mark Adger violated their
constitutional rights by detaining them in the jail after they were
eligible for release.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of:

     All persons who were inmates at the Fulton County Jail between
November 13 and November 21, 2014, who were detained for more than
24 hours past the time at which employees of the Fulton County Jail
knew or should have known that the inmate was to be released, and
whose over detentions were caused by the jail policy not to release
inmates without running GCIC checks, even when the GCIC system was
experiencing an outage.

Ascertainability

The Plaintiffs have shown that the proposed class is sufficiently
ascertainable. First, the Plaintiffs have pointed to objective
criteria by which to identify class members. The objective criteria
are whether an inmate was detained in the jail (during the relevant
time) for more than 24 hours after the inmate became eligible for
release. Those who meet these criteria are in the class. Those who
do not are out.

Second, the Plaintiffs have shown an administratively feasible
basis for identifying membership in the class. Plaintiffs propose a
two-step process: (1) identify any inmate released more than 24
hours after the jail received notice that the inmate was eligible
for release during the GCIC outage and (2) remove any inmate from
the list whose release was not delayed by the GCIC outage.

The Plaintiffs have shown that they can reliably identify class
members by using the jail's own records. The Plaintiffs deposed
Felecia Ivey, who has worked at the Fulton Sheriff's Office for
twenty-five years, is the jail's current Criminal Information
Systems Supervisor, and was a Records and Document Specialist. She
has extensive knowledge of and involvement in the jail's process
for releasing inmates, was involved in the process in 2014, and
helped train other employees in how to process inmates for release.


She explained that, when a court enters an order granting bond,
sentencing a defendant to time served, or otherwise ordering an
inmate's release, a release-triggering document is sent to a
records and document specialist at the jail. The document indicates
the time and date that the inmate became eligible for release.

Based on the Plaintiffs' rigorous efforts thus far and a review of
the undisputed evidence, the Court is satisfied that members of the
proposed class can be identified by reference to objective criteria
and an administratively feasible process. In other words, the
proposed class is adequately defined and clearly ascertainable.

Numerosity

To satisfy Rule 23(a)'s numerosity requirement, the class must be
so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

The Plaintiffs initially argued that the proposed class satisfies
the numerosity requirement because the class is as large as 108
inmates.  The Plaintiffs and the Defendants have now agreed that
the proposed class includes at least 256 inmates, with the
Plaintiffs claiming even more.

The Defendants, therefore, concede numerosity, and the Court
agrees. Because joinder of 256 or more class members would be
impracticable under the circumstances presented here, the
Plaintiffs have satisfied the numerosity requirement of Rule
23(a)(1).

Commonality

Rule 23(a)(2) requires that the Plaintiffs show questions of law or
fact common to the class.  
The Plaintiffs do not claim that their overdetentions were
unreasonable given their particularized (or individual)
circumstances, so that each class member's circumstances become
relevant. Instead, the Plaintiffs allege that they were all
intentionally detained for the same reason and by the same event:
the Defendants' decision to detain inmates eligible for release
during the November 2014 outage simply because they wanted to run
GCIC checks, and the GCIC system was down. The Eleventh Circuit has
recognized the constitutional right to be free from continued
detention after it was or should have been known that the detainee
was entitled to release.

This right exists for an inmate who is eligible for release
regardless of the individual inmate's criminal background, nature
of the current charges, or duration of incarceration. Those
individual facts may be relevant to a bond determination. But, once
bond is granted and posted, those considerations are irrelevant.
Put another way, once a judge decides that an inmate is eligible
for release and any conditions, such as the posting of a bond, are
met, the jail is obligated to release that inmate without any
reasonableness determination by the jail.

Here, the Plaintiffs have alleged that the Defendants intentionally
detained them and others after their scheduled releases in
violation of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Because
the same practice and policy allegedly injured the Plaintiffs, the
causation elements of their Section 1983 claims are common to all
the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied
Rule 23(a)'s commonality requirement.

Typicality

Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the claims or defenses of the
representative parties be typical of the claims or defenses of the
class. The class representative's claims are typical if the claims
or defenses of the class and the class representative arise from
the same event or pattern or practice and are based on the same
legal theory.

The Plaintiffs have also alleged that they suffered the same
injury. The Plaintiff Oswald Thompson, for example, alleges that he
received and posted a bond on November 14, 2014  thus becoming
eligible for release on that day. He also alleges that the
Defendants caused his detention for another four days because the
GCIC system was out.  

The Defendants still contend that typicality fails because, while
named the Plaintiffs allege that they were overdetained for three
or more days, most other class members were released within 48
hours of the time they became eligible for release.

They all allege that the Defendants violated their constitutional
rights during the same eight-day period by detaining them after
they were eligible for release because of the GCIC system outage
and the Defendants' policy of holding inmates pending a GCIC check.
The factual difference in the length of the detention cannot render
the Plaintiffs atypical of the class.

The Court is satisfied that the Plaintiffs' claims typify those of
the class as a whole. The Plaintiffs have thus satisfied the
typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3).

Adequacy

Rule 23(a)(4) requires that that the class representatives show
that they have common interests with unnamed class members and will
vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified
counsel.

The Defendants concede that no substantial conflicts of interest
exist between the representatives and the class.

The Court agrees.

The Defendants, however, challenge the qualifications of the
Plaintiffs' counsel to prosecute this action. Essentially, the
Defendants argue that they can find no evidence that one of the
Plaintiffs' lawyers has litigated in federal court and that the
other, while he has significant litigation experience, has not
handled a class action as lead counsel from start to finish. To
establish adequacy of representation, class counsel must be
qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the
litigation.  

The Plaintiffs' counsel submitted affidavits establishing their
litigation experience in civil-rights actions and claims against
the government. Ms. Stern has handled many criminal jury trials,
argued appeals to the Eleventh Circuit, been involved in
civil-rights lawsuits, and run her own law firm for the past five
years. Mr. Begnaud has been practicing for more than ten years,
worked at a well-respected law firm, served as a public defender
where he tried many cases, and since opening his own firm has
litigated at least thirty civil-rights cases in federal court, many
of which involved prisoner claims. His partner, Mr. Horsley, has
similar experience as a public defender and has represented
plaintiffs in more than twenty civil-rights cases in federal court.
The Court has also reviewed counsels' conduct here, including their
briefs and arguments at hearings. The Court finds with no doubt
whatsoever that Plaintiffs' counsel is qualified to litigate this
action on behalf of the class.  

Rule 23(b)(3) Predominance

In addition to satisfying the Rule 23(a) requirements, Plaintiffs
must also satisfy at least one of Rule 23(b)'s requirements.   

The Plaintiffs contend that the proposed class satisfies Rule
23(b)(3), which requires that the Court find that the questions of
law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members, and that a class action is
superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy.

All the class members were injured by the same event, Defendants'
refusal to release inmates otherwise eligible for release during
the eight-day GCIC outage in November 2014. And Plaintiffs allege
that Defendants violated their constitutional rights in the same
way, with a common course of conduct and intent.  Whether there was
an intent to confine and an act of confinement will be susceptible
to class-wide proof. This will include evidence that Defendants
required GCIC searches before releasing inmates, were aware of the
outage on November 2014, and knew the combination of the outage and
their policy would result in the overdetention of some inmates.

The Defendants ignore the Plaintiffs' core allegation that the
Defendants refused to release them not because of the
administrative process but because they adopted a policy of
deliberately detaining people eligible for release during GCIC
outages. A jail supervisor may not knowingly detain someone past
the point at which he or she knows the person is eligible for
release. The liability of Defendants here, therefore, turns on
whether they adopted an unconstitutional policy that caused the
over detention, not administrative delays. There is no reason to
believe that an assessment of the reasonableness of administrative
delays apart from the decision to wait for the GCIC check will be
any part of this matter.

The Court finds that under these circumstances, a class action is
superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy. The class members' claims here likely
involve relatively small damages amounts. And it is unlikely that
class members would pursue these claims on their own. The Court
thus finds that the class action mechanism provides the most
efficient method of resolving Plaintiffs' claims here.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 15, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y93fhdu4 from
Leagle.com.

Oswald Thompson, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Donna Wright, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Bridget Machovec, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Twan Trammell,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Sterling Palmer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Oluseus Adeniyi Oshinowo, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Joseph Singleton, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Tommie Douglas,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Daeja
Mitchell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Darrion Tripp, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jessica Katherine
Stern , Stern Law, LLC, Mark Andrew Begnaud , Horsley Begnaud, LLC
& Nathanael A. Horsley, Horsley Begnaud, LLC.

Sheriff Theodore Jackson, Defendant, represented by Ashley Jenell
Moore Palmer , Fulton County Attorney's Office, Kaye Woodard
Burwell , Office of the Fulton County Attorney, Nancy Ladson Rowan
, Office of the County Attorney, Patrise M. Perkins-Hooker , Fulton
County Attorney's Office & Walter B. Yarbrough , Nall & Miller,
LLP.


GC SERVICES: Beaufrand Seeks Class Certification Under FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Beaufrand asks the Court to enter an order determining that
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act action titled CARLOS
BEAUFRAND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No.
2:18-cv-00242-LA (E.D. Wisc.), may proceed as a class action
against the Defendant.

The class is defined as:

     All natural persons in the State of Wisconsin, to whom GCS
     sent one or more collection letters, seeking to collect a
     credit card debt, which account the creditor had previously
     charged off, where the letter was mailed between
     February 15, 2017 and February 15, 2018, inclusive, and
     where the letter represented that the account at issue was
     subject to "interest, late fees, and other charges," and
     which was not returned by the postal service.

     Excluded from the class are persons whose accounts were
     designated by the creditor(s) as business accounts and any
     person who previously released their claims against GCS, up
     to and including the class period.

The case concerns the legality of standard form collection letters
used by Defendant GCS to collect consumer debts owed to third
parties.

The Plaintiff also seeks appointment 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


GC SERVICES: Jaber Seeks to Certify Class of Michigan Consumers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled SABAH JABER, individually, and
as representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. GC
SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited partnership, Case
No. 2:17-cv-13971-VAR-SDD (E.D. Mich.), asks the Court to grant her
motion for class certification, appoint her as class
representative, and appoint her counsel as class counsel.

The action arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  The Plaintiff, on behalf of
herself and a proposed class of Michigan consumers, alleges that
the Defendant, a debt collector, sent collections communications
(dunning letters) to her and other Michigan consumers in an attempt
to collect a debt, threatening the imposition of interest, late
charges, and other (unspecified) charges Defendant could not
lawfully impose, in violation of the FDCPA.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rex C. Anderson, Esq.
          REX ANDERSON, P.C.
          9459 Lapeer Rd., Suite 101
          Davison, MI 48423
          Telephone: (810) 653-3300
          E-mail: rex@rexandersonpc.net

               - and -

          Nemer N. Hadous, Esq.
          HADOUS CO. PLLC
          1 Parklane Blvd., Suite 729 East
          Dearborn, MI 48126
          Telephone: (313) 415-5559
          E-mail: nhadous@hadousco.com

               - and -

          Michael Jaafar, Esq.
          FAIRMAX LAW, PLLC
          1 Parklane Blvd., Suite 729 East
          Dearborn, MI 48126
          Telephone: (313) 801-8809
          E-mail: mike@fairmaxlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Marcus R. Sanborn, Esq.
          BLEVINS SANBORN, JEZDIMIR ZASCK, PLC
          1842 Michigan Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48126
          Telephone: (313) 338-9500
          E-mail: msanborn@bsjzlaw.com


GCA EDUCATIONAL: Taylors Seek Minimum Wages and OT under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARCUS TAYLOR and TRAVIS TAYLOR, Individually, and on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated current and former
employees, the Plaintiffs, vs. GCA EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC., GCA
SERVICES GROUP, INC., ABM INDUSTRY GROUPS, LLC ABM BUILDING
SOLUTIONS, LLC, and ABM JANITORIAL SERVICES, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01225 (W.D. Tenn.), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime compensation owed to Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated current and former janitorial employees
currently or previously employed by the Defendants under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants provide (and have
provided) janitorial and related services to schools, businesses,
and institutions throughout the United States -- primarily through
the labor of their employees, such as Plaintiffs and class members
within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. section 203. The Defendants have
employed Plaintiffs and class members and were responsible for
establishing and administering wage and compensation policies
related to them during all times relevant to this action. The
Plaintiffs and the class are current or former hourly-paid,
non-exempt janitorial employees of Defendants. The Defendants have
had a timekeeping system for the purpose of recording and
accounting for the compensable work time of Plaintiffs and the
class. The Plaintiffs and members of the class have suffered, and
will continue to suffer, irreparable damages from the unlawful
policies, practices, and procedures implemented by Defendants, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Named Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated current and former employees:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, Esq.
          Nathan A. Bishop, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  nbishop@jsyc.com

GEORGIA POWER: Bid to Stay Franchise Fee Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Power Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the Company has
filed a motion to stay the case and requested the trial court refer
the case to the Georgia PSC for a declaratory ruling.

In 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Georgia
Power in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia alleging that
Georgia Power's collection in rates of municipal franchise fees
(all of which are remitted to municipalities) exceeded the amounts
allowed in orders of the Georgia PSC and alleging certain state
tort law claims.

In 2016, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's
previous dismissal of the case and remanded the case to the trial
court. Georgia Power filed a petition for writ of certiorari with
the Georgia Supreme Court, which was granted in August 2017. On
June 18, 2018, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of
the Georgia Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial
court for further proceedings.

On August 27, 2018, Georgia Power filed a motion to stay the case
and requested the trial court refer the case to the Georgia PSC for
a declaratory ruling.

Georgia Power believes the plaintiffs' claims have no merit and
will continue to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

Georgia Power said, "The amount of any possible losses cannot be
calculated at this time because, among other factors, it is unknown
whether any class will ultimately be certified; the scope of such a
class, if certified; and whether any losses would be subject to
recovery from any municipalities. The ultimate outcome of this
matter cannot be determined at this time."

Georgia Power Company engages in generation, transmission,
distribution, purchases, and sells electric service in Georgia. It
generates electricity from coal, nuclear, and natural gas sources,
as well as renewable sources, such as solar, hydroelectric, and
wind. The company was founded in 1927 and is based in Atlanta,
Georgia. Georgia Power Company is a subsidiary of The Southern
Company.


GLOBAL TRUST: Fote Seeks Certification of Class Under "Damasco"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Fote moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit captioned JOSEPH FOTE, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. GLOBAL TRUST MANAGEMENT,
LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-01778-NJ (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


GLOBALSCAPE INC: Dec. 18 Final Approval Hearing in Giovagnoli Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
GlobalSCAPE, 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 in
Anthony Giovagnoli v. GlobalSCAPE, Inc., et al., has scheduled a
hearing on December 18, 2018 to determine whether an Order and
Final Judgment of the settlement should be entered.

On November 15, 2017, on August 9, 2017, a securities class action
complaint, Anthony Giovagnoli v. GlobalSCAPE, Inc., et. al., Case
No. 5:17-cv-00753, was filed against the Company in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

On November 6, 2017, the Court appointed Irfan Rahman as lead
plaintiff, and he filed the First Amended Complaint on July 26,
2018. The Amended Complaint names the Company, Matthew Goulet,
James Albrecht, Thomas Brown, David Mann, Frank Morgan, and Thomas
Hicks as defendants for allegedly making materially false and
misleading statements regarding, inter alia, the Company's
previously reported financial statements.

The Amended Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Amended
Complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and
equitable relief.

The parties reached a settlement and submitted a Stipulation of
Settlement to the Court on September 13, 2018. Under this
settlement, the Company's and Individual Defendants' insurance
carrier will provide the Class with a cash payment of $1,400,000,
which includes the cash amount of any attorney's fees or litigation
expenses that the Court may award Lead Plaintiff's counsel and
costs Lead Plaintiff may incur in administering and providing
notice of the settlement.

In exchange, Lead Plaintiff has agreed that the settlement will
include a dismissal of the Class Action with prejudice and a
release of all claims against the Company and the Individual
Defendants by the Class.

This settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on October
2, 2018. The Court has scheduled a hearing on December 18, 2018 to
determine whether an Order and Final Judgment of the settlement
should be entered.

GlobalSCAPE said, "The settlement will not become effective until
finally approved by the Court. The Company has accrued the
$1,400,000 expense in the third quarter of 2018 and has also
accrued a receivable of $1,400,000 as this settlement will be
funded by our insurance carrier."

GlobalSCAPE, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops and
distributes software, delivers managed and hosted solutions, and
provides associated services for secure information exchange, and
data transfer and sharing for enterprises and consumers worldwide.
The company primarily serves the finance, health care, energy,
retail, manufacturing, and engineering markets. GlobalSCAPE, Inc.
was founded in 1996 and is based in San Antonio, Texas.

GREENSKY INC: Dobek Sues over Misleading Financial Report
---------------------------------------------------------
RAFAL DOBEK, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GREENSKY, INC., DAVID ZALIK, ROBERT
PARTLOW, JOEL BABBIT, GERALD BENJAMIN, JOHN FLYNN, GREGG FREISHTAT,
NIGEL MORRIS, ROBERT SHEFT, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS
INC., CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE,
FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC.,
RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., SANDLER O’NEILL & PARTNERS,
L.P., FIFTH THIRD SECURITIES, INC., and GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES, LLC,
the Defendants, Case No.: 655707/2018, (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 15,
2018), seeks to pursue remedies under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933.

The case is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired the Class A common stock of
GreenSky pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's false and/or
misleading registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with the Company's May 24, 2018 initial public offering
. GreenSky purports to be a technology company that powers commerce
through point of sale. The Company’s platform purports to
facilitate merchant sales, while reducing the friction and
improving the economics associated with consumer purchases and bank
financing of those purchases.

On May 25, 2018, the Company filed with the SEC its IPO prospectus,
which forms part of the IPO Registration Statement. In the IPO, the
Company sold 38,000,000 shares of Class A common stock at a price
of $23.00 per share. The Company received proceeds of approximately
$830.3 million from the IPO, net of underwriting discounts and
commissions. The proceeds from the IPO were purportedly to be used
to purchase common units of GreenSky Holdings, LLC and to redeem
the Company's Class A common stock issued upon exercise of options
by certain option holders. On November 6, 2018, GreenSky lowered
its full year 2018 transaction volume guidance from between $5.1
and $5.3 billion to between $4.9 and $5.1 billion, and lowered its
full year 2018 Adjusted EBITDA guidance from between $192 and $199
million to between $165 and $175 million. GreenSky attributed the
reduction to a general labor shortage and unfavorable shifts in its
loan mix. On that day, GreenSky's stock price closed at $9.28 per
share, which was a decline of $13.72, or approximately 60%, from
the IPO price of $23.00 per share. The Registration Statement was
materially false and misleading and omitted to state: that the
Company's transaction fee rates did not reasonably account for
higher interest rates; that the solar panel merchants paid a higher
average transaction fee rate than the elective healthcare
merchants; that, as a result, the Company's expansion into elective
healthcare would materially impact the average transaction fee
rate; and that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
statements in the Registration Statement regarding GreenSky's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or
misleading, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
          Daniella Quitt, Esq.
          712 Fifth Avenue, 31st floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212)935-7400
          Facsimile: (212)753-3630

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160

GREYHOUND LINES: Sued over Discriminatory Immigration Raids
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROCIO CORDOVA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, vs. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., and DOES 1-100, the
Defendants, Case No. RG18928028 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 8, 2018),
alleges that the Defendants violated the Unruh Act by denying,
aiding in the denial of, and/or inciting a denial of Greyhound
passengers of the full and equal accommodations, advantages,
facilities, privileges, and services in Defendants' business
establishments based on, inter alia, their actual or perceived
race, color, ancestry, national origin, and/or primary language.

Greyhound Lines, Inc. is a private intercity bus company that
operates throughout the State of California. Greyhound has adopted
a policy or practice of voluntarily opening its doors to armed and
uniformed U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents in order to
allow discriminatory immigration raids to be conducted in the
passenger cabins of domestic buses without a warrant, probable
cause, or reasonable suspicion. Greyhound's policy has and
continues to impact thousands, if not tens of thousands, of
consumers in California.

Greyhound's voluntary policy or practice also includes delaying
buses while agents interrogate passengers and providing CBP agents
with access to Greyhound's private staff break rooms and back
office areas at bus stations for secondary questioning. Greyhound
station managers have prevented dissenters from videotaping such
raids and defended Greyhound's policy, with one manager reportedly
proclaiming: "Greyhound will always welcome Border Patrol here.",
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Rachell Jensen, Esq.
          Juan Carlos Sanchez, Esq.
          Aelish M. Baig, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619/231-1058
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  rjensen@rgrdlaw.com
                  jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com
                  aelishm@rgrdlaw.com

GYM CONSULTING: Livingstone Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Amy Livingstone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Gym Consulting, Inc. dba My Gym Enterprises, Case No.
0:18-cv-62734 (S.D. Fla., November 9, 2018), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint for damages,
injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in
negligently or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's
cellular telephone, in violation of the TCPA, thereby invading
Plaintiff's privacy.

The Plaintiff's domicile is in Broward County, Florida. Plaintiff
is a citizen of the state of Florida.

The Defendant, My Gym, is a California company and is a citizen of
California. The Defendant is an international corporation which
operates the number one children's program worldwide in more than
550 locations in over 30 countries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
      EDWARDS POTTINGER, LLC
      425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Tel: (954) 524-2820
      Fax: (954) 524-2822
      E-mail: seth@epllc.com


HORIZON FREIGHT: Court Dismisses Ayyash Wage & Hour Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned MOHAMMED
AYYASH and FADI HAFEZ, Plaintiffs, v. HORIZON FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC.,
et al., Defendants. No. 15-cv-10296. (N.D. Ill.) pursuant to the
doctrine of forum non conveniens.

Plaintiffs Mohammed Ayyash and Fadi Hafez worked as drivers for
Defendant Horizon Freight System, Inc. (Horizon). They have brought
this putative class action alleging that Horizon, its president
David Ferrante, and its terminal manager and owner Trent Fairbanks
(Defendants) incorrectly classified drivers as independent
contractors rather than employees, made unlawful deductions from
drivers' paychecks, failed to pay drivers for all work performed,
and paid drivers less than minimum wage.

Ayyash and Hafez, both residents of Illinois, worked as drivers for
Horizon. Their agreements with Horizon specify that they were
independent contractors even though, according to Ayyash and Hafez,
they were actually Horizon's employees. Ayyash and Hafez also
allege that Defendants deducted certain operating expenses from
their pay without authorization.

The doctrine of forum non conveniens permits a court, in its
discretion, to dismiss an action over which it would normally have
jurisdiction when there is an adequate alternative forum in which
the case may be more conveniently heard.

Forum-Selection Clause in Hafez's Agreement with Horizon

Turning to the forum-section clause in Hafez's agreement with
Horizon, the relevant provision is found in Section 18 of the
agreement. It provides:

"Governing Law, Consent to Jurisdiction -- All questions concerning
the validity, intention, or meaning of this Agreement, or relating
to performance or breach under the Agreement shall be construed and
resolved in accordance with the laws of the State of Ohio and
applicable federal law. Each party hereby designates the Court of
Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio as the court of proper
jurisdiction and venue of and for any and all legal proceedings
relating to this Agreement, hereby unequivocally consents to such
designation, jurisdiction and venue, hereby waives any objections
or defenses relating to the jurisdiction or venue with respect to
any legal proceedings initiated in, or transferred to, the Court of
Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio."

The parties disagree on what law governs the validity of this
forum-selection clause. Defendants argue that its validity must be
determined according to Ohio law, i.e., the law designated in the
choice of law clause of Hafez's agreement. Plaintiffs, on the other
hand, argue that the choice-of-law provision in Hafez's agreement
with Horizon is invalid and therefore Illinois law applies.

A third option would be to determine the validity of the
forum-selection clause according to federal common law. This Court
need not resolve the choice-of-law issue for present purposes,
however. As explained below, the forum-selection clause is valid
regardless of whether federal, Ohio, or Illinois law applies.

Validity of Forum-Selection Clauses under Federal, Illinois, and
Ohio Law

Under federal law, a forum-selection clause is presumed to be valid
to overcome this presumption, the opposing party must show that the
clause is unreasonable under the circumstances. Courts construe
this unreasonable under the circumstances exception narrowly. A
clause is unreasonable if its incorporation into a contract was the
result of fraud, undue influence, or overwhelming bargaining power,
if the selected forum is so gravely inconvenient that the opposing
party will be deprived of its day in court, or if enforcement of
the clause contravenes a strong public policy of the forum.

Illinois courts analyze forum-selection clauses in a similar
manner. To determine whether a forum-selection clause is
unreasonable, Illinois courts look at the following factors: (1)
the law governing the formation and construction of the contract;
(2) the residency of the parties; (3) the place of execution and
performance of the contract; (4) the location of the parties and
witnesses; (5) the inconvenience to the parties of any particular
location; and (6) whether the clause was equally bargained for.  

Under Ohio law, a forum-selection clause in a commercial contract
between business entities is upheld, so long as its enforcement
does not deprive litigants of their day in court. Thus, absent
evidence of fraud or overreaching, a forum-selection clause
contained in a commercial contract between business entities is
valid and enforceable, unless it can be clearly shown that
enforcement of the clause would be unreasonable and unjust.
However, when it comes to a forum-selection clause in an employment
contract, the law is less settled.
  
Like Illinois courts, Ohio courts look at the following factors to
determine if a forum is unreasonable: (1) the law controlling the
contractual dispute (2) the residency of the parties; (3) where the
contract was executed (4) where the witnesses and parties are
located; and (5) whether the forum clause's designated location is
inconvenient to the parties.  

Whether the Forum-Selection Clause Violates Public Policy

The Plaintiffs argue that the choice-of-law clause in Hafez's
agreement with Horizon is unenforceable as against Illinois public
policy because the clause essentially waives Hafez's rights under
the IWPCA. Hence, according to Plaintiffs, the forum-selection
clause in Hafez's agreement is unenforceable because it is part of
the same non-severable contract as the allegedly unenforceable
choice-of-law clause.  

To the contrary, several courts have upheld choice-of-law clauses
in suits arising under the IWPCA. For example, in Cornell v. BP
America Inc., No. 14 C 2123, 2015 WL 5766931, at *4 (N.D. Ill.
Sept. 30, 2015), the plaintiff argued that the choice-of-law
provision in his benefits agreement, which designated English law,
could not apply because an employee could not waive or release his
rights under the IWCPA. The Cornell court rejected that argument,
distinguishing the case from O'Brien and Ladegaard as there was no
express waiver involved in the case and the plaintiff had provided
no basis for the court to conclude that English law would not allow
the plaintiff to bring an IWPCA claim.  

Moreover, the Illinois Department of Labor appears to view
choice-of-law clauses designating non-Illinois law as enforceable
the Department's web-site informs visitors that an employee may not
have a claim if the employment contract has a `choice of law'
clause requiring [the employee] to bring all claims in a state
other than Illinois.

Hence, the Plaintiffs' argument that the forum-selection clause is
invalid because the choice of law clause violates public policy
must fail.

Unequal Bargaining Power and Lack of Ties to Ohio

The Plaintiffs next argue that regardless of the validity of the
choice-of-law clause, the Court should not enforce the
forum-selection clause because he had no bargaining power to
negotiate it and because the present case has no ties to Ohio with
respect to the IWPCA claims, except for the location of Horizon's
headquarters. But a mere lack of bargaining power on the part of
one party to a contract does not make a forum-selection clause
invalid. Likewise, mere inconvenience to the opposing party is not
sufficient to invalidate a forum-selection clause as unreasonable.

The Plaintiffs' argument that Ohio constitutes an unreasonable
forum also fails. Looking at the factors that both Ohio and
Illinois courts weigh when determining unreasonableness, this Court
cannot conclude that Plaintiffs have met their burden of showing
that Hafez's forum-selection clause is invalid. First, the
controlling law factor does not weigh in favor of the Plaintiffs,
as Hafez's agreement has a choice of law provision designating Ohio
law.  

Second, the parties' residency does not weigh heavily in favor of
the Plaintiffs.  

Third, while the agreement's place of performance appears to weigh
in favor of the Plaintiffs, it is unclear that the same could be
said for the agreement's execution.   

Fourth, while the Plaintiffs claim that most of the evidence is
located in Illinois and that Hafez and other class members are in
Illinois, Plaintiffs have not provided any specific physical or
financial reason why he cannot travel to or litigate in Ohio, the
forum convenient for Defendants.

In sum, the Plaintiffs have failed to meet his burden of
establishing that Ohio is a gravely inconvenient forum such as to
effectively deprive him of a meaningful day in court.  As a result,
Plaintiffs' argument that the forum-selection clause in his
agreement is unenforceable fails.

Atlantic Marine Factors

Having concluded that the forum-selection clause in Hafez's
agreement is valid, the Court proceeds with the forum non
conveniens analysis under Atlantic Marine. If the Court of Common
Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio is an adequate alternative forum,
then this Court need only weigh the public interest factors. Atl.
Marine Const. Co., 134 S. Ct. at 582.

Hafez's choice of forum merits no weight, and the Court deems
factors relating to the parties' private interests as weighing
entirely in favor of the Ohio court.

A forum meets the adequate alternative forum requirement if the
forum is both available and adequate.  An alternative forum is
available if all parties are amenable to process and are within the
forum's jurisdiction. A forum is adequate when the parties will not
be deprived of all remedies or treated unfairly.

Here, the Plaintiffs do not dispute that the Ohio court is an
available forum. Rather, the Plaintiffs argue that the Ohio court
is not an adequate forum because Ohio judges are unfamiliar with
the IWPCA and, if Ohio law applies, he would improperly be stripped
of rights provided under the IWPCA.

But federal and state courts routinely apply the law of states
other than the state in which they sit. Moreover, the fact that
Ohio courts might subject Hafez to laws and remedies different or
less favorable than those available in Illinois is not alone
sufficient to deny enforcement of a forum-selection clause. And the
Court is not aware of any other reason why the designated Ohio
forum would arguably treat Hafez unfairly or deprive him of
remedies. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have failed to convince this
Court that the designated Ohio forum is inadequate.

Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 15, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7j32whb from Leagle.com.

Mohammed Ayyash & Fadi Hafez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Alejandro
Caffarelli , Caffarelli & Associates Ltd., Alexis D. Martin,
Caffarelli & Associates Ltd., Lorraine Teraldico Peeters,
Caffarelli & Associates Ltd. & Madeline K. Engel, Caffarelli &
Associates Ltd.

Horizon Freight System, Inc., Trent Fairbanks, individually & David
Ferrante, Defendants, represented by Alan L. Rupe --
Alan.Rupe@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, pro
hac vice, Jason David Stitt -- Jason.Stitt@lewisbrisbois.com --
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, pro hac vice, John J. Michels,
Jr. -- John.Michels@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois, Bisgaard &
Smith, Johner Taylor Wilson, III -- Johner.Wilson@lewisbrisbois.com
-- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Todd Allen Gray --
Todd.Gray@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith,
LLP, pro hac vice.


HUNTER ALLIED: Court Narrows Claims in Izaguirre Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Dabney L. Friedrich granted in part and denied in part the
Motion to Conditionally Certify a Collective Action and for
Approval of and Facilitation of Notice to Potential Class Members
in the lawsuit entitled FERNANDO M. IZAGUIRRE v. HUNTER ALLIED OF
MARYLAND, INC., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00965-DLF (D.D.C.).

According to the Court's memorandum opinion and order, conditional
certification is granted only for hourly construction workers, who
worked for the Defendants from April 24, 2015, to the present and
were paid overtime at their regular hourly rate as an "expense
reimbursement."

Mr. Izaguirre's request to approve the proposed notice is denied
without prejudice.  He shall refile a proposed notice that
substantially conforms with the formatting of the notice that was
approved in Stephens v. Farmers Restaurant Group, No. 17-cv-1087
(TJK), Judge Friedrich ruled.

Judge Friedrich also ruled that:

   -- Mr. Izaguirre's request to notify potential plaintiffs by
      U.S. mail is approved;

   -- the request that the Defendants include the notice in
      employees' paychecks is denied;

   -- the proposed duration of 45 days for potential plaintiffs
      to opt in to the collective action and the proposed opt-in
      form are approved; and

   -- the Motion to Permit Pre-Certification Discovery is denied
      without prejudice.

Mr. Izaguirre alleges that the Defendants -- Hunter Allied of
Maryland and its president and owner, Bradford Q. Ott -- unlawfully
failed to pay employees overtime for construction work.[CC]


HY'S LIVERY: Belgada Moves to Certify Class of Limousine Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs and approximately 70 Opt-In plaintiffs in the
lawsuit entitled MEHDI BELGADA, HORMOZ AKHUNDZADEH, and DANIEL
DZIEKAN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals v. HY'S LIVERY SERVICE, INC., ROBERT LEVINE, MATTHEW
LEVINE, and SHELLEY LEVINE, Case No. 3:18-cv-00177-VAB (D. Conn.),
move for certification of a class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The proposed class consists of:

     All persons who have worked for Defendant Hy's Livery
     Service, Inc. as full-time limousine drivers at any time
     between December 30, 2015 and the date of final judgment in
     this matter.

The Plaintiffs also move the Court to designate them as Class
Representatives; and to designate their counsel, The Hayber Law
Firm, LLC, as class counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael T. Petela, Jr., Esq.
          Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
          THE HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC
          900 Chapel St, 11th Floor
          New Haven, CT 06510
          Telephone: (860) 522-8888
          Facsimile: (860) 218-9555
          E-mail: mpetela@hayberlawfirm.com
                  rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com


HYATT CORPORATION: Removed Insixiengmay Case to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant removed the case captioned Janice Insixiengmay,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. Hyatt Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; Hyatt
Corporation dba Hyatt Regency Sacramento, an 20 unknown
association; and Does 1 to 21 100, inclusive, Case No.
34-2018-00241994, from the Sacramento County Superior Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Nov.
15, 2018. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:18-cv-02993-TLN-DB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff sought recovery for alleged failure to pay overtime
wages, alleged failure to provide meal and rest periods, alleged
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, alleged
failure to pay final wages upon resignation and/or discharge, and
alleged violations of California Business and Professions
Code.[BN]

Attorneys for Defendant:

          J. Scott Carr, Esq.
          Kristapor Vartanian, Esq.
          Abigail Stecker Romero, Esq.
          KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP
          515 S. Flower Street, 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 493-3980
          Facsimile: (404) 400-7333
          E-mail: scarr@kcozlaw.com
                  kvartanian@kcozlaw.com
                  aromero@kcozlaw.com


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Oral Argument in Fergus Suit Not Yet Scheduled
----------------------------------------------------------------
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018, that oral arguments on the company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action suit entitled, Fergus v.
Immunomedics, Inc., has not been scheduled.

Two purported class action cases were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely, Fergus v.
Immunomedics, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-03335, filed June 9, 2016;
and Becker v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-03374, filed
June 10, 2016.

These cases arise from the same alleged facts and circumstances,
and seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock between April 20, 2016 and June 2, 2016
(with respect to the Fergus matter) and between April 20, 2016 and
June 3, 2016 (with respect to the Becker matter).

These cases concern the Company's statements in press releases,
investor conference calls, and SEC filings beginning in April 2016
that the Company would present updated information regarding its
IMMU-132 breast cancer drug at the 2016 American Society of
Clinical Oncology ("ASCO") conference in Chicago, Illinois. The
complaints allege that these statements were false and misleading
in light of June 2, 2016 reports that ASCO had canceled the
presentation because it contained previously reported information.


The complaints further allege that these statements resulted in
artificially inflated prices for the company's common stock, and
that the Company and certain of its officers are thus liable under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

An order of voluntary dismissal without prejudice was entered on
November 10, 2016 in the Becker matter. An order granting motion to
consolidate cases, appoint lead plaintiff, and approve lead and
liaison counsel was entered on February 7, 2017 in the Fergus
matter. A consolidated complaint was filed on October 4, 2017. The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
January 26, 2018 and the motion was fully briefed as of April 4,
2018.  Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled.

Immunomedics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company,
develops monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted
treatment of cancer. Its advanced antibody-drug conjugates are
sacituzumab govitecan and labetuzumab govitecan, which are in
advanced trials for various solid tumors and metastatic colorectal
cancer, respectively. he company was founded in 1982 and is
headquartered in Morris Plains, New Jersey.


JELD-WEN HOLDING: Faces Grubb Lumber Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 29, 2018, that the company is
facing a putative class action suit entitled, Grubb Lumber Company,
Inc. v. Masonite Corporation and JELD-WEN, Inc.

On October 19, 2018, Grubb Lumber Company, on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit
against the company and one of its competitors in the doors market,
Masonite Corporation ("Masonite") in the Eastern District of
Virginia.

The suit alleges that Masonite and the company violated Section 1
of the Sherman Act by engaging in a scheme to artificially raise,
fix, maintain, or stabilize the prices of interior molded doors in
the United States. The suit further alleges that the company's
acquisition of CraftMaster Manufacturing, Inc. (CMI) violated
Section 7 of the Clayton Act by substantially lessening competition
in the molded doors market.

The complaint seeks unquantified ordinary and treble damages,
declaratory relief, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. The
Company believes the claims lack merit and intends to vigorously
defend against the action.

JELD-WEN Holding said, "At this early stage of the proceedings, we
are unable to conclude that a loss is probable or to estimate the
potential magnitude of any loss in this matter, although a loss
could have a material adverse effect on our operating results,
consolidated financial position or cash flows."

JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. manufactures and sells doors and windows
primarily in North America, Europe, and Australasia. The company
offers a line of residential interior and exterior door products,
including patio doors, and folding or sliding wall systems;
non-residential doors; and wood, vinyl, and aluminum windows. The
company was founded in 1960 and is based in Charlotte, North
Carolina.


JMR LANDSCAPING: Lazcon Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Armando Lazcon Zuniga, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated v. JMR Landscaping LLC, and Joey Rossa, Case No.
1:18-cv-07470 (N.D. Ill., November 10, 2018), is brought against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed and refused to pay
overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a landscaper and
laborer.

The Defendants provide landscaping maintenance, lawn care,
landscape design and build, and snow removal services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Schorsch, Esq.
      DESPRES, SCHWARTZ & GEOGHEGAN LTD.
      77 W. Washington St., Suite 711
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 372-2511
      E-mail: mschorsch@dsgchicago.com

          - and -

      Alexandria Santistevan, Esq.
      FARMWORKER & LANDSCAPER
      ADVOCACY PROJECT
      33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 900
      Chicago, IL, 60602
      Tel: (312) 784-3541
      E-mail: litigation@flapillinois.org


KERYX BIOPHARMA: Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated Karth Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, 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 parties
in Tim Karth v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., are
presently engaged in discovery.

Four purported class action lawsuits have been filed against the
company and certain of its current and former officers (Gregory P.
Madison, Scott A. Holmes, Ron Bentsur, and James Oliviero).

Three of these actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, captioned respectively Terrell
Jackson v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No.
1:16-cv-06131, filed on August 2, 2016, Richard J. Erickson v.
Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 1:16-cv-06218, filed on
August 4, 2016, and Richard King v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.,
et al., No. 1:16-cv-06233, filed on August 5, 2016.

The Jackson complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between
February 25, 2016 and August 1, 2016, the Erickson complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased the
company's common stock between March 2, 2016 and July 29, 2016, and
the King complaint purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders
who purchased the company's common stock between February 25, 2016
and July 29, 2016.

On August 26, 2016, the fourth complaint, captioned Tim Karth v.
Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-11745, was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
which complaint was subsequently amended. The Karth complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased the
company's common stock between May 8, 2013 and August 1, 2016.  

The Jackson, Erickson and King matters were transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 5, 2017
and subsequently consolidated with the Karth action.

Each complaint generally alleges that the company and certain of
its current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the
company's and its business operations and future prospects in light
of the August 1, 2016 announcement of an interruption in the
company's supply of Auryxia. By order dated July 19, 2018, the
Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint. The parties are presently engaged in
discovery.

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.


LANE BRYANT: Meo Seeks Overtime Pay for Store Managers
------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA MEO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. LANE BRYANT, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-06360 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2018), seeks to recover overtime
pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York
Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant willfully violated the
FLSA and applicable state laws by failing to pay its non-exempt
hourly Store Managers, including Plaintiff and all other similarly
situated employees, for all of the overtime hours worked based upon
its unlawful policies and practices. While Defendant required Store
Managers to work overtime hours, it required them to clock out and
work off the clock, as well as working without clocking in on their
scheduled days off.

The Defendant failed to credit -- and therefore compensate --
Plaintiff and Store Managers for all of their hours worked in
violation of the FLSA. Moreover, as a result of this policy,
Defendant failed to pay its New York Store Managers, such as
Plaintiff, for their non-overtime hours and accurately report their
hours worked on their paystubs, in violation of the NYLL, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA Collective:

          Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Logan Pardell, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (800) 616-4000
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com
                 gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                 lpardell@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
          Garrett Kaske, Esq.
          SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
          534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 499-9100
          Facsimile:(631) 499-9120
          E-mail: tkessler@shulmankessler.com
                  gkaske@shulmankessler.com

LYFT, INC: Removed Tecson Case to Northern District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lyft, Inc. removed case captioned Antonio Tecson, individual on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LYFT,
INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 12 CGC-18-570125 (filed Sep. 26, 2018), from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Nov.
8, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:18-cv-06782 to the proceeding.

In the Tecson's complaint, the Plaintiff alleges one cause of
action for violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.[BN]

Attorneys for Lyft, Inc.:

          Archis A. Parasharami, Esq.
          Daniel E. Jones, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1999 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3000
          E-mail: aparasharami@mayerbrown.com
                  djones@mayerbrown.com


MACA REST: Workers File Suit Alleging FLSA and NYLL Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Martinez and Antonio Romero-Gonzalez, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Maca Rest. Corp.
dba Firenze Restaurant, and Manuel Caisaguano, Case No.
1:18-cv-10436 (S.D. N.Y., November 8, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the
New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs sought to remedy the Defendants' violations of the
wage and hour provisions of the FLSA and the NYLL.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as bussers, runners,
porters, food preps, line cooks, dishwashers and delivery
employees.

The Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant in the Upper
East Side section of Manhattan. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Amit Kumar, Esq.
      Law Offices of William Cafaro
      108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
      New York, NY 10018
      Tel: (212) 583-7400
      E-mail: AKumar@CafaroEsq.com


MDL 2743: Cantu-Guerrero Appeals Ruling in Flooring Durability Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Party-in-Interest Diana Cantu-Guerrero filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: Lumber
Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Durability Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md-02743-AJT-TRJ, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at
Alexandria.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on October 4, 2016.  The cases in the
litigation concern the sale and marketing of Chinese-manufactured
laminate flooring sold by Defendant Lumber Liquidators, Inc.
Despite being marketed as sufficiently durable for residential use,
the Plaintiffs allege that their laminate flooring scratches too
easily and fails to meet the advertised industry standard.

The appellate case is captioned as Diana Cantu-Guerrero v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 18-2351, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Party-in-Interest-Appellant DIANA CANTU-GUERRERO is represented
by:

          Robert William Clore, Esq.
          BANDAS LAW FIRM, PC
          500 North Shoreline Boulevard
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 698-5200
          Facsimile: (361) 698-5222
          E-mail: robertclorerclore@bandaslawfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, is represented by:

          Robert Eric Bilik, Esq.
          Kimberly Tolland Mydock, Esq.
          Emily Yandle Rottmann, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          Barnett Center
          50 North Laura Street
          Jacksonville, FL 32202-3635
          Telephone: (904) 798-3200
          E-mail: ebilik@mcguirewoods.com
                  kmydock@mcguirewoods.com
                  erottmann@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Joan S. Dinsmore, Esq.
          Kevin Knox Nunnally, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          P. O. Box 27507
          Raleigh, NC 27611-7507
          Telephone: (919) 755-6693
          E-mail: jdinsmore@mcguirewoods.com
                  knunnally@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Diane Pulley Flannery, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          800 East Canal Street
          P. O. Box 3916
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-1015
          E-mail: dflannery@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Philip A. Goldstein, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 548-2167
          E-mail: pagoldstein@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Bethany Gayle Lukitsch, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          Wells Fargo Center
          355 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (804) 775-1000
          E-mail: blukitsch@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Tamara Danielle Stiner Toomer, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309-0000
          Telephone: (404) 443-5500
          E-mail: tstinertoomer@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Camille Christen, Esq.
          DONOHUE BROWN MATHEWSON & SMYTH
          140 South Dearborn
          Hinsdale, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 422-4908
          E-mail: christen@dbmslaw.com

               - and -

          David A. Eberly, Esq.
          EBERLY MCMAHON LLC
          2321 Kemper Lane
          Cincinnati, OH 45206
          Telephone: (513) 533-9898
          E-mail: deberly@emclawyers.com

               - and -

          Michael English, Esq.
          DOERNER SAUNDERS DANIEL & ANDERSON
          Two West Second Street
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone: (918) 591-5249
          E-mail: menglish@dsda.com

               - and -

          Kimberly W. Geisler, Esq.
          SCOTT DUKES & GEISLER PC
          211 22nd Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 251-2300
          E-mail: kgeisler@scottdukeslaw.com

               - and -

          Karen Elizabeth Kahle, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC
          1233 Main Street
          P. O. Box 751
          Wheeling, WV 26003-0751
          Telephone: (304) 231-0441
          E-mail: karen.kahle@steptoe-johnson.com

               - and -

          Andrew John Martone, Esq.
          Matthew Robinson, Esq.
          HESSE MARTONE, P.C.
          13354 Manchester Road
          St. Louis, MO 63131
          Telephone: (314) 862-0300
          E-mail: andymartone@hessemartone.com
                  mattrobinson@hessemartone.com

               - and -

          Donna Marie Meehan, Esq.
          COSMICH, SIMMONS & BROWN, PLLC
          One Eastover Center
          100 Vision Drive
          Jackson, MS 39211
          Telephone: (601) 519-0324
          E-mail: donna@cs-law.com

               - and -

          Joshua L. Solomon, Esq.
          POLLACK SOLOMON DUFFY LLP
          133 Federal Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 439-9800
          E-mail: jsolomon@psdfirm.com

               - and -

          David B. Sudzus, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          191 North Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 569-1000
          E-mail: david.sudzus@dbr.com

               - and -

          Whitney Welch, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          3773 Howard Hughes Parkway
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Telephone: (702) 792-3773
          E-mail: welchw@gtlaw.com


METLIFE INC: Appeal in Martin Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 appeal
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the
court's decision granting Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
motion to dismiss in the case, Martin v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, (Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Contra Costa, filed December 17, 2015), is still
pending.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all California persons who have been charged
compound interest by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC) in
life insurance policy and/or premium loan balances within the last
four years.

Plaintiffs allege that MLIC has engaged in a pattern and practice
of charging compound interest on life insurance policy and premium
loans without the borrower authorizing such compounding, and that
this constitutes an unlawful business practice under California
law. Plaintiffs assert causes of action for declaratory relief,
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and Usury Law, and
unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution of
interest, and damages in an unspecified amount.

On April 12, 2016, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs have appealed this ruling to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. MetLife, Inc. was founded in 1863 and
is headquartered in New York, New York.


METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Roycroft Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 entitled, Roycroft
v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (S.D.N.Y., filed June 18, 2018).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action on behalf of all persons
due benefits under group annuity contracts but who did not receive
the entire amount to which they were entitled. Plaintiff asserts
claims for unjust enrichment, accounting, and restitution based on
allegations that the Company failed to timely pay annuity benefits
to certain group annuitants.

Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and other relief.

MetLife said, "The Company intends to defend this action
vigorously."

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. MetLife, Inc. was founded in 1863 and
is headquartered in New York, New York.


METLIFE INC: Miller Class Suit v. MLIC in New York Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (MLIC), continues to defend itself from a class
action suit entitled, Miller, et al. v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (C.D.
Cal., filed April 7, 2017).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action against MetLife, Inc.
and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC) in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, purporting to assert
claims on behalf of all persons who replaced their MetLife Optional
Term Life or Group Universal Life policy with a Group Variable
Universal Life policy wherein MetLife allegedly charged smoker
rates for certain non-smokers.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as
well as other relief.

On September 25, 2017, plaintiff dismissed the action and refiled
the complaint in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York. On November 9, 2017, plaintiff dismissed MetLife, Inc.
without prejudice from the action.

MetLife said, "MLIC intends to defend this action vigorously."

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. MetLife, Inc. was founded in 1863 and
is headquartered in New York, New York.


METLIFE INC: Non-Certification of Sales Practices Claims Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 of Appeal
for Ontario has affirmed the lower court's decision to not certify
the sales practices claims in the Ontario Litigation in relation to
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada Indemnity Claim.

In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as
successor to the purchaser of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
(MLIC's) Canadian operations, filed a lawsuit in Toronto, seeking a
declaration that MLIC remains liable for "market conduct claims"
related to certain individual life insurance policies sold by MLIC
that were subsequently transferred to Sun Life.

In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had given timely
notice of its claim for indemnification but, because it found that
Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted MLIC's
motion for summary judgment. In September 2010, Sun Life notified
MLIC that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun
Life in Toronto alleging sales practices claims regarding the
policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life (the "Ontario
Litigation").

On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified MLIC that another purported
class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Vancouver, BC
alleging sales practices claims regarding certain of the same
policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life
contends that MLIC is obligated to indemnify Sun Life for some or
all of the claims in these lawsuits.

In September 2018, the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed the
lower court's decision to not certify the sales practices claims in
the Ontario Litigation.

MetLife said, "These sales practices cases against Sun Life are
ongoing, and the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably
possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation."

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. MetLife, Inc. was founded in 1863 and
is headquartered in New York, New York.


METLIFE INC: Still Defends Julian & McKinney Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company still defends against the case, Julian & McKinney
v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y., filed February 9,
2017).

Plaintiffs filed this putative class and collective action on
behalf of themselves and all current and former long-term
disability ("LTD") claims specialists between February 2011 and the
present for alleged wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Connecticut Minimum
Wage Act.

The suit alleges that MetLife improperly reclassified the
plaintiffs and similarly situated LTD claims specialists from
non-exempt to exempt from overtime pay in November 2013. As a
result, they and members of the putative class were no longer
eligible for overtime pay even though they allege they continued to
work more than 40 hours per week.

On March 22, 2018, the Court conditionally certified the case as a
collective action, requiring that notice be mailed to LTD claims
specialists who worked for the Company from February 8, 2014 to the
present.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. MetLife, Inc. was founded in 1863 and
is headquartered in New York, New York.


METLIFE INC: Still Defends Newman Class Action Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 still
defends a putative class action suit in Illinois entitled, Newman
v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ill., filed March 23,
2016).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging causes of
action for breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, based
on Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's (MLIC's) class-wide
increase in premiums charged for long-term care insurance policies.


Plaintiff alleges a class consisting of herself and all persons
over age 65 who selected a Reduced Pay at Age 65 payment feature
and whose premium rates were increased after age 65. Plaintiff
asserts that premiums could not be increased for these class
members and/or that marketing material was misleading as to MLIC's
right to increase premiums. Plaintiff seeks unspecified
compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, as well as
recessionary and injunctive relief.

On April 12, 2017, the court granted MLIC's motion, dismissing the
action with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed this ruling to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (the "Seventh
Circuit") and on February 6, 2018, the Seventh Circuit reversed and
remanded for further proceedings, ruling that Plaintiff is entitled
to relief on her contract claim.

Following MLIC's petition for rehearing, the Seventh Circuit issued
an amended opinion on March 22, 2018, holding that plaintiff's
claim survived MLIC's motion to dismiss but finding that the policy
is ambiguous as to MLIC's right to raise plaintiff's premiums. The
Seventh Circuit held that on remand to the district court, the
parties may introduce evidence to try to resolve this ambiguity.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. MetLife, Inc. was founded in 1863 and
is headquartered in New York, New York.


METLIFE INC: Still Defends Parchmann Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 Parchmann v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (E.D.N.Y.,
filed February 5, 2018).

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc.
common stock from February 27, 2013 through January 29, 2018, the
plaintiff alleges that MetLife, Inc., its Chief Executive Officer
and Chairman of the Board, and its CFO violated Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing
materially false and/or misleading statements because the
defendants failed to disclose that MetLife's practices and
procedures used to estimate its reserves set aside for annuity and
pension payments were inadequate, and that MetLife had inadequate
internal control over financial reporting.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief. The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. MetLife, Inc. was founded in 1863 and
is headquartered in New York, New York.


METLIFE INC: Still Defends Voshall Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 entitled, Voshall
v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles, April 8, 2015).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
himself and all persons covered under a long-term group disability
income insurance policy issued by MLIC to public entities in
California between April 8, 2011 and April 8, 2015.

Plaintiff alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC)
improperly reduced benefits by including cost of living adjustments
and employee paid contributions in the employer retirement benefits
and other income that reduces the benefit payable under such
policies.

Plaintiff asserts causes of action for declaratory relief,
violation of the California Business & Professions Code, breach of
contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. MetLife, Inc. was founded in 1863 and
is headquartered in New York, New York.


MICHAEL KORS: Lucas Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Victoria E. Lucas filed an appeal from a court ruling in
her lawsuit titled Victoria Lucas v. Michael Kors (USA), Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01608-MWF-MRW, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Victoria Lucas v. USDC-CALA,
Case No. 18-73027, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

The Respondent is the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, Los Angeles.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 8, 2018, the
Plaintiff filed an appeal from a court ruling in her lawsuit.  That
appellate case is entitled Victoria Lucas v. Michael Kors (USA),
Inc., et al., Case No. 18-56240.

The District Court previously ruled that Michael Kors USA Inc. and
a staffing company can send to individual arbitration a woman's
putative class action alleging the companies stiff workers on
overtime and withhold rest and meal breaks.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner VICTORIA E. LUCAS, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          1801 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 553-3600
          Facsimile: (310) 553-3603
          E-mail: mnourmand@nourmand.com

               - and -

          Christie Webb, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTIE E. WEBB
          5901 W. Century Boulevard, Suite 412
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (323) 686-1947
          E-mail: Christie@cwebblaw.com

               - and -

          Judith K. Williams, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUDITH K. WILLIAMS
          3940 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Suite 1023
          Studio City, CA 91604
          Telephone: (818) 343-9230
          E-mail: jkwesq@gmail.com

Defendant-Real Party in Interest MICHAEL KORS (USA), INC., a
Delaware corporation, is represented by:

          Elizabeth M. Levy, Esq.
          Jon D. Meer, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
          2029 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          E-mail: elevy@seyfarth.com
                  jmeer@seyfarth.com

Defendants-Real Parties in Interest DECTON, INC., a California
corporation, and DECTON STAFFING SERVICES, a business entity form
unknown, are represented by:

          Daniel Joseph Kessler, Esq.
          BURKHALTER KESSLER CLEMENT AND GEORGE LLP
          2020 Main Street, Suite 600
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 975-7500
          E-mail: dkessler@bkcglaw.com


NCB MANAGEMENT: Class Certification Sought in Rodriguez Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Josie Rodriguez moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit captioned JOSIE RODRIGUEZ,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NCB
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., and CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., Case
No. 2:18-cv-01783-LA (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court
both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the
Plaintiff (and the Defendants) 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


NELSON TREE: Neville Seeks Wages & Overtime under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH NEVILLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NELSON TREE SERVICE, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00368-WHR (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 8, 2018),
seeks unpaid wages, including overtime wages, and all other
available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours per
workweek. The Defendant is in the business of providing utility
companies with line clearance services, including trimming trees.
The Defendant employed Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals
as non-exempt laborers. Laborers performed the manual tasks
associated with Defendant's line clearance services. The Defendant
paid and pays laborers on an hourly basis. Laborers were required
to report to jobsites to perform Defendant's line clearance
services in various states. These jobsites were frequently located
hundreds of miles away from laborers' home communities.

Laborers typically work at least 40 hours per workweek. Laborers
typically worked multiple-day shifts away from their home
communities. Because the worksites were away from their home
communities, laborers typically stayed overnight in hotels during
the scheduled work shifts. Laborers spent most of the day before
and after their shifts driving hundreds of miles to and from the
jobsites. This travel cut across laborers' normal working hours
during both regular working days and nonworking days.

The identity of all laborers is unknown at this time but is known
to Defendant and is contained in Defendant's records. Defendant did
not count time spent traveling as hours worked for purposes of
determining overtime eligibility. Consequently, Defendant failed to
pay proper wages, including overtime wages to Plaintiff and other
similarly situated individuals.  Defendant willfully deprived
laborers of proper wages, including overtime wages. Defendant knew
that laborers were working overtime hours and hours for which they
were not compensated at an overtime rate when they traveled to
jobsites, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

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

NEW YORK: Guadagna Moves to Certify Class of GuildNet Enrollees
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled SALVATORE GUADAGNA,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
HOWARD ZUCKER, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of
Health, Case No. 17-CV-3397 (ADS)(AKT) (E.D.N.Y.), files with the
Court his Renewed Amended Motion for Class Certification.

The class is defined as:

     All Medicaid recipients who were enrolled in the GuildNet
     MLTCP in Suffolk, Nassau, or Westchester County as of
     March 1, 2017 and who suffered reductions in care without
     constitutionally and statutorily mandated prior notice and
     opportunity to be heard when they transferred to new MLTCPs
     as a result of GuildNet's closure in their counties of
     residence.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beth Goldman, Esq.
          Jane Greengold Stevens, Esq.
          Elizabeth Jois, Esq.
          Ben Taylor, Esq.
          Julia Russell, Esq.
          NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP
          7 Hanover Square, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 613-5000
          Facsimile: (212) 750-0820
          E-mail: bgoldman@nylag.org
                  jstevens@nylag.org
                  ejois@nylag.org
                  btaylor@nylag.org
                  jrussell@nylag.org


NORTH AMERICAN MIDWAY: Underpays Carnival Workers, Brits Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANTON BRITS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. NORTH AMERICAN MIDWAY ENTERTAINMENT -
ALL STAR AMUSEMENT, INC., an Illinois corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 2018CH14259 (Ill Cir. Ct. Cook Cty., Nov. 15, 2018), seeks
to recover unpaid contract wages pursuant to Illinois law.

According to the complaint, NAME is a traveling carnival company
that provides food, rides, and games for carnivals and fairs around
the country. In 2009 and 2010, NAME frequently required its
employees to work 50 or more hours per week without paying them
their agreed contract wages. Instead, NAME often paid the workers
about six to eight dollars per hour, including for hours worked in
excess of forty in a workweek.

Brits worked for NAME as a ride operator from 2009 - 2011 and in
2013. When Brits worked for NAME in Illinois, the company never
paid him time-and-a-half for hours worked in excess of forty in a
workweek, and the company never paid him the prevailing wage for
all hours worked, as required by federal regulation, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Matthew J. Piers, Esq.
          Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq.
          HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK
          & DYM, LTD.
          70 W. Madison St., Suite 4000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312 580-0100

OCLARO INC: Karri Suit over Lumentum Merger Deal Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Oclaro, 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 Saisravan
Bharadwaj Karri v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03435-JD,
renewed his public notice of filing of the lawsuit, but has taken
no further action.

On March 11, 2018, Lumentum Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation
("Lumentum"), Oclaro, Prota Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Lumentum ("Merger
Sub"), and Prota Merger, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
and a wholly owned subsidiary of Lumentum ("Merger Sub LLC"),
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement").

Following announcement of the execution of the Merger Agreement on
March 12, 2018, seven lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders
of Oclaro challenging its proposed acquisition by Lumentum, Inc.

The first suit, a putative class action styled as Nicholas Neinast
v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03112-VC, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on May 24, 2018, and was against Oclaro, its directors,
Lumentum, Merger Sub, and Merger Sub LLC (the "Neinast Lawsuit").

Five additional suits, styled as Gerald F. Wordehoff v. Oclaro,
Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03148-NC (the "Wordehoff Lawsuit"),
Walter Ryan v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03174-VC (the
"Ryan Lawsuit"), and Jayme Walker v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No.
3:18-cv-03203 (the "Walker Lawsuit"), Kevin Garcia v. Oclaro, Inc.,
et al., No. 5:18-cv-03262-VKD (the "Garcia Lawsuit"), and Saisravan
Bharadwaj Karri v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03435-JD (the
"Karri Lawsuit") were also filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on, respectively, May
25, 2018, May 29, 2018, May 30, 2018, May 31, 2018 and June 9,
2018.

Each of the lawsuits name Oclaro and its directors as defendants.
The Ryan Lawsuit and the Karri Lawsuit, like the Neinast Lawsuit,
were putative class actions. A seventh suit, a putative class
action styled as Adam Franchi v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., Case
1:18-cv-00817-GMS, was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware on May 30, 2018, and was against
Oclaro, its directors, Lumentum, Merger Sub, and Merger Sub LLC
(the "Franchi Lawsuit" and, with the Neinast Lawsuit, the Wordehoff
Lawsuit, the Ryan Lawsuit, the Walker Lawsuit, the Garcia Lawsuit,
and the Karri Lawsuit, the "Lawsuits").

The Lawsuits alleged that Oclaro and its directors violated Section
14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder
because the Proxy Statement/Prospectus was incomplete and
misleading. The Lawsuits further alleged that Oclaro's directors
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by failing to exercise
proper control over the person(s) who violated Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act.

The Neinast Lawsuit additionally alleged that Oclaro's directors
breached fiduciary duties by entering into the Merger, and also
names Lumentum, Merger Sub, and Merger Sub LLC as violators of
Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder. The Franchi Lawsuit additionally named Lumentum, Merger
Sub, and Merger Sub LLC as violators of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

The Lawsuits sought, among other things, injunctive relief
preventing the parties from consummating the merger, rescission of
the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement should they
be consummated, and litigation costs, including attorneys' fees.
The Lawsuits also sought damages to be awarded to the plaintiff and
any class if the Merger were consummated.

In addition, the Wordehoff Lawsuit sought injunctive relief
directing defendants to disseminate a true and complete proxy
statement/prospectus and declaratory relief that defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
14a-9 promulgated thereunder.
To avoid the risk of the Lawsuits delaying or adversely affecting
the Merger and to minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties
inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or
wrongdoing and believing that the initial Proxy
Statement/Prospectus disclosed all material information concerning
the Merger and no supplemental disclosure was required under
applicable law, Oclaro voluntarily filed with the SEC a supplement
to the Proxy Statement/Prospectus on June 29, 2018.

Thereafter, on July 25, 2018, the plaintiff in the Garcia Lawsuit
dismissed his action, with prejudice as to the individual
plaintiff. The plaintiffs in the Neinast, Franchi, Wordehoff, and
Ryan Lawsuits dismissed these actions, with prejudice as to the
respective individual plaintiffs, on July 27, 2018. The plaintiff
in the Walker Lawsuit dismissed her action, with prejudice as to
the individual plaintiff, on August 14, 2018. At the time the other
complaints were being dismissed, counsel for plaintiff in the
remaining lawsuit, the Karri Lawsuit, stated his intention to file
an amended complaint.

On September 27, 2018, the Court rejected, without hearing, the
Karri plaintiff's motion to be appointed lead counsel because
plaintiff failed to follow the required notice procedure. Following
this order, plaintiff renewed his public notice of filing of the
lawsuit, but has taken no further action.

Oclaro said, "If the Karri Lawsuit proceeds, Oclaro intends to
defend the action vigorously."

Oclaro, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets optical components,
modules, and subsystems for the long-haul, metro, and data center
markets worldwide. The company's products generate, detect,
combine, and separate light signals in optical communications
networks. Oclaro, Inc. was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in
San Jose, California.


OHIO NATIONAL: Veritas Seeks Trail Commissions for Dealers
----------------------------------------------------------
VERITAS INDEPENDENT PARTNERS, LLC, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THE OHIO NATIONAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY; OHIO NATIONAL LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION; OHIO
NATIONAL EQUITIES, INC.; and OHIO NATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC., the Defendants, Case: 1:18-cv-00769-MRB (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 8,
2018), sues Defendants' class-wide and unlawful decision to stop
paying contractually agreed-upon trail commissions due to
independent broker/dealers.

Veritas Independent Partners, LLC is an Arkansas limited liability
company with a principal place of business at 2201 Washington
Avenue, Suite 2, Conway, Arkansas 72034. Veritas is an independent
broker dealer registered with the FINRA. Veritas offers investment
and advisory products and services directly to retail customers
through representatives who are licensed and registered with FINRA,
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and with
state insurance agencies. Some of the financial products selected
by Veritas to be available to its representatives
for sale and servicing to clients are created by third parties such
Ohio National, with whom Veritas enters into selling and/or
servicing agreements. In those circumstances, the revenue Veritas
receives is based on the commissions paid by those third parties,
including Ohio National, on the financial products sold through
Veritas. The Ohio National Life Insurance Company is a corporation
organized under the laws of Ohio, with a principal place of
business at One Financial Way, Cincinnati, Ohio 45242.

Defendants' actions constitute a breach of the express terms of the
contract and the duty of good faith and fair dealing implied in
every contract. As a direct and proximate result of Ohio
National’s breach and unlawful conduct, Veritas and the Class
will be damaged, and Ohio National is therefore liable to Plaintiff
in an amount to be determined by the Court, together with costs,
interest and attorneys’ fees as allowable by law. In addition,
Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to specific enforcement of the
terms of the Selling Agreement by way of declaratory judgment and
injunctive relief, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          James B. Hadden, Esq.
          Geoffrey J. Moul, Esq.
          Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
          1114 Dublin Road
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: 614 488 0400
          Facsimile: 614 488 0401
          E-mail: hadden@mmmb.com
                  moul@mmmb.com
                  murphy@mmmb.com
                  murray@mmmb.com

PACIFIC BELL: Cal. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Hernandez
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Third District, Sacramento,
issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment granting
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned
ISREAL HERNANDEZ et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. PACIFIC BELL
TELEPHONE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. No. C084350. (Cal.
App.).

They appeal a judgment in favor of defendant following
cross-motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication.

The Plaintiffs are class representatives of current and former
employees of defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company who install
and repair video and internet services in customers' homes.  The
Plaintiffs sought compensation for the time they spent traveling in
an employer-provided vehicle loaded with equipment and tools
between their homes and a customer's residence, the worksite, under
an optional and voluntary Home Dispatch Program.

The trial court granted Pacific Bell's motion for summary judgment
and denied the plaintiffs' motion.

In a subsequent order, the court modified its ruling to grant only
summary adjudication on the class claims as the individual claims
remained. The parties stipulated to dismiss the individual claims.
The court entered judgment for Pacific Bell.

Hours Worked

The Plaintiffs contend the time a Pacific Bell technician who
participates in the HDP spends traveling from that technician's
home to a worksite in a company vehicle, carrying equipment and
tools, and the time traveling home from the final appointment at
the end of the work day is compensable hours worked.

The two phrases of the definition  time during which an employee is
subject to the control of an employer and time the employee is
suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so
establish independent factors that each define hours worked. Thus,
an employee who is subject to an employer's control does not have
to be working during that time to be compensated under the
applicable wage order. The time an employee is suffered or
permitted to work, whether or not required to do so, includes time
the employee is working but not under the employer's control, such
as unauthorized overtime, provided the employer has knowledge of
it.  

The Plaintiffs contend the travel time between home and the
customer's residence meets both of these tests. Because the facts
are not in dispute, this is a question of law the Court review de
novo.

The Control Test

The Plaintiffs contend this level of control is similar to that
found sufficient to satisfy the control test in Morillion, supra,
22 Cal.4th 575. There, Royal, the employer of agricultural
employees, required [them] to meet for work each day at specified
parking lots or assembly areas. After the employees met at these
departure points, Royal transported them, in buses that Royal
provided and paid for, to the fields where the employees actually
worked. At the end of each day, Royal transported the employees
back to the departure points on its buses. Royal's rules prohibited
employees from using their own transportation to get to and from
the fields. If an employee drove to the fields rather than riding
Royal's bus, the employee would be warned the first time and sent
home with loss of a day's pay the second time.  

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the time the
employees spent traveling on Royal's buses constituted hours worked
under the governing IWC wage order. That wage order defined hours
worked as set forth ante: the time during which an employee is
subject to the control of an employer, and includes all the time
the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not
required to do so. Our high court rejected an argument that to
constitute hours worked the time must be spent actually working.
Instead, the court held that as long as the employee is subject to
the control of an employer, the time is considered compensable
hours worked.

The Plaintiffs distort Pacific Bell's argument that commute time
under the HDP is not compensable because participation in the
program is voluntary, arguing that they cannot think of any
situation since the abolition of slavery where work is performed
without agreement to do so, reasoning that all work is voluntary.
They assert an employee may not volunteer to work without pay. But
plaintiffs fail to address or even acknowledge authority to the
contrary. They do not address the emphasis in Morillion on the
compulsory nature of the transportation by bus or the court's
observation that employers do not risk paying employees for their
travel time merely by providing them transportation. Time employees
spend traveling on transportation that an employer provides but
does not require its employees to use may not be compensable as
hours worked.

Commute time under the HDP is not compensable as hours worked under
the control test.

The Suffer or Permit to Work Test

The Plaintiffs contend the disputed commute time is also
compensable as hours worked under the suffered or permitted to work
definition. They argue they were working while driving to and from
home because they were transporting tools and equipment that were
necessary for them to do their job. At oral argument they
emphasized their theory that transporting equipment was
distinguishable from merely transporting tools, as in their case
some of the equipment (e.g., modems, cable boxes, and DVRs) was
slated for delivery to the jobsite rather than merely designated
for use at the site and meant to remain in the vehicles before and
after use.

The phrase suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required
to do so encompasses a meaning distinct from merely working. Our
high court explained an employee is suffered or permitted to work
when the employee is working, but not subject to the employer's
control, such as unauthorized overtime when an employee voluntarily
continues to work at the end of a shift with the employer's
knowledge.  

In arguing that transporting equipment and tools in the Pacific
Bell vehicle to customers' homes under the HDP constitutes hours
worked, plaintiffs rely on the Cadell letter of April 22, 2003,
that the trial court judicially noticed. The letter stated: If the
travel involved the employee being required to deliver any
equipment, goods or materials for the employer, the travel, no
matter how extended, would be compensable.

The Cadell letter addressed whether an employee who alternated
between two different worksites in Bakersfield and Palmdale was
entitled to compensation for the time spent traveling to the more
distant worksite. The letter did not explain what constituted
delivery of equipment within its analysis, nor did it detail
whether the delivery of equipment would include an employee using a
company vehicle stocked with equipment pursuant to a voluntary
commute program like the HDP. While the quoted language of the
letter is broad, read in context it does not indicate any and all
transportation of tools or equipment is compensable time.

For example, the letter also says a finish carpenter would not
expect to be paid for the time he commutes to a jobsite. However,
it appears to us that a finish carpenter would likely carry tools
on his commute in order to adequately perform his job once reaching
a worksite. Further, here the record reflects that the parties
stipulated that techs on HDP are to be at the first customer
appointment of the day at 8 a.m., and they begin to be paid at 8
a.m. They are not paid for the time before 8 a.m. that they spend
driving to the first appointment with tools and equipment.

This stipulation fairly permits us to infer that plaintiffs here
are paid for delivery and installation of any transported products
beginning when they arrive at the jobsite, despite plaintiffs'
suggestion at oral argument that they may be actually delivering
equipment (rather than merely transporting tools and equipment to
and from jobsites) without being paid to do so.

The cases cited by plaintiffs here do not involve mere commuting
with necessary tools in tow, instead they involve the delivery of
heavy, specialized equipment to the jobsite. The latter requires a
far greater effort. Although here certain items may be slated for
delivery at the end of the commute and the corresponding beginning
of the workday, as the Court have explained, here it also appears
plaintiffs are indeed paid for the acts of delivering and
installing the equipment.

Further, carrying the items necessary to establish service in the
situation seen here is simply not a comparable effort. There is a
significant difference between transporting heavy equipment for
servicing oil wells and the incidental transporting of equipment
and tools seen here. The Court agree with this observation by a
federal district court: To the extent that some of these cases
state broadly that travel time is compensable if employees are
transporting equipment without which their jobs could not be done,
e.g., Crenshaw, 798 F.2d at 1350, the Court reads these statements
as implying that the transportation involves some degree of effort.
Otherwise, as observed earlier, the commutes of police officers who
carry guns, or indeed, employees who carry badges, would always be
compensable.

As Pacific Bell argues, if carrying equipment necessary for the job
were always compensable, every employee who carries a briefcase of
work documents or an electronic device to access work emails to and
from work would need to be compensated for commute time.

Commute time under the HDP is not compensable as hours worked under
the suffer or permit to worktest. The trial court did not err in
granting summary judgment to Pacific Bell.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Cal. App.'s November 15, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yccazy8u from Leagle.com.

Righetti Glugoski, Matthew Righetti -- matt@righettilaw.com -- and
John Glugoski -- jglugoski@righettilaw.com -- for Plaintiffs and
Appellants.

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Thomas R. Kaufman --
tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com -- Paul Berkowitz --
pberkowitz@sheppardmullin.com -- Mayer Brown,Donald M. Falk --
dfalk@mayerbrown.com -- AT&T Services and Laurie E. Barnes --
laurie.barnes@att.com -- for Defendant and Respondent.

Jones Day, George S. Howard, Jr. -- gshoward@jonesday.com -- Cindi
L. Ritchey -- critchey@jonesday.com -- and Victoria E. Cho for
Employers Group and California Employment Law Council as Amici
Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.


PANDORA MEDIA: Sciabacucchi Balks at Sirius XM Merger
-----------------------------------------------------
The case, MATTHEW SCIABACUCCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PANDORA MEDIA, INC.,
GREGORY B. MAFFEI, ROGER CONANT FAXON, DAVID J. FREAR, JASON
HIRSCHHORN, TIMOTHY LEIWEKE, ROGER J. LYNCH, MICHAEL M. LYNTON,
JAMES E. MEYER, MICKIE ROSEN, SIRIUS XM HOLDINGS INC., and WHITE
OAKS ACQUISITION CORP., the Defendants, Case 1:18-cv-01807-UNA (D.
Del., Nov. 16, 2018), stems from a proposed transaction announced
on September 24, 2018, pursuant to which Pandora Media, Inc. will
be acquired by Sirius XM Holdings Inc. and White Oaks Acquisition
Corp.

On September 23, 2018, Pandora's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Sirius.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Pandora's
stockholders will receive 1.44 shares of Parent common stock for
each share of Pandora they own.  On October 31, 2018, defendants
filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Registration Statement omits material information
with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the
Registration Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, Plaintiff
alleges that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Registration
Statement.

The Registration Statement omits material information regarding the
Company's and Siruis's financial projections as well as the
analyses performed by the Company's financial advisors in
connection with the Proposed Transaction, Centerview Partners LLC
and LionTree Advisors LLC. Additionally, the Registration Statement
fails to disclose the terms of the engagement agreement entered
into by the Company and its additional financial advisor, Morgan
Stanley & Co. LLC. Among other things, the Registration Statement
fails to disclose the amount of compensation Morgan Stanley
received or will receive in connection with its engagement. The
Registration Statement also fails to disclose whether Morgan
Stanley has performed past services for any parties to the Merger
Agreement or their affiliates, and the timing and nature of such
services and the amount of compensation received by Morgan Stanley
for such services, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, 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

               - 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

PFIZER INC: Amendment to Suit over Intravenous Solution Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 plaintiffs in the
consolidated class action suit related to intravenous saline
solution have filed a second amended complaint.

Beginning in November 2016, purported class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against Hospira, Hospira Worldwide, Inc. and certain other
defendants relating to intravenous saline solution. Plaintiffs seek
to represent a class consisting of all persons and entities in the
U.S. who directly purchased intravenous saline solution sold by any
of the defendants from January 1, 2013 until the time the
defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceases.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants' conduct restricts output and
artificially fixes, raises, maintains and/or stabilizes the prices
of intravenous saline solution sold throughout the U.S. in
violation of federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek treble damages
(for themselves and on behalf of the putative classes) and an
injunction against defendants for alleged price overcharges for
intravenous saline solution in the U.S. since January 1, 2013.

All of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In July 2018, the
District Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed
a second amended complaint in September 2018.

On February 3, 2017, the company completed the sale of its global
infusion systems net assets, HIS, which includes intravenous saline
solution, to ICU Medical. The litigation is the subject of
cross-claims for indemnification by both Pfizer and ICU Medical
under the purchase agreement.

Separately, in April 2017, Pfizer, Hospira and two employees of
Pfizer received grand jury subpoenas issued by the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in
connection with an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice,
Antitrust Division. The subpoenas seek documents related to the
sale, manufacture, pricing and shortages of intravenous solutions,
including saline, as well as communications among industry
participants regarding these issues.

The Department of Justice investigation is also the subject of
cross-claims for indemnification by both Pfizer and ICU Medical
under the purchase agreement. In addition, in August 2015, the New
York Attorney General issued a subpoena to Hospira for similar
information. Hospira has produced records to the New York Attorney
General and coordinated with ICU Medical to produce records to the
U.S. Department of Justice.

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.


POPULAR INC: Discovery Ongoing in Diaz Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
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 case entitled,
Perez Diaz v. Popular, Inc., et al, is in discovery stage.

Popular, Inc., Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) and Popular
Insurance, LLC (the "Popular Defendants") have been named
defendants in a putative class action complaint captioned Perez
Diaz v. Popular, Inc., et al, filed before the Court of First
Instance, Arecibo Part.

The complaint seeks damages and preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class against the
Popular Defendants, as well as Antilles Insurance Company and
MAPFRE-PRAICO Insurance Company (the "Defendant Insurance
Companies"). Plaintiffs allege that the Popular Defendants have
been unjustly enriched by failing to reimburse them for commissions
paid by the Defendant Insurance Companies to the insurance agent
and/or mortgagee for policy years when no claims were filed against
their hazard insurance policies.

They demand the reimbursement to the purported "class" of an
estimated $400 million plus legal interest, for the "good
experience" commissions allegedly paid by the Defendant Insurance
Companies during the relevant time period, as well as injunctive
relief seeking to enjoin the Defendant Insurance Companies from
paying commissions to the insurance agent/mortgagee and ordering
them to pay those fees directly to the insured. A hearing on the
request for preliminary injunction and other matters was held on
February 15, 2017, as a result of which plaintiffs withdrew their
request for preliminary injunctive relief.

A motion for dismissal on the merits, which the Defendant Insurance
Companies filed shortly before hearing, was denied with a right to
replead following limited targeted discovery. On March 24, 2017,
the Popular Defendants filed a certiorari petition with the Puerto
Rico Court of Appeals seeking a review of the lower court's denial
of the motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals denied the Popular
Defendants request, and the Popular Defendants appealed this
determination to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, which declined
review. On December 21, 2017, plaintiffs sought to amend the
complaint and, on January 2018, defendants filed an answer thereto.


Separately, on October 26, 2017, the Court entered an order whereby
it broadly certified the class; the Popular Defendants filed a
certiorari petition before the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals in
relation to the class certification, but on March 4, 2018, the
Court of Appeals declined to entertain such petition. At a hearing
held on November 2, 2017, the Court encouraged the parties to reach
agreement on discovery and class notification procedures.

Popular said, "Although the case is still in discovery stage, the
parties have not yet reached an agreement as to the class
notification procedures."

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.


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

The appellate case is captioned as Rose Lorenzo v. Prime
Communications, L.P., Case No. 18-2348, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 27, 2018, the
Defendant filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit.  That
appellate case is styled Rose Lorenzo v. Prime Communications,
L.P., Case No. 18-2297.

The District Court previously denied the Defendant's Motion to
Decertify Class and granted the Defendant's Alternative Motion to
Amend Class Definition.  The certified Fair Labor Standards Act
class is defined as:

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

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

   -- Cross-Appeal Appellant Prime Communications, L.P.'s Opening
      Brief and Appendix are due on December 26, 2018;

   -- Opening/Response Brief is due on January 22, 2019; and

   -- Response/Reply Brief is due on February 21, 2019.[BN]

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

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

               - and -

          S. Michael Dunn, Esq.
          Stephen A. Dunn, Esq.
          EMANUEL & DUNN
          130 South Salisbury Street
          P. O. Box 426
          Raleigh, NC 27602-0000
          Telephone: (919) 832-0329
          E-mail: mdunn@emanuelanddunn.com
                  sdunn@emanuelanddunn.com

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

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Ruling in PICA v. DB under 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 Deutsche Bank, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
the California Court of Appeal of the denial of their class
certification motion in the case entitled, PICA et al. v. Deutsche
Bank, et al.

In May 2018, plaintiffs motion for class certification was denied
in the state court action. In June 2018, plaintiffs filed a Notice
of Appeal to the California Court of Appeal of 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.


PVH CORP: Website not Accessible to Blind, Figueroa Says
--------------------------------------------------------
JOSE FIGUEROA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. PVH CORP. d/b/a IZOD, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-10676 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018), alleges that
Defendant 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. The 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

RAJ MANUFACTURING: Cantoran Seeks Wages & OT under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
OBDULIA C. CANTORAN on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RAJ MANUFACTURING, INC. a California
corporation and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case
No.: 30-2018-01032424-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 15, 2018),
seeks unpaid wages and overtime compensation, unpaid rest and meal
period compensation, penalties and other equitable relief, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants enforced shift shedules,
employment policies and practices, and workload requirements
wherein Plaintiff and all other Non Exempt Employees were not paid
proper wages they earned for all hours they worked including
overtime compensation and/or minimum wage; were not permitted to
take their full statutorily authorized rest and meal periods due to
the scheduling and work load and time requirements placed upon them
by Defendants. The Defendants failed to pay the employees one hour
of pay at the employees regular rate of compensation for each
workday that the meal period and/or rest period that was not
properly provided.

The Defendants have also failed to maintain accurate itemized
records reflecting total hours worked and have failed to provide
Non Exempt Employees with accurate, itemized wage statements
reflecting total hours worked and appropriate rates of pay for
those hours worked. The Defendants have also failed to reimburse
Class Members for the sewing tools they bought and utilized in the
performance of their job duties. The Defendants have also failed to
pay all wages owed to discharged or resigned employees in a timely
manner, the lawsuit says.

RAJ Manufacturing designs, manufactures, and markets designer and
private label swimwear and cover-ups for women and children.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Isandra Fernandez, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676

RENT-A-CENTER INC: Settlement Reached in Consolidated Hall Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that parties in the
consolidated Hall and DePalma class action suit have subsequently
agreed to settle and settlement is in the documentation process and
is subject to approval by the court.

On December 23, 2016, a putative class action was filed against the
company and certain of its former officers by Alan Hall in Federal
court in Sherman, Texas. The complaint alleges that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) and/or Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
issuing false and misleading statements and omitting material facts
regarding the company's business, including implementation of the
company's point-of-sale system, operations and prospects during the
period covered by the complaint.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of
the company's common stock from July 27, 2015 through October 10,
2016, and seeks damages in unspecified amounts and costs, fees, and
expenses.

A complaint filed by James DePalma also in Sherman, Texas alleging
similar claims was consolidated by the court into the Hall matter.


On October 19, 2017, the magistrate judge entered a recommendation
to deny the company's motion to dismiss the complaint to the
district judge who will decide the issue. The company filed its
objections to the magistrate's recommendation on November 2, 2017.


On December 14, 2017, the district judge issued an order adopting
the magistrate's report and denying the company's motion to dismiss
the complaint.

The parties have subsequently agreed to settle this matter for $11
million pursuant to a Settlement Term Sheet dated October 8, 2018.


The settlement is in the documentation process and is subject to
approval by the court. The settlement will be fully funded by
insurance.

Rent-A-Center, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, leases
household durable goods to customers on a rent-to-own basis. The
company operates through four segments: Core U.S., Acceptance Now,
Mexico, and Franchising. Rent-A-Center, Inc. was founded in 1986
and is headquartered in Plano, Texas.


SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Bund Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs John R. Bund II, Noel L. James and S. Scott James filed
an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled John Bund,
II, et al. v. Safeguard Properties LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00920-MJP,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Western Washington,
Seattle.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 19, 2018, Judge
Marsha J. Pechman (i) granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' Surreply and Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant's
Reply in Support of Its Motion to Decertify Class; and (ii) granted
the Defendant's Motion to Decertify Class and Dismiss the Action.

The case is a putative class action challenging the legality of the
Defendant's "property preservation services" on homes which have
gone into default but not yet been foreclosed.  The Defendant's
services run the gamut from winterization to lawn care, but it is
the practice of removing and replacing locks on the homes that is
the focus of this litigation.  The case alleges causes of action
for trespass (statutory and common law) and Consumer Protection Act
violations, and is one of a related series of cases in the State of
Washington brought against mortgage holders and their agents
regarding these post-default, pre-foreclosure practices.

The appellate case is captioned as John Bund, II, et al. v.
Safeguard Properties LLC, Case No. 18-35953, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by December 7, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on January 7, 2019;

   -- Appellants John R. Bund II, Noel L. James and S. Scott
      James' opening brief is due on February 15, 2019;

   -- Appellee Safeguard Properties LLC's answering brief is due
      on March 18, 2019; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants JOHN R. BUND II, personally, as Executor of
the Estate of Richard C. Bund, deceased, and on behalf of others
similarly situated; S. SCOTT JAMES; and NOEL L. JAMES, a married
couple, and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Blythe H. Chandler, Esq.
          Beth Ellen Terrell, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          E-mail: bchandler@terrellmarshall.com
                  bterrell@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Michael Duane Daudt, Esq.
          DAUDT LAW PLLC
          200 W Thomas Street, Suite 420
          Seattle, WA 98119
          Telephone: (206) 445-7733
          E-mail: mike@daudtlaw.com

               - and -

          Clay M. Gatens, Esq.
          JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD, P.S.
          2600 Chester Kimm Road
          P.O. Box 1688
          Wenatchee, WA 98801
          Telephone: (509) 662-3685
          E-mail: clayg@jdsalaw.com

Defendant-Appellee SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES LLC, a Delaware
corporation, is represented by:

          Mark Nelson Bartlett, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3045
          Telephone: (206) 757-8298
          E-mail: markbartlett@dwt.com

               - and -

          Leonid Feller, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 North LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862-2954
          E-mail: leonid.feller@kirkland.com


SELECT INCOME: Sinkula Balks at GOV MS REIT Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
FRANK SINKULA, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SELECT INCOME REIT, DONNA D. FRAICHE,
WILLIAM A. LAMKIN, JEFFREY P. SOMERS, ADAM D. PORTNOY, and DAVID M.
BLACKMAN, the Defendants, Case 1:18-cv-12389-DJC (D. Mass., Nov.
15, 2018), seeks to enjoin vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant
to which SIR will be acquired by Government Properties Income Trust
through GOV's wholly-owned subsidiary GOV MS REIT in violation of
the Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

On September 17, 2018, SIR and GOV issued a joint press release
announcing they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger.
Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, SIR stockholders will be
entitled to receive 1.04 shares of GOV common stock per SIR common
share. Under the Merger Agreement, the Merger Consideration is
fixed and will not be adjusted to reflect changes in the market
price of the GOV common shares or the SIR common shares prior to
the effective time.

Based on the $16.98 closing price of GOV common shares on September
14, 2018, the exchange ratio represented approximately $17.57 for
each SIR common share. As of November 8, 2018, the closing price of
GOV common shares had declined to $9.25, with the Merger
Consideration valued at approximately $9.62 per SIR common share.
On October 1, 2018, GOV and SIR filed a joint proxy
statement/prospectus on Form S-4 (as amended on October 26, 2018,
November 9, 2018, and November 15, 2018, the "Registration
Statement") with the SEC. The Registration Statement, which
recommends that SIR stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (i) SIR's and GOV's financial
projections, relied upon by the Company's financial advisor, UBS
Securities LLC ("UBS") in its financial analyses; (ii) the data and
inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the
fairness opinion provided by UBS; (iii) the background process
leading to the Proposed Transaction; and (iv) UBS's potential
conflicts of interest. The failure to adequately disclose such
material information constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act as SIR stockholders need such information
in order to cast a fully-informed vote in connection with the
Proposed Transaction.

In short, unless remedied, SIR's public stockholders will be forced
to make a voting decision on the Proposed Transaction without full
disclosure of all material information  concerning the Proposed
Transaction being provided to them. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the
December 20, 2018 stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction
unless and until such Exchange Act violations are cured, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq.
          MATORIN LAW OFFICE, LLC
          18 Grove Street, Suite 5
          Wellesley, MA 02482
          Telephone: (781) 453-0100
          E-mail: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
          Kelly K. Moran, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010

               - and -

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

SKC ENTERPRISES: Davis' Bid for Conditional Certification Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. D.P. Marshall, Jr., denied without prejudice as premature
the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification in the lawsuit
titled CINDY DAVIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. SKC ENTERPRISES INC, d/b/a RENT ONE, Case No.
3:18-cv-00036-DPM (E.D. Ark.).

"Please cooperate in some targeted discovery during the next ninety
days to see if any more evidence of a forty-five hour cap exists
and, if so, whether it was company-wide, regional, or
store-driven," Judge Marshall said.[CC]


SKC ENTERPRISES: Davis's Bid to Certify Class Denied as Premature
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. D.P. Marshall, Jr., denied without prejudice as premature
the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification in the lawsuit
titled CINDY DAVIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. SKC ENTERPRISES INC, d/b/a RENT ONE, Case No.
3:18-cv-00036-DPM (E.D. Ark.).

"Please cooperate in some targeted discovery during the next ninety
days to see if any more evidence of a forty-five hour cap exists
and, if so, whether it was company-wide, regional, or
store-driven," Judge Marshall notes.[CC]


SMYTHE CRAMER: Ohio App. Affirms Class Certification in Cantlin
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment granting
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned
PATRICK W. CANTLIN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SMYTHE CRAMER
CO., Defendant-Appellant. No. 106697. (Ohio App.).

Smythe Cramer Co., d.b.a. Howard Hanna Smythe Cramer (HHSC),
appeals from the trial court's granting plaintiffs Rita Noall,
Cindy Miller, Patrick Cantlin, and Elizabeth Hong's (Plaintiffs)
motion for class certification.

This lawsuit is a proposed class action, the heart of which
concerns a $225 fee (the Fee), which HHSC charged putative class
members allegedly as compensation for services performed in real
estate transactions. The gist of Plaintiffs' argument is that the
Fee is essentially unearned,1 because HHSC offered no services in
exchange for the Fee, other than the services already offered to
its customers prior to charging the Fee.

The trial court granted class certification. HHSC appealed, and
this court reversed the trial court's decision, finding that as the
class is currently defined, this action does not satisfy the
predominance requirement of Civ.R. 23(B)(3) to certify a class
action.

Upon remand, the Plaintiffs filed a new motion for class
certification and redefined the class into two groups.

The trial court granted class certification, finding that the
redefined class met the Civ.R. 23 threshold, including subsection
(B)(3)'s predominance requirement, because all the elements of
fraud and unjust enrichment can be proved or disproved by common
proof and the questions of law and fact on both causes of action
which are common to the class members predominate over questions
which might affect only individual members. It is from this order
that HHSC appeals, arguing that the Plaintiffs fail to meet the
Civ.R. 23(B) requirements of identifiability, typicality, and
predominance in the redefined subclasses.

Identifiability

Civ.R. 23(A) requires that the class definition be unambiguous and
the class identifiable.  

On appeal, HHSC argues that the trial court failed to consider the
evidence it submitted regarding whether class members could be
identified with reasonable effort.  According to HHSC, there would
be no way to determine class membership without a file-by-file
review and individual analysis of each transaction. HHSC offers
three reasons to support its argument.

First, its agents used different versions of the HHSC forms, some
of which may have referenced the $225 fee and some of which may
have described the hybrid commission was inconsistent with the
claims alleged in plaintiffs' complaint. Second, there are major
defects in terms of identifying allegedly injured buyers. Third,
whether a putative class member actually paid the Fee could not be
ascertained without individualized inquiry.

A careful reading of HHSC's argument that the class is allegedly
not identifiable reveals that all three reasons HHSC set forth are
essentially the same — that individualized fact-finding would be
required to determine membership in the class. While individualized
fact-finding may defeat class certification, this is true only when
the cause of the problem is plaintiff's overly broad class
definition.  

HHSC's arguments under this factor of the class certification
analysis are not well taken. In finding that the class members in
the instant case are identifiable, the trial court stated that HHSC
can reasonable identify its transactions for buyers and sellers
using the noted form documents containing the Fee. Specifically,
the court concluded that it is essentially a clerical task to weed
out those who did not actually pay the fee or paid a negotiated
amount. The court also stated that class members should be able to
identify themselves by looking at lines 704 and 705 of their HUD-1
settlement statements to see if a fee was paid to HHSC.

Upon review, the Ohio App. finds that the trial court conducted a
rigorous analysis of the class members' identifiability and acted
within its discretion when determining that this requirement was
met.

Typicality

HHSC's arguments on appeal concerning typicality are focused on the
named-plaintiff Noall. Noall signed a General Release of All Claims
against HHSC in exchange for her real estate agent paying $200 to
the sellers of the property at issue to cover late fees from the
lender. HHSC argues that this release shows that Ms. Noall cannot
receive redress from this case and, thus, lacks standing. Without
standing, Ms. Noall is not a typical representative.

The Plaintiffs, on the other hand, argue that Noall meets the
typicality requirement because she was charged the same sham
administrative fee as the rest of the members of the Administrative
Fee Class. Plaintiffs further argue that Noall has not asserted any
claims with respect to the property, therefore, the release does
not apply to this case.

The requirement for typicality is met where there is no express
conflict between the class representatives and the class.
Similarly, a representative is deemed adequate so long as his or
her interest is not antagonistic to that of other class members.
Furthermore, a unique defense will not destroy typicality or
adequacy of representation unless it is `so central to the
litigation that it threatens to preoccupy the class representative
to the detriment of the other class members.

Upon review, the Ohio App. finds that Noall's claim meets the
typicality requirement of class certification, because there is no
express conflict between her claim and the class-wide claim. HHSC's
affirmative defense of release of claims goes to the merits of
Noall's allegations of fraud and unjust enrichment, and should not
defeat class certification.  

Predominance

Civ.R. 23(B)(3) states that a class action may be maintained  if
the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class
members predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members, and that a class action is superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

The trial court found that the central issue in this case is
whether the fee charged by HHSC is redundant of a commission
already earned and paid and thus a sham fee that must be disgorged
and returned to those who paid it. Since the misrepresentations are
alleged to be in the contract and settlement statements, and those
documents are the same for each of the two classes, answering this
question once will answer the question for the whole class.

The court further found that inferences or presumptions of
inducement and reliance are permitted to establish the elements of
fraud in class actions. To properly analyze whether questions of
fact or law common to class members predominate over individual
questions, we must consider what Plaintiffs will have to prove at
trial to succeed on their fraud and unjust enrichment claims.

HHSC argues that even under the redefined subclasses, not all class
members necessarily understood the Fee in the same way. For
example, HHSC argues that evidence in the record showed that many
consumers received written and oral information that the Fee was
part of the overall brokerage commission. The redefined subclasses
do not include HHSC customers who were charged a hybrid commission,
as evidenced by HHSC documents. Rather, the subclasses include HHSC
customers who were charged a separate fee, and reliance that the
fee was earned may be presumed for the sake of class
certification.

HHSC also argues that the case at hand is directly in line with
cases rejecting class treatment for lack of predominance. To
support this argument, HHSC cites Young v. FirstMerit Bank, N.A.,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 94913, 2011-Ohio-614.

Young involved a proposed class of over 700 investors who purchased
promissory notes from Joanne Schneider, who was later convicted of
running a $60.5 million Ponzi scheme. The trial court certified the
class, and this court reversed, finding that the Plaintiffs failed
to meet the predominance requirement of Civ.R. 23(B)(3). In Young,
unlike in the case at hand, the fraud alleged was not contained in
the standard promissory notes that the defendant used. Rather, the
Young plaintiffs alleged that the fraud occurred in how Schneider
sold these notes. These elements are specific to each individual
investor, i.e., amount invested, number of investments, return on
the investment, external inducements, and representations made by
Schneider. The Young court further found that each plaintiff stated
different reasons for investing their funds with Schneider. The
court concluded that reliance cannot be presumed when the alleged
misrepresentations are so varied. Each fraud perpetrated by
Schneider varied in its misrepresentations, reliance, inducement,
and injury.

The instant case is distinguishable from Young in that the alleged
fraud can be found in four HHSC standard forms. Plaintiffs allege
that the misrepresentation or concealment regarding the Fee is
specific, in writing, and the same for all class members. In Young,
the entire investment scheme was alleged to be fraudulent, and the
material misrepresentations were different for each plaintiff. For
example, some of the initial investors did in fact see high returns
on their investments. In the case at hand, every putative class
member was charged the Fee as part of a real estate transaction,
and the Fee is alleged to be fraudulent for all who paid it.

Upon review, the Court finds that common issues predominate over
questions affecting individual plaintiffs. Under Civ.R.
23(B)(3)(a), the class members' interests in individually
controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions do not
outweigh the class members' common issues. Under Civ.R.
23(B)(3)(b), evidence in the record shows that Plaintiffs
previously filed a similar suit in federal court, but that case was
dismissed. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that the lack of
parallel lawsuits tends to weigh in favor of certification.  Under
Civ.R. 23(B)(3)(c), concentrating this litigation as a single case
in state court appears to be efficient, because common issues
predominate, the real estate transactions at issue took place in
Ohio, and violations of Ohio law are alleged.  

The Court finds that the trial court acted within its discretion by
certifying this redefined class action, and HHSC's sole assigned
error is overruled.

A full-text copy of the Ohio App.'s November 15, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycc5mze8 from Leagle.com.

Anthony J. Coyne, Jeffrey M. Embleton, Tracey S. McGurk, Mansour
Gavin L.P.A.; Jennifer M. Keas, Jay N. Varon, Foley & Lardner,
L.L.P., Attorneys for Appellant.

Patrick J. Perotti, Nicole T. Fiorelli, James S. Timmerberg,
Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A.; James A. Deroche, Garson Johnson,
L.L.C.; Glenn D. Feagan, Law Offices of Glenn D. Feagan, Attorneys
for Appellees.


SONUS NETWORKS: Miller Sues over Falsified Financial Report
-----------------------------------------------------------
RON MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SONUS NETWORKS, INC., RAYMOND P.
SECURITIES LAWS DOLAN, MARK T. GREENQUIST, AND MICHAEL SWADE, Case
No. 1:18-cv-12344 (D. Mass., Nov. 8, 2018), seeks to recover
compensable 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, against the Company
and certain of its officers and/or directors and various persons
who issued knowingly false statements during the Class Period.

According to the complaint, the case is a federal securities class
action on behalf of all persons and entities, other than
Defendants, who purchased the securities of Sonus during the period
of January 8, 2015 and March 24, 2015, both dates inclusive. Sonus
provides communication solutions that allow businesses large and
small to secure their communications infrastructures. Sonus's early
products were hardware-based. As newer, cloud-based software
solutions proliferated, however, Sonus fell behind its competitors.
In addition, longer purchasing decision cycles exacerbated the
Company's troubles, as revenue expected in a particular quarter was
pushed into the future and often reduced. In mid-2014, Sonus hired
Michael Swade as its new vice president of worldwide sales,
replacing, but not firing, the former head of worldwide sales.
Sonus immediately changed the way it forecasted revenue. Where
before the Company had included in its revenue forecast each
salesperson's "commit number," a conservative estimate of total
sales from that employee in a particular time period, rather than
their "stretch number," an aspirational figure rarely reached,
Swade now demanded that sales employees use "stretch numbers" as
their minimum target.

On October 23, 2014, Sonus, including those "stretch numbers" in
its forecast, projected $74 million in revenue in the first quarter
of 2015 ("Q1 2015"). Concurrently, senior sales personnel were
informing their superiors in weekly meetings, relayed to Defendants
Raymond P. Dolan and Mark T. Greenquist, that the Company would not
reach $74 million in revenue in Q1 2015. Internal communications
documented in the SEC Order show that Defendants were aware, long
before the turn of the calendar to 2015, that the Company would not
achieve $74 million in revenue in Q1 2015. The Company forced sales
personnel to list as attainable deals whose chances of closing in
Q1 2015 were "fictitious." Defendants convinced employees to relist
these potential deals by threatening to fire them.

Nevertheless, on January 8, 2015, Sonus reaffirmed its comfort with
analysts' estimates of $74 million in revenue in Q1 2015. On
February 18, 2015, Sonus inexplicably projected $74 million in
revenue for Q1 2015. As they reaffirmed the projection, Defendants
knew that the Company would fall materially short of the $74
million revenue forecast. Defendants knew that the unrealistic
"stretch numbers" remained aspirational and largely unreachable, a
fact that senior sales personnel regularly communicated to
Defendants. Defendants also knew that a number of 2015 sales had
been "pulled forward" to buoy sales numbers in Q4 2014, at
management’s express direction, and that the "backlog" of sales
expected to be recognized in early 2015 was significantly lower
than usual. As Q1 2015 progressed, Defendants received continuing
updates confirming that the Company would fall materially short of
its sales revenue forecast. All of these facts are proven by
internal, contemporaneous Sonus communications.

Sonus could not avoid the reckoning it put off in late 2014 and
early 2015. On March 24, 2015, Sonus was forced to reveal its
dismal Q1 2015 results. The Company had missed its forecast by a
massive amount, taking in only $50 million in revenue. It further
emerged that Defendants lied in January and February about the
deals they expected to close. The market reacted immediately to the
$24 million revenue miss. On this news, the price of Sonus's stock
plummeted $4.46 per share, over 33%, to close at $8.70 per share on
March 24, 2018, on unusually high trading volume. On August 7,
2018, the SEC issued a press release and the SEC Order, stating
that the SEC had charged Ribbon, Greenquist, and Swade with making
material misstatements on January 8, 2015 and February 18, 2015
concerning Sonus’s quarterly revenue estimates and guidance for
Q1 2015. The Company, Greenquist, and Swade agreed to pay civil
penalties totaling $1.97 million to settle the charges. 2 The SEC
Order contained detailed findings of fact, concluding that Sonus,
Greenquist, and Swade violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities
Act and Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Glen DeValerio, Esq.
          Daryl Andrews, Esq.
          ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP
          265 Franklin Street, Suite 1702
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: 617 936-2796
          E-mail: glen@andrewsdevalerio.com
          daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160




SOUTHERN CONNECTIONS: Tyree Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA TYREE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN CONNECTIONS & SERVICES, INC.,
the Defendant, Case 7:18-cv-00199 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 8, 2018), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.

According to the complaint, Southern Connections violated the FLSA
by employing Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt
employees "for a workweek longer than 40 hours but refusing to
compensate them for their employment in excess of 40 hours at a
rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which
they are or were employed.

During Plaintiff's employment with Southern Connections, he worked
in the field running casing, i.e. pipe or tubing at the well site
as part of drilling operations, working 12 hours or more each
shift, until the job was done. Plaintiff's primary duties did not
include office or nonmanual work. Plaintiff's primary duties were
not directly related to the management or general business
operations of Defendant or its customers, the lawsuit says.

Southern Connections is a drilling and completions servicing
company for the oil and gas industry.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          Bridget Davidson, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Center
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739

SUNOPTA INC: Full Payment Made in De Jesus Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------
SunOpta Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended September 29, 2018, that full payment of the
settlement amount was made in the case titled De Jesus, et al. v.
Frozsun, Inc. d/b/a Frozsun Foods, to the third-party settlement
administrator in October 2018.

On April 19, 2013, a class-action complaint, in the case titled De
Jesus, et al. v. Frozsun, Inc. d/b/a Frozsun Foods, was filed
against Sunrise Growers, Inc. ("Sunrise") (then named Frozsun,
Inc.) in California Superior Court, Santa Barbara County seeking
damages, equitable relief and reasonable attorneys' fees for
alleged wage and hour violations.

This case includes claims for failure to pay all hours worked,
failure to pay overtime wages, meal and rest period violations,
waiting-time penalties, improper wage statements and unfair
business practices. The putative class includes 10,611 non-exempt
hourly employees from Sunrise's production facilities in Santa
Maria and Oxnard, California.

The parties attended mediation on October 12, 2017 and reached a
general agreement to resolve the matter on a class-wide basis for
$5.0 million. After negotiating the remaining details of the
settlement, the parties obtained preliminary approval of the class
action settlement on May 14, 2018.

Settlement class members had until August 20, 2018, to opt out or
object to the settlement terms. A final fairness hearing with the
Court was held on September 17, 2018 and the settlement was granted
final approval. Full payment of the settlement amount was made to
the third-party settlement administrator in October 2018.

The settlement amount was recorded in accounts payable and accrued
liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet as at September 29,
2018.

The Company recovered the full amount paid under the settlement
through insurance coverage and an escrow account established in
connection with the Company's acquisition of Sunrise.

SunOpta Inc. sources non-genetically modified (non-GMO) and organic
ingredients; and manufactures food and beverage products in the
United States, Canada, Europe, Mexico, and Ethiopia. The company
operates through Global Ingredients and Consumer Products segments.
The company was formerly known as Stake Technology Ltd. and changed
its name to SunOpta Inc. in October 2003. SunOpta Inc. was founded
in 1973 and is headquartered in Mississauga, Canada.


TESARO INC: LSI Files Securities Class Suit Over False Co. Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------
LSI Design and Integration Corp., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Tesaro, Inc., Leon O. Moulder, Jr.,
and Timothy R. Pearson, Case No. 1:18-cv-12352 (D. Mass., November
9, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendants'
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Tesaro securities between November 4, 2016
through November 14, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Plaintiff alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies.

The Plaintiff acquired Tesaro's securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation
of the alleged corrective disclosures, notes the complaint.

The Defendant Tesaro is an oncology-focused biopharmaceutical
company that identifies, acquires, develops, and commercializes
cancer therapeutics and oncology supportive care products in the
U.S.

The Defendant Leon O. Moulder has served at all relevant times as
the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Director.

The Defendant Timothy R. Pearson has served at all relevant times
as the Company's Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice
President. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Glen DeValerio, Esq.
      Daryl Andrews, Esq.
      ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP
      265 Franklin Street, Suite 1702
      Boston, MA 02110
      Tel: (617) 936-2796
      E-mail: glen@andrewsdevalerio.com
              daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com

          - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 661-1100
      Fax: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              ahood@pomlaw.com
              jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com


THESY, LLC: Tyksinski Sues over Cybersecurity Breach
----------------------------------------------------
ARTUR TYKSINSKI, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. THESY, LLC, a California limited
liability corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH14318 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Nov. 15, 2018), alleges that Defendant failed to
implement a reasonably adequate cybersecurity prevention,
detection, and response protocol which led to his private personal
information, and that of other members of the putative class, being
compromised and exposed over an extended period of time in a cyber
security attack.

The Defendant was the target of a Cyber Attack on its information
technology ("IT") systems this year. This Cyber Attack resulted in
unauthorized outside parties gaining access to the Defendant's
customers' sensitive and confidential personal information,
including their names, dates of birth, home and business addresses,
credit card numbers and associated payment account information,
phone numbers, email addresses, and account passwords, known as
Personal Identifying Information ("PII"). Even though the Defendant
knew that it was storing sensitive PII which was valuable and
vulnerable to cyber attackers, particularly credit card and payment
information, the Defendant nonetheless failed to take basic
security precautions that could have prevented, and certainly at
least mitigated, the ramifications of the disclosure of its
customers' PII.

The Defendant's lax cybersecurity policies and procedures allowed
hackers to obtain access to Plaintiff's and other customers' PII.
This PII should have been secured by adequate levels of
cybersecurity protection and should not have been susceptible to
unauthorized access via the malware attack employed in the Cyber
Attack. In a malware attack, hackers exploit vulnerabilities in an
organization's administrative, technical, and physical
cybersecurity safeguards to install damaging software, known
generally as malware, onto the organization's IT systems, in order
to extract valuable data, such as credit card information, social
security numbers, and home addresses, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Classes:

          Myles McGuire, Esq.
          David Gerbie, Esq.
          Jad Sheikali, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
                  dgerbie@mcgpc.com
                  jsheikali@mcgpc.com

TORCHMARK CORP: Arbitration Ongoing in Bruce Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Torchmark Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that arbitration is
ongoing in the putative class action suit entitled Bruce v.
American Income Life Insurance Company, et al.

On February 1, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed
against American Income Life Insurance Company in U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division (Bruce v.
American Income Life Insurance Company, et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-00258-G).

The plaintiff, a former insurance sales agent of American Income
who is suing on behalf of all current and former American Income
sales agents contracted through State General Agent Stephen
Jubrey's agency office at any time since January 31, 2015 through
the final disposition of this matter, asserts that such agents are
employees rather than independent contractors as they are
classified by American Income.

He alleges failure to pay minimum wages, overtime wages and other
applicable monies in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The plaintiff seeks, in a jury trial, actual and punitive damages,
pre- and post-judgment interest, attorney fees, costs and other
relief, including injunctive relief.

On February 27, 2018, the Company filed a motion to compel
arbitration of this matter and on July 27, 2018, the Court granted
the Company's motion.

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

Torchmark Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides various
life and health insurance products, and annuities in the United
States, Canada, and New Zealand. It operates through four segments:
Life Insurance, Supplemental Health Insurance, Annuities, and
Investments. Torchmark Corporation was founded in 1900 and is
headquartered in McKinney, Texas.


TORCHMARK CORP: Faces Golz Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------
Torchmark Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company is
facing a class action lawsuit entitled, Golz v. American Income
Life Insurance Company, et al Case No. 18STCV01354).

On October 18, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed
against Torchmark Corporation and American Income Life Insurance
Company in California's Los Angeles County Superior Court (Golz v.
American Income Life Insurance Company, et al Case No.
18STCV01354).

The complaint alleges that the putative class members are employees
and asserts claims under the California Labor Code, California
Business and Professions Code, and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The complaint alleges that plaintiff was an American Income
insurance agent trainee in California who seeks to represent
classes of individuals whom American Income classified as
independent contractors during the class periods alleged.

One class period based on California Labor Code claims is alleged
to begin four years prior to the complaint's filing. Another class
period, which is based on the Fair Labor Standards Act claim, is
alleged to begin three years prior to the complaint's filing and is
pleaded as a national class. The complaint seeks compensatory
damages, penalties, and attorney fees on claims for failure to pay
wages due, failure to appropriately pay wages at termination,
failure to provide itemized wage statements, and unfair business
practices.

The Company continues to assess the amount and thus does not have a
reasonable estimate of any potential liability.

Torchmark Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides various
life and health insurance products, and annuities in the United
States, Canada, and New Zealand. It operates through four segments:
Life Insurance, Supplemental Health Insurance, Annuities, and
Investments. Torchmark Corporation was founded in 1900 and is
headquartered in McKinney, Texas.


TORCHMARK CORP: Unit Faces Joh Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Torchmark Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company's
subsidiary American Income Life Insurance Company, faces a class
action suit entitled, Joh v. American Income Life Insurance
Company, Case No. C18-01863).

On September 12, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed
against American Income Life Insurance Company in California's
Contra Costa County Superior Court (Joh v. American Income Life
Insurance Company, Case No. C18-01863).

The plaintiff, a former insurance sales agent of American Income,
is suing on behalf of all current and former sales agents who sold
insurance for American Income in the state of California for the
last four years prior to the filing of the complaint. The complaint
alleges that sales agents are employees and asserts claims under
the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions
Code.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties and attorney
fees on claims for failure to pay wages/commissions, failure to
appropriately pay agents at termination, failure to provide
itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse expenses and unfair
business practices.

The Company continues to assess the amount and thus does not have a
reasonable estimate of any potential liability.

Torchmark Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides various
life and health insurance products, and annuities in the United
States, Canada, and New Zealand. It operates through four segments:
Life Insurance, Supplemental Health Insurance, Annuities, and
Investments. Torchmark Corporation was founded in 1900 and is
headquartered in McKinney, Texas.


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Violates FDCPA, Thompson Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Julia Thompson individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Transworld
Systems Inc., John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-16401
(D. N.J., Nov. 23, 2018).

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

Transworld Systems Inc. provides accounts receivable, debt
recovery, and past due accounts services for businesses, medical
companies, dental companies, education facilities, Fortune 500
companies, and small businesses in the United States and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED STATES: Class of Veterans Certified in Manker Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Charles S. Haight, Jr., granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the lawsuit styled TYSON MANKER, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, and NATIONAL VETERANS
COUNCIL FOR LEGAL REDRESS, on behalf of itself, its members, and
all others similarly situated v. RICHARD V. SPENCER, Secretary of
the Navy, Case No. 3:18-cv-00372-CSH (D. Conn.).

In accordance with Rule 23(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Court certifies this class:

     Veterans who served during the Iraq and Afghanistan Era --
     defined as the period between October 7, 2001, and the
     present -- who:

     (a) were discharged from the Navy, Navy Reserves, Marine
         Corps, or Marine Corps Reserve with less-than-Honorable
         statuses, including General and Other-than-Honorable
         discharges but excluding Bad Conduct or Dishonorable
         discharges;

     (b) have not received upgrades of their discharge statuses
         to Honorable from the NDRB; and

     (c) have diagnoses of PTSD, TBI, or other related mental
         health conditions, or records documenting one or more
         symptoms of PTSD, TBI, or other related mental health
         conditions at the time of discharge, attributable to
         their military service under the Hagel Memo standards of
         liberal or special consideration.

The representatives of the class will be all Named Plaintiffs, and
class counsel will be the Yale Law School's Veterans Legal Services
Clinic and Jenner & Block LLP.

The Court also reminds parties of its previous order, directing the
Defendant to file a responsive pleading within 30 days of this
decision and parties to exchange initial disclosures and file a
proposed schedule for remaining deadlines within 45 days of this
decision.  A proposed interim schedule is due within 30 days if
either party appeals this decision.[CC]



UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Navy, Marine Corps Veterans' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
issued a Ruling granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
in the case captioned CTYSON MANKER, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, and NATIONAL VETERANS COUNCIL FOR LEGAL
REDRESS, on behalf of itself, its members, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD V. SPENCER, Secretary of the Navy,
Defendant. Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-372 (CSH). (D. Conn.).

The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of Navy and Marine
Corps veterans who were allegedly denied discharge upgrades by the
Naval Discharge Review Board in a manner violative of the
Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs move this Court to certify a proposed
class consisting of all Navy, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps, and
Marine Corps Reserve veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan Era who:

   (a) were discharged with less than honorable discharges,

   (b) have not received discharge upgrades to Honorable, and

   (c) have diagnoses of PTSD, TBI, or PTSD-related conditions, or
records documenting one or more symptoms of PTSD, TBI, or
PTSD-related conditions at the time of discharge, attributable to
their military service.

Numerosity

The Defendant does not appear to contest that the Plaintiffs'
proposed class satisfies the numerosity requirement. However, it is
the the Plaintiffs' affirmative burden to demonstrate all class
action factors, and so the Court will examine the Plaintiffs'
arguments. The Plaintiffs submit that the NDRB has denied more than
85 percent of applications from hundreds of veterans with PTSD
since issuance of the Hagel Memo. These applications were
improperly subjected to the presumption of regularity in
governmental affairs, which unfairly disadvantaged them. The
Plaintiffs also cite additional statistics concerning the number of
Navy and Marine Corps veterans with less-than-Honorable discharges
and those with PTSD, TBI, or related diagnoses.

The Second Circuit presumption for numerosity has been met. Even if
the NDRB denied 85 percent of only a hundred PTSD-affected Navy and
Marine Corps veterans' applications, there would be at least
eighty-five applicants who may have a claim.  

Commonality

The Plaintiffs offer five potential common questions. These
questions concern, in brief, whether the Defendant acted
arbitrarily and capriciously without supporting evidence,
frustrated class members' ability to prepare successful
applications, failed to maintain important records, improperly
practiced a policy of presuming regularity in government affairs,
and demonstrated a systemic institutional bias against class
members. The Defendant maintains the answer to all these questions
is no.

He asserts that the Plaintiffs have provided no evidence
establishing commonality or typicality about the claims in this
case that would make class certification appropriate.

On the basis of the limited facts known to the Court so far, the
Plaintiffs have demonstrated an injury in fact that is a concrete
and particularized harm to a legally protected interest. The
proposed class of veterans appears to have suffered an injury, a
denied upgrade of their discharge certification which, in turn,
affected their eligibility for benefits like the GI Bill program,
and, ironically, PTSD treatment from the Department of Veterans
Affairs.  

Moreover, their injury seems traceable to the Department of the
Navy's alleged misapplication of the Hagel Memo and related policy.
Defendant acknowledges that the NDRB referenced the Hagel Memo
without indicating how or to what extent it was applying the memo's
guidance. Defendant also acknowledges that the NDRB began applying
the liberal consideration standard after Congress codified the
standard in December 2016, but Under Secretary Andrew Kurta had to
issue clarifying guidance in August 2017.   

The Defendant also points out that there are varying due process
rights that apply to the different ways a service member can
separate from the Navy or Marine Corps. For example, a Sailor or
Marine who meets requisite service requirements or is recommended
for an other than honorable discharge will go through an
administrative separation board or a Board of Inquiry. Plaintiffs
do not appear to argue this point, and indeed, their grievances are
aimed at the NDRB, not any other adjudicatory board. This can be
remedied by narrowing the proposed class definition. Accordingly,
the Court will revise the proposed class definition, in part, to
limit the class to those who have not received upgrades of their
discharge statuses to Honorable from the NDRB only, to avoid a
blanket inclusion of those denied upgrades to Honorable from all
Navy records-correction boards.

With this limitation in place, the proposed class of members
fulfill the requirements of the commonality prong. They share the
same injury of being subject to the NDRB's purportedly unfair
review process for characterization upgrade applications. A single
lawsuit on their behalf would answer the questions raised by
Plaintiffs, and likely other questions, common to all members'
individual claims and conclude with a result appropriate for all
members.

Typicality

The Plaintiffs present two veterans' experiences as representative
of the NDRB's general treatment of certification upgrade
applications from those with PTSD, TBI, or PTSD-related conditions.
Named Plaintiff Manker had presented evidence to the NDRB of his
PTSD diagnosis, but the NDRB's rejection of his application
purportedly failed to apply the liberal consideration standard.
Doe, a member of Named Plaintiff NVCLR, also developed PTSD from
his military service, but was denied an upgrade from the NDRB for
each of his three applications.

The two NDRB explanations for denying Doe's applications, attached
as exhibits to the Complaint, also include the same or similar
lines about how, despite the applicant's belief, PTSD did not
excuse his willful misconduct. Along with other similarities
between Manker and Doe's experiences, this suggests that the NDRB
may have used the same standard to decide on applications for
certification upgrades, but it was likely not the liberal
consideration standard that Plaintiffs allege should have been used
instead. This is also the chief contention of this class action
suit. Manker and Doe both allegedly suffered the same injury of
having been subject to the NDRB's usage of an incorrect standard,
which is also the injury that they allege applies to proposed class
members. Resolution of their claims would seem to resolve class
members' claims because all of the claims arise from the NDRB's
general policies and practices.   

Hence, the Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the class. For this
reason too, the Court rejects the Defendant's argument that review
of certification upgrades is too individualized for a class-wide
resolution. Plaintiffs' claims challenge the general policies
allegedly disadvantaging both Named Plaintiffs' and the proposed
class members' applications, regardless of their applications'
individual merits. The Court is satisfied that the legal arguments
Named Plaintiffs would be making are those that other proposed
class members would be making as well because they have suffered
the same injury from the NDRB, and thus finds that Plaintiffs have
satisfied the requirements of the typicality prong.

Fair and Adequate Representation

Named Plaintiffs appear to have adequate incentive to pursue claims
on behalf of the class, fulfilling the vigorous prosecution
requirement. They seek fairer adjudication procedures, under which
they believe they would qualify for certification upgrades. A
change in procedures would benefit both Named Plaintiffs and
proposed class members by at least affording them the belief that
their applications will be held up to the correct standards.  

The Defendant's arguments with respect to the adequate
representation prong are mainly aimed at the second requirement of
having no antagonistic fundamental interests. He claims that
Plaintiffs, by seeking judicial intervention, delay proposed class
members from receiving relief because they would otherwise get
relief from immediately re-applying to the NDRB. This claim has two
fatal weaknesses. First, this assumes that the NDRB has already
remedied its review process, a fact that the parties dispute.

Second, even if it were true the NDRB process was already fixed,
Defendant has not explained how Plaintiffs' and proposed class
members' interests are fundamentally antagonistic to one another.
Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of having the NDRB adhere to the
proper procedures and standards a fundamental interest of both
Plaintiffs and class members. In this regard, the interests of the
class members are identical. The Court fails to see how interests
would be in conflict here. If the Plaintiffs ultimately prevail,
then class members will benefit from a properly reformed NDRB
review process. If the Defendant prevails, then class members will
have confidence that their upgrade applications are being reviewed
fully and fairly.

As for the qualifications of counsel, the Court is satisfied.
Plaintiffs' attorneys, Yale Law School's Veterans Legal Services
Clinic and Jenner & Block LLP, have had significant experience
litigating class actions, some on behalf of veterans, and
litigating individual veterans' claims against military review
boards. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately fulfilled
the fair and adequate representation requirement. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs have met the prerequisites for class certification under
Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 23(b)(2) Requirements

Rule 23(b)(2) applies only when a single injunction or declaratory
judgment would provide relief to each member of the class.  

The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, asking the Court on behalf
of the class to direct measures sufficient to ensure that Defendant
establishes constitutionally and statutorily compliant adjudication
procedures and measures sufficient to ensure that Defendant
meaningfully and consistently applies its own procedural standards
in considering the effects of class members' PTSD when determining
whether to upgrade their discharge statutes. Defendant contends
that such injunctive relief is unneeded because the NDRB is already
following the proper policy, and, in any case, class-wide relief is
inappropriate for the individualized nature of the NDRB review
process.  

The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs that while the outcome of any
single NDRB proceeding may depend to some extent on individual
facts, Defendant's alleged systemic failure to apply its own
official standards is a general course of conduct uniting the
proposed class. The injunctions sought would provide relief to each
member of the class because, although they would not guarantee each
member an upgrade to an Honorable disposition, they would ensure
that their applications are being reviewed under the standard that
both Plaintiffs and Defendant say applies to the NDRB.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have met the
threshold for a class action under Rule 23(b)(2).

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 15, 2018 Ruling
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yalnhmbj from Leagle.com.

Tyson Manker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated & National Veterans Council for Legal Redress, on behalf
of itself, its members, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Jessica A. Martinez --
jmartinez@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Michael J. Wishnie,
Jerome N. Frank Legal Services, Jeremy M. Creelan --
jcreelan@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block, LLP, Jeremy H. Ershow --
jershow@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP & Susan J. Kohlmann --
skohlmann@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP.

Richard V Spencer, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant, represented by
David Christopher Nelson , U.S. Attorney's Office.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Inflates Prescription Drug Prices, Sohmer Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA SOHMER and KATHY L. FELLGREN, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. UNITEDHEALTH
GROUP INC., UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., UNITED HEALTHCARE
INSURANCE COMPANY, OPTUM, INC., and OPTUMRX, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 0:18-cv-03191 (D. Minn., Nov. 15, 2018), alleges that
Defendants caused Plaintiffs to be overcharged for medically
necessary prescription drugs.

The Plaintiffs bring this action, on behalf of themselves and two
Classes of similarly situated persons, to remedy Defendants' common
scheme to artificially inflate prescription drug costs. The
Plaintiff alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiff, on behalf of the Non-ERISA
Class, alleges state law claims for breach of contract, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the
Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and unjust
enrichment.

According to the complaint, About 90 percent of all United States
citizens are now enrolled in private or public health plans that
cover some, or all, of the costs of medical and prescription drug
benefits. A feature of most of these plans is the shared cost of
prescription drugs. Normally, when a patient fills a prescription
for a medically necessary prescription drug under his or her health
care plan, the plan/insurer pays a portion of the cost and the
patient pays the remaining portion of the cost directly to the
pharmacy in the form of a copayment (often a set dollar amount),
coinsurance (often a percentage of the contracted rate), or
deductible payment. Defendants directed the pharmacies to collect
these cost-sharing payments on Defendants' behalf from patients at
the time the prescription is filled. Pharmacies are not allowed to
waive or reduce the amount collected under the plans.

The Defendants administer health and pharmacy benefits provided to
patients. Defendant OptumRx, a wholly owned subsidiary of
UnitedHealth Group, serves as the prescription benefits manager to
UnitedHealthcare members. PBM services include, inter alia:
participating in managing a network of pharmacies that will serve
as participating pharmacies at which Defendants' patients obtain
prescriptions; working with the other Defendants to set and dictate
co-payment amounts, coinsurance amounts, and deductibles (if
applicable) to pharmacies; and processing prescription drug claims
and interfacing with patients and pharmacies regarding applicable
prescription drug coverage.

The Defendants have engaged in a scheme to overcharge patients for
the cost of medically necessary prescription drugs. Patients,
including Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes, paid excessive
charges to participating pharmacies for prescription drugs. Under
their Plans, Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' cost-sharing
amounts were limited to the amount paid to the pharmacy
for prescription drugs. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and the Class
Members, Defendants forced the pharmacies to misrepresent the
cost-sharing amounts for prescription drugs and charge Plaintiffs
and Class Members excessive amounts and forced patients to pay
excessive cost-sharing amounts. Plaintiffs paid co-payments and
co-insurance in excess of the cash price for their prescriptions.
These excessive payments by patients were then collected by the
pharmacies and "clawed back" from the pharmacies by Defendants, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
          David A. Goodwin, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  awilliams@gustafsongluek.com
                  dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          Craig A. Raabe, Esq.
          Christopher M. Barrett, Esq.
          IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: 860-493-6292
          Facsimile: 860-493-6290
          E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com
                  craabe@ikrlaw.com
                  cbarrett@ikrlaw.com

               - and -

          William H. Narwold, Esq.
          Mathew Jasinski, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          One Corporate Center
          20 Church Street, 17th Floor
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: 860-882-1681
          Facsimile: 860-882-1682
          E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com
                  mjasinski@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
          Gretchen S. Obrist, Esq.
          Matthew Gerend, Esq.
          Garrett Heilma, Esq.n
          KELLER ROHRBACK, LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Telephone: 206-623-1900
          Facsimile: 206-623-3384
          E-mail: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
                  gobrist@kellerrohrback.com
                  mgerend@kellerrohrback.com
                  gheilman@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Carey Alexander, Esq.
          Erin Green Comite, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT,
          ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: 212-223-6444
          Facsimile: 212-223-6334
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                  calexander@scott-scott.com
                  ecomite@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Ronen Sarraf, Esq.
          Joseph Gentile, Esq.
          SARRAF GENTILE LLP
          14 Bond Street, Suite 212
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: 516-699-8890
          Facsimile: 516-699-8968
          ronen@sarrafgentile.com
          E-mail: joseph@sarrafgentile.com

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Loses Bid to Decertify Meal Period Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lucy H. Koh denies Wal-Mart's motion to decertify the meal
period class certified in the lawsuit captioned RODERICK MAGADIA v.
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-00062-LHK (N.D.
Cal.).

Roderick 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.  In January 2018,
the Court certified three classes: the meal period class, the
OVERTIME/INCT wage statement class, and the final wage statement
class.  Now, Wal-Mart moves to decertify the meal period class.
Having considered the parties' submissions, the relevant law, and
the record in this case, the Court denies Wal-Mart's motion to
decertify the meal period class.

The Court determined in its class certification order that with
respect to Wal-Mart's liability to 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 class members
'on a class-wide basis,' which warrants certification," Judge Koh
opines.[CC]


WESTPAC BANKING: Australian Class Action Still Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------
Westpac Banking Corporation said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, that the class action
suit filed before the Federal Court of Australia has been stayed.

On October 12, 2017, a class action was filed in the Federal Court
of Australia on behalf of customers who, since October 2011,
obtained insurance issued by Westpac Life Insurance Services
Limited (WLIS) on the recommendation of financial advisers employed
within the Westpac Group.

The plaintiffs have alleged that aspects of the financial advice
provided by those advisers breached fiduciary and statutory duties
owed to the advisers' clients, including the duty to act in the
best interests of the client, and that WLIS was knowingly involved
in those alleged breaches.  

Westpac and WLIS are defending the proceedings.  

These proceedings are currently stayed by order of the Court,
pending the outcome of an appeal concerning a procedural issue
unrelated to the substantive claims made in the class action.

Westpac Banking Corporation provides various banking and financial
services in Australia, New Zealand, Asia, the Pacific region, and
internationally. It operates through five divisions: Consumer Bank,
Business Bank, BT Financial Group, Westpac Institutional Bank, and
Westpac New Zealand. The company was formerly known as Bank of New
South Wales and changed its name to Westpac Banking Corporation in
October 1982. The company was founded in 1817 and is headquartered
in Sydney, Australia.


WORLD WRESTLING: Haynes Appeals Ruling in Retired Wrestlers' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff William Albert Haynes, III, filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Russ McCullough, et al. v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, et al., Case No. 15-cv-1074, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 5, 2018, the
District Court issued a Memorandum granting the Defendants' Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings in the case captioned RUSS
McCULLOUGH, et al. Plaintiffs, v. WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT,
INC., Defendant, WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Plaintiff, v.
ROBERT WINDHAM, THOMAS BILLINGTON, JAMES WARE, and OREALPERRAS,
Defendants, JOSEPH M. LAURINAITIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WORLD
WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC. and VINCENT K. McMAHON Defendants,
Civil Action Nos. 3:15-CV-1074 (VLB) Lead Case, 3:15-CV-994 (VLB)
Consolidated Case, Civil ACTION No. 3:16-CV-1209 (VLB) Consolidated
Case. (D. Conn.).

The Plaintiff's counsel, Konstantine Kyros, filed the first of six
lawsuits on behalf of former WWE wrestlers, alleging they are
either suffering from symptoms of permanent degenerative
neurological conditions resulting from traumatic brain injuries
sustained during their employment, or are at increased risk of
developing such conditions.

The appellate case is captioned as Russ McCullough, et al. v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, et al., Case No. 18-3278, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant William Albert Haynes, III, is represented by:

          Charles Joseph LaDuca, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          8120 Woodmont Avenue
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (240) 483-4301
          E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          7733 Forsyth Boulevard
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 226-1015
          E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          William M. Bloss, Esq.
          KOSKOFF KOSKOFF & BIEDER, P.C.
          350 Fairfield Avenue
          Bridgeport, CT 06604
          Telephone: (203) 336-4421
          E-mail: bbloss@koskoff.com

               - and -

          Konstantine W. Kyros, Esq.
          KYROS LAW OFFICES
          17 Miles Road
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (800) 934-2921
          E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com

               - and -

          Erica Mirabella, Esq.
          MIRABELLA LAW, LLC
          132 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 580-8270
          E-mail: Erica@mirabellaLLC.com

               - and -

          Harris L. Pogust, Esq.
          POGUST BRASLOW & MILLROOD, LLC
          Eight Tower Bridge
          161 Washington Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 941-4204
          E-mail: hpogust@pbmattorneys.com

               - and -

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

Defendant-Appellee World Wrestling Entertainment, Incorporated, is
represented by:

          Curtis B. Krasik, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          K&L Gates Center
          210 6th Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 355-6500
          E-mail: curtis.krasik@klgates.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Mueller, Esq.
          DAY PITNEY LLP
          242 Trumbull Street
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 275-0164
          E-mail: jmueller@daypitney.com


YAHOO! INC: Court Grants Final Approval of Wahl Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued a Judgment granting
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval to the Class Action
Settlement Agreement in the case captioned ANDREW WAHL, Plaintiff,
v. YAHOO! INC., a Delaware corporation dba RIVALS.COM; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 5:17-cv-02745-BLF.
(N.D. Cal.).

The Court certifies the following class for purposes of settlement:
all customers in California who were charged on a recurring basis
by Rivals.com for auto-renewal subscriptions entered into between
March 31, 2013 and the present. Certification of this Settlement
Class meets all requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23.

The Settlement Class was provided with adequate notice of the
settlement and an opportunity to object or opt out. The notice
satisfied all applicable legal requirements, including those under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and the United States
Constitution.

The Defendant served on the appropriate government officials a
notice of proposed settlement that complies with the Class Action
Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1715 et seq.

The Settlement Agreement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and
reasonable. The Court specifically approves the terms of the
Settlement Agreement providing that class members who do nothing in
response to the class notice will receive either 5 months (annual
subscribers) or 3 months (monthly subscribers) of free subscription
services to Rivals.com, and that class members may elect to receive
either $20 in cash (annual subscribers) or $10 in cash (monthly
subscribers) in lieu of free subscription services. The Court
approves Defendant's agreement to modify the subscription page for
Rivals.com. The Court also approves the release language set forth
in the Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant
shall pay the Settlement Administrator's reasonable fees and
expenses.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff Yuan
Guo is granted an incentive award in the amount of $5,000, to be
paid by Defendant.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiff is
awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $285,313.66 and expenses
in the amount of $14,686.34, to be paid by the Defendant.

No class members having opted out of the class, all members of the
Settlement Class are enjoined from asserting, or attempting to
assert, any of the claims released by the Settlement Agreement.

All class claims against Defendant are dismissed with prejudice and
without costs, with the exception of the award of attorneys' fees
and expenses herein.

Without affecting the finality of the dismissal or of this
Judgment, the Court retains jurisdiction over all parties to this
action and all Settlement Class members for the purpose of
implementing and enforcing the Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 15, 2018 Judgment
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybxfu68l from Leagle.com.

Juan Guo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Allen Horn --
rhorn@hab-law.com -- Horn Aylward and Bandy, LLC, pro hac vice &
Joseph Kronawitter -- jkronawitter@hab-law.com -- Horn Aylward and
Bandy.

Yahoo! Inc., Yahoo! Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Timothy William Loose -- tloose@gibsondunn.com --
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Matthew Stewart Kahn --
mkahn@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Perlette
Michele Jura -- pjura@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn Crutcher LLP &
Peter C. Squeri -- psqueri@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP.



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***