CAR_Public/181210.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, December 10, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 246

                            Headlines

23 INNOVATIONS: Jimenez et al. Seek Minimum Wage & OT Pay
2800 RESTAURANT: Faces Cuahua et al. Wage & Hour Suit
ABBVIE INC: Enters Into Confidential Term Sheet in TRT-Related Suit
ACTELION PHARMA: Sued over Bosentan Drug Anticompetitive Scheme
ADVANCE AUTO: Still Defends Delaware Class Action

AIR EVAC: Removed Peck Case to Eastern District of Kentucky
AIR RESOURCES: Underpays Safety Consultants, Cooper Suit Says
AKORN, INC: Directors Sued over Misleading Report, Merger Deal
ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Seeks Preliminary Approval of Cal. Settlement
ALBANY SHAKER: Avery et al. Sue over No-Poach Policy

ALLIANCE MMA: Shapiro Class Action Dismissed
ALLIANCE ONE: Proceedings in Voeks et al. Suit Stayed
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Bakhturidze Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS: Leavitt Securities Class Suit Ongoing
AMAZON.COM: Settlement Class Certified in Hargrett  & Austin Cases

AMERATHON LLC: McBride Seeks Overtime Premium
AMERICAN FINANCE: Bid to Dismiss St. Clair-Hibbard Suit Pending
AMERICAN HONDA: Wires Being Chewed by Rodents, Caracci CIaims
AMERICAN VANGUARD: Scheduling Conference Set for June 2019
AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: National Prescription Opiate Suit Stayed

APOGEE ENTERPRISES: Mayer Sues over Inflated Stock Price
ARS NATIONAL: Calonge Files Class Action Under FDCPA
ASARCO LLC: Contreras Sues over Health Care Benefit Cuts
ASSOCIATED SUPERMARKET: Underpays Produce Workers, Cerda Alleges
ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE: Moody Seeks to Certify Class of Employees

AVANOS MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Jackson Class Suit
AXION LLC: Oraegbu Seeks Unpaid Overtime
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued over Multiple Non-Sufficient Funds Fees
BANK OZK: Faces Colbert Suit over 26% Drop in Share
BAUSCH HEALTH: Timber Hill Suit Consolidated with Existing Case

BAYCARE HEALTH: Court Certifies Class of Employees & Applicants
BIRD RIDES: Labowitz Sues over Use of Electric Scooters
BLUE APRON: Bid to Nix IPO-Related Class Suit in E.D.N.Y. Pending
BOND NO. 9 FRAGRANCE: Faces Figueroa Suit in S.D. New York
BRIDGESTONE RETAIL: Underpays Store Managers, Berry and Wade Say

BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Dismissed from Roycroft Class Suit
CAFEPRESS INC: Faces Beck Suit over Snapfish Merger
CAMELBAK PRODUCTS: Removed Morales Case to C.D. California
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Bennett Class Action Remains Stayed
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Butler Class Action Remains Stayed

CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Challenges Dismissal of West & Hopson Suit
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Time to Appeal 10th Cir.'s Order Expires
CHECKR INC: Sanders Sues over Credit Background Reports
CHEGG INC: Kurland Sues over Share Price Drop
CHICAGO TRANSIT: Taylor Seeks OT Pay for Bus Operators

CHICAGO, IL: Hernandez et al. Allege Political Discrimination
CLASSIC TRANSPORTERS: Reyes Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
CLEARWAY ENERGY: Bid to Quash Service of Summons in Braun Granted
CLIENT SERVICES: Violates FDCPA, Quinn Suit Says
COMDATA INC: Kozieja Sues over Unwanted Text Messages

COOK COUNTY, IL: Raymond Jones Seeks Overtime Pay
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Zwanetz Seeks Overtime Compensation
CRES PROPERTY: Ware Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class & Subclass
CST OIL & GAS: Fails to Pay OT to Helpers, Cartagena Alleges
DANIA MANAGEMENT: Thomas Seeks OT Pay for Dunkin' Donuts Workers

DARKTRACE INC: Der-Hacopian Sues over Credit Background Checks
DELIVERY DRIVERS: Hill Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DTLR, INC: Smith Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
DUCT-MAN MECHANICAL: Natar Seeks Overtime Compensation
DYCK O'NEAL: Robbins Sues over Debt Collection Practices

ETSY INC: Cervantes and Weiss Class Actions Dismissed
EVOQUA WATER: McWilliams Sues over 34% Stock Price Drop
EXPERIAN DATA: Patton et al. Seek to Certify 3 Data Breach Classes
FACEBOOK INC: Schmidt Sues over Data Breach
FACIAL REJUVENATION: Sued over Telemarketing Text Messages

FAIRWAY INDEPENDENT: LeFever Seeks OT Premium Wages
FEDERAL SIGNAL: Status Hearing on Class Certification Bid Held
FIRST CHOICE: Schaffer & Fabricant Sue over Telemarketing Calls
FITBIT INC: Patti Sues over Misleading Financial Report
FMC CORP: Parties in Canadian Suit Agree to $2.5MM Settlement

FORTERRA INC: Class Suit over IPO Underway
FREEPORT VENTURES: Harris Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
GC SERVICES: Thomas Suit Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
GEARY PACIFIC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Valdez Suit Alleges
GENERAL MILLS: Jackson Case Removed to S.D. California

GLZ EXCAVATING: Sanchez Rivas Seeks Full Earned Wages
GOGO INC: Still Defends Pierrelouis Class Action in Illinois
GOLDEN 1 CREDIT: Ware Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime
GOPRO INC: Larkin's Amended Class Action Complaint Denied
GORDON COMPANIES: Conner Suit Asserts Disabilities Breach

GOSMITH INC: Grossberg Sues over Unauthorized Text Messages
GR INTL: Sued over Unsolicited Telemarketing Text Messages
HAUTE COIFFURE: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Lemus Says
HAYTI, MO: Hamilton Appeals E.D. Mo. Ruling to Eighth Circuit
HEALTH SERVICES: Foster et al. Seek Unpaid Wages for Home Cleaners

HIBACHI EXPRESS: Rodriguez Seeks Minimum & OT Pay
HUAQUECHULA RESTAURANT: Tapia et al. Seek Unpaid Wages for Waiters
HUMANA AT HOME: Motion to Certify Class Placed under Advisement
IBERIA FOODS: Octopus Products Contain Squid, Suit Claims
INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Faces Tchatchou Securities Suit in N.Y.

JAMAICA PANCAKE: Underpays Servers, Ramkalup Suit Alleges
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Baniaks Sue over Sale of Talcum-Based Products
JPMORGAN CHASE: Charles Sues for Futures Contract Price-fixing
JPMORGAN CHASE: Manipulates Precious Metal Futures Trade, Ryan Says
KANSAS: Sued over Deficiencies in Foster Care System

KIRSCHENBAUM & PHILLIPS: Sued over Debt Collections Practices
KIWI OF GAINESVILLE: New Seeks Minimum Wage & OT under FLSA
LA SLAUSON PROPERTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chou Suit Claims
LAUREL & WOLF: Macmillan Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
LEAFFILTER NORTH: Faces Tilleman Suit in W.D. Texas

LEARJET INC: Wood et al. Sue over Adverse Employment Action
LERCY'S, LLC: Martin Seeks Unpaid Overtime
LOGMEIN INC: Wasson Securities Suit Transferred to Massachusetts
LYFT INC: Court Compels Arbitration in Peterson FCRA Suit
MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: California Securities Suit Underway

MACON INC: Hughes Seeks Overtime Compensation for Welders
MALCOLM CISNEROS: Aikens Seeks to Certify Class
MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Rockford Class Action Ongoing
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Continues to Defend MSP Recovery Class Suit
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Employee Stock Purchase Plan Suit Remains Stayed

MARRIOTT INT'L: Overstates Hotel Room Sizes, Buttenwieser Claims
MARTE CONSTRUCTION: Cantu et al. Seek Unpaid Overtime
MASGAD CORP: Gonzalez Seeks Minimum Wages
MASONITE CORP: Sued over Price Fixing of Interior Molded Doors
MEDFORD NURSERY: Sancho Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

MEDICAL NECESSITIES: Jenkins-Queen Seeks Overtime Pay
METRO CHRYSLER: Brutus Suit Moved to Queens County State Court
METROWIRELESS 167: Lopez et al. Seek Unpaid Wages
MIDWEST TANKERMEN: Ronald Neill Seeks Overtime Pay
MISSISSIPPI:11th Cir. Affirms Quashal of Death Row Inmates' Suit

MOBILE COUNTY, AL: Yates et al. Seek to Certify Class
MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Tennessee Suit Pending
MONRO MUFFLER: Naszkiewicz Suit Moved to District of Florida
MOVEONORG CIVIC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Delshad Suit Claims
MYLAN NV: Israeli Securities Suit Still Stayed

MYLAN NV: Trial in EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector Suit in July 2020
NANTKWEST INC: Settlement in Principle Reached in Sudunagunta Suit
NATIONAL STAFFING: Mojica Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
NATIONWIDE COURT: Ruiz Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Class Cert. Sought in Mental Health Services Case

NEW JERSEY: Governor Murphy Faces Fischer et al. Suit
NEW YORK: MSP Recovery Sues for Medicare Reimbursements
NEWS AMERICA: Bolsinger Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California
NIAGARA CREDIT: Oliver Consumer Suit Transferred to W.D. New York
NOVATION COMPANIES: Appeal in NJ Carpenters Suit Dismissed as Moot

NOVUS THERAPEUTICS: Consolidated with Wu Class Action Suit
NURIA'S RESTAURANTE: Reyes et al. Seek Minimum & OT Pay
NUTRITION RITE: Pan et al. Seek Minimum & OT Wages
OCWEN LOAN: Sued over Fraudulent Assessment of Inspection Fees
OFF STREET CAFE: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Cooks, Hernandez Says

OHIO NATIONAL: Browning Sues over Sale of Variable Annuity Policy
OKLAHOMA: Court Declares Bid to Dismiss Parga Suit as Moot
OLSON RESEARCH: Retina Assoc. Sues over Unsolicited Fax Ads
OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: $18.5MM Placed Into Escrow in "Nallagonda"
OVASCIENCE INC: Wheby Balks at Merger Deal with Millendo

PALM BEACH SPORTS: Velardo Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing
PANDORA MEDIA: Knapp Balks at Merger Deal with Sirius XM
PANDORA MEDIA: Raul Files Securities Suit Over Sale to Sirius
PAPA MURPHY'S: Settlement of Lennartson Case Wins Final Approval
PBF HOLDING: Goldstein Class Action Ongoing

PBF HOLDING: Unit Faces Kendig Class Suit
PHILIPS NA: Website not Accessible to Blind, Martinez Says
PIER 59: Vargas Seeks Unpaid Wages, Alleges Time-Shaving
PISA GROUP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Williams Suit Alleges
PLASTIPAK PACKAGING: Certification of Collective Action Sought

POLLO OPERATIONS: Wins Final Nod of Settlement in Preman Suit
PONTIAC, MI: $4.25MM Settlement in Health Care Benefits Suit OK'd
PRECISION CONCEPTS: Lewis Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
QUICK DELIVERY: Martinez Seeks Overtime Wages for Drivers
QUINTANA ENERGY: Unit Still Defends Class Suit Over FLSA Violation

QUORUM HEALTH: Bid to Drop 3rd Amended Zwick Complaint Pending
RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Failed to Pay Wages & OT, Reilly Says
RECRO PHARMA: Continues to Defend IV Meloxicam-Related Suit
RIPPLE LABS: Removed Cryptocurrency Exchange Case to N.D. Cal.
ROADRUNNER TRANS: Time to Reply Extended in Wisconsin Class Suit

ROBERT BOSCH: Faces Hockensmith et al. Suit in M.D. Florida
ROLAND FOOD: Octopus Products Contain Squid, Fonseca Claims
ROOF DEPOT: Lezama Seeks Overtime and Minimum Wages
ROWAN COMPANIES: Vladimir Gusinsky Balks at Merger Deal with Ensco
RYANAIR HOLDINGS: Faces Suit over 36% Drop in Share Price

SCHOLASTIC INC: Sued over Unlawful Reproduction of Photographs
SCI DIRECT: Ct. Lifts Stay in Romano Suit; Settlement Due Dec. 17
SCYNEXIS INC: Gibson Class Action Dismissed
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Hall Plaintiffs Agree Not to Appeal
SEQUIUM ASSET: Snow Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices

SERGEANT'S PET: Sentry Natural Products are Toxic, Johnson Says
SERVICESOURCE INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Patton Class Action
SH GENERAL: Rojas et al Seek Payment of Wages and Overtime
SH GENERAL: Ruangsang Seeks Overtime Pay
SHUTTERFLY INC: Suit v. Directors of Lifetouch, Inc. Dismissed

SILVER LAKE: Hallandale Beach Plan Sues over Proposed Merger
SMYTH AUTOMOTIVE: White et al. Seek Overtime Pay
STITCH FIX: San Giorgi Sues over Misleading Financial Report
SUNRISE SUPERMARKET: Martinez Seeks Overtime Pay
SUNTUITY SOLAR: Rogers Sues over Text Message Advertisements

SYKES ENTERPRISES: Faces Kronzer Suit over Credit Background Check
TARGET MARKETING: Showe-Gai Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
TECHPRECISION CORP: Suit Against Ranor, Inc. Ongoing
TIM JUNGBLUT: Underpays Truck Drivers, Akers and Zacharias Claim
TOPSTAR TECH: Misrepresents Power Bank Capacity, Mazzone Claims

TRANS1 INC: Court Approves $3.25MM Securities Settlement
TREVENA INC: Louis Sues over Stock Price Plunge
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Merger-Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
TYSON FOODS: Bid to Drop Broiler Chicken Grower Suit Still Pending
TYSON FOODS: Bid to Drop Duryea Class Action Suit Pending

TYSON FOODS: Still Defends Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit
U.S. BANK: Guiette Seeks Approval of Settlement
UNIT CORP: Continues to Defend Panola Independent School Class Suit
UNITED COLLECTION: Ostreicher Sues over Debt Collections Practices
UNITED NATURAL: Guerra Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California

UNITED STATES: Certification of Children's Class Sought in JL Suit
UNITED STATES: Kuang et al. Seek to Certify to Class
UPS STORE: Richardson Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts
USF REDDAWAY: Court Denies Class Certification as Moot
UTILITY CONCIERGE: Fails to Pay OT to Concierges, Burke Alleges

VALLEY SUPERMARKET: Hernandez Seeks Overtime Pay
VEREIT INC: Continues to Defend Realistic Partners Class Suit
VICTORIA CRUISES: Website not Accessible to Blind, Diaz Says
VITAL RECOVERY: Dagostino Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
VIVINT SOLAR: Attorneys' Fees and Costs in Alameda Suit Settled

VIVINT SOLAR: Continues to Defend TCPA Class Suit in D.C.
WALSH CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Katona Alleges
WELLS FARGO: Approval of Interchange Litig. Accord Pending
WELLS FARGO: Class Certification Sought in Suits over ATDS
WELLS FARGO: Continues to Defend ATM Access Fee-Related Suits

WELLS FARGO: Continues to Defend Order of Posting-Related Suit
WELLS FARGO: Final Fairness Hearing in Cotton et al. Suit in March
WENDY'S CO: Feb. 25 Final Approval Hearing on Torres Deal
WEST COAST QUARTZ: Luis Mendoza Seeks Unpaid Wages
WESTERN MILLING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Benitez et al. Claim

XO GROUP: Sued over Misleading Report, Merger with WeddingWire
YOUNIQUE LLC: Schmitt's Bid to Certify Class Under Submission
ZIKS HOME: Underpays Home Healthcare Aids, Brown Suit Alleges

                            *********

23 INNOVATIONS: Jimenez et al. Seek Minimum Wage & OT Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
ARTURO JIMENEZ, FELIPE OCH SUY, ISAIAS ENMANUEL GONZALEZ TULUXAN,
BANNER LOPEZ ESTRADA and DANY JOSUE CASTANON LOPEZ, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 23
INNOVATIONS INC. (D/B/A BLUE DOG KITCHEN BAR), YES FOOD LLC (D/B/A
BLUE DOG CAFE), EMERALD STAFFING INC. (D/B/A BLUE DOG KITCHEN
DELIVERY), YANNA SLAVUTSKY, BORIS SLAVUTSKY, YURI HANIN, ELIZABETH
SLAVUTSKY, ELIZABETH GARCIA, ALEXANDRA DOE, and LAUREN DOE, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10749 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2018), seeks
minimum wage and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs have ostensibly been
employed as delivery workers. However, they have been required to
spend a considerable part of their work day performing non-tipped
duties, including but not limited to sweeping and mopping the
hallway, the kitchen, and the bathroom, organizing the inventory,
sweeping and raking the sidewalk, cleaning the toilet and the sink,
tying up cardboard boxes, stocking supplies and deliveries, washing
the dishes and salad containers, taking out the trash, making fork
and knife sets, putting paper bags inside plastic bags for
delivery, cutting and bagging bread, refilling soap bottles,
preparing soup and small popcorn bags, and dropping off or picking
up food to and from the other Blue Dog locations.

The Plaintiffs have worked for Defendants without appropriate
minimum wage compensation for the hours that they have worked.
Rather, Defendants have failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping
of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for
any hours worked at the straight rate of pay, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

2800 RESTAURANT: Faces Cuahua et al. Wage & Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
GASPAR MAYAHUA CUAHUA, JAVIER ZOPIYACTLE CUAHUA, and SERGIO CUAHUA
MAYAHUA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. 2800 RESTAURANT CORP. (D/B/A THE MANCHESTER
DINER), PETER POLITIS, AARON DOE, and GIANNI DOE, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-10680 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018), seeks minimum
wage and overtime compensation under Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York Labor Law.

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

Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the required "spread
of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours a
day. Furthermore, Defendants repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiffs
wages on a timely basis. Defendants employed and accounted for
Plaintiffs as delivery workers in their payroll, but in actuality
their duties required a significant amount of time spent performing
non-tipped duties, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

ABBVIE INC: Enters Into Confidential Term Sheet in TRT-Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that the company has entered into
a confidential term sheet with representatives of the Plaintiffs'
Steering Committee in the MDL proceeding for the settlement of
existing claims in all courts.

Product liability cases are pending in which plaintiffs generally
allege that AbbVie and other manufacturers of testosterone
replacement therapies (TRTs) did not adequately warn about risks of
certain injuries, primarily heart attacks, strokes and blood clots.
Approximately 4,067 claims are consolidated for pre-trial purposes
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under the MDL Rules as In re: Testosterone Replacement
Therapy Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2545. Approximately
205 claims against AbbVie are pending in various state courts.

Plaintiffs generally seek compensatory and punitive damages. Six
cases have gone to trial. Four of those have resulted in complete
verdicts for AbbVie: three by juries in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois in January, May, and
June 2018, and one by a jury in the Cook County, Illinois Circuit
Court in August 2017.

Another case in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois resulted in a jury verdict for AbbVie on two
claims and for the plaintiff on one claim and an award of $150
million in punitive damages with no compensatory damages in July
2017. In orders from December 2017 and February 2018, the court
vacated that verdict and ordered a new trial.

In the March 2018 retrial, the jury reached a verdict for AbbVie on
strict liability and fraud and for the plaintiff on negligence and
awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive
damages, which is the subject of post-trial proceedings. Another
case in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois resulted in a jury verdict for AbbVie on strict
liability and for the plaintiff on remaining claims and an award of
$140,000 in compensatory damages and $140 million in punitive
damages in August 2017.

In July 2018, the court vacated that verdict and ordered a new
trial. In September 2018, AbbVie entered into a confidential term
sheet with representatives of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in
the MDL proceeding for the settlement of existing claims in all
courts.

AbbVie said, "That settlement is subject to the execution of a
definitive settlement agreement and other contingencies."

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


ACTELION PHARMA: Sued over Bosentan Drug Anticompetitive Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, City Hall 100 N. Holiday Street
Baltimore, MD 21202 County of Residence: Baltimore City, the
Plaintiff, vs. ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., Gewerbestrasse 16
CH-4123 Allschwil Switzerland District of Residence: Arlesheim
District; ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS US, INC., 5000 Shoreline Court,
Suite 200 South San Francisco, CA 94080 County of Residence: San
Mateo County; and ACTELION CLINICAL RESEARCH, INC. 1820 Chapel
Ave., Suite 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 County of Residence: Camden
County, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03560-GLR (D. Md., Nov.
19, 2018), seeks to recover damages, including treble damages,
under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.

The Plaintiff and members of the class also seek a permanent
injunction under Section 16 of the Clayton Act, prohibiting
Actelion from denying samples of Tracleer to prospective
Abbreviated New Drug Applications filers. Unless enjoined, Actelion
will continue its unlawful conduct and Plaintiff and the proposed
class will continue to bear the financial brunt of Actelion's
antitrust violations.

This case arises from Actelion's illegal scheme to maintain its
monopoly over the prescription drug bosentan. Bosentan is a dual
endothelin receptor antagonist that Actelion sells as a treatment
for pulmonary artery hypertension under the brand name "Tracleer."
PAH is a relatively rare, but chronic, and potentially fatal
disorder in which elevated blood pressure in the arteries of the
lungs causes the heart to work harder than normal. It affects
between 10,000 and 20,000 people in the U.S. -- most of them women.
PAH is a progressive condition. Without treatment, only about 70%
of patients survive a year after diagnosis. PAH is also an
extremely expensive condition to treat. In 2016, America's Health
Insurance Plans, an industry organization of health insurers,
estimated that average drug spending for PAH patients was between
$103,464 and $196,560 per year.

While Tracleer is a highly profitable drug (billions in sales for
Actelion) and Actelion's regulatory and patent exclusivity over the
use of bosentan to treat PAH expired by November 20, 2008 and
November 20, 2015, respectively, no generic manufacturer has
brought a generic bosentan to market.

Specifically, Actelion blocked would-be generic bosentan
manufacturers from obtaining samples of Tracleer. To obtain FDA
approval of a generic drug application, a generic manufacturer must
run comparison tests to establish that the brand and the generic
are bioequivalent - that is, that the generic is absorbed in the
body at the same rate and to the same extent as the brand. Doing so
requires samples of the brand product. Without these samples,
generic manufacturers cannot complete the regulatory process and
cannot bring a competing generic to market, the lawsuit says.

Actelion's anticompetitive scheme has been 100% effective. To date,
no generic Tracleer is available in the U.S. nearly three years
after the expiration of the Tracleer patent. Actelion's scheme has
forced Plaintiff and other purchasers to pay higher prices for
bosentan for far longer than they otherwise would have. Absent
Actelion’s years-long blockade, one or more generics would have
been available at or around the expiration of Tracleer's patent
protection in November 2015.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Joseph M Sellers, Esq.
          Courtney A. Elgart, Esq.
          Sharon K. Robertson, Esq.
          Donna M. Evans, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue NW 5th Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408 4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408 4699
          E-mail: jsellers@cohenmilstein.com
                  celgart@cohenmilstein.com
                  srobertson@cohenmilstein.com
                  devans@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
          Kristen Johnson, Esq.
          Hannah Schwarzschild, Esq.
          Greg Arnold, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
          SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Telephone: (617) 482 3700
          E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
                  kristenj@hbsslaw.com
                  hannas@hbsslaw.com
                  grega@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          John D. Radice, Esq.
          RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
          34 Sunset Blvd
          Long Beach, NJ 08008
          Telephone: (919) 749-3980
          E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Andre M. Davis, Esq.
          Suzanne Sangree, Esq.
          CITY OF BALTIMORE DEPARTMENT OF LAW
          City Hall, Room 109
          100 N. Holiday Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (443) 388-2190
          E-mail: Andre.Davis@baltimorecity.gov
                  Suzanne.Sangree2@baltimorecity.gov

ADVANCE AUTO: Still Defends Delaware Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended October 6, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself against a putative class action lawsuit
filed in the the United States District Court, District of
Delaware.

On February 6, 2018, a putative class action on behalf of
purchasers of the company's securities who purchased or otherwise
acquired their securities between November 14, 2016 and August 15,
2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), was commenced against the
company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court, District of Delaware.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the company's financial well-being,
business relationships, and prospects during the alleged Class
Period in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

Advance Auto Parts said, "The case is still in its preliminary
stages. We strongly dispute the allegations of the complaint and
intend to defend the case vigorously."

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

Advance Auto Parts, Inc. provides automotive replacement parts,
batteries, accessories, and maintenance items for domestic and
imported cars, vans, sport utility vehicles, and light and heavy
duty trucks. The company was founded in 1929 and is based in
Roanoke, Virginia.


AIR EVAC: Removed Peck Case to Eastern District of Kentucky
-----------------------------------------------------------
Air Evac EMS, Inc. removed case captioned JASON W. PECK,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. AIR EVAC EMS, INC., d/b/a AIR EVAC LIFETIME, the
Defendant, Case No. 18-CI-03774 (filed on Oct. 25, 2018), from the
Fayette Circuit Court to the U.S. Dsitrict Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky on Nov. 19, 2018. The Eastern District of
Kentucky Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-00615-DCR to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff sought recovery of unpaid overtime, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and punitive damages on behalf of himself
and the putative class.

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Rodney A. Harrison, Esq.
          Mallory M. Stumpf, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          7700 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 650
          St. Louise, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 802 3935
          Facsimile: (314) 802 3936
          E-mail: rodney.harrison@ogletree.com
                  mallory.stumpf@ogletree.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Charles W. Arnold, Esq.
          Christopher D. Miller, Esq.
          ARNOLD & MILLER, PLC
          401 West Main Street, Suite 303
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 381 9999
          Facsimile: (859) 389 6666
          E-mail: carnold@arnoldmillerlaw.com
                  cmiller@arnoldmillerlaw.com

               - and -

          J. Robert Cowan, Esq.
          Gerry L. Calvert, II, Esq.
          H. Gera Meyman, Esq.
          COWAN LAW OFFICE, PLC
          2401 Regency Road, Suite 300
          Lexington, KY 40503
          Telephone: (859) 523 8883
          Facsimile: (859) 523 8885
          E-mail: kylaw@cowanlawky.com
                  gcalbert@cowanlawky.com
                  gmeyman@cowanlawky.com

AIR RESOURCES: Underpays Safety Consultants, Cooper Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
DANNA COOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AIR RESOURCES AMERICAS, LLC, Defendant, and
Case No. 4:18-cv-04185 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 5, 2018) seeks to recover
from the Defendant unpaid overtime compensation, minimum wages,
interest, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as safety consultant.

Air Resources Americas, LLC is a Texas limited liability company
engaged in the business of outsourcing labor and staffing. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Telephone: (713) 868-3388
          Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
                  tpadgett@buenkerlaw.com


AKORN, INC: Directors Sued over Misleading Report, Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
DALE TRSAR, TRUSTEE OF THE DALE A. TRSAR TRUST, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated and derivatively on
behalf of AKORN, INC., the Plaintiff, vs. JOHN N. KAPOOR, RAJAT
RAI, MARK M. SILVERBERG, DUANE A. PORTWOOD, ALAN WEINSTEIN, KENNETH
S. ABRAMOWITZ, STEPHEN J. MEYER, TERRY ALLISON RAPPUHN, ADRIENNE L.
GRAVES, RONALD M. JOHNSON, and BRIAN TAMBI, the Defendants and
AKORN, INC., Defendant and Nominal Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-07374 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 6, 2018), seeks to hold Akorn's
board of directors and senior management accountable for their
breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violations of
Section 14A of the Securities Exchange Act.

Accordng to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly failed to
address Akorn's non-compliance with Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) rules designed to ensure the safety and efficacy of
pharmaceutical products. The Individual Defendants' failure to
ensure these serious issues were addressed breached their fiduciary
duties and caused massive harm to Akorn. Moreover, despite being
repeatedly advised of Akorn's pervasive non-compliance with FDA
rules designed to ensure the safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical
products, the Individual Defendants caused Akorn to make knowingly
false statements to the contrary in Akorn's Proxy Statements filed
with the SEC.

The Board's misconduct came to light after Akorn entered into a
merger agreement with Fresenius SE & Co. KGaA, a German healthcare
provider. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Fresenius would
acquire all the stock of Akorn in an all-cash deal valued at $4.3
billion. While doing due diligence in advance of the merger,
Fresenius received three letters from purported whistleblowers.
These letters alleged that (among other things) Akorn's research
and development activities were significantly "flawed and mostly
corrupted or incomplete." Prompted by the whistleblowers'
allegations, Fresenius opened an investigation into their claims.
The results were astounding -- showing  a pattern and practice of
knowing violations of FDA regulations and provision of falsified
clinical test results to the FDA. Among other things, the
investigation revealed that: (a) Akorn's senior management and
Board were aware of the serious violations long before entering
into the Merger Agreement and had failed to remediate them; (b)
Akorn's Board executed the Merger Agreement even though it included
false representations concerning Akorn's compliance with FDA rules;
and (c) even following the execution of the Merger Agreement,
Akorn's Board and senior management continued to be informed of
serious regulatory violations -- including a risk of potential
criminal liability -- but hid those violations rather than fixing
them.

As a result of these findings, Fresenius concluded that Akorn was
in material breach of the Merger Agreement and cancelled the
transaction in April 2018. Akorn sued Fresenius in the Delaware
Chancery Court to force Fresenius to close the deal. The companies
went to trial over the merger in July 2018. On October 1, 2018,
Vice Chancellor Laster found in favor of Fresenius and canceled the
Merger Agreement once and for all. In his Memorandum Opinion, the
Vice Chancellor stated that he ruled in favor of Fresenius "because
Akorn's representations regarding its compliance with regulatory
requirements were not true and correct, and the magnitude of the
inaccuracies would reasonably be expected to result in a Material
Adverse Effect." He explained that "the extensive and recurring
quality and data integrity problems at Akorn convinced [him] that
Akorn did not have a well-functioning quality system and lacked a
meaningful culture of compliance."

The facts revealed during trial show that when Akorn's Board
learned about the serious data integrity and regulatory violations
at Akorn, rather than remediating them, they instead hid them while
trying to find a merger partner so that they could foist the
Company's problems on the acquirer. This strategy would have
provided a windfall for the Director Defendants but instead has
left Akorn in shambles and damaged it by millions of dollars in
legal fees, costs, and expenses. The fallout from this debacle has
devastated Akorn. Akorn's market capitalization as of October 3,
2018 was $720 million, a mere fraction of its $34 dollar per share
or $4.3 billion value when the Merger Agreement was executed. It
will cost Akorn an estimated $900 million to remediate its serious
regulatory issues, and it is still unknown what regulatory steps
the FDA will take, but it could impose huge fines on the Company
and place severe limitations on the Company's approved products and
pipeline of new products, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          Justin N. Boley, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 West Monroe St., Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
          E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  jnb@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Francis A. Bottini, Esq.
          Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
          BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914-2001
          Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
          E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
                  ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com

               - and -

          Nathaniel L. Orenstein, Esq.
          Christopher Heffelfinger, Esq.
          BERMAN TABACCO
          One Liberty Square
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 542-8300
          Facsimile: (617) 542-1194
          E-mail: norenstein@bermantabacco.com
                  cheffelfinger@bermantabacco.com

ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Seeks Preliminary Approval of Cal. Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company has
entered into a definitive settlement agreement, or Settlement
Agreement, in the putative class action suit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, and
submitted it to the Court for approval.

On December 30, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, or the Court, alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA. The complaint does not
allege that Alarm.com itself violated the TCPA, but instead seeks
to hold the company responsible for the marketing activities of one
of its service providers as well as calls made by one of this
service provider's sub-dealer agents under principles of agency and
vicarious liability.

On August 30, 2018, the company reached an agreement in principle
to settle the case for total cash consideration of $28.0 million.
On October 25, 2018, the company entered into a definitive
settlement agreement, or Settlement Agreement, and submitted it to
the Court for approval. In entering into the definitive settlement
agreement, the company is making no admission of liability.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, among other things, (1) the
company agreed to pay total cash consideration of $28.0 million
into a settlement fund, (2) the company agreed to implement certain
business practice changes to increase awareness of TCPA compliance,
(3) each party to the Settlement Agreement agreed to a mutual
release of claims relating to any claim or potential claim relating
to the marketing activities described in the complaint, and (4)
each party covenanted not to sue the other with regard to the
released claims. In addition, the company has agreed to no longer
allow the service provider identified in the litigation as
purportedly violating the TCPA to continue activating new accounts
for Alarm.com products and services after preliminary Court
approval of the Settlement Agreement.

The company will be required to make an initial payment of $5.0
million to the settlement administrator within ten business days of
preliminary approval by the Court of the Settlement Agreement. The
remaining payment will take place ten business days after the
effective date of the Settlement Agreement, which is five business
days following the later of the following events: (1) the date upon
which the time expires for filing a notice of appeal of the Court's
Final Approval Order and Judgment; or (2) if there is an appeal or
appeals of the Final Approval Order and Judgment, and the appellate
court enters an order either dismissing the appeal(s) or affirming
the Final Approval Order and Judgment without material
modification, the date upon which the time expires for seeking
review of that order. The release of claims includes all alleged
damages incurred related to the lawsuit. Any attorneys' fees
awarded by the Court and all costs of notice and claims
administration will be paid from the settlement fund.

The Settlement Agreement is subject to approval by the Court. If
the Court preliminarily approves the settlement, the Settlement
Agreement provides for a period of time during which class members
will be notified of the settlement and given an opportunity to file
a claim form to receive a settlement payment, opt out of the class,
object to the settlement or do nothing. The company expects that
the Court will schedule a fairness hearing to occur after the
notice period, at which time the parties will request final
approval of the settlement and at which any objectors to the
settlement will be heard. If the Court gives final approval to the
settlement, the release will be effective as to all class members
who do not validly opt out of the class, regardless of whether they
filed a claim form and received a payment.

Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. provides cloud-based software platform
solutions for smart residential and commercial properties in the
United States and internationally. The company provides interactive
security solutions to control and monitor their security systems,
as well as connected security devices, including door locks, motion
sensors, thermostats, garage doors, and video cameras; and high
definition video monitoring solutions, such as live streaming,
smart clip capture, secure cloud storage, video alerts, continuous
HD recording, and commercial video surveillance solutions.
Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered
in Tysons, Virginia.


ALBANY SHAKER: Avery et al. Sue over No-Poach Policy
----------------------------------------------------
KAYLA MARIE AVERY, KAHARI THOMAS, PRESTIGE LAWRENCE individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
ALBANY SHAKER DONUTS LLC, COHOES DONUTS LLC, THOMPSON ROAD DONUTS
LLC, WORCESTER UPSTATE DONUTS INC., DUNKIN' DONUTS FRANCHISING LLC;
and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-09885-AJN (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 25, 2018) alleges violation of the Sherman Act.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants entered
into a no-hire and non-solicitation agreements, for the express
purpose of depressing and reducing market-based wages and benefit
increases for Class Members that are typically associated with the
active recruitment of employees and workers in a competitive
industry. While protecting and enhancing their profits, the
Defendants, through their no-hire and non-solicitation agreements,
robbed the Class Members millions of dollars-worth of wages for
which Plaintiffs and the Class now seek relief.

Albany Shaker Donuts LLC is a New York limited liability company.
The Company operates a chain of coffee and baked goods restaurants.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Avi Mermelstein, Esq.
           MERMELSTEIN LAW
           3625 Johnson Avenue, Suite 202
           Bronx, NY 10463
           Telephone: (646) 470-2105
           E-mail: avi@mermelaw.com

                - and -

           Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
           ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
           1180 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 610
           Los Angeles, CA 90035
           Telephone:  (310) 277-0614
           Facsimile:  (310) 277-0635
           E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com


ALLIANCE MMA: Shapiro Class Action Dismissed
--------------------------------------------
The purported class action case styled Shapiro v. Alliance MMA,
Inc., No. 1:17-cv-2583 (D.N.J.) has been dismissed following
approval of the parties' settlement, according to Alliance MMA,
Inc.'s Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 16, 2018, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018.

As previously reported by the Class Action Reporter, Judge Robert
B. Kugler on October 15 granted the Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorney Fees Reimbursement
of Expenses, and Award to Lead Plaintiffs in this case.

In April and May 2017, respectively, two purported securities class
action complaints--Shapiro v. Alliance MMA, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-2583
(D.N.J.), and Shulman v. Alliance MMA, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-3282
(S.D.N.Y.)--were filed against the Company and certain of its
officers in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey and the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, respectively.

The complaints alleged that the defendants violated certain
provisions of the federal securities laws, and purported to seek
damages in an amount to be alleged on behalf of a class of
shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock pursuant or
traceable to the Company's initial public offering.

In July 2017, the plaintiffs in the New York action voluntarily
dismissed their claim and, on March 8, 2018, the parties reached a
settlement to the New Jersey action in which the carrier for our
directors and officers liability insurance policy has agreed to
cover Alliance's financial obligations, including legal fees, under
the settlement arrangement, subject to our payment of a deductible
of US$250,000, of which approximately US$103,000 is included within
accounts payable.  The complaint was dismissed in October 2018.

Alliance MMA, Inc. focuses on mixed martial arts (MMA) promotional
activities. It operates through three segments: Promotions, Ticket
Services, and Athlete Management. The company was founded in 2015
and is based in New York, New York.


ALLIANCE ONE: Proceedings in Voeks et al. Suit Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE VOEKS, ET AL., the
Plaintiffs, v. ALLIANCE ONE RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-1682 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William
E. Duffin entered an order on Nov. 14, 2018, granting Plaintiff's
motion to stay further proceedings.

The Court said, "On October 22, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a class
action complaint. At the same time, the plaintiffs filed what the
court commonly refers to as a "protective" motion for class
certification. In this motion the plaintiff moved to certify the
class described in the complaint but also moved the court to stay
further proceedings on that motion. In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp.,
662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), the court suggested that
class‐action plaintiffs "move to certify the class at the same
time that they file their complaint." "The pendency of that motion
protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named
plaintiffs." However, because parties are generally unprepared to
proceed with a motion for class certification at the beginning of a
case, the Damasco court suggested that the parties “ask the
district court to delay its ruling to provide time for additional
discovery or investigation." The parties are relieved from the
automatic briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and
(c). Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that
the Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification.
However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its
protective purpose under Damasco."[CC]

ALLIED INTERSTATE: Bakhturidze Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
----------------------------------------------------------------
ETER BAKHTURIDZE individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIED INTERSTATE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-06007 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Allied Interstate, LLC provides financial services. The Company
offers accounts receivable, customer retention, and debt collection
services. Allied Interstate serves customers throughout the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Maxim Maximov, Esq.
           MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
           1701 Avenue
           Brooklyn, NY 11229
           Telephone: (718) 395-3459
           Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
           E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS: Leavitt Securities Class Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself from a federal securities class action
suit filed by Caryl Hull Leavitt.

On September 26, 2018, Caryl Hull Leavitt individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint for violation of federal securities laws against Alnylam,
its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.


The complaint purports to bring a federal securities class action
on behalf of a class of persons who acquired the company's
securities between February 15, 2018 and September 12, 2018 and
seeks to recover damages caused by defendants' alleged violations
of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements related to the efficacy
and safety of the company's product, ONPATTRO (patisiran) lipid
complex injection. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, the
designation of the action as a class action, an award of
unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief as the
court deems appropriate.

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals said, "We believe that the allegations
contained in the complaint are without merit and intend to defend
the case vigorously. We cannot predict at this point the length of
time that this action will be ongoing or the liability, if any,
which may arise therefrom."

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

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company,
discovers, develops, and commercializes novel therapeutics based on
RNA interference (RNAi). The company has strategic alliances
primarily with Sanofi Genzyme; The Medicines Company; Monsanto
Company; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited; Ionis
Pharmaceuticals, Inc; and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Alnylam
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.


AMAZON.COM: Settlement Class Certified in Hargrett  & Austin Cases
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the two class action lawsuits against Amazon.com captioned as:

   "DONOVAN HARGRETT, et al., the Plaintiff, vs.  Amazon.com DEDC
   LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:15-cv-02456-WFJ-AAS" (M.D.
   Fla.);

                           - and -

   "MICHAEL AUSTIN and DEOLINA S.M. BONDE, et al., the Plaintiffs,
   vs.  Amazon.com DEDC LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:15-cv-2588-
   T-26JJ" (M.D. Fla.).

the court entered an order on Nov. 6, 2018:

   1. certifying Disclosure Settlement Class and Pre-Adverse
      Action Notice Subclass:

      Disclosure Settlement Class:

      "all Amazon aplicants or employees in the United States who
      (1) applied online for work at Amazon.com using
      Salesforce.com; (2)  were the subject of a consumer report
      that was procured by  Amazon.com (or cause to be procured by

      Amazon) from Accurate Background, Inc., (3) to whom
      Amazon.com presented the disclosure and authorization form
      filed as ECF No. 119-8; (4) within two years of the filing
      of the Hargrett Matter through July 17, 2018"; and

      Pre-Adverse Action Notice Subclass:

      "all Disclosure Form Class Members as to whom Amazon or its
      affiliates took adverse action based in whole or in part or
      any comsumer report from August 22, 2015 through July 17,
      2018";

   2. appointing attorneys Steven G. Wenzel. Luis A. Cabassa, and
      Brandon J. Hill of the law firm Wenzel Fenton Cabassa P.A.,
      and Leonard A. Bennett and Craig C. Marchiando of Consumer
      Litigation Associates, P.C., and Marc Edelman of Morgan &
      Morgan, P.A. as Class Counsel for the Settlement Classes;

   3. designating Donovan Hargrett, Michael Austin, and Michael
      Mathis as the Class Representatives;

   4. approving a Settlement Fund; and

   5. awarding class counsel Attorney's Fees and Expenses in the
      amount of $1,666,666 payable pursuant to the terms of the
      Settlement Agreement.[CC]

AMERATHON LLC: McBride Seeks Overtime Premium
---------------------------------------------
WILLIAM MCBRIDE, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AMERATHON, LLC, the Defendant, Case
No.: 4:18-cv-02546-BYP (N.D. Ohio), alleges that Defendant did not
pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees any overtime
premium for hours worked in excess of 40 each workweek, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is a laboratory service
provider for the long-term care industry. Among other things,
Defendant employs Mobile Phlebotomists that travel to its
clients’ places of business and provide phlebotomy services. The
Defendant provides these services throughout Ohio, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and the District
of Columbia. The Plaintiff is employed by Defendant as a Mobile
Phlebotomist. As such, he: draws blood, completes certain
paperwork, prepares tube labels, and transports collected
specimens. Named Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, travel to
facilities, such as senior nursing facilities, rehabilitation
centers, assisted living facilities, and private homes, to obtain
blood specimens.

The Defendant failed to pay its Mobile Phlebotomists an overtime
premium for hours worked over 40 per week. The Plaintiff estimates
that Mobile Phlebotomists worked up to 50 hours or more per week
during their employment. The Defendant failed to make, keep, and
preserve records of the hours worked by Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated Mobile Phlebotomists, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

AMERICAN FINANCE: Bid to Dismiss St. Clair-Hibbard Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the motion
to dismiss the putative class action suit initiated by Carolyn St.
Clair-Hibbard is pending.

On February 8, 2018, Carolyn St. Clair-Hibbard, a purported
stockholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company, AR Global, the Advisor, Nicholas S.
Schorsch and William M. Kahane.

On February 23, 2018, the complaint was amended to, among other
things, assert some claims on the plaintiff's own behalf and other
claims on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
shareholders of the Company as a class. On April 26, 2018,
defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On May 25, 2018,
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.

The second amended complaint alleges that the proxy materials used
to solicit stockholder approval of the Merger at the Company's 2017
annual meeting were materially incomplete and misleading. The
complaint asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act
against the Company, as well as control person liability against
the Advisor, AR Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane under
20(a). It also asserts state law claims for breach of fiduciary
duty against the Advisor, and claims for aiding and abetting such
breaches, of fiduciary duty against the Advisor, AR Global and
Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane. The complaint seeks unspecified
damages, rescission of the Company's advisory agreement (or
severable portions thereof) which became effective when the Merger
became effective, and a declaratory judgment that certain
provisions of the Company's advisory agreement are void.

The Company believes the second amended complaint is without merit
and intends to defend vigorously. On June 22, 2018, defendants
moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On August 1, 2018,
plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss.
Defendants filed reply papers on August 22, 2018, and oral argument
was held on September 26, 2018.

That motion is now pending.

American Finance said, "Due to the early stage of the litigation,
no estimate of a probable loss or any reasonably possible losses
are determinable at this time."

American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate
investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and
managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and
traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate
properties in the U.S.


AMERICAN HONDA: Wires Being Chewed by Rodents, Caracci CIaims
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAY CARACCI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH14349 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Nov.
16, 2018), alleges that Honda omitted material facts when it failed
to advise vehicle purchasers that (a) incidents of serious vehicle
malfunctions caused by rodents chewing through vehicle wiring had
increased since the switch to eco-friendly component parts; (b)
Honda sold "Honda 4019-2317 Rodent Tape" and recommended that
consumers use such Rodent Tape to cover their Honda vehicle's
wiring under the front hood; and (c) vehicle malfunctions caused by
rodent incidents would never be covered under Honda's New Vehicle
Limited Warranty, pursuant to the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act.

According to the complaint, wiring insulation or protective coating
is imperative to the integrity of a vehicle's electrical system.
However, while the soy or bio-based materials used in vehicle
manufacturing today may be allegedly more environmentally friendly,
when the vehicles are placed in the stream of commerce and then
purchased by consumers, they are increasingly more vulnerable to
rodent attacks. When the wire coating is eaten, the wires are
exposed and damaged and ultimately result in vehicle malfunctions,
and in some instances, a disabling of the vehicle altogether.
Honda's Rodent Tape is made with a blend of spicy flavorings that
Honda claims will deter rodents but disclosure of the need for
Rodent Tape is only made after the vehicle is sold, malfunctions,
brought in for repairs, and Honda denies warranty coverage.

Honda has unfairly refused to warrant its vehicles when such damage
occurs and declines coverage for the required repairs and/or
replacement parts, even though its authorized repair centers charge
consumers to apply Rodent Tape after the vehicle is brought in and
the consumer learns: (a) the vehicle wiring has been chewed
through; and (b) the consumer must go out-of-pocket or make an
insurance claim for the wire repair. Honda fails to disclose at the
time of sale that its vehicle wiring should be covered in flavored
Rodent Tape to deter chewing and protect vehicle wiring under the
front hood and that any repair required because of a rodent eating
through the soy or bio-based wiring is not covered under Honda's
warranty, the lawsuit says.

The American Honda Motor Company, Inc. is a North American
subsidiary of the Honda Motor Company, Ltd. It was founded in
1959.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Larry P. Smith, Esq.
          SMITHMARCO, P .C.
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 324-3532
          Facsimile: (888) 418-1277
          E-mail: lsmith@smithmarco.com

               - and -

          Stacy M. Bardo, Esq.
          BARDO LAW, P.C.
          22 West Washington Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 219-6980
          Facsimile: (312) 219-6981
          E-mail: stacy@bardolawpc.com

AMERICAN VANGUARD: Scheduling Conference Set for June 2019
----------------------------------------------------------
American Vanguard Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a
scheduling conference is set for June 2019, in the consolidated
class action suit involving banana plantation workers.

Three cases that were filed with the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware as early as 2012 and have since been
consolidated (USDC DE No. 1:12-CV-00697-RGS) involving claims for
physical injury arising from alleged exposure to DBCP over the
course of the late 1960's through the mid-1980's on behalf of what
were originally about 2,700 banana plantation workers from Ecuador,
Panama, Costa Rica and Guatemala.  

Following various motions to dismiss and appeals, 287 plaintiffs
remain in the action. On or about June 18, 2017, the Third Circuit
Court submitted a certified question of law to the Delaware Supreme
Court on the question of when the tolling period for the applicable
statute of limitations in this matter had ended. The Delaware
Supreme Court heard oral argument on January 17, 2018 and on March
15, 2018 ruled on the matter, finding that federal court dismissal
in 1995 on the grounds of forum non conveniens did not end class
action tolling.

The matter has, in effect, been remanded to the trial court which,
in early August 2018, issued a discovery scheduling order covering,
among other things, document production, medical examination of
claimants and depositions. Another scheduling conference is set for
June 2019.

American Vanguard said, "The Company believes that a loss is
neither probable nor reasonably estimable in these matters and has
not recorded a loss contingency."

American Vanguard Corporation, through its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, and markets specialty chemicals for agricultural,
commercial, and consumer uses in the United States and
internationally. The company manufactures and formulates chemicals,
including insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, molluscicides,
growth regulators, and soil fumigants in liquid, powder, and
granular forms for crops, turf and ornamental plants, and human and
animal health protection. American Vanguard Corporation was founded
in 1969 and is headquartered in Newport Beach, California.


AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: National Prescription Opiate Suit Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 all
activity in the case In Re: National Prescription Opiate
Litigation, MDL No. 2804, remain stayed by order of the MDL court.

On August 17, 2017, plaintiff Linda Hughes, as the mother of Nathan
Hughes, decedent, filed her complaint in Missouri state court
naming Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York LLC, Impax, five other
pharmaceutical company defendants, and three healthcare provider
defendants.

Plaintiff alleges that use of defendants' opioid medications caused
the death of her son, Nathan Hughes. In her original complaint,
plaintiff requested damages against the defendants and
certification of a class action. Plaintiff abandoned her request
for a class action in her December 22, 2017, amended complaint. In
her amended complaint, plaintiff alleges causes of action against
Amneal and Impax for strict product liability, negligent product
liability, violation of Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and
fraudulent misrepresentation.

The case was removed to federal court on September 18, 2017. It was
transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio on February 2, 2018, and is part of the
multidistrict litigation pending as In Re: National Prescription
Opiate Litigation, MDL No. 2804 (the "MDL"). Plaintiff has filed a
motion to remand the case to Missouri state court. That motion
remains pending before the MDL court. All activity in the case is
stayed by order of the MDL court.

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

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


APOGEE ENTERPRISES: Mayer Sues over Inflated Stock Price
--------------------------------------------------------
MURRAY MAYER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. APOGEE ENTERPRISES, INC., JOSEPH F.
PUISHYS and JAMES S. PORTER, the Defendant, Case No.: 0:18-cv-03097
(D. Minn., Nov. 5, 2018), seeks remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in a scheme to
deceive the market and a course of conduct that artificially
inflated the Company's stock price, and operated as a fraud or
deceit on acquirers of the Company's common stock. When the truth
about the Company' misconduct and its lack of operational and
financial controls was revealed, the value of the Company’s
common stock declined precipitously as the prior artificial
inflation no longer propped up its stock price. The decline in the
Company' common stock price was a direct result of the nature and
extent of Defendants’ fraud finally being revealed to investors
and the market. The timing and magnitude of the common stock price
decline negates any inference that the loss suffered by Plaintiff
and other members of the Class was caused by changed market
conditions, macroeconomic or industry factors or Company-specific
facts unrelated to the Defendants' fraudulent conduct. The economic
loss, i.e., damages, suffered by Plaintiff and other Class members
was a direct result of Defendants' fraudulent scheme to
artificially inflate the Company's stock price and the subsequent
significant decline in the value of the Company's share, price when
Defendants' prior misrepresentations and other fraudulent conduct
was revealed.

Defendants' materially false and misleading statements or omissions
alleged herein directly or proximately caused the damages suffered
by the Plaintiff and other Class members. Those statements were
materially false and misleading through their failure to disclose a
true and accurate picture of the Company’ business, operations
and financial condition, as alleged herein. Throughout the Class
Period, Defendants publicly issued materially
false and misleading statements and omitted material facts
necessary to make Defendants' statements not false or misleading,
causing the Company' common stock to be artificially inflated. The
Plaintiff and other Class members purchased the Company' common
stock at those artificially inflated prices, causing them to suffer
the damages complained, the lawsuit says.

Apogee purports to be an industry leader in architectural products
and services. It operates nine companies, nine international
locations.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and Proposed Lead Counsel:

          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
          Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          332 Minnesota Street, Suite W1050
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
          E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
                  r.yard@rwblawfirm.com

               - and -

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          55 Broadway, 10 th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail:ek@zlk.com

ARS NATIONAL: Calonge Files Class Action Under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National Services
Inc. The case is styled as Michael R Calonge on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARS National
Services Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-06734 (E.D. N.Y., Nov.
27, 2018).

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

ARS National Services, Inc. offers accounts receivable management
services. It caters to financial services organizations, banks, and
credit card companies. The company is based in Escondido,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
     775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
     Huntington, NY 11743
     Phone: (631) 335-1107
     Email: mpash@verizon.net


ASARCO LLC: Contreras Sues over Health Care Benefit Cuts
--------------------------------------------------------
Arnold Contreras; Tony M. Meza; Charles M. Estrada; and Celestino
W. Flores, United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing,
Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union,
AFL- CIO/CLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ASARCO LLC; and ASARCO, LLC Union Employee
Benefits Plan, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03495-SRB (D. Ariz.,
Oct. 25, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for breaching
their obligations to the Plaintiffs and to Class Members by
unilaterally reducing retiree health care benefits and taking the
position that the Defendants can terminate coverage for the
Plaintiff and the Class Members.

ASARCO LLC engages in mining, smelting, and refining copper and
other metals. It offers copper rods, copper cakes, and copper
cathodes. The company also provides bismuth selenide, which is used
to produce lead-free brass; and tellurium, which is used in the
rubber and chemical industries. ASARCO LLC was formerly known as
ASARCO Incorporated. The company was founded in 1899 and is based
in Tucson, Arizona with copper mines, copper smelters, SX/EW
plants, and administrative offices in Arizona. It has a copper
refinery in Texas. As of December 9, 2009, ASARCO LLC operates as a
subsidiary of Americas Mining Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald Barrett, Esq.
          WARD, KEENAN & BARRETT, P.C.
          2141 East Camelback Rd., Suite 100
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 279-1717
          Facsimile: (602) 279-8908
          E-mail: gbarrett@wardkeenanbarrett.com

               - and -

          William T. Payne, Esq.
          Pamina Ewing, Esq.
          Joel R. Hurt, Esq.
          Ruairi McDonnell, Esq.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE
          & KRAVEC, LLC
          429 Fourth Avenue
          Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400
          Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
          E-mail: wpayne@fdpklaw.com
                  pewing@fdpklaw.com
                  jhurt@fdpklaw.com
                  rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com

               - and -

          David R. Jury, Esq.
          Mariana Padias, Esq.
          Maneesh Sharma, Esq.
          United Steelworkers
          60 Boulevard of the Allies, Room 807
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 562-2549
          Facsimile: (412) 562-2574
          E-mail: djury@usw.org
                  mpadias@usw.org
                  msharma@usw.org


ASSOCIATED SUPERMARKET: Underpays Produce Workers, Cerda Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
NANCY LUCIA CERDA, and JOSE HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ASSOCIATED
SUPERMARKET GROUP, LLC; PERALTA BUENO CORP. d/b/a ASSOCIATED
SUPERMARKET; EVI PERALTA; and ERASMO BUENO, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-06178-ARR-PK (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2018) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, minimum wages,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as produce workers.

Associated Supermarket Group, LLC serves independently owned
supermarkets in the New York Tri-State Area and other cities along
the U.S. Eastern Seaboard. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE: Moody Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEON MOODY, On behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the PLAINTIFF, vs.
ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE GROCERS INC., the DEFENDANT, Case
2:17-cv-10290-JTM-KWR (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "all individuals employed by AWG at any point from October
      7, 2014 to the present, who held the position of supervisor
      in AWG's Pearl River facility";

   2. directing Defendant to produce to Plaintiff, in electronic
      form, the full names, last known address, telephone numbers
      and e-mail addresses of all putative collective members
      within 15 days of the Court's granting of conditional
      certification;

   3. authorizing Plaintiff to send notice along with a consent to

      opt-in form to the members of the putative collective via
      regular mail, and email;

   4. authorizing Plaintiff to send notice to the members of the
      putative collective via text message as follows:

      "If you worked for AWG as a supervisor at any time since
      October 7, 2014, you may be entitled to join a lawsuit
      claiming unpaid overtime pay. For additional information
      about the case, including how to join, please call the
      employees’ attorney at 985-590-5026 or 985-898-6368";

   5. directing Defendant post notice in the form in Defendant's
      Pearl River Facility in a location easily visible to current

      employees;

   6. setting an opt-in deadline 60 days after the date in which
      notice is mailed to members of the collective, and that any
      opt-ins who seek to join the action after that deadline must

      establish good cause for their delay; and

   7. directing parties to file a joint motion to approve a third
      party administrator with the Court within 14 days of the
      order conditionally certifying the collective action.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Chad A. Danenhower, Esq.
          DANENHOWER LAW FIRM , LLC
          212 Park Place
          Covington, LA 70433
          Telephone: (985) 590-5026
          E-mail: CHAD.DANENHOWER@DANENHOWERLAW.COM

               - and -

          Dale E. Williams, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DALE E. WILLIAMS
          212 Park Place
          Covington, LA 70433
          Telephone: (985) 898-6368
          Facsimile: (985) 892-2640

AVANOS MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Jackson Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Avanos Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Jackson
v. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et
al.

Avanos Medical said, "We were served with a complaint in a matter
styled Jackson v. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E. Abernathy, Steven
E. Voskuil, et al., No. 1:16-cv-05093-LTS (S.D.N.Y.), filed on June
28, 2016. In that case, the plaintiff brings a putative class
action against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer, its
Chief Financial Officer and other defendants, asserting claims for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act, Sections 10(b) and
20(a)."

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made misrepresentations
and failed to disclose certain information about the safety and
effectiveness of the company's MicroCool gowns and thereby
artificially inflated the Company's stock prices during the
respective class periods. The alleged class period for purchasers
of Kimberly-Clark securities who subsequently received Avanos
securities is February 25, 2013 to October 21, 2014, and the
alleged class period for purchasers of Avanos securities is October
21, 2014 to April 29, 2016.

On February 16, 2017, the company moved to dismiss the case. On
March 30, 2018, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss
and entered judgment in its favor. On April 27, 2018, the plaintiff
filed a Motion for Relief from the Judgment and for Leave to Amend.


Avanos Medical said, "We intend to continue our vigorous defense of
this matter."

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

Avanos Medical, Inc. operates as a medical technology company that
focuses on eliminating pain, speeding recovery, and preventing
infection for healthcare providers and patients worldwide. Its
Medical Devices segment provides a portfolio of products that
focuses on respiratory and digestive health, along with surgical
and interventional pain management. Its products include
post-operative pain management solutions, minimally invasive
interventional pain therapies, closed airway suction systems, and
enteral feeding tubes. Avanos Medical, Inc. was incorporated in
2014 and is headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia.


AXION LLC: Oraegbu Seeks Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------
EMEKA ORAEGBU, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AXION LLC, AXION HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS
LLC, NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION and KINGS
COUNTY HOSPITAL, Jointly and Severally, the Defendant, Case
1:18-cv-10688 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime premium pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants as
a chart reviewer. During the period that Plaintiff Oraegbu worked
in the Department of Utilization Management, he did not receive an
accurate wage statement with each payment of wages containing an
accurate accounting of the hours that he had worked and the number
of overtime hours worked. The Defendants failed to provide
Plaintiff Oraegbu with a wage notice at the date of his hiring or
by February 1 of each year, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative FLSA Collective and
Class:

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

BANK OF AMERICA: Sued over Multiple Non-Sufficient Funds Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTEN VALPERGA, an individual, on behalf of herself, and all
others similarly situated, vs. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-06724 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 5, 2018), seeks
damages, restitution and injunctive relief for BofA's breach of
contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
unjust  enrichment, and violations of the California consumer
protection statute.

According to the complaint, the case concerns BofA's unlawful
business practices relating to the imposition of multiple
Non-Sufficient Funds Fees ("NSF Fee") and Overdraft Fees ("OD Fee")
on a single consumer transaction. Two documents permit BofA to
charge a $35 NSF Fee when it determines a customer’s account
contains insufficient funds to pay a transaction and it rejects the
charge. See BofA's Online Banking and Transfers Outside Bank of
America Service Agreement and Electronic Disclosure. The Account
Agreements also permit BofA to charge a $35 OD Fee when it
determines a customer lacks sufficient funds to pay a transaction
but it advances the funds and pays the transaction anyway.

Through the imposition of OD Fees and NSF Fees, the Bank makes over
a billion dollars annually. BofA Account Fees fall
disproportionately on racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly,
and the young, many of whom regularly carry low bank account
balances. Ms. Valperga does not dispute the Bank's right to either
(a) reject a transaction and charge a single NSF Fee or (b) pay a
transaction and charge a single OD Fee. But BofA unlawfully
maximizes its already profitable BofA Account Fees with deceptive
practices that also violate its contracts. Specifically, BofA
unlawfully (a) assesses multiple NSF Fees on a single transaction
and (b) assesses both OD Fees and NSF Fees on a single transaction.
The Bank breaches its contract when it charges more than one $35
NSF Fee on a single transaction, since the contract explicitly
states -- and reasonable consumers understand -- that one
transaction can only incur a single NSF Fee, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Putative Classes:

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Andrea Gold, Esq.
          Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L St NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: 202-973-0900
          Facsimile: 202-973-0950

               - and -

          Weiselberg Gilbert, Esq.
          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON
          One W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954-525-4100
          Facsimile: 954-525-4300

BANK OZK: Faces Colbert Suit over 26% Drop in Share
---------------------------------------------------
JORDAN COLBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OZK, GEORGE GLEASON, and GREGORY
MCKINNEY, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00793-JM (E.D. Ark., Oct.
26, 2018) alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to
disclose to investors: (1) that the Company lacked adequate
internal controls to assess credit risk; (2) that, as a result,
certain of the Company's loans posed an increased risk  of  loss;
(3) that certain substandard loans were reasonably likely to lead
to charge-offs; and (4) that, as a result  of  the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and lacked a
reasonable basis.

On October 18, 2018, the Company reported that it had "incurred
combined charge-offs of $45.5 million on two Real Estate
Specialties Group credits" that had previously been classified as
substandard. On this news, the Company's share price fell $9.33 per
share, more than 26%, to close at $25.52 per share on October 19,
2018, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Bank OZK provides a range of retail and commercial banking services
to businesses, individuals, and non-profit and governmental
entities. The company accepts non-interest bearing checking,
interest bearing transaction, business sweep, savings, money
market, individual retirement, and other accounts, as well as time
deposits. As of December 31, 2017, it operated through 253 offices
in Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, Alabama,
South Carolina, California, New York, and Mississippi. The company
was formerly known as Bank of the Ozarks and changed its name to
Bank OZK in July 2018. Bank OZK was founded in 1981 and is
headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven A. Owings,Esq.
          OWINGS LAW FIRM
          1400 Brookwood Drive
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 661-9999
          E-mail: sowings@owingslawfirm.com

               - and -

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


BAUSCH HEALTH: Timber Hill Suit Consolidated with Existing Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the class
action entitled, Timber Hill LLC, v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc., et al., has been consolidated in the case
entitled, In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.
Securities Litigation.

From October 22, 2015 to October 30, 2015, four putative securities
class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey against the Company and certain current or
former officers and directors. Those four actions, captioned Potter
v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case No.
15-cv-7658), Chen v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et
al. (Case No. 15-cv-7679), Yang v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7746), and Fein v.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case No.
15-cv-7809), all asserted securities fraud claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") on behalf of putative classes of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during various
time periods between February 28, 2014 and October 21, 2015.

The allegations relate to, among other things, allegedly false and
misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about
the Company's business and prospects, including relating to drug
pricing, the Company's use of specialty pharmacies, and the
Company's relationship with Philidor.

On May 31, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the four
actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-07658,
and appointing a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel. On
June 24, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
naming additional defendants and asserting additional claims based
on allegations of false and misleading statements and/or omissions
similar to those in the initial complaints.

Specifically, the consolidated complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company,
and certain current or former officers and directors, as well as
claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act") against the Company, certain current or
former officers and directors, and certain other parties.

The lead plaintiff seeks to bring these claims on behalf of a
putative class of persons who purchased the Company's equity
securities and senior notes in the United States between January 4,
2013 and March 15, 2016, including all those who purchased the
Company's securities in the United States in the Company's debt and
stock offerings between July 2013 to March 2015. On September 13,
2016, the Company and the other defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. Briefing on the Company's motion was
completed on January 13, 2017.

On April 28, 2017, the Court dismissed certain claims arising out
of the Company's private placement offerings and otherwise denied
the motions to dismiss. Defendants' answers to the consolidated
complaint were filed on August 18, 2017.

On June 6, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company
and certain current or former officers and directors. This action,
captioned Timber Hill LLC, v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc., et al., (Case No. 2:18-cv-10246), asserts
securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased
call options or sold put options on the Company’s common stock
during the period January 4, 2013 through August 11, 2016.

On June 11, 2018, this action was consolidated with In re Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, (Case
No. 3:15-cv-07658). On September 20, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint, adding claims against ValueAct Capital
Management L.P. and affiliated entities.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. Bausch Health Companies Inc. was
founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Laval, Canada.


BAYCARE HEALTH: Court Certifies Class of Employees & Applicants
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned ELAYNE FIGUEROA, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. BAYCARE HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
8:17-cv-01780-JSM-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. James S. Moody Jr.
entered an order on Nov. 14, 2018, finally certifying, for
settlement purposes only, the following Settlement Class:

   "all BayCare employees and job applicants who applied for or
   worked in a position at BayCare in the United States and who
   were the subject of a consumer report that was procured by
   BayCare within two years of the filing of this complaint
   through the date of final judgment as to whom BayCare used the
   "Consumer Disclosure and Authorization form," "Authorization of

   Background Investigation," provided by HireRight, Inc., to
   satisfy its stand-alone disclosure requirements under the The
   Fair Credit Reporting Act.

In connection with this final certification, the Court made these
final findings:

   -- Class Counsel

      Luis A. Cabassa and Brandon J. Hill of Wenzel Fenton
      Cabassa, P.A. will continue to serve as Class Counsel for
      the Settlement Class.

   -- Class Representative

      Plaintiff Elayne Figueroa will continue to serve as Class
      Representative for the Settlement Class.

   -- Settlement Consideration

      Defendant and Plaintiff are hereby ordered to comply
      with the terms and conditions contained in the Settlement
      Agreement.

   -- Applicability

      The provisions of this Final Order are applicable to and
      binding upon and inure to the benefit of each party to the
      Action (including each Settlement Class Member and

      each of Defendants' successors and assigns). All persons who

      are included within the definition of the Settlement Class
      and who did not properly file requests for exclusion are
      therefore bound by this Final Order and by the Settlement
      Agreement.

   -- Release

      As of the Effective Date, the Settlement Class members,
      including Plaintiff (collectively, the "Releasing Parties"),

      but excluding those individuals who asked to be excluded
      from the Settlement, release Defendant and its affiliates
      and subsidiaries ("Released Parties"), from the "Released
      Claims." The Releasing Parties stipulate and agree that upon

      the Court's final approval of this Settlement Agreement, the

      claims in the case shall be dismissed with prejudice. The
      Releasing Parties, on behalf of themselves and their
      respective assigns, agree not to sue or otherwise make a
      claim against any of the Released Parties that is in any way

      related to the Released Claims.

   -- Dismissal

      The Court dismisses this Action and all claims with
      prejudice, without costs to any party, except as expressly
      provided for in the Settlement Agreement.

   -- Settlement Fund

      Defendant will create a non-reversionary fund for Class
      Members consisting of $85,000.00. The Class Members will not

      be required to take any action to receive a portion of the
      funds, making it a "claims paid" settlement. Members of the
      class will receive a pro rata gross amount of the settlement

      fund. The named Plaintiff, Elayne Figueroa, is awarded an
      incentive award of $5,000.00, and will be deducted from the
      Settlement Fund before the funds are distributed.

   -- Class Counsel Attorneys' Fees, Costs.

      Plaintiff's counsel is awarded fee and costs consisting of
      $28,333.33 in accordance with the terms and conditions in
      the Settlement Agreement.

   -- Cy pres.

      BayCare Emergency Assistance Program, Inc., a non-profit
      charity is appointed by the Court as the cy pres recipient.

   -- Final Order

     The Court orders that this Final Approval Order shall
     constitute a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54 of the
     Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that is binding on the
     parties and the Settlement Class.[CC]

BIRD RIDES: Labowitz Sues over Use of Electric Scooters
-------------------------------------------------------
MIA LABOWITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BIRD RIDES, INC.; NEUTRON HOLDINGS, INC.;
CITY OF SANTA MONICA; CITY OF LOS ANGELES; CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS;
and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-09329-MWF-SK (C.D.
Cal., Oct. 31, 2018) is an action against the Defendants'
deliberate and systematic exploitation of the curb ramps,
sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian crossings and other walkways
within the Cities of Santa Monica, Los Angeles and Beverly Hills,
for their own corporate profit to the harm of some of the most
vulnerable residents of the Cities, the disabled.

According to the complaint, the Electric Scooters sold and
manufactured by the Defendants cause barriers in paths of travel
when they are operated. The Electric Scooters are wheeled and motor
powered, propelling them at speeds around 15 miles per hour.
Operators of the Electric Scooters are not required by the
Defendants to have any training. The combination of high relative
speeds, compared to pedestrians, and lack of restrictions regarding
the operator, creates hazardous conditions which causes the
Plaintiff, and likely others in the Proposed Class difficulty,
humiliation and frustration. Electric Scooters of the Defendants
also deter the Plaintiffs from using the Pedestrian Rights of Way.

Bird Rides, Inc. operates as an electric vehicle sharing company.
The company provides a fleet of electric, shared scooters that can
be accessed through smartphones. The company was incorporated in
2017 and is based in Santa Monica, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anoush Hakimi, Esq.
          Peter Shahriari, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF HAKIMI & SHAHRIARI
          7080 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 804
          Los Angeles, CA 90028
          Telephone: (323) 672–8281
          Facsimile: (213) 402–2170
          E-mail: anoush@handslawgroup.com
                  peter@handslawgroup.com


BLUE APRON: Bid to Nix IPO-Related Class Suit in E.D.N.Y. Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that it remains subject to a
consolidated putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging federal
securities law violations in connection with the Company's June
2017 initial public offering.

The amended complaint alleges that the Company and certain current
and former officers and directors made material misstatements or
omissions in the Company's registration statement and prospectus
that caused the stock price to drop.

Pursuant to a stipulated schedule entered by the parties,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May
21, 2018.  Plaintiffs filed a response on July 12, 2018 and
defendants filed a reply on August 13, 2018.  The motion to dismiss
remains pending before the court.

Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. operates an e-commerce marketplace that
delivers original recipes and fresh ingredients for making home
cooking accessible. It provides original recipes with the
pre-portioned ingredients to complement tastes and lifestyles of
college graduates, young couples, families, singles, and empty
nesters. Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. was incorporated in 2016 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


BOND NO. 9 FRAGRANCE: Faces Figueroa Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bond No. 9 Fragrance
Inc. The case is captioned as Jose Figueroa, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bond No. 9
Fragrance Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-09869-RA (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25,
2018). The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge Ronnie Abrams and
referred to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker.

Bond No. 9 is an American, New York-based perfume house launched in
2003 by Laurice Rahme, as the first and only niche New York
fragrance company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BRIDGESTONE RETAIL: Underpays Store Managers, Berry and Wade Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH BERRY, and TOM WADE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRIDGESTONE RETAIL OPERATIONS,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00400-TES (M.D. Ga., Oct. 26,
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 Defendant as store managers.

Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC owns and operates a chain of
auto care and tire stores throughout the United States. Retail
Operations, LLC was formerly known as BFS Retail & Commercial
Operations, LLC and changed its name to Bridgestone Retail
Operations, LLC in 2009. The company was founded in 1900 and is
based in Bloomingdale, Illinois. Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC
operates as a subsidiary of Bridgestone Americas, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Gregory Dobson, Esq.
          A. Danielle McBride, Esq.
          LOBER & DOBSON, LLC
          830 Mulberry Street, Suite 201
          Macon, GA 31201
          Telephone: (478) 745-7700
          Facsimile: (478) 745-4888

               - and -

          Michael J. Lober, Esq.
          LOBER & DOBSON, LLC
          301 Creekstone Ridge
          Woodstock, GA 30188
          Telephone: (770) 741-0700
          E-mail: mjlober@lddlawyers.com


BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Dismissed from Roycroft Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Brighthouse Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the plaintiff in
Edward Roycroft v. Brighthouse Financial, Inc., et al. (U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, filed June 18,
2018), has dismissed Brighthouse Financial, Inc. from the action
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 Financial, Inc. provides a range of annuity and life
insurance products in the United States. The company operates
through three segments: Annuities, Life, and Run-off. The company
was founded in 2016 and is headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina.


CAFEPRESS INC: Faces Beck Suit over Snapfish Merger
---------------------------------------------------
HENRI BECK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAFEPRESS INC.; FRED E. DURHAM, III; ANTHONY
C. ALLEN; MARY ANN ARICO; KENNETH T. MCBRIDE; and ALAN B. HOWE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01694-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 29, 2018) is
an action against the Defendants for violations of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934, and for breaches of fiduciary duty as a
result of the Defendants' efforts to sell CafePress to Snapfish,
LLC and Snapfish Merger Sub, Inc., and to enjoin the scheduled
November 8, 2018 expiration of the tender offer to acquire all of
CafePress' common stock for $1.48 per share in cash.

According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants filed the materially
deficient 14D-9 on October 12, 2018 with the SEC in an effort to
solicit stockholders to tender their CafePress shares in favor of
the Proposed Transaction. The 14D-9 is materially deficient and
deprives CafePress stockholders of the information they need to
make an intelligent, informed and rational decision of whether to
tender their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction. As
detailed below, the 14D-9 omits and/or misrepresents material
information concerning, among other things: (a) the sales process
leading up to the Proposed Transaction; and (b) the data and inputs
underlying the financial valuation analyses by Needham & Co., LLC
("Needham") that purport to support the fairness opinions provided
by Needham as the Company's financial advisor.

CafePress Inc. operates as retailer of personalized products in the
United States and internationally. The company was formerly known
as CafePress.com, Inc. and changed its name to CafePress Inc. in
June 2011. CafePress Inc. was founded in 1999 and is headquartered
in Louisville, Kentucky. As of November 8, 2018, CafePress Inc.
operates as a subsidiary of Snapfish, LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          1000 West Street, 10 th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984-3800
          Telephone (302) 984-3880
          Facsimile (302) 984-3889
          E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com

               - and -

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 667-6200
          Facsimile: (610) 667-9029
          E-mail:mackerman@brodskysmith.com
                 esmith@brodskysmith.com


CAMELBAK PRODUCTS: Removed Morales Case to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
CamelBak Products, LLC and Vista Outdoor, Inc. removed the case
captioned REGINO MORALES, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CAMELBAK PRODUCTS, LLC;
VISTA OUTDOORS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
BC722123 (Los Angeles Superior Court), to the to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 7,
2018. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:18-cv-09457 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's complaint alleges seven purported causes of action
as follows: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum
wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest
periods; failure to pay due wages at termination; failure to
provide accurate wage statements; and violation of business and
professions code.[BN]

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Brian P. Long, Esq.
          Christopher Im, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 270-9600
          Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
          E-mail: bplong@seyfarth.com
                  cim@seyfarth.com


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Bennett Class Action Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the class action
lawsuit entitled, Lacheverjuan Bennett et al. v. Chaparral Energy,
L.L.C., et al., remains stayed.

On March 26, 2018, a group of 27 individual plaintiffs filed a
lawsuit in the District Court of Logan County, State of Oklahoma
against 23 named defendants, including the company, and 25 unnamed
defendants.  Plaintiffs are all property owners and residents of
Logan County, Oklahoma, and allege the defendants, all oil and gas
companies which have engaged in injection well operations, induced
earthquakes which have caused damage to real and personal property,
and caused emotional damages. Plaintiffs claim absolute liability
for ultra-hazardous activities, negligence, gross negligence,
public and private nuisance, and trespass, and ask for compensatory
and punitive damages, and attorney fees and costs.

Jointly with other defendants, the company filed a motion to stay
the proceedings pending resolution of Lisa West et al. v. ABC Oil
Company, Inc.

Chaparral Energy said, "Despite dismissal of the class allegations
in the West case, the stay has not been lifted. When the stay is
lifted, we will dispute the plaintiffs' claims, dispute the
remedies requested are available under Oklahoma law, and vigorously
defend the case."

Chaparral Energy, Inc. engages in the acquisition, exploration,
development, production, and operation of onshore oil and natural
gas properties primarily in Oklahoma, the United States. The
company sells crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids
primarily to refineries and gas processing plant. The company was
founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Butler Class Action Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the stay in the
case, James Butler et al. v. Berexco, L.L.C., Chaparral Energy,
L.L.C, et al., has not been lifted.

On October 13, 2017, a group of 52 individual plaintiffs filed a
lawsuit in the District Court of Payne County, State of Oklahoma
against 26 named defendants, including the company, and 25 unnamed
defendants.   Plaintiffs are all property owners and residents of
Payne County, Oklahoma, and allege salt water disposal activities
by the defendants, owners or operators of salt water disposal
wells, induced earthquakes which have caused damage to real and
personal property, and emotional damages.  Plaintiffs claim
absolute liability for ultra-hazardous activities, negligence,
gross negligence, public and private nuisance, trespass, and ask
for compensatory and punitive damages.

On December 18, 2017, the company moved the court to dismiss the
claims against it. Prior to plaintiffs responding to the company's
motion, a hearing on a motion to stay the Butler case was held on
January 4, 2018. The judge granted the motion to stay proceedings,
ruling the Butler case was stayed pending final judgment or denial
of class certification in the Lisa West et al. v. ABC Oil Company,
Inc. case, supra.

Despite the dismissal of the class allegations in the West case,
the stay has not been lifted. The company's motion to dismiss will
not be considered until the stay is lifted, at which time, if
necessary, the company will dispute plaintiffs' claims, dispute
that the remedies requested are available under Oklahoma law, and
vigorously defend the case.

Chaparral Energy, Inc. engages in the acquisition, exploration,
development, production, and operation of onshore oil and natural
gas properties primarily in Oklahoma, the United States. The
company sells crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids
primarily to refineries and gas processing plant. The company was
founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Challenges Dismissal of West & Hopson Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the plaintiffs in
the case, Lisa West and Stormy Hopson, individually and as class
representatives on behalf of all similarly situated persons v.
Chaparral Energy, L.L.C., have filed a motion for a permissive
appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit, challenging the order dismissing the class allegations.

On February 18, 2016, an alleged class action was filed against the
company, as well as several other operators in the District Court
of Pottawatomie County, State of Oklahoma, alleging claims on
behalf of named plaintiffs and all similarly situated persons
having an insurable real property interest in eight counties in
central Oklahoma (the "Class Area").

The plaintiffs allege the oil and gas operations conducted by the
company and the other defendants have induced earthquakes in the
Class Area. The plaintiffs did not seek damages for property
damage, instead asked the court to require the defendants to
reimburse plaintiffs and class members for earthquake insurance
premiums from 2011 through the time at which the court determines
there is no longer a risk of induced earthquakes, as well as
attorney fees and costs and other relief.

The company responded to the petition, denied the allegations and
raised a number of affirmative defenses. On March 18, 2016, the
case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma under the Class Action Fairness Act.

On May 20, 2016, the company filed a Notice of Suggestion of
Bankruptcy, informing the court that the company had filed
voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the United
States Bankruptcy Code. On October 14, 2016, the plaintiffs filed
an Amended Complaint adding additional defendants and increasing
the Class Area to 25 central Oklahoma counties.

Other defendants filed motions to dismiss the action, which were
granted on May 12, 2017. On July 18, 2017, plaintiffs filed a
Second Amended Complaint adding additional named plaintiffs as
putative class representatives and adding three additional counties
to the putative class area.

In the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs seek damages for
nuisance, negligence, abnormally dangerous activities, and
trespass. Due to Chaparral's bankruptcy, plaintiffs specifically
limit alleged damages related to Chaparral's disposal activities
occurring after our emergence from bankruptcy on March 21, 2017.

The company moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on
September 15, 2017. On August 13, 2018, the court granted the
company's motion to dismiss, and on August 16, 2018 issued an order
striking the class allegations from the Second Amended Complaint.
On August 30, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for a permissive
appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit, challenging the order dismissing the class allegations.

Plaintiffs' attorneys filed a proof of claim on behalf of the
putative class claiming in excess of $75,000 in the company's
Chapter 11 Cases. The company filed an objection to class treatment
of the proof of claim filed by the West plaintiffs in our
bankruptcy proceeding.

The Bankruptcy Court heard the company's objection, and on February
9, 2018 granted the company's objection to class treatment of the
proof of claim.

Chaparral Energy said, "To the extent the appeal to the Tenth
Circuit disputes the dismissal of claims against us, we will
dispute the plaintiffs' claims, dispute that the case meets the
requirements for a class action, dispute the remedies requested are
available under Oklahoma law, and vigorously defend the case."

Chaparral Energy, Inc. engages in the acquisition, exploration,
development, production, and operation of onshore oil and natural
gas properties primarily in Oklahoma, the United States. The
company sells crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids
primarily to refineries and gas processing plant. The company was
founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Time to Appeal 10th Cir.'s Order Expires
----------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the deadline to
appeal the order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
in the class action suit entitled, Martha Donelson and John Friend,
on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C., has passed without an appeal
being filed.

On August 11, 2014, an alleged class action was filed against the
company, as well as several other operators in Osage County,
Oklahoma in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma, alleging claims on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and all similarly situated Osage County land owners and
surface lessees.

The plaintiffs challenged leases and drilling permits approved by
the Bureau of Indian Affairs without the environmental studies
allegedly required under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). The plaintiffs assert claims seeking recovery for trespass,
nuisance, negligence and unjust enrichment. Relief sought includes
declaring oil and natural gas leases and drilling permits obtained
in Osage County without a prior NEPA study void ab initio, removing
the company from all properties owned by the class members,
disgorgement of profits, and compensatory and punitive damages.

On March 31, 2016, the Court dismissed the case against all
defendants as an improper challenge under NEPA and the
Administrative Procedures Act. On April 29, 2016, the plaintiffs
filed motions to alter or amend the court's opinion and vacate the
judgment, and to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies
which the court found in the dismissed complaint.

On May 20, 2016, the Company filed a Notice of Suggestion of
Bankruptcy, and as a result has not responded to the plaintiffs'
motions. After plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied,
plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals on December 6, 2016. Oral argument regarding the appeal was
held on November 14, 2017, and on April 5, 2018, the Tenth Circuit
affirmed the dismissal. Plaintiffs petitioned for rehearing on May
21, 2018.

Chaparral Energy said, "The deadline to appeal the order of the
Tenth Circuit passed without an appeal being filed."

Chaparral Energy, Inc. engages in the acquisition, exploration,
development, production, and operation of onshore oil and natural
gas properties primarily in Oklahoma, the United States. The
company sells crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids
primarily to refineries and gas processing plant. The company was
founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


CHECKR INC: Sanders Sues over Credit Background Reports
-------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON SANDERS, the Plaintiff, vs. CHECKR, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-10741 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2018), alleges that
Defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the New York
Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, files this class action complaint against Checkr, Inc.,
brought on behalf of thousands of consumers affected by Checkr's
practices for selling background reports for employment purposes,
and in using such reports to adjudicate consumers' eligibility for
employment, retention, or promotion.

In May 2018, Checkr sold a consumer report about Mr. Sanders in
connection with his application for employment with MakeSpace Labs,
Inc. After the application and interview process, MakeSpace gave
him a conditional offer of employment contingent on passing a
background check. MakeSpace then ordered a consumer report about
Mr. Sanders from Checkr. Devastatingly for Mr. Sanders, Checkr's
consumer report incorrectly stated he had multiple pending criminal
charges for rape and sexual assault. Mr. Sanders does not have any
pending criminal charges. He has no criminal record whatsoever.
Nonetheless, Checkr adjudicated Mr. Sanders as ineligible for
employment at MakeSpace, and MakeSpace adopted Checkr's
adjudication without any further review or process, and summarily
denied Mr. Sanders employment.

Checkr routinely, and as a matter of policy and practice,
knowingly, intentionally, recklessly, and willfully includes
criminal record information on consumer reports which does not
include the most updated disposition of such records, which are
therefore inaccurate, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Adam G. Singer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ADAM G. SINGER, PLLC
          60 E 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 842 2428
          Facsimile: (212) 658 9682
          E-mail: asinger@adamsingerlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew L. Weiner, Esq.
          Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq.
          WEINER & SAND LLC
          3525 Piedmont Road
          7 Piedmont Center, 3rd Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 205 5029
          Facsimile: (866) 800 1482
          E-mail: aw@atlantaemployeelawyer.com
                  js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com

               - and -

          Francis & Mailman, P.C.
          James A. Francis, Esq.
          Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
          1600 Market Street, 25th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215.735.8600
          Facsimile: 215.940.8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com

CHEGG INC: Kurland Sues over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH KURLAND, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CHEGG, INC., DANIEL
ROSENSWEIG, and ANDREW BROWN, the Defendants, Case 3:18-cv-06714
Document (N.D. Cal., Nov. 5, 2018), seeks to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the case is a class action on behalf of
persons and entities that acquired Chegg securities between July
30, 2018 and September 25, 2018, both dates inclusive. The
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (i) that Chegg did not
maintain sufficient data security measures; (ii) that the Company
maintained insufficient internal controls and procedures to data
breaches of its systems; (iii) consequently, the Company would
become subject to increased expenses and litigation risks; and (iv)
as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 25, 2018, the Company reported that an unauthorized
party had gained access on or around April 29, 2018 to
approximately 40 million users' data, including username, email
address, shipping address, and hashed Chegg password. On this news,
the Company's share price fell $3.91, or approximately 12%, to
close at $28.42 per share on September 26, 2018, on unusually heavy
trading volume. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says.

Chegg is a direct-to-student learning platform that provides
educational materials and services to high school and college
students. Chegg's common stock trades on the New York Stock
Exchange under the symbol "CHGG."[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          468 North Camden Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (818) 532-6499
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ
          & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

CHICAGO TRANSIT: Taylor Seeks OT Pay for Bus Operators
------------------------------------------------------
Keith Taylor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. The Chicago Transit Authority, the
Defendant, Case: 1:18-cv-07359 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 5, 2018), alleges
that Defendant failed to pay operators of CTA buses all of their
regular and overtime pay as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, CTA is one of the nation's largest mass
transit operators. CTA employs approximately 9,000 bus Operators,
with 6,000 full-time Operators and 3,000 part-time Operators at any
given time. CTA requires the Operators seeking their overtime pay
to complete and submit the pay slip at the end of each workday for
which they seek additional compensation.

The pay slip can be quite difficult to complete, and often requires
Operators to remain at the garage long after they have completed
their work day if they wish to secure the compensation due to them.
As a result of the time required to complete a pay slip, many
Operators, including Plaintiff Taylor, are forced to forego the
additional compensation to which they are entitled. Operators who,
in many cases, have spent thirteen or more hours away from home
simply cannot commit the time and energy required to complete the
pay slip for uncompensated time that often amounts to less than the
time they would spend completing the pay slip at the end of a long
workday, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class

          Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
          Jennifer W. Sprengel, Esq.
          Brian P. O'Connell, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER
          & SPRENGEL LLP
          150 S. Wacker, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 782 4880
          Facsimile: 312 782-4485
          E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
                  jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com
                  boconnell@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Donald W. Fohrman, Esq.
          DONALD W. FOHRMAN & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          101 W. Grand Ave., Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312-661-0450
          Facsimile: 312-661-0953

CHICAGO, IL: Hernandez et al. Allege Political Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR HERNANDEZ and CHARLES TERMINI, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. JAMIE RHEE,
in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Department of
Aviation; WILLIAM HELM, in his individual capacity; JOSEPH ALESIA,
in his individual capacity; KEVIN MARTIN, in his individual
capacity; and, the CITY OF CHICAGO, as a municipal corporation and
as indemnitor, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07647 (N.D. Ill.,
Nov. 17, 2018), accuse the Defendants of political discrimination
and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment pursuant to 42
U.S.C. section 1983, and violation of Plaintiffs' rights to free
political association, and as whistleblowers under Illinois'
Whistleblower Act for bullying and immense mistreatment they have
suffered following their reporting of the political discrimination
to the City IG.

The Plaintiffs also allege violation of their federal
constitutional rights and Illinois' Whistleblower Act to be free
from retaliation for acts of exposing and reporting government
corruption with the City's IG relating to the political
discrimination.

The lawsuit says Mr. Hernandez is a Motor Truck Driver with
Chicago's Department of Aviation who has been deprived of
substantial overtime and preferred assignments and equipment
because he has refused to engage in forced political work for
certain Democratic precincts on and off City time at the behest of
Defendants. This overtime disparity is primarily explained by acts
of political discrimination orchestrated by Defendants, with
overtime at O'Hare Airport among the MTDs being distributed, at
least in significant, substantial part, as remuneration for
political favors conducted for certain Democratic precincts on and
off duty by MTDs are the expectation of Defendants, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Cass T. Casper, Esq.
          TALON LAW, LLC
          79 West Monroe Street, Suite 1213
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 351-2478
          Facsimile: (312) 276-4930
          E-mail: ctc@talonlaw.com

CLASSIC TRANSPORTERS: Reyes Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO REYES, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff(s), vs. CLASSIC TRANSPORTERS INC., a
Florida Profit Corporation; JUAN PEREZ, individually; and YODALYS
SIERRA-PEREZ, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-02845
(M.D. Fla., Nov. 19, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants own and operate "Classic
Transporters, Inc.," which is a company that provides non-emergency
medical transportation to its customers. The Defendants employed
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees as “drivers."
The Defendants implemented and continue to implement a company-wide
policy that deprives their drivers of proper overtime wages and
results in these employees receiving sub-minimum wages.

These violations stem in part from Defendants' improper
misclassification of its drivers as "independent contractors," and
its payment structure whereby Defendants allege to pay their
drivers a flat rate per day. The Defendant failed to compensate
Plaintiff and other similarly situated drivers at a rate of at
least one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all of
the hours that they worked over 40 each work week. The Defendants'
payment structure also often resulted in Plaintiff’s, and those
similarly situated drivers, regular hourly rate equating to less
than the applicable minimum wage in one or more work weeks, the
lawsuit says.

Classic Transport provides transportation services for recreational
vehicle and utility trucks. The company also offers vehicle towing
services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Chanelle J. Ventura, Esq.
          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3039
          E-mail: cventura@forthepeople.com
                  afrisch@forthepeople.com


CLEARWAY ENERGY: Bid to Quash Service of Summons in Braun Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clearway Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court in Braun
Litigation issued a ruling granting the defendants' motion to quash
service of summons.

On April 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit
against the Company, the current and former members of its board of
directors individually, and other parties in California Superior
Court in Kern County, California.  

Plaintiffs allege various violations of the Securities Act due to
the defendants' alleged failure to disclose material facts related
to low wind production prior to the Company's June 22, 2015 Class C
common stock offering. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages,
rescission, attorney's fees and costs. The defendants filed
demurrers and a motion challenging jurisdiction on October 18,
2016.

On July 30, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
defendants' motion to quash service of the summons and an
opposition to the defendants' demurrer. On October 5, 2018, the
defendants filed a reply memorandum of points and authorities in
support of defendants' demurrer to the first amended complaint, and
a reply memorandum of points and authorities in support of
defendants' motion to quash service of summons.

On November 1, 2018, the court issued a ruling granting the
defendants' motion to quash service of summons.

Clearway Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, acquires, owns,
and operates contracted renewable and conventional generation, and
thermal infrastructure assets in the United States. The company was
founded in 2012 and is based in Princeton, New Jersey. Clearway
Energy, Inc. is a subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc.


CLIENT SERVICES: Violates FDCPA, Quinn Suit Says
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc.
The case is styled as Efraim Quinn on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Client Services,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06751 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 27,
2018).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COMDATA INC: Kozieja Sues over Unwanted Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------
DANIEL KOZIEJA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. COMDATA INC., the Defendant, Case
3:18-cv-02533-LAB-NLS (S.D. Cal., Nov. 5, 2018), seeks to recover
damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant
in negligently and/or intentionally contacting Plaintiff on his
cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff did not have a business
relationship with Comdata. On or about August 15, 2018, at
approximately 1:21 p.m., Comdata began sending Plaintiff text
messages to his cellular telephone ending in "3058", from the short
code 303-52. The Plaintiff received two more identical text
messages, one on or about August 17, 2018, at approximately 8:16
a.m. and on or about September 9, 2018, at approximately 12:06 p.m.
Annoyed by the repeated, frequent text messages, Plaintiff replied
to Defendant immediately responded to that "STOP" text message.

Despite having confirmed the request for text messages to cease,
less than a week later Plaintiff received another text message from
the 303-52 short code used or owned by Defendant. Specifically, on
or around September 15, 2018, at approximately 7:49 a.m. Plaintiff
received a text message identical to the September 9, 2018, text
message. Now extremely annoyed and frustrated, Plaintiff again
responded to the text message with the word "STOP", to which
Defendant provided an identical text message stating that Plaintiff
had opted out of receiving text messages and would no longer
receive messages However, these unwanted text message did not stop,
the lawsuit says.

Comdata is a payment processor and issuer of fleet fuel cards,
corporate spend cards, paperless payroll cards, virtual payments,
and trucking permits.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          Nicholas R. Barthel, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  jason@kazlg.com
                  nicholas@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

COOK COUNTY, IL: Raymond Jones Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND L. JONES, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, vs. COOK
COUNTY GOVERNMENT LE, D/B/A STROGER HOSPITAL OF COOK COUNTY, the
Defendant, Case: 1:18-cv-07577 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 15, 2018), seeks to
recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Portal-to-Portal Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the
Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance of the Municipal Code of Chicago.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and members of the
Plaintiff Class, on a regular basis worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek without pay at a rate of time and one-half for all such
hours pursuant to the requirements of the federal, state and
municipal statutes. The Plaintiffs were paid bi-monthly for two
work weeks each. The Defendant placed Plaintiffs on staggered,
unbalanced schedules such that they worked fewer than 40 hours in
one work week of the pay period and more than 40 hours the other
work week. However, Defendant paid only for overtime hours worked
in excess of 80 in two-week period instead of properly paying
overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in each individual work
week within the two-week pay period, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff, and all other Plaintiffs similarly
situated, known or unknown:

          John William Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
          Chicago IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Zwanetz Seeks Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------
MARTIN ZWANETZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, ROMA
DESIGN JEWELRY LLC, and NATIONAL TRADESHOW LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-03547-RDB (D. Md., Nov. 17, 2018), seeks overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, Mr. Zwanetz and other FLSA Class
members are similarly situated inasmuch as they have been -- and
are -- required to work more than 40 hours per week without
receiving overtime compensation. The Defendants have known that Mr.
Zwanetz and the FLSA Class members have performed work that has
required overtime compensation, yet the Defendants have nonetheless
operated under a scheme to deprive Mr. Zwanetz and the FLSA Class
of overtime compensation by failing to properly compensate such
individuals for the time they have worked, the lawsuit says.

Costco operates a series of eponymous large retail shopping centers
throughout the United States. While a typical Costco store
primarily sells products in bulk quantities, these stores also
operate as fora for myriad rotating display stands at which
specialty products are sold by one or more salespersons.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Maurice B. VerStandig, Esq.
          THE VERSTANDIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          9812 Falls Road, No. 114-160
          Potomac, MD 20854
          Telephone: 301-444-4600
          Facsimile: 301-576-6885
          E-Mail: mac@mbvesq.com

               - and -

          William H. Pillsbury, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM H. PILLSBURY PLLC
          3959 Welsh Road, No. 333
          Willow Grove, PA 19090
          Telephone: 267-518-3445
          E-mail: wpillsbury@whplawoffices.com

CRES PROPERTY: Ware Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class & Subclass
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff moves for certification of the matter captioned
Kellie Ware, plaintiff on behalf of herself and on behalf all
similarly situated persons v. Geoffrey Modderman, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-00713-TSB (S.D. Ohio), under Claim One for class treatment
consisting of both a general class, as well as a subclass.

The proposed classes are defined as:

   * The General FDCPA Class:

     This class consists of the Plaintiff and each person who was
     sued for eviction by Defendant Modderman within 1 year of
     October 9, 2018 and thereafter in any court of competent
     jurisdiction, in Ohio, where such eviction complaint
     contained a second count for money mentioning, seeking or
     praying for $10,000 in back rent and for alleged damages to
     the rental unit.

   * The FDCPA subclass:

     This subclass consists of the Plaintiff and each person who
     was sued for eviction by Defendant Modderman on behalf of a
     property managed by the Defendant Cres Property Management
     within 1 year of October 9, 2018 and thereafter in any court
     of competent jurisdiction, in Ohio, where such eviction
     complaint contained a second count for money mentioning,
     seeking or praying for $10,000 000 in back rent and for
     alleged damages to the rental unit.

Ms. Ware has brought this case as a class action against Defendants
Geoffrey Modderman and Cres Property Management and for alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven C. Shane, Esq.
          P.O. Box 73067
          Bellevue, KY 41073
          Telephone: (859) 431-7800
          Facsimile: (859) 431-3100
          E-mail: shanelaw@fuse.net

               - and -

          John A. Rebel, Esq.
          15 E. 8th St.
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 721-0200
          Facsimile: (513) 632-5898
          E-mail: jarebel@fuse.net


CST OIL & GAS: Fails to Pay OT to Helpers, Cartagena Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL CARTAGENA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CST OIL & GAS CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02595 (D. Kan., Nov. 6, 2018)
is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff
and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as helper from November
2016 to February 2017.

CST Oil & Gas Corporation provides premium engineered bolted steel
storage tanks and clear-span aluminum domes for the Oil & Gas
Industries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 945-7110
          Facsimile: (816) 945-7118
          E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


DANIA MANAGEMENT: Thomas Seeks OT Pay for Dunkin' Donuts Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAQUITA THOMAS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, THE Plaintiff, v. DANIA MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., a Florida
Corporation, PRIVETT MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., a Georgia Corporation,
MEMPHIS DONUTS LLC, a Tennessee Limited Liability Company, (all
operating under the name Dunkin' Donuts), KENNETH J. PRIVETT, and
WAGNER DAROSA, Individually, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02771
(W.D. Tenn., Nov. 6, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the class regularly
and routinely performed non-exempt labor duties on behalf of
Defendants at their Dunkin' Donuts franchised restaurants. The
Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees of Defendants, for all hours worked in excess of
40 per week at the applicable FLSA overtime rate of pay, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Paula R. Jackson, 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
                  pjackson@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  nbishop@jsyc.com


DARKTRACE INC: Der-Hacopian Sues over Credit Background Checks
--------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS DER-HACOPIAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DARKTRACE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:18-cv-06726 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 6, 2018) alleges violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Darktrace, Inc. operates as a cyber security company. The Company
offers intelligence-led behavioral cyber defense solutions for
cyber-attack vectors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephanie R. Tatar, Esq.
          TATAR LAW FIRM, APC
          3500 West Olive Avenue, Suite 300
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (323) 744-1146
          Facsimile: (888) 778-5695
          E-mail: stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com


DELIVERY DRIVERS: Hill Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Delivery Drivers,
Inc. et al. The case is styled as Malika Hill, Dion Moses,
individually, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Delivery Drivers, Inc., a
California corporation, Does 1 to 50 inclusive, LA Driver Corp. a
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. CGC18571582 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., Nov. 27, 2018).

DDI provides driver partner opportunities and independent
contractor management solutions for Restaurant Delivery Service and
Courier companies.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Norman B Blumenthal, Esq.


DTLR, INC: Smith Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------
Lanicka Smith, on behalf of herself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. DTLR, Inc. d/b/a DTLR
Villa, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07628 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 16,
2018), seeks to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as an assistant
manager for DTLR, a Maryland corporation headquartered at 1300
Mercedes Drive, Suite J-T, Hanover Maryland. DTLR is "one of the
country’s most successful lifestyle retailers" with over 250
stores in 19 states.

DTLR did not pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees proper
overtime wages of one and one-half time their regular rate of pay
for all hours worked above forty hours in a work week. By way of
example, DTLR did not pay Plaintiff one and one-half times her full
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in an
individual work week for the pay periods of: (a) 5/27/18-6/9/2018
(b) 6/24/2018-7/7/2018; (c) 8/5/2018-8/18/2018. While certain
overtime compensation was paid, the Defendant failed to pay for all
hours worked over forty in a work week at one and one-half times
her regular rate of pay, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attornesy for Plaintiffs:

          David J. Fish, Esq.
          Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM P.C.
          200 E 5 th Ave Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630) 355-7590
          Facsimile: (630) 778-0400

DUCT-MAN MECHANICAL: Natar Seeks Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------
REYNALDO NATAR, and all others similarly situated Plaintiff(s), vs.
DUCT-MAN MECHANICAL SERVICES LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, and QUAN NGUYEN, individually, the Defendants, Case
5:18-cv-00562-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla., Nov. 5, 2018), alleges that
Defendants have unlawfully deprived Plaintiff, and all other
employees similarly situated, of federal overtime compensation
during the course of their employment, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, during 2018, the Plaintiff was only
paid for the first 40 hours of every work week even though he
worked an average of 50 hours per week during the year. The
Defendants paid Plaintiff a straight $15.00 an hour only for the
first 40 hours regardless of the actual number of hours Plaintiff
worked. During a span of 45 weeks, the Plaintiff worked an average
of 50 hours per week.

The Defendants failed to ever pay Plaintiff one-and-one-half times
his regular hourly rate for any hours worked in excess of 40 per
week. Accordingly, during this employment period, the Plaintiff is
owed one-and-one-half times in the amount of $22.50 per hour for 10
hours per week for 45 weeks. In total, during this employment
period, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover $225.00 per week for a
total of $10,125.00 in unliquidated damages. However, Defendants'
actions were intentional and/or willful and Plaintiff is therefore
entitled to an additional amount of liquidated (double) damages for
wages in the amount of $10,125.00, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant is an air conditioning repair, maintenance, and
service company that has been operating in the State of Florida
since 2013.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

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

DYCK O'NEAL: Robbins Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN ROBBINS, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DYCK O'NEAL INC., the Defendant, Case
2:18-cv-02623 (D. Kan., Nov. 19, 2018), alleges that Defendant
unlawfully deceived and misled consumers by attempting to collect
alleged debts through unfair or unconscionable means and by
impermissibly seeking repayment of debts that have been cancelled
by the original creditor or some previous assignee, in violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and The Kansas Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, each of Dyck O'Neal's repeated calls
and or direct-to-voicemail messages to Plaintiff and the members of
the class made without prior, express authorization violated 47
U.S.C section 227(b). As a direct and proximate result of
Defendant's willful and or negligent refusal to comply with the
TCPA, the Plaintiff and the members of the class have suffered
loss and damage including, but not limited to: intrusion into
seclusion, violation of rights secured by federal statute,
expenditure of significant time, energy and out-of-pocket costs,
considerable distress, mental anguish, worry, frustration, fear and
embarrassment, the lawsuit says.

Dyck-O'Neal, incorporated in 1988, is a leading nationwide
purchaser, collector and servicer of real estate deficiencies,
first and second mortgage notes.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Keith N. Williston, Esq.
          THE WILLISTON LAW FIRM, LLC
          201 SE Williamsburg Drive
          Blue Springs, MO 64014
          Telephone: (913) 207-5450
          E-mail: willistonkeith@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Joshua A. Sanders, Esq.
          Mark E. Parrish, Esq.
          BOYD KENTER THOMAS & PARRISH, LLC
          PO Box 1099
          221 W. Lexington Avenue, Suite 200
          Independence, MO 64051
          Telephone: (816) 471-4511
          Facsimile: (816) 471-8450
          E-mail: mparrish@bktplaw.com
                  jsanders@bktplaw.com

ETSY INC: Cervantes and Weiss Class Actions Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Etsy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that the court has granted
plaintiffs' request to dismiss the consolidated Cervantes and Weiss
actions with prejudice.

On July 21, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint
(Cervantes v. Dickerson, et.al., Case No. CIV 534768) was filed in
the Superior Court of State of California, County of San Mateo
against the Company, certain officers, directors, and underwriters.


The complaint asserted violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act. The complaint alleged misrepresentations in the
Company's Registration Statement on Form S-1 and Prospectus with
respect to, among other things, merchandise for sale on the
Company's website that may be counterfeit or constitute trademark
or copyright infringement. The complaint sought certification as a
class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and
attorneys' fees.

On December 7, 2015, the Company and the underwriter defendants
moved to stay the Cervantes action on the grounds of forum non
conveniens.

On November 5, 2015, another purported securities class action
complaint (Weiss v. Etsy et al., No. CIV 536123) was filed in the
Superior Court of State of California, County of San Mateo. The
Weiss complaint named as defendants the Company and the same
officers, directors, and underwriters named in the Cervantes
complaint, and also asserts violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act based on allegedly false or misleading statements or
omissions with respect to, among other things, merchandise for sale
on the Company's website that may be counterfeit or constitute
trademark or copyright infringement.

On December 24, 2015, the court consolidated the Cervantes and
Weiss actions. On February 3, 2016, the court granted the Company's
motion to stay the consolidated actions. On September 19, 2018, the
court granted plaintiffs' request to dismiss the consolidated
Cervantes and Weiss actions with prejudice.

Etsy, Inc. operates Etsy.com, a commerce platform to make, sell,
and buy goods online and offline primarily in the United States,
United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, France, and Germany. It provides
various seller services and tools that are designed to help
entrepreneurs for starting, managing, and scaling their businesses.
Etsy, Inc. was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Brooklyn,
New York.


EVOQUA WATER: McWilliams Sues over 34% Stock Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------
TROY McWILLIAMS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. EVOQUA WATER TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
RONALD C. KEATING, and BENEDICT J. STAS, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-10320 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 2018), seeks to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the case is a federal securities class
action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Evoqua securities on
the open market between November 6, 2017 and October 30, 2018, both
dates inclusive. Evoqua purports to be a leading provider of
mission critical water treatment solutions, offering services,
systems and technologies to support our customers' full water
lifecycle needs. With over 200,000 installations worldwide, the
Company holds leading positions in the industrial, commercial and
municipal water treatment markets in North America. Evoqua offers a
portfolio of differentiated, proprietary technology solutions sold
under a number of brands. Evoqua claims that the customer intimacy
created through its service network is a significant competitive
advantage. According to the complaint, Defendants made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Evoqua failed to successfully integrate its prior acquisitions;
(ii) Evoqua was experiencing supply chain disruptions influenced by
tariffs and an extended delay on a large aquatics project; and
(iii) as a result of the  foregoing, Evoqua’s public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 30, 2018, Evoqua announced its preliminary financial
results for the fourth quarter and fiscal year ended September 30,
2018, which fell below the Company’s and analyst's expectations.
Evoqua stated that the shortfalls were "primarily due to
acquisition system integration issues, supply chain disruptions
influenced by tariffs and an extended delay on a large aquatics
project." On this news, Evoqua's stock price fell $4.78 per share,
or 34.64%, to close at $9.02 on October 30, 2018. As a result of
Defendants’ false and/or misleading statements, Evoqua securities
traded at inflated prices. However, after disclosure of Defendants'
false and/or misleading statements, Evoqua's stock suffered a
precipitous decline in market value, thereby causing significant
losses and damages to Plaintiff and other Class members, the
lawsuit says.

Evoqua was incorporated in 2013 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. Evoqua’s common stock trades on the New York Stock
Exchange under the ticker symbol "AQUA."[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Corey D. Holzer
          Marshall P. Dees
          HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
          1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: (770) 392-0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
          E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
                  mdees@holzerlaw.com

EXPERIAN DATA: Patton et al. Seek to Certify 3 Data Breach Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAUDIE PATTON, JACQUELINE
GOODRIDGE, VIRGINIA KALDMO, and DIANE RANDLE, Individually, on
behalf of the general public, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. EXPERIAN DATA CORP., a Delaware
corporation; COURT VENTURES, INC., a California corporation; U.S.
INFOSEARCH.COM, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company; and DOES
1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-01559-JVS-DFM
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on December 17,
2018, for order:

   1. certifying following classes:

      "all residents of New Hampshire whose PII was compromised as

      result of the Security Breach;

      "all residents of South Carolina whose PII was compromised
      as a result of the Security Breach"; and

      "all residents of North Carolina whose PII was compromised
      as a result of the Security Breach";

   2. appointing Mr. Andreica as class representative of the New
      Hampshire class, Mr. Silliman as class representative of the

      South Carolina class, and Ms. Stanislas as class
      representative of the North Carolina class; and

   3. appointing Timothy G. Blood of Blood, Hurst & O'Reardon,
      LLP, Ben Barnow of Barnow & Associates, P.C., and Richard
      Coffman of The Coffman Law Firm as Class Counsel.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          Erich P. Schork, Esq.
          BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312 621-2000
          Facsimile: 312 641-5504
          E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
                  e.schork@barnowlaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Paula R. Brown, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619 338-1100
          Facsimile: 619 338-1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  pbrown@bholaw.com

               - and -

          Richard L. Coffman, Esq.
          THE COFFMAN LAW FIRM
          First City Building
          505 Orleans St., Fifth Floor
          Beaumont, TX 77701
          Telephone: 409 833-7700
          Facsimile: 866 835-8250
          E-mail: rcoffman@coffmanlawfirm.com

FACEBOOK INC: Schmidt Sues over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------
JASPER SCHMIDT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FACEBOOK Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
the Defendant, Case 3:18-cv-06953-LB (N.D. Cal., Nov. 16, 2018),
seeks to enjoin Defendant from engaging in further negligent,
deceptive, unfair, and unlawful business practices in relation to
data breach.

According to the complaint, Facebook operates the world's largest
social media platform with over two billion users. Facebook
requires that its users, including Plaintiff and the class members,
give Facebook their personally identifiable information ("PII") to
use the website. Facebook collects thousands of PII data points
including: users' names, email address, telephone numbers, dates of
birth, credit card numbers, private messages, locations, education
and work history, and photographs. Users expect that Facebook will
protect and keep their personal information secure, because
Facebook explicitly says it will do just that.

However, over the course of the last year it has been revealed that
Facebook has failed its users multiple times and has allowed
unimpeded access to their accounts. Facebook first allowed a
third-party company to access millions of users' PII. Then
Facebook allowed that company to use its advertising tools to
target advertisements at users' based on their stolen information.
Facebook did not investigate this breach and did not provide notice
to users until a whistleblower revealed the breach to the Guardian.


Facebook's blase attitude towards users' PII has continued, and
Facebook revealed on September 28, 2018 that its inadequate
security resulted in a data breach that potentially affected over
50 million users. The breach allowed hackers to effectively take 18
over a user's account and steal all the information, including PII,
they had put on the site. Facebook first learned of an unusual
spike of activity on September 14, 2018, but did not notify users
for 14 days. The vulnerability in Facebook's code that attackers
exploited has existed since 2017, and Facebook does not currently
know how long hackers had access to accounts. Instead of
immediately informing users that their accounts may have been
acked, Facebook decided to just log users out of their accounts
without telling them why it was happening. Facebook has admitted
that "attackers exploited a vulnerability in Facebook's code that
impacted 'view as,' a feature that lets people see what their own
profile looks like to someone else. This allowed them to steal
Facebook access tokens which they could then use to take over
people’s accounts. Access tokens are equivalent to a digital key
that allowed users to stay logged in to Facebook so that they do
not need to re-enter their password every time they used Facebook.

On October 12, 2018, Facebook provided further details of the
breach and claimed that of the original 50 million people whose
access tokens Facebook thought was affected, about 30 million
actually had their tokens stolen. Because of Facebook's inadequate
security measures and its unreasonable delay in notifying users of
the breach, Plaintiff's and class members' PII has been
compromised. Plaintiff and class members have suffered harm in that
their PII has lost value and they must now undertake additional
security measures to minimize the risk of identity theft. Even with
that, Plaintiff and the class members have no way to completely
mitigate the effects of this data breach as hackers had access to
photographs and private messages that now can never be removed from
the internet.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          David S. Casey, Jr., Esq.
          Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
          Jeremy Robinson, Esq.
          CASEY GERRY SCHENK
          FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
          110 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238 1811
          Facsimile: (619) 544 9232
          E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com
                  gmb@cglaw.com
                  jrobinson@cglaw.com

FACIAL REJUVENATION: Sued over Telemarketing Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
LAURA MONTANARI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FACIAL REJUVENATION OF SOUTH FLORIDA,
LLC D/B/A MD AGELESS SOLUTIONS, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-24813-KMW (S.D. Fla., Nov.
16, 2018), asks the Court to halt Defendant's illegal conduct,
which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment,
aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of
individuals, and seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and
members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is a multidisciplinary
medical spa specializing in regenerative and aesthetic medicine. To
promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing,
harming thousands of consumers in the process. On or about June 13,
2018, Defendant sent telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff's
cellular telephone number ending in 0419. The Defendant's text
messages were transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular telephone, and
within the time frame relevant to this action. The Defendant's text
messages constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the
future purchase or investment in property, goods, or services,
i.e., selling Plaintiff various regenerative and aesthetic
therapies and medicine.

The information contained in the text message advertises
Defendant's services offered at "50% off", which Defendant sends to
promote its business. At no point in time did Plaintiff provide
Defendant with his express written consent to be contacted using an
ATDS. The Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user of the 0419
Number and is financially responsible for phone service to the 0419
Number. The Plaintiff has been registered with the national
do-not-call registry since May 12, 2017, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1 st Avenue, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: 305-479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

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

FAIRWAY INDEPENDENT: LeFever Seeks OT Premium Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Patricia LeFever, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Fairway Independent Mortgage
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-08326-DJH (D. Ariz.,
Nov. 16, 2018), alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the Arizona wage statute, by knowingly
failing to pay Plaintiff all overtime premium wages for overtime
work they performed.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as a Mortgage Loan
Officer for the Defendant in Prescott, Arizona, performing loan
origination services in this District. The Defendant paid Plaintiff
on an hourly basis, but failed to pay Plaintiff for all time worked
beyond forty hours in given workweeks at the required time and
one-half premium overtime compensation rate, the lawsuit says.

Fairway Independent Mortgage Corporation offers financing options
and mortgage advice. The company offers a range of residential loan
programs.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras2stephanzouras
                  cmitchell@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

          Daniel Bonnett, Esq.
          Jennifer Kroll, Esq.
          Michael Licata, Esq.
          MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C.
          4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185
          Phoenix, AZ 85018
          Telephone: (602) 240-6900
          Facsimile: (602) 240-2345
          E-mail: dbonnett@martinbonnett.com
          jkroll@martinbonnett.com
          mlicata@martinbonnett.com

FEDERAL SIGNAL: Status Hearing on Class Certification Bid Held
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a further status
hearing on class certification issues was scheduled for December 4,
2018, in the Hearing Loss Litigation.

The Company has been sued for monetary damages by firefighters who
claim that exposure to the Company's sirens has impaired their
hearing and that the sirens are therefore defective. There were 33
cases filed during the period of 1999 through 2004, involving a
total of 2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.

These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from
locations outside of Chicago. In 2009, six additional cases were
filed in Cook County, involving 299 Pennsylvania firefighter
plaintiffs. During 2013, another case was filed in Cook County
involving 74 Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs.

The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs' claims occurred in
2008, whereby a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in
favor of the Company.

An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for
trial in 2009. Plaintiffs' counsel later moved to reduce the number
of plaintiffs from 40 to nine. The trial for these nine plaintiffs
concluded with a verdict against the Company and for the plaintiffs
in varying amounts totaling $0.4 million. The Company appealed this
verdict.

On September 13, 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court rejected this
appeal. The Company thereafter filed a petition for rehearing with
the Illinois Appellate Court, which was denied on February 7, 2013.
The Company sought further review by filing a petition for leave to
appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court on March 14, 2013.

On May 29, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a summary order
declining to accept review of this case. On July 1, 2013, the
Company satisfied the judgments entered for these plaintiffs, which
has resulted in final dismissal of these cases.

A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter
plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a
unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of this
trial.

Following this trial, on March 12, 2012 the trial court entered an
order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department
firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the
Company's sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. The
Company petitioned the Illinois Appellate Court for interlocutory
appeal of this ruling. On May 17, 2012, the Illinois Appellate
Court accepted the Company's petition.

On June 8, 2012, plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeing
with the Company that the trial court had erred in certifying a
class action trial in this matter. Pursuant to plaintiffs' motion,
the Illinois Appellate Court reversed the trial court's
certification order.

Thereafter, the trial court scheduled a fourth consolidated trial
involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which began in December
2012. Prior to the start of this trial, the claims of two of the
three firefighter plaintiffs were dismissed. On December 17, 2012,
the jury entered a complete defense verdict for the Company.

Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again moved to certify a
class of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for trial on the sole
issue of whether the Company's sirens were defective and
unreasonably dangerous. Over the Company's objection, the trial
court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March
11, 2013 and scheduled a class action trial to begin on June 10,
2013. The Company filed a petition for review with the Illinois
Appellate Court on March 29, 2013 seeking reversal of the class
certification order.

On June 25, 2014, a unanimous three-judge panel of the First
District Illinois Appellate Court issued its opinion reversing the
class certification order of the trial court. Specifically, the
Appellate Court determined that the trial court's ruling failed to
satisfy the class-action requirements that the common issues of the
firefighters' claims predominate over the individual issues and
that there is an adequate representative for the class.

During a status hearing on October 8, 2014, plaintiffs represented
to the Court that they would again seek to certify a class of
firefighters on the issue of whether the Company's sirens were
defective and unreasonably dangerous. On January 12, 2015,
plaintiffs filed motions to amend their complaints to add class
action allegations with respect to Chicago firefighter plaintiffs
as well as the approximately 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from
locations outside of Chicago. On March 11, 2015, the trial court
granted plaintiff's motions to amend their complaints. On April 24,
2015, the cases were transferred to Cook County chancery court,
which will decide all class certification issues.

On March 23, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify as a class
all firefighters from the Chicago Fire Department who have filed
lawsuits in this matter. The Company has served discovery upon
plaintiffs related to this motion and intends to continue its
objections to any attempt at certification. A further status
hearing on class certification issues has been scheduled for
December 4, 2018.

Federal Signal Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
designs, manufactures, and supplies a suite of products and
integrated solutions for municipal, governmental, industrial, and
commercial customers in the United States, Canada, Europe, and
internationally. It operates through two segments, Environmental
Solutions Group and Safety and Security Systems Group. Federal
Signal Corporation was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Oak
Brook, Illinois.


FIRST CHOICE: Schaffer & Fabricant Sue over Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES SCHAFFER and TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. FIRST CHOICE
PAYMENT SOLUTIONS G.P., d/b/a SEKURE MERCHANT SOLUTIONS, the
Defendant, Case 8:18-cv-01981 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 5, 2018), alleges
that Sekure, despite having settled a prior class action lawsuit
over alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
continued to engage in automated telemarketing in violation of the
TCPA using automated calls and pre-recorded messages that were sent
to cellular telephones. Because telemarketing campaigns generally
place calls to hundreds thousands or even millions of potential
customers en masse, and because Plaintiff's investigation has
revealed facts—as set forth below—indicating that he was the
target of one such massive company, Plaintiff brings this action on
behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received
illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of Defendant.

Sekure offers various payment technologies for businesses. One of
Sekure's strategies for marketing its payment services and
generating new customers is telemarketing. Sekure's telemarketing
involves the use of an automatic telephone dialing system to
solicit business. Sekure uses ATDS equipment that has the capacity
to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, that includes
autodialers and predictive dialers and that plays a prerecorded
message once the calls connect.

The dialing system used by Sekure is the Five9 predictive dialer,
dialing system that is subject to the TCPA's ATDS protections. The
Five predictive dialer works by loading a list of telephone numbers
electronically into the dialer, and with the push of a single
button, calls are made automatically and sequentially from that
list. Sekure has engaged in this conduct despite the fact that it
was previously sued for violating the TCPA's ATDS provisions and
entered into a class action settlement. Recipients of these calls,
including Plaintiffs, did not consent to receive such telephone
calls, the lawsuit days.[BN]

Attorney for Terry Fabricant and James Schaffer and the Proposed
Class:

          Robert Stempler, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW OFFICE OF
          ROBERT STEMPLER, APC
          8200 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (323) 486-0102
          E-mail: socalconsumerlawyer@gmail.com

FITBIT INC: Patti Sues over Misleading Financial Report
-------------------------------------------------------
ANANDA PATTI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FITBIT, INC., JAMES PARK, and WILLIAM
ZERELLA, the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-06922-LHK (N.D. Cal.,
Nov. 15, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

According to the complaint, the case is a federal securities class
action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Fitbit securities
between August 2, 2016 through January 30, 2017, both dates
inclusive. Fitbit is a technology company focused on delivering
health solutions that impact health outcomes. The Fitbit platform
combines wearable devices with software and services to give our
users tools to help them reach their health and fitness goals,
augmented by general purpose features that add further utility and
drive user engagement trackers and smartwatches, enable our users
to view data about their daily activity, exercise and sleep in
real-time. Its wearable devices, which include health and fitness
The core of the Company's platform is its family of wearable
devices. These devices automatically track users’ daily steps,
calories burned, distance traveled, and active minutes, and display
real-time feedback to encourage users to become more active in
their daily lives. Most of its wearable devices also measure floors
climbed, and sleep duration and quality, and its more advanced
products track heart rate, and GPS-based information such as speed,
distance, and exercise routes. Several of its devices also have
more advanced features such as the ability to receive call and text
notifications, and our first smartwatch, Fitbit Ionic, offers
contactless payments, on-board music, notifications, and several
apps.

The Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company was
facing headwinds, caused by greater competition in the marketplace;
(ii) the Company was failing to differentiate its products from its
competitors, including Apple Inc's Watch; (iii) consequently,
demand for Fitbit's products was faltering; (iv) the Company
overstated its financial guidance; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On November 2, 2016, Fitbit issued a press release announcing its
financial results for the third fiscal quarter of 2016, which
disclosed that it was lowering its full year 2016 revenue guidance
to "between $2.320 billion and $2.345 billion," down from the
previously-announced "$2.5 to $2.6 billion." On this news, Fitbit's
share price fell $4.30 per share, or 33.6%, to close at $8.51 per
share on November 3, 2016. On January 30, 2017, Fitbit issued a
press release announcing its preliminary fourth fiscal quarter 2016
financial results, which disclosed that the Company expected fourth
quarter of 2016 revenue to be in the range of $572 million to $580
million, rather than its previously announced guidance range of
$725 million to $750 million. Fitbit further announced that it
forecasted its annual revenue growth to be approximately 17%,
rather than the previously announced forecast of 25% to 26%. On
this news, Fitbit's share price fell $1.15 per share, or 16%, to
close at $6.06 per share on January 30, 2017. As a result of
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff
and other Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          468 North Camden Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (818) 532-6499
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

FMC CORP: Parties in Canadian Suit Agree to $2.5MM Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that plaintiffs in the
Canadian class action suit and FMC have reached a settlement
agreement providing for payment of CAD 3.25 million ($2.5
million).

In 2005, after public disclosures of the U.S. federal grand jury
investigation into the hydrogen peroxide industry (which resulted
in no charges brought against the company) and the filing of
various class actions in U.S. federal and state courts, which have
all been settled, putative class actions against the company and
five other major hydrogen peroxide producers were filed in
provincial courts in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia under the
laws of Canada. The other five defendants have settled these claims
for a total of approximately $20.6 million.

On September 28, 2009, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
certified a class of direct and indirect purchasers of hydrogen
peroxide from 1994 to 2005. The company's motion for leave to
appeal the class certification decision was denied in June 2010.
The case was largely dormant while the Canadian Supreme Court
considered, in different litigation, whether indirect purchasers
may recover overcharges in antitrust actions.

In October 2013 the Court ruled that such recovery is permissible.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs' moved to dismiss certain downstream
purchasers (those who purchased products that contain hydrogen
peroxide or were made using hydrogen peroxide) from the case and to
reduce the class period to November 1, 1998 through December 31,
2003 - thereby eliminating six of the eleven years of the
originally certified class period. The Court approved this request.


Following an active period of discovery the plaintiffs approached
FMC for settlement negotiations in July 2018. The plaintiffs and
FMC subsequently reached agreement and signed a settlement
agreement on September 27, 2018, providing for a payment of CAD
3.25 million ($2.5 million), which is recorded within "Accrued and
other current liabilities" on the condensed consolidated balance
sheets, to plaintiffs. This was recorded within "Discontinued
operations, net of income taxes" on the condensed consolidated
statements of income (loss).

FMC said, "Subject to court approval, which is expected, the
settlement agreement fully and finally resolved the Canadian
litigation."

FMC Corporation, a diversified chemical company, provides
solutions, applications, and products for the agricultural,
consumer, and industrial markets worldwide. The company operates in
two segments, FMC Agricultural Solutions and FMC Lithium. FMC
Corporation was founded in 1883 and is headquartered in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


FORTERRA INC: Class Suit over IPO Underway
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit over Forterra, Inc.'s initial public
offering remains pending, the 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.

Beginning on August 14, 2017, four plaintiffs filed putative class
action complaints in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against a group of defendants that
varies by complaint but includes the Company, certain members of
senior management, the Board of Directors, Lone Star and certain of
its affiliates, and certain banks that acted as underwriters of the
IPO (collectively or in groups that vary by complaint, the
"defendants").

On August 14, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed by
Charles Forrester; on August 16, 2017, a putative class action
complaint was filed by Supanin Disayawathana; on August 23, 2017 a
putative class action complaint was filed by Matthew Spindler; and
on September 27, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed
by Nancy Maloney, which complaint was subsequently voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice to refiling (the four complaints
together, the "Securities Lawsuits").

The Securities Lawsuits are brought by each plaintiff individually
and on behalf of all persons who purchased Company securities
during an alleged class period that varies by complaint, but
generally begins with the IPO in October 2016 and lasts through a
range of dates from May 12, 2017 through August 14, 2017.

The Securities Lawsuits generally allege that the Company's
registration statement on Form S-1 filed in connection with the
IPO, and in the case of certain complaints, statements made by the
Company or the individual defendants at times after the IPO,
contained false or misleading statements and/or omissions of
material facts relating to (1) the lack of growth from organic
sales versus sales from acquisitions, and the lack of organic
growth related thereto, (2) increased pricing pressure on the
Company's products, (3) softness in the concrete and steel pressure
pipe business, (4) operational problems at plants, including
problems relating to defective products, (5) unpaid invoices for
products and services that resulted in understated expenses, (6) an
undisclosed material weakness in internal controls related to
inventory, and (7) an undisclosed material weakness in internal
controls relating to bill and hold transactions.

The Securities Lawsuits generally assert claims under Section 11 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended ("Securities Act"), Section
15 of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
they seek (1) class certification under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, (2) damages in an amount to be proven at trial, (3)
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, (4) an award of reasonable
costs and expense of plaintiffs, including counsel and expert fees,
(5) an award of rescission or a rescissionary measure of damages,
and (6) equitable or other relief as deemed appropriate by the
court.

On July 27, 2018, an order was entered consolidating the three
remaining Securities Lawsuits into a single action in the Forrester
case and transferring the venue of the case from the Eastern
District of New York to the Northern District of Texas.

On September 17, 2018, an order was entered appointing Wladislaw
Maciuga as lead plaintiff and approving his counsel as lead
counsel. The Court has also entered an order agreeing to a proposed
schedule for plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint by November 30,
2018 and deadlines under which the parties may file responsive
pleadings and related briefing.

Forterra, Inc. manufactures and sells water and drainage pipe and
products in the United States and Eastern Canada. It also
manufactures structural and specialty precast products, and precast
concrete bridge girders; and pressure, prestressed concrete, and
bar-wrapped concrete pipes. The company serves water-related
infrastructure applications, including water transmission,
distribution, and drainage; and contractors, distributors,
municipalities, and utilities waterworks. Forterra, Inc. was
founded in 2016 and is headquartered in Irving, Texas.


FREEPORT VENTURES: Harris Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
KENT HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FREEPORT VENTURES, LLC d/b/a VALIANT
AUTO LLC d/b/a and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them,
the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-02049 (C.D. Cal., Nov 16. 2018),
seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in negligently,
knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on his cellular
telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
and related regulations, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, beginning in or around January 2018,
Defendant contacted Plaintiff on his cellular telephone number
ending in -1967, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase
Defendant's services. Defendant contacted or attempted to contact
Plaintiff from telephone numbers including, but not limited to
(832) 241-8827 confirmed to be Defendant's number. Defendant's
calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as
defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). The Defendant did not
possess Plaintiff's "prior 26 express consent" to receive calls
using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C.
section 28 227(b)(1)(A).

The Plaintiff is not a customer of Defendant's services and has
never provided any personal information, including her cellular
telephone number, to Defendant for any purpose whatsoever.
Accordingly, Defendant never received Plaintiff's "prior express
consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing
system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular
telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A), the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


GC SERVICES: Thomas Suit Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
----------------------------------------------------------
BRANDI THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00908-SLC (W.D. Wis., Nov. 2, 2018) seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.
The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker.

GC Services Limited Partnership provides accounts receivable and
customer care solutions to public and private sector organizations.
GC Services Limited Partnership was founded in 1957 and is based in
Houston, Texas. It has call center locations in the United States,
the Caribbean, and the Philippines. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GEARY PACIFIC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Valdez Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW VALDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GEARY PACIFIC CORPORATION; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18STCV04381 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 8, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages,
wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Mr. Valdez was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid or
non-exempt employee.

Geary Pacific Corporation distributes heating and air conditioning
equipment and parts. The company was founded in 1961 and is based
in Anaheim, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENERAL MILLS: Jackson Case Removed to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
General Mills, Inc. removed case captioned CHARLENE M. JACKSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs GENERAL MILLS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 37-2018-00052079-CU-FR-CTL, fron
the San Diego County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California on Nov. 16, 2018. The Southern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 18CV2634 LAB
BGS to the proceeding.

On October 12, 2018, Charlene M. Jackson filed a complaint in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego,
against General Mills, alleging violation of the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005.[BN]

Attorneys for Defendant:

          David F. McDowell, Esq.
          Claudia Maria Vetesi, Esq.
          R. Benjamin Nelson, Esq.
          Brian L. Hazen, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543
          Telephone: 213 892 5200
          Facsimile: 213 892 5454
          E-mail: DMcDowell@mofo.com
          CVetesi@mofo.com
          RBNelson@mofo.com
          BHazen@mofo.com


GLZ EXCAVATING: Sanchez Rivas Seeks Full Earned Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
VENTURA SANCHEZ RIVAS, the Plaintiff, v. GLZ EXCAVATING, INC., and
MARGARITO BERNAL GONZALEZ D/B/A GLZ EXCAVATING, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-01914-TMP (N.D. Ala.), seeks to recover damages
for willful conduct and continuous willful practice of not paying
Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, full earned wages and
overtime earned against Defendant, under the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants hired Plaintiff as an
excavating laborer and he has done so for the Defendants for over
four years working every week of the year for a number of hours far
exceeding 40 hours. The Plaintiff was never paid overtime, and was
never paid for a length of time, and has never received any
benefits from the Defendants which other similarly situated may
have received. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Vicenta Bonet Smith, Esq.
          BONET & SMITH, PC
          3499 Independence Drive
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 870-2222
          Facsimile: (205) 870-3331

GOGO INC: Still Defends Pierrelouis Class Action in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
Gogo Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that the company still defends
from a purported class action suit entitled, Pierrelouis v. Gogo
Inc.

On June 27, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division styled
Pierrelouis v. Gogo Inc., naming the Company, its former Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer and its current Chief
Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and President,
Commercial Aviation as defendants purportedly on behalf of all
purchasers of our securities from February 27, 2017 through May 7,
2018.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, alleging misrepresentations or omissions by
the company purporting to relate to its 2Ku antenna's reliability
and installation and remediation costs. The plaintiffs seek to
recover from the company and the individual defendants an
unspecified amount of damages.

Gogo said, "We believe that the claims are without merit and intend
to defend them vigorously. In accordance with Delaware law, we will
indemnify the individual named defendants for their defense costs
and any damages they incur in connection with the suit. We have
filed a claim with the issuer of our Directors' and Officers'
insurance policy with respect to this suit. No amounts have been
accrued for any potential losses under this matter, as we cannot
reasonably predict the outcome of the litigation or any potential
losses."

Gogo Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides inflight broadband
connectivity and wireless entertainment services to the aviation
industry in the United States and internationally. It operates
through three segments: Commercial Aviation North America (CA-NA),
Commercial Aviation Rest of World (CA-ROW), and Business Aviation
(BA). The company was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois.


GOLDEN 1 CREDIT: Ware Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime
---------------------------------------------------
DESHAWN WARE individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THE GOLDEN 1 CREDIT UNION, INC., as
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02926-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal., Nov. 5,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, award of liquidated damages,
statutory penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, attendant
penalties, and award of attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and the California
Industrial Welfare Commission.

According to the complaint, the Defendant employed call center
sales employees, referred to herein as call center customer support
representatives. The Defendant employed these CSRs, including
Plaintiff, in a call center facility in Sacramento, California. The
Defendant employs over one hundred CSRs to provide customer support
to its clients via inbound phone calls. The Defendant required its
CSRs to work a full-time schedule, plus overtime. However,
Defendant did not actually or accurately record their CSRs'
compensable work time as required by law.

The Defendant knew or could have easily determined how long it took
for their CSRs to complete their unpaid work, and Defendant could
have properly compensated Plaintiff and the putative Class for this
work, but they did not. Furthermore, the Defendant systematically
failed to properly calculate Plaintiff and other CSRs' regular
hourly rate by failing to include all remuneration in the regular
rate calculation, the lawsuit says.

Defendant is in the banking and finance business.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Classes:

          Robin K. Perkins, Esq.
          Natalia D. Asbill-Bearor, Esq.
          PERKINS & ASSOCIATES
          300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1800
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 446-2000
          E-mail: rperkins@perkins-lawoffice.com
                  nasbill@perkins-lawoffice.com

Trial Counsel for Plaintiff and Proposed Class and Collective
Members:

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
          kstoops@sommerspc.com
          crash@sommerspc.com
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          Facsimile: (248) 436-8453

               - and -

          Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
          E-mail: trk@classactionlaw.com
          FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK, LLP
          550 West C St., Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333

GOPRO INC: Larkin's Amended Class Action Complaint Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTON BIELOUSOV,
Individually and on Behalf of All others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. GOPRO, INC. and NICHOLAS D. WOODMAN, the Defendant,
Case No. 16-cv-06654-CW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Claudia Wilken
entered an order denying Defendants move to dismiss Lead Plaintiff
Troy Larkin's amended class action complaint.

The Court said, "Within fourteen days after the date of this order,
Plaintiff must file a second amended complaint naming all
Defendants he intends to sue."[CC]

GORDON COMPANIES: Conner Suit Asserts Disabilities Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gordon Companies Inc.
The case is styled as Mary Conner individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Gordon Companies Inc. doing business as: Christmas Central,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11035 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 27, 2018).

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

Gordon Companies, Inc., a development and management company,
provides ground-up development, construction, renovation, leasing,
and management services. The company operates through six
divisions: Hospitality, Retail Development, Storage Facilities,
Residential, G Properties, and Management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     Shaked Law Group P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


GOSMITH INC: Grossberg Sues over Unauthorized Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN GROSSBERG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GOSMITH, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-24811-CMA (S.D. Ga.), seeks injunctive
relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

This case arises from Defendant's unauthorized text messages to
cellular subscribers who never provided Defendant with prior
express consent, as well as subscribers who expressly requested not
to receive Defendant's text messages or who had revoked any prior
express consent. Defendant caused thousands of unsolicited text
messages to be sent to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and
Class Members, causing them injuries, including invasion of their
privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass,
and conversion, the lawsuit says.

GoSmith, Inc. provides home improvement contracting services in the
United States. The company was founded in 2012 and is based in
Sunnyvale, California.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
          Telephone: 954.400.4713

               - and -

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 533 4092
          E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

GR INTL: Sued over Unsolicited Telemarketing Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
ISAIAH VARONA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATING GROUP
INC. D/B/A TORRENTE KITCHEN & BATH, a Florida Corporation, the
Defendant, Case 0:18-cv-62661-KMM (S.D. Fla., Nov. 2, 2018), seeks
to secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, and injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal
conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment,
aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of
individuals.

According to the complaint, Defendant is corporation that sells a
variety of cabinets and countertops for kitchen and bathrooms. To
promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing,
harming thousands of consumers in the process. On or about July 8,
2018, Defendant sent telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff's
cellular telephone number ending in 1068 Defendant's text messages
were transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular telephone, and within the
time frame relevant to this action.

The Defendant's text messages constitute telemarketing because they
encouraged the future purchase or investment in property, goods, or
services, i.e., selling Plaintiff cabinets and countertops. The
information contained in the text message advertises Defendant's
specials by stating, "THIS IS A COUPON of DISCOUNT!", which
Defendant sends to promote its business. The Plaintiff received the
subject texts within this judicial district and, therefore,
Defendant's violation of the TCPA occurred within this district.
The Defendant caused other text messages to be sent to individuals
residing within this judicial district. At no point in time did
Plaintiff provide Defendant with his express written consent to be
contacted using an automatic telephone dialing system, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1 st Avenue, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: 305-479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

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

HAUTE COIFFURE: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Lemus Says
-----------------------------------------------------
ELENA LEMUS, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. HAUTE COIFFURE, INC. and GEORGE SALEH, the
Defendants, Case No.: 18-3446E (Mass. Super. Ct., Nov. 5, 2018),
alleges that Defendants violated Massachusetts wage payment laws
including the Massachusetts Wage Act and the Massachusetts Minimum
Fair Wage Law by failing to pay the Plaintiff for all hours worked
and for hours worked in excess of 40 per week at the rate of one
and one-half times her regular hourly rate.

Accoridng to the complaint, Haute Coiffure is a hair salon. The
Plaintiff began working for the Defendants in or around April 2014
as a hair stylist. The Plaintiff's last date of work for the
Defendants was on or about November 3, 2017. The Plaintiffs regular
work hours were from 9:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., approximately 10 hours
per day. Prior to March 2016, Plaintiff worked 5 days per week,
approximately 50 hours per week. From March 2016 to August 2017,
Plaintiff worked 6 days per week, approximately 60 hours per week.
From August 2017 to November 2017, Plaintiff worked 5 days per
week, approximately 50 hours per week. The Defendants paid
Plaintiff and the other stylists a fixed amount per week and did
not pay -- any extra amount for overtime hours in excess of 40 per
week. For example, when Plaintiff worked 6 days per week, she was
paid S650 per week, plus tips. When Plaintiff worked 5 days per
week, she was paid $500 per week, plus tips. During the weeks in
which Plaintiff and the other stylists worked 40 or more hours,
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the other stylists overtime
wages at one and one-half times their regular hourly rate, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Howard M. Brown, Esq.
          BOSTON EMPLOYMENT LAW PC
          1170 Beacon Street, Suite 200
          Brookline, MA 02446
          Telephone: (617) 566-8090
          Facsimile: (617) 566-8091
          E-mail: hmb@bostonemploymentlaw.com

HAYTI, MO: Hamilton Appeals E.D. Mo. Ruling to Eighth Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Henry Hamilton filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Henry Hamilton v. Calvin Ragland, et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-00054-RLW, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Henry Hamilton
filed a complaint against Defendants Amy Leeann Inman, Judge Calvin
Ragland, Glenda Overbey, and City of Hayti, alleging violation of
his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (count I) for
conspiring to deprive him of his rights under the Fourth, Eighth,
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.  The
Plaintiff maintains that the Defendants violated his right to be
free from unreasonable seizure, custodial arrest, and imprisonment
for the alleged ordinance violations; to be free from prosecution
not based on probable cause; to be released from imprisonment; to
have his case heard and adjudicated before being compelled to plead
guilty or prepay fines and court costs under the guise of a cash
only bond; and to promptly be brought before a judge for an initial
appearance and released at the time of arrest.

The appellate case is captioned as Henry Hamilton v. Calvin
Ragland, et al., Case No. 18-3450, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Henry Hamilton, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jim R. Bruce, II, Esq.
          403 St. Francis Street
          P.O. Box 37
          Kennett, MO 63857-0000
          Telephone: (573) 888-9696

Defendants-Appellees City of Hayti, Missouri, Calvin Ragland and
Glenda Overby are represented by:

          Albert M. Spradling, III, Esq.
          SPRADLING & SPRADLING
          1838 Broadway
          P.O. Drawer 1119
          Cape Girardeau, MO 63702-1119
          Telephone: (573) 335-8296

Defendant-Appellee Amy Leeann Inman is represented by:

          John William Grimm, Esq.
          John Christian Steffens, Esq.
          LIMBAUGH & RUSSELL
          407 N. Kingshighway
          P.O. Box 1150
          Cape Girardeau, MO 63701
          Telephone: (573) 335-3316
          E-mail: jgrimm@limbaughlaw.com
                  jsteffens@limbaughlaw.com


HEALTH SERVICES: Foster et al. Seek Unpaid Wages for Home Cleaners
------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHEETA WILEY, STEVE FOSTER, and STEPHANIE SHORTRIDGE on behalf of
all others similarly situated, all other aggrieved employees, and
the State of California, thef Plaintiff, vs. HEALTH SERVICES MEDIA,
INC. dba MAID COMPLETE, and BRANDON BLUM, and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-06680 (N.D. Cal., Nov.
2, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Washeeta Wiley worked as a home cleaner
for Maid Complete from about August 2016 to May 2018. Stephanie
Shortridge worked as a home cleaner for Maid Complete from October
2016 to May 2018. Steve Foster worked as a home cleaner for Maid
Complete from about October 2016 to May 2018. Maid Complete
misclassified Plaintiffs and all of its other home cleaners
nationwide as independent contractors when they are in fact
employees under federal and (for those 14 workers who worked in
California) California law.

As a result, Defendants illegally deducted wages, withheld tips,
failed to pay overtime or provide off-duty meal and rest periods,
failed to reimburse business expenses, provide accurate wage
statements, and committed other violations of the FLSA and the
California Labor Code, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Richard A. Hoyer, Esq.
          Ryan L. Hicks, Esq.
          Nicole B. Gage, Esq.
          HOYER & HICKS
          4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 766-3539
          Facsimile: (415) 276-1738
          E-mail: rhoyer@hoyerlaw.com
                  rhicks@hoyerlaw.com
                  ngage@hoyerlaw.com

HIBACHI EXPRESS: Rodriguez Seeks Minimum & OT Pay
-------------------------------------------------
SAUL RODRIGUEZ , and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C
206(B), the Plaintiff, vs. HIBACHI EXPRESS, a Florida Corporation,
JING S. XIE, individually, the Defendant, Case
6:18-cv-01911-ACC-TBS (M.D. Fla., Nov. 7, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime and minimum wage compensation, as well as an
additional amount as liquidated damages, costs and reasonable
attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Accoridng to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked a total of 288
hours per month, and was paid an average of $2,500.00 dollars per
month. Notwithstanding, Hibachi Express and Xie willfully and
intentionally failed/refused to pay to Plaintiff the federally
required minimum and overtime rates for all hours he worked, and
also unlawfully kept Plaintiff's tips.

Hibachi Express and Xie knew of the minimum and overtime
requirements of the FLSA and willfully, intentionally or recklessly
failed to investigate whether their payroll practices were in
accordance with the FLSA. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered
damages and is entitled to receive overtime and minimum wage
compensation, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Monica Espino, Esq.
          ESPINO LAW
          2655 S. Le Jeune Road, Suite 802
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: 305.704.3172
          Facsimile: 305.722.7378
          E-mail: me@espino-law.com
                  legal@espino-law.com

HUAQUECHULA RESTAURANT: Tapia et al. Seek Unpaid Wages for Waiters
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA TAPIA , MELVIN-ISRAEL GARCIA-PEREZ, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, vs. HUAQUECHULA RESTAURANT CORP. D/B/A
GUADALAJARA MEXICAN R ESTAURANT, FIDELLIRA A/K/A JESUS LIRA, AND
LUCIANNA FIGUEROA, the Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-10771
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid
minimum wage, liquidated damages, punitive damages, and reasonable
attorney fees and costs from the Defendants, for whom the
Plaintiffs performed work under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs were "back of the house" kitchen staff and "front of
the house" waitstaff employed in the Defendants' restaurant. For a
time prior to filing this Complaint, the Defendants willfully
committed violations of the FLSA and the NYLL by failing to keep
accurate time records, failing to pay the Plaintiffs minimum wage
by using an unlawful tip-credit, failing to pay a spread of hours
premium, and not paying Plaintiffs their gratuities.

The Defendants utilized a tip credit to avoid having to pay the
front of the house waitstaff the full statutory Minimum Wage under
the NYLL and FLSA. The Defendants did not provide the Plaintiffs
with proper notice to utilize a tip credit, did not keep accurate
track of the Plaintiffs work hours, did not pay the statutorily
required direct wage, took too large a tip credit, failed to
provide statutory wage notices. Because the Defendants did not take
the necessary steps to utilize a proper tip credit and retained
employee tips, the Plaintiffs were paid less than the Federal and
New York State minimum wage for each hour worked. Additionally, the
defendants paid the back of the house kitchen staff a cash salary
wage and required them to work more than 40 hours each workweek
without receiving overtime. The Defendants did not pay the back of
the house staff minimum wage or overtime, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Jordan El-Hag, Esq.
          EL-HAG & ASSOCIATES, P.C
          777 Westchester Ave, Suite 101
          White Plains, N.Y, 10604
          Telephone: (914) 218-6190
          Facsimile: (914) 206-4176
          E-mail: Jordan@elhaglaw.com
          E-mail: www.elhaglaw.com

HUMANA AT HOME: Motion to Certify Class Placed under Advisement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action Daverlynn Kinkead et al., the Plaintiffs, vs
Humana at Home et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-01637-JAM
(D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer entered an order
taking the motion to amend complaint and motion to certify Class
under advisement, according to the civil minutes.[CC]

Plaintiff's Counsel:

          Michael Sweeney, Esq.
          P. Bohrer, Esq.
          A. Guerra, Esq.
          DUFFY & SWEENEY, LTD
          1800 Financial Plaza
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 455 0700
          Facsimile: (401) 455 0701

Defendant's Counsel

          David Golder, Esq.
          A. Farmer, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS
          Telephone: 860 522-0404
          Facsimile: 860 247-1330
          E-mail: David.Golder@jacksonlewis.com
          Julie.Farmer@jacksonlewis.com

IBERIA FOODS: Octopus Products Contain Squid, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
LUIS DIEGO ZAPATA FONSECA, individually, and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. IBERIA FOODS CORP. and ORBE,
S.A., a foreign corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06279
(E.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2018), complains about Defendants' co-dependent
and conspiratorial scheme in importing, marketing, advertising,
labeling, packaging, distributing, and selling at least three
varieties of Iberia canned Octopus: Octopus in Garlic Sauce,
Octopus in Marinara Sauce, and Octopus in Vegetable Oil (Product).
The Product is sold based on false, deceptive, unfair, and/or
misleading affirmative representations and omissions that are
likely to mislead reasonable consumers who purchased the Product,
like Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class. The Product is
not Octopus -- it is actually Squid (also known giant squid or
Dosidicus gigas).

According to the complaint, the Product's uniform
misrepresentations and omissions deceive and mislead reasonable
consumers to believe that the Product is Octopus, when in reality,
it is Squid, which is cheaper, lower quality and more abundant than
Octopus. Octopus is a rarer and more highly sought-after food
delicacy than Giant Squid. As the supplier, packager, and importer
of the Squid, Orbe knows or should know that it is not Octopus. As
the distributor of the Squid, Iberia knows or should know that it
is not Octopus. However, despite this, Defendants jointly caused
the Squid to be imported, supplied, and marketed to United States
consumers as Octopus. Defendants both profit far more by selling
cheap Squid as Octopus, to the detriment of reasonable consumers,
like Plaintiff and members of the Class.

The Plaintiff and members of the putative Class have suffered
injury in fact, lost money or property, and suffered economic
damages as a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct in calling
the Product Octopus, when it is really Squid. The Product is simply
not what it was represented to be. The Defendants' false and
misleading representations and omissions violate state and federal
law as detailed more fully below, including New York General
Business Law section 349, New York General Business Law section 350
and common law, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Kim E. Richman, Esq.
          RICHMAN LAW GROUP
          krichman@richmanlawgroup.com
          81 Prospect Street
          Brooklyn, New York 11201
          Telephone: (212) 687-8291
          Facsimile: (212) 687-8292

               - and -

          James P. Gitkin, Esq.
          SALPETER GITKIN, LLP
          One East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 467-8622
          Facsimile: (954) 467-8623
          E-mail: jim@salpetergitkin.com

               - and -

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
          EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI
          5400 S. University Drive, Ste. 417
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 889-3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
          E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
                  MPascucci@JusticeEarned.com

INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Faces Tchatchou Securities Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
ALDE-BINET TCHATCHOU, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. INDIA GLOBALIZATION
TECHNOLOGY, RAM MUKUNDA, RICHARD PRINS, and SUDHAKAR SHENOY, the
Defendants, Case 1:18-cv-06199 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2018), seeks to
recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of federal
securities laws and pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired IGC common
stock between September 26, 2018 and October 29, 2018, both days
inclusive. The Company's entry into the cannabinoid business
attracted widespread attention, and particularly its announcement
that it would be entering a partnership to launch a
hemp/CBD-infused energy drink called "Nitro-G" on September 25,
2018. The Company made this announcement via press releases.

According to the complaint, within one week of the Company's
announcement, the Company's stock rocketed 458%. Also during this
week, the Company conducted an at-the-market stock offering
announced on September 22, 2018, raising $30 million in capital.
The statements referenced in 11 16-17 above were materially false
and/or misleading because they misinterpreted and failed to
disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's
business and operations which were known to Defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (i) IGC
was engaged in ventures or promotions which it had not developed to
commercial stage (ii) IGC or its management had engaged in
operations contrary to the public interest; and (iii) that as a
result of the foregoing, IGC's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          John B. Isbister, Esq.
          Daniel S. Katz, Esq.
          TYDINGS & ROSENBERG LLP
          One East Pratt Street, Suite 901
          Telephone: 410 752-9700
          Facsimile: 410 727-5460

               - and -

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
          Kevin G. Cooper, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
          E-mail: GMN@whafh.com
                  guiney@whafh.com
                  kcooper@whafh.com

JAMAICA PANCAKE: Underpays Servers, Ramkalup Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
TARIQ RAMKALUP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JAMAICA PANCAKE HOUSE, INC.; LINDENHURST
PANCAKE HOUSE, INC.; WESTBURY PANCAKE HOUSE, INC.; FREEPORT PANCAKE
HOUSE, INC.; WPS INDUSTRIES, INC.; LEVITTOWN PANCAKE HOUSE, INC.;
and DANIEL CHUN, Defendants, Case No. 614190/2018 (N.Y. Sup.,
Nassau Cty., Oct. 19, 2018) seeks to recover minimum wages,
overtime compensation, misappropriated tips and damages.

The Plaintiff Ramkalup was employed by the Defendants as server.

Jamaica Pancake House, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of New York. The company is engaged in
the restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian S. Schaffer
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          Brian S. Schaffer
          Frank J. Mazzaferro
          28 Liberty Street, 30 th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Baniaks Sue over Sale of Talcum-Based Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE BANIAK, and GORDON BANIAK, the Plaintiffs, vs. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER
COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in
California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV337165
(Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 5, 2018), seeks to recover damages as a
result of the Defendants' negligence, negligent failure to warn
strict liability failure to warn, and design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Lee Cirsch, Esq.
          Michael Akselrud, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC
          21550 Oxnard Street, 3rd Floor
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (310) 277 5100
          Facsimile: (310) 277 5103
          E-mail: lee.cirsch@lanierlawfirm.com
                  michael.akselrud@lanierlawfirm.com

JPMORGAN CHASE: Charles Sues for Futures Contract Price-fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Charles Class A, L.P. and Robert L. Teel, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JPMorgan
Chase & Co., John Edmonds, and John Does Nos. 1-10, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-11115 (S.D. N.Y., November 28, 2018) is a class
action on behalf of all persons who traded precious metals futures
contracts, or options on those futures contracts, on the NYMEX or
the COMEX from approximately January 1, 2009 through December 31,
2015, inclusive for Defendants' violations of the Commodity
Exchange Act and the common law.

This case arises from Defendants' manipulation of prices for
precious metals futures contracts through a scheme known as
"spoofing". Spoofing is a practice in which traders artificially
manipulate conditions – such as supply, demand, and price – by
entering buy or sell orders that they do not intend to
follow-through on and then cancelling those orders. These deceptive
buy and sell orders inject materially false and misleading
information into markets and are intended to cause other investors
to trade on Defendants' genuine orders under conditions that are
more favorable to Defendants than would otherwise have occurred,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff Robert Charles Class A, L.P. is a California Limited
Partnership, which, at all relevant times, maintained its principal
place of business in San Diego, California. RCA transacted in Gold
and Silver Futures and options on NYMEX and COMEX during the Class
Period at artificial prices that were caused by Defendants'
unlawful conduct, resulting in injury to its business or property.

Plaintiff Robert L. Teel is an individual who, at all relevant
times, has been a resident of San Diego, California. Teel
transacted in Gold and Silver Futures and options on NYMEX and
COMEX during the Class Period at artificial prices that were caused
by Defendants' unlawful conduct, resulting in injury to its
business or property.

JPMorgan is an investment bank and financial services company
headquartered in this District at 270 Park Avenue, New York, New
York 10017. JPMorgan engages in a wide-variety of financial
services, including commodities trading.

Edmonds was employed by JPMorgan as a precious metal trader from
approximately 2004 to August 2017.

Defendants John Does Nos. 1-10, inclusive, are other precious
metals traders employed by Defendant JPMorgan that participated in,
facilitated, and assisted with the manipulation, and unlawful
conduct.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
     DEBORAH CLARK-WEINTRAUB
     The Helmsley Building
     230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
     New York, NY 10169
     Phone: (212) 233-6444
     Facsimile: (212) 233-6334
     Email: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
            dweintraub@scott-scott.com

          - and -

     Louis F. Burke, Esq.
     LOUIS F. BURKE PC
     460 Park Avenue
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 682-1700
     Email: lburke@lfblaw.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Manipulates Precious Metal Futures Trade, Ryan Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH RYAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JOHN EDMONDS,
and JOHN DOEs Nos. 1-20, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10755
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2018), alleges that Defendants harmed investors
by unlawfully manipulating the market for precious metal futures
contracts and options from approximately January 1, 2009, until at
least December 31, 2015, in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act
and the New York's General Business Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in a
long-running illicit scheme to "spoof" the market for futures
contracts -- contracts to enter into a future transaction at a
predetermined price -- and options on future contracts for gold,
silver, platinum, and palladium. Defendants placed orders to buy
and sell precious metal futures, only to cancel the orders before
they could be executed. On October 9, 2018, Edmonds, a trader at
JPMorgan, pleaded guilty to commodities fraud and conspiracy to
manipulate the prices of precious metal futures. Edmonds admitted
that he "deployed this strategy hundreds of times with the
knowledge and consent of his immediate supervisors." The
Defendants' deliberate, concealed acts distorted the market for
precious metal futures and futures options, causing prices to move
artificially to Defendants' benefit and to Plaintiff's and class
members' detriment.

The Plaintiff traded in COMEX silver and gold futures at various
times during the period between January 1, 2009 and December 31,
2015. The Plaintiff entered into transactions for gold and silver
futures at artificial prices that proximately resulted from
Defendants' misconduct. The Plaintiff consequently suffered
economic injury by purchasing or selling futures or options at
prices that Defendants had caused to be artificially shifted, the
lawsuit says.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a multinational financial services company
and investment bank incorporated under Delaware law and
headquartered at 270 Park Avenue, New York, New York. JPMorgan has
assets in excess of $2.5 trillion. It transacted in gold,
palladium, platinum, and silver contracts on the New York
Mercantile Exchange and Commodity Exchange.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Elizabeth Metcalf, Esq.
          Peter Safirstein, Esq.
          SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 201-2843
          E-mail: psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Jordan Elias, Esq.
          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          James E. Richardson, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          711 Third Ave, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212)798-0136
          Facsimile: (212)557-2952
          E-mail: dgirard@girardsharp.com
                  jelias@girardsharp.com
                  apolk@girardsharp.com
                  jrichardson@girardsharp.com

               - and -

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  aficzko@stephanzouras.com
                  tbecvar@stephanzouras.com

KANSAS: Sued over Deficiencies in Foster Care System
----------------------------------------------------
M.B. and S.E. through their next friend Katharyn McIntyre, V.A.
through his next friend Kathryn Ashburn, J.M. through his next
friend Ed Bigus, M.J. through his next friend Ed Bigus, R.M.
through his next friend Allan Hazlett, C.A. through his next friend
Allan Hazlett, Z.Z. through her next friend Ashley Thorne, B.B.
through her next friend Ashley Thorne, and M.L. through her next
friend Ashley Thorne, for themselves and those similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. Jeff Colyer in his official capacity as Kansas
Governor, Gina Meier-Hummel in her official capacity as Kansas
Department for Children and Families Secretary, Jeff Andersen in
his official capacity as Kansas Department of Health and
Environment Secretary, and Tim Keck in his official capacity as
Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services Secretary, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02617 (D. Kan., Nov. 16, 2018), seeks
solely declarative and injunctive relief compelling Defendants to:

     -- remedy known dangerous practices and specific structural
deficiencies in the Kansas foster care system, and

     -- end violations of Plaintiffs' federal rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and under the Early
and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment provisions of the
federal Medicaid Act, and the resulting harms, and risks of harm,
to foster children in the custody of the Kansas Department for
Children and Families (DCF).

In September 2018, the media reported the alleged rape of a
13-year-old girl sleeping in a child welfare agency office in
Johnson County, Kansas. The story of this child -- staying
overnight in an office because Kansas' broken system lacked any
housing for her -- exemplified a long known danger. Kansas' child
welfare system is, and has been for at least a decade,
systematically failing to protect the safety and well-being of
vulnerable children and youth in foster care in the DCF's custody.
This action addresses two fundamental systemic failures creating
this danger.

According to the lawsuit, the Defendants, which consist of state
officials responsible for the operation of the statewide foster
care system in Kansas, maintain the dangerous practice of
subjecting children in foster care to extreme housing disruption,
also known as churning. Children in DCF custody needlessly move
from placement to placement more than 15 or 20 times, and some
children even move more than 50 or 100 times. Alarmingly, DCF
frequently subjects children to "night-to-night" or short-term
placements. In a repetitive, destabilizing cycle, children are
regularly forced to sleep for a night or several nights anywhere a
bed, couch, office conference room, shelter or hospital can be
found. For days, weeks, or even months at time, they spend their
nights in these short-term placements and their days in agency
offices waiting to find out where they will sleep next, only to
repeat the same cycle again. DCF's practice of extreme housing
disruption inherently deprives children of basic shelter and
effectively renders them homeless while in state custody.

According to DCF data, as of June 2018, there were 7,687 children
in DCF custody. Between April and September of 2018 alone, 1,459 of
the children in care were forced to sleep in one-night placements.
This figure, while alarming, fails to fully capture the scope of
the harm children in DCF custody face. It reflects neither children
churning through multiple night-to-night
placements nor those housed in short-term transient placements for
up to a week or a month at a time. The Named Plaintiff children in
this action have been moved anywhere from ten to over one hundred
times while in DCF custody. Much of that churning has occurred in
just the past one to two years. Given the fluid nature of the
foster care population, Defendants constantly expose different
children to extreme housing disruption, as a child with just one or
two placements today can become the child with ten, twenty, or more
placements in the near future.

The practice of churning in Kansas causes and presents a risk of
emotional, psychological, developmental and neurological harm.
Research literature and studies show that churning causes and
worsens both attachment and behavioral disorders. Research
literature and studies also demonstrate that churning causes direct
physical harm to children's normal brain development; a child's
brain, central nervous system, and endocrine system are directly
harmed by the practice.

The lawsuit also contends that Defendants fail to provide children
in DCF custody with mental health and behavioral health screening,
diagnostic services, and treatment, including trauma-related
screening and diagnostic services. The failure to provide mental
health services mandated by the federal Medicaid statute causes,
and risks causing, profound emotional and psychological harm to
children in foster care. All children entering foster care in
Kansas have suffered the known trauma of removal from their homes,
and thousands of children in DCF custody have identified mental
health needs and disorders at any given time. Yet, known shortages,
delays, and waitlists for mental health services and treatment,
including administrative barriers to prompt and sustained service
delivery, continue to result in children being deprived of the
mental health care they require.

The fundamental problems of churning and mental health service
delivery failures are deeply interconnected. In Kansas, churning
often delays or disrupts mental health screens, diagnostic
services, and treatment, and the trauma of churning itself causes
harm and makes the need for prompt mental health services even more
urgent. This in turn contributes to more instability because foster
families are frequently unable and unprepared to meet children's
unidentified and/or untreated mental health needs. For instance,
while in foster care, ten-year-old Named Plaintiff C.A. has been
moved among foster homes, group homes, and agency offices more than
seventy times. In 2018, he endured a three-month string of
continuous night-to-night placements. Treatment for C.A.'s
attention deficit disorder (ADD) and post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD), both diagnosed while C.A. has been in DCF custody, has been
disrupted in significant part because he has been moved around so
often. Similarly, seventeen-year-old Named Plaintiff M.L. was
diagnosed with a mood disorder after being moved over forty times
while in DCF custody, bouncing among homes, facilities, offices and
other night-to-night placements. Yet she has received inconsistent
or negligible mental health treatment, in significant part because
she has been moved so frequently, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Larry R. Rute, Esq.
          Benet Magnuson, Esq.
          KANSAS APPLESEED CENTER FOR LAW &
          JUSTICE, INC.
          211 East 8th Street, Suite D
          Lawrence, KS 66044
          Telephone: (785) 856-0917
          E-mail: larry@adrmediate.com
                  bmagnuson@kansasappleseed.org

               - and -

          Loretta Burns-Bucklew, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LORETTA BURNS-BUCKLEW
          401 West 89th Street
          Kansas City, MO 64114
          Telephone: (816) 384-1198
          E-mail: loribblawkc@gmail.com

               - and -

          Leecia Welch, Esq.
          Freya Pitts, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW
          405 14th Street, 15th Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 835-8098
          Facsimile: (510) 835-8099
          E-mail: lwelch@youthlaw.org
                  fpitts@youthlaw.org

               - and -

          Ira Lustbader, Esq.
          Marissa C. Nardi, Esq.
          Jonathan M. King, Esq.
          Stephen A. Dixon, Esq.
          CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INC.
          88 Pine Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 683-2210
          Facsimile: (212) 683-4015
          E-mail: ilustbader@childrensrights.org
                  mnardi@childrensrights.org
                  jking@childrensrights.org
                  sdixon@childrensrights.org

KIRSCHENBAUM & PHILLIPS: Sued over Debt Collections Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zev Ostreicher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Kirschenbaum & Phillips, P.C. and John
Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case 7:18-cv-10256 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 5,
2018), seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief under
the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

According to the complaint, some time prior to February 7, 2018, an
obligation was allegedly incurred to Discover Bank. The Discover
Bank obligation arose out of transactions in which money, property,
insurance or services, which are the subject of the transaction,
are primarily for personal, family or household purposes.

The alleged Discover Bank obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15
U.S.C. Discover Bank is a "creditor" as defined by 15 U.S.C.
section 1692a(4). Discover Bank or a subsequent owner of the
Discover Bank debt contracted the Defendant to collect the alleged
debt. The Defendant collects and attempts to collect debts incurred
or alleged to have been incurred for personal, family or household
purposes on behalf of creditors using the United States Postal
Services, telephone and internet, the lawsuit says.

Kirschenbaum & Phillips, PC was founded in 1950. The company's line
of business includes providing full service legal advice.[BN]

Attorneys For Plaintiff:

          Daniel Kohn, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          E-mail: dkohn@steinsakslegal.com

KIWI OF GAINESVILLE: New Seeks Minimum Wage & OT under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
WAYMON NEW, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b), the Plaintiff(s), v. KIWI OF GAINESVILLE, INC.
d/b/a PARK PLACE CAR WASH, a Florida corporation, and DOUGLAS T.
FOUTS, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00223-MW-GRJ
(N.D. Fla., Nov. 5, 2018), alleges that Defendants have unlawfully
deprived Plaintiff, and all other employees similarly situated, of
federal minimum wage and overtime compensation during the course of
their employment, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants assigned Plaintiff to
work an average of 50 hours per week during Plaintiff's employment.
The Plaintiff worked an average of nine hours per day six days per
week. The Plaintiff was compensated an average net-effective of
$16.00 per day during all time periods of his employment regardless
of the number of hours Plaintiff actually worked. The Defendants
failed to compensate Plaintiff at the federally mandated minimum
wage rate of $7.25 per hour and likewise failed to compensate
Plaintiff at the federally mandated overtime rate of
time-and-a-half his regular hourly rate for all hours worked over
40 in any given workweek. The Defendants only paid Plaintiff an
average of $93.00 per week instead of the $290.00 per week
Defendants should have paid Plaintiff for the first 40 hours
Plaintiff worked, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant is a car wash company that has been operating in the
State of Florida since 1994.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

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

LA SLAUSON PROPERTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chou Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MENGYU CHOU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LA SLAUSON PROPERTY, INC., dba FURST MOTEL;
LA OLYMPIC PROPERTY, INC. dba TUSCAN GARDEN INN; LA HACIENDA
PROPERTY, INC., dba VAGABOND INN; LA ALVARADO PROPERTY, INC., dba
CASA BELLA MOTEL; LA FLORENCE PROPERTY, INC.; MAOSON REALTY, INC.;
MOSUT CO., INC.; GREATER LOS ANGELES HOTEL/MOTEL ASSOCIATION; MAO &
QUN CO., INC.; CITY PROPERTY, INC. dba CITY MOTEL; MAOSON YOUNG;
SUE LEE YOUNG; MARSHALL YOUNG; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 18STCV04347 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Nov. 8, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal
and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Chou was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee.

La Slauson Property, Inc., dba Furst Motel owns and operates hotel,
motel, and short term lodging establishments in Los Angeles,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sam X.J. Wu, Esq.
          Alexei Brenot, Esq.
          Brian P. Stewart, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAM X.J. WU, APC
          8600 Utica Ave., Building 100
          Cucamonga, CA 91730
          Telephone: (626) 588-2388
          Facsimile: (626) 656-8088


LAUREL & WOLF: Macmillan Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
IVONNE MACMILLAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LAUREL & WOLF, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-62797-WPD (S.D. Fla, Nov. 16, 2018),
seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct,
statutory damages, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, pursuant
to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant provides interior design
services to consumers on a fixed price basis. The Defendant engages
in unsolicited telemarketing directed towards prospective customers
with no regard for consumers' privacy rights. The Defendant's
telemarketing consists of sending text messages to consumers
soliciting them to purchase Defendant's goods and services. The
Defendant caused thousands of unsolicited text messages to be sent
to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members, causing
them injuries, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation,
annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion, the
lawsuit says.

Laurel & Wolf, Inc. provides online interior design and decorating
services in the United States. The company was founded in 2014 and
is headquartered in West Hollywood, California.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400 4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH LAW
          1200 Brickell Ave. Suite 1950
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: 786.496.4469
          E-mail: IJHiraldo@IJHlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954.533.4092
          E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com


LEAFFILTER NORTH: Faces Tilleman Suit in W.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LeafFilter North,
Inc.  The case is captioned, MICHAEL W. TILLEMAN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEAFFILTER
NORTH, LLC; and LEAFFILTER NORTH OF TEXAS, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 5:18-cv-01152-DAE (W.D. Tex., Nov. 2, 2018). The case is
assigned to Judge David A. Ezra.

LeafFilter North, Inc. manufactures, sells, and installs gutter
guards for homeowners in the United States. The company's gutter
guards are installed on existing gutters. It also provides gutter
guard support and installation services. LeafFilter North, Inc. was
founded in 2005 and is based in Hudson, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com


LEARJET INC: Wood et al. Sue over Adverse Employment Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARK WOOD AND DENNIS PARR, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. LEARJET, INC. and
BOMBARDIER, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02621 (D. Kan.,
Nov. 16, 2018), seeks to recover damages as a result of Defendant's
adverse employment action and was damaged as a result of
Plaintiff's termination from employment.

According to the complaint, there is a causal connection between
Plaintiff Wood's exercise of protected activity and Defendants'
willful, discriminatory, and unlawful retaliation resulting in
Wood's termination. This is a collective action initiated by two
former Wichita-based aerospace engineers and other salaried,
non-management employees, for themselves and others similarly
situated, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act against
their former joint employers, Learjet, Inc. and Bombardier Inc.,
challenging their terminations from employment by defendants. The
Plaintiffs also assert individual ADEA termination claims, and Mr.
Woods also asserts an individual retaliation claim. The Plaintiffs
are age 40 or above, skilled, experienced aerospace engineers with
solid (or better) work records.

The Plaintiffs seek relief -- for themselves and numerous other
former aerospace engineers age 40 and older terminated after the
installation of new management for the BFTC engineering group in or
about February of 2015 -- from defendants' targeted terminations
that disproportionately affected older employees, including them.
The Plaintiffs contend that Defendants acted with the purpose and
effect of discriminating against them and other like them based on
age so as to reduce the average age of the BFTC's engineering
workforce. The Plaintiffs contend that they and similarly situated
former Wichita-based aerospace engineers of Defendants age 40 and
over were harmed by decisions, policies, practices and plans
developed and orchestrated at upper levels of Defendants'
management beginning in 2015 as management embarked on a program to
reduce the average age of the Bombardier Flight Test Center
("BFTC")'s engineering workforce.

The discriminatory practices at issues in this matter coincided
with the installation of new management for the BFTC engineering
group. In or about February of 2015, Tom Bisges became Bombardier's
Vice President of Flight Test Engineering, assuming responsibility
for all Bombardier flight test engineering and operations at the
BFTC in Wichita. Mr. Andy Paterson, as Mr. Bisges' subordinate, was
Bombardier's Director of Engineering at the BFTC. Both of these
individuals were in the direct chain of command for the Plaintiffs
and the other engineers at the BFTC discussed in this
correspondence, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Amy L. Coopman, Esq.
          Luke Hertenstein, Esq.
          FOLAND, WICKENS, ROPER,
             HOFER & CRAWFORD, P.C.
          1200 Main Street, Suite 2200
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 472-7474
          Facsimile: (816) 472-6262
          E-mail: acoopman@fwpclaw.com
                  lhertenstein@fwpclaw.com

LERCY'S, LLC: Martin Seeks Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------
HOLLY MARTIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly Situated
Persons, the Plaintiff, vs. LERCY'S, LLC and MARK COOPER, the
Defendants, Case 4:18-cv-04388 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 19, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to properly compensate
Plaintiff and Members of the Class for work performed in the employ
of the Defendants. The Plaintiff and Members of the Class have
suffered damages as a direct result of Defendants' illegal actions,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Telephone: 713 868-3388
          Facsimile: 713 683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Telephone: 713 868-3388
          Facsimile: 713 683-9940
          E-mail: tpadgettlaw@gmail.com

LOGMEIN INC: Wasson Securities Suit Transferred to Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN WASSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LOGMEIN, INC., WILLIAM R. WAGNER, and
EDWARD K. HERDIECH, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-07285, was
transferred from the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, to the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (Boston) on Nov. 6, 2018. The District of
Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No.: 1:18-cv-12330-DLC. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Donald L. Cabell.

According to the complaint, the case is a federal securities class
action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities
other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the
publicly traded securities of LogMeIn between March 1, 2017 and
July 26, 2018, both dates inclusive. The Plaintiff 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.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          Stephen M Shepardson, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  sshepardson@rosenlegal.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Brian T Glennon, Esq.
          Jeff G Hammel, Esq.
          LATHAM AND WATKINS LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue Suite 100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Telephone: (213) 485-1234
          Facsimile: (213) 891-8763
          E-mail: brian.glennon@lw.com
                  jeff.hammel@lw.com

Attorneys for Movant June Little:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          468 North Camden Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (818) 532-6499
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

          Attorneys for Movant Larry Pollock:

          Lesley F Portnoy, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY AND MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: LPortnoy@glancylaw.com

LYFT INC: Court Compels Arbitration in Peterson FCRA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, issued an Order granting
Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned PETE
PETERSON, Plaintiff, v. LYFT, INC., Defendant. Case No.
16-cv-07343-LB. (N.D. Cal.).

Lyft moves to compel arbitration of Mr. Peterson's FCRA claim based
on an arbitration provision contained in its Terms of Service.

Plaintiff Pete Peterson brings this putative class action against
the ridesharing company Lyft, Inc. Lyft twice denied Mr. Peterson's
applications to be a driver, based on a background consumer report
that a screening company ran on Lyft's behalf on Mr. Peterson. Mr.
Peterson alleges that Lyft violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA), which provides that a person or entity using a consumer
report for employment purposes must provide the subject with
certain information a copy of the report and a written description
of the subject's rights under the FCRA before it can take any
adverse action based on the report.

The parties dispute two issues: (1) whether Mr. Peterson's FCRA
claim is arbitrable (as defined in the arbitration provision in the
Terms of Service) and (2) whether the arbitration provision is
unconscionable.

The parties' arbitration provision here expressly provides that
legal disputes or claims arising out of the Agreement including but
not limited to the arbitrability of any dispute, shall be submitted
to binding arbitration. As another court in this district has held
in connection with this same Lyft Terms-of-Service arbitration
provision, this language explicitly referring arbitrability
questions to an arbitrator is evidence that the parties clearly and
unmistakably have referred the arbitrability question to the
arbitrator.

Mr. Peterson argues that parties cannot delegate questions of
arbitrability to an arbitrator by incorporating into their
agreement by reference the American Arbitration Association's (AAA)
arbitration rules. But the parties did not delegate questions of
arbitrability to an arbitrator by incorporating the AAA rules.
Instead, the parties' contract expressly delegates questions of the
arbitrability of any dispute to the arbitrator. Mr. Peterson's
cases which involve arbitration provisions that did not expressly
delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and instead
relied on provisions in AAA rules about delegation are inapposite.


Mr. Peterson also claims that the parties' contract is unclear as
to whether the AAA Commercial Rules or Consumer Rules would apply
and argues that this defeats Lyft's argument that the parties
agreed to delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.
Mr. Peterson cites no authority to support his argument,25 and
courts have rejected it.  

The only thing Mr. Peterson offers regarding procedural
unconscionability is an argument that the arbitration provision is
a contract of adhesion. At best, this presents a minimal level of
procedural unconscionability.  Consequently, the arbitration
agreement will be enforceable unless the degree of substantive
unconscionability is high.

Mr. Peterson first argues that the arbitration provision is
substantively unconscionable because it provides for delegation of
the question of arbitrability under the AAA Commercial Rules when,
so he argues, Lyft itself believes the AAA Consumer Rules should
apply. This overly simplifies Lyft's argument. Lyft argues that the
applicable AAA Commercial Rules themselves provide that disputes
arising out of a consumer arbitration agreement may be administered
under the AAA Consumer Rules.29 In any event, Mr. Peterson cites no
authorities that support his argument or satisfy his burden of
establishing unconscionability.

Mr. Peterson next argues that the arbitration provision is
substantively unconscionable because Lyft can unilaterally modify
it. Mr. Peterson cites no authorities that support his argument.
The Ninth Circuit has held that a unilateral modification clause
does not per se make an arbitration provision unconscionable,
because "California courts have held that the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing prevents a party from exercising its
rights under a unilateral modification clause in a way that would
make it unconscionable..

Third, Mr. Peterson argues that AAA rules contain a privacy
provision that is unconscionable, citing Ting v. AT&T, 319 F.3d
1126 (9th Cir. 2003). As the Ninth Circuit has held, subsequent
California state-court decisions have undermined the holding in
Ting. Under current California and Ninth Circuit law, privacy
provisions like the one at issue do not render the arbitration
provision unconscionable.  

The court finds that (1) the parties entered into a binding
agreement that contains an arbitration provision, (2) the parties
in their arbitration provision delegated questions about the
arbitrability of disputes such as whether Mr. Peterson's FCRA claim
falls within the scope of the arbitration provision to the
arbitrator, and (3) the arbitration provision is enforceable and
not unconscionable.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 19, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yd6togbo from Leagle.com.

Pete Peterson, Plaintiff, represented by James A. Francis --
jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis and Mailman, P.C., John
Soumilas -- jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis and Mailman,
P.C., Joseph C. Bourne -- jbourne@pswlaw.com - Pearson, Simon &
Warshaw, LLP, Melissa S. Weiner, PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP &
Michael Robert Reese -- mreese@reesellp.com -- Reese LLP.

Lyft, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jonathan Hugh Blavin --
Jonathan.Blavin@mto.com -- Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP, Attorney at
Law.


MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: California Securities Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
MabVax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13,
2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the
Company continues to defend against the consolidated complaint
entitled, In re MabVax Therapeutics Securities Litigation, Case No.
18-cv-1160-BAS-NLS.

On June 4, 2018, and August 3, 2018, two securities class action
complaints were filed by purported stockholders of the Company in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California (the "U.S. District Court") against the Company and
certain of its current officers.

On September 6, 2018, the U.S. District Court consolidated the two
actions and appointed lead plaintiffs. On October 10, 2018, lead
plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint, which, in addition
to naming the Company and certain current officers as defendants,
also names certain investors as defendants.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by misleading investors about problems
with the Company's internal controls, improper calculation of its
beneficial ownership, and improper influence by certain investors.


The consolidated complaint also alleges that some of the investor
defendants violated Section 9 of the Exchange Act by manipulating
the Company's stock price. The consolidated complaint seeks
unspecified damages, interest, fees and costs.

The deadline to respond to the consolidated complaint was December
6, 2018.

MabVax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc., a clinical stage
biopharmaceutical company, discovers, develops, and commercializes
proprietary human monoclonal antibody products and vaccines for the
treatment of various cancers. MabVax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc.
was founded in 2006 and is based in San Diego, California.


MACON INC: Hughes Seeks Overtime Compensation for Welders
---------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN HUGHES, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the PLAINTIFF, vs. MACON, INC. AND KATHY MATTHEWS, the
DEFENDANTS, Case No. 3:18-cv-03049-L (N.D. Tex., Nov. 16, 2018),
seeks to recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a structural steel fabrication and erection
company specializing in residential and commercial structural steel
projects. Jonathan Hughes was employed by Defendants as a welder.
Mr. Hughes was improperly classified as an independent contractor.
Mr. Hughes was paid on an hourly basis and would often work more
than 40 in a week. In fact, Mr. Hughes would oftentimes work 55-60
hours per week. The Defendants paid Mr. Hughes straight time for
all hours worked, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MALCOLM CISNEROS: Aikens Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Delia Aikens, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Malcolm
Cisneros, A Law Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
5:17-cv-02462-JLS-SP (C.D. Cal.), Ms. Delia Aikens will move the
Court on February 8, 2019, for an order granting class
certification and appointment of her counsel, Greenwald Davidson
Radbil PLLC, as class counsel.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          324 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: 877-206-4741
          Facsimile: 866-633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com

               - and -

          Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com

MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Rockford Class Action Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt public limited company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2018, for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2018, that the
company continues to defend itself from a putative class action
suit entitled, City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al.

On April 6, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and United Biosource Corporation (UBC) in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case is
captioned City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al.

The complaint was subsequently amended, most recently on December
8, 2017, to include an additional named plaintiff and additional
defendants. As amended, the complaint purports to be brought on
behalf of all self-funded entities in the U.S. and its Territories,
excluding any Medicare Advantage Organizations, related entities
and certain others, that paid for H.P. Acthar Gel from August 2007
to the present.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company engaged in anticompetitive,
unfair, and deceptive acts to artificially raise and maintain the
price of H.P. Acthar Gel. To this end, the suit alleges that the
Company unlawfully maintained a monopoly in a purported ACTH
product market by acquiring the U.S. rights to Synacthen Depot;
conspired with UBC and violated anti-racketeering laws by selling
H.P. Acthar Gel through an exclusive distributor; and committed
fraud on consumers by failing to correctly identify H.P. Acthar
Gel's active ingredient on package inserts.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

Mallinckrodt public limited company develops, manufactures,
markets, and distributes branded pharmaceutical products in Canada
and the European Union, as well as in Latin American, the Middle
Eastern, African, and the Asia-Pacific regions. The company markets
branded pharmaceutical products for autoimmune and rare diseases in
the specialty areas of neurology, rheumatology, nephrology,
ophthalmology, and pulmonology; and immunotherapy and neonatal
respiratory critical care therapies, as well as analgesics and
gastrointestinal products. The company is based in
Staines-Upon-Thames, the United Kingdom.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Continues to Defend MSP Recovery Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt public limited company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2018, for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2018, that the
company continues to defend against a putative class action suit
entitled, MSP Recovery Claims, Series II LLC, et al. v.
Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al.

On October 30, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and United BioSource Corporation ("UBC") in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The
case is captioned MSP Recovery Claims, Series II LLC, et al. v.
Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of two classes: all
Medicare Advantage Organizations and related entities in the U.S.
who purchased or provided reimbursement for H.P. Acthar Gel
pursuant to (i) Medicare Part C contracts (Class 1) and (ii)
Medicare Part D contracts (Class 2) since January 1, 2011, with
certain exclusions.

The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in anticompetitive,
unfair, and deceptive acts to artificially raise and maintain the
price of H.P. Acthar Gel. To this end, the complaint alleges that
the Company unlawfully maintained a monopoly in a purported ACTH
product market by acquiring the U.S. rights to Synacthen Depot and
reaching anti-competitive agreements with the other defendants by
selling H.P. Acthar Gel through an exclusive distribution network.


The complaint purports to allege claims under federal and state
antitrust laws and state unfair competition and unfair trade
practice laws. Pursuant to a motion filed by defendants, this case
has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

Mallinckrodt public limited company develops, manufactures,
markets, and distributes branded pharmaceutical products in Canada
and the European Union, as well as in Latin American, the Middle
Eastern, African, and the Asia-Pacific regions. The company markets
branded pharmaceutical products for autoimmune and rare diseases in
the specialty areas of neurology, rheumatology, nephrology,
ophthalmology, and pulmonology; and immunotherapy and neonatal
respiratory critical care therapies, as well as analgesics and
gastrointestinal products. The company is based in
Staines-Upon-Thames, the United Kingdom.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Employee Stock Purchase Plan Suit Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt public limited company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2018, for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2018, that
pursuant to the parties agreement, the Employee Stock Purchase Plan
Securities Litigation is still stayed pending the resolution of the
Patricia A. Shenk v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al. suit.

On July 20, 2017, a purported purchaser of Mallinckrodt stock
through Mallinckrodt's Employee Stock Purchase Plans ("ESPPs"),
filed a derivative lawsuit in the Federal District Court in the
Eastern District of Missouri, captioned Solomon v. Mallinckrodt
plc, et al., against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer Mark
C. Trudeau ("CEO"), its Chief Financial Officer Matthew K. Harbaugh
("CFO"), its Controller Kathleen A. Schaefer, and current and
former directors of the Company.

On September 6, 2017, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its complaint
in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
and refiled virtually the same complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia. The complaint purports to be brought
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Mallinckrodt stock between November 25, 2014, and January 18, 2017,
through the ESPPs.

In the alternative, the plaintiff alleges a class action for those
same purchasers/acquirers of stock in the ESPPs during the same
period. The complaint asserts claims under Section 11 of the
Securities Act, and for breach of fiduciary duty,
misrepresentation, non-disclosure, mismanagement of the ESPPs'
assets and breach of contract arising from substantially similar
allegations as those contained in the putative class action
securities litigation described in the following paragraph.
Stipulated co-lead plaintiffs were approved by the court on March
1, 2018.

Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 4, 2018
having a class period of July 14, 2014 to November 6, 2017.

On July 6, 2018, the matter was stayed by agreement of the parties
pending resolution of the Patricia A. Shenk v. Mallinckrodt plc, et
al.

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

Mallinckrodt public limited company develops, manufactures,
markets, and distributes branded pharmaceutical products in Canada
and the European Union, as well as in Latin American, the Middle
Eastern, African, and the Asia-Pacific regions. The company markets
branded pharmaceutical products for autoimmune and rare diseases in
the specialty areas of neurology, rheumatology, nephrology,
ophthalmology, and pulmonology; and immunotherapy and neonatal
respiratory critical care therapies, as well as analgesics and
gastrointestinal products. The company is based in
Staines-Upon-Thames, the United Kingdom.


MARRIOTT INT'L: Overstates Hotel Room Sizes, Buttenwieser Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
PETER BUTTENWIESER, the Plaintiff, vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL,
INC., d/b/a The Liberty Hotel, the Defendant, Case No.: 18-3432C
(Mass. Super. Ct., Nov. 2, 2018), seeks to redress Defendant's
unfair and deceptive trade practices through its intentional
overstatement of the size of its rooms for promotional purposes in
violation of Massachusetts General laws.

According to the complaint, the Liberty Hotel is a 298-room
five-star hotel that opened in 2007 at the site of the former
Charles Street Jail.  It is promoted by the Defendant as a part of
what it markets as its exclusive "Luxury Collection" of hotels. At
all times relevant from the time of its acquisition, the Defendant
has promoted the attributes of The Liberty Hotel to the public
through its website and other means targeted to reach a discerning
customer base willing to pay premium prices for high-end, luxury
accommodations.

The Plaintiff stayed at the Liberty Hotel on February 18, 2018,
after having booked his reservation on the Liberty's website. The
"Deluxe" room which the plaintiff selected, based upon the
representations made on its website was described as containing 400
square feet. The represented size of his room was expressly
affirmed on Liberty's confirmation of the reservation. Room size is
a material consideration in the pricing of rooms and the delivery
of value in the luxury experience sought by guests at five-star
hotels like the Liberty, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Robert L. Kamer, Esq.
          60 State Street, Suite 700
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 371-2948
          E-mail: RHamer@HamerLawBoston.com

MARTE CONSTRUCTION: Cantu et al. Seek Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------
IGNACIO REYES DE LOS SANTOS, BENITO CANTU, and BALTAZAR REYES
LIBRADO, on behalf of themselves, and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. MARTE CONSTRUCTION INC., and JOSEPH M. MARTE,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10748 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 16, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants
continuously, through October 19, 2018. The Plaintiff was assigned
to various work sites staffed by the corporate defendant, Marte
Construction, Inc.  During Ignacio Reyes de los Santos' employment
by Defendants, he worked over 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff
generally worked 60 hours per week.

The Plaintiff was not paid overtime wages at anytime during his
employment. The Plaintiff was paid "daily rate" of $120.00 to
$140.00. He was paid by check; he normally worked six days per
week; he worked 10 hours per day. The Plaintiff was always paid at
the same regular rate of pay ("straight time"), for all hours
worked, every week, the lawsuit says.

Marte Construction is a full service remodeling, renovation and
repair company.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com

MASGAD CORP: Gonzalez Seeks Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------
RALPH GONZALEZ and JUSTINE GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MASGAD CORP.; ALBION
VENUE, LLC; MIKHAIL ZAVOLUNOV; ILYA ZAVOLUNOV; and any other
related entities, the Defendants, Case No. 607031/2018 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Nov. 5, 2018), seeks to recover compensation, including unpaid
minimum wages and unpaid tips and gratuities under the New York
Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated persons are presently or were formerly employed by
Defendants' restaurant and catering venues located in New York,
including but not limited to the facilities commonly known as Da
Mikele Illagio and Da Mikelle.

The Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of failing to
distribute the proceeds collected from the assessment of the
mandatory charge to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees and
instead retained the money for their own benefit in violation of
Labor Law Article 6 section 196-d. Moreover, throughout the
Relevant Period, Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice
of unlawfully compensating its service employees an hourly rate
lower than the applicable minimum wage. Furthermore, throughout the
Relevant Period, Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice
of taking allowances from service employees' pay, without providing
the employees with notice of such in accordance with applicable
law, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Named Plaintiffs & Putative Class:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550

Attorneys for Defendant:

          MILMAN LABUDA LAW GROUP, PLLC
          Telephone: (516) 328-8899

MASONITE CORP: Sued over Price Fixing of Interior Molded Doors
--------------------------------------------------------------
LEN-CO LUMBER CORP., individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MASONITE CORPORATION and
JELD-WEN, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00798 (E.D. Va.,
Nov. 15, 2018), seeks to recover damages, costs of suit, injunctive
relief and other relief as may be just and proper from Defedants
under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act, for their conspiracy to
violate federal antitrust laws by fixing, raising and/or
maintaining the prices of interior molded doors in the United
States.

According to the complaint, the interior molded door is the most
popular type of interior door in North America. Molded doorskins
constitute the largest input cost of an interior molded door,
comprising up to 70% of the cost of manufacturing a molded door.
The Defendants and Jeld-Wen are vertically-integrated
manufacturers, i.e., they manufacture both molded doorskins as well
as interior molded doors. Defendants control the majority (around
85%) of the market for interior molded doors and are the only
manufacturers for doorskins, a necessary input for interior molded
doors, in North America. Being the only two vertically-integrated
interior molded door manufacturers in the U.S., Jeld-Wen and
Masonite have significant power in both product markets.

Historically, the market contained at least one significant
non-integrated manufacturer of doorskins, Masonite, at least one
significant non-integrated manufacturer of interior molded doors,
Premdor, Inc., and numerous other non-integrated interior molded
door manufacturers. Recognizing there was a strong incentive by
door manufacturers to collude to increase the price of interior
molded doors, the Department of Justice in 2001 permitted Premdor,
Inc. to acquire Masonite (and form a newly-integrated manufacturer
of both doorskins and interior molded doors) only on the condition
that Premdor/Masonite divest a doorskin manufacturing plant in
Towanda, Pennsylvania to a new entity called CraftMaster, Inc.
("CMI").

In 2012, however, Defendant Jeld-Wen acquired CMI, thereby
eliminating the check on competition established by the DOJ's
required divestiture. Between 2001 and 2012, both Jeld-Wen and
Masonite also eliminated competition by acquiring a number of
smaller interior door manufacturers. Additionally, the Defendants
have jointly sought to eliminate competition by stopping their
longstanding practice of supplying doorskins to smaller interior
door manufacturers. In furtherance of the conspiracy, Masonite
announced in 2014 it would no longer sell doorskins to other door
manufacturers. This unprecedented shift in business practice was
plainly against Masonite's own economic interests, as it handed
over that entire market to Jeld-Wen. Worse, it did so at a time
when Jeld-Wen's doorskins were of poor quality.

Defendants' price increases cannot rationally be explained by
normal market forces, such as key input costs, and supply and
demand factors. Key input costs for raw materials, such as wood,
resin, wax, oil, sealer, paint, and packaging, and for energy, such
as electric power prices, natural gas prices, and boiler fuel
decreased while Defendants increased their prices. Masonite
employees analyzed data and ran pricing scenarios based on market
factors, such as the price of raw materials, transportation costs,
and expected demand, and were often surprised to learn that the
Board and the company’s top executives intended to impose price
increases that were substantially in excess of what they believed
the market would accept, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff Len-Co Lumber Corp. and the Proposed
Sub-Classes:

          Michael G. Phelan, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Petty, Esq.
          Brielle M. Hunt, Esq.
          PHELAN PETTY PLC
          6641 W. Broad Street, Ste. 406
          Richmond, VA 23230
          Telephone: (804) 980-7100
          Facsimile: (804) 767-4601
          E-mail: mphelan@phelanpetty.com
                  jpetty@phelanpetty.com
                  bhunt@phelanpetty.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
          RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF
          CUNNINGHAM, LLC
          1600 Liberty Building
          424 Main Street
          Buffalo, New York 14202
          Telephone: (716) 664-2967
          E-mail: bailey@ruppbaase.com

MEDFORD NURSERY: Sancho Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Sancho, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Medford Nursery, Inc., Robert
Baker, Inc. and ABC CORPS. 1-10 & Jane & John Does 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. MER-L-002453-18 (N.J. Super. Ct., Mercer Cty.,
November 28, 2018) is a putative class action brought by a former
employee against her employers seeking damages for unpaid hours and
unpaid overtime hours worked under the New Jersey Wage and Hour
Law.

Plaintiff and the Class Members routinely worked far in excess of
40 hours per week for Defendants, routinely between 60 and 70 hours
per week, and were not paid the appropriate or lawful overtime rate
under the NJWHL when they worked over 40 hours per week.

The Defendants' ongoing illegal policy of failing to pay Plaintiff
and the Class Members for time worked has resulted in Plaintiff and
the Class Members being denied substantial legally required
compensation and/or overtime payments given that the Plaintiff and
the Class Members routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff Vanessa Sancho has resided in the City of Trenton in the
County of Mercer in the State of New Jersey at all times relevant
to this matter and was employed by Defendants from approximately
March 04, 2018 through May 22, 2018.

Defendant Medford Nursery, Inc. is a foreign, for profit
corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Connecticut, with its principal place of business located at 560-A
Eayrestown-Red Lion Road, in the Township of Medford in the County
of Burlington and the State of New Jersey. It is in the business of
cultivating and growing container nursery stock (i.e. plants) and
selling its product wholesale and not to the general public. It is
a division of Robert Baker, Inc.

Defendant Robert Baker, Inc. is a foreign, for-profit corporation,
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut,
with its principal place of business located at 1700 Mountain Road,
in the Town of West Suffield in the County of Hartford and the
State of Connecticut.

ABC CORPS. 1-10 and/or JANE and JOHN DOES 1-10, designated by
fictitious names, are business entities and/or individuals who may
or may not also be liable to Plaintiffs and the other similarly
situated employees in this matter.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ravi Sattiraju, Esquire, Esq.
     THE SATTIRAJU LAW FIRM, P.C.
     116 Village Boulevard, Suite 200
     Princeton, NJ 08540
     Phone: (609) 799-1266
     Fax: (609) 228-5649
     Email: rsattiraju@sattirajulawfirm.com


MEDICAL NECESSITIES: Jenkins-Queen Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
CHARLES JENKINS-QUEEN, Individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated current and former employees, the Plaintiff, vs.
MEDICAL NECESSITIES AND SERVICES, LLC, a Tennessee Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01294 (M.D. Tenn, Nov. 16, 2018),
alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act in
that it failed to pay Plaintiff for all hours he worked by not
compensating him at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate
of pay for all the hours worked over 40 hours in one workweek.

According to the complaint, Mr. Jenkins-Queen worked for Medical
Necessities on an hourly-paid basis during the last three years as
a delivery technician. He was responsible for the delivery,
installation, removal, and troubleshooting or repair of Medical
Necessities in-home medical equipment. As part of their regular
schedule, Mr. Jenkins-Queen and other Delivery Techs typically
worked more than 40 hours per week. Medical Necessities never paid
Mr. Jenkins-Queen for the time spent driving to his first
appointment or from his last appointment, even if he was "on call,"
and/or driving far beyond his normal territory, the lawsuit says.

Medical Necessities is a healthcare company specializing in
respiratory supplies, mobility aids, and home medical
equipment.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Nina Parsley, Esq.
          PONCE LAW
          400 Professional Park Drive
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com

METRO CHRYSLER: Brutus Suit Moved to Queens County State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEAN INES BRUTUS, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. METRO CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH,
INC. d/b/a STAR CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE RAM and/or any other entities
affiliated with or controlled by METRO CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 716959/2018, was removed from New York Supreme
Court, Queens County, to the New York Supreme Court, New York
County on Nov. 8, 2018, the New York County Court Clerk assigned
Case No. to the proceeding 153047/2018. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Andrew Borrok.

The action is brought by Plaintiff and on behalf of a putative
class of individuals who are presently or were formerly employed by
Defendant from April 2012 to the present as sales representatives.
The Plaintiffs sought to recover wages which Plaintiffs were
contractually and statutorily entitled to receive pursuant to New
York Labor Law.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative class:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          James Murphy, Esq.
          Alanna R. Sakovits, Esq.
          Joel Goldenberg, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, New York 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          E-mail: jmurphy@vandallp.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          MILMAN LABUDA LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3000 Marcus AV, Suite 3w8
          Lake Success, NY 11042
          Telephone: (516) 328-8899

METROWIRELESS 167: Lopez et al. Seek Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------
JOMMEILYN HERRERA LOPEZ and LEONOR HERNANDEZ, on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated employees, vs. METROWIRELESS 167
INC., and ABDUL ASIF, the Defendants, Case 1:18-cv-10754 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 16, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime wage
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defednants knowingly and willfully
failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees the
lawfully earned overtime rate for all hours worked over 40 in a
work week in contravention of the FLSA and NYLL, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          James F. Sullivan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES F. SULLIVAN, P.C.
          52 Duane Street 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 374 0009
          Facsimile: (212) 374 9931

MIDWEST TANKERMEN: Ronald Neill Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Ronald Neill, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Midwest Tankermen, Inc. and
Gail Loughlin, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07382 (N.D. Ill.,
Nov. 7, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collections Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants
within the past three years. While the Defendants generally paid
overtime, they did not pay Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees proper overtime wages of one and one-half time their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked above forty hours in a
work week by not properly including all compensation and hours
worked.

The Defendants did not capture all compensation paid to Plaintiff
and similarly situated employees when calculating their regular
rates for overtime purposes. For instance, Defendants attempted to
hide compensation in the form of "Mileage" so as to minimize the
overtime premiums that had to be paid to Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          David J. Fish, Esq.
          Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM P.C.
          200 E 5th Ave Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630) 355-7590
          Facsimile: (630) 778-0400

MISSISSIPPI:11th Cir. Affirms Quashal of Death Row Inmates' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment granting
Defendant's Motion to Quash in the case captioned RICHARD JORDAN,
RICKY CHASE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER, MISSISSIPPI
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, Movant-Appellee. No. 17-12948 (11th Cir.).

The Plaintiffs appeal, arguing that the district court did not
apply the correct standard of review to the Magistrate Judge's
ruling, and also that the motion to quash should have been denied
on the merits.

Plaintiffs Richard Jordan and Ricky Chase -- Mississippi death row
inmates -- served the Georgia Department of Corrections (GDC) with
a subpoena directing the GDC to testify at a Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition and to produce documents concerning Georgia's lethal
injection protocol. Plaintiffs argued that the testimony and
documents were necessary to support their 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
claims pending in the Southern District of Mississippi challenging
the legality of Mississippi's lethal injection protocol.

The GDC filed a motion to quash in the Northern District of
Georgia, where compliance with the subpoena was required.
Accepting the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge, the district
court granted the motion to quash.

The Plaintiffs appeal, arguing that (1) the district court applied
the wrong standard of review to the Magistrate Judge's ruling and
(2) the motion to quash should have been denied on the merits.

The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court applied the
correct standard of review to the Magistrate Judge's ruling on the
motion to quash.

The standard of review the district court was required to apply
depends on whether the Court characterizes the GDC's motion to
quash as a dispositive or a non-dispositive matter.  Under the
Federal Magistrate's Act, a district court may designate a
magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending
before the court. If the matter is non-dispositive, the district
court reviews the magistrate judge's ruling under the clearly
erroneous or contrary to law standard. But if the matter is
dispositive, the district court must review any objected-to portion
of the magistrate judge's ruling de novo.  

The Plaintiffs do not dispute that if the GDC's motion to quash had
been filed in the Southern District of Mississippi, where the
underlying Section 1983 action is pending, the motion would be
considered non-dispositive and a magistrate judge's ruling on it
would be reviewed under the clearly erroneous or contrary to law
standard. Yet, Plaintiffs argue that the Magistrate Judge's ruling
on the motion to quash filed in this particular case should be
considered dispositive—and thus reviewed under the de novo
standard because it resolves and finally disposes of the litigation
between Plaintiffs and the GDC that is pending in the Northern
District of Georgia.

The Court is not persuaded by this argument. The GDC's motion to
quash required separate litigation between Plaintiffs and the GDC
in the Northern District of Georgia because the place for
compliance with the subpoena, and thus the proper venue for filing
a motion to quash, was in the Northern District of Georgia. And the
Magistrate Judge's ruling on the motion resulted in a final
disposition of the issues raised in the motion, permitting
Plaintiffs to appeal the ruling to this Court. But that does not
change the essential nature of the motion to quash from a routine
pretrial discovery motion, which is ancillary to the Section 1983
litigation pending in the Southern District of Mississippi, to a
dispositive matter.

The Court finds no reason to treat the Magistrate Judge's ruling on
the GDC's motion to quash any differently than we would treat a
similar pretrial discovery motion that was filed in the Southern
District of Mississippi, where the underlying Section 1983 action
is pending. As such, the Court conclude that the district court
correctly applied the clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard
of review to the Magistrate Judge's ruling on the motion to quash.


The district court did not abuse its discretion by accepting and
adopting the Magistrate Judge's ruling and granting the GDC's
motion to quash.

Having concluded that the district court applied the correct
standard of review, the only question for this Court is whether the
district court otherwise abused its discretion either by relying on
an error of law or committing a clear error of judgment in
affirming the Magistrate Judge's ruling granting the GDC's motion
to quash.  

The Magistrate Judge concluded that disclosure of the information
sought in the GDC subpoena was precluded by Georgia's Lethal
Injection Secrecy Act. The Lethal Injection Secrecy Act states
that: "The identifying information of any person or entity who
participates in or administers the execution of a death sentence
and the identifying information of any person or entity that
manufactures, supplies, compounds, or prescribes the drugs, medical
supplies, or medical equipment utilized in the execution of a death
sentence shall be confidential and shall not be subject to
disclosure under judicial process."

The Act defines identifying information to include any records or
information that reveals a name, residential or business address,
residential or business telephone number, day and month of birth,
social security number, or professional qualifications of a person
or entity that manufactures, supplies or compounds lethal injection
drugs.

By its plain terms, the Lethal Injection Secrecy Act bars
disclosure of the vast majority of information sought in the
subpoena Plaintiffs served on the GDC. For example, the subpoena
demands that the GDC produce documents concerning: (1) the GDC's
attempt to secure or purchase pentobarbital for use in executions,
(2) drug labels and package inserts for any drug purchased by the
GDC for use in lethal injection executions, (3) the process by
which the GDC decided to use a single lethal dose of barbiturate in
its lethal injection protocol, including communications between any
GDC officer and any other person, corporation, or entity related to
that process, (4) the GDC's use of compounded pentobarbital in
executions, including communications between the GDC and any other
person or entity (including pharmaceutical companies, pharmacies,
and other corrections departments) related to the compounding of
pentobarbital, (5) any GDC employee trainings on conducting lethal
injections, including the names and qualifications of the person
who taught at the training, and (6) communications between the GDC
and any other corrections department or attorney general's office
related to the selection, purchase, or exchange of drugs for use in
lethal injections.

Responding to any of these demands would require disclosure of the
identity of people and entities that manufacture or supply drugs
used in Georgia executions, and that otherwise participate in
Georgia executions, in violation of the Lethal Injection Secrecy
Act as interpreted by this Court in the numerous cases cited
above.

The Plaintiffs argue that their case is distinguishable from this
Court's precedent applying the Lethal Injection Secrecy Act because
none of the Court's prior cases involved a condemned inmate's
attempt to secure information via subpoena. In our view, this
distinction is immaterial. The essential principle underlying this
Court's precedent is that the Lethal Injection Secrecy Act is a
legitimate and constitutional attempt by the state of Georgia to
maintain the confidentiality of the people and entities including
drug manufacturers and suppliers that participate in executions in
Georgia. In spite of the slightly different context in which this
case arises, that principle applies with equal force here.

The Plaintiffs also argue that the GDC subpoena included some
information that was not covered by the Lethal Injection Secrecy
Act, and that the district court thus abused its discretion by
ordering the subpoena to be quashed in its entirety. According to
Plaintiffs, the district court should at the very least have
required the GDC to submit a privilege log.  

Again, the Eleventh Circuit is unpersuaded. The purpose of
requiring a privilege log is to enable the parties to assess a
claim of privilege.

Here, it is apparent from the face of the subpoena that the vast
majority of the information sought in the subpoena falls within the
plain language of the Lethal Injection Secrecy Act. More
importantly, the information with the most relevance to Plaintiffs'
Section 1983 claims that is, information identifying Georgia's
source of pentobarbital, which could show that pentobarbital is a
known and available alternative to Mississippi's three-drug
protocol.

Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion by quashing
the subpoena in its entirety, and without first requiring the GDC
to submit a privilege log.

A full-text copy of the Eleventh Circuit's November 19, 2018
Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycmdvj6k from
Leagle.com.

William A. Morrison, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Joseph J. Drolet, for Movant-Appellee.

Tina Michelle Piper, for Movant-Appellee.

Rebecca J. Dobras, for Movant-Appellee.

Amir H. Ali, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

James W. Craig, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Emily M. Washington, for Plaintiff-Appellant.


MOBILE COUNTY, AL: Yates et al. Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned ANITRA DIAMOND and LEBARRON
YATES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. KIMBERLY HASTIE, in her individual and official
capacity as the Mobile County License Commissioner and a Mobile
County employee, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-00204-KD-C (S.D.
Ala), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying a class
of:

   "all persons who had email addresses in the custody of the
   Mobile County License Commission which were disclosed by
   defendant Kimberly Hastie to Chad Tucker and Strateco, LLC."

Excluded from the class are: defendant Hastie and her immediate
family; all persons who make a timely election to be excluded from
the class; the judges to whom this case is assigned and immediate
family members.

The proposed class includes over 30,000 individuals as defendant
Hastie unlawfully obtained, used, and disclosed the names and email
addresses of Mobile County drivers on file with the License
Commission.

By this lawsuit, the plaintiffs seek, inter alia, liquidated
damages of $2,500 as provided by 18 U.S.C. section 2724(b)(1) for
each instance the defendant unlawfully obtained, used, or disclosed
an individual's DPPA protected personal information, punitive
damages, and attorney's fees.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Archie I. Grubb, II, Esq.
          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
          METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, Alabama 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
                  archie.grubbs@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          Kasie M. Braswell, Esq.
          D. Brian Murphy, Esq.
          BRASWELL MURPHY, LLC
          105 N. Conception Street, Suite 100
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 438-7503
          Facsimile: (251) 438-7949
          E-mail: kasie@braswellmurphy.com
                  brian@braswellmurphy.com

Attorney for Defendant:

          Joe Carl "Buzz" Jordan, Esq.
          E-mail: buzz@rossandjordan.com

MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Tennessee Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Momenta 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's motions to dismiss in the class action suit initiated by
he Hospital Authority of Metropolitan Government of Nashville and
Davidson County, Tennessee, d/b/a Nashville General Hospital, is
still pending.

On October 14, 2015, The Hospital Authority of Metropolitan
Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, d/b/a
Nashville General Hospital, or NGH, filed a class action suit
against the Company and Sandoz in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain
purchasers of LOVENOX or generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection.

The complaint alleges that, in connection with filing the September
2011 patent infringement suit against Amphastar and Actavis, the
Company and Sandoz sought to prevent Amphastar from selling generic
Enoxaparin Sodium Injection and thereby exclude competition for
generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection in violation of federal
anti-trust laws. NGH is seeking injunctive relief, disgorgement of
profits and unspecified damages and fees.

In December 2015, the Company and Sandoz filed a motion to dismiss
and a motion to transfer the case to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. On March 21, 2017, the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
dismissed NGH's claim for damages against the Company and Sandoz,
but allowed the case to move forward, in part, for NGH's claims for
injunctive and declaratory relief. In the same opinion, the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee denied
the Company's motion to transfer.

On June 9, 2017, NGH filed a motion to amend its complaint to add a
new named plaintiff, the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health & Security Plan, or
DC37. NGH and DC37 seek to assert claims for damages under the laws
of more than 30 different states, on behalf of a putative class of
indirect purchasers of Lovenox or generic enoxaparin. On June 30,
2017, the Company and Sandoz filed a brief opposing the motion to
amend the complaint. On December 14, 2017, the Court granted NGH's
motion to amend.

In January 2018, the Company and Sandoz filed three motions to
dismiss the amended complaint. Those briefs remain pending before
the Court.

Momenta Pharmaceuticals said, "While the outcome of litigation is
inherently uncertain, the Company believes this suit is without
merit, and intends to vigorously defend itself in this
litigation."

Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biotechnology company, focuses on
developing generic versions of complex drugs, biosimilars, and
novel therapeutics for autoimmune diseases in the United States.
The company was formerly known as Mimeon, Inc. and changed its name
to Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in September 2002. Momenta
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.


MONRO MUFFLER: Naszkiewicz Suit Moved to District of Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Naszkiewicz, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Monro Muffler Brake, Inc. d/b/a The
Tire Choice& Total Car Care, the Defendants, Case No. 18-CA-010091,
was removed from the Florida 13th Circuit Court for Hillsborough
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida on Nov. 7, 2018. The Florida Middle District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 8:18-cv-02743-CEH-CPT to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell. The suit
alleges Fair Labor Standards Act violation.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC
          16524 Pointe Village Dr Ste 100
          Lutz, FL 33558
          Telephone: (727) 254-5255
          Facsimile: (727) 483-7942
          E-mail: wolfgang@fgbolaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Richard J. Swift, Jr., Esq.
          GARLICK, SWIFT & GARRY, LLP
          5150 Tamiami Trail N., Suite 501
          Naples, FL 34103
          Telephone: (239) 597-7088
          Facsimile: (239) 597-6984
          E-mail: rswift@garlaw.com

MOVEONORG CIVIC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Delshad Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN J. DELSHAD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOVEONORG CIVIC ACTION; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-09431 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 6, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Moveon Org Civic Action is headquartered in the United States. The
company's line of business includes providing various business
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elie D. Ghodsizadeh, Esq.
          1663 Sawtelle Blvd., Unit 220
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 255-8376
          E-mail: eghodsi@delshadlegal.com


MYLAN NV: Israeli Securities Suit Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that the IEC Fund Action in the
Tel Aviv District Court (Economic Division) remains stayed until a
judgment is issued in the securities litigation pending in the
United States.

On October 13, 2016, a purported shareholder of Mylan N.V. filed a
lawsuit, together with a motion to certify the lawsuit as a class
action on behalf of certain Mylan N.V. shareholders on the Tel Aviv
Stock Exchange, against Mylan N.V. and four of its directors and
officers (collectively, for purposes of this paragraph, the
"defendants") in the Tel Aviv District Court (Economic Division)
(the "Friedman Action").

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made false or misleading
statements and omissions of purportedly material fact in Mylan
N.V.'s reports to the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange regarding Mylan
N.V.'s classification of its EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector for purposes
of the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program (MDRP), in violation of both
U.S. and Israeli securities laws, the Israeli Companies Law and the
Israeli Torts Ordinance. The plaintiff seeks damages, among other
remedies.

On April 30, 2017, another purported shareholder of Mylan N.V.
filed a separate lawsuit, together with a motion to certify the
lawsuit as a class action on behalf of certain Mylan N.V.
shareholders on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, in the Tel Aviv
District Court (Economic Division), alleging substantially similar
claims and seeking substantially similar relief against the
defendants and other directors and officers of Mylan N.V., but
alleging also that this group of defendants made false or
misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact in
connection with allegedly anticompetitive conduct with respect to
EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and certain generic drugs, and alleging
violations of both U.S. federal securities laws and Israeli law
(the "IEC Fund Action").

On April 10, 2018, the Tel Aviv District Court granted the motion
filed by plaintiffs in both the Friedman Action and the IEC Fund
Action, voluntarily dismissing the Friedman Action and staying the
IEC Fund Action until a judgment is issued in the securities
litigation pending in the United States.

Mylan said, "We believe that the claims in these lawsuits are
without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."

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

Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, brand name, and
over-the-counter (OTC) products worldwide. The company operates
through three segments: North America, Europe, and Rest of World.
It offers pharmaceutical products in tablet, capsule, injectable,
transdermal patch, gel, nebulized, and cream or ointment forms. The
company was formerly known as New Moon B.V. Mylan N.V. was founded
in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


MYLAN NV: Trial in EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector Suit in July 2020
------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that the trial date in the
EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector-related suit has been scheduled for July
2020.

Mylan Specialty and other Mylan-affiliated entities have been named
as defendants in putative class actions relating to the pricing
and/or marketing of the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector. The plaintiffs in
these cases assert violations of various federal and state
antitrust and consumer protection laws, the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, as well as common law claims.

Plaintiffs' claims include purported challenges to the prices
charged for the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and/or the marketing of the
product in packages containing two auto-injectors, as well as
allegedly anti-competitive conduct. A Mylan officer and other
non-Mylan affiliated companies were also named as defendants in
some of the class actions.

These lawsuits were filed in the various federal and state courts
and have either been dismissed or transferred into a multidistrict
litigation ("MDL") in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas and have been consolidated. Mylan filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint, which was granted in part and
denied in part. A trial date has been scheduled for July 2020.

Mylan said, "We believe that the remaining claims in these lawsuits
are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."

Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, brand name, and
over-the-counter (OTC) products worldwide. The company operates
through three segments: North America, Europe, and Rest of World.
It offers pharmaceutical products in tablet, capsule, injectable,
transdermal patch, gel, nebulized, and cream or ointment forms. The
company was formerly known as New Moon B.V. Mylan N.V. was founded
in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


NANTKWEST INC: Settlement in Principle Reached in Sudunagunta Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
NantKwest, 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 parties in
Sudunagunta v. NantKwest, Inc., et al., have notified the district
court that they have reached a settlement in principle.

In March 2016, a putative securities class action complaint
captioned Sudunagunta v. NantKwest, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-01947
was filed in federal district court for the Central District of
California related to the Company's restatement of certain interim
financial statements for the periods ended June 30, 2015 and
September 30, 2015. A number of similar putative class actions were
filed in federal and state court in California.

The actions originally filed in state court were removed to federal
court, and the various related actions have been consolidated.
Plaintiffs assert causes of action for alleged violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, costs
and attorneys' fees, and equitable/injunctive or other relief on
behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or acquired the
Company's securities during various time periods from July 28, 2015
through March 11, 2016.

In September 2017, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
the third amended consolidated complaint. On August 13, 2018, the
district court granted plaintiffs' motions for class certification
and to strike plaintiffs' claims under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. On August 24, 2018, at the district court's
direction, plaintiffs filed a fourth amended consolidated
complaint.

On August 27, 2018, defendants petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit to authorize interlocutory appeal of the
class certification order. On September 7, 2018, defendants
answered the fourth amended consolidated complaint. On September
21, 2018, the parties informed the Ninth Circuit that they have
reached a settlement in principle, and the parties moved to stay
appellate proceedings.

On September 24, 2018, the parties notified the district court that
they have reached a settlement in principle and that, after the
settlement is documented, lead plaintiffs will move for preliminary
approval.

Under the terms of the settlement, which is subject to preliminary
and final approval by the court, the Company agreed to pay $12
million to the plaintiffs as full and complete settlement of the
litigation. The Company is responsible for $1.2 million of the
settlement amount which has been recognized in selling, general and
administrative expense on the condensed consolidated statements of
operations, while the remaining $10.8 million will be fully funded
by the Company’s insurance carriers under its directors’ and
officers’ insurance policy.

Management intends to continue to vigorously defend these
proceedings. If for some reason the settlement is not approved and
the Company is ultimately found liable, the liability could have a
material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial
statements for the period or periods in which it is incurred.

NantKwest, Inc., a clinical-stage immunotherapy biotechnology
company, develops immunotherapeutic treatments for cancer,
infectious diseases, and inflammatory diseases in the United
States. The company was formerly known as Conkwest, Inc. and
changed its name to NantKwest, Inc. in July 2015. NantKwest, Inc.
was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in San Diego, California.


NATIONAL STAFFING: Mojica Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
JANNACE MOJICA, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10735 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2018), seeks
unpaid wages from Defendant for all the time that they worked
overtime hours and were not compensated and for which they did not
receive proper overtime premium pay, and liquidated damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Defendant had a policy and practice of refusing to properly pay
its licensed therapists their overtime compensation for their hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek at an amount of at least
one and a half times their regular hourly rate. The Defendant has
failed to pay Plaintiff and the members of the Collective the
premium overtime wages to which they are entitled under the FLSA
for all hours worked beyond 40 per workweek, the lawsuit says.

National Staffing provides recruitment and staffing services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Felix Q. Vinluan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF FELIX VINLUAN
          69-10 Roosevelt Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Woodside, NY 11377
          Telephone: 718 478 4488
          Facsimile: 718 478 4588
          E-mail: fqvinluan@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Manuel B. Quintal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE MANUEL B. QUINTAL PC
          291 Broadway, Suite 1501
          York, NY 10007
          Telephone: 212 732-0055
          Facsimile: 212 587-8933
          E-mail: guintallaw@aol.com

NATIONWIDE COURT: Ruiz Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay
--------------------------------------------------
HECTOR RUIZ, on behalf of himself, individually, and all similarly
situated employees, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONWIDE COURT SERVICES,
INC., and ARLENE NELSON, individually, the Defendants, Case
1:18-cv-06559 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wage and overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, throughout his employment, the
Defendants paid Plaintiff a fixed bi-weekly salary of $779.00 and
$960.00 during different time periods of his employment, though
Defendants occasionally paid Plaintiff at lower rates without
explanation. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at the
statutorily required overtime rate of one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours in
violation of the FLSA and NYLL. Moreover, Plaintiff's bi-weekly
salary, when converted to an hourly regular rate of pay by
operation of law, often results in an hourly rate of pay below the
mandated minimum wage in violation of the NYLL.

The Defendants required Plaintiff to successfully effectuate
service of process upon at least ninety-three parties during every
two-week pay period. The Defendants did not credit failed attempts
to serve parties towards this quota, which may occur when, inter
alia, Defendants were provided with an incorrect address for
service on a party or when the party is not present at the
address during the time of attempted service. Because of this,
Defendants often required Plaintiff to make numerous attempts
before successfully effectuating service of process or before
reporting to a client that service of process could not be
completed. As a result, Defendants required Plaintiff to spend many
hours attempting to serve parties which were not credited as part
of his quota because he was unable to successfully effectuate
service on such attempts, the lawsuit says.

Nationwide Court Services, Inc. offers legal services. The Company
provides services including title insurance, foreclosure search,
document retrieval, and mortgage.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          David D. Barnhorn, Esq.
          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          825 Veterans Highway
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Class Cert. Sought in Mental Health Services Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned John Doe, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
JEFFREY A. MEYERS, Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of
Health and Human Services, in his official capacity, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01039-LM (N.H. Cir. Ct.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all individuals who are currently being or will be after
      the date of this Class Action Complaint involuntarily
      detained pursuant to RSA 135-C:27-33 while awaiting
      involuntary admission to a Designated Receiving Facility.
      These individuals are at serious risk of
      institutionalization at New Hampshire Hospital and other
      DRF hospitals";

   2. approving Plaintiff John Doe as class representative;

   3. appointing Plaintiff's counsel to represent the class; and

   4. granting such other and further relief as this Court deems
      just and proper in the circumstances.

According to the complaint, there is a systemic pattern and
practice in New Hampshire where people who may be experiencing
mental health crises are involuntarily detained in hospital
emergency rooms without the State providing them with any due
process, appointed counsel, or opportunity to contest their
detention. This practice is known as "psychiatric boarding." As of
October 31, 2018, approximately 46 adults and 4 children were being
involuntarily "boarded" in emergency rooms under RSA 135-C:27-33
while awaiting admission to DRF. Though emergency room wait times
can vary, they can last up to three weeks.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Gilles R. Bissonnette, Esq.
          Henry R. Klementowicz, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
          18 Low Avenue
          Concord, NH 03301
          Telephone: (603) 224 5591
          E-mail: gilles@aclu-nh.org
                  henry@aclu-nh.org

NEW JERSEY: Governor Murphy Faces Fischer et al. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Phil Murphy, in his
official capacity as Governor of the State of New Jersey. The case
is captioned as SUSAN G FISCHER, and JEANETTE SPECK, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHIL
MURPHY, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of New
Jersey; NEW JERSEY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; and TOWNSHIP OF OCEAN
EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-15628-RMB-KMW
(D.N.J., Nov. 2, 2018). The lawsuit alleges violation of the Civil
Rights Act. The case is assigned to Judge Renee Marie Bumb and
referred to Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams.

State of New Jersey is located in the Northeast region of the
United States. The State provides a full range of services
including public safety, justice, health, education, economic
development, transportation, recreation and culture. New Jersey has
an economy primarily based on the industries of chemicals and
pharmaceuticals, oil refining, transportation and tourism. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael P. Laffey, Esq.
          MESSINA LAW FIRM
          961 Holmdel Road
          Holmdel, NJ 07733
          Telephone: (732) 642-6784
          Facsimile: (732) 332-9301
          E-mail: mlaffey@messinalawfirm.com


NEW YORK: MSP Recovery Sues for Medicare Reimbursements
-------------------------------------------------------
MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, and SERIES 16-08-483, a series of MSP Recovery Claims,
Series LLC, the Plaintiffs, vs. NEW YORK CENTRAL MUTUAL FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10341 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2018), seeks double damages under
the Medicare Secondary Payer Law for Defendant's failure to
properly reimburse conditional payments for enrollees'
accident-related medical expenses within the applicable limitations
period.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to fulfill its
statutory duties under the MSP Law as a "no-fault” insurer.
Specifically, the Defendant has repeatedly failed to provide
primary payment, or reimburse secondary payments made by
Plaintiffs' assignors and Class Members, on behalf of Medicare
beneficiaries enrolled in Part C of the Medicare Act for medical
expenses resulting from injuries sustained in automobile accidents.
The Enrollees were enrolled in Medicare Advantage health plans
offered by Plaintiffs' assignors and Class Members, i.e., Medicare
Advantage Organizations, which suffered an injury-in-fact from
Defendant's failure to reimburse, and accordingly, have standing to
sue under 42 U.S.C. section 1395y(b)(3)(A).

Plaintiffs' assignors and the putative Class Members are MAOs that
provided Medicare benefits to the Enrollees. These Erollees
suffered injuries related to an accident and Plaintiffs' assignors
and the putative Class Members paid for medical items and/or
services required by the Enrollees as a result of the accident.
Because the Plaintiffs' assignors' and Class Members' Enrollees
were also covered by no-fault policies issued by the Defendant. The
Defendant is a primary payer under the MSP Law and must reimburse
Plaintiffs and the putative Class Members for their payment of
accident-related medical expenses, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Richard D. Meadow, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          6810 FM 1960 West
          Houston, TX 77069
          Telephone: (713) 659-5200
          E-mail: richard.meadow@lanierlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Adam K. Pulaski, Esq.
          PULASKI LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2925 Richmond Ave, Ste 1725
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713) 664-4555
          E-mail: adam@pulaskilawfirm.com

NEWS AMERICA: Bolsinger Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Darwin Bolsinger, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. News America
Marketing In-Store Services L.L.C., a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No.:
2:18-cv-09671 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2018), Case No.: BC722768, was
moved to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the Los Angeles
County Superior Court, from the Central District of California
(Western Division - Los Angeles) on Nov. 16, 2018. The Central
District of California assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-09671. The suit
alleges labor-related issues.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for News America Marketing In-Store Services L.L.C.:

          Mary C. Dollarhide, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP US
          4365 Executive Drive Suite 1100
          San Diego, CA 92121-2133
          Telephone: (858) 677-1400
          Facsimile: (858) 677-1401
          E-mail: mary.dollarhide@dlapiper.com

NIAGARA CREDIT: Oliver Consumer Suit Transferred to W.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as Janice M. Oliver pleading on her own
behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers,
Plaintiff v. Niagara Credit Solutions Inc., Defendant, Case No.
7:18-cv-06822 filed on November 20, 2018, was transferred from the
U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Southern District of New York to the United
States District Court for the Western District of New York on
November 27, 2018, and assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-01341-GWC.

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit and was filed under
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Niagara Credit Solutions, Inc. is a full service national
collection agency that specializes in the recovery of charged off
credit card, consumer loan, student loan and auto deficiency
accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel Zemel, Esq.
     Zemel Law, LLC
     78 John Miller Way, Suite 430
     Kearny, NJ 07032
     Phone:(862) 227-3106
     Fax: (862) 204-5901
     Email: dz@zemellawllc.com


NOVATION COMPANIES: Appeal in NJ Carpenters Suit Dismissed as Moot
------------------------------------------------------------------
Novation Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that an appellate
court has issued a summary order dismissing the appeal as moot and
vacating the District Court order, in the class action suit
initiated by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the New
Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated.

Defendants in the case included NovaStar Mortgage Funding
Corporation (NMFC) and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. ("NMI"),
wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company, and NMFC's individual
directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by the Company
("Affiliated Defendants") and several unaffiliated investment banks
and credit rating agencies.

The case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. On June 16, 2009, plaintiff filed an
amended complaint. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that
the defendants violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, by making allegedly false statements
regarding mortgage loans that served as collateral for securities
purchased by plaintiff and the purported class members.

On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims, which the court granted on March 31, 2011, with
leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May
16, 2011, and the Company again filed a motion to dismiss. On March
29, 2012, the court dismissed plaintiff's second amended complaint
with prejudice and without leave to replead.

Plaintiff filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit (the "Appellate Court"). On March 1, 2013, the
Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the lower court, which had
dismissed the case. Also, the Appellate Court vacated the judgment
of the lower court which had held that plaintiff lacked standing,
even as a class representative, to sue on behalf of investors in
securities in which plaintiff had not invested, and the appellate
court remanded the case back to the lower court for further
proceedings.

On April 23, 2013 plaintiff filed its memorandum with the lower
court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of
plaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which plaintiff was not
invested, and on February 5, 2015, the lower court granted
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and vacated its earlier
dismissal.

On March 8, 2017, the Affiliated Defendants and all other parties
executed an agreement to settle the action, with the contribution
of the Affiliated Defendants to the settlement fund being paid by
their insurance carriers. The court certified a settlement class
and granted preliminary approval to the settlement on May 10, 2017.


One member of the settlement class objected to the settlement and
sought a stay of the final settlement approval hearing on the
ground that it did not receive notice of the settlement and had no
opportunity to timely opt out of the class.  After the court
rejected the motion for a stay, the objector filed an appeal and
requested a stay of the court proceedings pending disposition of
the appeal.

The Appellate Court denied the temporary stay of the court
proceedings pending a decision on the objector’s request for a
stay.

On October 19, 2018, the Appellate Court issued a summary order
dismissing the appeal as moot and vacating the District Court
order.

Novation Companies said, "Assuming the settlement is approved and
completed, which is expected, the Company will incur no loss. The
Company believes that the Affiliated Defendants have meritorious
defenses to the case and, if the settlement is not approved,
expects them to defend the case vigorously."

Novation Companies, Inc., through its subsidiary, Healthcare
Staffing, Inc., provides outsourced health care staffing and
related services primarily to Community Service Boards in Georgia.
It also owns a portfolio of mortgage securities. The company was
formerly known as NovaStar Financial, Inc. and changed its name to
Novation Companies, Inc. in May 2012. Novation Companies, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is based in Kansas City, Missouri.


NOVUS THERAPEUTICS: Consolidated with Wu Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Novus Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the putative
class action lawsuit entitled, Jackie888, Inc. v. Tokai
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., has been consolidated with Wu v.
Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., 16-3725 BLS.

On August 19, 2016, a purported stockholder of Tokai filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Francisco, entitled Jackie888, Inc. v.
Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. CGC-16-553796. The
plaintiff sought to represent a class of purchasers of Tokai common
stock in or traceable to Tokai's IPO.

On October 19, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss or stay the
action on grounds of forum non conveniens, and certain individual
defendants moved to quash the plaintiff's summons for lack of
personal jurisdiction. On February 27, 2017, the Superior Court
entered an order granting defendants' motion to stay the lawsuit.

On May 24, 2018, the plaintiff dismissed its complaint in the
Superior Court of the State of California and refiled its complaint
in the Business Litigation Session of the Superior Court Department
of the Suffolk County Trial Court, Massachusetts ("Massachusetts
State Court"). On June 28, 2018, plaintiff Wu moved to consolidate
the Jackie888 Action with the Wu v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al., 16-3725 BLS.

On June 29, 2018, plaintiffs Jackie888 and Wu filed a consolidated
complaint. On July 6, 2018, the Jackie888 Action was consolidated
with the Wu Action.

Novus Therapeutics, Inc., a pharmaceutical company, focuses on
developing products for patients with disorders of ear, nose, and
throat.  Novus Therapeutics, Inc. is headquartered in Irvine,
California.


NURIA'S RESTAURANTE: Reyes et al. Seek Minimum & OT Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
YOHANA ABIGAIL OROSCO HERNANDEZ, JUANA GARCIA REYES, and MARLON E.
HERNANDEZ,, the Plaintiffs, vs. NURIA'S RESTAURANTE SALVADORENO
INC. (D/B/A NURIA'S RESTAURANT), VINA DEL MAR RESTAURANT
SALVADORENO, CORP. (D/B/A VINA DEL MAR RESTAURANT), NURIA REYES,
and DONALD OVIEDO, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06577
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2018), seeks minimum wage and overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants own, operate, or control
two restaurants, located at 151-28 81 Street Howard Beach, New
York, 11414 under the name "Nuria's Restaurant". The Plaintiffs
have been employed as a waitress, waiter, cook, and dishwasher at
the restaurants located at 138-16 Jamaica Ave, Jamaica, NY 11435
and 89-52 146 th St, Jamaica, NY 11435.

The Plaintiffs have worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that they have worked. Rather,
Defendants have failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants have failed to pay
Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which
they have had to work over 10 hours a day, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

NUTRITION RITE: Pan et al. Seek Minimum & OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------
QIAN PAN, and LEI YANG, on their own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. NUTRITION RITE CORPORATION
d/b/a Nutrition Rite; CIYAN CHEN a/k/a Mark Chen, XIAO JIANG LI,
MIAO CHEN, and XIAO YAN CHEN, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-06317 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
and post-judgement interest; and or attorney's fees and cost under
Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

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

Attorney for the Plaintiffs, proposed FLSA Collective and potential
Rule 23 Class:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324

OCWEN LOAN: Sued over Fraudulent Assessment of Inspection Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARY A. RHODEMAN and DAVID DOYLE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, ALTISOURCE SOLUTIONS,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
5:18-cv-02363 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 5, 2018), challenges Defendants
Ocwen and Altisource's fraudulent assessment and collection of
unperformed, unfair, or unlawfully marked-up property valuation and
inspection fees in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the fees -- which Ocwen habitually adds
to residential mortgage loans it services --  are for
"Default-Related Services, i.e. services ostensibly performed when
a borrower defaults on a loan. In 2009, Defendant Ocwen, a major
servicer of residential mortgage loans throughout the United
States, purportedly spun-off Defendant Altisource and
contemporaneously entered into an exclusive contract with
Altisource to provide Ocwen with Default-Related Services. Ocwen
also agreed to purchase or license loan servicing software built by
Altisource. Even though Altisource and Ocwen were technically and
by outward appearance separate entities, on information and belief
they shared common ownership, and their legal separation was in
fact an artifice designed to mask the existence of the Enterprise
and facilitate the imposition and collection of fees for
Default-Related Services.

A loan servicer can only charge a borrower for Default-Related
Services in limited instances, as set out in the applicable deed of
trust. Additionally, as Default-Related Services exist only to
protect the lender's security interest in the property underlying
the mortgage, loan servicers are prohibited from enriching
themselves through Default-Related Services and making this into a
profit center. In this regard, loan servicers may demand and
collect no more from borrowers than the actual cost of the
Default-Related Services which are in fact performed. Typically,
loan servicers contract with third-party providers -- such as
Altisource- which in turn hire their own vendors to perform the
Default-Related Services. Additionally, loan servicers are
forbidden from charging participants receiving loan modifications
under the federally-funded Home Affordable Modification Program
(HAMP) any fees for property valuations.

The Altisource/Ocwen Enterprise has, through self-dealing, unfairly
profited from the Default-Related Services. Specifically, this case
seeks recovery for the following fees that were improperly and
illegally charged to borrowers and collected by the Enterprise:

    (a) Fees for Broker Price Opinions (BPO's) which were never
performed but where instead different and far-cheaper Hybrid
Valuations were secretly substituted in their place;

    (b) Fees for Hybrid Valuations well in excess of their fair
market value;

    (c) Fees for property inspections which were improperly marked
up and billed to borrowers at artificially inflated prices;

    (d) Fees for property inspections that in actuality were never
performed; and

    (e) Fees for property valuations performed pursuant to HAMP
loan modifications in violation of HAMP regulations saying that
such fees could not be assessed.

These fees were automatically assessed by a computer program
provided to Ocwen by Altisource, and done as part of a scheme by
the Enterprise to defraud HAMP participants along with the federal
government, securing for themselves not just revenue they had no
right to receive, but also an unfair competitive advantage over
other mortgage servicing companies, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
          Benjamin Gubernick, Esq.
          Hannah B. Fernandez, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          2381 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
          Telephone: (877) 500-8780
          Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
          E-mail: christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com
                  Ben.gubernick@zimmreed.com
                  hannah.fernandez@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          David N. Lake, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID N. LAKE, APC
          16130 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 650
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 788-5100
          Facsimile: (818) 788-5199
          E-mail: david@lakelawpc.com

OFF STREET CAFE: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Cooks, Hernandez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINGO HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OFF STREET CAFE, INC.; and DOES
1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18STCV04354 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Nov. 8, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for
unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.

Mr. Hernandez was employed by the Defendants as a cook.

Off Street Cafe, Inc. is a California corporation engaged in the
restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARC COLEMAN
          211 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 420
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 432-8188
          Facsimile: (562) 432-2935
          E-mail: marc@marccolemanIaw.com


OHIO NATIONAL: Browning Sues over Sale of Variable Annuity Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LANCE BROWNING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE OHIO NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
OHIO NATIONAL LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY; and OHIO NATIONAL EQUITIES,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00763-SJD-SKB (S.D. Ohio, Nov.
6, 2018) seeks an injunction to prevent the Defendants from
terminating its obligations to the Plaintiff and the class, as well
as declaratory relief resolving the Defendants' future obligations
pursuant to so-called Selling Agreements.

According to the complaint, the Defendants induced the sale of
their policies by promising annual, recurring commissions to the
broker-dealers and, by extension, the securities representatives,
and customers have purchased these policies believing that they
will be able to rely on their trusted securities representatives to
advise them on how to manage the investments in the policy and
whether or when to annuitize or surrender the policy. Having
induced the sales of these policies based on these promises, the
Defendants announced that it does not intend to hold up their end
of the bargain -- it is refusing to pay the promised recurring
commissions, and thereby effectively cutting off customers from
receiving financial advice about these policies from their trusted
financial advisors.

The Ohio National Life Insurance Company offers life insurance
services, and insurance and annuity products. The company was
incorporated in 1909 and is based in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Ohio
National Life Insurance Company operates as a subsidiary of Ohio
National Financial Services, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David P. Meyer, Esq.
          Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
          John C. Camillus, Esq.
          Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
          MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
          1320 Dublin Road, Ste. 100
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 224-6000
          Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
          E-mail: dmeyer@meyerwilson.com
                  mwilson@meyerwilson.com
                  jcamillus@meyerwilson.com
                  mboyle@meyerwilson.com

               - and -

          Dennis J. Concilla, Esq.
          CARLILE PATCHEN & MURPHY, LLP
          366 E Broad Street
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 228-6135
          Facsimile: (614) 221-0216
          E-mail: dconcilla@cpmlaw.com


OKLAHOMA: Court Declares Bid to Dismiss Parga Suit as Moot
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma issued an Opinion and Order declaring Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss as Moot the case captioned MICHAEL PARGA, RICHARD FELTZ,
TARA O'DONLEY, AND CHRISTOPHER WOOD, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF TULSA; VIC REGALADO, Tulsa County
Sheriff, in his official capacity; TERRY H. BITTING, TAMMY BRUCE,
MARTHA RUPP CARTER, STEPHEN R. CLARK, THERESA DREILING, OWEN EVENS,
JAMES W. KEELEY, DEBORAH LUDI LEITCH, J. ANTHONY MILLER, DAWN
MOODY, MILLIE OTEY, KIRSTEN PACE, APRIL SEIBERT, CLIFFORD SMITH,
AND SARAH SMITH, in their capacities as Tulsa County Special
MUSSEMAN, in his capacity as Tulsa County District Court
Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-0298-CVE-JFJ (N.D. Okla.).

In this putative class action, the plaintiffs seek declaratory and
injunctive relief for alleged violations of their equal protection
and due process rights, their right to pretrial liberty, and their
Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

In their motion to dismiss, the moving defendants assert six bases
for dismissal: (1) lack of Article III standing; (2) jurisdictional
issues based on federalism and comity; (3) failure to challenge
bail requirements through a writ of habeas corpus; (4) failure to
state a claim for injunctive relief; (5) failure to state a claim
that can be cured through declaratory relief; and (6) judicial
immunity. However, in light of the fact that all four named
plaintiffs paid their bonds and were released from jail in the days
following the filing of the complaint, the Court must first address
mootness, a threshold jurisdictional issue which the Court may
raise sua sponte.

The mootness doctrine is a corollary to this case-and-controversy
requirement; thus, when an action is moot, the federal court is
deprived of subject matter jurisdiction over it.  The mootness
doctrine provides that an actual controversy must be extant at all
stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed. A
case becomes moot when a plaintiff no longer suffers actual injury
that can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.

Here, it is immediately clear that none of the four named
plaintiffs continues to suffer an injury that can be redressed by
this litigation, as none of them remains detained due to an
inability to pay bond. Rather, all four plaintiffs paid their bonds
and were released from jail in the few days after the complaint was
filed, and before their initial arraignments took place. Further,
where, as here, a party seeks equitable relief only, past exposure
to allegedly illegal conduct is insufficient to show that a
plaintiff has a personal stake in the outcome of the litigation;
rather, the party must `demonstrate a good chance of being likewise
injured in the future.

Therefore, the named plaintiffs' allegations that they were
previously detained and unable to pay their bonds does not
establish a live controversy warranting prospective equitable
relief.

Moreover, the Court assumes that the plaintiffs will conduct their
activities within the law and so avoid arrest as well as exposure
to the challenged course of conduct said to be followed by
defendants. Therefore, there is no reasonable expectation or
demonstrated probability that these same named plaintiffs will be
subjected to new bond amounts.

Therefore, the Court finds that the four named plaintiffs' claims
are moot.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 19, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y74zelqy from
Leagle.com.

Michael Parga, Richard Feltz, Tara O'Donley & Christopher Wood, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Akeeb Dami Animashaun, Civil Rights Corps, Alexander
Karakatsanis, Civil Rights Corps, Charles Lewis Gerstein, Civil
Rights Corps, Hayley Elizabeth Horowitz, Still She Rises, Ruth
Ellen Lando Hamilton, Still She Rises & Ryan Downer, Civil Rights
Corps.

Vic Regalado, Tulsa County Sheriff, in his official capacity,
Defendant, represented by Douglas Allen Wilson , District
Attorney's Office & Kimberly Majors Hall , District Attorney's
Office.

Terry H Bitting, in his capacity as Tulsa County Special Judge,
Tammy Bruce, in her capacity as Tulsa County Special Judge &
Deborah Ludi Leitch, in her capacity as Tulsa County Special Judge,
Defendants, represented by Stefanie Erin Lawson , Office of the
Attorney General LITIGATION SECTION.


OLSON RESEARCH: Retina Assoc. Sues over Unsolicited Fax Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------
Retina Associates Medical Group, Inc. and Acutecare Health System,
LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. The Olson Research Group, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 8:18-cv-01997 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 8, 2018), seeks damages,
injunctive relief and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of The Olson Research
Group in negligently and/or intentionally sending unsolicited
advertisement to Plaintiffs' facsimile machines, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, on or about August 9, 2017 and October
3, 2017, Defendant used Defendant's telephone facsimile machine to
send unsolicited advertisements to Retina's facsimile machine.
Defendant's telephone facsimile machine has the capacity (A) to
transcribe text or images or both from paper into an electric
signal and to transmit that signal over a regular telephone line,
or (B) to transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic
signal received over a regular telephone line onto paper, as
defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(3).

Defendant's August 9, 2017 and October 3, 2017 advertisements
attempted to solicit Retina’s representative to perform research
work for Defendant in exchange for pay. These August 9, 2017 and
October 3, 2017 facsimile transmissions were advertising the
commercial availability for paid work to Retina pursuant to 47
U.S.C. section 227(a)(5). The facsimiles from Defendant's telephone
facsimile machine to Retina's facsimile were unsolicited by Retina
and without Retina's permission or Defendant's facsimiles forced
Retina and class members to pay for the costs of paper for unwanted
and unsolicited advertisements from Defendant. The lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio S., No. 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@southwestlitigation.com
                  david@southwestlitigation.com

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerouian, Esq.
          Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  ryan@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Ross Schmierer, Esq.
          DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE P.C.
          Five Greentree Centre
          525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 797-9951
          Facsimile: (856) 797-9978
          E-mail: Rschmierer@denittislaw.com

OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: $18.5MM Placed Into Escrow in "Nallagonda"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
deposited the $18.5 million settlement payment into an escrow
account, pending final court approval of the settlement in Kiran
Kumar Nallagonda v. Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. et al.

On November 23, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland by a
single plaintiff, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, against the Company and three current or former
executive officers of the Company.

An amended complaint clarifying plaintiff's claims was filed on
April 6, 2018. The action, captioned Kiran Kumar Nallagonda v.
Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case 1:15-cv-03562 (the
"Nallagonda Action"), alleges, among other things, that the
defendants made materially false or misleading statements and
material omissions in the Company's filings with the SEC in
violation of the federal securities laws. The complaint seeks
certification as a class action, unspecified damages and
reimbursement of attorneys' fees.

On March 21, 2016, the court entered an order appointing Dr. Raffy
Mirzayan as lead plaintiff and the firm of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP as lead counsel. On March 11, 2018, the company entered
into a memorandum of understanding to settle the Nallagonda Action.
Subsequently, on June 5, 2018, the parties executed a Stipulation
and Settlement Agreement in which the Company agreed in principle
to pay $18.5 million in cash to create a settlement fund for the
benefit of class members. On June 12, 2018, the lead plaintiff
filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the
parties’ settlement.

On September 4, 2018, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and scheduling a hearing for February 4,
2019 to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate and whether the case should therefore be
dismissed with prejudice. The Company also expects that lead
plaintiff will seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses from
the settlement fund. Both the settlement itself and any award to
lead plaintiff of attorneys' fees and expenses remain subject to
Court approval. The Company can provide no assurance that the Court
will approve the settlement.  

On October 3, 2018, the Company deposited the $18.5 million
settlement payment into an escrow account, pending final Court
approval of the settlement.

The Company had a $5.0 million executive and corporate securities
liability insurance policy in place at the time of the allegations.
The Company received the remaining $4.8 million of unused policy
coverage for the shareholder settlement of the Nallagonda Action on
October 9, 2018 which is recorded as Insurance receivable in the
condensed consolidated balance sheets at both September 30, 2018
and December 31, 2017.

Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. researches, develops, manufactures,
markets, and distributes regenerative medicine products in the
United States. Its products include Grafix and Stravix for treating
chronic wounds of diabetic foot ulcers, venous leg ulcers, pressure
ulcers, arterial ulcers, and severe burns, as well as surgical and
trauma wounds; BIO4 for bone repair and regeneration in spine,
trauma, extremity, cranial, and foot and ankle surgeries; and
Cartiform for treating articular cartilage lesions in the knee and
other joints. Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is
headquartered in Columbia, Maryland.


OVASCIENCE INC: Wheby Balks at Merger Deal with Millendo
--------------------------------------------------------
EARL WHEBY, JR., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. OVASCIENCE, INC., CHRISTOPHER KROEGER,
RICHARD ALDRICH, JEFFREY D. CAPELLO, MARY FISHER, JOHN HOWE, MARC
KOZIN, and JOHN SEXTON, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01811-UNA
(D. Del., Nov. 16, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants and all
persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing a proposed transaction, and in the event
Defendants consummate the proposed transaction, rescinding it and
setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on August 9,
2018, pursuant to which OvaScience, Inc. will merge with Millendo
Therapeutics, Inc. On November 6, 2018, the defendants filed a
proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the proposed transaction. The Proxy
Statement, which scheduled a stockholder vote on the Proposed
Transaction for December 4, 2018, omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy
Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges
that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act in connection with the Proxy Statement.

OvaScience is a publicly traded biotechnology company, focused on
female infertility. It was founded in 2011 by Michelle Dipp,
Richard Aldrich, Christoph Westphal, Jonathan Tilly, and David
Sinclair based on scientific work done by Tilly concerning
mammalian oogonial stem cells and work on mitochondria by
Sinclair.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530

               - and -

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

PALM BEACH SPORTS: Velardo Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------
Jake Velardo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Palm Beach Sports Club, LLC, a Florida
Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-14490-RLR
(S.D. Fla., November 28, 2018) is brought against the Defendant,
Palm Beach Sports Club, LLC, to secure redress for violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant is a fitness center and gym. To promote its services,
Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of
consumers in the process. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks
injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has
resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and
disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff
also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of
the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who, at all times relevant to this
action, was a resident of St. Lucie County, Florida.

Defendant is a Florida limited liability company whose principal
office is located at 1001 U.S. North Highway 1, Suite 201, Jupiter,
Florida 33477. Defendant directs, markets, and provides its
business activities throughout the State of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
     SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
     14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone: 305-479-2299
     Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

          - and -

     Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
     EDELSBERG LAW, PA
     19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: 305-975-3320
     Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com


PANDORA MEDIA: Knapp Balks at Merger Deal with Sirius XM
--------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KNAPP Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PANDORA MEDIA, INC., GREGORY B.
MAFFEI, ROGER FAXON, DAVID J. FREAR, JASON HIRSCHHORN, TIMOTHY
LEIWEKE, ROGER J. LYNCH, MICHAEL M. LYNTON, and JAMES E. MEYER, the
Defendant, Case 3:18-cv-06927-WHO (N.D. Cal., Nov. 15, 2018),
asserts claims against Defendants for violations of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9, and seeks to enjoin
Defendants from holding a stockholder vote and taking any steps to
consummate a Proposed Transaction unless and until the material
information is disclosed to Pandora's public common stockholders
sufficiently in advance of the stockholder vote or, in the event
the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages
resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act.

According to the complaint, on September 23, 2018, Pandora and
Sirius XM entered into an agreement and plan of merger and
reorganization, pursuant to which Sirius XM will acquire Pandora.
On October 25, 2018, as contemplated by the Merger Agreement,
Sirius XM Radio Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned
subsidiary of Sirius XM, Billboard Holding Company, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Pandora, and
Billboard Acquisition Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and
wholly-owned subsidiary of New Holding Company entered into joinder
agreements to become party to the Merger Agreement.

In sum, each outstanding share of Pandora will be converted into
the right to receive 1.44 shares of Sirius XM common stock. Based
on the closing price of Sirius XM's stock on September 21, 2018 of
$6.98, the per share value of Pandora common stock implied by the
Merger Consideration was $10.25, or approximately $3.5 billion in
value. On October 31, 2018, in order to convince Pandora’s public
common stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
Defendants authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and
misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement with the SEC, in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In
particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading
information concerning: (i) financial projections for Pandora; and
(ii) the valuation analyses conducted by the Company's financial
advisors, Centerview Partners LLC and LionTree Advisors LLC. The
special meeting of Pandora stockholders to vote on the Proposed
Transaction is approaching, as the Proposed Transaction is expected
to be completed during the during the first quarter of 2019. It is
therefore imperative that the material information that has been
omitted from the Proxy is disclosed to the Company's stockholders
prior to the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction so that
they can properly exercise their corporate suffrage rights, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          David E. Bower, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (213) 446-6652
          Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
          E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
                  dbower@monteverdelaw.com

PANDORA MEDIA: Raul Files Securities Suit Over Sale to Sirius
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Raul, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Pandora Media Inc., Gregory B. Maffei Roger
Conant Faxon, David J. Frear,Jason Hirschhorn, Timothy Leiweke,
Roger J. Lynch, James E. Meyer, Michael M. Lynton, and Mickie
Rosen, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-07167-HSG (N.D. Cal., November
27, 2018) brought this class action on behalf of the public
shareholders of Pandora against the Company's Board of Directors of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed
sale of the Company.

On September 23, 2018, Pandora entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with SiriusXM Holdings Inc., pursuant to which SiriusXM
will acquire Pandora in an all-stock transaction valued at
approximately $3.5 billion. Pursuant to the Proposed Transaction,
each holder of Pandora common stock will receive 1.44 shares of
SiriusXM common stock for each share of Pandora common stock issued
and outstanding immediately prior to the closing.

On November 1, 2018, Defendant authorized SiriusXM to file a
materially incomplete and misleading preliminary registration
statement on Form S-4 with the SEC, urging the Company's
shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, says the
complaint. The Registration Statement omits material information
regarding the Proposed Transaction, rendering it false and
misleading in violation of the Exchange Act.

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from proceeding with the
Proposed Transaction. In the event that the Proposed Transaction is
consummated, Plaintiff seeks to recover damages from the Defendants
for their violations of the Exchange Act, adds the complaint.

Plaintiff is, and has been at all times relevant hereto, the owner
of Pandora common stock.

Pandora is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located at 2100 Franklin Street, Suite 700, Oakland,
California 94612. The Company's common stock is traded on the New
York Stock Exchange under the symbol "P".

Gregory B. Maffei has been the Chairman of the Board since
September 2017.

Roger Conant Faxon has been a member of the Board since June 2015.

David J. Frear has been a member of the Board since September 2017.
Frear has also been the Senior Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of Sirius XM since June 2015.

Jason Hirschhorn has been a member of the Board since June 2017.

Timothy Leiweke has been a member of the Board since April 2015.

Roger J. Lynch has been a member of the Board since September
2017.

Michael M. Lynton has been a member of the Board since August
2017.

James E. Meyer has been a member of the Board since September
2017.

Mickie Rosen has been a member of the Board since September
2015.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam T. Hoover, Esq.
     Marc G. Reich, Esq.
     REICH RADCLIFFE & HOOVER LLP
     4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 550
     Newport Beach, CA 92660
     Phone: (949) 975-0512
     Fax: (949) 208-2839
     Email: adhoover@reichradcliffe.com
            mgr@reichradcliffe.com

          - and -

     Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
     LIFSHITZ & MILLER
     821 Franklin Ave., Suite 209
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 493-9780
     Fax: (516) 280-7376
     Email: jml@jlclasslaw.com


PAPA MURPHY'S: Settlement of Lennartson Case Wins Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Papa Murphy's Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court
gave final approval to the settlement in the putative class action
lawsuit filed by plaintiff John Lennartson, in its Amended Final
Order Approving Class Action Settlement, which resulted in the
settlement and release of all claims, subject to appeal.

The Company is named as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit filed by plaintiff John Lennartson on May 7, 2015, in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.

The lawsuit alleges the Company failed to comply with the
requirements of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") when
it sent SMS text messages to consumers. Mr. Lennartson asks that
the court certify the putative class and that statutory damages
under the TCPA be awarded to plaintiff and each class member. On
October 14, 2016, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC")
granted the Company a limited waiver from the TCPA's written
consent requirements for certain text messages that it sent up
through October 16, 2013 to individuals who, like Mr. Lennartson,
provided written consent prior to October 16, 2013.

On October 20, 2016, the Company filed a motion for summary
judgment seeking dismissal. On October 27, 2016, Mr. Lennartson
filed a motion seeking to extend the time to respond to the summary
judgment motion on the basis that he intends to appeal the FCC's
waiver. On November 4, 2016, the Court granted Mr. Lennartson's
motion to continue his response to the Company's summary judgment
motion until he could complete his appeal of the FCC's waiver
order.

In addition, on January 9, 2017, Mr. Lennartson filed an amended
complaint adding additional plaintiffs, some of whom provided
consent after October 16, 2013, and who are therefore differently
situated from Mr. Lennartson, as well as additional Washington
state law claims. On October 27, 2017, plaintiffs moved to certify
their putative class, which the Company opposed, and on November
22, 2017, the Company moved for summary judgment on all of
plaintiffs' claims. The Court issued a stay of the case for 30 days
while the parties pursued settlement negotiations.

On April 23, 2018, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement
and Release and plaintiffs filed a Motion and Memorandum for
Preliminary Approval of Settlement with the Court. The Court gave
preliminary approval to the settlement on May 16, 2018, in its
Preliminary Approval Order Approving Settlement, Certifying
Settlement Class, Approving Notice Plan, and Setting Fairness
Hearing. The Court gave final approval to the settlement on
September 28, 2018, in its Amended Final Order Approving Class
Action Settlement, which resulted in the settlement and release of
all claims, subject to appeal.

Papa Murphy's Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, owns,
operates, and franchises Take 'N' Bake pizza stores. The company
operates in three segments: Domestic Company Stores, Domestic
Franchise, and International. The company was founded in 1981 and
is headquartered in Vancouver, Washington.


PBF HOLDING: Goldstein Class Action Ongoing
-------------------------------------------
PBF Holding Co LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself from a class action suit entitled,
Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al.

On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., the company and PBF Energy Company LLC, and
the company's subsidiaries, PBF Energy Western Region LLC and
Torrance Refining Company LLC and the manager of the company's
Torrance refinery along with Exxon Mobil Corporation were named as
defendants in a class action and representative action complaint
filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette La
Bella and others similarly situated.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict
liability, ultrahazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance,
a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a
permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February
18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the
Torrance refinery which was then owned and operated by ExxonMobil.
The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities
subsequent to the company's acquisition in July 2016 is also
referenced in the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims
relate to the ESP explosion, Exxon has retained responsibility for
any liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the
agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery.

On July 2, 2018, the Court granted leave to plaintiffs' to file a
Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination. With
the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs' added an
additional plaintiff.

PBF Holding said, "As this matter is in the class certification
phase, we cannot currently estimate the amount or the timing of its
resolution. We presently believe the outcome will not have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."

PBF Holding Company LLC refines and supplies unbranded
transportation fuels, heating oil, petrochemical feedstocks,
lubricants, and other petroleum products in the United States and
internationally. The company was founded in 2008 and is based in
Parsippany, New Jersey. PBF Holding Company LLC is a subsidiary of
PBF Energy Company LLC.


PBF HOLDING: Unit Faces Kendig Class Suit
-----------------------------------------
PBF Holding Co LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that PBF Energy Limited,
a company's subsidiary, is defending against a class action suit
entitled, Michelle Kendig and Jim Kendig, et al. v. ExxonMobil Oil
Corporation, et al.

On September 18, 2018, in Michelle Kendig and Jim Kendig, et al. v.
ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, et al., PBF Energy Limited and Torrance
Refining Company LLC along with ExxonMobil Oil Corporation and
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company were named as defendants in a class
action and representative action complaint filed on behalf of
Michelle Kendig, Jim Kendig and others similarly situated.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges failure to authorize
and permit uninterrupted rest and meal periods, failure to furnish
accurate wage statements, violation of the Private Attorneys
General Act and violation of the California Unfair Business and
Competition Law. Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified economic
damages, statutory damages, civil penalties provided by statute,
disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, declaratory relief,
interest, attorney's fees and costs.

To the extent that plaintiffs' claims accrued prior to July 1,
2016, ExxonMobil has retained responsibility for any liabilities
that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement
relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery and logistics
assets.

PBF Holding said, "As this matter was recently filed, we cannot
currently estimate the amount or the timing of its resolution. We
presently believe the outcome will not have a material impact on
our financial position, results of operations or cash flows."

PBF Holding Company LLC refines and supplies unbranded
transportation fuels, heating oil, petrochemical feedstocks,
lubricants, and other petroleum products in the United States and
internationally. The company was founded in 2008 and is based in
Parsippany, New Jersey. PBF Holding Company LLC is a subsidiary of
PBF Energy Company LLC.


PHILIPS NA: Website not Accessible to Blind, Martinez Says
----------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO MARTINEZ, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. PHILIPS NORTH
AMERICA LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06297 (E.D.N.Y., Nov.
6, 2018), alleges that Temptations failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website -- usa.philips.com/shop -- to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, 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. The Defendant is denying blind and visually-impaired
persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods
and services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          44 Court Street, Suite 1217
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 373 9128
          E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com

PIER 59: Vargas Seeks Unpaid Wages, Alleges Time-Shaving
--------------------------------------------------------
TRINIDAD VARGAS, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, the Plaintiff, vs. PIER 59 STUDIOS L.P., and
FEDERICO PIGNATELLI, the Defendants, Case No.: 1:18-cv-10357
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages due to
time-shaving, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked over 40
hours per workweek. Throughout her employment by Defendants,
Plaintiff's scheduled working hours were from 5:00 p.m. until 2:00
a.m., for five days per week. The Plaintiff worked a total of
approximately 45 hours per week throughout her employment by
Defendants. FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members worked
similar hours as Plaintiff. Throughout her employment, the
Plaintiff was compensated at a regular rate of $12.00 per hour for
hours worked up until 40 hours per workweek.

Throughout her entire employment, Plaintiff was not properly
compensated her proper wages for all hours worked, due to
Defendants' policy of time-shaving. From in or around 2015, the
Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members were all
required to clock-in. While the clock-in machine generally worked
at the beginning of the shift, the machine failed to record
Plaintiff's, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs' and Class members'
clock-out time. As a result, Plaintiff's, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs' and Class members' clock-out time records were kept
manually. From in or around 2015, the new manager, Robert [LNU]
("Last Name Unknown") adjusted Plaintiff's, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs' and Class members' work hours on a weekly basis such
that they were paid for several hours fewer than actually worked
per week. Defendants' policy to manually adjust the hours was
intended to ensure that Defendants were not required to compensate
Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members their
overtime premium, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

PISA GROUP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Williams Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Pisa Group, Inc.
The case is captioned as JANINE WILLIAMS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PISA
GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-04752-PBT (E.D. Pa., Nov.
2, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making
unsolicited calls. The case is assigned to Honorable Petrese B.
Tucker.

The Pisa Group, Inc. operates as a telemarketing company. The
Company offers inbound call center, outbound telemarketing, and
customer services in newspaper subscription sales. Pisa Group
serves customers in the United states. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amy Lynn Bennecoff Ginsburg, Esq.
          KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C.
          30 East Butler Pike
          Ambler, PA 19002
          Telephone: (215) 540-8888
          E-mail: teamkimmel@creditlaw.com


PLASTIPAK PACKAGING: Certification of Collective Action Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HECTOR HERNANDEZ, on his
own Behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. PLASTIPAK PACKAGING, INC., a Foreign Profit
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-02826-JSM-SPF (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an Order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective action for unpaid
      overtime wages, and permitting, under court supervision,
      notice to:

      all current and former Maintenance Mechanics employed by
      Plastipak Packaging, Inc. ("Defendant"), nationwide, within
      in three year period preceding November 22, 2017 ("Putative
      Class"), who worked over 40 hours in one or more workweeks
      and who were paid a shift differential in one or more such
      workweeks.

   2. requiring Defendant to identify all members of the Putative
      Class by providing a list of their names, last known
      addresses, dates of employment, cell phone number, and e-
      mail addresses in electronic and importable format, e.g. a
      Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, within 14 days of an entry of
      an order;

   3. permitting Hernandez's counsel to send Court-approved notice

      of this action to the putative class members of the proposed

      collective action via U.S. Mail, e-mail, and text message;

   4. permitting Hernandez's counsel to send a reminder notice via

      e-mail and text message to putative class members at the
      half-way point in the notice period; and

   5. approving a ninety-day opt-in period from the date the
      Court-approved notice is sent during which the putative
      class members may join this case by returning their written
      consents.[CC]

Trial Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) WORKERS;
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
          E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com
                  kimd@forthepeople.com

POLLO OPERATIONS: Wins Final Nod of Settlement in Preman Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Carlos E. Mendoza grants final approval of the Revised
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement in the lawsuit captioned
MARK PREMAN v. POLLO OPERATIONS, INC., Case No.
6:16-cv-00443-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla.).

The Court also certifies the Settlement Class:

     All persons who received text messages on behalf of Pollo
     Operations, Inc. from March 1, 2012 to March 15, 2017 to
     telephone numbers that had been reassigned to them after the
     original or prior owners of the telephone numbers consented
     to receive such text messages from Pollo Operations, Inc.,
     who did not consent to receive such text messages, and who
     can be identified through the reverse telephone number
     look-up process utilized by the Settlement Administrator.
     Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) Defendant and
     its present and former officers, directors, employees,
     shareholders, insurers, and their successors, heirs,
     assigns, and legal representatives; and (b) the Court and
     members of the Court's staff.

The Court confirms the appointment of the Plaintiff as class
representative and attorneys John Yanchunis Sr., Esq., and Jonathan
B. Cohen, Esq., as Class Counsel.

By his request, William Jr., Claim No. PPO3254093, is excluded from
the Settlement Class and this case.

The Revised Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement is approved.
The $5,000 service award to the Plaintiff as Class Representative
is approved.  The attorneys' fees award in the amount of $243,750
(25% of the Settlement Fund) and the cost award in the amount of
$5,000 to Class Counsel is approved.

The case is dismissed with prejudice.[CC]


PONTIAC, MI: $4.25MM Settlement in Health Care Benefits Suit OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, issued a Memorandum and Order granting
Parties' Joint Motion for Approval of a Class Action Settlement in
the case captioned THE CITY OF PONTIAC RETIRED EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, DELMER ANDERSON, JOHN CLAYA, THOMAS HUNTER, HENRY C.
SHOEMAKER, YVETTE TALLEY and DEBRA WOODS, Plaintiffs, v. LOUIS
SCHIMMEL, INDIVIDUALLY HON. AVERN COHN AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS
EMERGENCY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF PONTIAC, CATHY SQUARE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE HUMAN
RESOURCES AND LABOR RELATIONS DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF PONTIAC AND
THE CITY OF PONTIAC, Defendants. Case No. 12-12830. (E.D. Mich.).

This is a dispute over the continuation of health care benefits. In
2012, plaintiffs the City of Pontiac Retired Employees Association,
and several individuals sued defendant Louis Schimmel in his
capacity as Emergency Manager for the City of Pontiac and the City
of Pontiac asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and 11
U.S.C. Section 903.

Under the Settlement Agreement, the City of Pontiac will pay an
initial amount of $4,250,000 to resolve this lawsuit. Where
additional annual contributions towards the cost of retiree health
benefits are required as determined by an actuary, the City of
Pontiac will contribute an annual amount of up to $1,500,000.

The $4,250,000 payment will be paid within 90 days of the date the
new VEBA is approved by the Internal Revenue Service, or the date
the new VEBA is created, whichever comes later in time. The annual
payment of up to $1,500,000 will be paid to the VEBA on or before
June 30 of the fiscal year in which an annual contribution is
determined to be required by an actuary. The first annual
contribution of up to $1,500,000 will be due within one (1) year
and six (6) months of the date that an actuarial valuation
determines that a contribution to the new VEBA is required.

Objections

Class Member Objections

The record contains objections from four (4) class members which
represents less than .3% of the approximately 1,500 retirees,
spouses and dependents class members covered by the Settlement
Agreement. This extremely minimal level of opposition represents
significant support by the class for the Settlement Agreement.

Legality

The Hospital Retirees also contend that the Settlement Agreement is
illegal. During the September 12, 2018 fairness hearing on the
Parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement, the Court requested that the Parties submit a
supplemental brief providing authority indicating that the City of
Pontiac can  as part of the Settlement  terminate the overfunded
Pontiac General Employees Retirement System, create a new pension
system and use a portion of the overfunding to fund a VEBA that
provides health benefits to the Class Members, i.e. demonstrate the
legality of the Settlement Agreement. The Parties provided that
authority on September 27, 2018.

The Hospital Retirees responded the Parties replied and the
Hospital Retirees replied.

Here, the Settlement Agreement does not actually divert system
assets, but creates a new system altogether and even then only with
IRS approval. The new system will be one with an actual surplus,
that is fully funded and capable of meeting all liabilities for
pension payments. Moreover, the actual suprlus that is maintained
is a substantial one: thirty percent above and beyond what is
actuarially required to meet the required actuarial obligations to
all GERS retirees, providing a substantial cushion. Finally, unlike
the scheme at issue in Wayne County, nothing in the Settlement
Agreement affects the City of Pontiac's annual required
contribution to the existing or new general employees retirement
system, nor does it offset any annual required contribution based
on contributions made to a separate fund.

The Hospital Retirees also object to the Settlement Agreement
because they will not longer receive the $400 monthly benefit
instituted by the Emergency Manager. The record is clear that the
increase in the monthly benefit approved by the Emergency Manager
in 2013 was temporary and is not an accrued financial benefit.
Thus, this is not a valid objection.

In sum, and as fully explained in the Parties' papers, the
Settlement Agreement does not run afoul of state or federal law.

Five Year Notice

The Hospital Retirees also argue that the Settlement Agreement
should have provided a five year advance notice as provided by
ERISA. This is incorrect. Under ERISA Section 4044(d)(2),
distribution to the employer from a plan shall not be treated as
failing to satisfy the requirements of this paragraph if the plan
has been in effect for fewer than 5 years and the plan has provided
for such a distribution since the effective date of the plan.

This ERISA section does not apply if the plan at issue is a
governmental plan. The term `governmental plan' means a plan
established or maintained for its employees by the Government of
the United States, by the government of any State or political
subdivision thereof, or by any agency or instrumentality of any of
the foregoing. Both the current and proposed plans are established
and maintained by the City of Pontiac, which is a political
subdivision of the State.

Thus, the Court can approve the Settlement Agreement in the absence
of a five year waiting period prior to plan termination.

Additional Findings

he Court finds after the hearing and based upon all submissions of
the Parties and interested persons that the Parties' proposed
Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate. The
Settlement Agreement is consistent with and in compliance with all
applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the United States Code, and the United States Constitution, and
other applicable law. The Court additionally finds that, inter
alia:

(a) The terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement were
entered into by experienced counsel and only after extensive,
arm's-length negotiations conducted for two years, in good faith,
with the assistance of two highly-regarded and experienced private
facilitators. The negotiations involved the parties' counsel in
face to face meetings, telephone conversations and written
communications. The parties exchanged and evaluated proposals and
counter-proposals. The Settlement Agreement is not the result of
collusion, nor is it illegal.

(b) The Parties' dispute is genuine, the outcome of continued
litigation is uncertain, and that continued litigation would carry
substantial risks for both sides, and that, in particular, class
members would bear the risk that continued litigation would leave
them with nothing if they were to lose on the merits, and perhaps
nothing as a result of delay. These circumstances militate in favor
of a settlement that ends uncertainty, avoids further delay,
eliminates risk, promptly ameliorates hardship, and provides
significant benefit to each side and to the class as a whole.

The Settlement Agreement is a rational and salutary resolution of
contested, uncertain, protracted and risky litigation. The
Settlement Agreement is informed, prudent, within an appropriate
range of reasonableness and beneficial to all parties and Class
Members.

All members of the Settlement Class are bound by this Judgment and
by the terms of the Settlement Agreement, including the scope of
the Released Claims described in the Settlement Agreement.

Nothing in the Settlement Agreement, this Order or the Consent
Judgment, nor the fact of the settlement constitutes any admission
by any of the Parties of any liability, wrongdoing, or violating of
law, damages or lack thereof, or of the validity or invalidity of
any claim or defense asserted in this case. If the Settlement
Agreement is not upheld on appeal, or is otherwise terminated for
any reason, the settlement and all negotiations, proceedings, and
documents prepared, and statements made in connection therewith,
shall be without prejudice to any Party and shall not be deemed or
construed to be an admission by any party of any fact, matter, or
position of law; all Parties shall stand in the same procedural
position as if the Settlement Agreement had not been negotiated,
made, or filed with the Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 19, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6veh34g
from Leagle.com.

CITY OF PONTIAC RETIRED EMPLOYEES, Delmer Anderson, Thomas Hunter,
Henry C Shoemaker, Yvette Talley & Debra Woods, Plaintiffs,
represented by Alec S. Gibbs -- gibbsale@gmail.com -- Law Offices
of Gregory T. Gibbs & Gregory T. Gibbs -- greggibbs51@sbcglobal.net
-- Gregory T. Gibbs Assoc.

JOHN CLAYA, Plaintiff, represented by Alec S. Gibbs , Law Offices
of Gregory T. Gibbs.

Louis Schimmel, Defendant, represented by John C. Clark --
jclark@gmhlaw.com -- Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton, P.C., Richard W.
Warren -- warren@millercanfield.com -- Miller, Canfield & Stephen
J. Hitchcock -- sjh@gmhlaw.com -- Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton,
P.C.

City of Pontiac, Defendant, represented by Brian M. Schwartz ,
Miller, Canfield, John C. Clark , Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton,
P.C., Michael A. Alaimo , Miller, Canfield, Richard W. Warren ,
Miller, Canfield & Stephen J. Hitchcock , Giarmarco, Mullins &
Horton, P.C.


PRECISION CONCEPTS: Lewis Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN LEWIS on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
PRECISION CONCEPTS GROUP LLC, the Defendant, Case No.:
1:18-cv-00064-LCB-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the case as a representative
      collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act;

   2. approving proposed FLSA notice of this action and the
      consent form in both English and Spanish;

   3. producing updated production of names, last known mailing
      addresses, alternate addresses, telephone numbers, email
      addresses, and dates of employment of all putative FLSA
      plaintiffs/R. 23 class members;

   4. directing to email and/or text message the proposed Notice,
      along with utilizing regular U.S. Mail;

   5. certifying this action as a class action under Rule 23(a)
      and (b)(3) for the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act claims;
      and

   6. appointing named Plaintiff Lewis as class representative and

      the Law Offices of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC as class
      counsel.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Gilda Adriana Hernandez, Esq.
          Emma Smiley, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A.
          HERNANDEZ, PLLC
          1020 Southhill Dr. Ste. 130
          Cary, NC 27513
          Telephone: (919) 741-8693
          Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
          ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
          esmiley@gildahernandezlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Kristine M. Sims, Esq.
          William J. McMahon, IV, Esq.
          CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
          100 North Cherry Street, Suite 300
          Winston-Salem, NC 27101
          Telephone: (336) 721-1001
          Facsimile: (336) 748-9112
          E-mail: ksims@constangy.com
                  bmcmahon@constangy.com

QUICK DELIVERY: Martinez Seeks Overtime Wages for Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------
DAVID MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. QUICK DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. and
RANDALL SEILER, the Defendants, Case: 1:18-cv-07651 (N.D. Ill.,
Nov. 19. 2018), seeks to recover overtime premium wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and and Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiff as a
delivery driver but failed to pay him and other delivery drivers
overtime premium wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek. It also paid Plaintiff and other drivers far less than
state and federal minimum wage.

Additionally, when Plaintiff left Quick Delivery Service and began
delivering Zimmer medical products for a competitor, Quick Delivery
Service made a baseless threat to sue Zimmer and the competitor for
breach of contract and tortious interference with contract. As a
result, Plaintiff was rendered unemployed for several months and
lost out on a lucrative job opportunity, 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
          E-mail: mpiers@hsplegal.com
                  cwilmes@hsplegal.com

QUINTANA ENERGY: Unit Still Defends Class Suit Over FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Quintana Energy Services 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's subsidiary continues to defend itself from a class action
suit alleging violations of state based wage and hour laws and the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

A class action has been filed against one of the Company's
subsidiaries alleging violations of state based wage and hour laws
and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") relating to non-payment
of overtime pay.

The Company believes its pay practices comply with the FLSA.

Quintana Energy said, "The case is working its way through the
various stages of the legal process, however, management believes
the Company's exposure is not material."

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

Quintana Energy Services Inc. provides oilfield services to onshore
oil and natural gas exploration and production companies operating
in conventional and unconventional plays in the United States. It
operates through four segments: Directional Drilling Services,
Pressure Pumping Services, Pressure Control Services, and Wireline
Services. The company was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


QUORUM HEALTH: Bid to Drop 3rd Amended Zwick Complaint Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quorum Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the defendants'
motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in Zwick Partners LP
and Aparna Rao, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Quorum Health Corporation, Community Health Systems,
Inc., Wayne T. Smith, W. Larry Cash, Thomas D. Miller and Michael
J. Culotta, is pending.

On September 9, 2016, a shareholder filed a purported class action
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee against the Company and certain of its officers. The
Amended Complaint, filed on September 13, 2017, purports to be
brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons (other than
defendants) who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the
Company between May 2, 2016 and August 10, 2016 and alleges that
the Company and certain of its officers violated federal securities
laws, including Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making alleged false and/or
misleading statements and failing to disclose certain information
regarding aspects of the Company's business, operations and
compliance policies.

On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
adding additional defendants, CHS, Wayne T. Smith and W. Larry
Cash. On June 23, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss,
which Plaintiff opposed on August 22, 2017. On April 19, 2018, the
Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, and the Company filed
its answer to the Second Amended Complaint on May 18, 2018.

On July 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed its motion for class
certification, which Defendants opposed on August 31, 2018. The
motion for class certification is currently pending. On September
14, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint adding
additional alleged misstatements.

On October 12, 2018, Defendants moved to dismiss the new
allegations, which motion is currently pending. The case is in
discovery, and the Company is vigorously defending itself in this
matter.

Quorum Health said, "The Company is unable to predict the outcome
of this matter. However, it is reasonably possible that the Company
may incur a loss in connection with this matter. The Company is
unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of such
reasonably possible loss because discovery has only recently
started and the case remains in its early stages. Under some
circumstances, losses incurred in connection with adverse outcomes
in this matter could be material."

Quorum Health Corporation provides hospital and outpatient
healthcare services in the United States. Its hospital and
outpatient healthcare services include general and acute care,
emergency room, general and specialty surgery, critical care,
internal medicine, obstetric, diagnostic, psychiatric, and
rehabilitation services. The company was incorporated in 2015 and
is headquartered in Brentwood, Tennessee.


RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Failed to Pay Wages & OT, Reilly Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARTHA REILLY, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT,
INC., a Washington corporation; and DOES 11 through 50, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No.: RG18926962 (Cal. Super,ct., Oct. 31,
2018), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime wages, and premium
pay for missed meal and rest periods, penalties under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants uniformly administered a
corporate practice of: (a) failing to provide accurate itemized
wage statements; (b) failing to pay employees minimum wages for
time spent undergoing security checks after they were clocked-out;
(c) failing to pay employees overtime wages for time spent
undergoing security checks after they were clocked-out; (d) failing
to provide off-duty 30-minute meal breaks to employees who worked 5
hours or longer in one shift; and (e) failing to provide off-duty
10-minute rest breaks to employees who worked 3.5 hours or longer.

Recreational Equipment, Inc., commonly known as REI, is an American
retail and outdoor recreation services corporation. It is organized
as a consumers' co-operative. REI sells sporting goods, camping
gear, travel equipment, and clothing. It also offers services such
as outdoor-oriented vacations and courses.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Mai Tulyathan, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531-4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634-0333

               - and -

          Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
          HYUN LEGAL, APC
          S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554

RECRO PHARMA: Continues to Defend IV Meloxicam-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Recro Pharma, 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 against a securities class action suit related
to the New Drug Application (NDA) for IV meloxicam.

On May 31, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Case No. 2:18-cv-02279-MMB) that purported to state a claim for
alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, based on statements made
by the Company concerning the NDA for IV meloxicam.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and other costs.

The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against it.

Recro Pharma said, "The lawsuit is in the early stages and, at this
time, no assessment can be made as to its likely outcome or whether
the outcome will be material to the Company."

Recro Pharma, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, engages in
developing non-opioid products for the treatment of acute pain
primarily in the United States. The company was formerly known as
Recro Pharma I, Inc. and changed its name to Recro Pharma, Inc. in
August 2008. Recro Pharma, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is based in
Malvern, Pennsylvania.


RIPPLE LABS: Removed Cryptocurrency Exchange Case to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ripple Labs Inc., XRP II, LLC, Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian
Larsen, Ron Will, Antoinette O'Gorman, Eric van Miltenburg, Susan
Athey, Zoe Cruz, Ken Kurson, Ben Lawsky, Anja Manuel, and Takashi
Okita removed the case captioned "RE RIPPLE LABS INC. LITIGATION",
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Mateo, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. The Northern District of California
assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-06753-WHA to the proceeding.

This action arises out of Plaintiffs' alleged purchases of a
virtual currency, XRP, on a described "cryptocurrency exchange."
The Plaintiffs do not allege that they lacked information about the
nature of these transactions. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs claim that
they were somehow injured because Defendants were allegedly
required to register XRP as a "security" with the Securities &
Exchange Commission but failed to do so.[BN]

Attorney for Defendants:

          Peter B. Morrison, Esq.
          Virginia F. Milstead, Esq.
          John Neukom, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 687-5000
          Facsimile: (213) 687-5600
          E-mail: john.neukom@skadden.com
                  peter.morrison@skadden.com
                  virginia.milstead@skadden.com

ROADRUNNER TRANS: Time to Reply Extended in Wisconsin Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, 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 defendants' time to file their reply in the case
entitled, In re Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. Securities
Litigation (Case No. 17-cv-00144), has been extended pending the
parties' mediation, which is ongoing.

Following the Company's press release on January 30, 2017, three
putative class actions were filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against the Company and
its former officers, Mark A. DiBlasi and Peter R. Armbruster. On
May 19, 2017, the Court consolidated the actions under the caption
In re Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation
(Case No. 17-cv-00144), and appointed Public Employees' Retirement
System as lead plaintiff.

On March 12, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint ("CAC") on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between March 14, 2013 and January 30, 2017,
inclusive. The CAC alleges (i) the Company and Messrs. DiBlasi and
Armbruster violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5, and (ii) Messrs. DiBlasi and Armbruster, the Company's
former Chairman Scott Rued, HCI Equity Partners, L.L.C., and HCI
Equity Management, L.P. violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
by making or causing to be made materially false or misleading
statements, or failing to disclose material facts, regarding (a)
the accuracy of the Company's financial statements; (b) the
Company's true earnings and expenses; (c) the effectiveness of the
Company's disclosure controls and controls over financial
reporting; (d) the true nature and depth of financial risk
associated with the Company's tractor lease guaranty program; (e)
the Company's leverage ratios and compliance with its credit
facilities; and (f) the value of the goodwill the Company carried
on its balance sheet. The CAC seeks certification as a class
action, compensatory damages, and attorney's fees and costs.

On July 23, 2018, the Company and the individual defendants filed
motions to dismiss to which Plaintiff responded on September 21,
2018. Defendants time to file their reply has been extended pending
the parties' mediation, which is ongoing.

Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. provides asset-right
transportation and asset-light logistics services. The company
operates through three segments: Truckload Logistics (TL),
Less-than-Truckload (LTL), and Ascent Global Logistics. The company
offers its services under the Roadrunner, Active On-Demand, and
Ascent Global Logistics brands. Roadrunner Transportation Systems,
Inc. is headquartered in Downers Grove, Illinois.


ROBERT BOSCH: Faces Hockensmith et al. Suit in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the big U.S.
automakers and some car parts manufacturers.  The case is
captioned, THEODORE C. HOCKENSMITH; PETER J. VINCITORE, JR.; ADAM
PHLIEGER; BILLY NOE; VIRGIL DALE PENROD; VINCENT J. APUZZO III;
TODD ALLEN WHALEY; ARTHUR H. HUBNER; JASON KUBISIAK; JOE D.
REICHERT; JOSEPH FAIOLA; WILLIAM HARRY MAZE, SR.; MATTHEW
PATTERSON; MARIO CRITTENDEN; KHAI NGO; KENNETH SCHUMACHER; ANDRES
BEDOYA; MARK MCGANNON; STEVE PRANGER; DAVID P. JURGENS; IVAN FLORES
RAMIREZ; GEORGE EASTMAN; BRUCE BOWLSBY; JEFFERY SCOTT HICKMAN;
EDWARD OLSON;.; KODI COLES; ALVADOR ARREGUIN JR.; DAVID WALLACE
ALTON; TIM BULLIS; JEFFERY COX; TYLER ANDREW BOLTON; HARRISON
HODGES; MARC GREGORY; PHILLIP RYAN HARPER; TIMOTHY DOWDY; ROBERT C.
LUST; WILLIAM RYAN MANNING; AGUSTIN QUINTANA JR.; PHILLIP CABRALES
KALMANSON; DAVID YATES; MICHAEL C. GOSS; DILLON MABRY; LINDA
SIROTA; WILLIAM ROTHERMEL; LUIS C. PINEDA; HARRY C. BELL;
CONSTANTINE HARALAMBUS; MARK A. BALLEW; ANDREW L. BERBERICH;
RICHARD D. SALARIO; CHRISTOPHER KENNEDY; WESTON SILVERS; STEVEN
FREESE; LEE SCOTT WARD; individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; ROBERT BOSCH
LLC; GENERAL MOTORS LLC; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; FCA US LLC; FCA NORTH
AMERICA HOLDINGS, LLC; FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES, N.V.; VM MOTORI
S.P.A.; and  VM NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
6:18-cv-01885-CEM-KRS (M.D. Fla., Nov. 2, 2018). The lawsuit has
been assigned to Judge Carlos E. Mendoza and referred to Magistrate
Judge Karla R. Spaulding.

Robert Bosch GmbH provides technology and services worldwide. It
operates through Mobility Solutions, Industrial Technology,
Consumer Goods, and Energy and Building Technology segments. The
company was formerly known as Workshop for Precision Mechanics and
Electrical Engineering and changed its name to Robert Bosch GmbH in
1937. Robert Bosch GmbH was founded in 1886 and is headquartered in
Stuttgart, Germany. Robert Bosch GmbH is a subsidiary of Robert
Bosch Stiftung Gmbh. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy Michael Morgan, Esq.
          Morgan & Morgan, PA
          20 N Orange Ave., 14th Floor
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 641-5846
          E-mail: mmorgan@forthepeople.com


ROLAND FOOD: Octopus Products Contain Squid, Fonseca Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
LUIS DIEGO ZAPATA FONSECA, individually, and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ROLAND FOOD, LLC, a New York
limited liability company, and ORBE, S.A., a foreign corporation,
the Defendants, Case 1:18-cv-10259 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 5, 2018), seeks
actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, restitution,
disgorgement, injunctive relief, and all other available remedies
and relief against Defendants, for their unlawful distribution,
sales, marketing, and advertising of a Product as being Octopus
when it is really Squid, pursuant to the
New York General Business Law and General Business Law.

According to the complaint, the case is a consumer protection class
action based on Defendants' co-dependent and conspiratorial scheme
in importing, marketing, advertising, labeling, packaging,
distributing, and selling ROLAND canned Octopus. The Product is
sold based on false, deceptive, unfair, and/or misleading
affirmative representations and omissions that are likely to
mislead reasonable consumers who purchased the Product, like
Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class. The Product is not
Octopus -- it is actually Squid (also known giant squid or
Dosidicus gigas).

The Product's uniform misrepresentations and omissions deceive and
mislead reasonable consumers to believe that the Product is
Octopus, when in reality, it is Squid, which is cheaper, lower
quality and more abundant than Octopus. Octopus is a rarer and more
highly sought-after food delicacy than Giant Squid. As the
supplier, packager, and importer of the Squid, Orbe knows or should
know that it is not Octopus. As the distributor of the Squid,
ROLAND knows or should know that it is not Octopus. However,
despite this, Defendants jointly caused the Squid to be imported,
supplied, and marketed to United States consumers as Octopus.
Defendants both profit far more by selling cheap Squid as Octopus,
to the detriment of reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff and
members of the Class, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Kim E. Richman, Esq.
          RICHMAN LAW GROUP
          81 Prospect Street
          Brooklyn, New York 11201
          Telephone: (212) 687-8291
          Facsimile: (212) 687-8292
          E-mail: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com

               - and -

          James P. Gitkin, Esq.
          SALPETER GITKIN, LLP
          One East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 467-8622
          Facsimile: (954) 467-8623
          E-mail: jim@salpetergitkin.com

               - and -

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
          EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI
          5400 S. University Drive, Ste. 417
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 889-3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
          E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
                  MPascucci@JusticeEarned.com

ROOF DEPOT: Lezama Seeks Overtime and Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------
SANTOS ROSENDO LINARTE LEZAMA on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff, vs. ROOF
DEPOT USA, LLC, and DAVID GARCIA, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-24790-DPG (S.D. Fla., Nov. 15, 2018), seeks overtime and
minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants as
a regular worker at the shop from November 1, 2017 through November
12, 2018. The Defendants allegedly have employed several other
similarly situated employees, like Plaintiff, who have not been
paid overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess of
40 hours weekly from the filing of this complaint back
three years.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiffs

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71 st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM

ROWAN COMPANIES: Vladimir Gusinsky Balks at Merger Deal with Ensco
------------------------------------------------------------------
VLADIMIR GUSINSKY REV. TRUST, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ROWAN COMPANIES PLC,
WILLIAM E. ALBRECHT, THOMAS P. BURKE, THOMAS R. HIX, JACK B. MOORE,
SUZANNE P. NIMOCKS, THIERRY PILENKO, JOHN J. QUICKE, TORE I.
SANDVOLD, and CHARLES L. SZEWS, the Defendants, Case No.:
4:18-cv-04341 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 16, 2018), seeks to enjoin the
Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing a proposed transaction,
and in the event Defendants consummate the proposed transaction,
rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on October
8, 2018, pursuant to which Rowan Companies plc will be acquired by
Ensco plc. On October 7, 2018, Rowan's Board of Directors caused
the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Ensco. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Rowan's
shareholders will receive 2.215 shares of Ensco Class A common
stock for each share of Rowan stock they own. On October 30, 2018,
the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction.

The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges herein that defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
          THE KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 744-3000
          Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
          E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
                  jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com

               - and -

          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530

               - and -

          RM LAW
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305

RYANAIR HOLDINGS: Faces Suit over 36% Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM FIREMEN'S AND POLICEMEN'S SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION
SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RYANAIR HOLDINGS PLC; and MICHAEL O'LEARY,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10330 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 2018) is a
class action on behalf of all purchasers of Ryanair American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs") between May 30, 2017 and September 28,
2018, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

According to the complaint, on September 14, 2017, it was reported
that Ryanair had lost a key ruling in the European Court of Justice
("ECJ") that cast doubt on the legality of the Company's use of
Irish employment contracts to evade local labor laws throughout
Europe. The next day, Ryanair announced that it would need to
cancel up to 50 flights a day for the next six weeks due to pilot
"scheduling" issues, impacting some 315,000 customers. Soon
thereafter, reports began to circulate that the disruption was not
due to scheduling issues as the Company had claimed, but rather to
widespread defections by disgruntled employees.

Then, in a stunning reversal, the Company conceded its need to
recognize unions in December 2017. However, Ryanair continued to
downplay the extent of the labor unrest and conceal the expected
impact to the Company's operations and financial results. For
example, on May 21, 2018, Ryanair stated that it remained the
"employer of choice" for aviation workers in Europe and that its
fiscal 2019 profits would fall within a range of "EUR1.25bn to
EUR1.35bn." However, in the summer of 2018, discontent among
Ryanair's workers continued to spill out into the open, belying
defendants' public claims regarding improved labor relations.
Workers in Germany, Belgium, Sweden, Portugal, Italy, the United
Kingdom, the Netherlands and Ireland were forced into threatening
collective action. The resulting flight cancellations damaged the
Company's brand and forced it to pay millions in compensation costs
or to re-route fliers.

Then, on July 23, 2018, Ryanair disclosed a 20% decrease in
quarterly profits, due in part to a 34% increase in staff costs.
Shortly thereafter, on October 1, 2018, the Company revealed that
it could not meet its annual profit guidance due to the lost fares
and ballooning costs related to the strikes and flight
cancellations. By market close on October 1, 2018, the price of
Ryanair ADSs had fallen to $80.93 per ADS, 36% below the Class
Period high of more than $126 per ADS.

Ryanair Holdings plc, together with its subsidiaries, provides
scheduled-passenger airline services in Ireland, the United
Kingdom, and Other European countries. Ryanair Holdings plc was
founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Swords, Ireland. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mario Alba Jr., Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  malba@rgrdlaw.com


SCHOLASTIC INC: Sued over Unlawful Reproduction of Photographs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Krasemann, Darrell Gulin, Johnny Johnson, and Daniel R.
Krasemann, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Scholastic Inc., the Defendant, Case
3:18-cv-08313-DWL (D. Ariz., Nov. 6, 2018), alleges copyright
infringement against Scholastic for unlawful reproduction,
distribution, and display of Plaintiffs' photographs.

According to the complaint, in no case has Scholastic secured
sanctions against an opponent for bringing a frivolous claim of
copyright infringement. It is implausible that a wholly innocent
publisher would be subjected to numerous frivolous photo
infringement lawsuits without sanctions being imposed, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Christopher Seidman, Esq.
          Amanda L. Bruss, Esq.
          HARMON SEIDMAN & BRUSS, LLC
          101 South Third Street, Suite 265
          Grand Junction, CO 81501
          Telephone: (970) 245-9075
          E-mail: chris@harmonseidman.com
                  amanda@harmonseidman.com

SCI DIRECT: Ct. Lifts Stay in Romano Suit; Settlement Due Dec. 17
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Otis D. Wright II lifted the stay in the matter styled
NICOLE ROMANO AND JONATHAN BONO, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. SCI DIRECT, INC., Case No.
2:17-cv-03537-ODW-JEM (C.D. Cal.).

The parties' deadline to file the Motion for Preliminary Approval
of Class Action Settlement is December 17, 2018.  The deadline to
file any opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Approval is
December 31, 2018.  The deadline to file any reply in support of
the Motion for Preliminary Approval is January 7, 2018.

The hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Approval is set for
January 28, 2019, at 1:30 p.m.  Any stipulation requesting
consolidation of this matter with any other must be filed no later
than December 17, 2018.

Judge Wright also ruled that all other pending deadlines and
motions are vacated, including the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify
Class, which is denied as moot pursuant to the Parties' Joint
Status Report.[CC]


SCYNEXIS INC: Gibson Class Action Dismissed
-------------------------------------------
Scynexis, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the stockholder
class action lawsuit entitled, Gibson v. Scynexis, Inc., et al.,
has been dismissed.

On March 8, 2017, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers, captioned Gibson v. Scynexis, Inc., et al.  

On October 26, 2018, the class action lawsuit was dismissed.

Scynexis, Inc., a drug development company, develops and
commercializes anti-infectives to address unmet therapeutic needs.
The company was formerly known as ScynexisChemistry & Automation,
Inc. and changed its name to Scynexis, Inc. in June 2002. Scynexis,
Inc. was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Jersey City, New
Jersey.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Hall Plaintiffs Agree Not to Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that plaintiffs
in Holly Hall v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. have agreed not to
appeal any further in exchange for the Company's agreement to waive
any potential entitlement to costs.

On March 25, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California
against the Company, captioned Holly Hall v. SeaWorld
Entertainment, Inc., (the "Hall Matter"). The complaint identifies
three putative classes consisting of all consumers nationwide who
at any time during the four-year period preceding the filing of the
original complaint, purchased an admission ticket, a membership or
a SeaWorld "experience" that includes an "orca experience" from the
SeaWorld amusement park in San Diego, California, Orlando, Florida
or San Antonio, Texas respectively.  

The complaint alleges causes of action under California Unfair
Competition Law, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"),
California False Advertising Law, California Deceit statute,
Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Texas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, as well as claims for Unjust Enrichment.

Plaintiffs' claims are based on their allegations that the Company
misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and
treatment of its orcas, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding
among ticket purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its
orcas with intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiff and
purported class members. The complaint further alleges that the
specific misrepresentations heard and relied upon by Holly Hall in
purchasing her SeaWorld tickets concerned the circumstances
surrounding the death of a SeaWorld trainer. The complaint seeks
actual damages, equitable relief, attorney's fees and costs.

Plaintiffs claim that the amount in controversy exceeds $5.0
million, but the liability exposure is speculative until the size
of the class is determined (if certification is granted at all). In
addition, four other purported class actions were filed against the
Company and its affiliates. Such actions were subsequently
dismissed or consolidated with the Hall Matter described above.  

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the entirety of the
plaintiffs' Second Consolidated Amended Complaint ("SAC") with
prejudice on February 25, 2016. The Court granted the Company"s
motion to dismiss the entire SAC with prejudice and entered
judgment for the Company on May 13, 2016. Plaintiffs filed an
appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit which issued an order affirming the dismissal of the
Plaintiff's case.  

The plaintiffs have agreed not to appeal any further in exchange
for the Company's agreement to waive any potential entitlement to
costs.  

SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a theme park and entertainment company in the United
States. The company operates marine-life theme park under the
SeaWorld brand in San Diego, Orlando, and San Antonio; Busch
Gardens theme parks, which are family-oriented destinations with
foreign geographic settings in Tampa and Williamsburg; and water
parks under the Aquatica brand name in Orlando, San Antonio, and
San Diego. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1959 and is
headquartered in Orlando, Florida.


SEQUIUM ASSET: Snow Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Snow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC, f/k/a, Focus
Receivables Management, LLC, Georgia limited liability company,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-3735 (S.D. Ind., November 28, 2018) is
brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for a finding
that Defendant's form debt collection letter violated the FDCPA,
and to recover damages for Defendant's violations of the FDCPA.

The Defendant sent Mr. Snow an initial form collection letter,
dated July 14, 2018, demanding payment of a defaulted consumer debt
owed to Comcast. Nowhere in Defendant's letter did it state that it
was a debt collector and that information it obtains could be used
against Mr. Snow.

The Defendant's conflicting collection demands – directing
Plaintiff to call immediately to arrange payment – confused
Plaintiff about how long he had to dispute the debt and seek
validation of it. Defendant's letter also failed to inform
Plaintiff as to the nature of Focus' business, and that Defendant
could use anything he provided to it against him. Moreover,
Defendant's letter confused Plaintiff as to what "important
information" Defendant had failed to provide him on the blank
reverse side of the letter. All of this information is material
information that would play a role in Mr. Snow's, as well as any
other consumer's, decision-making process about what to do about
the collection of the debt at issue, says the complaint.

Plaintiff, Joe Snow is a citizen of the State of Indiana, residing
in the Southern District of Indiana, from whom Defendant attempted
to collect a defaulted consumer debt, which he allegedly owed to
Comcast.

Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC, f/k/a Focus Receivables Management,
LLC is a Georgia limited liability company that acts as a debt
collector, as defined by the FDCPA, because it regularly uses the
mails and/or telephone to collect, or attempt to collect, defaulted
consumer debts. Focus operates a nationwide defaulted debt
collection business, and attempts to collect debts from consumers
in the State of Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David J. Philipps, Esq.
     Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
     Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
     Philipps & Philipps, Ltd.
     9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
     Palos Hills, IL 60465
     Phone: (708) 974-2900
     Fax: (708) 974-2907
     Email: davephilipps@aol.com
            mephilipps@aol.com
            angie@philippslegal.com

          - and -

     John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
     5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
     Indianapolis, IN 46227
     Phone: (317) 780-8300
     Fax: (317) 217-1320
     Email: steinkamplaw@yahoo.com


SERGEANT'S PET: Sentry Natural Products are Toxic, Johnson Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
LORI JOHNSON on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SERGEANT'S PET CARE PRODUCTS, INC.
d/b/a SENTRY, the Defendant, Case No.: 5:18-cv-02426 (C.D. Cal.,
Nov. 15, 2018), alleges that Defendant breached implied warranty
and violated California consumer protection laws, for making,
marketing, and distributing various brands of Sentry Natural
Defense.

According to the complaint, Sentry is sold as a flea and tick
repellent that is "safe to use around children and pets." In fact,
the essential oils that make up the Sentry Products are toxic if
ingested or applied directly to the skin and can lead to serious
complications. Every Sentry Product represents that it is "safe to
use around children and pets" and is "Veterinarian Tested."

Unfortunately for consumers and their pets, use of the Products
exposes pets to the following concentrated essential oils that are
present in every Sentry Product: peppermint oil, cinnamon oil,
lemongrass oil, clove oil, and thyme oil. These essential oils,
despite being natural, can be toxic if absorbed through the skin or
ingested by pets. Symptoms of essential oil poisoning include
irritation to the skin, vomiting, muscles tremors, and other more
serious complications that can lead to organ failure and death.
Despite these risks, consumers are directed to apply the Sentry
Products directly to the skin of their pets, the lawsuit says.

Sergeants Pet manufactures and markets pet products to customers in
the United States.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          Thomas A. Reyda, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  jsmith@bursor.com
                  scott@bursor.com

SERVICESOURCE INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Patton Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
ServiceSource International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the
company continues to defend itself from a class action lawsuit
entitled, Sarah Patton, et al v. ServiceSource Delaware, Inc.

On August 23, 2016, the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee granted conditional class certification in a
lawsuit originally filed on September 21, 2015 by three former
senior sales representatives.

The lawsuit, Sarah Patton, et al v. ServiceSource Delaware, Inc.,
asserts a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act alleging that
certain non-exempt employees in the company's Nashville location
were not paid for all hours worked and were not properly paid for
overtime hours worked. The complaint also asserts claims under
Tennessee state law for breach of contract and unjust enrichment;
and on September 28, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify
the state law breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims as a
class action.

ServiceSource International said, "The Company will continue to
seek to conclude this lawsuit in a manner that is in the best
interest of the Company and its stockholders."

ServiceSource International, Inc. provides recurring revenue
management, maintenance, support, and subscription for technology
and technology-enabled healthcare and life sciences companies.
ServiceSource International, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


SH GENERAL: Rojas et al Seek Payment of Wages and Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Jose L. Rojas, Mateo Real, Arturo Loyola, Javier Cardona, William
Cabeza, Clemente Caguana, Jesus Yupa and Victor J. Gil,
individually and on behalf of all employees similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. SH General Contracting Corp., S.H. General
Contracting, LLC, SH General Construction Corp., SH GC Corp. and
Samir Hoti, the Defendants, Case 1:18-cv-10253 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 6,
2018), alleges that Defendants have willfully and intentionally
committed widespread violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York Labor Law by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing
to pay their employees, including Plaintiffs, wages owed and
overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

According to the complaint, the Defendants intentionally failed to
provide notice to employees in violation of New York Labor Law,
which requires all employers to provide written notice in the
employee's primary language about the terms and conditions of
employment related to rate of pay, regular pay cycle and rate of
overtime on her or her first day of employment. The Defendants not
only did not provide notice to each employee at Time of Hire, but
failed to provide notice to each Plaintiff even after the fact. Due
to Defendants' violations of New York Labor Law, each Plaintiff is
entitled to recover from Defendants, jointly and severally, $50 for
each workday that the violation occurred or continued to occur, up
to $5,000, together with costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to New
York Labor Law. N.Y. Lab. Law section 198(1-b), the lawsuit says.

Defendants operate several general contracting companies that
provide commercial and residential construction services throughout
New York State and operate under a common trade name "SH-GC"
located at 460 East 115 th Street, Ste. 3R, New York, NY
10029.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Lorena P. Duarte, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38 th Avenue, Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          Facsimile: (718) 353-8522
          E-mail: lduarte@hanglaw.com

SH GENERAL: Ruangsang Seeks Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------
PARICHART RUANGSANG, individually and on behalf of all employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WHITE ORCHIDS THAI CUISINE,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No.: 5:18-cv-04771-WB (E.D. Pa., Nov. 5,
2018), alleges that Defendant has improperly failed to pay overtime
overtime compensation to its Chefs/Cooks in violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a former employee of
Defendant where she worked as a Chef, During the course of her
employment, the Plaintiff was misclassified as an exempt employee,
and also regular worked more than 40 hours per week, but was not
properly compensated for her work and/or was not paid overtime
compensation by the FLSA/PMWA.

The Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant violated the American
with Disabilities Act, by failing to engage in an interactive
process of determining a reasonable accommodation for his
disability, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michael Murphy, Esq.
          MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
          Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
          1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 273 1054
          Facsimile: (215) 525 0210
          E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com

SHUTTERFLY INC: Suit v. Directors of Lifetouch, Inc. Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shutterfly, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on November 13, 2018,
2018, that the purported class action suit against the directors of
Lifetouch, Inc. (which became a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of
Shutterfly on April 2, 2018) and the trustee of the Lifetouch
Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the "ESOP") in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota, has been dismissed with
prejudice.

On March 1, 2018, a purported class action complaint was filed
against several directors of Lifetouch, Inc. (which became a direct
wholly-owned subsidiary of Shutterfly on April 2, 2018) and the
trustee of the Lifetouch Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the "ESOP")
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

On April 2, 2018, the complaint was amended to include the prior
ESOP trustees and plan sponsor (Lifetouch) as additional named
defendants. The complaint alleged violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, including that the ESOP should not
have been permitted to continue investing in Lifetouch stock during
a period in which the Lifetouch stock price was declining.

The plaintiffs sought recovery for damages arising from the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.

On November 7, 2018, the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice.

Shutterfly, Inc. manufactures and retails personalized products and
services primarily in the United States, Canada, and the European
Community. The company operates through Consumer and Shutterfly
Business Solutions segments. The company was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Redwood City, California.


SILVER LAKE: Hallandale Beach Plan Sues over Proposed Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
HALLANDALE BEACH POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT PLAN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MICHAEL
DELL; EGON DURBAN; SIMON PATTERSON; DAVID DORMAN; WILLIAM GREEN;
ELLEN KULLMAN; MSDC DENALI INVESTORS, L.P.; MSDC DENALI EIV, LLC;
SUSAN LIEBERMAN DELL SEPARATE PROPERTY TRUST; and SILVER LAKE GROUP
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2018-0816-JTL (Del. Ch., Nov. 14, 2018)
is an action on behalf of a class of all Class V stockholders who
have been and will be damaged by Defendants' breaches of their
fiduciary duty in connection with the unfair Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants
fabricated the purported value of the untraded Class C Common
Stock, ignoring Dell's own internal valuation of $33.17 per share
in December 2017 and inflating it to the ridiculous $80 per share
needed to even arguably justify this deal in July 2018. At the same
time, Michael Dell's heavy-handedness and private and public
threats as a controller increased the divergence between the
trading prices of Class V and ordinary VMware, Inc.'s common stock.
This manufactured discount alone accounts for approximately $10
billion, nearly 80% of which Michael Dell and Silver Lake will
capture.

Before seeking to impose the unfair deal, Michael Dell and Silver
Lake tried to buy VMware outright, using Dell equity to finance the
deal. To evaluate a potential Dell/VMware deal, VMware formed a
committee of directors independent from Michael Dell and Silver
Lake (the "VMware Special Committee"). The VMware Special Committee
rejected Michael Dell's and Silver Lake's inflated valuations for
Core Dell's stock and demanded a premium above the trading price of
VMware common stock (which was already 35% higher than the Class
V). With Michael Dell and Silver Lake unwilling to pay a fair
amount, negotiations broke down.

Michael Dell and Silver Lake turned to a path of less (i.e., no
real) resistance: the Proposed Transaction. Michael Dell and Silver
Lake "negotiated" the Proposed Transaction with a special committee
(the "Dell Special Committee") consisting of two members: one
(Dorman) who was affiliated with the investment bank that had
helped them take Dell private (Centerview Partners) and the other
(Green) who derives a material portion of his income from
Dell-controlled entities. Beyond their lack of personal
independence from Michael Dell and Silver Lake, the Dell Special
Committee had an inherent and incurable conflict. As Dell
directors, Dorman and Green owed fiduciary duties to Dell's
stockholders (i.e., effectively Michael Dell, Silver Lake, and
senior employees who do their bidding). Dorman and Green could not
conceivably negotiate against Dell's "Core Dell" stockholders and
for Class V stockholders. Their loyalties were, by definition,
divided. Since the teachings of MFW cannot apply where – as here
– a "Special Committee" labors, under inherently divided
loyalties, the entire fairness standard applies ab initio.

To overcome any resistance the Dell Special Committee might
otherwise offer, Michael Dell and Silver Lake resorted to outright
coercion. Michael Dell/Silver Lake privately threatened that if the
Dell Special Committee did not approve the Proposed Transaction,
Michael Dell/Silver Lake would launch an IPO of Dell's Class C
Stock, and thereafter forcibly convert the Class V stock into Class
C stock.

Now facing the exact opposition from Class V stockholders that they
predicted would take place all along, Michael Dell/Silver Lake have
resorted to the same coercive threats to compel the Class V
stockholders to approve the Proposed Transaction (or a slightly
modified version) at grossly unfair prices. These threats have been
made in a variety of media, with some delivered privately in
one-on-one meetings with major stockholders, and others delivered
publicly and cynically ouched as "informing" stockholders of the
"contingencies" and steps Michael Dell/Silver Lake will pursue (and
Dell's Board is supporting and will support) if Michael Dell/Silver
Lake do not compel stockholder approval of the Proposed
Transaction. In other words, Michael Dell/Silver Lake have
threatened retribution to place a heavy "thumb on the scales" of
stockholder voting, and whether it is this deal or a modestly
improved deal, that "thumb" undermines any judicial confidence that
can be placed on the vote itself.

Silver Lake Group, L.L.C. operates as an investment management
firm. The Company offers portfolio management and advisory services
to individuals, institutions, trusts, private funds, charitable
organizations, and investment companies. Silver Lake Group serves
customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq.
          Michael J. Barry, Esq.
          Joseph L. Christensen, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000
          Facsimile: (302) 622-7100

               - and -

          Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
          John Vielandi, Esq.
          Tamara Gavrilova, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
          & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444


SMYTH AUTOMOTIVE: White et al. Seek Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
Tauna Johnson, and Stacey White, On behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Smyth Automotive, Inc. c/o
Corporation Statutory Services, Inc. 255 E. Fifth Street, Ste. 2400
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-01384-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 6, 2018), alleges that the
Defendant failed to fully pay employees overtime wages seeking all
available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the Ohio Acts Class
Members worked more than 40 hours in workweeks, however, Smyth
Automotive violated the Ohio Acts by failing to pay Plaintiffs and
other Ohio Acts Class Members any overtime premium for hours worked
over 40 per week. The Plaintiffs and the Ohio Acts Class Members
were not paid all wages, including overtime wages at one and
one-half times their regular rates within 30 days of performing the
work. The wages of Plaintiffs and the Ohio Acts Class Members
remain unpaid for more than 30 days beyond their regularly
scheduled payda, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and those similarly situated:

          Peter 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

               - and -

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

STITCH FIX: San Giorgi Sues over Misleading Financial Report
------------------------------------------------------------
FREDERIC SAN GIORGI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. STITCH FIX, INC., KATRINA
LAKE, PAUL YEE, and MIKE C. SMITH, the Defendants, Case No.
5:18-cv-06965-BLF (N.D. Cal., Nov. 16, 2018), seeks to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Stitch Fix securities between June
8, 2018 and October 1, 2018, inclusive. Stitch Fix purports to be
an online retail fashion subscription service. It provides
personalized shipments of apparel, shoes, and accessories to
clients. Each shipment is called a "Fix." For each Fix, the Company
charges clients a styling fee that is credited toward items they
purchase. On October 1, 2018, after the close of trading, the
Company reported its financial results for fourth quarter 2018,
revealing only 54,000 net active client additions, a decline from
180,000 net additions in the prior quarter.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $15.69 per share, more
than 35%, to close at $31.58 per share on October 2, 2018, on
unusually high trading volume. The Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company's active client growth rate was
slowing; (2) that Company would cease its television advertising
for a significant part of the quarter; (3) that the lack of
television advertising would materially impact the Company's active
client additions; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, esq.
          Lesley F. Portnoy, esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com


SUNRISE SUPERMARKET: Martinez Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
RICARDO A. MARTINEZ, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff(s), vs. SUNRISE SUPERMARKET & RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a
SUNRISE CUBAN CAFE & MARKET and JORGE HOYO, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-10267-KMM (S.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2018),
seeks to recover money damages for unpaid wages, failure to pay
overtime, and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is a retail business
operating as Cuban restaurant and supermarket. The Defendant also
sells alcoholic beverages. The Plaintiff is employed as a
dishwasher and restaurant/supermarket employee from approximately
July 13, 2017, through August 26, 2018, or 6 weeks. The Plaintiff
was a non-exempted, full-time, hourly employee. During the relevant
employment period, Plaintiff's regular wage rate was $8.25 and
$9.25 an hour. While employed by Defendants Plaintiff had a regular
schedule. The first 3 weeks of employment Plaintiff was paid at
$8.25 an hour, Plaintiff worked 7 days per week. The Plaintiff
completed 76 hours in a week period. The Plaintiff worked 1 week of
76 hours and he was paid at $9.25 an hour. The last 2 weeks of
employment, Plaintiff worked 6 days per week the same schedule.
Plaintiff had Mondays off and he worked a total of 65.5 hours per
week. During all his weeks of employment Plaintiff was unable to
take bona-fide lunch periods.

The Plaintiff was paid for all his hours, but at his regular
wage-rate. The Defendant did not compensate Plaintiff for overtime
hours.  Therefore, Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff
overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate
for every hour that he worked in excess of 40. The Defendant did
not maintain a time keeping method, Plaintiff did not clock in and
out. Plaintiff was paid strictly in cash, without any paystub
providing information about days and hours worked, wage-rate paid,
employment taxes withheld etc. The owner of the business Jorge Hoyo
refused to provide any evidence of employment, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          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

SUNTUITY SOLAR: Rogers Sues over Text Message Advertisements
------------------------------------------------------------
DARRELL ROGERS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, 5124 Clavel Terrace Rockville, MD 20853, the Plaintiff,
vs. SUNTUITY SOLAR LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, 2137 NJ-35, Holmdel,
NJ 07733, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02659 (D. Colo, Nov. 17,
2018), alleges that Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and implementing regulations by using an automatic
telephone dialing system when it sent Plaintiff and the putative
class members text message advertisements in order to promote its
solar energy business without obtaining Prior Express Written
Consent.

According to the complaint, by sending text message advertisements
to Plaintiff and the putative class members without their Prior
Express Written Consent, Defendant invaded the privacy rights and
right to seclusion of Plaintiff and the putative class members.
Plaintiff, Darrell Rogers, on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated, seeks statutory damages for each violation, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
          SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
          974 Howard Ave.
          Dunedin FL 34698
          Telephone: (202) 709-5744
          E-mail: shawn@sjlawcollective.com

SYKES ENTERPRISES: Faces Kronzer Suit over Credit Background Check
------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM KRONZER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SYKES ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, Defendant,
Case No. 80577786 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., Nov. 8, 2018)
alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Sykes Enterprises, Incorporated, together with its subsidiaries,
provides multichannel demand generation and global customer
engagement services. Sykes Enterprises, Incorporated was founded in
1977 and is headquartered in Tampa, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
          E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com


TARGET MARKETING: Showe-Gai Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
VICTORIA SHOWE-GAI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TARGET MARKETING INC. d/b/a
LIQUID EDUCATION, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of
them, Case No. 2:18-cv-09680 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 16, 2018), seeks
damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently,
knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's
cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy and causing
him to incur unnecessary and unwanted expenses.

According to the complaint, beginning in or around July of 2017,
Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number ending in -1014, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to
purchase Defendant's services. Defendant used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1)
to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The
Defendant contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff from
telephone numbers confirmed to belong to Defendant, including
without limitation (619) 369-19 4109.

Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency
purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). The
Defendant's calls were placed to telephone number assigned to a
cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for
incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1). The Defendant
did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive
calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial
or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant to 47
U.S.C. section 28 227(b)(1)(A). Such calls constitute solicitation
calls pursuant to 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(c)(2) as they were
attempts to promote or sell Defendant's services, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

TECHPRECISION CORP: Suit Against Ranor, Inc. Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
TechPrecision Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that Ranor, Inc.
continues to defend itself from a putative class action suit filed
in the Massachusetts Superior Court, Worcester County.

On or about February 26, 2016, nine former employees, or plantiffs,
of Ranor, Inc. (Ranor) filed a complaint in the Massachusetts
Superior Court, Worcester County, against Ranor and certain former
and current executive officers of Ranor, alleging violations of the
Massachusetts Wage Act, breach of contract and conversion based on
a modification made to Ranor's personal time off policy.

Plaintiffs claim that Ranor's modification to its personal time
off, or PTO, policy in April 2014 caused these employees to forfeit
earned PTO. Plaintiffs purport to assert their claims on behalf of
a class of all current and former employees of Ranor who were
affected by the modification to Ranor's PTO policy.

On August 30, 2018, a class certification hearing was conducted
where the Plantiffs' motion for class certification was granted
without opposition.

On October 23, 2018, the pre-trial discovery phase ended, but the
parties have requested a 6-month extension. The court has not yet
acted on that request. No trial date has been set.

TechPrecision Corporation, through its subsidiaries, manufactures
and sells precision, large-scale fabricated, and machined metal
components and systems in the United States and the People's
Republic of China. The Company was founded in 1956 and is
headquartered in Wayne, Pennsylvania.


TIM JUNGBLUT: Underpays Truck Drivers, Akers and Zacharias Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES AKERS, and MARK ZACHARIAS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TIM JUNGBLUT TRUCKING,
INC.; and TIMOTHY JUNG-BLUT, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-03316-JRS-MPB (S.D. Ind., Oct. 29, 2018) is an action
against the Defendants' 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 truck drivers.

Tim Jungblut Trucking, Inc. is engaged in trucking business
operating in Lebanon, Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald E. Weldy, Esq.
          WELDY LAW
          8383 Craig Street, Suite 330
          Indianapolis, IN 46250
          Telephone: (317) 842-6600
          Facsimile: (317) 288-4013
          E-mail: weldy@weldylegal.com


TOPSTAR TECH: Misrepresents Power Bank Capacity, Mazzone Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL MAZZONE, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. TOPSTAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-06989 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 19, 2018),
seeks redress for Defendant's unjust, unfair, and deceptive
practices in misrepresenting the capacity of Power Banks in
violation of state law.

In recent years consumers have become increasingly dependent on
portable electronic devices like smart phones, tablets and laptop
computers (PED). PEDs have made it convenient for consumers to
constantly stay in communication with colleagues, friends, and
loved ones, and to immediately access information. However, like
any electronic device, PEDs require power and their internal
batteries must be periodically recharged. To address the needs of
consumers to use PEDs during travel, or when the consumer otherwise
lacks access to an electrical outlet, the portable charger industry
emerged. A portable charger, often called a power bank, is a small,
portable power source consumers can use to recharge their PEDs
during travel. The greater the capacity of the Power Bank, as is
expressed in milliampere-hours, the more times the Power Bank can
be used to recharge PEDs before the Power Bank must be recharged
itself. Thus, consumers prefer and are willing to pay a premium for
Power Banks with higher mAh ratings.

Topstar manufactures, markets, and distributes for sale nationwide
to consumers a number of Power Banks under the GETIHU label. It
does so by prominently representing the Products' capacities as
measured in mAh. Unfortunately for consumers, testing has shown the
Products' actual capacity is substantially lower than what Topstar
represents. By deceiving consumers about the Products' capacity,
Topstar is 24 able to sell more of, and charge more for, the
Products than it could if they were labeled accurately. Further,
Topstar is incentivized to mislead consumers to take away market
share from competing products, thereby increasing its own sales and
profits, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          D. Greg Blankinship, esq.
          Jean M. Sedlak, esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP,
          FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298-3290
          E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
                  jsedlak@fbfglaw.com

               - and -

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          Mario M. Choi, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94116
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          Facsimile: (415) 772- 4707
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
                  mchoi@kaplanfox.com

TRANS1 INC: Court Approves $3.25MM Securities Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, Southern Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiffs'
Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement in the
case captioned PlllLLIP J. SINGER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TRANS1,
INC., et al., Defendants. No. 7:12-CV-23-D. (E.D.N.C.).

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, filed a complaint against defendants for securities fraud
in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and 17
C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5 (Rule 10b-5) .

The court finds that the case posture was appropriate in that the
plaintiffs coordinated their claims and pleadings and the parties
engaged in good-faith, arm's length negotiation. The record is
sufficiently developed to enable the parties to evaluate their
positions adequately, especially because this litigation began in
2012.  Counsel for all parties are reputable and experienced, and
they believe that the settlement is fair to all parties after
extensive investigation and litigation. Moreover, the parties
participated in extensive settlement negotiations, including
mediation.   Finally, there is no evidence of collusion.
Accordingly, the court finds that the settlement is fair.

The defendants or defendants's insurance carrier will pay
$3,250,000.00 into the settlement fund less any attorneys' fees,
costs, and incentive awards, and less any sums already advanced
after the court's preliminary approval of settlement. Up to
$250,000 of the settlement fund will go towards notice and
administrative costs, and any further costs will require a court
order.  Class counsel will request an award of attorneys' fees not
to exceed $975,000-30% of the settlement amount and up to $75,000
in out-of-pocket litigation expenses, as well as $3,000 to
compensate the lead plaintiff for his reasonable costs and
expenses.

Upon the Effective Date, the Defendants, and the heirs,
representatives, attorneys, affiliates, executors, trustees,
administrators, predecessors, successors, and assigns of each of
them, in their capacity as such, shall be deemed to have, and by
operation of the court's judgment shall have, fully, finally, and
forever waived, released, relinquished, discharged, and dismissed
each and every one of the Released Defendants's Claims against each
and every one of the Released Plaintiff Parties and shall forever
be barred and enjoined from the assertion, institution,
maintenance, prosecution, or enforcement in any state or federal
court or arbitral forum, or in the court of any foreign
jurisdiction, administrative forum or other forum of any kind, of
any and all of the Released Defendants' Claims against any and all
of the Released Plaintiff Parties.

Lead counsel is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $975,000,
and out-of-pocket litigation expenses in the amount of $49,242.65,
plus any applicable interest. Such amounts shall be paid from the
Settlement Fund within ten business days following the entry of
this order. Lead counsel shall thereafter be solely responsible for
allocating the attorneys' fees and expenses among other plaintiffs'
counsel in a manner that lead counsel, in good faith, believes
reflects the contributions of such counsel to the initiation,
prosecution, and resolution of the action.

In the event that the court's judgment does not become final, and
any portion of the Fee and Expense Award has already been paid from
the Settlement Fund, lead counsel, and all other plaintiffs'
counsel to whom lead counsel has distributed payments, shall refund
the Fee and Expense Award to the Settlement Fund pursuant to the
stipulation within ten business days of entry of the order
rendering the settlement and judgment non-final, giving notice of
the settlement being terminated, or precluding the Effective Date
from occurring.

Lead plaintiff is awarded the sum of $3,000 as reasonable costs and
expenses directly relating to the representation of the Settlement
Class as provided in 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(4), such amounts to
be paid from the Settlement Fund upon the Effective Date of the
settlement.

The Court finds that the proposed Plan of Allocation is a fair and
reasonable method to allocate the Net Settlement Fund among the
Settlement Class Members.

The court grants the plaintiffs' motions for final approval of the
class action settlement and for an award of attorneys' fees,
reimbursement of expenses, and a compensatory award to lead
plaintiff.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 19, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8m83qow from Leagle.com.

Phillip J. Singer, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gary W. Jackson --
gary.jackson@farrin.com -- The Law Offices of James Scott Farrin &
Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Labaton Sucharow.

Trans1, Inc., Defendant, represented by John F. Cannon --
jcannon@sycr.com -- Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, Jonathan D.
Sasser -- jon.sasser@elliswinters.com -- Ellis & Winters, LLP,
Stephen L. Ram -- sram@sycr.com -- Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth,
Aaron C. Humes -- ahumes@sycr.com -- Stradling Yocca Carlson &
Rauth & Thomas Hamilton Segars -- tom.segars@elliswinters.com --
Ellis & Winters.


TREVENA INC: Louis Sues over Stock Price Plunge
-----------------------------------------------
Wesley Louis, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TREVENA, INC., MAXINE GOWEN, DAVID
SOERGEL, CARRIE BOURDOW, JONATHAN VIOLIN and ROBERTO CUCA, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04779-CMR (E.D. Pa., Nov. 5, 2018),
seeks to pursue remedies against Trevena and certain of its most
senior executives under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the case is a securities class action
on behalf of all purchasers of Trevena common stock between May 2,
2016 and October 9, 2018, inclusive. The Company's most advanced
drug under development was Olinvo (a/k/a Oliceridine and TRV130),
an intravenous pain reliever which was undergoing a Phase III
clinical trial for the treatment of moderate-to-severe
postoperative pain after surgery. According to Trevena, its Phase
II clinical trial for Olinvo had demonstrated that Olinvo was
superior to the then-standard of care for post-surgery pain
reduction, morphine. Trevena also claimed that once approved for
commercial distribution, it planned to price Olinvo higher than
morphine, because Olinvo purportedly caused less costly adverse
effects than morphine, such as respiratory problems, nausea and
vomiting.

Unbeknownst to investors, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") had expressly warned Trevena, however, prior to the start
of the Class Period, of many defects in the design of its Phase III
clinical trial -- design defects Trevena refused to remedy -- that
threatened to render the data derived in the Phase III clinical
trial worthless. As a result, the Company's prospects of obtaining
FDA approval for commercial distribution of Olinvo, and its
eventual commercial successes, were much lower than defendants were
leading the market to believe throughout the Class Period. Based on
Defendants' Class Period materially misleading statements and
omissions concerning the strength of its clinical development
program, the design of its Phase III Olinvo clinical trial and its
prospects for obtaining FDA approval to commercially distribute
Olinvo and the drug’s financial prospects, the price of Trevena
common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the
Class Period, trading above $8 per share on May 10, 2016.

When the Company disclosed the results of the Phase III clinical
trial of Olinvo on February 21, 2017, the data did not show that
Olinvo caused any meaningfully less adverse effects than morphine.
On this news, the price of Trevena common stock plummeted
approximately 40%, or $3 per share, on February 21, 2017, on
unusually heavy trading of more than 10.5 million shares trading.
Then, on October 9, 2018, the FDA made public its prior criticisms
of the design of the Phase III clinical trial and disclosed that
its Advisory Committee was recommending that the FDA reject the
Company’s New Drug Application for Olinvo. On this news, the
price of Trevena common stock plummeted another 64%, almost $2 per
share, on October 9, 2018, again on unusually high trading of more
than 40 million shares trading. On October 11, 2018, trading in
Trevena common stock was halted on pending news. Later that day,
the Company disclosed that the FDA Advisory Committee had voted
against approving Olinvo. While Trevena contended that the FDA
[was] not bound by the Advisory Committee's recommendations that
day, it also acknowledged that the FDA "takes its advice into
consideration when making its decision." When trading recommenced
on October 12, 2018, the stock price dropped another 7%, closing
below $1 per share, on unusually high trading of more than 12
million shares. Finally, on Friday November 2, 2018, Trevena
disclosed that the FDA had formally rejected its NDA for Olinvo,
with the FDA stating in its complete response letter that the
safety data was not adequate, the lawsuit says.

Trevena is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
          KESSLER TOP AZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: namjed@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mary k. Blasy, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          40 Powder Springs Street
          Marietta, GA 30064
          Telephone: (770) 200-3104
          Facsimile: (770) 200-3101

TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Merger-Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-First Century Fox, 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 all
merger-related suits have been voluntarily dismissed.

On June 20, 2018, the Defendants and Disney issued a joint press
release announcing they had entered into an Amended and Restated
Agreement and Plan of Merger. Under the terms of the Merger
Agreement, stockholders of the Defendants will receive $38 per
share, with the election to receive their consideration, on a value
equalized basis, in the form of cash or stock, subject to 50/50
proration and further subject to adjustment for certain tax
liabilities. The Proposed Transaction is valued at $71.3 billion in
cash and stock. Following the completion of the Proposed
Transaction, assuming the tax adjustment amount is zero, the
Defendants' stockholders will own approximately 17-20% and Disney
stockholders will own approximately 80% to 83% of the combined
company.

On July 9, 2018, the Company received notice of a complaint filed
July 6, 2018 by Robert Weiss, a purported stockholder of the
Company, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
against the Company and the Company's Board of Directors. The
purported class action lawsuit was filed in the District of
Delaware and is captioned Weiss v. Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc.
et al., No. 18-1007 (D. Del.).

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and the
Company's Board of Directors violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, 15.U.S.C. Sections 78n(a), 78t(a), and SEC Rule
14a-9, 17 C.F.R. 240.14a-9. Specifically, Mr. Weiss alleges that
material information concerning various aspects of the transactions
has been omitted or misrepresented.

On July 11, 2018, purported Company stockholder Robert Lowinger, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed a
complaint in the Southern District of New York alleging, among
other things, that the Company and the Company's Board of Directors
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15.U.S.C.
Sections 78n(a), 78t(a), and SEC Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. 240.14a-9.
The case is captioned Lowinger v. Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. et
al., No. 18-6261 (S.D.N.Y.). Specifically, Mr. Lowinger alleges
that material information concerning various aspects of the
transactions has been omitted or misrepresented.

On July 16, 2018 and July 17, 2018, respectively, purported Company
stockholders Melvin Gross and Max Federman, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, filed complaints in the District
of Delaware alleging, among other things, that the Company and the
Company's Board of Directors violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, 15.U.S.C. Sections 78n(a), 78t(a), and SEC Rule
14a-9, 17 C.F.R. 240.14a-9. The cases are captioned Gross v.
Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. et al., No. 18-1046 (D. Del.) and
Federman v. Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. et al., No. 18-1061 (D.
Del.), respectively. Both Messrs. Gross and Federman allege that
material information concerning various aspects of the transactions
has been omitted or misrepresented.

On July 17, 2018 purported Company stockholder Belle Cohen,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
a complaint in the Southern District of New York captioned Cohen v.
Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. et al., No. 18-6462 (S.D.N.Y.). The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and the
Company board violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, 15.U.S.C. Sections 78n(a), 78t(a), and SEC Rule 14a-9, 17
C.F.R. 240.14a-9 by omitting or misrepresenting material
information concerning various aspects of the transactions.

Through these actions, the plaintiffs sought to enjoin the July 27,
2018 special meeting of the Company's stockholders. As of October
17, 2018, all of the actions have been voluntarily dismissed.

Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. operates as a diversified media and
entertainment company primarily in the United States and Canada,
Europe, and internationally. It operates through Cable Network
Programming, Television, and Filmed Entertainment segments. The
company was formerly known as News Corporation. Twenty-First
Century Fox, Inc. was founded in 1922 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


TYSON FOODS: Bid to Drop Broiler Chicken Grower Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended September 29, 2018, that the defendants' motion
to dismiss the class action suit entitled, In re Broiler Chicken
Grower Litigation, is still pending.

On January 27, 2017, Haff Poultry, Inc., Craig Watts, Johnny
Upchurch, Jonathan Walters and Brad Carr, acting on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of broiler chicken farmers, filed a
class action complaint against the company and certain of its
poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other
vertically-integrated poultry processing companies, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

On March 27, 2017, a second class action complaint making similar
claims on behalf of a similarly defined putative class was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Oklahoma.

Plaintiffs in the two cases sought to have the matters
consolidated, and, on July 10, 2017, filed a consolidated amended
complaint styled In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation. The
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants colluded
not to compete for broiler raising services "with the purpose and
effect of fixing, maintaining, and/or stabilizing grower
compensation below competitive levels." The plaintiffs also allege
that the defendants "agreed to share detailed data on grower
compensation with one another, with the purpose and effect of
artificially depressing grower compensation below competitive
levels."

The plaintiffs contend these alleged acts constitute violations of
the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 202 of the Grain Inspection,
Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. The plaintiffs are seeking
treble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative class.

Tyson Foods said, "We and the other defendants filed a motion to
dismiss on September 8, 2017. That motion is pending."

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

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. The company was founded in 1935
and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


TYSON FOODS: Bid to Drop Duryea Class Action Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended September 29, 2018, that the defendants in the
class action suit initiated by. Wanda Duryea and others, filed
motions to dismiss the complaints.

On June 18, 2018, Wanda Duryea, Matthew Hosking, John McKee, Lisa
Melegari, Michael Reilly, Sandra Steffan, Paul Glantz, Edwin
Blakey, Jennifer Sullivan, Lisa Axelrod, Anbessa Tufa and Christina
Hall, acting on behalf of themselves individually and on behalf of
a putative plaintiff class consisting of all persons and entities
who indirectly purchased pork, filed a class action complaint
against the company and certain of its pork subsidiaries, as well
as several other pork processing companies, in the federal district
court for the District of Minnesota.

Subsequent to the filing of the initial complaint, additional
lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of
direct and indirect purchasers were also filed in the same court.
The complaints allege, among other things, that beginning in
January 2009 the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize the price of pork and pork products in
violation of United States antitrust laws.

The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect
purchasers also include causes of action under various state unfair
competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment
common laws. The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, injunctive
relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees
on behalf of the putative classes. The direct purchaser actions and
indirect purchaser actions have been consolidated for pretrial
purposes. On October 23, 2018, defendants filed motions to dismiss
the complaints.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. The company was founded in 1935
and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


TYSON FOODS: Still Defends Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended September 29, 2018, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Broiler
Chicken Antitrust Litigation.

On September 2, 2016, Maplevale Farms, Inc., acting on behalf of
itself and a putative class of direct purchasers of poultry
products, filed a class action complaint against the company and
certain of its poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other
poultry processing companies, in the Northern District of Illinois.


Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional
lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of
direct and indirect purchasers were filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The court
consolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes, into actions
on behalf of three different putative classes: direct purchasers,
indirect purchasers/consumers and commercial/institutional indirect
purchasers.

These three actions are styled In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust
Litigation. Several amended and consolidated complaints have been
filed on behalf of each putative class. The currently operative
complaints allege, among other things, that beginning in January
2008 the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain,
and stabilize the price of broiler chickens in violation of United
States antitrust laws.

The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect
purchasers also include causes of action under various state unfair
competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment
common laws. The complaints also allege that defendants
"manipulated and artificially inflated a widely used Broiler price
index, the Georgia Dock." It is further alleged that the defendants
concealed this conduct from the plaintiffs and the members of the
putative classes. The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages,
injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative classes.

The court issued a ruling on November 20, 2017 denying all
defendants' motions to dismiss. The litigation is currently in a
discovery phase.

Decisions on class certification and summary judgment motions
likely to be filed by defendants are not expected before the latter
part of calendar year 2020 under the scheduling order currently
governing the case. Scheduling for trial, if necessary, will occur
after rulings on class certification and any summary judgment
motions. Certain putative class members have opted out of this
matter and are proceeding separately, and others may do so in the
future.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. The company was founded in 1935
and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


U.S. BANK: Guiette Seeks Approval of Settlement
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Virginia Guiette,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. U.S. Bank National Association, the Defendant, Case:
1:18-cv-00174-TSB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:

   1. conditionally verifying a Settlement Class;

   2. preliminarily approving the terms of the settlement
      agreement;

   3. approving proposed notice plan;

   4. appointng Rust Consulting as notice administrator;

   5. appointing Abbas Kazerounian of Kazerouni Law Group, APC and
      Joshua B. Swigart of Hyde & Swigart, APC as lead class
      counsel; and

   6. setting a hearing date for final approval.

The Settlement Class means the persons in the following Subclass
One and Subclass Two.

   Subclass One consists of:

   "all users or subscribers to a wireless or cellular service
   within the United States who used or subscribed to a phone
   number to which U.S. Bank made or initiated one or more Calls
   in connection with a Residential Mortgage Loan using any
   automated dialing technology or artificial or prerecorded voice

   technology during the Class Period August 7, 2014 through
   December 31, 2017. Agreement section 2.33. b."; and

   Subclass Two Subclass Two consists of:

   "all users or subscribers to a wireless or cellular service
   within the United States who used or subscribed to a phone
   number to which U.S. Bank made or initiated one or more Calls
   in connection with a Home Equity Loan using any automated
   dialing technology or artificial or prerecorded voice
   technology during the Class Period February 19, 2015 though
   December 31, 2017. Agreement section 2.3."[CC]

Attorneys for Virginia Guiette:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Anthony P. Chester, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-4808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  tony@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          W. Mark Jump, Esq.
          JUMP LEGAL GROUP
          2130 Arlington Avenue
          Columbus, OH 43221
          Telephone: (614) 481-7216
          Facsimile: (866) 334-2208
          E-mail: wmjump@jumplegal.com

UNIT CORP: Continues to Defend Panola Independent School Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Corp.said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself from a class action suit entitled, Panola Independent
School District No. 4, et al. v. Unit Petroleum Company, No.
CJ-07-215, District Court of Latimer County, Oklahoma.

Panola Independent School District No. 4, Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen
Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine Pate, Juanita Golightly,
Melody Culberson, and Charlotte Abernathy are the Plaintiffs and
are royalty owners in oil and gas drilling and spacing units for
which the company's exploration segment distributes royalty.

The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that the company's
exploration segment has underpaid royalty obligations by deducting
post-production costs or marketing related fees. Plaintiffs sought
to pursue the case as a class action on behalf of persons who
receive royalty from the company for the company's Oklahoma
production.

The company had asserted several defenses including that the
deductions are permitted under Oklahoma law. The company had also
asserted that the case should not be tried as a class action due to
the materially different circumstances that determine what, if any,
deductions are taken for each lease. On December 16, 2009, the
trial court entered its order certifying the class. On May 11, 2012
the court of civil appeals reversed the trial court's order
certifying the class. The

Plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari and on
October 8, 2012, the Plaintiff's petition was denied. On January
22, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a second request to certify a class
of royalty owners slightly smaller than their first attempt. Since
then, the Plaintiffs have further amended their proposed class to
just include royalty owners entitled to royalties under certain
leases in Latimer, Le Flore, and Pittsburg Counties, Oklahoma.

In July 2014, a second class certification hearing was held where,
besides the defenses described above, we argued that the amended
class definition is still deficient under the court of civil
appeals opinion reversing the initial class certification. Closing
arguments were held on December 2, 2014. There is no timetable for
when the court will issue its ruling. The merits of Plaintiffs'
claims will remain stayed while class certification issues are
pending.

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

Unit Corp. engages in onshore contract drilling of oil and gas
wells (for its own account as well as for other companies),
exploration and production of oil and gas, and the gathering and
transportation of natural gas primarily in the U.S. It also
explores, develops, acquires, and produces oil and natural gas, and
buys, sells, gathers, processes, and treats natural gas. Unit was
founded in 1963 and is based in Tulsa, Oklahoma.


UNITED COLLECTION: Ostreicher Sues over Debt Collections Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Zev Ostreicher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. United Collection Bureau, Inc. and
John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case 7:18-cv-10260 (S.D.N.Y., Nov.
5, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief under
the the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

According to the complaint, some time prior to December 13, 2017,
an obligation was allegedly incurred to Chase Bank U.S.A., N.A. The
Chase obligation arose out of a transaction in which money,
property, insurance or services, which are the subject of the
transaction, are primarily for personal, family or household
purposes. The alleged Chase Bank U.S.A., N.A. obligation is a
"debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5). Chase is a
"creditor" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(4). Chase or a
subsequent owner of the Chase debt contracted the Defendant to
collect the alleged debt.

Defendant collects and attempts to collect debts incurred or
alleged to have been incurred for personal, family or household
purposes on behalf of creditors using the United States Postal
Service, telephone and internet, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Daniel Kohn, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          E-mail: dkohn@steinsakslegal.com

UNITED NATURAL: Guerra Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Salvador Guerra, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved
employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act,
the Plaintiff, vs. United Natural Foods, Inc. an unknown business
entity, United Natural Foods West, Inc., a California corporation,
and DOES 1 - 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RIC 1818751,
was removed from the Riverside Superior Court, to the the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Eastern
Division – Riverside) Nov. 8, 2018. The Central District of
California assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-02382 to the proceeding. The
suit alleges Labor related violations.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for United Natural Foods, Inc. and United Natural Foods
West, Inc.:

          John S Battenfeld, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
          E-mail: jbattenfeld@morganlewis.com

UNITED STATES: Certification of Children's Class Sought in JL Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled J.L., M.V.B., M.D.G.B., and
J.B.A., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. LEE FRANCIS CISSNA, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, ROBERT COWAN, Director, National Benefits
Center, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, and UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Case No. 5:18-cv-04914-NC (N.D. Cal.), moves
for an order certifying a proposed class consisting of:

     Children who have received or will receive guardianship
     orders pursuant to California Probate Code Section 1510.1(a)
     and who have received or will receive denials of their SIJS
     petitions on the grounds that the state court that issued
     the SIJ Findings lacked jurisdiction because the court did
     not have the authority to reunify the children with their
     parents.

The Plaintiffs also move for an order appointing them as
representatives of the Proposed Class, and appointing Manatt,
Phelps & Phillips, LLP, Public Counsel, and Lawyers' Committee for
Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs and members of the Proposed Class are abandoned,
abused, and neglected immigrant children.  Each has been placed
under the care of a guardian by the probate division of the
California Superior Court ("Probate Courts") pursuant to express
authority provided to the Probate Courts by California Probate Code
Section 1510.1(a) (which pertains to children 18-20 years of age).
Each is also the subject of a Probate Court order finding that
reunification with at least one of their parents is not viable due
to abandonment, abuse, or neglect, and that it is not in their best
interest to return to their countries of origin (the "SIJ
Findings") -- findings the Probate Courts have express authority to
make under Section 1510.1(a).

The Court will commence a hearing on January 23, 2019, at 1:00
p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew Kanny, Esq.
          Adrianne Marshack, Esq.
          Sirena Castillo, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
          11355 West Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614
          Telephone: (310) 312-4000
          Facsimile: (310) 312-4224
          E-mail: mkanny@Manatt.com
                  amarshack@Manatt.com
                  scastillo@Manatt.com

               - and -

          Keith Wurster, Esq.
          LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE
          SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
          131 Steuart Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 543-9444
          Facsimile: (415) 543-0296
          E-mail: kwurster@lccr.com

               - and -

          Judy London, Esq.
          Sara Van Hofwegen, Esq.
          Mary Tanagho Ross, Esq.
          PUBLIC COUNSEL
          610 South Ardmore Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90005
          Telephone: (213) 385-2977
          Facsimile: (213) 385-9089
          E-mail: jlondon@publiccounsel.org
                  svanhofwegen@publiccounsel.org
                  mross@publiccounsel.org


UNITED STATES: Kuang et al. Seek to Certify to Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned JIAHAO KUANG, et al., the
Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-03698-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
John S. Tigap entered an order on Nov. 16, 2018:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of:

      "all persons who (i) are lawful permanent residents of the
       United States; (ii) have signed an enlistment contract with

       the U.S. military; and (iii) pursuant to Defendants’
       October 13 memo, have not been permitted to begin initial
       entry training, commonly referred to as "boot camp,"
       pending completion of their Military Service Suitability
       Determination and National Security Determination";

   2. denying the DoD's motion to dismiss;

   3. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction;
      and

   4. enjoining Defendants and their officers, agents, servants,
      employees, and attorneys, and any other person or entity
      subject to their control or acting directly or indirectly in

      concert or participation with Defendants from taking any
      action continuing to implement the October Memo and
      directing Defendants to return to the pre-October 13, 2017
      practices for the accession of Lawful Permanent Residents
      into the military.[CC]

UPS STORE: Richardson Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Richardson, II All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff,
vs. The UPS Store, Inc. and J&V Logistics LLC, the Defendant, Case
No.: 1677-CV-01328, was removed from the Essex Superior Court, to
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Boston) on Nov. 7, 2018. The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-12338 to the proceeding.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Orestes G. Brown, Esq.
          METAXAS BROWN PIDGEON LLP
          900 Cummings Center, Suite 207T
          Beverly, MA 01915
          Telephone: (978) 927-8000
          Facsimile: (978) 922-6464
          E-mail: obrown@metaxasbrown.com

Attorneys for UPS Store, Inc.:

          Daniel E. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          DLA PIPER US LLP
          33 Arch Street, 26th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110-1447
          Telephone: (617) 406-6078
          Facsimile: (617) 406-6178
          E-mail: daniel.rosenfeld@dlapiper.com

USF REDDAWAY: Court Denies Class Certification as Moot
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned RICARDO GOMEZ, SAUL MONTES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. USF REDDAWAY, INC., an Oregon Corporation, and DOES
1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-05572-JAK-FFM
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order on
Nov. 13, 2018, denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
and Defendant's Motion to Exclude Testimony as moot.

The Court said, "Barrios' and Defendant USF Reddaway Inc.'s joint
stipulation regarding the Parties' proposed schedule of settlement.
In the interest of justice and good cause appearing, the Court
hereby grants the stipulation. The Parties to finalize the terms of
their settlement by January 31, 2019. The motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement shall be filed by March 29,
2019, which shall be set for hearing on April 29, 2019 at 8:30 a.m.
The motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement
shall include any fees and costs per the Court's standing
order."[CC]

UTILITY CONCIERGE: Fails to Pay OT to Concierges, Burke Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA BURKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UTILITY CONCIERGE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-02869-G (N.D. Tex., Oct. 26, 2018) is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Burke was employed by the Defendant as concierge.

Utility Concierge, LLC is a Texas company doing business throughout
the United States. The company provides travel information online.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713)877-8788
          Facsimile: (713)877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


VALLEY SUPERMARKET: Hernandez Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
EL PASO DIVISION CARLOS HERNANDEZ and IRMA ORTEGON, ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, vs.
VALLEY SUPERMARKET, LTD, LION PRODUCTIVITIES HOLDINGS, LLC D/B/A
VALLEY SUPERMARKET, AND ISIDRO DE LA FUENTE, INDIVIDUALLY, the
Defendants, Case 3:18-cv-00339 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 5, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were employed by
Defendants. They were both paid on an hourly basis for their work
and regularly worked over forty hours per week. Nonetheless,
Defendants maintained a scheme by which they Plaintiff routinely
worked in excess of 40 hours per week. In violation of the FLSA,
Defendants refused to pay her overtime for the hours she worked in
excess of 40 per week. Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiff for
all hours worked in violation of New Mexico common law., the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Lynn Coyle, Esq.
          Christopher Benoit, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF LYNN COYLE, P.L.L.C.
          2515 North Stanton
          El Paso, TX 79902
          Telephone: (915) 532-5544
          Facsimile: (915) 532-5566
          E-mail: lynn@coylefirm.com
                  chris@coylefirm.com

VEREIT INC: Continues to Defend Realistic Partners Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vereit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend in a putative class action suit entitled, Realistic Partners
v. American Realty Capital Partners, et al., No. 654468/2013.

In December 2013, Realistic Partners filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company and the then-members of its board of
directors in the Supreme Court for the State of New York, captioned
Realistic Partners v. American Realty Capital Partners, et al., No.
654468/2013.

The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the board of the
Company breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
transactions contemplated under the Cole Merger Agreement (in
connection with the merger between a wholly owned subsidiary of
Cole Credit Property Trust III, Inc. and Cole Holdings Corporation)
and that Cole Credit Property Trust III, Inc. aided and abetted
those breaches.

In January 2014, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on behalf
of the alleged class of the Company's stockholders. The proposed
settlement terms required the Company to make certain additional
disclosures related to the Cole Merger, which were included in a
Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company with the SEC on
January 17, 2014. The memorandum of understanding also contemplated
that the parties would enter into a stipulation of settlement,
which would be subject to customary conditions, including
confirmatory discovery and court approval following notice to the
Company's stockholders, and provided that the defendants would not
object to a payment of up to $625,000 for attorneys' fees.

The company said, "If the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, which has not occurred, a hearing will be scheduled at
which the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and
adequacy of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the
parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the court
will approve any proposed settlement, or that any eventual
settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by
the memorandum of understanding."

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

Vereit, Inc. is a full-service real estate operating company which
owns and manages one of the largest portfolios of single-tenant
commercial properties in the U.S. The Company has a total asset
book value of $14.1 billion including approximately 4,000
properties and 93.9 million square feet. Vereit business model
provides equity capital to creditworthy corporations in return for
long-term leases on their properties. Vereit is a publicly traded
Maryland corporation listed on the New York Stock Exchange.


VICTORIA CRUISES: Website not Accessible to Blind, Diaz Says
------------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN DIAZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. VICTORIA CRUISES, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10347 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2018), alleges that Defendant's
failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people. Defendant's denial of full
and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its
products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its
physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Accoridng to the complaint, 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.victoriacruises.com,
is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers,
it violates the ADA, 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

VITAL RECOVERY: Dagostino Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vital Recovery
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Melissa Dagostino individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vital
Recovery Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-06748 (E.D.
N.Y., Nov. 27, 2018).

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

Vital Recovery Services, LLC is a fully licensed, national,
third-party collection agency performing bad debt recovery and skip
tracing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
     Sanders Law, PLLC
     100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 203-7600
     Fax: (516) 281-7601
     Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


VIVINT SOLAR: Attorneys' Fees and Costs in Alameda Suit Settled
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company has
already paid the attorneys' fees and costs in the putative class
action suit filed in Superior Court in Alameda County, California.

In November 2016, a customer of the Company filed a putative class
action lawsuit in Superior Court in Alameda County, California,
purportedly on behalf of all customers of a particular Company
sales representative in California, claiming that the
representative's sales practices were improper under California
consumer protection law.

The Company moved to dismiss that action to compel arbitration. In
March 2017, the original plaintiff filed an amended complaint
adding an additional plaintiff, purporting to expand the proposed
class to include all customers who are eligible for the California
Alternate Rates for Energy program, and adding claims of misconduct
in the Company's sales practices apart from the individual
representative identified in the original complaint. The Company
moved to compel arbitration of the new plaintiff's claims as well.
The Company disputed the allegations in both the original and
amended complaints.

In January 2018, the parties reached a settlement with the two
individual plaintiffs. Under the settlement, in addition to certain
changes to its sales process and immaterial compensation payments
to the individual plaintiffs, the Company agreed to pay attorneys'
fees.

On May 29, 2018, the court entered an order requiring the Company
to pay attorneys' fees and costs, both of which have now been paid,
and which were immaterial to the Company's results of operations.

Vivint Solar, Inc. provides distributed solar energy to
residential, commercial, and industrial customers in the United
States. The company operates in two segments, Residential, and
Commercial and Industrial. The company was formerly known as V
Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Vivint Solar, Inc. in
April 2014. Vivint Solar, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is
headquartered in Lehi, Utah.


VIVINT SOLAR: Continues to Defend TCPA Class Suit in D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia over alleged violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

In July 2018, an individual filed a putative class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,
purportedly on behalf of himself and other persons who received
certain telephone calls.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and some of its implementing regulations.
The complaint seeks statutory penalties for each alleged violation.


Vivint Solar said, "The Company disputes the allegations in the
complaint and intends to vigorously defend itself in the
litigation. The Company is unable to estimate the amount or range
of potential loss, if any, at this time."

Vivint Solar, Inc. provides distributed solar energy to
residential, commercial, and industrial customers in the United
States. The company operates in two segments, Residential, and
Commercial and Industrial. The company was formerly known as V
Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Vivint Solar, Inc. in
April 2014. Vivint Solar, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is
headquartered in Lehi, Utah.


WALSH CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Katona Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
JADE KATONA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALSH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY II, LLC; WALSH
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
18STCV05021 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 8, 2018)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime compensation,
minimum wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Katona was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employee.

Walsh Construction Company II, LLC is an affiliate company of Walsh
Construction Company, a general contractor. The company provides
preconstruction and construction services in the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          Matthew K. Moen, Esq.
          Brittaney B. de la Torre, Esq.
          Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
          Joshua S. Falakassa, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segunao, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
                  mmoen@haineslawgroup.com
                  bdelatorre@haineslawgroup.com

               - and -

          Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
          Ryan J. DeRose, Esq.
          Dayana R. Pclayo, Esq.
          BOKHOUR LAW GROUP
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
          Los Angeles, California 90067
          Telephone: (310) 975-1493
          Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
          E-mail: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com
                  ryan@bokhourlaw.com
                  dayana@bokhourlaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Approval of Interchange Litig. Accord Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the plaintiffs in
the interchange litigation have filed a motion for preliminary
approval of settlement.

Plaintiffs representing a putative class of merchants have filed
putative class actions, and individual merchants have filed
individual actions, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo &
Company, Wachovia Bank, N.A. and Wachovia Corporation regarding the
interchange fees associated with Visa and MasterCard payment card
transactions. Visa, MasterCard, and several other banks and bank
holding companies are also named as defendants in these actions.
These actions have been consolidated in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The amended and consolidated complaint asserts claims against
defendants based on alleged violations of federal and state
antitrust laws and seeks damages, as well as injunctive relief.

Plaintiff merchants allege that Visa, MasterCard, and payment card
issuing banks unlawfully colluded to set interchange rates.
Plaintiffs also allege that enforcement of certain Visa and
MasterCard rules and alleged tying and bundling of services offered
to merchants are anticompetitive. Wells Fargo and Wachovia, along
with other defendants and entities, are parties to Loss and
Judgment Sharing Agreements, which provide that they, along with
other entities, will share, based on a formula, in any losses from
the Interchange Litigation.

On July 13, 2012, Visa, MasterCard, and the financial institution
defendants, including Wells Fargo, signed a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiff merchants to resolve the consolidated
class action and reached a separate settlement in principle of the
consolidated individual actions. The settlement payments to be made
by all defendants in the consolidated class and individual actions
totaled approximately $6.6 billion before reductions applicable to
certain merchants opting out of the settlement. The class
settlement also provided for the distribution to class merchants of
10 basis points of default interchange across all credit rate
categories for a period of 8 consecutive months.

The district court granted final approval of the settlement, which
was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit by settlement objector merchants. Other merchants opted out
of the settlement and are pursuing several individual actions.

On June 30, 2016, the Second Circuit vacated the settlement
agreement and reversed and remanded the consolidated action to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
for further proceedings. On November 23, 2016, prior class counsel
filed a petition to the United States Supreme Court, seeking review
of the reversal of the settlement by the Second Circuit, and the
Supreme Court denied the petition on March 27, 2017.  On November
30, 2016, the district court appointed lead class counsel for a
damages class and an equitable relief class.

The parties have entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the
money damages class claims pursuant to which defendants will pay a
total of approximately $6.2 billion, which includes approximately
$5.3 billion of funds remaining from the 2012 settlement and $900
million in additional funding. The Company's allocated
responsibility for the additional funding is approximately $94.5
million. Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement in September 2018. Several of the opt-out litigations
were settled during the pendency of the Second Circuit appeal while
others remain pending. Discovery is proceeding in the opt-out
litigations and the equitable relief class case.

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans.  Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852
and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WELLS FARGO: Class Certification Sought in Suits over ATDS
----------------------------------------------------------
In the two class action lawsuits captioned as ALBERT PIETERSON, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
vs. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., the Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-02306-EDL (N.D. Cal.); and JOHN HASTINGS, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WELLS
FARGO BANK, N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-03633-EDL (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on January 22, 2019, for
an order:

     1. certifying a class of:

"all persons within the United States who, between September 18,
2014 and the present, (1) received a non-emergency call to their
cellular telephone numbers; (2) through the use of the Aspect
Software Inc. or Castel Inc. automatic telephone dialing systems or
an artificial or prerecorded voice; (3) from Wells Fargo; (4)
regarding the collection of alleged debts in connection with Wells
Fargo credit card accounts; and (5) who were not Wells Fargo credit
card account holders at the time of the call"; and

     2. appointing them as class representatives and appointing the
law firms of Girard Sharp LLP and Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP as class counsel.

Excluded from the Class are Wells Fargo, its employees, agents, and
assigns, and any member of the 11 judiciary to whom this case is
assigned, their respective court staff, and Plaintiffs' counsel.
Excluded 12 from the action are any claims for personal injury,
wrongful death, and/or emotional distress.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Angelica M. Ornelas, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dgirard@girardsharp.com
                  aornelas@girardsharp.com

               - and -

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
          BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com
                  dhutchinson@lchb.com


WELLS FARGO: Continues to Defend ATM Access Fee-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself in class action suits related to ATM
Access Fee.

In October 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action, Mackmin,
et al. v. Visa, Inc. et al., against Wells Fargo & Company, Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., Visa, MasterCard, and several other banks in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Plaintiffs allege that the Visa and MasterCard requirement that if
an ATM operator charges an access fee on Visa and MasterCard
transactions, then that fee cannot be greater than the access fee
charged for transactions on other networks violates antitrust
rules. Plaintiffs seek treble damages, restitution, injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees where available under federal and state
law.

Two other antitrust cases that make similar allegations were filed
in the same court, but these cases did not name Wells Fargo as a
defendant. On February 13, 2013, the district court granted
defendants' motions to dismiss the three actions. Plaintiffs
appealed the dismissals and, on August 4, 2015, the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the
district court's decisions and remanded the three cases to the
district court for further proceedings.

On June 28, 2016, the United States Supreme Court granted
defendants' petitions for writ of certiorari to review the
decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia. On November 17, 2016, the United States Supreme Court
dismissed the petitions as improvidently granted, and the three
cases returned to the district court for further proceedings.

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans.  Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852
and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WELLS FARGO: Continues to Defend Order of Posting-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself in lawsuits related to the Order of
Posting.

Plaintiffs filed a series of putative class actions against
Wachovia Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as well as many
other banks, challenging the "high to low" order in which the banks
post debit card transactions to consumer deposit accounts. Most of
these actions were consolidated in multi-district litigation
proceedings (MDL proceedings) in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.

The court in the MDL proceedings has certified a class of putative
plaintiffs, and Wells Fargo moved to compel arbitration of the
claims of unnamed class members. The court denied the motions to
compel arbitration in October 2016, and Wells Fargo appealed this
decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit.

In May 2018, the Eleventh Circuit ruled in Wells Fargo's favor and
found that Wells Fargo had not waived its arbitration rights and
remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings.
Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing to the Eleventh Circuit,
which was denied in August 2018.

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans.  Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852
and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WELLS FARGO: Final Fairness Hearing in Cotton et al. Suit in March
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a final settlement
fairness hearing in the case, Cotton, et al. v. Wells Fargo, et
al., has been scheduled for March 4, 2019.

Plaintiffs, representing a putative class of mortgage borrowers who
were debtors in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, filed a putative class
action, Cotton, et al. v. Wells Fargo, et al., against Wells Fargo
& Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina on June
7, 2017.

Plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo improperly and unilaterally
modified the mortgages of borrowers who were debtors in Chapter 13
bankruptcy cases. Plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo implemented
these modifications by improperly filing mortgage payment change
notices in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, in violation of bankruptcy
rules and process. The amended complaint asserts claims based on,
among other things, alleged fraud, violations of bankruptcy rules
and laws, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. The amended
complaint seeks monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and declaratory
and injunctive relief.

The parties have entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to
which the Company will pay $13.5 million to resolve the claims. On
October 24, 2018, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and scheduled a final fairness hearing for March 4,
2019.

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans.  Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852
and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WENDY'S CO: Feb. 25 Final Approval Hearing on Torres Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
The Wendy's Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a final approval
hearing of class settlement in the class action suit filed by
Jonathan Torres is scheduled for February 25, 2019.  

The Company was previously named as a defendant in putative class
action lawsuits alleging, among other things, that the Company
failed to safeguard customer credit card information and failed to
provide notice that credit card information had been compromised.


Jonathan Torres and other consumers filed an action in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the "Torres
Case"). The operative complaint seeks to certify a nationwide class
of consumers, or in the alternative, statewide classes of consumers
for Florida, New York, New Jersey, Texas and Tennessee, as well as
statewide classes of consumers under those states' consumer
protection and unfair trade practices laws.

Certain financial institutions have also filed class action
lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, which seek to certify a nationwide class of financial
institutions that issued payment cards that were allegedly
impacted.  Those cases were consolidated into a single case (the
"FI Case").

In the Torres Case and FI Case, the plaintiffs seek monetary
damages, injunctive and equitable relief, attorneys' fees and other
costs. On August 23, 2018, the court preliminarily approved class
settlement in the Torres case.  

A final approval hearing of the Torres settlement is scheduled for
February 25, 2019.  

On August 27, 2018, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings in the FI Case, seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs'
negligence and negligence per se claims under Ohio law. That motion
is pending before the court.

Discovery as between the parties in the FI Case is stayed while
settlement discussions are occurring.

The Wendy's Company, through its subsidiaries, operates as a
quick-service restaurant company. It is involved in operating,
developing, and franchising a system of quick-service restaurants
specializing in hamburger sandwiches. The company's restaurants
offer a range of chicken breast sandwiches, chicken nuggets, chili,
French fries, baked potatoes, salads, soft drinks, desserts, and
kids’ meals. The Wendy's Company was founded in 1969 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ohio.


WEST COAST QUARTZ: Luis Mendoza Seeks Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------
LUIS MENDOZA and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
WEST COAST QUARTZ CORPORATION, a California Corporation; and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. RG18927787 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Nov. 7, 2018), challenges the Defendants' policies and
practices of not providing a non-exempt workers with 30-minute meal
break when work more than 5 hours in a workday; not providing 10
minute rest breaks for every hours of work; failing to authorize,
permit, and/or make available meal and rest periods to their
non-exempt employees to which they are entitled by law; failing to
pay premium pay for these missed meal breaks; and failing to pay
another extra hour, regular pay, premium pay, for each day on which
a rest break violation occurred, pursuant to the California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, because of the missed breaks, the
Defendants have not paid Plaintiffs, non-exempt employees, for all
hours worked, including overtime compensation and minimum wage when
they regularly work more than 5 hours without breaks. The
Defendants have not provided Plaintiffs with accurate, statements.
The Defendants have further failed to pay all wages owed to
Plaintiffs who have voluntarily or involuntarily terminated their
employment with the Defendants, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Tory Erickson, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR EMPLOYEE AND CONSUMER RIGHTS
          4100 West Alameda Avenue, Third Floor
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (323) 375-5101
          Facsimile: (323) 306-0551

WESTERN MILLING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Benitez et al. Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
AGUSTIN BENITEZ, CARLOS MORALES, and STEVEN VILLARREAL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. WESTERN MILLING, LLC, and KRUSE INVESTMENT COMPANY,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-at-00783 (E.D. Cal., Oct. 25, 2018)
is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours,
overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest
periods.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt,
hourly workers.

Western Milling, LLC, doing business as O.H. Kruse Grain & Milling,
LLC, produces and supplies animal feed in the United States.
Western Milling, LLC was founded in 2000 and is based in Goshen,
California. It has plants in Famoso and Hanford, California; and
Buckeye, Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Richard A. Hoyer, Esq.
            Ryan L. Hicks, Esq.
            Nicole B. Gage, Esq.
            HOYER & HICKS
            4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
            San Francisco, CA 94111
            Telephone: (415) 766-3539
            Facsimile: (415) 276-1738
            E-mail: rhoyer@hoyerlaw.com
                    rhicks@hoyerlaw.com
                    ngage@hoyerlaw.com


XO GROUP: Sued over Misleading Report, Merger with WeddingWire
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD SCARANTINO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. XO GROUP INC., MICHAEL
ZEISSER, CHARLES BAKER, JAN HIER-KING, DIANE IRVINE, BARBARA
MESSING, PETER SACHSE, and MICHAEL STEIB, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01814-UNA (D. Del., Nov. 16, 2018), alleges that Defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with a proxy statement.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on September
25, 2018, pursuant to which XO Group Inc. will be acquired by
WeddingWire, Inc. and Wedelia Merger Sub, Corp. On September 24,
2018, XO Group's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter
into an agreement and plan of merger with WeddingWire. Pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement, XO Group's stockholders will
receive $35.00 in cash for each share of XO Group common stock they
hold. On November 13, 2018, the Defendants filed a proxy statement
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the Proposed Transaction.

The Proxy Statement, which scheduled a stockholder vote on the
Proposed Transaction for December 18, 2018, omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading, 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

YOUNIQUE LLC: Schmitt's Bid to Certify Class Under Submission
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable James V. Selna has taken under submission the
Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class and Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment in the lawsuit entitled MEGAN SCHMITT v. YOUNIQUE
LLC, ET AL., Case No. 8:17-cv-01397-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal.).

According to the Court's civil minutes, cause called and counsel
made their appearances.  The Court's tentative ruling is issued and
counsel made their arguments.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
          SULTZER LAW GROUP PC
          351 West 54th Street, Unit 1C
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 969-7811
          E-mail: gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Alison Bernal, Esq.
          NYE PEABODY STIRLING HALE AND MILLER LLP
          33 West Mission St., # 201
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 963-2345
          E-mail: alison@nps-law.com

               - and -

          Bonner Walsh, Esq.
          WALSH PLLC
          PO Box 7
          Bly, OR 97622
          Telephone: (541) 359-2827
          E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sascha Henry, Esq.
          Abby Hess Meyer, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street, Forty-Third Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 620-1780
          E-mail: shenry@sheppardmullin.com
                  ameyer@sheppardmullin.com


ZIKS HOME: Underpays Home Healthcare Aids, Brown Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
KARA BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZIKS HOME HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC; ZIKS
HOME HEALTHCARE, LLC; and NNODUM IHEME, Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-00350-WHR (S.D. Ohio, Oct. 26, 2018) is an action against
the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Brown was employed by the Defendants as home
healthcare aid.

Ziks Home Healthcare Solutions, Llc is a home health agency in
Dayton, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Bradley L. Gibson, Esq.
         Brian G. Greivenkamp, Esq.
         GIBSON LAW, LLC
         9200 Montgomery, Rd., Suite 11A
         Cincinnati, OH 45242
         Telephone: (513) 834-8254
         E-mail: brad@gibsonemploymentlaw.com
                 brian@gibsonemploymentlaw.com



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***