CAR_Public/181211.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, December 11, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 247

                            Headlines

3M CO: 4,955 Bair Hugger Claims Filed as of Sept. 30
A-S MEDICATION: Court Enters Judgment in TCPA Suit
AAC HOLDINGS: Final Judgment Entered in Tennessee Shareholder Suit
ABBVIE INC: 3 Law Firms Vie for Lead Class Counsel Role
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Court Grants Final Approval of Jones Deal

AFFINION GROUP: Conn. Court Dismissed CUTPA Claims v. Webloyalty
AHDS Bagel: Agapito et al. Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
AHDS BAGEL: Patricio Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
AKERS BIOSCIENCES: Still Defends Faulkner Class Lawsuit in N.J.
AKERS BIOSCIENCES: Still Faces Gleason Class Action in N.J.

AKORN INC: Continues to Defend Joshi Living Trust Class Suit
ALABAMA: Ct. Reverses Certification of Individual-Capacities Claims
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Lu Sues over Share Price Drop
ALLTRAN EDUCATION: Proctor Sues over Debt Collection Practices
ALTICE USA: Faces O'Neill Securities Suit over IPO, Fin'l Report

ALTICE USA: Jan. 18 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
AMERICAN FINANCE: Appeal in Maryland Class Action Still Pending
AMERICAN FINANCE: Faces Hibbard Securities Class Suit
AMN SERVICES: Cal. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Donohue Suit
AMPIO PHARMA: 2 Putative Securities Class Suits Underway

ATRIUM HEALTH: Employees File ERISA Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
ATRIUM HEALTH: Plan Doesn't Comply with ERISA, Shore et al. Say
AVANOS MEDICAL: Appeal in Bahamas Surgery Class Suit Still Pending
AVINGER INC: Court Approves Settlement in Consolidated Cal. Suit
AXA EQUITABLE: Brach Family Foundation Class Action Ongoing

AXA EQUITABLE: Still Defends O'Donnell Class Action
B RILEY FINANCIAL: Suit Against MLV & Co. Still Ongoing
BANK OZK: Wood Sues over Misleading Financial Report
BAUSCH HEALTH: Appeal in Afexa-Related Class Suit Underway
BAUSCH HEALTH: Briefing in Contact Lens Case Underway

BAUSCH HEALTH: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Canada
BAUSCH HEALTH: Continues to Defend Shower to Shower Suits in Canada
BAUSCH HEALTH: Third-Party Payor Class Suit Remains Stayed
BBX CAPITAL: Bid for Protective Order vs. BVU Pending
BBX CAPITAL: Landon et al. Class Action Underway

BBX CAPITAL: Still Defends Vacation Ownership Interests Suit
BLUE APRON: Employee File Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
BRE SELECT: Still Defends Battaglia Class Suit in E.D.N.Y.
BRIGHAM EXPLORATION: Denial of Boytim Bid to Certify Class Upheld
BROOKDALE UNIVERSITY: K.B. Seeks Medical and Funeral Expenses

BUCKEYE SHAKER: Faces Class Action Over Employees' Unpaid Wages
BUFFALO, NY: BMHA Residents Mull Class Action Over Housing Issues
CAFEPRESS INC: Beck Class Suit in Delaware Underway
CALLOOH CALLAY: Fails to Pay OT to Ironers, Rivera Suit Says
CANADA: Judge Approves '60s Scoop Class Action Legal Fees

CANCER GENETICS: Bid to Dismiss NJ Securities Suit Due Dec. 31
CARILLON TOWER: Sued for Securities Fraud, Fiduciary Duty Breach
CARLZ ZEISS: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Coleman Says
CARRIZO OIL: McLelland Seeks Unpaid Overtime
CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Court Narrows Claims in C. Harvey's CPA Suit

CENTURYLINK INC: Averts Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Appeal in Naylor Farms Class Action Underway
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: To Furnish Class Contact Info in Guzman Suit
CIRCLE K: Court Extends Deadline to File Bid for Settlement OK
CLIFFORD PICKNEY: District Court Tosses McKinney Suit

COFFEE MEETS BAGEL: Rrapo Sues over Dating Referral Services
COMCAST CABLE: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
COMMAND SECURITY: Franchi Balks at Merger Deal with Prosegur SIS
CONTRACTOR MANAGEMENT: Wage & Hour Suit Sent to Arbitration
CORIUM INTERNATIONAL: Kent Balks at Merger Deal with Gurnet Point

COVIA HOLDINGS: Awaits Court OK on Settlement of Merger Suit
CUSTOMERS BANCORP: Edelman Class Suit Dismissed
CVS HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Kentucky Class Suit for $20 Million
CVS HEALTH: Continues to Defend EpiPen ERISA Class Suit
CVS HEALTH: Still Defends Bewley and Prescott Class Suits

CVS HEALTH: Still Faces Corcoran and Podgorny Complaints
DATAWATCH CORPORATION: Scarantino Balks at Merger Deal with Altair
DAYMARK PROPERTIES: Catanzarite Law Firm Represents Investors
DEFY MEDIA: YouTube Content Creators Hit by Sudden Closure
DENMARK, SC: Faces Class Actions Over Quality of Drinking Water

DENMARK, SC: To Obtain Legal Counsel to Defend Well Class Action
DIAMONDBACK ENERGY: Files Supplemental Disclosures to Appease Suits
DISH DBS: Appeal in Krakauer Action Still Pending in 4th Cir.
DISH NETWORK: Accrues $61 Million in Relation to Krakauer Action
DITECH HOLDING: Unit Still Defends Class Suit over TCPA Violations

DITECH HOLDING: Unit Still Faces Kamimura Class Suit in Nevada
DOLLAR TREE: Snipes Bid for Pretrial Scheduling Conference Granted
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Lee Files FDCPA Suit in California
EGALET CORP: Appeal in Pennsylvania Consolidated Class Suit Stayed
ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING: Pipitone Case Dismissal Bid Pending

EZCORP INC: Still Defends Consolidated Federal Securities Lawsuit
FACEBOOK INC: May Face Class Action for Violating GDPR
FAIRFIELD INDUSTRIES: Court Narrows Claims in Senegal Suit
FAT BRANDS: Alden Class Suit Gets Merged with Rojany Case
FAT BRANDS: Bid for Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Pending in "Vignola"

FGF BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over Stonefire Naan Products
FIFTH THIRD: Appeal in Early Access Cash Advance Suit Pending
FIFTH THIRD: Approval of Damages Class Settlement Sought
FIRST SOLAR: Trial Date in Smilovits Class Suit Vacated
FLIK INT'L: Court Grants Protective Order in Clarke FLSA Suit

GANNETT CO: Clark TCPA Suit Remanded to Ill. State Court
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Sued over Microwave Oven Paint Peeling Problem
GENERATIONS HEALTHCARE: Wins Bid to Decertify Class of HHAs
GETSWIFT: Judge Upholds Ruling in Class Action Over Disclosures
GILEAD SCIENCES: Sued for Allegedly Withholding HIV Drug

GOLDSTONE FINANCIAL: Sued over Sales of Unregistered Securities
GOOD GUY: Faces Parent Suit in New Jersey Superior Court
GREENSKY INC: Faces Securities Class Action Over May 2018 IPO
HEALTH INSURANCE: District Court Junks Moser Discovery Requests
HELIX ENERGY: Hernandez Conditional Class Certification Bid OK'd

HOME CARE: Wilkins Seeks Overtime Compensation
HORTONWORKS INC: Plumley Balks at Merger Deal with Cloudera
HUGOTON ROYALTY: Final Settlement Hearing Set for March 2019
ILLINOIS: Buck Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit
INDIANA UNIVERSITY: TRO Bid in Thomas Partly OK'd

INFORMED ELECTORATE: Robinson Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
INTERGLOBO NORTH: Genova Burns Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
INVESTMENTS LIMITED: Sued over Mishandling of Security Deposits
INVITATION HOMES: Faces Class Action in California Over Late Fees
IPIC ENTERTAINMENT: Still Defends Ryan-Nielson Class Suit

J.S.P. LIFE: Tackie Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
JAGUAR HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Tony Plant's Class Suit Underway
JONES FINANCIAL: Anderson Class Action Still Ongoing
JONES FINANCIAL: Class Action over 401(k) Plan Ongoing
JONES FINANCIAL: Settlement Accounting in "White" Set for Jan. 2019

JONES MOTOR: 7th Cir. Tosses Daley Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction
LADENBURG THALMANN: Still Defends Class Suits vs. ARCP in New York
LEXINGTON LAW: Starace Sues over Debiting of Bank Accounts
LI YA NAIL: Mengni Sun Seeks Overtime Compensation
LINCOLN ELECTRIC: Slaughter Seeks Overtime Pay

LM FUNDING: Solaris Class Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval
MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: Amended Freedman Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
MAHABIR ENTERPRISES: Underpays Waitresses, Acteopan et al. Claim
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit in D.C.
MARTIN COUNTY, FL: Randolph at al. Suit Wins Class Certification

MAXIMUS INC: Appeal in Virginia Class Action Pending
MDL 2624: $8.3MM Settlement in Lenovo Adware Suit Has Prelim OK
MDL 2785: West Va. State Law Claims in Antitrust Suit Dismissed
MENLO THERAPEUTICS: Faces Savelstrov Securities Class Action
MERCK & CO: Snell Sues over Zostavax Vaccine

MGT CAPITAL: Faces 2 Class Suits Alleging Pump-and-Dump Scheme
MIDLAND CREDIT: Padron Sues over Debt Collections Practices
MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL: Court Dismisses FLSA Claims in Cress Suit
MOVIEPASS INC: Tabas et al. Allege Fraud and Breach of Contract
MUSEUM OF SEX: Website not Accessible to Blind, Figueroa Says

MY SIZE: Suit Against Lightcom Dismissed
MYLAN NV: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended N.Y. Securities Suit Pending
MYLAN NV: Still Defends Antitrust Lawsuits Over Various Products
NAMASTE TECHNOLOGIES: Sued over Misleading Financial Report
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC: Faces Nixon ADA Class Suit in NY

NATIONAL VISION: Amended Complaint Filed in Suit vs. FirstSight
NATIONWIDE EXPRESS: Omar et al Seek Overtime Pay
NEW JERSEY: Wahab Appeals D.N.J. Ruling to Third Circuit
NFL: Court Won't Review Ruling in New England Patriot Fans' Suit
NIRANJAN MITTAL: Rhoden Seeks Wages for Nurses & Technicians

NLFIC: Failed to Reimburse Medicare Payments, MSP Recovery Says
NOVUS THERAPEUTICS: Wu v. Tokai Class Suit Underway
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Agreement in Principle Entered in McWhorter Suit
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Appeal in Carvelli Class Suit Pending
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Directed to Pay $53K to Claims Administrator

OCWEN FINANCIAL: TCPA Class Action in Illinois Still Ongoing
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Pretrial & Settlement Conference on Dec. 11
OVASCIENCE INC: Adlard and Wheby Securities Class Suits Filed
PANDORA MEDIA: Dawson Balks at Merger Deal with Sirius XM
PANDORA MEDIA: Richard Irvin Balks at Merger Deal with Sirius

PANDORA MEDIA: Staab Balks at Merger Deal with Sirius
PAPA JOHN'S: Investors' Class Action Underway in New York
PC SHIELD: Court Won't Certify TCPA Suit
PDC ENERGY: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Dufresne Class Suit
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Ct. Partly Grants Bid for Judgment on Pleadings

POULIN VENTURES: Meneses Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages
PREMIUM DESTINATIONS: Sued over Unwanted Calls & Text Messages
PROTHENA CORP: Two Securities Class Suits Consolidated
QUALITY SYSTEMS: Court Approves Settlement in Securities Fraud Suit
QWEST CORP: Sales Practices Suit v. CenturyLink Ongoing

RCR TOMLINSON: Faces Class Action in Australia Over Share Drop
RITE AID: District Court Dismisses Josten Lawsuit
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Merits Discovery in Deka Suit Still Stayed
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Settlement in Parmelee Suit Wins Initial Okay
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Discovery Ongoing in Baker Class Suit

SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Trial in Anderson Suit Set for Oct. 2019
SECURUS TECH: Robert Teel Appointed Class Counsel in Romero Suit
SELECT INCOME: Schwartz Sues over Misleading Report, Merger
SEPHORA USA: Sued over Storage of Biometrics Information
SERENDIPITY 3: Website not Accessible to Blind, Garey Says

SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Oregon Civil Servants Sue Over Union Fees
SOLID BIOSCIENCES: Watkins Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
SOUTHSTAR LLC: Thomas Seeks Overtime Pay
SPAR GROUP: Appeal in Hogan Suit Pending
SPITZER INDUSTRIES: Court Denies Bid to Alter Judgment in Sarabia

SUMMIT RETAIL: Modeski Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts
SUNPOWER CORP: Court Dismisses Shareholder Derivative Suit
SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Dist. Court Dismisses Jones FDCPA Suit
TANDEM CORP: Telecommunications Subcontractors File Class Action
TANGOE INC: Court Junks Bid to Dismiss Sciabacucchi Suit

TECHNIPFMC PLC: Still Defends Prause Shareholder Class Suit
TECOGEN INC: Judgment on Pleadings in Vardakas Suit Pending
TESLA INC: Inter-Local Pension Fund Sues over Model 3 Production
TIGER NATURAL: Court Allows 2nd Amended Answer in Fishman Suit
TIGER NATURAL: Ct. Partly OK's Fishman Bid for Discovery Sanctions

TIGER NATURAL: Fishman Bid for Class Certification Partly Granted
TIVITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Weiner Class Action Suit Ongoing
TOTAL SYSTEM: Unit Still Defends Telexfree Securities Litigation
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING: Underpays Traffic Control Workers, Suit Says
TRINITY HEATING: Womble Bond Attorney Discusses Court Ruling

TRUSTMARK CORP: TNB Still Faces Class Suit over Stanford Financial
TURTLE BEACH: Shareholders Class Action Trial Set for Nov. 2019
UNIT CORP: Chieftain Royalty Class Suit Ongoing in Oklahoma
UNIT CORP: Cockerell Oil Properties Class Action Ongoing
UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Remands Immigrant Bond Hearing Suit

UNITED STATES: Class Certification Sought in Case v. Transport Dept
VECTRUS INC: Settlement in Employee Suit Gets Final Approval
VEREIT INC: Trial in ARCP Litigation to Begin Sept. 2019
VICTOR'S CAFE: Vasquez Seeks Unpaid Wages
VISA U.S.A.: Rochin Sues over Multiple Debiting of Bank Accounts

VITAL PHARMCEUTICALS: Faces Class Action Over Bang Energy Drinks
VIVINT SOLAR: Continues to Defend Power Purchase-Related Class Suit
WELLS FARGO: Judge Orders Class to Amend Claims in Consumer Suit
WELLS FARGO: Lawsuits over Retail Sales Practices Ongoing
WELLS FARGO: Still Defends Automobile Lending Related Suit

WELLS FARGO: Still Defends Mortgage Rate Lock Extension Fees Suit
WILLIAMS INDUSTRIAL: Budde Plaintiffs Seek Appeal from Nixed Suit
ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Class Suit over Symbol Acquisition Concluded
ZESTFINANCE INC: Court Stays Titus Suit Pending Appeal
ZICAM LLC: Court Approves Stipulation of Settlement in Melgar Suit

ZILLOW GROUP: Wins Dismissal of Consolidated Class Action
ZOE'S KITCHEN: Continues to Defend Four Class Suits

                            *********

3M CO: 4,955 Bair Hugger Claims Filed as of Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that as of September 30, 2018, the
Company is a named defendant in lawsuits involving approximately
4,955 plaintiffs (compared to approximately 4,270 plaintiffs at
December 31, 2017) who allege the Bair Hugger(TM) patient warming
system caused a surgical site infection. Nearly all of the lawsuits
are pending in federal court in Minnesota.

The plaintiffs claim they underwent various joint arthroplasty,
cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later developed surgical
site infections due to the use of the Bair Hugge(TM) patient
warming system (the Bair Hugge(TM) product line was acquired by 3M
as part of the 2010 acquisition of Arizant, Inc., a leading
manufacturer of patient warming solutions designed to prevent
hypothermia and maintain normal body temperature in surgical
settings).

The complaints seek damages and other relief based on theories of
strict liability, negligence, breach of express and implied
warranties, failure to warn, design and manufacturing defect,
fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation/concealment, unjust
enrichment, and violations of various state consumer fraud,
deceptive or unlawful trade practices and/or false advertising
acts.

One case, from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee is a putative nationwide class action. The U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) granted the plaintiffs'
motion to transfer and consolidate all cases pending in federal
courts to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to
be managed in a multi-district proceeding during the pre-trial
phase of the litigation.

In 2017, the U.S. District Court and the Minnesota state courts
denied the plaintiffs' motions to amend their complaints to add
claims for punitive damages. At a joint hearing before the U.S.
District Court and the Minnesota State court, on the parties'
motion to exclude each other's experts, and 3M's motion for summary
judgment with respect to general causation, the federal court did
not exclude the plaintiffs' experts and denied 3M's motion for
summary judgment on general causation.

In January 2018, the state court, in hearing the same arguments,
excluded plaintiffs' experts and granted 3M's motion for summary
judgment on general causation, dismissing all 61 cases pending
before the state court in Minnesota. Plaintiffs have appealed that
ruling and the state court's punitive damages ruling, and oral
argument before the Minnesota Court of Appeals is scheduled in
November 2018. In April 2018, the federal court partially granted
3M's motion for summary judgment in the first bellwether case,
leaving for trial a claim for strict liability based upon design
defect. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for negligence,
failure to warn, and common law and statutory fraud.

In the trial of the first bellwether case in May 2018, the jury
returned a unanimous verdict in 3M's favor finding that the Bair
Hugger(TM) patient warming system was not defective and was not the
cause of the plaintiff's injury.

3M Company operates as a diversified technology company worldwide.
The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul,
Minnesota.


A-S MEDICATION: Court Enters Judgment in TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for entry of judgment in the case, PHYSICIANS
HEALTHSOURCE, INC., individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. A-S MEDICATION
SOLUTIONS LLC and WALTER HOFF, Defendants, Case No. 12C5105 (N.D.
Ill.).

The TCPA case involves unsolicited advertisements sent by fax.
Physicians Healthsource filed the case in state court in May 2012,
and the Defendants removed it to federal court in June 2012.  On
Sept. 27, 2016, the judge to whom the case was previously assigned
certified a Plaintiff class consisting of those who were
successfully sent the advertisement between Feb. 10 and Feb. 28,
2010.  In mid-October 2017, the case was transferred to Judge
Kennelly.

On Aug. 21, 2018, the Court granted summary judgment for the
Plaintiff class on the question of liability; the class did not
move for summary judgment on damages.  It concluded that the fax
was an unsolicited advertisement within the meaning of the TCPA;
the Defendants sent it using a computer; and it was successfully
delivered to 11,422 fax numbers.  This left only the issue of
whether the class would seek treble damages for willful or knowing
violations of the TCPA or instead would seek the fixed statutory
damages amount of $500 under 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3).  The
Court set the case for a December trial date on any remaining
issues.

On Oct. 25, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a statement saying that they
are not seeking damages for willful or knowing violations and are
instead seeking the statutory amount of $500 per fax.  They then
filed a motion for entry of judgment, saying that no issues remain
to be tried to the Court.

The Plaintiffs request entry of a judgment in the amount of
$5,709,000, representing 11,418 violations (4 class members opted
out) at $500 per violation, to be paid into the Court's registry as
security for payment to the class members.  They propose to
thereafter submit a petition for attorney's fees, expenses, and an
incentive award for the named Plaintiff.  Once those matters are
adjudicated, the Plaintiffs say, they will submit a plan for
distribution, which will involve having a claims administrator send
notice to the class members to allow them to turn down the money or
provide updated information to facilitate distribution.

The Defendants object.  They say that before any judgment may be
entered, there must be an opportunity for individualized challenges
to claims of the purported class members.  Specifically, they say
that they want to be able to challenge the class members who lack
standing or the right to recover.

Judge Kennelly finds that there are records, which are not subject
to legitimate dispute, showing the names and fax numbers of those
to whom the fax at issue in the case was sent.  These records
served as the basis for sending notice to the members of the class
following entry of the class certification order.  In short, there
is no mystery regarding the identity of the fax recipients/class
members; the named recipients are the ones who are entitled to
recover damages.  No further process to determine the "right"
recipients is needed prior to entry of judgment.

He also notes that the Defendants did not oppose the Plaintiffs'
proposal, approved by the judge to whom the case was previously
assigned, to send notice of the pendency of the class action and
certification of the class to the persons and entities named on the
very same list, and only to them.  If they had a legitimate
objection that the class actually included more persons than the
named recipients, that -- not now -- was the time to assert it. By
failing to do so then, the Defendants forfeited the point.  But
even if they did not, their contention lacks meri.

The appropriate procedure, at this point, the Judge finds, is the
one specifically approved in Holtzman v. Turza ("Holtzman 1"):
entry of a judgment requiring the defendants to pay the statutory
damages award of $500 per class member into the Court's registry.
The Judge will then determine attorney's fees and expenses, taxable
costs, and a proposed incentive award for the named Plaintiff, as
well as a plan for distribution of damages-- net of these amounts
-- to the class members.  He notes in this regard that it is clear
that any distribution of fees to the class counsel must be based on
funds that are actually distributed, not on the total amount
deposited by defendants.  The reason is that the TCPA is not a
fee-shifting statute.

Although the matter of attorney's fees (specifically, the amount)
must be determined before distribution, the Judge holds he needs
not decide it before entry of judgment.  As is the case generally,
determination of attorney's fees is collateral to the merits, and
is dealt with following entry of judgment.

Finally, there is a reasonable likelihood that not all of the class
members will actually claim their recovery.  The Judge will
determine that point when it rules on any proposed plan for
distribution or, perhaps, once there is a better idea of how much
there is in the way of unclaimed funds.

In sum, Judge Kennelly vacated the ruling date of Nov. 28, 2018,
and granted the Plaintiffs' motion for entry of judgment.  He
directed the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the
Plaintiff class and against the Defendants, jointly and severally,
in the amount of $5,709,000, and directing the Defendants to
deposit that sum into the registry of the Court by no later than
Dec. 19, 2018.  The Plaintiffs are given until Dec. 19, 2018, to
file a petition for attorney's fees and expenses and any request
for an incentive award -- all of which will come out of the amount
of the judgment as previously stated.

Also by Dec. 19, 2018, the Plaintiffs are to file a proposed plan
for distribution of any amounts deposited pursuant to the judgment.
The only amount recoverable over and above the judgment amount
consists of taxable costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54(d) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1920.  Any bill of costs must be filed
by Dec. 19, 2018.

The case is set for a status hearing on Dec. 20, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.,
at which time the Court will set a schedule for any further
briefing that is appropriate on the matters of attorney's fees and
expenses, incentive awards, and taxable costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 27, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/Za7YwP from Leagle.com.

Physicians Healthsource, Inc., an Ohio corporation, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Wanca --
bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, Jeffrey Alan Berman
-- jberman@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson Wanca, Ross Michael Good
-- rgood@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson Wanca, Ryan M. Kelly-
rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca & Wallace Cyril
Solberg -- wsolberg@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson Wanca.

A-S Medication Solutions LLC & Walter Hoff, Defendants, represented
by Eric L. Samore -- esamore@salawus.com --  Smith Amundsen LLC,
Michael F. Coyle, Fraser Stryker Pc Llc, 409 S 17th St #500, Omaha,
NE 68102, USA pro hac vice, Albert M. Bower -- abower@salawus.com
-- Smith Amundsen LLC, Robert W. Futhey --
rfuthey@fraserstryker.com  -- Fraser Stryker Pc Llo, pro hac vice &
Yesha Sutaria Hoeppner -- yhoeppner@salawus.com --  Smithamundsen
LLC.

Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. & Allscripts Healthcare, LLC,
Movants, represented by Livia McCammon Kiser -- LKISER@SIDLEY.COM
-- Sidley Austin LLP.


AAC HOLDINGS: Final Judgment Entered in Tennessee Shareholder Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
AAC Holdings, 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 entered
an order and final judgment in the consolidated class action suit
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee,
consistent with the terms of the parties' Stipulation of
Settlement.

On August 24, 2015, 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 current and former
officers (Kasper v. AAC Holdings, Inc. et al.).

The plaintiff generally alleged that the Company and certain of its
current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading
statements and failing to disclose certain information.

On September 14, 2015, a second class action against the same
defendants asserting essentially the same allegations was filed in
the same court (Tenzyk v. AAC Holdings, Inc. et al.).

On October 26, 2015, the court entered an order consolidating these
two described actions into one action. On April 14, 2016, the
Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim. On July 1, 2016, the court
denied the motion to dismiss.

On July 14, 2017, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. On December 28, 2017, the parties entered into
a settlement term sheet with the plaintiffs' representatives to
memorialize an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. On
February 15, 2018, the parties entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement, consistent with the December 28, 2017 agreement in
principle, that provided for defendants' payment of an aggregate
settlement amount of $25,000,000 (which includes attorneys' fees to
be approved by the court) to establish a settlement fund (the
"Settlement Fund").

The Stipulation of Settlement provides that the Settlement Fund was
to be funded as follows: (a) defendant Jerrod N. Menz will sell
300,000 shares and contribute the cash derived from such sale(s) to
the Settlement Fund; and (b) the Company and individual defendants
will pay in cash the difference, if any, between the Settlement
Fund and the stock component addressed in (a).

The Stipulation of Settlement includes the dismissal of all claims
against the Company and the individual defendants, a denial by
defendants of any wrongdoing and no admission of liability.

On March 7, 2018, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement. On March 23, 2018, the Company paid the
full amount of the Settlement Fund and is preserving its claim to
recover the 300,000 shares that Jerrod N. Menz was supposed to
contribute. On June 11, 2018, the court entered an order and final
judgment consistent with the terms of the parties' Stipulation of
Settlement.

AAC Holdings, Inc. provides inpatient and outpatient substance use
treatment services for individuals with drug addiction, alcohol
addiction, and co-occurring mental/behavioral health issues in the
United States. Its therapy services include motivational
interviewing, cognitive behavioral therapy, rational emotive
behavior therapy, dialectical behavioral therapy, solution-focused
therapy, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, and
systematic family intervention. AAC Holdings, Inc. was founded in
2014 and is headquartered in Brentwood, Tennessee.


ABBVIE INC: 3 Law Firms Vie for Lead Class Counsel Role
-------------------------------------------------------
Lauraann Wood, writing for Law360, reports that three law firms
representing investors suing AbbVie Inc. in a proposed class action
over its allegedly illegal strategy to market its blockbuster drug
Humira have each asked an Illinois federal judge to lead the suit.
[GN]


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Court Grants Final Approval of Jones Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Western Division, issued a Judgment granting Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned
Samantha Jones, Plaintiff, v. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co.;
Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Inc., Defendants. Case No. CV 15-00105
JGB (Ex). (C.D. Cal.).

The Court awards the following:

   -- Class Counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of $2,400,000;

   -- Class Counsel costs in the amount of $43,323.69; and

   -- $10,000.00 to Plaintiffs Jones and Grob.

The Court orders the payment of $37,500.00 to the California Labor
and Workforce Development Agency and $154,500 to the claims
administrator.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 19, 2018 Judgment
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb7plyag from Leagle.com.

Samantha Jones, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Marc H. Phelps --
marc@phelpslawgroup.com -- The Phelps Law Group, Bianca A. Sofonio
-- bianca@carterlawfirm.net -- The Carter Law Firm, Diana M. Khoury
-- Ikhoury@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury and Singer, Isam C. Khoury
-- Ikhoury@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury and Singer, Michael D.
Singer -- msinger@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury and Singer & Roger
Richard Carter, The Carter Law Firm.

Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co., an Ohio corporation, Defendant,
represented by Mark D. Kemple -- kemplem@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg
Traurig LLP & Ryan Christopher Bykerk -- bykerkr@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig LLP.

Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Inc, Defendant, represented by Douglas
R. Young -- dyoung@fbm.com -- Farella Braun and Martel LLP, Mark D.
Kemple, Greenberg Traurig LLP & Ryan Christopher Bykerk, Greenberg
Traurig LLP.


AFFINION GROUP: Conn. Court Dismissed CUTPA Claims v. Webloyalty
----------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group 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 the Court in the Webloyalty
suit has entered summary judgment for defendants on the Electronic
Funds Transfer Act (EFT) claim, declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act
(CUTPA) claim, and dismissed the CUTPA claim without prejudice.

On August 27, 2010, a former member of Webloyalty's membership
programs filed a putative class action lawsuit against Webloyalty,
one of its former clients, and one of the credit card associations
in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
(the "Connecticut District Court").

The plaintiff alleged that Webloyalty's enrollment of the plaintiff
using debit card information obtained from a third party via data
pass, and not directly from the plaintiff, was deceptive.  The
Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers whose
credit or debit card data was transferred to Webloyalty via data
pass on or after October 1, 2008.

The complaint, which was amended several times, asserted, among
others, claims for violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act
("EFT"), the ECPA, and CUTPA as well as other common law claims.

On October 15, 2015, the Connecticut District Court entered
judgment dismissing all claims with prejudice.  The plaintiff
appealed that judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit").  On December 20, 2016,
the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court of Connecticut's
dismissal in part, but reversed and remanded the dismissal of
claims against Webloyalty and its former client under CUTPA and the
EFT.

The defendants have answered the remaining counts of the complaint
and denied any liability.  The defendants have also filed a motion
for judgment on the pleadings on the Plaintiff's CUTPA claim, and
for summary judgment on his EFT claim.

On October 26, 2018, the Court entered summary judgment for
defendants on the EFT claim, declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the CUTPA claim, and dismissed the CUTPA claim
without prejudice.  The Court also directed the clerk to close the
file.

Affinion Group, Inc. designs, administers, and fulfills loyalty,
customer engagement, and insurance programs and solutions. The
company operates through four segments: Global Loyalty, Global
Customer Engagement, Insurance Solutions, and Legacy Membership and
Package. The company is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.
Affinion Group, Inc. is a subsidiary of Affinion Group Holdings,
Inc.


AHDS Bagel: Agapito et al. Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned ADOLFO PATRICIO AGAPITO AND JOSE
FRANCISCO REQUELME PLIEGO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. AHDS BAGEL LLC (d/b/a PICK
A BAGEL), 1101 BAGEL CORP. (d/b/a PICK A BAGEL), ARIEY NUSSBAUM,
AVI SHARABANI and HAIM WYSOKI, the Defendants, Case
No.:1:16-cv-08170, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn) on Nov 20, 2018. The
Eastern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:18-cv-06620-CBA-RLM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Carol Bagley Amon. The suit alleges Defendants
denied overtime compensation.

AHDS Bagel is in the retail bakeries industry in New York, NY.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Joshua S. Androphy, Esq.
          Marisol Santos, Esq.
          Paul Hershan, Esq.
          Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: jandrophy@faillacelaw.com
                  msantos@faillacelaw.com
                  phershan@faillacelaw.com
                  faillace@employmentcompliance.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Christopher Robert Travis, Esq.
          TRAVIS LAW PLLC
          1 Penn Plaza, Suite 2430
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 248-2120
          Facsimile: (212) 382-0920
          E-mail: crt@ctravislaw.com

               - and -

          Lawrence F. Morrison, Esq.
          MORRISON TENENBAUM PLLC
          87 Walker Street, Floor 2
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 620-0938
          Facsimile: (646) 998-1972
          E-mail: lmorrison@m-t-law.com

               - and -

          Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
          261 Madison Ave., 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (646) 342-2019
          Facsimile: (646) 661-1317
          robert@kraselnik.com

AHDS BAGEL: Patricio Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned MAXIMO PATRICIO, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AHDS
BAGEL LLC (d/b/a PICK A BAGEL), 1101 BAGEL CORP. (d/b/a PICK A
BAGEL), ARIEY NUSSBAUM, ISLAM ABBAS (a/k/a SAMMY), and HAIM WYSOKI,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04127, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the
U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn) on Nov.
20, 2018. The Eastern District of New York Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:18-cv-06621-AMD-VMS to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Ann M. Donnelly. The suit alleges Fair
Labor Standards Act violation.

AHDS Bagel LLC is in the retail bakeries industry in New York,
NY.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Joshua S. Androphy, Esq.
          Marisol Santos, Esq.
          Paul Hershan, Esq.
          Sara Jacqueline Isaacson, Esq.
          Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: jandrophy@faillacelaw.com
                  msantos@faillacelaw.com
                  phershan@faillacelaw.com
                  sisaacson@faillacelaw.com
                  faillace@employmentcompliance.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Christopher Robert Travis, Esq.
          TRAVIS LAW PLLC
          1 Penn Plaza, Suite 2430
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 248-2120
          Facsimile: (212) 382-0920
          E-mail: crt@ctravislaw.com

               - and -

          Lawrence F. Morrison, Esq.
          MORRISON TENENBAUM PLLC
          87 Walker Street, Floor 2
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 620-0938
          Facsimile: (646) 998-1972
          E-mail: lmorrison@m-t-law.com

AKERS BIOSCIENCES: Still Defends Faulkner Class Lawsuit in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Akers Biosciences, 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 continues to defend itself in the
class action suit styled Faulkner v. Akers Biosciences, Inc., No.
2:18-cv-10521 (D.N.J.).

On June 13, 2018, Plaintiff Tim Faulkner filed a class action
complaint alleging securities violations against Akers Biosciences,
Inc. ("Akers"), John J. Gormally, and Gary M. Rauch ("Individual
Defendants") (together with Akers, "Defendants") on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased publicly traded Akers securities
from May 15, 2017 through June 5, 2018.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 against all Defendants, and violations of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual
Defendants.  In particular, the complaint alleges that Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
in its first, second, and third quarter 2017 10-Qs and its 2017
10-K that: (1) Akers was improperly recognizing revenue for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017; and, (2) Akers had downplayed
weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting and
failed to disclose the true extent of those weaknesses.

On July 10, 2018, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a
stipulation that Defendants are not required to respond to the
complaint until the court appoints a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel for the class, and then after the lead plaintiff chooses
whether to file an amended complaint or whether to designate the
complaint as the operative complaint.

Akers Bio develops, manufactures, and supplies rapid, point-of-care
screening and testing products designed to bring health-related
information directly to the patient or clinician in a timely and
cost-efficient manner. The company is based in Thorofare, New
Jersey.


AKERS BIOSCIENCES: Still Faces Gleason Class Action in N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Akers Biosciences, 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 a defendant in the class
action styled Gleason v. Akers Biosciences, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-10805
(D.N.J.).

On June 20, 2018, Plaintiff David Gleason filed a class action
complaint alleging securities violations against Akers Biosciences,
Inc. ("Akers"), John J. Gormally, and Gary M. Rauch ("Individual
Defendants") (together with Akers, "Defendants") on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased publicly traded Akers securities
from May 15, 2017 through June 5, 2018.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 against all Defendants, and violations of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual
Defendants.  In particular, the complaint alleges that Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
in its first, second, and third quarter 2017 10-Qs and its 2017
10-K that: (1) Akers was improperly recognizing revenue for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017; and, (2) Akers had downplayed
weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting and
failed to disclose the true extent of those weaknesses.

No Defendant has been served yet, and no response is due at this
time.

Akers Bio develops, manufactures, and supplies rapid, point-of-care
screening and testing products designed to bring health-related
information directly to the patient or clinician in a timely and
cost-efficient manner. The company is based in Thorofare, New
Jersey.


AKORN INC: Continues to Defend Joshi Living Trust Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Akorn, 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, Joshi Living Trust v.
Akorn, Inc. et al.

On March 8, 2018, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint entitled Joshi Living Trust v.
Akorn, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint names as defendants the Company, Chief Executive
Officer Rajat Rai, Chief Financial Officer Duane Portwood and Chief
Accounting Officer Randall Pollard. The complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false or misleading statements and/or
material omissions by failing to disclose sooner the existence of
investigations into data integrity at the Company. The Complaint
seeks, among other things, an award of damages, attorneys' fees and
expenses. The Company disputes these claims.

On May 24, 2018, the Court ordered that the lead plaintiff file an
amended complaint not later than September 5, 2018, that defendants
respond to the amended complaint by November 5, 2018. On May 31,
2018, the Court issued an order appointing Gabelli & Co. Investment
Advisors, Inc. and Gabelli Funds, LLC as lead plaintiffs pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), and
approving their selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel.

On June 14, 2018, lead plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the PSLRA
stay of discovery. On June 22, 2018, the Company filed a memorandum
in opposition to the motion to lift the PSLRA stay. On June 26,
2018, the Court denied the motion to lift the PSLRA stay, subject
to entry of a preservation order. On September 5, 2018, lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Defendants' deadline to
respond to the amended complaint is November 5, 2018.

Akorn, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, and markets generic and branded prescription
pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter (OTC) consumer health products,
and animal health pharmaceuticals in the United States and
internationally. The company operates in two segments, Prescription
Pharmaceuticals and Consumer Health. The company was founded in
1971 and is headquartered in Lake Forest, Illinois.


ALABAMA: Ct. Reverses Certification of Individual-Capacities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lyn Stuart of the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed in part
and reversed in part the Madison Circuit Court's order certifying
the class in the case, Deborah Barnhart, Brooke Balch, and Vickie
Henderson, individually and in their official capacities as
officers of the Alabama Space Science Exhibit Commission, v. Janice
Ingalls, Milton Parker, and Kamara Bowling Davis, Case No. 1170253
(Ala.).

Barnhart, Balch, and Henderson, current and former officers of the
Alabama Space Science Exhibit Commission, petition the Court for a
writ of mandamus directing the Madison Circuit Court to dismiss the
claims asserted against them in the class action or, in the
alternative, to vacate its order certifying those claims for
class-action treatment.

The Commission was created as a State agency in 1965 by the Alabama
Legislature to provide for and manage facilities to house and
display such visual exhibits of space exploration and hardware used
therefor as may be made available by the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.  In accordance with that purpose, the
Commission opened the U.S. Space & Rocket Center in March 1970 and,
since that time, has continued to operate the popular museum and
learning center in Huntsville.  At the time the action was
initiated, the Commission employed approximately 120 individuals at
the Rocket Center.

The Commission is required by law to maintain records of its
revenue and expenditures and to periodically make those records
available for audit by the Department of Examiners of Public
Accounts ("DEPA").  During the summer of 2013, DEPA conducted a
financial and compliance audit of the Commission's records for the
period spanning October 2007 through September 2012.  In October
2013, DEPA representatives met with certain Commission
representatives -- including Barnhart, the CEO, and Balch, the VP
of finance -- to discuss the findings of the audit.  Among those
findings were the conclusions that the Commission had not complied
with Alabama law (1) in its payment of annual longevity bonuses to
Commission employees and (2) in the manner it compensated
Commission employees for working on certain State holidays.

DEPA concluded that the Commission had not been complying with
Section 36-6-11(a) inasmuch as it had not increased the annual
longevity bonuses paid to Commission employees in those years in
which the Commission employees did not receive cost-of-living
raises, and it accordingly recommended that the Commission
re-compute longevity pay for each employee for all years in which
they were qualified to receive longevity pay for reason of not
having received a cost of living pay increase and the Commission
should pay the employees the total amount ofall underpayments due
them.

With regard to the compensation of Commission employees who worked
on State holidays, DEPA noted Section 1-3-8, Ala. Code 1975 and  
Subsection 1-3-8(e).  In practice, however, the Commission observed
only seven of the State holidays, and DEPA accordingly deemed the
Commission to be out of compliance with Section 1-3-8.  To become
compliant, DEPA recommended that the Commission observe all the
holidays enumerated in Section 1-3-8 and that it begin providing
compensatory leave or appropriate paid compensation to employees
working on those holidays.

In January 2014, DEPA released the Commission audit to the public,
at which time Commission employees became aware of the findings
regarding their benefits.  The Commission representatives,
including Barnhart and Henderson, the vice president of human
resources, thereafter held a meeting open to all Commission
employees at which they stated that they had reviewed the audit and
that they disagreed with its findings but that any changes that
were required would be made.  No changes were made, however, and on
Oct. 16, 2015, several former Commission employees sued the
Commission and the Commission officers, alleging that the
plaintiffs, as well as other past and present Commission employees,
had not received all the compensation to which they were entitled
during their tenures as Commission employees.

The instant action was initially filed in the Montgomery Circuit
Court but was subsequently transferred to the Madison Circuit
Court.  As amended on March 10, 2017, the complaint filed by the
former employees of the Commission alleged that they had not been
paid the amount of longevity bonuses to which they were entitled
when they were Commission employees and that they had not been
properly compensated for working on State holidays that were not
observed at the Rocket Center.

The named Plaintiffs accordingly asserted claims against the
Commission officers in their official capacities seeking (1) a
judgment declaring that the Commission's existing policies and
compensation plan did not comply with the plain terms of the
benefits statutes ("declaratory-relief claim"); (2) an injunction
requiring the Commission officers to henceforth comply with those
statutes ("prospective-relief claim"); and (3) an award ofall
moneys previously earned but not paid because of the failure to
comply with the benefits statutes ("retrospective-relief claim").
They also asserted negligence/wantonness and
breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims against the Commission officers in
their individual capacities ("individual-capacities claims").

As directed by the trial court, the parties engaged in discovery
related solely to the issue of class certification, and, on June
23, 2017, the named Plaintiffs formally moved for class
certification of their claims.  The Commission officers opposed
that motion, arguing that class certification was inappropriate,
while also moving the trial court to enter a summary judgment in
their favor on immunity, standing, and statute-of-limitations
grounds.  The trial court initially scheduled a hearing on the
class-certification and summary-judgment motions for the same day;
however, after the named Plaintiffs objected to the trial court's
considering the Commission officers' "merit-based defenses" before
ruling on their motion for class certification, the trial court
instructed the parties that it would not consider the Commission
officers' summary-judgment motion until the class-certification
issue was decided.

On Nov. 17, 2017, the trial court partially granted the named
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  Specifically, the
trial court certified for class-action treatment (1) the
declaratory-relief claim; (2) the retrospective-relief claim; and
(3) the individual-capacities claims.  It declined, however, to
certify the prospective-relief claim because none of the named
Plaintiffs were current employees of the Commission and because
they might, to the detriment of current Commission employees,
accordingly be motivated to focus on recovering past damages as
opposed to obtaining prospective injunctive relief that would not
directly benefit them.

On Dec. 27, 2017, the Commission officers petitioned the Court for
a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate its order
certifying the class and to instead enter an order in favor of the
Commission officers dismissing the named Plaintiffs' claims.  On
March 21, 2018, the Court stayed proceedings in the trial court
pending a final decision on the Commission officers' petition and
ordered the named Plaintiffs to file an answer to the Commission
officers' arguments.

Judge Stuart finds that the named Plaintiffs' retrospective-relief
claim is not barred by Section 14.  Ifit is ultimately determined
that the named Plaintiffs should have received additional
compensation pursuant to the benefit statutes, the Commission
officers had a legal duty to make those payments all along, and in
finally doing so they are merely performing a ministerial act.

Next, the Judge finds that it is clear from the named Plaintiffs'
statement of their individual-capacities claims that the duties
allegedly breached by the Commission officers were owed to the
putative class members only because of the positions the Commission
officers held and that the Commission officers were, accordingly,
acting only in their official capacities when they allegedly
breached those duties by failing to give effect to the benefit
statutes.  Accordingly, the individual-capacities claims are, in
effect, claims against the State that are barred by Section 14.
The nature of the individual-capacities claims requires this
holding, and any previous decisions of the Court containing
language indicating that the State immunity afforded by Section 14
cannot apply when monetary damages are being sought from State
officers in their individual capacities are overruled to the extent
they support that proposition.

The Judge then finds that although it is true that the named
Plaintiffs would receive no benefit from an injunction requiring
the Commission to henceforth abide by the benefits statutes because
they no longer work for the Commission, they would benefit from a
declaration that the Commission is bound by the benefits statutes
because only then can they prevail on their retrospective-relief
claim.  The named Plaintiffs accordingly have a concrete stake in
the declaratory-relief claim and standing to pursue it, and they
have established that they can adequately represent the interests
of other class members, whether current or former employees of the
Commission, with regard to the retrospective-relief claim and the
declaratory-relief claim.

She further finds that the trial court did not exceed its
discretion in concluding that the named Plaintiffs met the
requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b).  Accordingly, in the
absence of any specific argument that might indicate the trial
court erred, the Judge affirms the trial court's certification of
the retrospective-relief claim pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3).

Finally, the Judge finds the Commission officers have not
established that the named Plaintiffs' retrospective-relief and
declaratory-relief claims are barred by the doctrine of State
immunity set forth in Section 14, and the trial court did not err
by not dismissing those claims for a lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction.  However, the individual-capacities claims are barred
by Section 14 inasmuch as those claims are essentially claims
against the State regardless of the manner in which they have been
asserted, and the trial court accordingly erred by not dismissing
those claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

For these reasons, Judge Stuart reversed the trial court's order
certifying the action for class treatment insofar as it certified
the individual-capacities claims; and affirmed in all other
respects it is affirmed.  The case is remanded for proceedings
consistent with her Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/16LUD0 from Leagle.com.


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Lu Sues over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------
XIAOJIAO LU, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC., JOSEPH M.
HOGAN, JOHN F. MORICI, and RAPHAEL S. PASCAUD, the Defendants, Case
No. 5:18-cv-06720-LHK (N.D. Cal.), 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 purchased or otherwise acquired Align
securities between July 25, 2018 and October 24, 2018, inclusive.
On October 24, 2018, the Company announced its third quarter 2018
financial results and reported that its Invisalign Average Selling
Price had declined from $1,315 to $1,230. The same day, the Company
also announced that its Chief Marketing Officer would "reduce his
responsibilities and transition to a part-time position." On this
news, the Company's share price fell $58.76 per share, more than
20%, to 23 close at $232.07 per share on October 25, 2018, on
unusually high trading volume. The share price continued to decline
over the next two trading sessions, to close at $217.94 on October
29, 2018. 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 would offer higher discounts to promote Invisalign; (2)
that the promotions would materially impact revenue; and (3) 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.

Align is a medical device company that purports to design,
manufacture, and market products for the treatment of malocclusion
or the misalignment of teeth. Invisalign is the proprietary name
for the Company's clear aligners.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

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

ALLTRAN EDUCATION: Proctor Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
JASMINE PROCTOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ALLTRAN EDUCATION, INC. and JOHN DOES
1-25, the Defendant(s), Case: 1:18-cv-07720 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 20,
2018), seeks to recover damages and declaratory relief under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, some time prior to January 2, 2018, an
obligation was allegedly incurred to Apollo Education Group. The
Apollo obligation arose out of alleged educational services
provided to Plaintiff. Thus, the alleged debt arising from these
educational services was incurred by Plaintiff primarily for
personal, family or household purposes. The alleged Apollo
obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5).
Apollo Education Group is a "creditor" as defined by 15 U.S.C.
section 1692a(4).

Apollo or a subsequent owner of the Apollo debt contracted with 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.

Alltran Education is doing business in accounts receivable
management industry.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com

ALTICE USA: Faces O'Neill Securities Suit over IPO, Fin'l Report
----------------------------------------------------------------
O'NEILL, ANDREW , INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff. Vs ALTICE USA, INC.,
ALTICE EUROPE N.V. (f/k/a ALTICE N.V.), PATRICK DRAHI, JEREMIE JEAN
BONNIN, ABDELHAKIM BOUBAZINE, MICHEL COMBES, DAVID P. CONNOLLY,
DEXTER G. GOEI, VICTORIA M. MINK, MARK CHRISTOPHER MULLEN, DENNIS
OKHUIJSEN, LISA ROSENBLUM, CHARLES F. STEWART, RAYMOND SVIDER,
GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, MORGAN STANLEY
& CO. LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE,
FENNER & SMITH, INC., BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES
CORP., CREDIT AGRICOLE SECURITIES (USA) INC., DEUTSCHE BANK
SECURITIES INC., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, SCOTIA CAPITAL (USA)
LLC, SG AMERICAS SECURITIES LLC, and TD SECURITIES (USA) LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 711788/2018 (NY Sup. Ct., Queens County),
asserts strict-liability, non-fraud claims under sections 11, 12,
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against Altice USA, its former
controlling parent Altice N.V, certain current and former officers
and directors of Altice USA and the former Altice N.V., and the
underwriters of the initial public offering.

According to the complaint, Altice USA is a broadband
communications provider and, until approximately June 8, 2018, was
the United States subsidiary of Altice N.V., a Netherlands-based
multinational telecommunications company founded and controlled by
Defendant Patrick Drahi. Altice USA and Altice N.V. were
interdependent. They shared officers and directors. They jointly
reported respective quarterly and yearly financial results. They
jointly conducted earnings calls with analysts. Altice USA was
majority-owned and controlled by Altice N.V. and Defendant Drahi;
in turn, Altice N.V. was majority-owned and controlled by Defendant
Drahi. Through related shell entities, Altice N.V. and Defendant
Drahi owned 75.2% of Altice USA's issued and outstanding shares of
common stock and held 98.5% of the voting power of Altice USA's
outstanding capital stock. Indeed, Altice USA admitted its
dependence on Altice N.V.; for example, claiming: “Our ability to
attract and retain customers depends, in part, upon the external
perceptions of Altice Group’s reputation, the quality of its
products and its corporate and management integrity.

In June 2017, Defendants commenced the Altice USA IPO, issuing over
71 million shares of Altice USA common stock to the investing
public at $30 per share, all pursuant to the Registration
Statement. The Offering Documents contained untrue statements of
material fact and omitted to state material facts both required by
governing regulations and necessary to make the statements made not
misleading. The Offering Documents were replete with references to
Altice USA's relationship to Altice N.V. as one of its "competitive
strengths." They claimed Altice USA would "benefit from being part
of an international media and communications group," that its
"management team operates in a coordinated fashion with Altice
N.V.'s management team," both "driven at all levels by the 'Altice
Way'—[a] founder-inspired owner-operator culture and strategy of
operational efficiency, innovation and long-term value creation for
stockholders," and that Altice USA's "management team benefits from
Altice Group's experience in implementing the Altice Way around the
world."

According to the complaint, the foregoing statements were false and
misleading because, far from the touted "competitive advantage,"
Altice N.V. was, in truth, suffering severe customer attrition in
its most important markets, France and Portugal, as a direct result
of mismanaged price increases and shoddy network and customer
support, all of which was having a materially negative impact
Altice N.V.'s revenues, margins, and market share. The Offering
Documents were false and misleading because they contained material
omissions.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Thomas L. Laughlin, IV
          Rhiana L. Swartz
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY10169
          Telephone: (212) 233-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 233-6334
          E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
                  rswartz@scott-scott.com

ALTICE USA: Jan. 18 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. on Nov. 19 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired Altice USA, Inc. (NYSE: ATUS)
shares pursuant to and/or traceable to Altice's Initial Public
Offering ("IPO") on or about June 22, 2018.  Investors have until
January 18, 2019 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that the offering documents issued pursuant
to the IPO failed to disclose and/or misstated material
information, including that: (1) "The Altice Way" proprietary
growth model previously developed in Europe and described in the
offering documents as a means to achieve superior margin
performance was falsely touting Altice's capacity to face already
existing highly competitive environments and ever-changing consumer
behaviors, (2) Altice was suffering from aggressively growing
competition both in Europe and the United States, directly causing
negative and decelerating revenue and EBITDA growth and impacting
Altice's market share, (3) specifically, Altice was suffering from
mismanaged rate events, regulatory compliance and poorly managed
network and customer care both in its France and Portugal segments,
thereby impacting its customer base and churn rate, (4) Altice USA
could not simply replicate the "The Altice Way" in the U.S. and (5)
as a result, Altice USA's offering documents were materially
misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Altice shares pursuant to
and/or traceable to the IPO and suffered a loss, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa
Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, or telephone at
(212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.  There is no
cost or obligation to you.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a New
York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and securities
litigation. [GN]


AMERICAN FINANCE: Appeal in Maryland Class Action Still 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
plaintiffs in the Maryland putative class action suit have filed a
notice of appeal of the court's order, which appeal is still
pending.

On January 13, 2017, four affiliated stockholders of Retail Centers
of America, Inc. (RCA) filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland a putative class action lawsuit
against RCA, the Company, Edward M. Weil, Jr., Leslie D. Michelson,
Edward G. Rendell (Weil, Michelson and Rendell, the "Director
Defendants"), and AR Global, alleging violations of Sections 14(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by RCA
and the Director Defendants, violations of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by AR Global and the Director Defendants, breaches of
fiduciary duty by the Director Defendants, and aiding and abetting
breaches of fiduciary duty by AR Global and the Company in
connection with the negotiation of and proxy solicitation for a
shareholder vote on the proposed merger of the Company and RCA and
an amendment to RCA's charter.

The complaint sought on behalf of the putative class rescission of
the merger transaction, which was voted on and approved by
stockholders on February 13, 2017, and closed on February 16, 2017,
together with unspecified rescissory damages, unspecified actual
damages, and costs and disbursements of the action. On April 26,
2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff. Lead plaintiff, along
with other stockholders of RCA, filed an amended complaint on June
19, 2017.

The amended complaint named additional individuals and entities as
defendants (David Gong, Stanley Perla, Lisa Kabnick ("Additional
Director Defendants"), Nicholas Radesca and the RCA Advisor), added
counts under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended (the "Securities Act") in connection with the
Registration Statement for the proposed merger, under Section 13(e)
of the Exchange Act, and counts for breach of contract and unjust
enrichment.

The Company, RCA, the Director Defendants, the Additional Director
Defendants and Nicholas Radesca deny wrongdoing and liability and
intend to vigorously defend the action. On August 14, 2017,
defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

On March 29, 2018, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
and dismissed the amended complaint. On April 26, 2018, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's order, which
appeal is pending.

American Finance said, "Due to the early stage of the litigation,
no estimate of a probable loss or any reasonable possible losses
are determinable at this time. No provisions for such losses have
been recorded in the accompanying consolidated financial statements
for the nine months ended September 30, 2018 or the year ended
December 31, 2017."

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

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 FINANCE: Faces Hibbard Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
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 company
faces a putative class action suit filed by Terry Hibbard, a
purported stockholder of the Company.

On October 26, 2018, Terry Hibbard, a purported stockholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action complaint in New York State
Supreme Court, New York County, against the Company, AR Global, the
Advisor, Nicholas S. Schorsch, William M. Kahane, Edward M. Weil,
Jr., Nicholas Radesca, David Gong, Stanley R. Perla, and Lisa D.
Kabnick.  

The complaint alleges that the registration statement pursuant to
which Retail Centers of America, Inc. (RCA) shareholders acquired
shares of the Company during the Merger contained materially
incomplete and misleading information.  

The complaint asserts violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act against Messrs. Weil, Radesca, Gong, and Perla, and Ms.
Kabnick, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act
against the Company and Mr. Weil, and control person liability
against the Advisor, AR Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane
under Section 15 of the Securities Act.  

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and rescission of the
Company's sale of stock pursuant to the registration statement.

American Finance said, "The Company believes the complaint is
without merit and intends to defend vigorously.  The Company has
not yet answered or moved to dismiss the complaint. 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.


AMN SERVICES: Cal. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Donohue Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KENNEDY DONOHUE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AMN
SERVICES, LLC, Defendant and Respondent, Case No. D071865 (Cal.
App.), Judge Joan Kathleen Irion of the Court of Appeals of
California for the Fourth District, Division One, affirmed the
trial court's order (i) granting a motion for summary judgment
brought by AMN, and (ii) denying the Plaintiffs' motions for
summary adjudication of one cause of action and one affirmative
defense.

AMN, a healthcare services and staffing company, recruits nurses
for temporary contract assignments.  AMN employed Donohue as a
nurse recruiter in its San Diego office between September 2012 and
February 2014.  Donohue earned a base hourly rate plus commissions,
bonuses, and other forms of nondiscretionary performance-based
pay.

Donohue filed the underlying wage and hour action in April 2014.
The operative second amended complaint, filed on behalf of Donohue
individually and a class of similarly situated AMN employees and
former employees, contains allegations in support of the following
seven causes of action: (1) failure to provide meal and rest
periods in violation of sections 226.7 and 1197.1; (2) failure to
pay overtime and minimum wage in violation of sections 510 and
1197.1; (3) improper wage statements in violation of section 226;
(4) unreimbursed business expenses in violation of section 2802;
(5) waiting time penalties in violation of sections 201-203; (6)
unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions
Code section 17200; and (7) civil penalties authorized by the Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

In October 2015, the trial court certified five classes of
nonexempt AMN employees with the title of "Recruiter": (1) the
overtime class; (2) the meal period class; (3) the rest period
policy class; (4) the itemized wage statement class; and (5) the
ex-employee class (of former AMN employees who are entitled to
relief based on violations proven to the four prior classes of
current AMN employees). The court denied class certification to
Donohue's claims related to unreimbursed business expenses, which
were based on an employee's use of a personal cell phone for AMN
business.

Almost a year later, in September 2016, the parties filed
cross-motions: AMN sought summary judgment, or in the alternative,
summary adjudication of eight individual issues (which, if granted
as to each issue, would result in summary judgment);8 and Donohue
sought summary adjudication of two issues. AMN and Donohue filed
numerous pleadings in support of their respective motions; AMN and
Donohue filed numerous pleadings in opposition to their adversary's
motion; AMN and Donohue filed replies to their adversary's
oppositions; AMN and Donohue filed objections to specified evidence
submitted by their adversary; and AMN and Donohue responded to the
evidentiary objections of their adversary.  Following oral
argument, the court took the matter under submission, ultimately
granting AMN's motion for summary judgment and denying Donohue's
motion for summary adjudication.  More specifically, the court
sustained certain evidentiary objections, overruled other
evidentiary objections, granted summary adjudication of all eight
issues in AMN's motion -- thereby resulting in the grant of summary
judgment -- and denied summary adjudication of the two issues
raised in Donohue's motion.

In December 2016, Donohue filed a motion for reconsideration of the
order granting AMN's motion for summary judgment and denying the
Donohue's motion for summary adjudication.

Two days later, on Dec. 14, 2016, the trial court filed its
judgment in favor of AMN and against Donohue, based on the grant of
AMN's motion for summary judgment and the denial of Donohue's
motion for summary adjudication.

In January 2017, Donohue filed an ex parte application for an order
striking the filing of the judgment (so that the court could hear
her pending motion for reconsideration of the order granting AMN's
motion for summary judgment and denying Donohue's motion for
summary adjudication) and allowing her to file a supplemental brief
in support of her motion for reconsideration.  The court denied the
application and "vacated" Donohue's pending motion for
reconsideration.

Donohue timely appealed from the judgment in February 2017.  In her
appeal from the judgment, Donohue challenges the grant of AMN's
motion for summary judgment and the denial of her motion for
summary adjudication of one of the causes of action.  On appeal,
she also challenges what she characterizes as the trial court's
failure to hear a proper motion for reconsideration of the summary
judgment and summary adjudication rulings.

Judge Irion finds that (i) the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider
the January 2017 postjudgment order and expresses no opinion on the
merits of the ruling(s) in the order; (ii) the trial court did not
err in ruling that, for purposes of the cross-motions, AMN's
rounding policy complies with California law; (iii) the trial court
did not err in deciding issues related to the meal period claims;
(iv) the trial court did not err in summarily adjudicating
Donohue's wage statement claim in favor of AMN; (v) the trial court
did not err in summarily adjudicating Donohue's overtime claim in
favor of AMN; (vi) the trial court did not err in summarily
adjudicating Donohue's rest period claim in favor of AMN; (vii) the
trial court did not err in summarily adjudicating Donohue's PAGA
claim in favor of AMN; (viii) the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in sustaining AMN's evidentiary objections to certain of
Donohue's evidence; and (ix) Donohue did not retain her individual
claims.

The Judge concludes that the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the
postjudgment order that resulted in the trial court's decision not
to hear Donohue's motion for reconsideration, and in their de novo
review of the summary judgment and summary adjudication rulings,
she concludes that Donohue did not meet her burden of establishing
reversible error.  

Accordingly, she affirmed affirmed the judgment.  AMN is entitled
to its costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/uobRIO from Leagle.com.

Sullivan Law Group, William B. Sullivan, Eric K. Yaeckel and Clint
S. Engleson -- clint.engleson@ogletree.com -- for Plaintiff and
Appellant.

DLA Piper, Mary Dollarhide -- mary.dollarhide@dlapiper.com -- and
Betsey Boutelle -- betsey.boutelle@dlapiper.com -- for Defendant
and Respondent.


AMPIO PHARMA: 2 Putative Securities Class Suits Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is defending itself against two
putative class action lawsuits in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

On August 25, 2018 and August 31, 2018, two purported stockholders
of the Company brought putative class action lawsuits in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, Shi
v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-07476-SJO-RAO, and in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado, Shaffer v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-02252-KLM (the "Securities Class
Actions").

Plaintiffs in the Securities Class Actions allege that the Company
and certain of its current officers violated federal securities
laws by misrepresenting and/or omitting information regarding the
AP-003 Phase III clinical trials of Ampion.  Plaintiffs in the
Securities Class Actions assert claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) and Rule 10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act") on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock from December 14, 2017
through August 7, 2018.  The Securities Class Actions seek
unspecified damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company focused
primarily on developing compounds that decrease inflammation by (i)
inhibiting specific pro-inflammatory compounds by affecting
specific pathways at the protein expression and at the
transcription level; (ii) activating specific phosphatase or
depleting available phosphate needed for the inflammation process;
and (iii) decreasing vascular permeability.


ATRIUM HEALTH: Employees File ERISA Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WSOCTV reports that a lawsuit against Charlotte's largest employer
could involve thousands of local workers.

The suit claims Atrium Health incorrectly acted as a government
agency and underfunded pensions by $379 million.

"If you're basing your retirement, your life, based upon what you
think you're going to get for a retirement check and then you
retire and all of a sudden you're getting half of it, it can be
pretty devastating," said Karen L. Handorf, an attorney for the
plaintiffs.

The suit also claims atrium failed to operate the 401(k) plan in
accordance with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and
that Atrium employees paid more for health care plan co-pays and
deductibles than they could have.

Atrium has 65,000 employees.

The suit seeks class-action status, which would open it up to all
of them, as well as former employees.

A spokesperson for the health care system said Atrium Health has
not yet been officially served with the complaint but that when
they are, officials will review it and file a response with the
court. [GN]


ATRIUM HEALTH: Plan Doesn't Comply with ERISA, Shore et al. Say
---------------------------------------------------------------
DELLA SHORE, LISA ENGEL, MARK RACZ, MICHAEL SCHWOB, AND LYDIA
WALKER, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the Atrium Plans, the
Plaintiffs, vs. THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY (D/B/A
Atrium f/k/a CAROLINAS HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, a North Carolina
Non-profit Corporation, ATRIUM HEALTH RETIREMENT COMMITTEE, JOHN
and JANE DOES 1-20, MEMBERS OF THE ATRIUM HEALTH RETIREMENT
COMMITTEE, each an individual, MEDCOST LLC, and MEDCOST BENEFIT
SERVICES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00961 (M.D.N.C.,
Nov. 19, 2018), alleges that Atrium does not currently and has
never satisfied the definition of a governmental entity.  The
Plaintiffs ask the Court to require Atrium to bring its plans into
compliance with Employee Retirement Income Security Act and afford
the Class all the protections of ERISA.

According to the complaint, Atrium has never satisfied the Federal
law definition of a government of a state, a government of a
political subdivision, or an agency or instrumentality of such and,
therefore, the Plans do not qualify as ERISA-exempt Governmental
Plans. Atrium’s Plans were not established by a governmental
entity, and more importantly, the Plans are not maintained by any
governmental entity, The lack of control over Atrium by any State,
political subdivision, or agency or instrumentality of such has
allowed Atrium unfettered growth to expand its operations to three
states. For example, Atrium's governing body -- the Board of Atrium
Commissioners -- is not controlled by any state or political
subdivision. Atrium's daily operations are not controlled or
overseen by officials of any state or political subdivision.

Atrium's Board of Commissioners are not publicly nominated or
elected -- incoming Atrium Commissioners are nominated by the
Atrium Commissioners in a self-perpetuating cycle. Atrium's
employees are not treated in the same manner as government
employees of any state or employees of any political subdivision
thereof. For instance, Atrium employees: (a) are not entitled to
civil service protections; (b) are not subject to any state
personnel act, which provides a system of personnel administration
for state and local government employees; (c) do not have their
salaries publicly available, compared to the salaries of state and
local government employees; and (d) are paid salaries from
Atrium’s revenue, not from any state funds or county funds
collected from a taxpayer.

No state nor any political subdivision of a state has fiscal
responsibility for any debts or liabilities of Atrium. No state or
political subdivision thereof provides any funding to Atrium,
including any funding for Atrium’s employee benefit Plans. Atrium
is not funded through tax revenues or other public sources. Atrium
does not have the authority to levy taxes on any state residents or
residents of any political subdivision to fund its operations or to
raise revenue to fund its Plans rendering the claim to be a
government plan all the more inapt. Rather, Atrium is a non-profit
healthcare conglomerate that competes with other non-profit
healthcare conglomerates in its commercial healthcare activities,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Martha Geer, Esq.
          Karen L. Handorf, Esq.
          Julie Goldsmith Reiser, Esq.
          Jamie Bowers, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          150 Fayetteville Street, Suite 980
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 890-0560
          Facsimile: (919) 890-0567
          E-mail: mgeer@cohenmilstein.com
                  khandorf@cohenmilstein.com
                  jreiser@cohenmilstein.com
                  jbowers@cohenmilstein.com

AVANOS MEDICAL: Appeal in Bahamas Surgery Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
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's
appeal in Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation
and Halyard Health, Inc., is still pending.

Avanos Medical said, "We have an Indemnification Obligation for the
matter styled Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark
Corporation and Halyard Health, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH
(C.D. Cal.) ("Bahamas"), filed on October 29, 2014. In that case,
the plaintiff brought a putative class action asserting claims for
common law fraud (affirmative misrepresentation and fraudulent
concealment) and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL") in connection with the company's marketing and sale of
MicroCool surgical gowns.

On April 7, 2017, a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
finding that Kimberly-Clark was liable for $4 million in
compensatory damages (not including prejudgment interest) and $350
million in punitive damages, and that Avanos was liable for $0.3
million in compensatory damages (not including prejudgment
interest) and $100 million in punitive damages.

Subsequently, the court also ruled on the plaintiff's UCL claim and
request for injunctive relief. The court found in favor of the
plaintiff on the UCL claim but denied the plaintiff's request for
restitution. The court also denied the plaintiff's request for
injunctive relief.  

On May 25, 2017, the company filed three post-trial motions: a
renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law; a motion to
decertify the class; and a motion for new trial, remittitur, or
amendment of the judgment. On March 30, 2018, the court ruled on
the post-trial motions. The court denied all three, except it
granted in part the motion to reduce the award of punitive damages
to a 5 to 1 ratio with compensatory damages.

On April 11, 2018, the court issued an Amended Judgment in favor of
the plaintiff and against the company and Kimberly-Clark. The
judgment against the company is $0.3 million in compensatory
damages and pre-judgment interest and $1.3 million in punitive
damages. The judgment against Kimberly-Clark is $3.9 million in
compensatory damages, $1.3 million in pre-judgment interest and
$19.4 million in punitive damages.

On April 12, 2018, the company filed a notice of appeal to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Avanos Medical said, "We intend to continue our vigorous defense of
the Bahamas 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.


AVINGER INC: Court Approves Settlement in Consolidated Cal. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 court has approved the settlement in
the consolidated class action suit entitled, Gonzalez v. Avinger,
Inc., et al., No. 17-CIV-02284

Between May 22, 2017 and May 25, 2017, three purported class action
lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo ("State Court"), against the
Company, certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters
of the Company's January 2015 IPO.

The actions were captioned Grotewiel v. Avinger, Inc., et al., No.
17-CIV-02240, Gonzalez v. Avinger, Inc., et al., No. 17-CIV-02284,
and Olberding v. Avinger, Inc., et al., No. 17-CIV-02307.

These lawsuits allege that the registration statement for the
Company's initial public offering (IPO) made false and misleading
statements and omissions in violation of the Securities Act of
1933. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of purchasers of the
company's common stock in and/or traceable to the company's IPO.

Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, interest, costs, recission, and attorneys' fees. On June
12, 2017, defendants removed these actions to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California ("Federal
Court").

On June 22, 2017, and June 23, 2017, plaintiffs Olberding and
Gonzalez moved to remand their cases to the State Court. Defendants
opposed these motions. On July 21, 2017, the Federal Court granted
the motions to remand the Olberding and Gonzalez actions to the
State Court.  On August 9, 2017, the State Court consolidated the
Olberding and Grotewiel actions under the caption Gonzalez v.
Avinger, Inc., et al., No. 17-CIV-02284 ("State Action").

On September 22, 2017, an amended complaint was filed in the State
Action. On October 31, 2017, the parties in the State Action
stipulated to a stay of proceedings until judgment is entered in
the Federal Action.

On October 11, 2017, the Federal Court appointed a lead plaintiff
and approved the selection of a lead counsel in the Grotewiel
action ("Federal Action"). On November 2, 2017, pursuant to
stipulation of the parties, the State Court entered an order
staying proceedings in the State Action until judgment is entered
in the Federal Action.

On June 20, 2018, the State Court dismissed the State Action
pursuant to the proposed settlement. On November 21, 2017, an
amended complaint was filed in the Federal Action. Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss that complaint on January 26, 2018.

On March 19, 2018, plaintiff in the Federal Action filed a further
amended complaint, on behalf of a class of purchasers of our common
stock in and/or traceable to our IPO, as well as purchasers of our
common stock during the period January 30, 2015, to April 10,
2017.

The Company and its directors believe that the foregoing lawsuits
were without merit; however, in the interest of avoiding the cost
and disruption of continuing to defend against these lawsuits, the
Company entered into a settlement of the actions. The settlement
was for a total of $5.0 million.

The Company's total contribution to the settlement fund was $1.76
million, which the Company paid in March 2018. On October 24, 2018,
the court approved the settlement.

Avinger, Inc., a commercial-stage medical device company, designs,
manufactures, and sells image-guided and catheter-based systems
used by physicians to treat patients with peripheral arterial
disease (PAD) in the United States and Europe. Avinger, Inc. was
founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Redwood City, California.


AXA EQUITABLE: Brach Family Foundation Class Action Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company 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 itself against a consolidated class
action suit entitled, Brach Family Foundation, Inc. v. AXA
Equitable Life Insurance Company.

In February 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Brach Family
Foundation, Inc. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company.

This lawsuit is a putative class action brought on behalf of all
owners of universal life ("UL") policies subject to AXA Equitable's
COI increase. In early 2016, AXA Equitable raised COI rates for
certain UL policies issued between 2004 and 2007, which had both
issue ages 70 and above and a current face value amount of $1
million and above.

A second putative class action was filed in Arizona in 2017 and
consolidated with the Brach matter. The current consolidated class
action complaint alleges the following claims: breach of contract;
misrepresentations by AXA Equitable in violation of Section 4226 of
the New York Insurance Law; violations of New York General Business
Law Section 349; violations of the California Unfair Competition
Law, and the California Elder Abuse Statute.

Plaintiffs seek (a) compensatory damages, costs, and, pre- and
post-judgment interest, (b) with respect to their claim concerning
Section 4226, a penalty in the amount of premiums paid by the
plaintiffs and the putative class, and (c) injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees in connection with their statutory claims.

Five other federal individual actions challenging the COI increase
are also pending against AXA Equitable and have been consolidated
with the Brach matter for the purposes of coordinating pre-trial
activities. They contain similar allegations as those in Brach as
well as additional allegations for violations of various states’
consumer protection statutes and common law fraud. Three state
individual actions are also pending against AXA Equitable in New
York and Virginia.

AXA Equitable said, "We are in various stages of motion practice
and are vigorously defending each of these matters."

AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides insurance, financial advisory, and
investment management products and services in the United States
and internationally. The company operates in two segments,
Insurance and Investment Management. The company was founded in
1859 and is headquartered in New York, New York. AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Company is a subsidiary of AXA Equitable Financial
Services, LLC.


AXA EQUITABLE: Still Defends O'Donnell Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company 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 itself in the class action suit
entitled Richard T. O'Donnell, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company.

In November 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Camden County entitled Arlene Shuster, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance
Company.

This lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of all AXA
Equitable variable life insurance policyholders who allocated funds
from their policy accounts to investments in AXA Equitable's
Separate Accounts, which were subsequently subjected to the
volatility management strategy and who suffered injury as a result
thereof.

The action asserts that AXA Equitable breached its variable life
insurance contracts by implementing the volatility management
strategy. In February 2016, the Court dismissed the complaint. In
March 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

In April 2018, the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
affirmed the trial court's decision.

In August 2015, another lawsuit was filed in Connecticut Superior
Court, Judicial Division of New Haven entitled Richard T.
O'Donnell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company.

This lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of all persons
who purchased variable annuities from AXA Equitable, which were
subsequently subjected to the volatility management strategy and
who suffered injury as a result thereof. Plaintiff asserts a claim
for breach of contract alleging that AXA Equitable implemented the
volatility management strategy in violation of applicable law. In
November 2015, the Connecticut Federal District Court transferred
this action to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

In March 2017, the Southern District of New York granted AXA
Equitable's motion to dismiss the complaint. In April 2017, the
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. In April 2018, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the trial
court's decision with instructions to remand the case to
Connecticut state court. In September 2018, the Second Circuit
issued its mandate, following AXA Equitable's notification to the
court that it would not file a petition for writ of certiorari.

AXA Equitable said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides insurance, financial advisory, and
investment management products and services in the United States
and internationally. The company operates in two segments,
Insurance and Investment Management. The company was founded in
1859 and is headquartered in New York, New York. AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Company is a subsidiary of AXA Equitable Financial
Services, LLC.


B RILEY FINANCIAL: Suit Against MLV & Co. Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
B. Riley 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 a putative class
action suit against MLV & Co. is still ongoing.

On January 5, 2017, complaints filed in November 2015 and May 2016
naming MLV & Co. ("MLV"), a broker-dealer subsidiary of FBR & Co.,
as a defendant in putative class action lawsuits alleging claims
under the Securities Act, in connection with the offerings of
Miller Energy Resources, Inc. ("Miller") have been consolidated.

The Master Consolidated Complaint, styled Gaynor v. Miller et al.,
is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, and, like its predecessor complaints,
continues to allege claims under Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act against nine underwriters for alleged material
misrepresentations and omissions in the registration statement and
prospectuses issued in connection with six offerings (February 13,
2013; May 8, 2013; June 28, 2013; September 26, 2013; October 17,
2013 (as to MLV only) and August 21, 2014) with an alleged
aggregate offering price of approximately $151,000.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages and
reimbursement of certain costs and expenses. In August 2017, the
Court granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on Section 12 claims
and found that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged a
corrective disclosure prior to August 6, 2015, when an SEC civil
action was announced. Defendants' answer was filed on September 25,
2017.

Plaintiffs have filed motions for class certification and to remand
the case to state court following a positive ruling in an unrelated
case by the U.S. Supreme Court. Although MLV is contractually
entitled to be indemnified by Miller in connection with this
lawsuit, Miller filed for bankruptcy in October 2015 and this
likely will decrease or eliminate the value of the indemnity that
MLV receives from Miller.

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

B. Riley Financial, Inc. provides financial services and solutions
in North America, Australia, and Europe. The company operates in
four segments: Capital Markets, Auction and Liquidation, Valuation
and Appraisal, and Principal Investments - United Online. B. Riley
Financial, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is headquartered in
Woodland Hills, California.


BANK OZK: Wood Sues over Misleading Financial Report
----------------------------------------------------
RYAN A. WOOD, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BANK OZK, GEORGE GLEASON, and GREGORY
MCKINNEY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10800 (S.D.N.Y., Nov.
19, 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 Bank OZK securities
between February 19, 2016 through October 18, 2018, both dates
inclusive. Bank OZK was founded in 1981 and is headquartered in
Little Rock, Arkansas. The Company was formerly known as Bank of
the Ozarks and changed its name to Bank OZK in July 2018. As of
December 31, 2017, the Company operated through 253 offices in
Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, Alabama, South
Carolina, California, New York, and Mississippi. Bank OZK's common
stock trades on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the ticker
symbol "OZK".

Bank OZK provides a range of retail and commercial banking services
to businesses, individuals, and non-profit and governmental
entities. In addition to traditional savings and checking accounts,
the Company offers various loan products, including real estate
loans, such as loans secured by residential 1-4 family,
non-farm/non-residential, agricultural, construction/land
development, multifamily residential properties, and other land
loans; small business and consumer loans; indirect consumer marine
and RV loans; and government guaranteed loans comprising SBA and
FSA guaranteed loans.

Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company lacked adequate
internal controls to assess credit risk; (ii) as a result, certain
of the Company's loans posed an increased risk of loss; (iii)
certain substandard loans were reasonably likely to lead to
charge-offs; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. 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. 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:

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

BAUSCH HEALTH: Appeal in Afexa-Related Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
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 company
continues to defend itself from class action lawsuit in Canada.

On March 9, 2012, a Notice of Civil Claim was filed in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia which sought an order certifying a
proposed class proceeding against the Company and a predecessor,
Afexa Life Sciences Inc. ("Afexa") (Case No. NEW-S-S-140954). The
proposed claim asserted that Afexa and the Company made false
representations respecting Cold-FX(R) to residents of British
Columbia who purchased the product during the applicable period and
that the proposed class has suffered damages as a result.

On November 8, 2013, the Plaintiff served an amended notice of
civil claim which sought to re-characterize the representation
claims and broaden them from what was originally claimed. On
December 8, 2014, the Company filed a motion to strike certain
elements of the Plaintiff's claim for failure to state a cause of
action. In response, the Plaintiff proposed further amendments to
its claim. The hearing on the motion to strike and the Plaintiff's
amended claim was held on February 4, 2015. The Court allowed
certain additional subsequent amendments, while it struck others.
The hearing to certify the class was held on April 4-8, 2016 and,
on November 16, 2016, the Court issued a decision dismissing the
plaintiff's application for certification of this action as a class
proceeding.

On December 15, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the
British Columbia Court of Appeal appealing the decision to dismiss
the application for certification. The plaintiff filed its appeal
factum on March 15, 2017 and the Company filed its appeal factum on
April 19, 2017. The appeal hearing was held on September 19, 2017
and, on April 30, 2018, the British Columbia Court of Appeal
dismissed the appeal. On June 29, 2018, the plaintiff filed leave
to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in this matter and the
Company filed its reply on August 30, 2018.

Bausch Health said, "The Company intends to continue to vigorously
defend this matter."

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. The company was formerly known
as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed its name
to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch Health
Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Laval,
Canada.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Briefing in Contact Lens Case Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
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 briefing
related to the motion for summary judgment filed by the company in
case entitled, In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 3:15-md-02626-HES-JRK, is scheduled to be completed on
December 17, 2018.

Beginning in March 2015, a number of civil antitrust class action
suits were filed by purchasers of contact lenses against B&L Inc.,
three other contact lens manufacturers, and a contact lens
distributor, alleging that the defendants engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme to eliminate price competition on certain
contact lens lines through the use of unilateral pricing policies.


The plaintiffs in such suits alleged violations of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section  1, and of various state antitrust
and consumer protection laws, and further alleged that the
defendants have been unjustly enriched through their alleged
conduct. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief
and, where applicable, treble, punitive and/or other damages,
including attorneys' fees.

By order dated June 8, 2015, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict
Litigation (JPML) centralized the suits in the Middle District of
Florida, under the caption In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 3:15-md-02626-HES-JRK, before U.S. District
Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger. After the Class Plaintiffs filed a
corrected consolidated class action complaint on December 16, 2015,
the defendants jointly moved to dismiss those complaints.

On June 16, 2016, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss with respect to claims brought under the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act, but denied the motion to dismiss with respect to
claims brought under Sherman Act, Section 1 and other state laws.
Discovery has been concluded.

On March 3, 2017, the Class Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification. On June 15, 2017, defendants filed a motion to
oppose the plaintiffs' class certification motion, as well as
motions to exclude plaintiffs' expert reports. An evidentiary
hearing was held before Judge Schlesinger on August 1 and 2, 2018.
On August 20, 2018, the Company filed a motion for summary
judgment. Briefing related to the motion for summary judgment is
scheduled to be completed on December 17, 2018. The Company intends
to vigorously defend all of these actions.

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. The company was formerly known
as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed its name
to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch Health
Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Laval,
Canada.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------
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 company
continues to defend itself from several class action suits in
Canada.

In 2015, six putative class actions were filed and served against
the Company in Canada in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario
and Quebec.

These actions are captioned: (a) Alladina v. Valeant, et al. (Case
No. S-1594B6) (Supreme Court of British Columbia) (filed November
17, 2015); (b) Kowalyshyn v. Valeant, et al. (CV-15-540593-00CP)
(Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 16, 2015); (c) Kowalyshyn
et al. v. Valeant, et al. (CV-15-541082-00CP) (Ontario Superior
Court) (filed November 23, 2015); (d) O'Brien v. Valeant et al.
(CV-15-543678-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed December 30,
2015); (e) Catucci v. Valeant, et al. (Court File No.
540-17-011743159) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed October 26, 2015);
and (f) Rousseau-Godbout v. Valeant, et al. (Court File No.
500-06-000770-152) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed October 27,
2015).

The Alladina, Kowalyshyn, O'Brien, Catucci and Rousseau-Godbout
actions also name, among others, certain current or former
directors and officers of the Company.

The Rosseau-Godbout action was subsequently stayed by the Quebec
Superior Court by consent order.

Each of the five remaining actions alleges violations of Canadian
provincial securities legislation on behalf of putative classes of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the
Company for periods commencing as early as January 1, 2013 and
ending as late as November 16, 2015. The alleged violations relate
to, among other things, alleged misrepresentations and/or failures
to disclose material information about the Company's business and
prospects, relating to drug pricing, the Company's policies and
accounting practices, the Company's use of specialty pharmacies
and, in particular, the Company's relationship with Philidor.

The Alladina, Kowalyshyn and O'Brien actions also assert common law
claims for negligent misrepresentation, and the Alladina claim
additionally asserts common law negligence, conspiracy, and claims
under the British Columbia Business Corporations Act, including the
statutory oppression remedies in that legislation.

The Catucci action asserts claims under the Quebec Civil Code,
alleging the Company breached its duty of care under the civil
standard of liability contemplated by the Code.

The Company is aware of two additional putative class actions that
have been filed with the applicable court but which have not yet
been served on the Company. These actions are captioned: (i) Okeley
v. Valeant, et al. (Case No. S-159991) (Supreme Court of British
Columbia) (filed December 2, 2015); and (ii) Sukenaga v Valeant et
al. (CV-15-540567-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November
16, 2015), and the factual allegations made in these actions are
substantially similar to those outlined above. The Company has been
advised that the plaintiffs in these actions do not intend to
pursue the actions.

On June 10, 2016, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rendered
its decision on carriage motions (motions held to determine who
will have carriage of the class action) heard on April 8, 2016,
provisionally staying the O'Brien action, in favor of the
Kowalyshyn action. On September 15, 2016, in response to an
arrangement between the plaintiffs in the Kowalyshyn action and the
O'Brien action, the court ordered both that the Kowalyshyn action
be consolidated with the O'Brien action and that the consolidated
action be stayed in favor of the Catucci action pending either the
further order of the Ontario court or the determination of the
motion for leave in the Catucci action.

In the Catucci action, motions for leave under the Quebec
Securities Act and for authorization as a class proceeding were
heard the week of April 24, 2017, with the motion judge reserving
her decision. Prior to that hearing, the parties resolved
applications by the defendants concerning jurisdiction and class
composition, with the plaintiffs agreeing to revise the definition
of the proposed class to exclude claims in respect of Company
securities purchased in the United States.

On August 29, 2017, the judge released her reasons for judgment
granting the plaintiffs leave to proceed with their claims under
the Quebec Securities Act and authorizing the class proceeding. On
October 12, 2017, the Company and the other defendants filed
applications for leave to appeal from certain aspects of the
decision authorizing the class proceeding. The applications for
leave to appeal were heard on November 22, 2017 and were dismissed
on November 30, 2017. On October 26, 2017, the plaintiffs issued
their Judicial Application Originating Class Proceedings. A
timetable for certain pre-trial procedural matters in the action
has been set and the notice of certification has been disseminated
to class members. Among other things, the timetable established a
deadline of June 19, 2018 for class members to exercise their right
to opt-out of the class.

In addition to the class proceedings described above, on April 12,
2018, the Company was served with an application for leave filed in
the Quebec Superior Court of Justice to pursue an action under the
Quebec Securities Act against the Company and certain current or
former officers and directors. This action is captioned BlackRock
Asset Management Canada Limited et al. v. Valeant, et al. (Court
File No. 500-11-054155-185). The allegations in the proceeding are
similar to those made by plaintiffs in the Catucci class action.

On June 18, 2018, the same BlackRock entities filed an originating
application against the same defendants asserting claims under the
Quebec Civil Code in respect of the same alleged
misrepresentations.

Bausch Health said, "The Company is aware that certain other
members of the Catucci class exercised their opt-out rights prior
to the June 19, 2018 deadline. The Company believes that it has
viable defenses in each of these actions. In each case, the Company
intends to defend itself vigorously."

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. The company was formerly known
as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed its name
to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch Health
Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Laval,
Canada.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Continues to Defend Shower to Shower Suits in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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 company
continues to defend itself from two class action suits in Canada
relating to Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder or Shower to Shower.

Two proposed class actions have been filed in Canada against the
Company and various Johnson & Johnson entities (one in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia and one in the Superior Court of Quebec).
The Company also acquired the rights to the Shower to Shower
product in Canada from Johnson & Johnson in September 2012. In the
British Columbia matter, the plaintiff seeks to certify a proposed
class action on behalf of persons in British Columbia and Canada
who have purchased or used Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder or
Shower to Shower, including their estates, executors and personal
representatives, and is alleging that the use of this product
increases certain health risks.

In the Quebec matter, the plaintiff sought to certify a proposed
class action on behalf of persons in Quebec who have used Johnson &
Johnson's Baby Powder or Shower to Shower, as well as their family
members, assigns and heirs, and is alleging negligence in failing
to properly test, failing to warn of health risks, and failing to
remove the products from the market in a timely manner. A
certification (also known as authorization) hearing in the Quebec
matter was held on January 11, 2018.

On May 2, 2018, the Court certified (or as stated under Quebec law,
authorized) the bringing of a class action by a representative
plaintiff on behalf of people in Quebec who have used Johnson &
Johnson's Baby Powder and/or Shower to Shower in their perineal
area and have been diagnosed with ovarian cancer and/or family
members, assigns and heirs. The plaintiffs in these actions are
seeking awards of general, special, compensatory and punitive
damages.

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. The company was formerly known
as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed its name
to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch Health
Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Laval,
Canada.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Third-Party Payor Class Suit Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
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 case
entitled, In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.
Third-Party Payor Litigation, No. 3:16-cv-03087, is still stayed.

Between May 27, 2016 and September 16, 2016, three virtually
identical actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey against the Company and various third
parties, alleging claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") on behalf of a putative class of
certain third-party payors that paid claims submitted by Philidor
for certain Company branded drugs between January 2, 2013 and
November 9, 2015 (Airconditioning and Refrigeration Industry Health
and Welfare Trust Fund et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International. Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-03087, Plumbers Local Union
No. 1 Welfare Fund v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. et
al., No. 3:16-cv-3885 and N.Y. Hotel Trades Council et al v.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International. Inc. et al., No.
3:16-cv-05663).  

On November 30, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the
three actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. Third-Party Payor Litigation, No.
3:16-cv-03087. A consolidated class action complaint was filed on
December 14, 2016.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Defendants committed predicate acts of mail and wire fraud by
submitting or causing to be submitted prescription reimbursement
requests that misstated or omitted facts regarding (1) the identity
and licensing status of the dispensing pharmacy; (2) the
resubmission of previously denied claims; (3) patient co-pay
waivers; (4) the availability of generic alternatives; and (5) the
insured's consent to renew the prescription. The complaint further
alleges that these acts constitute a pattern of racketeering or a
racketeering conspiracy in violation of the RICO statute and caused
plaintiffs and the putative class unspecified damages, which may be
trebled under the RICO statute.  

The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on February
13, 2017. Briefing of the motion was completed on May 17, 2017. On
March 14, 2017, other defendants filed a motion to stay the RICO
class action pending the resolution of criminal proceedings against
Andrew Davenport and Gary Tanner. The Company did not oppose the
motion to stay. On August 9, 2017, the Court granted the motion to
stay and entered an order staying all proceedings in the case and
accordingly terminating other pending motions.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to
defend itself vigorously.

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. The company was formerly known
as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed its name
to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch Health
Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Laval,
Canada.


BBX CAPITAL: Bid for Protective Order vs. BVU Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
BBX Capital 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 plaintiffs'
motion for protective order in the class action suit against
Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc., is pending.

On August 24, 2016, Whitney Paxton and Jeff Reeser filed a lawsuit
against Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. ("BVU"), a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Bluegreen, and certain of its employees, seeking to
establish a class action of former and current employees of BVU and
alleging violations of plaintiffs' rights under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (the "FLSA") and breach of contract.

The lawsuit also claims that the defendants terminated plaintiff
Whitney Paxton as retaliation for her complaints about alleged
violations of the FLSA. The lawsuit seeks damages in the amount of
the unpaid compensation owed to the plaintiffs.

During July 2017, a magistrate judge entered a report and
recommendation that the plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify
collective action and facilitate notice to potential class members
be granted with respect to certain employees and denied as to
others. During September 2017, the judge accepted the
recommendation and granted preliminary approval of class
certification.

Based on that conditional class certification, all potential class
members were provided Consent Forms to opt-in to the lawsuit, which
opt-in period has since expired, and a set number of opt-ins has
been determined (approximately 80). Class-wide discovery was
subsequently served and plaintiffs filed a Motion for Protective
Order which is pending.

BBX Capital said, "Bluegreen intends to seek to compel 59 of the
currently named opt-in plaintiffs to submit their respective claims
to arbitration on an individual basis. Bluegreen believes that the
lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend the
action."

BBX Capital Corporation is an investment holding company investing
through its subsidiaries BBX Capital Partners, LLC and BBX Capital
Real Estate Corp. Through its subsidiaries the firm seeks to make
investment in, acquisition, ownership, financing, development, and
management of real estate and real estate related assets. It was
formerly known as BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and changed its name
in July 2012. BBX Capital Corporation was founded in 1994 and is
based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. BBX Capital Corporation operates
as a subsidiary of BFC Financial Corporation.


BBX CAPITAL: Landon et al. Class Action Underway
------------------------------------------------
BBX Capital 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 company is
defending against a purported class action suit initiated by
Melissa S. Landon, Edward P. Landon, Shane Auxier and Mu Hpare.

On June 28, 2018, Melissa S. Landon, Edward P. Landon, Shane Auxier
and Mu Hpare, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit against Bluegreen
Vacations Corporation (Bluegreen) and Bluegreen Vacations
Unlimited, Inc. (BVU) asserting claims for alleged violations of
the Wisconsin Timeshare Act, Wisconsin law prohibiting illegal
referral selling, and Wisconsin law prohibiting illegal attorney's
fee provisions.

Plaintiffs allegations include that Bluegreen failed to disclose
the identity of the seller of real property at the beginning of its
initial contact with the purchaser; that Bluegreen misrepresented
who the seller of the real property was; that Bluegreen
misrepresented the buyer's right to cancel; that Bluegreen included
an illegal attorney's fee provision in the sales document(s); that
Bluegreen offered an illegal "today only" incentive to purchase;
and that Bluegreen utilizes an illegal referral selling program to
induce the sale of Vacation ownership interests (VOIs).

Plaintiffs seek certification of a class consisting of all persons
who, in Wisconsin, purchased from Bluegreen one or more VOIs within
six years prior to the filing of this lawsuit. Plaintiffs seek
statutory damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.  

Bluegreen believes the lawsuit is without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the action.

BBX Capital Corporation is an investment holding company investing
through its subsidiaries BBX Capital Partners, LLC and BBX Capital
Real Estate Corp. Through its subsidiaries the firm seeks to make
investment in, acquisition, ownership, financing, development, and
management of real estate and real estate related assets. It was
formerly known as BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and changed its name
in July 2012. BBX Capital Corporation was founded in 1994 and is
based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. BBX Capital Corporation operates
as a subsidiary of BFC Financial Corporation.


BBX CAPITAL: Still Defends Vacation Ownership Interests Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
BBX Capital 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 company
continues to defend against a purported class action suit related
to Vacation Ownership Interests.

On September 22, 2017, Stephen Potje, Tamela Potje, Sharon Davis,
Beafus Davis, Matthew Baldwin, Tammy Baldwin, Arnor Lee, Angela
Lee, Gretchen Brown, Paul Brown, Jeremy Estrada, Emily Estrada,
Michael Oliver, Carrie Oliver, Russell Walters, Elaine Walters, and
Mike Ericson, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit against Bluegreen
Vacations (Bluegreen)  which asserted claims for alleged violations
of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and the
Florida False Advertising Law.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs alleged the making of false
representations in connection with Bluegreen's sales of vacation
ownership interests (VOIs), including representations regarding the
ability to use points for stays or other experiences with other
vacation providers, the ability to cancel VOI purchases and receive
a refund of the purchase price and the ability to roll over unused
points and that annual maintenance fees would not increase.

The complaint sought to establish a class of consumers who, since
the beginning of the applicable statute of limitations, purchased
VOIs from Bluegreen, had their annual maintenance fees relating to
Bluegreen VOIs increased, or were unable to roll over their unused
points to the next calendar year. The plaintiffs sought damages in
the amount alleged to have been improperly obtained by Bluegreen,
as well as any statutory enhanced damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, and equitable and injunctive relief.

On November 20, 2017, Bluegreen moved to dismiss the complaint and,
in response, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint dropping the
claims relating to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act and adding claims for fraud in the inducement and violation of
the Florida Vacation Plan and Timesharing Act.

On March 20, 2018, the plaintiffs withdrew their motion for class
action certification and on March 23, 2018, the court ordered
dismissal of the suit. On April 24, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a
new lawsuit against BVU, for substantially the same claims, but
only on behalf of the 18 named individuals and not as a class
action.

Bluegreen believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend the action.

BBX Capital Corporation is an investment holding company investing
through its subsidiaries BBX Capital Partners, LLC and BBX Capital
Real Estate Corp. Through its subsidiaries the firm seeks to make
investment in, acquisition, ownership, financing, development, and
management of real estate and real estate related assets. It was
formerly known as BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and changed its name
in July 2012. BBX Capital Corporation was founded in 1994 and is
based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. BBX Capital Corporation operates
as a subsidiary of BFC Financial Corporation.


BLUE APRON: Employee File Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline O'Donovan, writing for BuzzFeed News, reports that Blue
Apron employees have filed a class-action lawsuit against the
company, alleging that they weren't paid overtime, or for meal
breaks, among other labor law violations. They are seeking back pay
for missed wages and a trial by jury.

The suit filed by Rashida Fairley on behalf of all hourly
employees, was moved to a federal court in California. Ms. Fairley
alleges that Blue Apron routinely forced hourly employees to clock
out before their meal break, effectively cheating them out of
thirty minutes of pay per shift, a practice known in the world of
labor law as "time shaving."

According to the lawsuit, Blue Apron claims on its website that "we
win together, not alone; we operate with integrity."

"If Blue Apron truly does operate with integrity and is
accountable," the lawsuit reads, "then it will pay its employees
all of their hard-earned wages."

Blue Apron denied all of Ms. Fairley's claims in its initial
response in court. In an email statement, a Blue Apron spokesperson
said, "We cannot comment on pending litigation, though we intend to
vigorously defend ourselves." Plaintiff's lawyers didn't respond to
repeated requests for comment on the suit.

According to court documents filed by Blue Apron, the number of
employees represented in the suit, which covers the period between
2014 and 2018, is at least 2,805 and could cost the company over $5
million.

Blue Apron employs thousands of low-wage workers in food processing
plants in New Jersey, Texas, and California, where this suit was
filed. State regulators fined its Richmond, California, facility
for multiple health and safety violations during the time to which
this lawsuit pertains. The UC Berkeley Labor Center recently
published a report on working conditions in a meal-kit factory in
California, which highlights long hours, low wages, uncomfortable
working conditions, and safety accidents.

Blue Apron recently laid off 4% of its staff ahead of its quarterly
earnings report in hopes of saving $16 million and making a profit
in 2019.

The company is also being sued by an Iowa-based meat processing
company, which claims the meal-kit company reneged on a $26 million
contract to purchase free-range chickens, necessitating mass
layoffs and the closure of a plant in Arkansas.

Blue Apron went public in 2017 with a share price of $10; it is
currently trading at $1.09. [GN]


BRE SELECT: Still Defends Battaglia Class Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
BRE Select Hotels Corp. is still facing the putative class action
suit styled Battaglia v. BRE Select Hotels Corp., according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

The Company, as the successor to Apple Six, is subject to claims
for alleged acts of Apple Six that occurred prior to the Merger.

On February 24, 2017, a putative class action, captioned Wilchfort
v. Knight, et al., Civil Action No. 17-cv-01046 (E.D.N.Y.), was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York against BRE Select Hotels Corp, as
successor-in-interest to Apple REIT Six, Inc., Apple Hospitality
REIT, Inc., Apple REIT Seven, Inc., Apple REIT Eight, Inc.
(together with Apple REIT Six, Inc. and Apple REIT Seven, Inc., the
"Apple REITs"), certain of the Apple REITs' directors, officers and
advisors, and Apple Fund Management, LLC.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons and entities
who elected to participate in Apple REITs' Dividend Reinvestment
Plans ("DRIPs") between July 17, 2007 and the later of the
termination and/or suspension of the respective DRIPs or February
12, 2014.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the prices at which
plaintiff and the purported class members purchased additional
shares through the DRIPs were artificially inflated and not
indicative of the true value of units in the Apple REITs.
Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of contract, tortious
interference with contract and tortious interference with business
expectancy and breach of implied duty of good faith and fair
dealing and seeks, among other things, damages and other costs and
expenses.

On March 30, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part the
Company's motion to dismiss and, on April 13, 2018, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint, captioned Wilchfort et al. v. BRE
Select Hotels Corp., Civil Action No. 17-cv-1046 (E.D.N.Y.).

On May 31, 2018, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action
Complaint, captioned Battaglia v. BRE Select Hotels Corp., Civil
Action No. 17-cv-01046 (E.D.N.Y.), which, among other things,
narrowed the putative class period to February 24, 2011 through
November 29, 2012.

On June 4, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification.
On June 27, 2018, the Company filed an Answer to the Second Amended
Class Action Complaint.

BRE Select said, "The Company believes that any claims against it
are without merit, and it intends to defend against them
vigorously.  At this time, the Company cannot reasonably predict
the outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate of
the possible loss or range of loss due to this proceeding."

BRE Select Hotels Corp is a non-listed real estate investment trust
(REIT) focused on the ownership of upscale, extended-stay and
select-service hotels. The company is based in New York, New York.


BRIGHAM EXPLORATION: Denial of Boytim Bid to Certify Class Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the trial court's order
denying a motion to certify a class filed by plaintiffs--Raymond
Boytim, Hugh Duncan, Walter Schwimmer, the Edward J. Goodman Life
Income Trust, the Edward J. Goodman Generation Skipping Trust,
Jeffrey Whalen, and Howard Weissberg ("Appellants ").

Appellants filed suit against appellees Brigham Exploration
Company, Ben M. Brigham, David T. Brigham, Harold D. Carter,
Stephen C. Hurley, Stephen P. Reynolds, Hobart A. Smith, Scott W.
Tinker, Statoil ASA, and Fargo Acquisition, Inc. for breach of
fiduciary duty in connection with the sale of Brigham Exploration
Company. Appellees have filed a conditional cross-appeal "to the
extent necessary to preserve all arguments for affirming the trial
court's order" in the event that the Court disagrees with the
particular grounds reflected in the trial court's order.

It is undisputed in this case that while Delaware substantive law
governs Plaintiffs' claims, Texas procedural law governs class
certification.

All class actions must satisfy the four threshold requirements
contained within Rule 42(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure:
(1) numerosity ("the class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable"); (2) commonality ("there are questions
of law or fact common to the class"); (3) typicality ("the claims
or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims
or defenses of the class"); and (4) adequacy of representation
("the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class"). In addition to the subsection (a)
prerequisites, class actions also must satisfy at least one of the
subdivisions of Rule 42(b).

Appellants assert that, contrary to the determinations made in the
trial court's Order, this class action satisfies Rule 42(b)(3),
which requires (1) common questions of law or fact to predominate
over questions affecting only individual members and (2) class
treatment to be "superior to other available methods for the fair
and efficient adjudication of the controversy." Here, the Court
considers whether the trial court abused its discretion in
determining that Plaintiffs had not met their burden of
establishing the predominance and superiority requirements.

The affirmative defenses of acquiescence and ratification, raised
here, would likely require inquiry into individual stockholders'
actions or words--including but not limited to the tendering of
some number of shares and a determination of the number of shares
tendered versus those untendered--that might evidence ratification
of or acquiescence in the merger.  Because the proposed class
members likely comprise a variety of shareholders exhibiting
multiple combinations of shares that were sold, retained, and
tendered--in a variety of quantities and timelines--it is probable
that the different proposed class members' intentions and actions
with respect to their shares would differ widely from one class
member to another and, thus, require individual inquiries.
Moreover, trial of appellees' affirmative defenses will likely
require individual inquiries into other actions taken by
shareholders that might demonstrate acquiescence, ratification,
waiver, accord and satisfaction, or the application of equitable
estoppel. The Court conclude that the trial court acted within its
discretion in concluding that it could not determine that common
issues would predominate over individual ones and, therefore, in
refusing to certify the class.

The Court additionally concludes that the trial court did not err
in finding that it "cannot determine whether class action is
superior to individual actions to achieve a fair and efficient
adjudication of the controversy."

On appeal, appellants cite to the record as indicating the
"immense" amount of discovery that has already occurred, the
desirability of a Texas forum, and the familiarity of the trial
court with the facts and claims at issue. While some of these
assertions may be true, the trial court was within its discretion
to weigh the sole factor on which Plaintiffs focused their effort
below-- whether class members have an interest in resolving common
issues by class action--against class certification. There was a
lack of evidence demonstrating the estimated number of potential
class members and the estimated value of potential class members'
damages. As the trial court observed, Plaintiffs' argument was
premised on assumptions that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated to be
true or even likely.

Evidence in the record shows that there was an extraordinarily high
trading volume during the tender period, which makes it unclear how
many shareholders, if any, will fall into the category of "holding
continuously" throughout the tender period. The evidence also fails
to show how many of those continuously holding shareholders, if
any, will be those who held only a small number of shares and
would, therefore, face prohibitively expensive individual lawsuits.
From the evidence in the record, it is equally possible that there
are only a small number of shareholders who meet the class
definition and that those few potential class members owned a large
number of shares. On this record, the Court cannot conclude that
the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that "it cannot
determine whether class action is superior to individual actions to
achieve a fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy."

In sum, the Court finds that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in denying appellants' motion for class certification.
Accordingly, the trial court's order denying Plaintiffs' renewed
motion for class certification is affirmed.

The appeals case is Raymond Boytim, Hugh Duncan, Walter Schwimmer,
the Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust and the Edward J. Goodman
Generation Skipping Trust, Jeffrey Whalen, and Howard Weissberg,
Appellants, Brigham Exploration Company, Ben M. Brigham, David T.
Brigham, Harold D. Carter, Stephen P. Reynolds, Stephen C. Hurley,
Hobart A. Smith, Scott W. Tinker, Statoil ASA, and Fargo
Acquisition, Inc., Cross-Appellants, v. Brigham Exploration
Company, Ben M. Brigham, David T. Brigham, Harold D. Carter,
Stephen C. Hurley, Stephen P. Reynolds, Hobart A. Smith, Scott W.
Tinker, Statoil ASA, and Fargo Acquisition, Inc., Appellees,
Raymond Boytim, Hugh Duncan, Walter Schwimmer, the Edward J.
Goodman Life Income Trust and the Edward J. Goodman Generation
Skipping Trust, Jeffrey Whalen, and Howard Weissberg,
Cross-Appellees, No. 03-17-00722-CV (Tex. App.).

A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Nov. 20, 2018 is
available at https://bit.ly/2zG0pAq from Leagle.com.

Michael D. Marin -- mmarin@boulettegolden.com -- Hamilton Lindley,
Randall J. Baron, Mark S. Reich, Denis F. Sheils --
dsheils@kohnswift.com -- Marc L. Ackerman, James M. Ficaro, Willie
Charles Briscoe, Samuel H. Rudman, Richard A. Maniskas, Katherine
M. Ryan, Shane T. Rowley, Evan J. Smith, Patricia C. Weiser,
Michael G. Capeci -- mcapeci@rgrdlaw.com -- for Jeffrey Whalen,
Howard Weissberg, The Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust and the
Edward J. Goodman Generation Skipping Trust, Walter Schwimmer,
Raymond Boytim and Hugh Duncan, Appellants.

Nathan Palmer -- nrp@racinelaw.net -- Mackenzie Wallace --
Mackenzie.Wallace@tklaw.com -- Melissa M. Davis, Debora B. Alsup --
Debora.Alsup@tklaw.com  -- Michael Warren Stockham, Timothy R.
McCormick, for Stephen C. Hurley, Appellees.

Timothy R. McCormick , Mackenzie Wallace, Michael Warren Stockham,
Nathan Palmer, Timothy Eugene Hudson, Debora B. Alsup, Melissa M.
Davis, for Stephen P. Reynolds, Brigham Exploration Company, Ben M.
Brigham, Hobart A. Smith, Harold D. Carter, David T. Brigham,
Appellees.

Fields Alexander, Russell S. Post, Timothy R. McCormick, Parth S.
Gejji, Debora B. Alsup, Timothy Eugene Hudson, Michael Warren
Stockham, Christopher Cowan, for Scott W. Tinker, Statoil ASA and
Fargo Acquisition, Inc., Appellees.


BROOKDALE UNIVERSITY: K.B. Seeks Medical and Funeral Expenses
-------------------------------------------------------------
EUGENNIE SPRINGER AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF K.B., AN INFANT
(DECEASED), INDIVIDUALLY, AND BEHALF OF ALL THOSE SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiff, vs. BROOKDALE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL AND
MEDICAL CENTER; AND, MAIMONIDES MEDICAL CENTER, the Defendants,
Case No.: 523379/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 19, 2018), seeks to
recover damages in the form of medical and funeral expenses.

According to the complaint, on or about January 27, 2017, decedent
K.B., came under the medical care of Brookdale University Hospital
& Medical Center. The Decedent K.B. sustained personal injuries as
a result of the improper medical and surgical care rendered to her.
The personal injuries sustained by decedent occurred as a result of
the negligence on the part of the Defendant.

Decedent, K.B., suffered conscious pain and suffering and resulting
damages prior to her death and said conscious pain and suffering,
damages and wrongful death were caused by the Defendants'
negligence recklessness and/or wanton disregard of the safety and
rights of others in an amount that exceeds the jurisdictional
limits of all lower courts, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          CELLINO & BARNES, P.C.
          532 Broadhollow Road, Suite 107
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (800) 888-8888

BUCKEYE SHAKER: Faces Class Action Over Employees' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Sam Allard at Cleveland Scene, on
Nov. 18, attorney Scott Perlmuter with the Tittle & Perlmuter law
firm filed a class-action suit seeking unpaid wages for hourly
employees who worked at the Buckeye Shaker Square Development
Corporation this summer.

The suit alleges that as many as 50 employees worked hours,
primarily doing grass cutting and other manual labor, for which
they received no compensation beginning in July, 2018.

Further, the suit alleges that CDC's Executive Director John
Hopkins, along with Councilman Ken Johnson and Johnson's assistant
Garnell Jamison, officially "employers," transferred BSSDC's assets
to themselves and their associates -- "insiders" -- in violation of
the Ohio Fraudulent Transfer Act. These transfers, including
exorbitant salaries that the suit claims are not commensurate with
services performed, were made "with ill will toward the hourly
employees, or with conscious disregard for their rights that had a
great probability of causing substantial harm."

The lead plaintiff in the case is Brian Coffey, who worked as an
hourly employee for BSSDC for several years and through August,
2018.

The suit comes on the heels of extensive reporting about Ward 4
Councilman Ken Johnson's presumed misconduct in office. Mark Naymik
at Cleveland.com reported that residents were being unpaid for
their labor at the CDC, whose federal funding had been cut off
after a failure to produce recent audits.

The mother of a 16-year-old said that Garnell Jamison, (who works
for both Johnson and BSSDC), told her son to keep working despite
the lack of funds. Another man said that he was still owed roughly
$1,000 for work performed.

This information appeared in a story about Mr. Johnson's monthly
council reimbursements. He had been receiving $1,200 per month, the
maximum allowable amount, continuously for 11 years. He had
allegedly been paying a moonlighting city employee for "ward
services" that included checking to make sure grass-cutting work
was being performed.  

Any employee who worked for BSSDC this summer who is "similarly
situated" -- i.e., who has not been paid for work performed -- may
opt-in to the class-action suit. It's being pursued as a
class-action suit because many of the claims are small enough that
potential plaintiffs would be "reluctant to incur the substantial
cost, expense, and risk of pursuing their claims individually."
[GN]


BUFFALO, NY: BMHA Residents Mull Class Action Over Housing Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Claudine Ewing, writing for 2 On Your Side, reports that people
living in the Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority's Commodore Perry
housing development are so frustrated, they took their concerns to
City Hall. And they were loud in their demand for action.

Several residents are dealing with lead, bedbugs, and mold in their
homes. They say housing authority maintenance workers are not
addressing the problem.

Jacqueline Taylor says she is battling cancer, and while she can't
say her cancer is linked to her conditions at home, she believes it
is. Which is why she came to a Common Council committee meeting to
speak out. "I've got lead and mold in my apartment," and she said
there are problems with the window frames and flooding.

Community activist Nate Boyd told 2 On Your Side a class action
suit is in the works. "People who have tested positive for mold,
we're reaching out to get others to join in. We have a place for
them to get tested." He says a lack of maintenance and the claim of
people with health problems will be the focus of the lawsuit.

The Buffalo Common Council took the heat from tenants. And although
it is not the Council that can make changes, they can press for
them.

This led to an interesting exchange between Mr. Boyd and Councilman
Ulysees Wingo.

Mr. Wingo accused Boyd of grandstanding and exploiting the pain of
the residents. Boyd does not live in BMHA.

Councilman Rasheed Wyatt said it's time for BMHA to listen to the
tenants and address all of the concerns. Council President Darius
Pridgen said, "We (the city) have a responsibility to keep
fighting."

Jeanette Knightner said she was moved from an apartment with mold
to another apartment that had roaches. "We were living with garbage
under our building."

BMHA Executive Director Gillian Brown attended an afternoon meeting
and said, "I do try to be responsive, but that is on us and we have
to do a better job of reaching out to tenants and meeting with them
on a more regular basis." He promised to take care of work orders
that are called in as quickly as possible and get relocation
offers.

Ms. Brown said he has no documents that residents have been
infected or sick because of mold.

"These people in the BMHA Perry building 341 need to get tested for
lead and mold. How come you don't demand that these people are
moved right now? Excuse my passion, but these people are dying,"
said Mr. Boyd. [GN]


CAFEPRESS INC: Beck Class Suit in Delaware Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Cafepress 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 is facing a putative class action
complaint filed by Henri Beck in Delaware.

On October 29, 2018, Henri Beck, a purported stockholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Henri
Beck v. CafePress Inc. et al., Civil Action
No.1:18-cv-01694-UNA(the "Beck Complaint") against the Company and
all members of the Board.  Among other things, the Beck Complaint
alleges that the Company, and the members of the Board, omitted to
state material information in the Schedule14D-9, rendering it false
and misleading and in violation of Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule14d-9.  The alleged omissions
concern certain standstill agreements, alleged discussions and
negotiations between Snapfish and CafePress executive officers
concerning continued employment and inputs and assumptions
underlying the fairness opinion given by Needham & Company.

In addition, the Beck Complaint alleges that the members of the
Board acted as controlling persons of the Company within the
meaning and in violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act to
influence and control the dissemination of the allegedly defective
Schedule14D-9.  The Beck complaint also alleges that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in an
inadequate sales process, agreeing to an inadequate price, agreeing
to an excessive termination fee and no-solicitation and
matching-offer provisions said to deter topping offers, and
agreeing to receive cash for their stock and under their severance
packages.

The Beck Complaint seeks, among other things, an order that the
action may be maintained as a class action, an order enjoining the
Offer and the Merger, rescission of the Offer and the Merger if
they have already been consummated or rescissory damages, a
declaration that the Merger Agreement was agreed to in breach of
fiduciary duties and therefore is unenforceable, an order directing
the individual defendants to commence a better sales process
designed to maximize shareholder value and to account for damages,
and an award of costs, including attorneys' fees and experts'
fees.

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.


CALLOOH CALLAY: Fails to Pay OT to Ironers, Rivera Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
MARILU RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CALLOOH CALLAY INC. d/b/a PRESSED CLEANERS;
and JEFFREY CURTIS, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06042-JFB-GRB
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2018) is an action against the Defendants to
recover minimum wages and overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Rivera was employed by the Defendants as ironers.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CANADA: Judge Approves '60s Scoop Class Action Legal Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that an Ontario justice who raised flags
over the $75 million the federal government agreed to pay the
lawyers who successfully pursued the '60s Scoop class action has
approved the arrangement despite his misgivings.

The legal fees, which the government is paying separately from the
compensation to the survivors, became a flashpoint earlier this
year when Ontario Superior Court Justice Edward Belobaba said they
were far too high.

Beyond the amount of the fees, Justice Belobaba was particularly
upset a group of lawyers who had acted for Scoop victims in Federal
Court were pocketing half the total even though they had done
comparatively little work toward the settlement.

Justice Belobaba has now, albeit reluctantly, signed off on his
end.

Given that a Federal Court judge approved the fee arrangement for
the lawyers in that court, Justice Belobaba said it would be
"unfair in the extreme" to award anything less to the two lawyers
who spent the better part of a decade in Superior Court fighting
for the Indigenous victims.

"I cannot in good conscience limit class counsel in (the Ontario
action), who truly deserve many millions more than class counsel in
(the federal action)," Justice Belobaba said, adding he didn't
understand why the Federal Court had acted as it did.

That means Jeffery Wilson and Morris Cooper, who sued on behalf of
Scoop victims for the loss of their cultural heritage, will get
their $37.5-million share -- half the fee total.

Mr. Cooper said on Nov. 19 he was pleased with the ruling and that
Justice Belobaba had been "clearly very complimentary of our
efforts."

Separately, the last legal hurdle holding up payouts to the victims
was also cleared with a deal over who pays for a failed appeal
against the class-action settlement, documents show.

The deal lets the lawyers off the hook for the costs of their
unsuccessful effort on behalf of a small group unhappy with the
$750-million settlement. In exchange, they have agreed to take no
further steps to challenge the settlement or otherwise hold up its
implementation.

Earlier in November, the Federal Court of Appeal rejected the
proposed appeal fronted by lawyer Jai Singh Sheikhupura with
Vancouver-based Watson Goepel, which had been shut out of the $75
million awarded to the lawyers. Judge John Laskin decided evidence
the applicants had filed in support was "inadequate in the
extreme."

While it is normal in litigation for the losing party to cover the
legal costs incurred by the winners, the winning lawyers in this
case took the unusual step of seeking costs personally from Mr.
Sheikhupura given the serious misconduct allegations he and one of
his clients had made against them. Judge Laskin rejected the
accusations as unfounded and asked for submissions on the costs
issue.

The documents seen by The Canadian Press show the dispute has now
been settled with both sides pulling back.

"The applicants' solicitors will not seek to appeal nor seek leave
to appeal the decision rendered by the Federal Court of Appeal in
this matter on Nov. 8, 2018, or any other decision made in
connection with the '60s Scoop settlement agreement," the deal
states. "Counsel for the respondents will not seek costs against
the applicants' solicitors."

Mr. Sheikhupura did not respond to a request for comment.

Kirk Baert, with one of the three law firms waiting to collect
$37.5 million as their share of the class-action fees, said the
parties advised Mr. Laskin on Nov. 19 of the costs agreement.

The federal government had warned it would not proceed with payouts
to Scoop survivors -- each stands to get as much as $50,000 --
until the legal squabbling had ended. The parties to the new deal
have now made it explicit their dispute is done.

"They will not take any further steps of any kind whatsoever to
delay implementation of the settlement," the agreement states.

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

Among other things, they alleged they were excluded from the
process that led to court approval of the long-fought settlement
for the harms done when they, as children, were taken from their
Indigenous families and placed with non-Indigenous ones. They also
expressed unhappiness over the fees awarded to the lawyers who
negotiated the deal.

Mr. Laskin rejected their arguments. [GN]


CANCER GENETICS: Bid to Dismiss NJ Securities Suit Due Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer Genetics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that defendants' motion
to dismiss the amended complaint entitled, In re Cancer Genetics,
Inc. Securities Litigation, is due to be filed on or before
December 31, 2018.

On April 5, 2018 and April 12, 2018, purported stockholders of the
Company filed nearly identical putative class action lawsuits in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, against the
Company, Panna L. Sharma, John A. Roberts, and Igor Gitelman,
captioned Ben Phetteplace v. Cancer Genetics, Inc. et al., No.
2:18-cv-05612 and Ruo Fen Zhang v. Cancer Genetics, Inc. et al.,
No. 2:18-06353, respectively.

The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 based on
allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions regarding
our business, operational, and financial results. The lawsuits
seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages in
connection with purchases of the company's stock between March 23,
2017 and April 2, 2018, as well as interest, attorneys' fees, and
costs.

On August 28, 2018, the Court consolidated the two actions in one
action captioned In re Cancer Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation
and appointed shareholder Randy Clark as the lead plaintiff.

On October 30, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
adding Edward Sitar as a defendant and seeking, among other things,
compensatory damages in connection with purchases of CGI stock
between March 10, 2016 and April 2, 2018.  

Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint is due to be
filed on or before December 31, 2018.

Cancer Genetics said, "The Company is unable to predict the
ultimate outcome of these actions and therefore cannot estimate
possible losses or ranges of losses, if any."

Cancer Genetics, Inc. develops, commercializes, and provides
molecular and biomarker-based tests and services in the United
States, Europe, and Asia. Cancer Genetics, Inc. was founded in 1999
and is based in Rutherford, New Jersey.


CARILLON TOWER: Sued for Securities Fraud, Fiduciary Duty Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Annabelle Yao, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Carillon Tower/Chicago LP; Forefront EB-5
Fund (ICT) LLC; Tizi LLC d/b/a Local Government Regional Center of
Illinois; TD Bank N.A.; Symmetry Property Development II LLC;
Fordham Real Estate LLC; and Jeffrey L. Laytin, Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-07865 (N.D. Ill., November 28, 2018) is a class action
complaint against Defendants for securities fraud, breach of
contract, and breach of fiduciary duty.

Plaintiff Annabelle Yao is one of ninety Chinese investors who
signed investment documents totaling $49.5 million dollars to make
a loan to "Carillon Tower", a to-be-realized-in-the-future 42-story
tower at Superior and Wabash, housing a 200-unit Hilton hotel, 154
apartment units, a 225-seat Gibson's Restaurant, and parking spaces
for 154 vehicles. The Chinese invested in 2015, but Carillon Towers
was never built. It was rejected by the Alderman after a
neighborhood outcry, and plans were never submitted to the
Commissioner of Planning and Development. The Chinese investors
never got their money back; in fact, no one will tell them where it
is, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Ying Yao is a Chinese national residing in China.

Carillon Tower/Chicago LP is a New York limited partnership.

Forefront EB-5 Fund (ICT) LLC is a New York limited liability
company acting as the general partner of the LP.

Tizi LLC is an Illinois limited liability company doing business
under the assumed name of Local Government Regional Center of
Illinois, a regional center authorized to help developers raise
money from foreigners under the EB-5 program.

TD Bank N.A. is a national banking association with a principal
place of business in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, and the escrow agent
who, under the terms of the Offering, was required to hold the
investors' money until certain conditions were satisfied.

Symmetry Property Development II LLC is a New York limited
liability company that, under the terms of the Offering, was to be
the co-developer of the Project.

Fordham Real Estate LLC is an Illinois limited liability company
that, under the terms of the Offering, was to be the co-developer
(with Symmetry) to develop the Project.

Defendant Jeffrey L. Laytin is the managing member of the GP and
thereby had control of the GP. He is also listed in SEC filings as
the manager of Symmetry, the co-developer of the Project.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Glen J. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
     Glen J. Dunn & Associates, Ltd.
     221 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
     Chicago, Illinois 60601
     Phone: (312) 880-1010
     Email: gdunn@gjdlaw.com

          - and -

     Douglas Litowitz, Esq.
     413 Locust Place
     Deerfield, IL 60015
     Phone: (312) 622-2848
     Email: Litowitz@gmail.com


CARLZ ZEISS: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Coleman Says
----------------------------------------------------
LORI COLEMAN, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CARLZ ZEISS
MEDITECH, INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.: RG18927500 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Nov. 5, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to pay overtime, meal
period premiums and minimum wages pursuant to the California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants, jointly and severally,
employed Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, non­-exempt employee, from
approximately February 2013 to approximately February 2016, in the
State of California, County of San Diego. Defendants hired
Plaintiff and the other class members, classified them as
hourly-paid or non-exempt employees, and failed to compensate them
for all hours worked and missed meal periods and/or rest breaks.

The Plaintiff and the other class members worked over 8 hours in a
day and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment with
Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a
pattern and practice of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or
non-exempt employees within the State of California. This pattern
and practice involved, failing to pay them for all regular and/or
overtime wages earned and for missed meal periods and rest breaks
in violation of California law, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

CARRIZO OIL: McLelland Seeks Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------
SKIPPER MCLELLAND, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiff, v. CARRIZO OIL & GAS, INC, the Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-04214 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 6, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, Carrizo employs oilfield personnel,
like McLelland, to carry out its work. McLelland, and the other
workers like him, were typically scheduled for 12-hour shifts, 7
days a week, for weeks at a time.

But Carrizo does not pay all of these workers overtime for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of
paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Carrizo pays these workers
a day-rate, without a guaranteed salary or overtime pay, and
classifies them as independent contractors, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, Texas 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

CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Court Narrows Claims in C. Harvey's CPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CYNTHIA HARVEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY
LLC and COORDINATED CARE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-CV-00012-SMJ (E.D. Wash.), Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granted
in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss
Harvey's class action complaint alleging breach of contract and
violation of the Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"), chapter 19.86 of
the Revised Code of Washington.

Harvey, a purchaser of the Defendants' Ambetter health insurance
policy, claims the Defendants misrepresented and made material
omissions regarding the coverage actually provided by their
Ambetter policy, which did not deliver the insurance services for
which the Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner
approved the filed rates.

On Aug. 29, 2018, Harvey filed a Second Amended Complaint on behalf
of herself and a putative class of Ambetter policyholders alleging
the Defendants breached their contracts and violated the CPA by
misrepresenting and making material omissions regarding the
coverage actually provided by their Ambetter policy.  The complaint
alleges the Defendants target low-income customers who qualify for
substantial government subsidies while simultaneously providing
coverage well below both what is required by law and what they
represent to customers.  The provider network the Defendants
represented was available to Ambetter policyholders was in material
measure, if not largely, fictitious.  

In addition, the members have difficulty finding -- and in many
cases cannot find -- medical providers who will accept Ambetter
insurance.  The Defendants misrepresent the number, location, and
existence of purported providers by listing physicians, medical
groups, and other providers as participants in their network and by
listing nurses and other non-physicians as primary care providers.
The Defendants have even copied entire physician directories into
their purported network lists for some areas, and have, in fact,
listed medical students as part of their primary care provider
network.  They listed those providers as being part of their
network even though those providers were not actually part of the
provider network for Ambetter.

The complaint alleges the Defendants fail to disclose the true
limitations of the coverage provided by its Ambetter policies.  The
Defendants' sales materials omit the fact that they do not
adequately monitor their network of providers.  The Ambetter
documentation also fails to disclose that the Defendants do not
consistently provide access to medically necessary care on a
reasonable basis without charging for out-of-network services.

Additionally, the Defendants routinely deny coverage for medical
services, claiming that the provider did not show sufficient
diagnostic evidence that the care was necessary.  As a result of
their failing to pay providers for legitimate claims, a large
number of medical providers reject Ambetter insurance, further
reducing the provider network available to Ambetter's members.  The
Defendants' provider network was and is so limited that holders of
Ambetter policies would have to travel long distances to see a
medical provider, if one legitimately within the Defendants'
network could be found at all.

Harvey purchased the Defendants' Ambetter policy in December 2016.
In doing so, she relied in part on the Defendants' Ambetter plan
brochure and plan summary.  These documents represent that the
healthcare providers listed in the Defendants' online directory are
in network.  The documents also purport to describe generally what
services are covered and what are not, but are misleading by
failing to indicate how few in-network providers would be
available.

Hrvey seeks compensatory or actual damages equal to:

     i. Benefit of the Bargain: a refund of the entire premium for
the purchase of insurance that was not as represented and
contracted for in order to restore Plaintiff and the Class to their
position prior to purchasing the Ambetter policy; and/or

     ii. Partial Refund: the difference in value between the value
of the policy as represented and contracted for and the value of
the policy as actually accepted and delivered; and/or

     iii. Out-Of-Pocket Expenses: damages incurred as a result of
having to pay for services that should have been covered by the
Ambetter policy.

The complaint alleges both Centene Management and Coordinated Care
are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Centene Corporation, which is not
a defendant to the civil action.  Under a management services
agreement between them, Centene Management effectuates, controls
and handles the operations of Coordinated Care.  Thus, Coordinated
Care is a shell and alter ego of Centene Management, and the two
operate so in concert and together in a common enterprise and
through related activities so that the actions of one may be
imputed to the other.

The Defendants moved to dismiss Harvey's complaint on Sept. 12,
2018, arguing that Harvey fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.  Harvey responded in opposition to the motion and
the Defendants replied in support of it.  The Court held a hearing
regarding the motion on Nov. 20, 2018.

Judge Mendoza granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint.  

He dismissed without prejudice the breach-of-contract claim against
Centene Management.  He concludes that Harvey states a facially
plausible CPA claim against Centene Management but she fails to
state a facially plausible breach-of-contract claim against it.
While he dismisses Harvey's breach-of-contract claim against
Centene Management, it does so without prejudice because Harvey
requests leave to amend the complaint and expects discovery to
reveal more details regarding the ways in which the two corporate
entities interacted, comingled, or disregarded the corporate form.

For the breach-of-contract claim against Coordinated Care, the
Judge finds that the proper measure of compensatory damages based
on the benefit-of-the-bargain rule is a sum equivalent to
performance of the contract that places the injured party in the
position he or she would occupy if the contract had been fulfilled
rather than breached.  He concludes that Harvey alleges a facially
plausible breach-of-contract claim.  

Moreover, he concludes Harvey bases this claim on viable theories
of damages that are familiar under Washington state
law—compensatory damages equal to the benefit of the bargain had
the contract not been breached, the difference between the contract
price and the reduced value of the services received, or the
out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a result of the breach.  Harvey
needs not allege precise figures of premiums paid and out-of-pocket
expenses incurred for Coordinated Care to receive fair notice of
what damages it allegedly caused.  The Plaintiff will amend the
complaint to make the correction no later than Nov. 30, 2018.  

All other claims may proceed as alleged.  The Clerk's Office is
directed to enter the Order and provide copies to all the counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/jXxPmH from Leagle.com.

Cynthia Harvey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth A. Adams --
eadams@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC,
Jennifer Rust Murray -- jmurray@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell
Marshall Law Group PLLC, Seth Lesser, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP,
pro hac vice & Beth E. Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com --
Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC.

Centene Management Company LLC, Defendant, represented by J. Scott
Pritchard -- scott.pritchard@stoel.com -- Stoel Rives LLP & Maren
Roxanne Norton -- maren.norton@stoel.com -- Stoel Rives LLP.

Coordinated Care Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brendan V.
Sullivan, Jr. -- bsullivan@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly, pro hac
vice, Steven M. Cady -- scady@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly, pro
hac vice, J. Scott Pritchard -- scott.pritchard@stoel.com -- Stoel
Rives LLP & Maren Roxanne Norton -- maren.norton@stoel.com -- Stoel
Rives LLP.


CENTURYLINK INC: Averts Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
-----------------------------------------------------
BloombergLaw reports that a lawsuit challenging how CenturyLink
Inc. managed its 401(k) plan should be dismissed, a federal
magistrate judge recommended.

The proposed class action, which could involve the retirement
benefits of nearly 50,000 investors, was based on "unsupported and
conclusory" allegations, the judge said in a Nov. 19 report. The
complaint didn't offer facts supporting the idea that CenturyLink's
in-house investment management company was unreasonable to use
multiple fund managers for one of its 401(k) investments. [GN]


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Appeal in Naylor Farms Class Action Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 company is
awaiting a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit in the class action lawsuit entitled, Naylor Farms, Inc.,
individually and as class representative on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C.

On June 7, 2011, an alleged class action was filed against the
company in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma ("Naylor Trial Court") alleging that the
company improperly deducted post-production costs from royalties
paid to plaintiffs and other royalty interest owners as categorized
in the petition from crude oil and natural gas wells located in
Oklahoma.

Plaintiffs indicated they seek damages in excess of $5,000, the
majority of which would be comprised of interest and may increase
with the passage of time.

The purported class includes non-governmental royalty interest
owners in oil and natural gas wells the company operated in
Oklahoma. The plaintiffs have alleged a number of claims, including
breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment, and other claims and seek termination of leases,
recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and
attorney fees on behalf of the alleged class.

The company responded to the Naylor Farms petition, denied the
allegations and raised arguments and defenses.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in October 2015.
In addition, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment
asking the court to determine as a matter of law that natural gas
is not marketable until it is in the condition and location to
enter an interstate pipeline. On May 20, 2016, the company filed a
Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy with the Naylor Trial Court. As
of November 9, 2018, the Tenth Circuit has not ruled.

On January 17, 2017, the Naylor Trial Court certified a modified
class of plaintiffs in the Naylor Trial Court with oil and gas
leases containing specific language. The modified class constitutes
less than 60% of the leases the plaintiffs originally sought to
certify. After additional briefing on the subject, on April 18,
2017, the Naylor Trial Court issued an order certifying the class
to include only claims relating back to June 1, 2006.

On May 1, 2017, the company filed a Petition for Permission to
Appeal Class Certification Order with the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals (the "Tenth Circuit"), which was granted. Oral arguments
were held on March 20, 2018.  No further updates were provided in
the Company's SEC report.

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.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: To Furnish Class Contact Info in Guzman Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADRIANA GUZMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHIPOTLE
MEXICAN GRILL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02606-HSG
(KAW) (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California ordered the
Defendants to furnish the contact information for a random sample
of 2,000 potential class members in response to the Plaintiff's
interrogatory within 14 days of the Order.

Plaintiffs Guzman, Juan Pablo Aldana Lira, and Jonathan Poot filed
the instant putative class action, alleging that Defendants
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and Chipotle Services, LLC
discriminated against their employees of Hispanic race and/or
Mexican national origin.  On Nov. 2, 2018, the parties filed a
joint letter concerning the Plaintiffs' interrogatory seeking a
class list of all the putative class members, including their name,
job title(s), dates of employment, employment location(s), and last
known contact information.

The Plaintiffs seek identifying and contact information about the
putative class members.  The putative class is defined as all
current and former hourly employees of Chipotle, who are Hispanic
and/or of Mexican national origin, and worked at Chipotle
restaurant locations in California.  The Defendants have estimated
that approximately 43,000 people employed in their over 400
California restaurants between Nov. 14, 2011 and Oct. 12, 2018
self-identified as Latino or Hispanic.

The Defendants make four arguments opposing the Plaintiffs'
discovery request.  First, they argue that the Plaintiffs' request
is overbroad because it seeks information on all of their current
and former hourly employees of Hispanic and/or Mexican national
origin employed in California.  Second, they contend that the
Plaintiffs have failed to show that discovery is likely to
substantiate the class claims, relying on Doninger and Mantolete.
Third, the Defendants argue that class discovery should be limited
to the locations at which Plaintiffs work because the Plaintiffs
have not produced evidence of companywide violations.  Finally,
they contend that the Court should only require a statistically
significant sample.

As an initial matter, Magistrate Judge Westmore notes that the
joint discovery letter does not comply with the Court's standing
order.  The standing order requires that the parties draft and file
their joint discovery letter within five business days of the lead
trial counsels' meet and confer session.  The parties met and
conferred on Oct. 3 and 9, 2018, but did not file their letter
until Nov. 2, 2018.  Rather than terminate the discovery letter,
however, she orders the parties to review the standing order prior
to filing any other discovery letters.  Future failure to comply
with the standing order in its entirety may result in the Court
terminating the discovery letter.

The putative class is around 43,000 individuals in over 500
locations; a 20% sample would be 8,600 individuals.  Given the
large size of the putative class, he Magistrate finds that a sample
of 2,000 individuals (approximately 5%) is appropriate.  The
Defendants will provide the names, job title(s), dates of
employment, employment location(s), and last known contact
information (including address, telephone number, and e-mail
address) of each member of the ample, which will be obtained
randomly.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff's counsel is instructed to inform each
potential class member that 1) he or she has a right not to talk to
counsel, and 2) that, if he or she elects not to talk to counsel,
the Plaintiff's counsel will terminate the contact and not contact
them again.

For the reasons she stated, Magistrate Judge Westmore directed the
Defendants to furnish the contact information for a random sample
of 2,000 potential class members in response to the Plaintiff's
interrogatory within 14 days of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/IboPWW from Leagle.com.

Adriana Guzman, Juan Pablo Aldana Lira & Jonathon Poot, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Carolyn Hunt Cottrell --
ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Adalberto Corres-Morales --
adalberto@e-licenciados.com -- Villegas Carrera, LLP, David
Christopher Leimbach, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns
LLP, Karen C. Carrera -- karen@e-licenciados.com -- Villegas
Carrera, LLP, Mira Pearl Karageorge, Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Ori Edelstein, Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns & Virginia Villegas -- virginia@e-licenciados.com
-- Villegas Carrera, LLP.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Defendant, represented by Nima
Darouian -- ndarouian@messner.com -- Messner Reeves LLP, Amish
Ashok Shah -- ashah@messner.com -- Messner Reeves LLP, Charles C.
Cavanagh -- ccavanagh@messner.com -- Messner Reeves LLP & Kathleen
June Mowry -- kmowry@messner.com -- Messner Reeves, pro hac vice.

CHIPOTLE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, represented by Charles C.
Cavanagh, Messner Reeves LLP, Nima Darouian, Messner Reeves LLP,
Amish Ashok Shah, Messner Reeves LLP & Kathleen June Mowry, Messner
Reeves.


CIRCLE K: Court Extends Deadline to File Bid for Settlement OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order extending Deadline in which to provide the Court with the
parties' Joint Motion for Class Action Settlement Approval and
related documents in the case captioned CHARLES GRAHL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
CIRCLE K STORES, INC., a foreign corporation; DOES I through V,
inclusive; and ROE corporations I through V, inclusive, Defendants.
Case No. 2:14-cv-00305-VCF. (D. Nev.).

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 19, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7udraqa from Leagle.com.

Charles Grahl, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew L. Rempfer, Law
Offices of Steven J. Parsons, Anthony M. Carter --
acarter@tostrudlaw.com -- Tostrud Law Group, P.C., pro hac vice,
Erik H. Langeland, Erik H. Langeland, P.C., pro hac vice, Jon A.
Tostrud -- jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com -- Tostrud Law Group, P.C., pro
hac vice, Joseph Nathan Mott, Law Offices of Steven J. Parsons,
Scott E. Lundy, Law Offices of Steven J. Parsons & Steven J.
Parsons, Law Office Of Steven J. Parsons.

Circle K Stores, Defendant, represented by Anthony L. Martin --
anthony.martin@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, P.C., Dana B. Salmonson --
dana.salmonson@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart, P.C., Patrick F. Hulla -- Ogletree Deakins, pro hac vice &
Jill Garcia -- jill.garcia@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, P.C..


CLIFFORD PICKNEY: District Court Tosses McKinney Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. dismissed the case captioned
D'ORO R. McKINNEY, Pro Se, Plaintiff, v. CLIFFORD PICKNEY, SHERIFF,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18 CV 2429 (N.D. Ohio).

Pro se Plaintiff D'Oro R. McKinney, a detainee in the Cuyahoga
County Jail, has filed a "class action" Complaint against Cuyahoga
County Sheriff Clifford Pickney, Director of Regional Corrections
Kenneth Mills, and the "Cuyahoga County Sheriffs Department." The
Complaint alleges of a number of conditions in the Jail to which
the Plaintiff contends detainees are generally subjected, including
"Red Zone" lock-downs, inadequate mental and physical health
resources, food, access to the law library, sleeping and lodging
arrangements, and other, generally inadequate "due process" and
"safety" protections.

The Plaintiff purportedly filed the Complaint on behalf of himself
and multiple other detainees in the Jail, also identified as
plaintiffs. He seeks "relief" from the alleged conditions,
apparently including monetary damages.

The Court holds that the Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed
pursuant to section 1915A. First, to the extent the Plaintiff
purports to bring this action on behalf of anyone other than
himself, his Complaint must be dismissed. The Plaintiff "lacks
standing to assert the constitutional rights of other prisoners,"
and pro se prisoners are not permitted to bring class action
lawsuits concerning prison conditions.

Second, although the Plaintiff has standing to assert alleged
violations of his own constitutional rights, his Complaint fails to
allege facts suggesting he has a plausible claim. All of his
complaints regarding conditions in the Jail are generalized. No
facts are alleged in his Complaint suggesting that, or how, he
personally was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or
laws of the United States. Further, the Complaint does not allege
facts suggesting that, or how, any named Defendant was specifically
involved in such a deprivation.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Nov. 20,
2018 is available at https://bit.ly/2KVHy8P from Leagle.com.

D'oro R. McKinney, Plaintiff, pro se.


COFFEE MEETS BAGEL: Rrapo Sues over Dating Referral Services
------------------------------------------------------------
PANDI RRAPO, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. COFFEE MEETS BAGEL, INC.,
a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No.: 2018CH13834 (Il..
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty, Nov. 5, 2018), seeks redress for CMB's
violations of the Illinois Dating Referral Services Act. Plaintiff
contends that CMB's violation of the DRSA constitutes unlawful and
deceptive acts under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act. As a result of CMB's conduct, Plaintiff and
other consumers who paid for CMB Premium or CMB Beans were deprived
of the ability to exercise their statutory rights to cancel and
obtain a refund. Plaintiff, on his own behalf, and on behalf of a
class of purchasers in Illinois, seeks statutory, equitable,
injunctive, and monetary relief.

According to the complaint, Coffee Meets Bagel, Inc. owns and
operates a dating service, primarily through a smartphone
application called "Coffee Meets Bagel." CMB promotes its
smartphone application through its website,
https://site.coffeemeetsbagel.com, as well as through the Apple iOS
App Store and the Google Play Store. The interface to use the CMB
dating services is available through the iOS CMB mobiles
application and the Android CMB mobile application. CMB advertises
the CMB App. as being an effective way of meeting potential
romantic partners by using a data-driven algorithm to match users
based on their interests, location, and other criteria. Users are
shown a profile of another user who uses the CMB App., which
includes their pictures, occupation, and interests. CMB provides
access to the CMB App. for free to anyone who signs up ("CMB Free
Users"). A CMB Free User signs up via an email address or by
connecting their Facebook account. Then, they are prompted to
create a profile, directing them to upload photos of themselves,
provide information about their career and education, and to list
their interests. CMB also offers a paid, premium membership to CMB
Free Users which gives users advanced features, such as activity
reports of other users and the ability to see when a message has
been "read" by another user.

Both CMB premium members ("CMB Members") and CMB Free Users
(collectively, "CMB Users") see the same profiles of other CMB
Users in the CMB App. When shown a profile, the CMB User can either
"pass" or "like" the profile. After a selection is made, the next
profile in the queue is shown to the CMB User. Approximately 20
profiles are queued up for a CMB User everyday at noon. When two
CMB Users have liked each other's profiles, a match is made and
both CMB Users are able to chat with each other within the CMB App.
A CMB Member has the added ability to see an "Activity Report" on a
CMB User's profile. This Activity Report contains information such
as how fast a particular CMB User responds to messages and how
often they use the CMB App. CMB Members also gain the ability to
see if a message has been "read" by the other CMB User when in the
chat window of the CMB App. Additionally, CMB sells a digital
currency called beans ("CMB Beans"), which can co be used for
various in-app purchases through the CMB App. and can be purchased
by both CMB Members and CMB Free Users. Potential purchases that
can be made with CMB Beans include seeing if a dating profile has
mutual friends with the CMB User and for "liking" profiles outside
of the daily queue in the "Discover" section of the CMB App.
Purchasing a CMB Premium subscription or purchasing CMB Beans is
done within the CMB App. A CMB User is not presented with the terms
of the agreement when they pay. They are instead directed to the
CMB website to read the Terms and Conditions
(https://coffeemeetsbagel.com/terms). The Terms and Conditions
webpage does not expressly contain the required three-day
cancellation provision, and CMB does not allow any refunds of CMB
Premium subscription purchases, which is in violation of the DRSA
and renders all contracts for CMB Premium subscriptions void and
unenforceable, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
          David L. Gerbie, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
          E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com
                  dgerbie@mcgpc.com

COMCAST CABLE: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Comcast
Cable Communications Management, LLC, alleging that the company
failed to lawfully calculate and pay their employees the correct
overtime. The class action lawsuit against Comcast is currently
pending in the San Joaquin County Superior Court, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2018-13207.

The class action lawsuit alleges that Plaintiff and other
California Class Members are not provided with overtime
compensation and other benefits required by law as a result of
being classified as "exempt" by COMCAST. The Complaint claims that
as a matter of company policy, practice, and procedure, COMCAST has
uniformly, unlawfully, unfairly and/or deceptively classified every
Account Executive as exempt from overtime pay and other related
benefits, fails to pay the required overtime compensation and
otherwise fails to comply with all applicable labor laws with
respect to these Account Executives.

For more information about the class action lawsuit against Comcast
Cable Communications Management, LLC, call (800) 568-8020 to speak
to an experienced California employment attorney today.

Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, is a labor law firm
with law offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County, Los
Angeles County, Sacramento County, and San Francisco County. The
firm has a statewide practice of representing employees on a
contingency basis for violations involving unpaid wages, overtime
pay, discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination and other
types of illegal workplace conduct. [GN]


COMMAND SECURITY: Franchi Balks at Merger Deal with Prosegur SIS
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM FRANCHI, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. COMMAND SECURITY CORPORATION, THOMAS
P. KIKIS, CRAIG P. COY, JAMES P. HEFFERNAN, JERRY L. JOHNSON, JANET
L. STEINMAYER, and MARK J. SULLIVAN, the Defendants, Case No.:
655494/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 5, 2018), seeks to enjoin a
proposed transaction announced on September 18, 2018, pursuant to
which Command Security will be acquired by Prosegur SIS (USA) Inc.
and Crescent Merger Sub.

According to the complaint, on September 18, 2018, the Board caused
Command Security to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Prosegur. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
stockholders of Command Security will receive $2.85 in cash for
each share of Command Security they own. In approving the Merger
Agreement, the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to plaintiff and the Class. Command Security aided and
abetted the Individual Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties.
Compounding the unfairness of the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issued materially incomplete and misleading disclosures in the
proxy statement filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 5, 2018, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 683-3516
          E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
                  tjm@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

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

CONTRACTOR MANAGEMENT: Wage & Hour Suit Sent to Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Nancy Torresen granted Defendants Contractor
Management Services, LLC and 3RD Party Logistics ME, LLC's motions
to compel arbitration in the case captioned ROBERT CURTIS and
ROBERT LOWELL on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. CONTRACTOR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; 3RD
PARTY LOGISTICS ME, LLC; and MICHAEL WILLIAMS, Defendants, Docket
No. 1:15-cv-487-NT (D. Me.).

Plaintiffs Robert Curtis and Robert Lowell filed the putative class
and collective action against Defendants 3PL and Michael Williams
and Defendant CMS to assert federal and state wage and hour law
violations and related state-law tort claims.

The Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs' claims must be submitted
to arbitration under the binding terms of the Defendants'
respective agreements with the Plaintiffs. "A party seeking to
compel arbitration must demonstrate that a valid agreement to
arbitrate exists, that the movant is entitled to invoke the
arbitration clause, that the other party is bound by that clause,
and that the claim asserted comes within the clause's scope.'"
Through their motions, the Defendants have presented signed
agreements between themselves and the Plaintiffs that purport to
bind both parties and that allow either party to invoke
arbitration, and the Defendants have asserted that the Plaintiffs'
claims come within the Arbitration Provisions' scope.

With respect to 3PL, the Plaintiffs contend that they cannot be
compelled to arbitrate under the 3PL Agreement because they did not
sign it and no valid contract was ever formed. The Plaintiffs
further argue that the 3PL Agreement's arbitration provisions are
invalid because enforcing them would prevent the Plaintiffs from
effectively vindicating their statutory rights or, alternatively,
because the arbitration provisions are unconscionable under
applicable state law.

The 3PL Defendants respond by providing the declaration of Mr. Greg
Stultz, a CMS employee, and a set of transaction records from CMS.
Mr. Stultz's declaration states that CMS provides and manages
"ICMPower," the digital platform through which the Plaintiffs
purportedly signed the 3PL Agreement. Mr. Stultz explains the
process through which a user may access and sign an agreement using
ICMPower. The user must first register for the platform by
submitting her name, date of birth, and social security number.
Then the user must create a unique electronic signature. To do
that, the user must correctly answer three of four security
questions related to her personal history. Once the electronic
signature is created, in order to sign a document, the user must
log in to ICMPower. ICMPower records users' interactions with the
system, including registration, identity verification, and the
affixing of an electronic signature to a document. Mr. Stultz
asserts, and the records he provides corroborate, that both of the
Plaintiffs completed ICMPower's identity verification process,
created a unique electronic signature, and later reviewed and
electronically signed the 3PL Agreement.

This evidence overcomes the Plaintiffs' unsupported implication
that 3PL forged the Plaintiffs' signatures. The Plaintiffs'
remaining argument, that they do not recall authorizing anyone to
affix their electronic signatures to the 3PL Agreement, does not
suffice to call the agreement's formation into question under New
York law.

The Court, therefore, finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to
establish that the 3PL Agreement's arbitration provisions are
unconscionable under the laws of New York. The Plaintiffs offer no
further arguments against enforcement of those arbitration
provisions, and the 3PL Defendants' motion to compel arbitration is
granted.

As to CMS, the Plaintiffs do not contest that they signed the CMS
Agreement. The Plaintiffs do argue that, as with the 3PL Agreement,
the CMS Agreement's arbitration provisions prevent the Plaintiffs
from vindicating their rights or are unconscionable. Anticipating
the Plaintiffs' arguments, CMS has executed a covenant not to
enforce the CMS Agreement's cost-splitting, forum selection, and
confidentiality provisions.

The Plaintiffs have presented authority that suggests that, in some
circumstances, Maine's courts may find forum selection,
cost-splitting, and confidentiality provisions in arbitration
agreements to be unconscionable. The Plaintiffs cannot, however,
avoid the fact that here, they did not need to agree to those
restrictions. CMS gave the Plaintiffs 30 days to review the
arbitration provisions and to opt out of them if they so desired.
The Plaintiffs have not suggested that there were any express or
implied adverse consequences to opting out of the arbitration
provisions, nor have they shown that the Plaintiffs lacked the
opportunity or ability to read the opt-out provision. Under "the
whole circumstances," therefore, the Court does not find the
arbitration agreement "to be grossly against conscience, or grossly
unreasonable and oppressive." In turn, the Court finds that the CMS
Agreement's arbitration provisions are enforceable and the Court
grants CMS's motion to compel arbitration.

The case is, therefore, dismissed as to Plaintiffs Curtis and
Lowell.

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

ROBERT CURTIS, On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated & ROBERT LOWELL, On behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by JEFFREY NEIL YOUNG,
JOHNSON WEBBERT & YOUNG LLP & PHILLIP E. JOHNSON, JOHNSON WEBBERT &
YOUNG LLP.

CONTRACTOR MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC, Defendant, represented by BRIAN
S. KAPLAN -- brian.kaplan@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER LLP, pro hac
vice & ERIC J. UHL, LITTLER MENDELSON, PC.

3RD PARTY LOGISTICS ME LLC & MICHAEL WILLIAMS, Defendants,
represented by CHARLA B. STEVENS -- charla.stevens@mclane.com --
MCLANE MIDDLETON, PERFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, pro hac vice, NICHOLAS
F. CASOLARO -- nicholas.casolaro@mclaine.com -- MCLANE MIDDLETON,
PERFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, pro hac vice & PETER C. FELMLY , DRUMMOND
WOODSUM.


CORIUM INTERNATIONAL: Kent Balks at Merger Deal with Gurnet Point
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KENT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CORIUM INTERNATIONAL, INC., DAVID L.
GREENWOOD, ERIC H. BJERKHOLT, BHASKAR CHAUDHURI, RON EASTMAN,
PHYLLIS GARDNER, IVAN GERGEL, PAUL GODDARD, PETER D. STAPLE, ROBERT
THOMAS, GURNET HOLDING COMPANY, and GURNET MERGER SUB, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01744-UNA (D. Del., Nov. 5, 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.

According to the complaint, the action stems from a proposed
transaction announced on October 11, 2018, pursuant to which Corium
International, Inc. will be acquired by affiliates of Gurnet Point
Capital. On October 11, 2018, Corium's Board of Directors caused
the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Gurnet Holding Company and Gurnet Merger Sub, Inc. Pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender offer
to acquire all of Corium's outstanding common stock for $12.50 per
share in cash. The Tender Offer is set to expire on November 26,
2018.

On October 26, 2018, defendants filed a Schedule 14D-9
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement (the "Solicitation
Statement") with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The
Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect to
the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement
false and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges herein that
defendants violated Sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Solicitation
Statement, the lawsuit says.

Corium is a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on
the development, manufacture, and commercialization of specialty
pharmaceutical products that leverage the Company's broad
experience with advanced transdermal and transmucosal delivery
systems.[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
          gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas
          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

COVIA HOLDINGS: Awaits Court OK on Settlement of Merger Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Covia Holdings Corporation is awaiting the Court's preliminary
approval of a stipulation to settle merger-related lawsuits,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018.

On June 1, 2018 (the "Merger Date"), Unimin Corporation ("Unimin")
completed its previously announced merger transaction (the
"Merger") with Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc. ("Fairmount
Santrol"). Upon closing of the Merger, Fairmount Santrol was merged
into a wholly owned subsidiary of Unimin and ceased to exist as a
separate corporate entity.  The combined entities began operating
as Covia. Fairmount Santrol common stock was delisted from the New
York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") prior to the market opening on June 1,
2018 and Covia commenced trading under the ticker symbol "CVIA" as
of that date.

Beginning on April 24, 2018, alleged stockholders of Fairmount
Santrol filed class actions against Fairmount Santrol and its
directors in the United States District Courts for the Northern
District of Ohio and for the District of Delaware.  The lawsuits
generally alleged that Fairmount Santrol and its directors violated
the federal securities laws by issuing allegedly misleading
disclosures in connection with the Merger.  The lawsuits sought,
among other things, to enjoin the special meeting at which
stockholders of Fairmount Santrol were scheduled to vote on, among
other items, a proposal to adopt the Merger agreement.

On May 14, 2018, counsel for the plaintiffs and counsel for the
defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding that, among
other things, provided for the dissemination of additional
information to Fairmount Santrol stockholders and for dismissal
with prejudice of the lawsuits.

On May 15, 2018, Fairmount Santrol disseminated the supplemental
disclosures to Fairmount Santrol stockholders through a Current
Report on Form 8-K.  Also on May 15, 2018, the plaintiffs withdrew
their pending motions for a preliminary injunction.  On May 25,
2018, at a special meeting of the stockholders of Fairmount
Santrol, the holders of the majority of the outstanding shares of
Fairmount Santrol voted to approve the Merger, among other things.

On June 1, 2018, the Merger was effected pursuant to the Merger
agreement.  On November 9, 2018, the parties executed a stipulation
of settlement and the plaintiffs filed a motion with the Court,
seeking preliminary approval of the proposed settlement.

The Company said, "Although the outcome of this lawsuit cannot be
predicted with certainty, management does not believe that this
pending lawsuit is reasonably likely to have a material adverse
effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations
or cash flows."

Covia Holdings Corporation provides minerals and material solutions
for the industrial and energy markets. The company offers various
mineral solutions to the glass, ceramics, coatings, polymers,
construction, water filtration, sports, and recreation markets.
Covia Holdings Corporation was founded in 1970 and is based in
Chesterland, Ohio.


CUSTOMERS BANCORP: Edelman Class Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------
Customers Bancorp, 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 Court in the
case, Shaya Edelman, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Higher One Holdings, Inc., WEX Bank, Inc.,
and Customers Bancorp, Inc., Case 2:17-cv-01700-RBS, has entered an
order of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(A).

On April 13, 2017, a class action complaint captioned Shaya
Edelman, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Higher One Holdings, Inc., WEX Bank, Inc., and
Customers Bancorp, Inc., Case 2:17-cv-01700-RBS, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

The plaintiff generally alleged, among other things, violations of
state consumer protection statutes and federal public policy
promulgated in the Higher Education Act, Department of Education
Regulations, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, Regulation E and
various common law violations through the offering and use of the
Higher One checking account and debit card. Customers Bank, Higher
One Holdings, Inc. and Wex Bank, Inc. filed a motion to compel
arbitration and stay proceedings.  

On August 28, 2018, as a result of the Parties' voluntary
resolution of the matter, the Court entered an order dismissing the
case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(A).

Customers Bancorp, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for
Customers Bank that provides financial products and services to
small and middle market businesses, not-for-profits, and consumers.
Customers Bancorp, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in
Wyomissing, Pennsylvania.


CVS HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Kentucky Class Suit for $20 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
CVS 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 Company has
agreed to resolve the class action suit entitles, Indiana State
District Council of Laborers and HOD Carriers Pension and Welfare
Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al. (U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky), for $20 million, funded by insurance
proceeds.

In February 2006, two substantially similar putative class action
lawsuits were filed and subsequently consolidated. The consolidated
complaint was filed against Omnicare, three of its officers and two
of its directors and purported to be brought on behalf of all
open-market purchasers of Omnicare common stock from August 3, 2005
through July 27, 2006, as well as all purchasers who bought shares
of Omnicare common stock in Omnicare’s public offering in
December 2005.

The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and sought, among
other things, compensatory damages and injunctive relief.

After dismissals and appeals to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit, the United States Supreme Court remanded the
case to the district court. In October 2016, Omnicare filed an
answer to plaintiffs' third amended complaint, and discovery
commenced.

In October 2018, the Company agreed to resolve this matter for $20
million, funded by insurance proceeds. The settlement is subject to
the parties reaching agreement on the non-economic terms and court
approval.

CVS Health said, "The Company denies any wrongdoing, and agreed to
a settlement to avoid the burden, uncertainty and distraction of
litigation.  

CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
integrated pharmacy health care services. It operates through
Pharmacy Services and Retail/LTC segments. CVS Health Corporation
was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode
Island.


CVS HEALTH: Continues to Defend EpiPen ERISA Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
CVS 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 Klein, et al.
v. Prime Therapeutics, et al. has been consolidated with another
similar matter and is now proceeding as In re EpiPen ERISA
Litigation.  

In June 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed against
the Company and other pharmacy benefit managers on behalf of
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plan members who
purchased and paid for EpiPen or EpiPen Jr.

Plaintiffs allege that the pharmacy benefit managers are ERISA
fiduciaries to plan members and have violated ERISA by allegedly
causing higher inflated prices for EpiPen through the process of
negotiating increased rebates from EpiPen manufacturer, Mylan. This
case was recently consolidated with a similar matter and is now
proceeding as In re EpiPen ERISA Litigation.  

The Company is defending the lawsuit.

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

CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
integrated pharmacy health care services. It operates through
Pharmacy Services and Retail/LTC segments. CVS Health Corporation
was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode
Island.


CVS HEALTH: Still Defends Bewley and Prescott Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
CVS 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 company
continues to defend itself in the cases,  Bewley, et al. v. CVS
Health Corporation, et al. and Prescott, et al. v. CVS Health
Corporation, et al. (both pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington).

These putative class actions were filed in May 2017 against the
Company and other pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers of
glucagon kits (Bewley) and diabetes test strips (Prescott). Both
cases allege that, by contracting for rebates with the
manufacturers of these diabetes products, the Company and other
PBMs caused list prices for these products to increase, thereby
harming certain consumers.

The primary claims are made under federal antitrust laws, the
federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO"), state unfair competition and consumer protection laws,
and the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA").
These cases have both been transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey on defendants'
motions.

The Company is defending these lawsuits.

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

CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
integrated pharmacy health care services. It operates through
Pharmacy Services and Retail/LTC segments. CVS Health Corporation
was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode
Island.


CVS HEALTH: Still Faces Corcoran and Podgorny Complaints
--------------------------------------------------------
CVS 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 company
continues to defend against a consolidated Corcoran et al. v. CVS
Health Corporation (U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California) and Podgorny et al. v. CVS Health Corporation (U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois).

These putative class actions were filed against the Company in July
and September 2015. The cases were consolidated in United States
District Court in the Northern District of California.

Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a class
of consumers who purchased certain prescription drugs under the
consumer protection statutes and common laws of certain states.
Several third-party payors filed similar putative class actions on
behalf of payors captioned Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 20 Welfare
and Benefit Fund v. CVS Health Corp. and Plumbers Welfare Fund,
Local 130 v. CVS Health Corporation (both pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Rhode Island) in February and
August 2016.

In all of these cases the plaintiffs allege the Company overcharged
for certain prescription drugs by not submitting the price
available to members of the CVS Health Savings Pass program as the
pharmacy's usual and customary price. In the consumer case
(Corcoran), the Court granted summary judgment to CVS on
plaintiffs' claims in their entirety and certified certain
subclasses in September 2017. The Corcoran plaintiffs have appealed
to the Ninth Circuit. The Sheet Metal plaintiffs have amended their
complaint to assert a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act claim premised on an alleged conspiracy between
the Company and other PBMs.

The Company continues to defend these actions.

CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
integrated pharmacy health care services. It operates through
Pharmacy Services and Retail/LTC segments. CVS Health Corporation
was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode
Island.


DATAWATCH CORPORATION: Scarantino Balks at Merger Deal with Altair
------------------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS SCARANTINO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DATAWATCH CORPORATION,
CHRISTOPHER T. COX, DONALD R. FRIEDMAN, THOMAS H. KELLY, DAVID C.
MAHONEY, JOAN MCARDLE, MICHAEL A. MORRISON, RICHARD DE J. OSBORNE,
RANDALL P. SEIDL, ALTAIR ENGINEERING INC., and DALLAS MERGER SUB,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01827-UNA (D. Del., Nov. 20,
2018), alleges that Defendants violated Sections 14(e), 14(d), and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with a
solicitation statement.

According to the complaint, the action stems from a proposed
transaction announced on November 5, 2018, pursuant to which
Datawatch Corporation will be acquired by Altair Engineering Inc.
and Dallas Merger Sub, Inc. On November 5, 2018, Datawatch's Board
of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan
of merger with Altair. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender offer to acquire all of
Datawatch's outstanding common stock for $13.10 per share in cash.
The Tender Offer is set to expire on December 12, 2018. On November
14, 2018, the Defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Solicitation
Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and
misleading, the lawsuit says.

Datawatch Corporation is an American software company that creates
and sells self-service data preparation solutions. The entire
platform includes Datawatch Monarch Complete, Monarch Server and
Monarch Swarm.[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
                  gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

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

DAYMARK PROPERTIES: Catanzarite Law Firm Represents Investors
-------------------------------------------------------------
Catanzarite Law Corporation has filed multiple lawsuits on behalf
of investors including proposed classes of investors (over 14,500
investors) against debtors Daymark Properties Realty, Inc., Daymark
Realty Advisors, Inc. and Daymark Realty Management, Inc.; Todd
Mikles ("Mikles"); "Sovereign"; his/its affiliates; and others
including Northwood Investors, Cottonwood and Western Alliance Bank
(Torrey Pines Bank).  The cases are filed on behalf of 13,000 GREIT
Trust Beneficiaries, 400 members of NNN Capital Fund I, LLC, 1818
Market Street investors, NNN Congress Center investors, 26
apartment tenant in common ("TIC") investments (1,000 investors)
managed by DRMI, which contracts were, as alleged, sold to
Cottonwood without notice for $8 million.  These cases include
claims that Debtors' assets were transferred, without
consideration, to Mr. Mikles and Sovereign related companies.

On October 16, 2018 the Judge in the GREIT Trust litigation
overruled demurrers/motions to dismiss requiring answers by: (1)
the trustees to a breach of fiduciary duty claim, and (2) Mr.
Mikles affiliates to a fraudulent conveyance claim tracing millions
into GCL which in turn owns 1,000 acres of land in San Diego
County.

        About Daymark Realty Advisors/Daymark Properties Realty

Based in Fort Laudersale, Florida, Daymark Realty Advisors Inc. is
a provider of strategic asset management and structured finance
services to private and institutional owners of commercial real
estate.

Daymark Realty and affiliates Daymark Properties Realty Inc. and
Daymark Residential Management Inc. filed a Chapter 11 petition
(Bankr. S.D. Fla. Lead Case No. 18-23750) on November 4, 2018.
The
petition was signed by Espen Schiefloe, chief restructuring
officer.


DEFY MEDIA: YouTube Content Creators Hit by Sudden Closure
----------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Jarvey, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that the
stars behind Defy-owned Smosh and Clevver have taken control of
their YouTube channels.

The creators behind Defy-owned Smosh and Clevver have kept posting
videos to the channels even as they await the fate of those
brands.

Ten days after Defy Media announced its abrupt closure, the effects
of the shutdown are still rippling through the community of YouTube
creators who worked closest with the company.

Shocked and confused by the sudden end to the Defy business, many
of the YouTubers who were part of its network have posted videos or
Twitter threads claiming that Defy still owes them money and that
there is no one left at the company to take their calls. Meanwhile,
the stars behind Defy-owned Smosh and Clevver have taken control of
their YouTube channels and told fans that they plan to continue
posting videos while they await the fate of those brands. "It's
surprising," says one source involved in discussions about what is
next for the former network of creators. "We don't know anything."

Lionsgate and Viacom-backed Defy said that it was shuttering on
Nov. 6, revealing via a statement that it had "ceased operations"
due to "market conditions" that "got in the way of us completing
our mission." A spokeswoman said at the time that a small team
would remain with the company to search for buyers for brands like
Smosh and Clevver.

Defy raised a round of funding as recently as 2016, cutting a deal
with Wellington Management Co. for $70 million in backing. At one
point the company had sales talks with Viacom, but they never
became serious. And as late as mid-October, CEO Matthew Diamond and
president Keith Richman had advanced conversations with prospective
buyers to either sell the whole company or some of its brands, a
knowledgeable source tells The Hollywood Reporter, but those deals
fell through. Instead, the company shut down.

The small group of some 50 YouTube creators who were part of Defy's
network learned about the closure through press reports. For many
of them, Defy had been a conduit for larger sponsored videos and
also helped with the logistics of working with YouTube. In many
instances, Defy took a 10 percent cut of that monthly ad revenue,
known as AdSense, in exchange for its services. After Defy shut its
doors, many creators began to worry that they would not receive
checks for their September and October AdSense payments, which for
some equates to tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, in
lost income.

"It's a massive hit," says James Clement, who operates the Mr.
Sunday Movies YouTube channel, which has 921,000 subscribers.
Clement says that he and his wife, Claire Tonti, have diversified
their business in recent years, including building out a podcast
network, and won't be significantly hurt if they never receive
those payments, but notes that not all creators are in his
position. Chris Stuckmann, who has 1.3 million subscribers on his
movie-focused channel, adds that in addition to the monthly AdSense
money, he is also waiting on Defy to send him a check for a pair of
videos. "That money was supposed to put a dent in my college
tuition," he said. "Now I have to use my savings."

Earlier, former Defy creators learned that the company was not yet
in possession of the October AdSense payments and that YouTube
plans to pay them directly. But even so, many creators have become
frustrated by the lack of response from Defy about what has
happened to the rest of the money. Some partner managers who were
laid off are still responding to creators' requests via personal
phone numbers and email addresses, say sources, but they have had
few answers. A further snag for partners who say that Defy still
owes them money is the possibility that the company will file for
bankruptcy.

As they wait for more information, creators have started to point
fingers at the bank, Ally, that they believe is now in control of
Defy's finances. Ryland Adams (3.1 million subscribers), for
example, tweeted at the bank asking it to "please help get my
fellow creators and I our hard earned money back that Defy Media
took from us." Diamond did not respond to multiple requests for
comment. A spokeswoman for Ally also did not respond to a THR's
request for an interview.

Complicating matters for creators, immediately following Defy's
shutdown they realized that their channels were still connected to
the company's network, meaning that any revenue they made in the
days after the closure could potentially get sent to Defy. YouTube,
per several of these creators, was quick in responding to their
concerns and has released them from the Defy network.  

As the days drag on and the silence from Defy continues, several
creators are now exploring what steps they can take to try to get
back the money that they say they are owed. Several, including
Stuckmann and Clement, have already posted videos about their
experiences with the company -- "Let's talk about some shit,"
Stuckmann started his 22-minute video on the topic -- and more
videos are expected. Some YouTubers are also exploring whether to
take legal action.

Defy's laid off workers have responded more quickly, with one
filing a class-action lawsuit in Los Angeles against the company on
Nov. 13 that claims Defy didn't provide the California mandated 60
days of advance notice of the layoffs. Defy did send a Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) letter to around 80
employees on the morning of Nov. 6, notifying them that the
company's primary office in Beverly Hills would shut down by Jan.
2, but then proceeded to lay everyone off and cease operations by
the end of the day. Georgina Guinane, a former writer and producer
for Clevver who is bringing the case on behalf of her colleagues,
is seeking 60 days of wages and benefits. Another lawsuit was filed
Nov. 14 in Los Angeles by the co-founders of management firm
Generate, a division of Defy. It alleges that Defy executives
misrepresented plans to separate Generate into an independent
company and withheld financial information that would have prompted
the Generate founders, David Rath and Kara Welker, to terminate
their relationship with Defy sooner.

For the creators who worked at Defy-owned brands Smosh and Clevver,
it had been unclear whether they would be able to post new videos
while the company looked to offload those businesses. Ian Hecox,
one of the co-founders of Smosh who sold the company to Defy's
predecessor, posted a note on his Twitter on Nov. 6 telling fans,
"We're already in the process of finding a new home and will update
you all as soon as we can." Meanwhile, Clevver hosts Joslyn Davis
and Erin Robinson posted videos to their personal YouTube channels
updating fans on their situation.

But after a period of silence on the brands' main channels, both
have returned. Smosh posted a video Nov. 12 in which Hecox
announced, "Smosh is homeless" but revealed that he had obtained
access to the channels and would continue posting. The video has
more than 1.6 million views. On Nov. 16, Ms. Davis and Ms. Robinson
also posted an update on the main ClevverStyle account revealing
that they, too, would release new videos. "We don't really have a
plan so it may not be your regularly scheduled programming," Ms.
Robinson explained. But, she added, "We are not going anywhere."
[GN]


DENMARK, SC: Faces Class Actions Over Quality of Drinking Water
---------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Knowles of Becker's Hospital Review, citing CNN, reports that
two lawsuits were filed on behalf of residents of Denmark, S.C.,
where a CNN investigation revealed a chemical was being added to
the water supply for a decade without approval from the
Environmental Protection Agency.

The South Carolina city has been under scrutiny from residents wary
of the rust-colored water coming from their taps despite assurance
from government officials that it was safe to drink.

The lawsuit filed on behalf of three city residents, representing
the class, claims, "Plaintiffs were damaged by defendant's conduct
as plaintiffs purchased and consumed water that included a chemical
that was not approved by the EPA and was not determined to be safe
to people or the environment," according to CNN.

One of the lawsuits seeks reimbursement for water bills for the 10
years the chemical was added to the water supply, and it claims the
local government had no right to make people pay for water that was
not potable. [GN]


DENMARK, SC: To Obtain Legal Counsel to Defend Well Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Baxley Jr., writing for The Times and Democrat, reports that
Denmark City Council voted unanimously on Nov. 19 to authorize the
mayor and the administrator to obtain legal counsel to defend the
city against a class-action lawsuit brought against it by a group
of residents over the use of the chemical HaloSan in one of its
wells.

The action was taken by the council after it met in closed,
executive session to discuss a legal matter.

The complaint filed by the residents describes HaloSan as "a
disinfectant used to treat pools and spas" that is not approved by
the EPA to disinfect drinking water. The lawsuit alleges Denmark
had not "regulated the dosage of HaloSan in the administration
process or filtered such water before distribution."

Some Denmark residents, many of whom attended the Nov. 19 council
meeting, believe the water is to blame for health issues they've
experienced. Over the years, several of them have come to Denmark
City Council meetings carrying bottles of rust-colored water from
their taps to show officials and to question the quality and safety
of their drinking water.

More than 50 residents attended the Nov. 19 meeting following a
report by CNN that the city, with approval of the S.C. Department
of Health and Environmental Control, "was adding a substance to one
of four wells, trying to regulate naturally occurring iron bacteria
that can leave red stains or rust-like deposits in the water. The
substance, known as HaloSan, was not approved by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to disinfect drinking water."

The CNN report noted that several experts contacted said they could
not find another instance where HaloSan was added to a drinking
water system.

Bamberg, D-Bamberg, told The Times and Democrat that he and Sen.
Brad Hutto, D-Orangeburg, met with DHEC officials to determine how
the decision was made to use the non-EPA approved product in
drinking water. He said he would call for a special committee to
investigate why HaloSan usage was allowed.

At the Nov. 19 council meeting, Johnnie Ruth Rosa, a 30-year
resident of Denmark, said she and others first brought in
discolored city water to show Denmark officials in 2010. She said
the water was unsuitable to bathe in, wash clothes in or drink,
adding that many of the citizens had rashes from the water. Rosa

She said former state representative Bakari Sellers contacted Earl
Hunter, the commissioner of DHEC at the time, regarding the water
quality. Many of the citizens had rashes from the water, Rosa said,
adding that she has lead in her blood even though she has not used
the city water for more than 20 years.

"Denmark's water got the name ‘Denmark tea' because it was so
dark," she said.

Ms. Rosa asked how the city had used $490,500 it received several
years ago for water system infrastructure.

"We had three phases in the water system. We had two new wells. The
second well was found to be contaminated," Mayor Gerald Wright told
her. "Less than a year later, it was shut down. We went back to the
Cox Mill well at that point."

"At that point, we purchased water directly from Bamberg, piping
(it) between the cities. It was there to service an industrial
park. They provided water. When our new wells were completed, we no
longer had to use that," Wright said.

The mayor added, "Those two wells provided an adequate supply. The
third one was a back-up. They are all running appropriately. It
would be asinine on our part not to do that."

"I use water from the city supply every day. We are going to make
sure the water is of high quality. We are going to use every method
to do that," he said.

David Bell, a citizen and veteran, said, "I am not sure I am
involved in this water issue or not. I recovered from a surgery. I
put a jacuzzi in to help me . . . Now, my whole right side is in
deep pain, and there is no visible injury."

Mr. Bell continued, "I survived the military and war. The past
eight months, things have been going downward. I heard some stuff
(about the water) and wanted to see if somebody had the same kind
of experiences."

"We will try to assist you to see what the problem is," Wright told
him.

Councilman Calvin Odom told the citizens, "As a lifetime resident
and former educator, I must say when you are doing your reading, if
there are 30 pages, you cannot tell the story by reading the first
three pages."

"A lot of us are not seeking solutions. We are seeking payments,"
Mr. Odom told them.

Wright added, "We have followed procedures by an agency in the
state that has the responsibility to regulate water systems in this
state. There are things that we test on a frequent basis --
monthly, quarterly and semi-annually.

"In addition, we have self-testing, which we send to labs for
analysis. When there is something we need to address, we have dealt
with it expediently."

Councilwoman Hope Weldon said, "I spoke with DHEC on Nov. 16. They
said they would come (to this meeting). They changed their mind."

"DHEC told me we needed to get in touch with Region 4 of the EPA in
Atlanta, Georgia," she continued.

From there, she said she was referred to a special assistant to the
director of the EPA in Washington, D.C.

"He referred us back to the Region 4 office," Ms. Weldon said.

"They are going to get back with us." [GN]


DIAMONDBACK ENERGY: Files Supplemental Disclosures to Appease Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Diamondback Energy, Inc. has voluntarily filed additional
disclosures with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in an
effort to alleviate the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in
litigation related to its merger agreement with Energen
Corporation, among other parties, according to Diamondback's Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated
November 15, 2018.

On August 14, 2018, Diamondback Energy, Inc. ("Diamondback")
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement") with Energen Corporation ("Energen") and Sidewinder
Merger Sub Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Diamondback ("Merger
Sub"), providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into
Energen, with Energen surviving the merger as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Diamondback (the "Merger").  On October 25, 2018,
Diamondback and Energen filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") a definitive joint proxy statement, which
also constitutes a prospectus of Diamondback, for the solicitation
of proxies in connection with special meetings Diamondback's
stockholders and Energen shareholders, each to be held on November
27, 2018, for purposes of voting, among other things, on matters
necessary to complete the Merger (the "Proxy Statement").

In connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions
contemplated thereby, a purported class action lawsuit (the
plaintiff in such complaint, the "Gross Plaintiff") and an
individual lawsuit (the plaintiff in such complaint, the "Stein
Plaintiff") have been filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama.  Both complaints, captioned Gross
v. Energen Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01711-RDP (filed
October 17, 2018) and Stein v. Energen Corporation, et al., Case
2:18-cv-01746-JHE (filed October 22, 2018), assert claims against
Energen and its directors.  In general, the complaints allege that
the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act because the preliminary registration statement on Form S-4, as
amended by Amendment No. 1 to the Form S-4, filed with the SEC (the
"Registration Statement") allegedly misrepresents or omits material
information.  The complaints seek, among other things, injunctive
relief preventing the consummation of the Merger until additional
disclosures are made, and damages.

On October 26, 2018, a purported shareholder derivative and class
action complaint, captioned Rosenblatt v. Cohen, et al., Case No.
01-CV-2018-904321.00, was filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson
County, Alabama (the plaintiff in such complaint, the "Rosenblatt
Plaintiff") against Energen, Energen's directors, Diamondback and
Merger Sub in connection with the Merger.  The complaint alleges
state law breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Energen
directors for, among other things, an allegedly inadequate price
and alleged failure to disclose material information in the
Registration Statement.  The complaint also alleges that
Diamondback aided and abetted the Energen directors' alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.  The complaint seeks, among other
things, injunctive relief preventing the consummation of the
Merger, and damages.

On November 15, 2018, Energen, Energen's directors, Diamondback and
Merger Sub reached an agreement to resolve the three lawsuits (the
"Actions").  In connection with the resolution of the Actions and
in order to alleviate the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent
in litigation and provide additional information to investors,
Energen and Diamondback have determined to voluntarily supplement
the Proxy Statement with various disclosures.

These disclosures are provided in the Company's Current Report on
Form 8-K, a full-text copy of which is available at
https://bit.ly/2zGhLNH

The Company said, "Nothing in this Current Report on Form 8-K will
be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under
applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein.  To the
contrary, Energen, Energen's directors, Diamondback and Merger Sub
believe that all of the claims alleged in the Actions are without
merit and specifically deny all allegations in the foregoing
complaints, including, without limitation, that any additional
disclosure was or is required.  As part of this resolution, the
Actions will be dismissed with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs
and without prejudice as to all others.  It is possible that
additional, similar complaints may be filed.  If this occurs,
Energen and Diamondback do not intend to announce the filing of
each additional, similar complaint or any amended complaint unless
it contains materially new or different allegations."

Diamondback Energy, Inc., an independent oil and natural gas
company, focuses on the acquisition, development, exploration, and
exploitation of onshore oil and natural gas reserves in the Permian
Basin in West Texas.  The Company was founded in 2007 and is
headquartered in Midland, Texas.


DISH DBS: Appeal in Krakauer Action Still Pending in 4th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of a DISH DBS Corporation subsidiary in the "Krakauer
Action" remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018.

A portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an independent
third-party retailer at issue in the FTC Action are also the
subject of a certified class action filed against DISH Network
L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina (the "Krakauer Action").

Following a five-day trial, on January 19, 2017, a jury in that
case found that the independent third-party retailer was acting as
DISH Network L.L.C.'s agent when it made the 51,119 calls at issue
in that case, and that class members are eligible to recover US$400
in damages for each call made in violation of the TCPA.  On March
7, 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. filed motions with the Court for
judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, for a new
trial, which the Court denied on May 16, 2017.

On May 22, 2017, the Court ruled that the violations were willful
and knowing, and trebled the damages award to US$1,200 for each
call made in violation of TCPA.  On April 5, 2018, the Court
entered a US$61 million judgment in favor of the class.

On May 4, 2018, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  During the
second quarter 2017, the Company recorded US$41 million of
"Litigation expense" related to the Krakauer Action on its
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive
Income (Loss).

The Company recorded US$20 million of "Litigation expense" related
to the Krakauer Action during the fourth quarter 2016.

The Company's total accrual related to the Krakauer Action at
September 30, 2018 was US$61 million and is included in "Other
accrued expenses" on its Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The Company said, "We intend to vigorously defend these cases.  We
cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these
suits."

DISH DBS Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides pay-TV
services under the DISH and Sling brands in the United States. Its
DISH branded pay-TV services include the company's licensed Federal
Communications Commission authorized direct broadcast satellite and
fixed satellite service spectrum, as well as its owned and leased
satellites, receiver systems, third-party broadcast operations,
customer service facilities, a leased fiber optic network, and
in-home service and call center operations. The company was founded
in 1996 and is headquartered in Englewood, Colorado. DISH DBS
Corporation is a subsidiary of DISH Network Corporation.


DISH NETWORK: Accrues $61 Million in Relation to Krakauer Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company's total
accrual related to the Krakauer Action is $61 million.

A portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an independent
third-party retailer at issue in the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Action are also the subject of a certified class action filed
against DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of North Carolina (the "Krakauer Action").  

Following a five-day trial, on January 19, 2017, a jury in that
case found that the independent third-party retailer was acting as
DISH Network L.L.C.'s agent when it made the 51,119 calls at issue
in that case, and that class members are eligible to recover $400
in damages for each call made in violation of the TCPA.  

On March 7, 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. filed motions with the Court
for judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, for a new
trial, which the Court denied on May 16, 2017. On May 22, 2017, the
Court ruled that the violations were willful and knowing, and
trebled the damages award to $1,200 for each call made in violation
of TCPA.  

On April 5, 2018, the Court entered a $61 million judgment in favor
of the class. On May 4, 2018, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a notice of
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit.    

DISH Network said, "During the second quarter 2017, we recorded $41
million of "Litigation expense" related to the Krakauer Action on
our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and
Comprehensive Income (Loss).  We recorded $20 million of
"Litigation expense" related to the Krakauer Action during the
fourth quarter 2016. Our total accrual related to the Krakauer
Action at September 30, 2018 was $61 million and is included in
"Other accrued expenses" on our Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets."

DISH Network Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
pay-TV services in the United States. The company operates in two
segments, Pay-TV and Wireless. It offers video services under the
DISH TV brand; and programming packages that include programming
through national broadcast networks, local broadcast networks, and
national and regional cable networks, as well as regional and
specialty sports channels, premium movie channels, and Latino and
international programming packages. DISH Network Corporation was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Englewood, Colorado.


DITECH HOLDING: Unit Still Defends Class Suit over TCPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ditech Holding Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that subsidiary Ditech Financial
remains subject to several putative class action suits alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for placing
phone calls to plaintiffs' cell phones using an automatic telephone
dialing system without their prior consent.

The plaintiffs in these suits, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, seek statutory damages for both negligent and
knowing or willful violations of the TCPA.

Ditech Holding Corporation operates as an independent servicer and
originator of mortgage loans, and servicer of reverse mortgage
loans. The company operates through three segments: Servicing,
Originations, and Reverse Mortgage. Ditech Holding Corporation was
founded in 1958 and is based in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania.


DITECH HOLDING: Unit Still Faces Kamimura Class Suit in Nevada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ditech Holding Corporation's subsidiary continues to defend itself
against the "Kamimura" class action lawsuit in Nevada, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2018.

In Kamimura, Lee C. v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, filed on April 8,
2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, Ditech
Financial is subject to a putative nationwide class action suit
alleging FCRA violations by obtaining credit bureau information
without a permissible purpose after the discharge of debt owed to
Ditech Financial pursuant to Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code.

The plaintiff in this suit, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, seeks actual and punitive damages, statutory
penalties, and attorneys' fees and litigation costs.

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

Ditech Holding Corporation operates as an independent servicer and
originator of mortgage loans, and servicer of reverse mortgage
loans. The company operates through three segments: Servicing,
Originations, and Reverse Mortgage. Ditech Holding Corporation was
founded in 1958 and is based in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania.


DOLLAR TREE: Snipes Bid for Pretrial Scheduling Conference Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TERRY T. SNIPES, SR., an individual,
Plaintiff, v. DOLLAR TREE DISTRIBUTION, INC., a Virginia
corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, No.
2:15-cv-00878-MCE-DB (E.D. Cal.), District Judge Morrison C.
England, Jr. granted Plaintiff's request for a Supplemental
Pretrial Scheduling Order.

Through the class action proceeding, Plaintiff Terry T. Snipes,
Sr., challenges various wage and hour practices utilized by his
employer, Defendant Dollar Tree Distribution, Inc., both on his own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated. According to
Plaintiff, Dollar Tree's uniform timekeeping practices wrongfully
exclude compensable time and operate to deprive employees of their
legally guaranteed uninterrupted rest and/or meal periods.

On Nov. 28, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification, certifying six classes and five subclasses related
to various California Labor Code violations. Dollar Tree requested
reconsideration of that ruling on Dec. 22, 2017, and that request
was denied on Sept. 17, 2018. In the meantime, on August 28, 2018,
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Request Scheduling Conference which, in
the alternative, seeks to modify the Court's existing Pretrial
Scheduling Order. Dollar Tree submitted a Statement of
Non-Opposition to that Motion but nonetheless expresses several
areas of concern.

Since the class has been both certified and reconsideration of that
determination has been denied, the Court believes that a
Supplemental Scheduling Order is proper in order to allow Plaintiff
to conduct such post-certification discovery as may be necessary.

While Dollar Tree does not oppose Plaintiff's Motion as such, it
nonetheless appears to argue that discovery may reveal that some
employees signed arbitration agreements as a precondition to
employment which could affect the size of discernible classes. That
contention, however, even if true, does not justify any delay in
initial class discovery, and can be asserted later in these
proceedings should it be necessary to do so. In addition, since
Dollar Tree failed to bring up the issue of alleged arbitration
agreements at the class certification stage, it would be
inappropriate to revisit the question now before discovery has even
begun.

Because Plaintiff's request for a Supplemental Pretrial Scheduling
Order is, in essence, unopposed, Plaintiff's Motion is granted to
that extent. Since Plaintiff, unlike Dollar Tree, has not proposed
either dates or a framework for post-certification discovery, it
should be permitted to do so. The Parties must meet and confer in
that regard and submit a proposed Supplemental Scheduling Order for
the Court's consideration not later than Jan. 8, 2019.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 20, 2018 is available at
https://bit.ly/2Pnwm5G from Leagle.com.

Terry T. Snipes, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Eugene Guzman,
Sutton Hague Law Corporation, S. Brett Sutton, Sutton Hague Law
Corporation, PC, Jared Hague, Sutton Hague Law Corporation, PC &
Joseph Vidal Macias, Sutton Hague Law Corporation, PC.

Dollar Tree Distribution, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
J. Mann -- jmann@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Kurt R.
Bockes -- kbockes@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Lindbergh
Porter, Jr. -- lporter@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Elena R.
Baca -- elenabacca@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP, George W.
Abele, Paul Hastings LLP & Ryan David Derry --
ryanderry@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP.


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Lee Files FDCPA Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Sangshin Lee, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-09931 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 27, 2018).

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

Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC is a full-service collection agency
based in South Carolina. Dynamic Recovery Solutions is experienced
in collecting late-stage debt for small, medium, and high-volume
businesses. Dynamic Recovery Solutions deals with delinquencies
dating back as far as 2000.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
     Law Offices of Jonathan A Stieglitz
     11845 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 800
     Los Angeles, CA 90064
     Phone: (323) 979-2063
     Fax: (323) 488-6748
     Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


EGALET CORP: Appeal in Pennsylvania Consolidated Class Suit Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Egalet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the appeal in the
consolidated class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, was automatically stayed as
to the Company upon the Chapter 11 filing.

On January 27, 2017 and February 10, 2017, respectively, two
putative securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that named as
defendants Egalet Corporation and current officer Robert S. Radie
and former officers Stanley J. Musial and Jeffrey M. Dayno (the
"Officer Defendants" and together with Egalet Corporation, the
"Defendants").

These two complaints, captioned Mineff v. Egalet Corp. et al., No.
2:17-cv-00390-MMB and Klein v. Egalet Corp. et al., No.
2:17-cv-00617-MMB, assert 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 Egalet Corporation securities
between December 15, 2015 and January 9, 2017.  

On May 1, 2017, the Court entered an order consolidating the two
cases (the "Securities Class Action Litigation") before it,
appointing the Egalet Investor Group (consisting of Joseph
Spizzirri, Abdul Rahiman and Kyle Kobold) as lead plaintiff and
approving their selection of lead and liaison counsel. On July 3,
2017, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint,
which named the same Defendants and also asserted claims for
purported violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. Plaintiffs brought their claims individually and on behalf of
a putative class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of the Company between November 4, 2015 and January 9, 2017
inclusive.   

The consolidated amended complaint based its claims on allegedly
false and/or misleading statements and/or failures to disclose
information about the likelihood that ARYMO ER would be approved
for intranasal abuse-deterrent labeling.  

The Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
on September 1, 2017 (the "Motion to Dismiss"), the plaintiffs
filed their opposition on October 31, 2017, and the Defendants
filed their reply on December 8, 2017.  The Court heard oral
arguments on the Motion to Dismiss on February 20, 2018, and
entered an order pursuant to which the plaintiffs filed a motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint on March 6, 2018.  

The Defendants responded on March 20, 2018 and the plaintiffs filed
their reply on March 27, 2018. The Court heard oral arguments on
the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint
on July 12, 2018. On August 2, 2018, the Court granted the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the Securities Class
Action Litigation with prejudice.  

On August 31, 2018, plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal with
the United States Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit.  

On November 7, 2018, the Defendants filed a notice of suggestion of
bankruptcy and unopposed motion to stay the appeal as to the
Officer Defendants (the appeal was automatically stayed as to the
Company upon the Chapter 11 filing).

Egalet Corporation, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, and commercializes treatments for patients with pain
and other conditions. Egalet Corporation was founded in 2010 and is
headquartered in Wayne, Pennsylvania.



ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING: Pipitone Case Dismissal Bid Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics for Imaging, 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 a hearing
on the company's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit has not
yet been scheduled.

On August 10, 2017, a putative class action was filed against the
Company and its two named executive officers in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Pipitone
v. Electronics For Imaging, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-5992 (D.N.J.). A
First Amended Complaint was filed on February 20, 2018.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that statements by the
Company and its officers about the Company's financial reporting,
revenue recognition, internal controls, and disclosure controls and
procedures were false or misleading. The complaint seeks an
unspecified amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other
costs, on behalf of a putative class of individuals and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Electronics For Imaging, Inc.
(EFI) securities from February 22, 2017 through August 3, 2017.

EFI filed a motion to dismiss on April 23, 2018. The plaintiffs
filed an opposition on May 23, 2018, and EFI filed its reply brief
on June 13, 2018. A hearing on EFI's motion to dismiss has not yet
been scheduled.

Electronics for Imaging SAID, "At this time, we do not believe it
is probable that we will incur a material loss in this matter.
However, it is reasonably possible that our financial statements
could be materially affected by an unfavorable resolution of this
matter. Since this matter is in the preliminary stages, we are not
yet in a position to estimate the amount or range of reasonably
possible loss that may be incurred."

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

Electronics for Imaging, Inc. provides industrial format display
graphics, corrugated packaging and display, textile, and ceramic
tile decoration digital inkjet printers worldwide. Electronics for
Imaging, Inc. was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Fremont,
California.


EZCORP INC: Still Defends Consolidated Federal Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EZCORP, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2018, that it still defends itself against a federal
securities litigation.

On July 20, 2015, Wu Winfred Huang, a purported holder of Class A
Common Stock, for himself and on behalf of other similarly situated
holders of Class A Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas styled
Huang v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS).  The
complaint names as defendants EZCORP, Inc., Stuart I. Grimshaw
(chief executive officer) and Mark E. Kuchenrither (former chief
financial officer) and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The original complaint related to the
Company's announcement on July 17, 2015 that it will restate the
financial statements for fiscal 2014 and the first quarter of
fiscal 2015, and alleged generally that the Company issued
materially false or misleading statements concerning the Company,
its finances, business operations and prospects and that the
Company misrepresented the financial performance of the Grupo
Finmart business.

On August 14, 2015, a substantially identical lawsuit, styled
Rooney v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00700-SS) was also
filed in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Texas.  On September 28, 2015, the plaintiffs in these two
lawsuits filed an agreed stipulation to be appointed co-lead
plaintiffs and agreed that their two actions should be
consolidated.

On November 3, 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating the
two actions under the caption In re EZCORP, Inc.  Securities
Litigation (Master File No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS), and appointed the
two plaintiffs as co-lead plaintiffs, with their respective counsel
appointed as co-lead counsel.

On January 11, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint (the "Amended Complaint").  In the Amended Complaint, the
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of purchasers of the Company's
Class A Common Stock between November 6, 2012 and October 20, 2015.
The Amended Complaint asserts that the Company and Mr.
Kuchenrither violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5, issued materially false or misleading statements
throughout the proposed class period concerning the Company and its
internal controls, specifically regarding the financial performance
of Grupo Finmart.  The plaintiffs also allege that Mr.
Kuchenrither, as a controlling person of the Company, violated
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.  The Amended
Complaint does not assert any claims against Mr. Grimshaw.  On
February 25, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit.  The plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss on April 11, 2016, and the defendants filed their reply on
May 11, 2016.  The Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss on
June 22, 2016.

On October 18, 2016, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint without prejudice.  The
Court gave the plaintiffs 20 days (until November 7, 2016) to file
a further amended complaint.  On November 4, 2016, the plaintiffs
filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Second
Amended Complaint").  The Second Amended Complaint raises the same
claims dismissed by the Court on October 18, 2016, except
plaintiffs now seek to represent a class of purchasers of EZCORP's
Class A Common Stock between November 7, 2013 and October 20, 2015
(instead of between November 6, 2012 and October 20, 2015).  On
December 5, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint.  The plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
motion to dismiss on January 6, 2017, and the defendants filed
their reply brief on January 20, 2017.

On May 8, 2017, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
with regard to claims related to accounting errors relating to
Grupo Finmart's bad debt reserve calculations for "nonperforming"
loans, but denied the motion to dismiss with regard to claims
relating to accounting errors related to certain sales of loan
portfolios to third parties.

Following discovery on the surviving claims, the plaintiff filed a
Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint, seeking to
revive the "nonperforming" loan claims that the Court previously
dismissed.  The Company opposed that motion, and on May 14, 2018,
the Court heard oral arguments on the motion, as well as
plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class
Representative and Class Counsel, which was also pending.

On July 26, 2018, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for
leave to amend, thus accepting the Third Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint, and the Company filed its answer on August 3,
2018.

On August 31, 2018, the plaintiff filed an Amended Motion for Class
Certification and Appointment of Class Representative and Class
Counsel, and the Company filed its opposition on September 28,
2018.  The Court had scheduled a hearing on that motion for
November 15, 2018.

The Company said, "We cannot predict the outcome of the litigation,
but we intend to continue to defend vigorously against all
allegations and claims."

EZCORP, Inc. provides pawn loans.  It operates through three
segments: U.S. Pawn, Latin America Pawn, and Other International.
EZCORP, Inc. was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in Austin,
Texas.


FACEBOOK INC: May Face Class Action for Violating GDPR
------------------------------------------------------
DLA Piper said that on November 8, 2018, French NGO Internet
Society France sent Facebook a formal notice listing seven areas
where it has allegedly infringed GDPR.

The French Chapter of the Internet Society, a global organization
that notably defends the rights of Internet users, formally
requested that Facebook explain seven failures to comply with GDPR.
The notice is addressed to both Facebook France, Facebook Ireland
Ltd. and Facebook Inc., acting respectively as controllers or joint
controllers, and concern the social networks Facebook, Instagram
and Whatsapp.

1. The Legal basis of Internet Society France action
This action is based on Article 43 ter of the French Data
Protection Act, according to which, when several individuals who
are in a similar situation suffer a loss resulting from a violation
of GDPR or the French data protection law committed by a data
controller or a data processor, a class action may be filed before
a civil or administrative court having jurisdiction.

Such class action may only be brought by certain categories of
organizations, including associations that have been duly
registered for at least 5 years and whose statutory purpose is the
protection of privacy and personal data, which is the case of the
Internet Society France.

For additional information on the data protection class action in
France, you can read our previous post here.

It is the first time that article 43 ter is used as a basis to
launch a judicial class action for compensation. In this respect,
it must be recalled that before the adoption of the new French data
protection law in June 2018, data protection class actions could
only seek injunctive relief; the class action could not be used to
claim damages. However, since June 20, class action litigants are
entitled to both seek injunctive relief and claim compensation for
their material and moral losses, in accordance with GDPR.

1. Seven grievances: recurring violations of freedoms and privacy
The Internet Society France reproached Facebook for:

   * Failing to comply with its obligation to ensure the security
of the personal data of its users, in relation with the breach of
personal data that has impacted Facebook services in September
2018;

   * Failing to communicate the breach of personal data to the data
subjects, notably for not having communicated the breach
individually, using the contact details (email address and mobile
phone number) provided by its users;

   * Failing to comply with the prohibition to process special
categories of personal data, notably data revealing racial or
ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical
beliefs, or concerning a person's sex life or sexual orientation,
without the data subject's consent or any other acceptable legal
basis;

   * Failing to comply with the notice, consent and legal basis
requirements when installing DATR cookies or other tracking cookies
and collecting personal data in a massive way;

   * Limiting its liability with respect to the processing of
personal data in its terms of use;

   * Combining personal data of Whatsapp and Facebook users without
their free, specific and informed consent and without an
appropriate legal basis; and

   * Not providing users with a mechanism to exercise their right
of objection to the processing of personal data.

1. The Internet Society France's demands
The NGO enjoins Facebook, within 4 months, to:

   * Secure its services against personal data breaches in order to
ensure a level of security appropriate to the risks and in line
with the state of the art;

   * Communicate effectively the breach of personal data to the
data subjects, notably by sending an individual notice using the
contact details provided by the users;

   * Cease any processing of special categories of personal data
that is not justified by the data subject's consent or another
appropriate legal basis;

   * Properly inform data subjects about the processing relating to
the DATR cookie or other tracking cookies, and cease combining
Internet users, registered or not, connected or not, to the
Facebook services, for advertising purposes without the users'
specific, free, informed and unambiguous consent;

   * Remove any liability limitation clauses from its terms of
use;

   * Obtain the specific, free, informed and unambiguous consent of
Whatsapp and Facebook users for combining their data;

   * Implement an effective tool allowing data subjects to exercise
their right to object.

The Internet Society France also demands that the Internet giant
compensate each data subject impacted by these violations by paying
EUR 1000 per grievance, unless it can legally explain or justify
them.

1. What does Facebook risk?
If Facebook fails to respond within the allocated timeframe, the
Internet Society France will file a judicial class action with the
Paris High Court (tribunal de grande instance).

The NGO considers that "the grievances -- if not refuted by
Facebook -- could represent damages that could be compensated by up
to 1,000 euros per person. So if 100,000 people join this lawsuit,
100 million euros will be demanded of Facebook. In Europe, Facebook
alone had 278 million users in the third quarter of 2018. The
Internet Society France, French chapter of an international NGO
that federates Internet users from more than 100 countries,
believes that it is the opportunity to ensure that a European civil
society voice be heard".

If it moves forward, this action could indeed be the opportunity to
send a strong signal to the international community that the
protection of personal data matters to people and that they are
ready to take control of their data, as promoted by the European
legislator. [GN]


FAIRFIELD INDUSTRIES: Court Narrows Claims in Senegal Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DARNELL SENEGAL, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FAIRFIELD INDUSTRIES, INC., d/b/a
FAIRFIELD NODAL, Defendant, Civil Action No. H-16-2113 (S.D. Tex.),
Magistrate Judge Nancy K. Johnson of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, (i) granted in
part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment; (ii) granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment; and (iii) denied the Defendant's
Motion for Decertification.

Senegal filed the action against the Defendant under the Fair Labor
Standards Act2 ("FLSA").  The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant
violated the FLSA by failing to pay the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees their statutorily required overtime
pay.

The Defendant offers geological survey services to the oil and gas
industry by using oceanographic seismic vessels to perform the
surveys.  These vessels had a marine crew and a seismic crew.  The
Plaintiffs worked as part of the seismic crew, which consisted of
observers, the gun department, mechanics, navigators, and marine
mammal observers.  The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from
August 1994 to May 2016, and worked as a lineman, boat operator,
gun mechanic helper, and gun mechanic shift leader.

The Defendant began paying its employees a day rate based on
12-hour days.  The day-rate plan allegedly pays employees for 87.50
hours per week and incorporates 47.50 hours of overtime per week.
Under the day-rate plan, employees made the same amount of pay
regardless of the number of hours worked.

A second component of the Defendant's pay plan included its
accrued-days-off policy.  In 2000, it began giving employees one
paid day off per day worked.  Thus, because its employees worked
four-or five-week shifts followed by an equal amount of days off,
they essentially received pay for every day whether they were
working a shift or not.  As a result of the policy, the Defendant's
employees' day rate was decreased.  

The Defendant discontinued the day-rate and days-off policies on
Dec. 19, 2015.  It paid the Plaintiffs pursuant to the day-rate
plan and days-off policy from 2000 through December 2015.  The
Defendant ceased all operation and ownership of vessels in May
2016.

The Plaintiff filed his complaint on July 15, 2016, alleging
violations of the FLSA.  He filed an amended complaint on Sept. 26,
2016.

The Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class on Nov. 14, 2016,
seeking to certify the class of all current and former seismic
crewmembers employed by the Defendant and paid on a day-rate basis
at any time during the last three years.  The proposed class of
seismic crewmembers includes: observers (i.e., the linesman (or
line chiefs), junior observers, shift lead observers, chief
observers, and party managers); the gun department (i.e., gun
mechanic helpers, gun mechanic trainees, gun mechanics, gun shift
leaders, and gun mechanic chiefs); the mechanics (i.e., compressor
mechanics and back deck mechanics); the navigators (i.e., the
navigators, shift lead navigators, and chief navigators); and
marine mammal observers.

On March 27, 2017, in a memorandum opinion, the Court conditionally
certified the Plaintiff's proposed class.  However, at the same
time, it dismissed all marine crewmembers who had opted into the
Plaintiff's lawsuit as they were not seismic crewmembers.  At the
time of the Court's opinion, over 40 putative class members had
opted into the lawsuit.  Since the Court conditionally certified
the Plaintiff's proposed class, over 90 additional putative class
members have opted into the lawsuit.

On April 11, 2018, the Plaintiff filed its pending motion for
partial summary judgment and asks that the court find that: (1) the
Defendant's pay practices violated the FLSA; (2) the Defendant's
violation was willful; (3) there was not a goodfaith basis for the
Defendant's pay practices; (4) the seismic crewmembers were not
exempt executive, administrative or professional employees; (5) the
seismic crewmembers were not exempt seamen; and (6) the seismic
crewmembers did not qualify for the FLSA's foreign exemption.

On May 4, 2018, the Defendant filed its pending motion for summary
judgment.  It requests that the Court finds that: (1) its pay
practices did not violate the FLSA; (2) the Plaintiffs are not
entitled to compensation for time spent unloading groceries,
attending safety meetings, or participating in safety drills; (3)
the Defendant's payments for accrued days off are excluded from the
regular rate for overtime purposes; and (4) the Plaintiffs cannot
prove damages because they failed to provide damages calculations.


Additionally, on May 4, 2018, the Defendant moves for
decertification of the Plaintiff's conditionally certified class on
the basis that: (1) the Plaintiff cannot establish liability on a
class-wide basis; (2) the Defendant has numerous individualized
defenses that are not uniformly applicable to the entire class; and
(3) fairness and procedural considerations require
decertification.

Following an unopposed motion, the Court dismissed seven inactive
opt-in Plaintiffs on May 11, 2018.

Magistrate Judge Johnson granted the Plaintiff's motion for partial
summary judgment as to: (1) the Defendant's executive,
administrative, and professional FLSA exemption defenses; (2) the
Defendant's seamen FLSA exemption defense, except against the two
Plaintiffs in a limited capacity; (3) the Defendant's foreign FLSA
exemption defense against all the Plaintiffs who worked aboard an
American flagged vessel throughout the relevant time period.  She
denied all other relief requested in the Plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment.

The Magistrate Judge granted in part the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment such that that the Plaintiff cannot claim hours
worked for time spent unloading groceries.  The Magistrate denied
all other relief requested by the Defendant's motion for summary
judgment.  

She also denied the Defendant's motion for decertification.  Among
other things, she finds that the Plaintiffs claims arise from the
Defendant's generally applicable pay policy.  While the Defendant
is correct that some individual issues are present, the predominant
issue is whether the Defendant paid the Plaintiffs a fixed daily
rate for varied amounts of work.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/32t414 from Leagle.com.

Darnell A. Senegal, Plaintiff, represented by Curt Christopher
Hesse, Moore & Associates & Melissa Moore, Moore & Associates.

Kenneth Butler, Gregory Carter, Rodney Erin Dockstader, Christopher
J Briggs, Kelvin Myles, Ron Kyle Weaver, Justin Brown, Shane
Bumstead, Richard Brian Case, Jason Celli, Francisco Randy Sanchez,
Gregory D. Cantlon, William B. Lee, Daniel J. Anderson, Nathan
Pearson, Paul D. Wilson, Clayborn Varnado, Neal J. Estay, Vincent
M. Jacob, Joseph Elliott, Christopher Anderson, Antonio Alfaro,
Stephen Lee, Jason LeMaster, Frank Johnson, Edward Willoughby,
Christopher Michael Rohe, Carl J. Serie, Gerald Crum, Isaiah
Elliott, Robert G Larson, Ethan McNelly, Jonathan Cary, Nicholas
Bradford, Robert J. Williams, Sr., Timothy Allen Washington, Jason
Clarke, Clinton Riether, Douglas Hood, Jr., Herbert Fisher, Joshua
Douglas, Shawn Weltzin, Gregory C. Thibodeaux, Edward Toner, Joshua
J. Gonzalez, James T. Lightning, Jr., Vincent Hayes, Jr., Kevin
Robertson, Jr., Jeno Flores, Patrick Arvie, James R. Conwell,
Jeffrey D. Litman, Norris J. Gessinger, Jr., William E. Nichols,
Jason K Reed, Terry Elmore, Mark Watson, Ben Morgel, Jamieson
Gilmore, Kevin Ferguson, Landon Lenard, Austin Calais, Josh Fisher,
Delanious Harried, Reindon Paul Raymond, Thomas William Leach, II,
Justin St. Germain, Mark S. Wooley, Brandon Lamb, Jason Farrar,
Ishmael Surajballi, Leo Aguilar, Eric Gilcrease, Devin Andres
Salemi, Jaime Emery, Adam Whitehead, Effery Freeman, Carlos
Casildo, Sr., Clifton Heath Miller & Scott Tankersley, Plaintiffs,
represented by Melissa Moore, Moore & Associates.

Fairfield Industries Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Reed
Lock Russell -- reed.russell@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar LLP,
Thomas H. Kiggans -- tom.kiggans@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar LLP &
Jessica C. Huffman -- jessica.huffman@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar
LLP.


FAT BRANDS: Alden Class Suit Gets Merged with Rojany Case
---------------------------------------------------------
FAT Brands Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that two potential class
action suits have been consolidated.

The cases are:

   * Eric Rojany, et al. v. FAT Brands Inc., et al., Superior Court
of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC708539;
and

   * Daniel Alden, et al. v. FAT Brands Inc., et al., Superior
Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No.
BC716017.

On June 7, 2018, Eric Rojany filed a complaint, personally and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, against the Company,
Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Fog Cutter Capital Group, Inc.,
Tripoint Global Equities, LLC and members of the Company's board of
directors.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, alleging that the defendants are
responsible for false and misleading statements and omitted
material facts in connection with the Company's initial public
offering, which resulted in declines in the price of the Company's
common stock.  The plaintiff stated that he intends to certify the
complaint as a class action and is seeking compensatory damages in
an amount to be determined at trial.  The Company and other
defendants dispute the allegations of the lawsuit and intend to
vigorously defend against the claims.

On August 2, 2018, Daniel Alden and others filed a complaint,
personally and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against
the Company, Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Fog Cutter Capital Group,
Inc., Tripoint Global Equities, LLC and members of the Company's
board of directors.  The complaint asserts claims under Sections
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, alleging that the
defendants are responsible for false and misleading statements and
omitted material facts in connection with the Company's initial
public offering, which resulted in declines in the price of the
Company's common stock.  The plaintiff stated that he intends to
certify the complaint as a class action and is seeking compensatory
damages in an amount to be determined at trial.  The Company and
other defendants dispute the allegations of the lawsuit and intend
to vigorously defend against the claims.

On September 13, 2018, counsel to all parties in Rojany and Alden
stipulated to the consolidation of Rojany and Alden under the
Rojany case number.  On September 17, 2018, the Court in Rojany
confirmed that the two actions were related and ordered that Alden
be transferred to the judge presiding over Rojany.

On October 10, 2018, plaintiffs in these actions filed a
consolidated amended complaint ("CAC").  Pursuant to the Court's
order on September 17, 2018, defendants shall have until November
13, 2018 to file a response to the CAC.  The Court scheduled the
hearing for defendants' anticipated demurrer to the CAC for January
11, 2019.  The Court also continued a stay of discovery in the
action, pending its ruling on defendants' anticipated demurrer.

Fat Brands Inc., a multi-brand franchising company, acquires,
markets, and develops fast casual and casual dining restaurant
concepts. The company was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in
Beverly Hills, California. FAT Brands Inc. is a subsidiary of Fog
Cutter Capital Group Inc.


FAT BRANDS: Bid for Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Pending in "Vignola"
----------------------------------------------------------------
FAT Brands Inc. remains a defendant in a potential class action
initiated by Adam Vignola, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

The case is styled Adam Vignola, et al. v. FAT Brands Inc., et al.,
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Case No. 2:18-cv-07469.

On August 24, 2018, Adam Vignola filed a complaint, personally and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, against the Company,
Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Fog Cutter Capital Group, Inc.,
Tripoint Global Equities, LLC and members of the Company's board of
directors.  The complaint asserts claims under Sections 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, alleging that the defendants
are responsible for false and misleading statements and omitted
material facts in connection with the Company's initial public
offering, which resulted in declines in the price of the Company's
common stock.  The plaintiff stated that he intends to certify the
complaint as a class action and is seeking compensatory damages in
an amount to be determined at trial.  The Company and other
defendants dispute the allegations of the lawsuit and intend to
vigorously defend against the claims.

On October 23, 2018, Charles Jordan and David Kovacs filed a motion
for appointment as lead plaintiffs and approval of choice of
counsel.  On the same day, Randy Siade filed a motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of choice of counsel.
The hearing date for these motions was set for November 26, 2018.
On November 1, 2018, Randy Siade withdrew his motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of choice of counsel.

All discovery and other proceedings in this action are currently
stayed by operation of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995.

Fat Brands Inc., a multi-brand franchising company, acquires,
markets, and develops fast casual and casual dining restaurant
concepts. The company was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in
Beverly Hills, California. FAT Brands Inc. is a subsidiary of Fog
Cutter Capital Group Inc.


FGF BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over Stonefire Naan Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class of consumers says FGF
Brands falsely claimed that its Stonefire naan products were baked
in a traditional tandoor oven, when they were actually
mass-produced in a commercial conveyor-belt oven system.


FIFTH THIRD: Appeal in Early Access Cash Advance Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bank 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
case, In re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation, have
taken an appeal from a court ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit.

On August 3, 2012, William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney filed a
lawsuit against Fifth Third Bank in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Klopfenstein et al. v.
Fifth Third Bank), alleging that the 120% APR that Fifth Third
disclosed on its Early Access program was misleading. Early Access
is a deposit-advance program offered to eligible customers with
checking accounts.

The plaintiffs sought to represent a nationwide class of customers
who used the Early Access program and repaid their cash advances
within 30 days. On October 31, 2012, the case was transferred to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.


In 2013, four similar putative class actions were filed against
Fifth Third Bank in federal courts throughout the country (Lori and
Danielle Laskaris v. Fifth Third Bank, Janet Fyock v. Fifth Third
Bank, Jesse McQuillen v. Fifth Third Bank, and Brian Harrison v.
Fifth Third Bank).

Those four lawsuits were transferred to the Southern District of
Ohio and consolidated with the original lawsuit as In re: Fifth
Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation (Case No.
1:12-CV-00851).

On behalf of a putative class, the plaintiffs seek unspecified
monetary and statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive
damages, attorney's fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. On
March 30, 2015, the court dismissed all claims alleged in the
consolidated lawsuit except a claim under the TILA. On January 10,
2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to hear the immediate appeal of the
dismissal of their breach of contract claim. On March 28, 2018, the
court granted plaintiffs' motion and stayed the TILA claim pending
that appeal. On April 26, 2018, plaintiffs filed their notice of
appeal for the breach of contract claim with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Fifth Third Bank provides banking products and services for
personal and business needs. Its personal banking products and
services include checking accounts, savings accounts, preferred
programs, credit cards, debit cards, real life rewards, reloadable
prepaid cards, cash banking, mortgages, equity lines and loans,
auto financing, personal lines of credit and loans, CDs, IRAs,
investments, insurance strategies, planning center, Internet
banking and online bill payment, mobile banking, overdraft
coverage, early access, and identity theft protection. The company
was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio with
locations in Ohio, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and
West Virginia. Fifth Third Bank operates as a subsidiary of Fifth
Third Financial Corporation.


FIFTH THIRD: Approval of Damages Class Settlement Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bank 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
Damages Class filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the
Amended Settlement Agreement.

In April 2006, the Bancorp was added as a defendant in a
consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed
against Visa(R), MasterCard(R) and several other major financial
institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (In re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and
Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 05-MD-1720).

The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses
throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claimed that the
interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks were unreasonable
and sought injunctive relief and unspecified damages. In addition
to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is also subject to a
possible indemnification obligation of Visa and has also entered
into judgment and loss sharing agreements with Visa, MasterCard and
certain other named defendants.

In October 2012, the parties to the litigation entered into a
settlement agreement. On January 14, 2014, the trial court entered
a final order approving the class settlement. A number of merchants
filed appeals from that approval. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit held a hearing on those appeals and on June 30,
2016, reversed the district court's approval of the class
settlement, remanding the case to the district court for further
proceedings.

On March 27, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a
petition for writ of certiorari seeking to review the Second
Circuit's decision. Pursuant to the terms of the overturned
settlement agreement, the Bancorp previously paid $46 million into
a class settlement escrow account. Approximately 8,000 merchants
requested exclusion from the class settlement, and therefore,
pursuant to the terms of the overturned settlement agreement,
approximately 25% of the funds paid into the class settlement
escrow account were already returned to the control of the
defendants.

The remaining approximately 75% of the settlement funds paid by the
Bancorp are maintained in the escrow account. More than 500 of the
merchants who requested exclusion from the class filed separate
federal lawsuits against Visa, MasterCard and certain other
defendants alleging similar antitrust violations. These individual
federal lawsuits were transferred to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.

While the Bancorp is only named as a defendant in one of the
individual federal lawsuits, it may have obligations pursuant to
indemnification arrangements and/or the judgment or loss sharing
agreements noted above.

On June 5, 2018, the defendants in the consolidated class action
reached an agreement to settle in principle with the proposed
plaintiffs' class seeking monetary damages (the "Plaintiff Damages
Class"). On September 17, 2018, those parties signed a settlement
agreement (the "Amended Settlement Agreement") superseding the
original settlement agreement entered into in October 2012.

The Amended Settlement Agreement includes, among other terms, a
release from participating class members for liability for claims
that accrue no later than five years after the Amended Settlement
Agreement becomes final. The Amended Settlement Agreement provides
for a total payment by all defendants of $6.24 billion, composed of
approximately $5.3 billion held in escrow and an additional $900
million. The Bancorp’s allocated share of the putative settlement
is within existing reserves. If more than 15% of class members (by
payment volume) opt out of the class, up to $700 million of the
settlement payment may be returned to the defendants. The
settlement is subject to District Court approval, and on September
18, 2018, the Plaintiff Damages Class filed a Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement. This
settlement does not resolve the claims of the separate proposed
plaintiffs’ class seeking injunctive relief or the claims of
merchants who are pursuing separate lawsuits.

Fifth Third Bank provides banking products and services for
personal and business needs. Its personal banking products and
services include checking accounts, savings accounts, preferred
programs, credit cards, debit cards, real life rewards, reloadable
prepaid cards, cash banking, mortgages, equity lines and loans,
auto financing, personal lines of credit and loans, CDs, IRAs,
investments, insurance strategies, planning center, Internet
banking and online bill payment, mobile banking, overdraft
coverage, early access, and identity theft protection. The company
was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio with
locations in Ohio, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and
West Virginia. Fifth Third Bank operates as a subsidiary of Fifth
Third Financial Corporation.


FIRST SOLAR: Trial Date in Smilovits Class Suit Vacated
-------------------------------------------------------
First Solar, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on November 20 , 2018,
2018, that the Arizona District Court vacated the previously
scheduled trial date in Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al.,
until the outcome of the certiorari petition is clear.

On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled
Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-DGC,
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona (the "Arizona District Court") against the Company and
certain of its current and former directors and officers (the
"Defendants").

The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between
April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012 (the "Class Action"). The
complaint generally alleges that the Defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial
performance and prospects.

The action includes claims for damages, including interest, and an
award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees to the putative
class.

On August 11, 2015, the Arizona District Court granted Defendants'
motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, and
certified an issue for immediate appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the "Ninth Circuit"). On January
31, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the order
of the Arizona District Court.

On August 6, 2018, Defendants filed a petition for writ of
certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court has not yet ruled
on that petition. On November 14, 2018, the Arizona District Court
vacated the previously scheduled trial date until the outcome of
the certiorari petition is clear.

First Solar, Inc. provides photovoltaic solar energy solutions in
the United States and internationally. It operates through two
segments, Components and Systems. The company was formerly known as
First Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to First Solar,
Inc. in 2006. First Solar, Inc. was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Tempe, Arizona.


FLIK INT'L: Court Grants Protective Order in Clarke FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion for Protective Order in
the case captioned JAMES CLARKE, for himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FLIK INTERNATIONAL CORP. and
COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., Defendants. Civil Action No. 17-1915
(SRC). (D.N.J.).

This matter comes before this Court on the motion by Defendants for
a protective order, in particular, an order which would direct
counsel for Plaintiff James Clarke to revise its website insofar as
the website publishes information concerning this action.

The Plaintiff filed this FLSA action as a putative collective
action, under FLSA Section 216(b), seeking recovery for (1) unpaid
wages for alleged off-the-clock work performed by Clarke and other
similarly situated employees and (2) uncompensated travel time and
expenses.

The Plaintiff's counsel proceeded to disseminate notice of this
litigation to others who may wish to join the collective action.
The method of communicating to prospective opt-ins has included
publication of information related to this suit on the website
belonging to Stephan Zouras LLP, the law firm representing
Plaintiff Clarke.

The Defendants have moved for this protective order on the grounds
that the information published on the website contains misleading
information about the instant lawsuit and includes references
beyond the scope of the notice approved by the Court, for example
to companywide policies resulting in off-the-clock work and to the
law firm's investigation into possible wage violations at other
Flik and Compass locations which number hundreds of locations
nationwide.

The Plaintiff invoked the Court's power to assist with providing
notice to potential litigants who may wish to join this lawsuit. By
doing so, the Plaintiff and his counsel subjected themselves to the
reasonable limitations imposed by the Court on the Plaintiff's
communications to notify others of this lawsuit and to solicit
eligible individuals to opt in to this collective action. When this
Court approved the notice that the Plaintiff was permitted to send
to possible opt-in plaintiffs, the terms of that notice, by
implication, applied to the substance of all other efforts by the
Plaintiff and/or his counsel to solicit participation in this
action.

The Court has no doubt regarding its authority to require that the
Plaintiff's notice to potential opt-ins as well as his
communications related to this collective action be reasonably
restricted and tailored to the class and claims which have been
conditionally certified.

It is apparent to the Court that the information concerning this
lawsuit published on the Stephan Zouras website does not conform in
numerous respects to the limitations which the Court set forth in
its August 16, 2018 ruling on the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification. The Court is satisfied that the
Defendants are indeed entitled to a protective order limiting the
information contained on any page or portion of the Stephan Zouras
website which pertains to this lawsuit. In particular, any
reference on the website to claims which the Court has refused to
certify as part of this collective action is inappropriate and
potentially confusing to individuals who may be considering whether
or not to join the lawsuit.

The Plaintiff's counsel is therefore directed to consult with
counsel for the Defendants concerning the revision of the Stephan
Zouras website content to conform to this Court's grant of
conditional certification and related approval of notice of this
collective action to prospective opt-ins.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 19, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9gmanay from
Leagle.com.

JAMES CLARKE, for himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by DAVID J. COHEN --
dcohen@stephanzouras.com

FLIK INTERNATIONAL CORP. & COMPASS GROUP USA, INC, Defendants,
represented by BRIAN JEFFREY GERSHENGORN --
bgershengorn@fisherphillips.com -- FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP.


GANNETT CO: Clark TCPA Suit Remanded to Ill. State Court
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RAMONA CLARK and DYLAN SCHLOSSBERG,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees and Cross-Appellants, v. GANNETT CO., INC., a
Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, (Gary Stewart,
Objector-Appellant and Cross-Appellee; Christopher A. Bandas and C.
Jeffrey Thut, Cross-Appellees), No. 1-17-2041 (Ill. App.), the
Appellate Court of Illinois reverses the ruling of the trial court
granting a motion in limine to exclude evidence of objector's
counsel's pattern of conduct in representing objectors in class
action lawsuits. Thus, the Court remands for new Rule 137 hearing
at which this evidence will be admitted to determine whether the
objection was filed for an improper purpose.

Here, Plaintiffs alleged that Gannett violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by promoting the sale of its newspapers
through unsolicited marketing calls to cellular telephones of a
class of about 2.6 million individuals. Plaintiffs sought actual
and statutory damages, an injunction on unsolicited calls, and
declaratory relief.

In January 2014, Richard Casagrand and Schlossberg filed an almost
identical lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey. About two years later, during which little formal
discovery appears to have been exchanged, the parties spent a full
day in mediation with former federal Judge Wayne R. Andersen. In
April, the parties held another full day with Judge Andersen. Next,
Casagrand and Schlossberg voluntarily dismissed the New Jersey
case, and in May 2016, Schlossberg along with Clark (in place of
Casagrand) refiled the virtually identical case in the chancery
division of the circuit court of Cook County.

By July, the parties had signed a settlement agreement establishing
a nonreversionary fund of $13.8 million. Gannett also promised to
initiate various measures designed to ensure compliance with the
Act and prevent future unwanted telemarketing calls to consumers.
On the matter of class counsel's attorneys' fees, the settlement
agreement provided: "Class Counsel will petition the Court for an
award of reasonable attorneys' fees," which class counsel agreed
"to limit" at "no more than 39% of the Settlement Fund."

The following month, in August 2016, Judge Kathleen Kennedy
preliminarily approved the settlement and directed notice to a
settlement class. According to the parties, 99% of the settlement
class of 2.6 million members received direct notice of the suit.
About 50,000 members made claims to participate in the settlement.
Absent from the record is a transcript of the preliminary hearing.
In October, class counsel moved for an award of attorneys' fees,
expenses, and an incentive award for the class representatives.

The sole objector to the settlement was Stewart. His participation
was solicited by a disbarred California attorney, Darrell Palmer,
who referred Stewart to Texas attorney Christopher A. Bandas.  In
turn, Bandas contacted Chicago attorney C. Jeffrey Thut to act as
his local counsel. On the last day for filing objections, Thut
signed and filed an objection prepared by Bandas.  

After the trial court overruled objector counsel's boilerplate
objections to the settlement agreement and attorneys' fees, class
counsel Edelson PC decided to expose what they regarded as a farce
by moving under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 for sanctions
against objector's counsel. Edelson PC claims that Bandas-Thut's
motive for objecting was nothing short of disingenuous and
Bandas-Thut interposed the last-minute objection for their own
pecuniary interests, their own self-interests; in other words, to
extort a fee for themselves. For this reason, Edelson PC moved for
Rule 137 sanctions against Bandas-Thut, asserting that the
objection was filed for "an improper purpose."

The trial court held a hearing on the Rule 137 motion. Objector
Stewart, who had been ordered to appear at the hearing, was a
no-show. The trial court held Stewart in contempt, fined him $500,
and struck his objections to the settlement and attorneys' fees.
The trial court also denied sanctions against objector's counsel.

Stewart appeals the trial court's contempt order. But, his notice
of appeal is defective. The notice of appeal identifies an order
that had been withdrawn and omits mention of the superseding order
issued four days later. Thus, this court lacks jurisdiction to
review Stewart's contempt finding, and it stands.

Stewart also appeals the trial court's order denying his objections
to the class settlement and granting the full amount of class
counsel's request for attorneys' fees. Because the contempt order
stands, and that order struck his objections, the Court need not
address his objections.

After reviewing the records, the Court finds that Bandas and Thut,
and Stewart by extension, have taken advantage of a situation
described as "murky" and with "unpredictable" or "sporadic"
enforcement, with a "vastly uncertain" scope of jurisdictional
restrictions in various states. Both attorneys have engaged in a
fraud on the court. Thus, the Court reverses the judgment of the
circuit court of Cook County and remands for further proceedings.

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


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Sued over Microwave Oven Paint Peeling Problem
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL SURIAGA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-16288 (D.N.J., Nov. 19, 2018), seeks to
remedy violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act in connection with Defendant's design,
manufacture, marketing, advertising, selling, warranting, servicing
and repairing of its Microwaves, which contain serious design
and/or manufacturing defects, causing bubbling, peeling, cracking,
flaking, and/or chipping of the coating of the interior cavity of
the Microwaves ("Paint Peeling Problem'), which begins to manifest
shortly after first use and renders them unfit for further use.

According to the complaint, GE has known (or reasonably should have
known) for many years that these Microwaves were defective. GE has
known of the Paint Peeling Problem since at least 2005. GE has
undertaken a deliberate and willful pattern of conduct (including
taking of active measures) aimed at hiding the defects in its
Microwaves from consumers, including Plaintiff and the proposed
Class.

The GE Microwaves fail prematurely, which requires consumers to
discontinue using the Microwaves and to replace them at their own
expense. As a result of Defendant's unfair, deceptive, fraudulent,
and misleading practices, the Plaintiff and Class Members have been
deceived into purchasing the Microwaves which they would not
otherwise have purchased; did not receive the benefit of their
bargain; or purchased at a substantially higher price than they
would have paid, had they known of Defendant's deception, the
lawsuit says.

General Electric Company is an American multinational conglomerate
incorporated in New York and headquartered in Boston.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Patrick S. Almonrode, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Telephone: (877) 561 0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582 5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com

GENERATIONS HEALTHCARE: Wins Bid to Decertify Class of HHAs
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and
denying in part Defendants' Motion to Decertify Conditional Class
Certification and for Dismissal of Opt-In Plaintiffs in the case
captioned DEANGELA SMITH, Plaintiff, v. GENERATIONS HEALTHCARE
SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants. Case No. C2-16-CV-0807. (S.D.
Ohio).

Plaintiff DeAngela Smith worked as a home health aide for
Generations Healthcare Services, LLC and Generations Too, LLC. She
alleges that the Defendants did not pay her overtime in violation
of the Department of Labor's 2015 rule that "made overtime
mandatory for home health aides."

The Defendants have moved to decertify the class. The Defendants
argue that when the opt-in period closed, two plaintiffs, Jessica
Climer and Charles Hollins, had opted in to the suit. Plaintiff
Smith does not dispute these facts and does not oppose decertifying
the class.

Because the parties agree to this matter and three individuals
would be an insufficient number to support a class under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(A), Defendants' Motion is granted.

Because the parties have agreed to decertification, this Court does
not decide whether three individuals are enough to support an FLSA
collective action under Section 216(b), which imposes requirements
separate from class requirements under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.

The Defendants have also moved to dismiss Plaintiffs Jessica Climer
and Charles Hollins from this suit.

Plaintiff Smith acknowledges counsel's difficulty in making or
maintaining contact with these opt-in Plaintiffs. Plaintiff Smith
has not specifically responded to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
these Plaintiffs, only stating that Plaintiff Smith cannot oppose
what Defendants seek because of Plaintiffs Climer and Hollins
failing to cooperate and agreeing that a party's failure to appear
at depositions obviously constitutes good grounds for some kind of
sanction.

Whether to dismiss a claim is informed by four factors: (1) whether
the party's failure is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault (2)
whether the adversary was prejudiced by the dismissed party's
conduct (3) whether the dismissed party was warned that failure to
cooperate could lead to dismissal and (4) whether less drastic
sanctions were imposed or considered before dismissal was ordered.

The Defendants' reliance on Jourdan v. Jabe, Murray v. Target Dep't
Stores, and Oakes v. J.F.Bernard, Inc., 2012 WL 3552651, at *1
(N.D. Ohio Aug. 1, 2012), is misplaced as those cases are
distinguishable. In Jourdan, the party had requested two extensions
and subsequently missed court deadlines of which he was well-aware
and comprehended their significance.

Here, neither Plaintiff Smith nor the Defendants provide evidence
of whether Plaintiffs Climer and Hollins were well-aware of court
deadlines. The parties negotiated between themselves for extensions
of time in contacting Plaintiffs Climer and Hollins. Plaintiff
Smith intimates that at least one Plaintiff failed to appear for a
deposition. But it is not clear that Plaintiffs Climer and Hollins
were aware that they were out of alignment with court deadlines or
understood the importance of appearing at depositions.

This Court has not previously issued any directive to the
Plaintiffs that would constitute notice that their failure to
participate in discovery would result in dismissal. As such, the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is denied.  Plaintiffs Climer and
Hollins are put on notice, however, that they must comply with
proper discovery requirements and that further failure to respond
to proper discovery could result in sanctions, including
dismissal.

Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion is granted as to decertifying
the class and DENIED as to dismissing Plaintiffs Climer and
Hollins.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 19, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb57ncwy from
Leagle.com.

Richard Nicholas Coglianese, Mediator, pro se.

DeAngela Smith, Plaintiff, represented by William Franklin Cash,
III -- bcash@levinlaw.com -- Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell et al
& Jacob R. Rusch, pro hac vice.

Generations Healthcare Services LLC & Generations Too, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Renny Joe Tyson, Renny J. Tyson Co.,
LPA.


GETSWIFT: Judge Upholds Ruling in Class Action Over Disclosures
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eleanor Dickinson, writing for ARN, reports that the Federal Court
of Australia has upheld a judgement that allows only one of the
three class actions bought against beleaguered Australian
technology start-up GetSwift to proceed.

The class actions, served by three separate law firms between
February and April this year, concern allegedly deceptive
disclosures by the publicly-listed firm about certain customer
contract agreements.

The first two were led by the law firms Squire Patton Boggs, on
behalf of Dwayne Perera and other investors, alongside Corrs
Chambers Westgarth Lawyers, on behalf of Shaun McTaggart.

One month later, Justice Lee ruled that these -- known as the
Perera Proceeding and the McTaggart Proceeding -- should be
dropped, a ruling the two law firms subsequently appealed.

Meanwhile, the third class action, dubbed the Webb Applicant,
launched by law firm Phi Finney McDonald on behalf of Raffaele
Webb, will be able to continue its litigation for an alleged
undisclosed quantum of loss.

The judgement added that it was unlikely the three cases would be
consolidated due to an absence of agreement between the different
applicants, funders and solicitors.

In a notice filled with the Australian Securities Exchange,
GetSwift said it will be seeking its costs incurred in respect of
this carriage motion.

"As previously advised, the company strongly disputes the
allegations made, including any alleged loss, and is vigorously
defending the proceedings," the statement added.

Founded in 2015, GetSwift provides an internally-developed "last
mile" software-as-a-service (SaaS) logistics solutions.

In May, the Federal Court of Australia had agreed to let one of the
three class actions being levelled against GetSwift proceed.  [GN]


GILEAD SCIENCES: Sued for Allegedly Withholding HIV Drug
--------------------------------------------------------
Jacksonville Free Press reports that a new federal lawsuit against
Gilead Sciences exposes how the pharmaceutical giant is putting
profits over people, especially oppressed groups including black
and LGBT communities, said renowned civil rights attorney Ben
Crump.

Mr. Crump, along with co-counsel at the Hilliard Martinez Gonzales,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, and Morgan & Morgan law firms,
announced the lawsuit against Gilead Sciences, accusing the company
of intentionally withholding a safer HIV drug from hundreds of
thousands of patients in order to extend the profitability of the
patent it held on an older, more risky drug. The tactic, Mr. Crump
said, unjustly affected patients in the black, minority, and LGBT
communities.

In the lawsuit, Mr. Crump and co-counsel Bob Hilliard and Steve
Berman, assert that Gilead withheld a second-generation HIV drug
that was safer and produced fewer side effects and complications,
in order to prevent competition with its harmful first-generation
drug until its patent expires in 2021. Gilead's first-generation
drug, known as TDF, can cause life-threatening side effects such as
bone demineralization and kidney toxicity. For a person already
living with HIV/AIDS, these side effects and toxicities turn a
manageable condition into one that is potentially
life-threatening.

The HIV epidemic is characterized by extraordinary disparity
regarding minority groups. Despite representing less than 13% of
the U.S. population, in 2017black and African-American residents
made up 44% of those who were newly diagnosed with HIV. Similarly,
while Hispanics and Latino Americans made up 17% of the U.S.
population in 2015, they made up 22% of people living with HIV.
African-Americans have the highest rate of new HIV diagnoses
compared to other races and ethnicities. More than seventy percent
of all new HIV diagnoses in 2017 were in gay and bisexual men, as
well as transgender women, of all races.

"Gilead's chosen path of inaction is causing tremendous harm to
persons with HIV, particularly black and LGBT minorities, by
keeping drugs that would reduce deadly symptoms off the market and
unavailable to those who need them the most," said Mr. Crump. "This
lawsuit is a major step in the right direction toward racial equity
in communities unevenly affected by HIV and exploited by
pharmaceutical Goliaths like Gilead."

Because Gilead willfully grips the market with its monopoly, it is
able to charge exorbitant prices -- more than $3,700 a month -- at
the expense of the populations who need it most.

"This new lawsuit seeks justice for underrepresented communities,
providing a voice to those who may not have ever received one
otherwise," Mr. Crump said. "As long as Gilead continues to
cravenly value profits over people, people living with HIV/AIDS
will suffer from a lower quality of life. This must stop."

For more information about the class action lawsuit, visit
http://www.tdflawsuit.com/.[GN]


GOLDSTONE FINANCIAL: Sued over Sales of Unregistered Securities
---------------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE SIMMONS, ALEXANDRA EIVA, CAROL HARMS, ROSEMARY MAZIARZ IRA,
and RANDALL M. THOMPSON, IRA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. GOLDSTONE FINANCIAL
GROUP, L.L.C., ANTHONY PELLEGRINO, and MICHAEL PELLEGRINO, the
Defendants, Case No. 2018CH13978 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.),
alleges that the Defendants actively promoted, marketed, and sold
unlawful and unregistered securities offered by Global Capital LLC
in breach of their fiduciary duties to their clients -- Plaintiffs
and members of the proposed Class -- without first conducting
adequate due diligence and through untrue statements and omissions
of material fact as to the true risks and nature of an investment
in Global.

According to a lawsuit by the Securities and Exchange Commission,
Global fraudulently raised more than $287 million from more than
3,400 investors in at least 25 states, including Plaintiffs and
members of the proposed Class, through the offer and sale of those
unregistered securities, purportedly to fund its business of
offering short-term financing to small and medium sized businesses.
Global used a network of brokers, registered and unregistered
investment advisers, and other sales agents, including Defendants,
to offer and sell those unregistered securities, and Global paid
its sales agents millions of dollars in referral fees or
commissions in return.  Global, through the use of uniform
marketing materials distributed to sales agents, and marketing
materials prepared by the sales agents based on information Global
provided them, promised investors a safe, low-risk investment
paying an attractive return, in which Global would use investor
money to make short-term cash advances called Merchant Cash
Advances ("MCAs") to businesses that could not obtain more
traditional financing such as bank loans. Global touted a rigorous
underwriting process through which it purportedly approved only one
in ten merchants who applied for a loan, and an electronic
collection process that would allow investors to make a profit. In
reality, according to the SEC Case, Global used a substantial
amount of investor money for purposes other than MCAs, including
paying operating expenses and purchasing already distressed,
long-term credit card debt. In addition, the SEC alleged that
Global misappropriated at least $35 million of investor money, at
least $28 million of which was paid: (a) directly to Global's
founder, Chairman, and CEO Carl Ruderman ("Ruderman"), the Ruderman
Family Trust, and other entities he owned or controlled; (b) to
companies owned or operated by Ruderman's relatives and
acquaintances that had nothing to do with Global's cash advance
business; and (c) to fund Ruderman's lavish expenses such as a
luxury vacation to Greece and monthly payments for his
Mercedes-Benz.

According to the SEC Case, Global and its sales representatives
made numerous material misrepresentations and omissions to
investors, including: (a) that investments in Global were not
"securities"; (b) that the company would only use investor money to
fund MCAs; (c) falsely representing the amount of investor money
the company would take for its own use; (d) sending monthly account
statements to investors that falsely represented their portfolio
balances, rates of return, and the amount of their cash Global had
in the bank to fund merchant loans; and (e) falsely representing
the company had an independent auditor that verified the numbers
set forth in each investor's monthly statement.

The SEC alleged that largely as a result of Global's
misappropriation and improper use of investor funds, by no later
than October 2017, Global experienced a shortage of investor funds
approximating $23 million that should have been in the company's
bank accounts and available for merchant loans. This shortfall
continued and increased with time, so that by June 30, 2018,
Global' s financial records showed approximately $50 million in
missing investor funds. Less than a month later, I Global and a
sister company, 1 West Capital LLC (which Global used to make
merchant loans in California), filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection, placing investors at risk of losing significant funds.
An independent management team is now operating Global and 1 West
Capital LLC. Defendants aggressively marketed and promoted Global
securities to their customers, hundreds of whom purchased Global
securities through Goldstone.

Among other things, Goldstone hosted seminars in the Chicago area
during which it adopted and repeated Global's false and misleading
statements, and promoted Global as a safe investment suitable for
retirees and IRA investors. Goldstone also distributed a brochure,
which displayed Goldstone's name and address, and while it did not
mention Global by name, it described an investment in Global
repeating the false and misleading statements approved by Global,
and also including a range of expected returns that Defendant
Michael Pellegrino determined based on allegedly fake documents
shown to him by a friend who also sold and promoted Global
securities. Goldstone's materials also repeated Global's false
statement that Global notes sold to investors were not securities.
The Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed Class invested in
Global securities directly through Goldstone, and have lost most or
all of the value of their investments.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312-233-1550
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

          Alan L. Rosca, Esq.
          Paul Scarlato, Esq.
          GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY PC
          Eight Tower Bridge, 161 Washington St
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (484) 342-0700
          E-mail: rosca@lawgsp.com
                  scarlato@lawgsp.com

               - and -

          J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
          Brian 0. Marty, Esq.
          SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE PC
          5015 Grand Ridge Dr, Ste 100
          West Des Moines, IA 50265
          Telephone: (515) 223-4567
          Facsimile: (515) 223-8887
          E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
                  marty@sagwlaw.com

GOOD GUY: Faces Parent Suit in New Jersey Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filef against I. Good Guy Vape. The
lawsuit is captioned as MICHAEL PARENT, the Plaintiff, vs. I. GOOD
GUY VAPE, D. SAMSUNG SDI, U. ABC BATTERY M, T. DEF BATTERY C, T.
GHI BATTERY D, JKL BATTERY P, and JOHN DOES 1-2, the Defednants,
Case No. L-002292-18 (N.J. Sup. Ct., Nov. 20, 2018).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          REBENACK, ARONOW & MASCOLO, LLC
          111 Livingston Ave.
          New Brunswick, NJ 08901-0000
          Telephone: (732) 247-3600

GREENSKY INC: Faces Securities Class Action Over May 2018 IPO
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on Nov. 19 disclosed
that purchasers of GreenSky, Inc. (NasdaqGS: GSKY) have filed a
class action complaint against the company's officers and directors
for alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 pursuant to
the company's May 2018 initial public offering ("IPO"). GreenSky, a
technology company, provides point-of-sale financing and payment
solutions to merchants, consumers, and banks.

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

GreenSky Accused of Depleting Company Assets Ahead of IPO

According to the complaint, prior to the IPO company insiders
caused Greensky to enter into a series of special cash distribution
agreements, which resulted in the distribution of over $581
million. Company insiders also caused Greensky to enter into an
agreement that provides for the distribution of 85% of the tax
savings the company realizes as a result of the reorganization
transactions that preceded the IPO, which was estimated at $928
million.

GreenSky held its IPO on May 29, 2018, generating over $1 billion
in gross proceeds, based on a misleading Registration Statement.
The misinformation came to light when GreenSky began reporting
dismal financial results less than three months later on August 7,
2018, citing a merchant business mix shift from solar panel
merchants to merchants in the elective healthcare industry.
Consequently, GreenSky was subject to an increased risk that its
earnings growth would suffer and its adjusted EBITDA would decline
in a high interest rate environment. GreenSky again reported
disappointing results and lowered its guidance on November 6, 2018,
revealing the company's adjusted EBITDA represented a 46%
sequential decline and a 35% year-over-year decline as compared to
the company's fourth quarter 2017 results. On this news, GreenSky's
Class A shares fell to $9.28 per share on November 6, 2018, nearly
60% below the company's IPO price.

GreenSky Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid Kandinov
at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- is a
shareholder rights law firm. The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits. [GN]


HEALTH INSURANCE: District Court Junks Moser Discovery Requests
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KENNETH J. MOSER, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HEALTH INSURANCE
INNOVATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, et al., Defendants, AND
RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS, Case No. 17cv1127-WQH(KSC) (S.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford denied plaintiff's motion for an
order compelling HII to provide further responses to certain
interrogatories and document requests.

In the parties' Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery,
defendant HII represents that it is "a third party administrator
for health insurance and related products." HII maintains its
principal place of business in Florida and is incorporated in
Delaware. "HII is not a resident of California." Prior to the
filing of the parties' Joint Motion, plaintiff deposed two
witnesses designated by HII pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 30(b)(6) on the topics of compliance and "sales for
Donisi Jax, Inc. and Helping Hand Health Group, Inc."

The Scheduling Order filed in this case states that: "All discovery
motions must be filed within 45 days of the service of an
objection, answer, or response which become the the subject of
dispute. . . ." HII has represented that it responded to
plaintiff's discovery requests on July 16, 2018. As HII contends,
the 45-day deadline expired on or about August 30, 2018. The
instant Joint Motion raising discovery disputes as to HII's
responses was not filed until September 4, 2108, after the August
30, 2018 deadline. Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff's
request for an order compelling defendants to provide further
responses to his discovery requests must be denied as untimely.

Even if the parties' Joint Motion was timely filed and the parties
satisfied the meet and confer requirements, the Court would deny
plaintiff's request for an order compelling HII to provide further
responses to the disputed discovery requests. First, as to some of
the discovery requests included in the Joint Motion, there is no
dispute for the Court to resolve at this time.

Second, with the exception of Interrogatory No. 5 and Request for
Production No. 5, all of the discovery requests at issue in the
Joint Motion are objectionable for at least three reasons: (1) they
are overly broad on their face; (2) they fail to meet the
reasonable particularity standard in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 34(b)(1)(A); and/or (3) they do not appear to seek
documents and information that meet the relevance standard of
Federal Rule 26(b)(1). In this Court's view, HII responded to these
requests to the extent possible under the circumstances.

Third, with few exceptions, the Court was unable to determine
whether the discovery being sought in response to the requests at
issue are relevant to class-related issues. Most of the discovery
requests at issue appear to be related to issues other than class
certification. While it is true that discovery is not bifurcated
under the Scheduling Order in this case, the focus of discovery at
this stage of the litigation is class-related discovery, and
plaintiff should have time to pursue the type of discovery at issue
in the Joint Motion after class certification issues are resolved.
However, plaintiff must do so with narrowly tailored requests.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 20, 2018 is available at
https://bit.ly/2G0Ri2I from Leagle.com.

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

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

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

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

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


HELIX ENERGY: Hernandez Conditional Class Certification Bid OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Hernandez in the case captioned GERALD HERNANDEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. HELIX ENERGY SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC., Defendant, Civil
Action No. H-18-1588 (S.D. Tex.) sued Helix Energy Solutions Group,
Inc., alleging a failure to pay overtime wages, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act. Hernandez moved for conditional
certification of a class he defines as "[a]ll current and former
electricians who worked for Helix during the last three years and
who were paid on a day-rate basis." Hernandez also moved for
issuance of notice and expedited discovery of the contact
information for the electricians who worked for Helix during the
last three years.

Based on the pleadings, the motion, and the applicable legal
standards, Chief District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal granted the motion
for conditional class certification and granted the motion for
expedited discovery in part. A pretrial conference will be held on
April 23 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 11-B.

Courts recognize two methods for determining whether to certify a
collective action on a conditional basis or authorize notice to
similarly situated employees: the spurious class action Shushan
approach, or the two-step Lusardi approach. Most courts use the
Lusardi approach. The first step of the Lusardi analysis, the
notice stage, requires a minimal showing by the plaintiff that (1)
there is a reasonable basis for crediting the assertions that
aggrieved individuals exist, (2) those aggrieved individuals are
similarly situated to the plaintiff in relevant respects given the
claims and defenses asserted, and (3) those individuals want to opt
in to the lawsuit.

Hernandez asserted that he has alleged and presented affidavits
describing Helix policies and practices that denied the proposed
class members overtime compensation that they were entitled to
under the FLSA. These policies and practices included refusing to
pay overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week
and failing to maintain accurate time records.

Hernandez has submitted affidavits and consent forms of two other
Helix HV electricians, George Sowell and Christopher Smith, who
allege that they were not paid overtime and state that they wish to
join the class. A third Helix HV electrician, Larry Swell,
submitted a consent to become a party plaintiff, but he did not
submit an affidavit. Helix argued that the "three cursory
declarations are . . . insufficient," but the case law is clear
that the evidentiary burden at this state is lenient.  The first
element is met.

Hernandez also submitted declarations from himself, George Sowell,
and Christopher Smith that describe in identical terms the Helix HV
electrician positions they held. They duties were "setting up and
disconnecting electrical systems, repair and maintenance of the
electrical systems on the job site."  Each declaration explains
that the job involves "manual labor." Each declaration also
explains that Helix HV electricians were paid on a day-rate basis
and did not receive overtime pay for hours worked over 40 hours per
week. Hernandez included his pay stubs as an exhibit showing that
his wage was based on a daily rate regardless of the number of
hours worked in a week.

The evidence that other HV electricians with similar job
responsibilities to those of Hernandez were subject to the same pay
policy is sufficient to meet the threshold for conditional class
certification. The second element is met.

The third Lusardi question is whether evidence shows that other
aggrieved employees would want to join the class. Hernandez's
declaration states that he "believe[s] that there would be others
that would want to join this lawsuit if they were made aware of it
and given an opportunity to join." The affidavits from Sowell and
Smith, both Helix HV electricians, support that assertion. George
Sowell, Christopher Smith, and Larry Sowell have already filed
their consents to join the class action. The third element is met.

Hernandez's motion for expedited discovery is also granted, but
only as to the names, current or last-known mailing addresses,
telephone numbers, and dates of employment of HV electricians
working for Helix in the last three years. The requests for
social-security numbers, email addresses, locations of employment,
and nature of employment are overbroad and unsupported by the
current record.

The court grants the motion for conditional certification of a
class of "[a]ll current and former electricians who worked for
Helix during the last three years and who were paid on a day-rate
basis." By Dec. 21, 2018, Helix must produce the names, current or
last-known mailing addresses, telephone numbers, and dates of
employment for these individuals. The court approves the form of
notice.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Nov. 20, 2018 is
available at https://bit.ly/2PiUo1k from Leagle.com.

Gerald Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Bridget Dale Davidson,
Moore and Associates, Curt Christopher Hesse, Moore & Associates &
Melissa Moore, Moore & Associates.

Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Michael Carter Crow --  carter.crow@nortonrosefulbright.com --
Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP & Kimberly Frances Cheeseman --
kimberly.cheeseman@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright
US LLP.


HOME CARE: Wilkins Seeks Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------
BARBARA WILKINS, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b), Plaintiff(s), v. HOME CARE GIVER SERVICES, INC. d/b/a HOME
CARE ONE, a Florida corporation, and ANTHONY J. PERSICO,
individually, the Defendants, Case 9:18-cv-81514-BB (S.D. Fla.,
Nov. 2, 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, on or about August 1, 2018, the
Plaintiff began working for Defendant, and was assigned to work an
average of 50 hours per week. Plaintiff's agreed regular hourly
rate during this initial time period was $10.00 an hour. During the
first four weeks of her employment, Plaintiff worked 50 hours each
week. During this initial employment period worked by Plaintiff,
HOME CARE ONE paid Plaintiff a straight $10.00 an hour regardless
of the number of hours Plaintiff worked.

The Defendant failed to pay plaintiff one-and-one-half times her
regular hourly rate for any hours worked in excess of 40 in any
given workweek. Accordingly, during this initial employment period,
Plaintiff is owed half-time in the amount of $5.00 per hour for 10
hours per week for four weeks. In total, during the initial
employment period of the first four weeks, Plaintiff is entitled to
recover $50.00 per week for a total of $200.00 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 $200.00,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Barbara Wilkins:

          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

HORTONWORKS INC: Plumley Balks at Merger Deal with Cloudera
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, PATRICK PLUMLEY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HORTONWORKS, INC., ROB
BEARDEN, PAUL CORMIER, PETER FENTON, MARTIN FINK, KEVIN KLAUSMEYER,
JAY ROSSITER, MIKE VOLPI, CLOUDERA, INC., and SURF ACQUISITION
CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01845-UNA (D. Del.,
Nov. 20, 2018), stems from a proposed transaction announced on
October 3, 2018, pursuant to which Hortonworks, Inc. will be
acquired by Cloudera, Inc. and Surf Acquisition Corporation. On
October 3, 2018, Hortonworks' Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Cloudera.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Hortonworks'
stockholders will receive 1.305 shares of Parent common stock for
each share of Hortonworks they own. On November 5, 2018, Defendants
filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Registration Statement omits material information
with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the
Registration Statement false and misleading, the lawsuit says.

Hortonworks is a data software company based in Santa Clara,
California that develops, supports, and provides expertise on a set
of open-source software designed to manage data and processing for
things such as IOT, single view of X, and advanced analytics and
machine learning.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

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

               - and -

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

HUGOTON ROYALTY: Final Settlement Hearing Set for March 2019
------------------------------------------------------------
Hugoton Royalty Trust 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 claims related to
the Chieftain settlement are tentatively scheduled for a final
hearing beginning in March 2019.

In December 2010, a royalty class action lawsuit was filed against
XTO Energy styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc. in
Coal County District Court, Oklahoma. XTO Energy removed the case
to federal court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The
plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy wrongfully deducted fees from
royalty payments on Oklahoma wells, failed to make diligent efforts
to secure the best terms available for the sale of gas and its
constituents, and demanded an accounting to determine whether they
have been fully and fairly paid gas royalty interests. The case was
certified as a class action in April 2012, then decertified in July
2013.

XTO Energy advised the Trustee that in December 2017, it reached a
tentative settlement with the plaintiffs for $80 million and an
additional $750 thousand for costs to administer the settlement
following final approval. In March 2018, XTO Energy advised the
Trustee that it believed the portion of the settlement that relates
to the Trust could be as much as $20 million, but the settlement
allocable to the Trust could not be finally determined until after
the judge approved the plaintiffs’ final plan of allocation.

On July 27, 2018, plaintiffs submitted their final plan of
allocation which was approved by the court on the same date. Based
on the final plan of allocation XTO Energy has advised the Trustee
that it believes approximately $24.3 million in additional
production costs should be allocated to the Trust. On May 2, 2018,
the Trustee submitted a demand for arbitration styled Simmons Bank
(successor to Southwest Bank and Bank of America, N.A.) vs. XTO
Energy Inc. (the "Arbitration") through the American Arbitration
Association seeking a declaratory judgment that the Chieftain
settlement is not a production cost and that XTO Energy is
prohibited from charging the settlement as a production cost under
the conveyance or otherwise reducing the Trust's payments now or in
the future as a result of the Chieftain litigation.

In the Arbitration, the Trustee also made claims for disputed
amounts on the computation of the Trust's net proceeds for 2014
through 2016 in excess of $5 million. XTO Energy filed its answer
denying the Trustee's claims. The Arbitration panel has been
selected. Claims related to the Chieftain settlement are
tentatively scheduled for a final hearing beginning in March 2019.
The remaining claims related to the computation of the Trust's net
proceeds were bifurcated and will be heard at a later date, which
is still to be determined.

Hugoton Royalty said, "If the approximately $24.3 million allocated
portion of the Chieftain settlement results in an adjustment to the
Trust's share of net proceeds, it would result in additional excess
costs under the Oklahoma conveyance that would likely result in no
distributions under the Oklahoma conveyance for several years while
these additional excess costs are recovered."

Certain of the underlying properties are involved in various other
lawsuits and governmental proceedings arising in the ordinary
course of business. XTO Energy has advised the Trustee that it does
not believe that the ultimate resolution of these claims will have
a material effect on the financial position or liquidity of the
Trust, but may have an effect on annual distributable income.

Hugoton Royalty Trust is an express trust created under the laws of
Texas pursuant to the Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered into
on December 1, 1998 between XTO Energy Inc. (formerly known as
Cross Timbers Oil Company), as grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as
trustee.  Southwest Bank is now the trustee of the Trust.


ILLINOIS: Buck Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baldwin, et al. The
case is styled as William Buck, John Doe and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. John Baldwin Director, IDOC, Debbie Knauer
Admin. Rev. Board Member, Sgt. Rigdon Menard CC, C/O Puxdom Menard
CC, C/O Edwards Menard CC, C/O Mallory Menrad CC, C/O Halle Menard
CC, C/O Weaver Menard CC, Hunzicker FRT, Federal Response
Transportation, Lt Long Pontiac CC, Sabrina Fox Nurse, Pontiac CC
Cheryl Hanson Nurse Practitioner, Pontiac CC, Emily Ruskins Asst.
Warden, Pontiac CC, Lt. Samuels Menard CC, I.A. Gardiner Internal
Affairs, Menard CC, A. Phelps Internal Affairs, Menard CC, Unknown
Party Miss R – Mental Health Professional, Menard CC, Ms. Pappas
Mental Health Professional, Menard CC, Sharon Simpson Grievance
Officer, Pontiac CC, Michael Melvin Warden, Pontiac CC, Defendants,
Case No. 3:18-cv-02125-SMY (S.D. Ill., Nov. 28, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Prison Condition for Prisoner Civil
Rights.

John Baldwin was named director of the Illinois Department of
Corrections August 14, 2015, by Governor Bruce Rauner. Director
Baldwin is responsible for overseeing the management and operations
of more than 35 Illinois state prisons, work camps, boot camps and
transition centers as well as the supervision of parolees.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se:

     William Buck, Esq.
     700 West Lincoln Street
     PO Box 99
     Pontiac, IL 61764
     R21689
     PONTIAC CORRECTIONAL CENTER
     PRO SE


INDIANA UNIVERSITY: TRO Bid in Thomas Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------
In the case, JADEN THOMAS, RYAN BRAVERMAN, KATIE DEDELOW, JAKE
RAMSEY, ISABELLA BLACKFORD, MICHAEL DUKE, LINDSAY FREEMAN
individuals, each on behalf of himself/herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE TRUSTEES OF INDIANA
UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03305-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind.),
Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, granted in
part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Application for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.

The Plaintiffs are freshman students at Indiana University ("IU")
in Bloomington, Indiana.  They reside in either the McNutt
dormitory or the Foster dormitory.  After discovering mold
infestation in their dorm rooms at IU, the Plaintiffs initiated the
lawsuit on Oct. 17, 2018 on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated IU students against the Trustees of Indiana
University.  They assert claims for breach of contract, breach of
implied warranty of habitability, and declaratory judgment on
behalf of themselves and other similarly situated IU students.

More than 1,200 rooms have been cleaned or remediated in the McNutt
and Foster dormitories so that they can be reoccupied.  This work
was completed by Nov. 2, 2018.  Approximately 39 rooms are still
receiving enhanced remediation, and there are 24 rooms that have
yet to be inspected.  Additionally, there are about 391 rooms in
the Teter dormitory that the Defendant intends to inspect if needed
and to take appropriate action.

The Defendant established a website (http://buildings.iu.edu)to
provide information to students, students' family members, and the
public about the mold problem and remediation efforts.  The website
addresses many frequently asked questions and also allows students
to obtain updated information about the status of their particular
dorm room.  It also provides access to the detailed laboratory data
for individuals interested in seeing that level of information.
The website is updated daily and also provides information about a
mold remediation call center that provides additional resources.

Nine days after the Plaintiffs initiated the lawsuit, on Oct. 26,
2018, the Defendant filed a notice of removal, thereby removing the
lawsuit from Monroe Circuit Court to the Court.  The Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 erved as the basis of Defendant's removal.
Soon thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed their Application for
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction on Nov. 9,
2018.

The Plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order directing the
Defendant to (i) refrain from making misleading, inaccurate,
coercive or confusing statements to members of the putative class
regarding the dangers posed by Mold or the effectiveness of
remedies offered or implemented by IU; and (ii) refrain from
spoliation of evidence and take necessary steps to video or
photograph, and also retain physical viable samples of, the mold
found in IU's dorms prior to its removal during remediation.

Judge Pratt, having considered the parties' briefs and having heard
oral arguments on Nov. 19, 2018, granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiffs' Application.  She denied the Application for
Temporary Restraining Order as to the Defendant's communications
with its students and the public.  She granted the Application as
to the spoliation of evidence.  The Plaintiffs' request for a
preliminary injunction remains under advisement, pending a hearing,
which will be held at a later date.

The Plaintiffs' counsel has requested that the Plaintiffs be
relieved of any bond.  Until the Court can consider the
appropriateness of a bond more fully, the Judge granted that
request.  The Temporary Restraining Order applies to Defendant
Trustees of Indiana University and its officers, agents, servants,
employees, attorneys, and other persons who are in active concert
and participation with any of these individuals or entities.  It
will remain in effect for 14 days after the date of issuance or
until a ruling on the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction, whichever is earlier, or until any earlier additional
order of the Court, or until a later date if the Defendant consents
to a longer extension.

The parties are ordered to promptly contact the Magistrate Judge to
schedule a conference to finalize an expedited discovery plan and
briefing schedule and pursue resolution of any other remaining
issues.  A hearing on the Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary
injunction will be set following the parties' conference with the
Magistrate Judge.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/QqMINl from Leagle.com.

JADEN THOMAS, RYAN BRAVERMAN, KATIE DEDELOW, JAKE RAMSEY, ISABELLA
BLACKFORD, MICHAEL DUKE & LINDSAY FREEMAN, individuals, each on
behalf of himself/herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Jacob R. Cox, COX LAW OFFICE, Jonathon
Noyes -- jnoyes@wkw.com -- WILSON KEHOE & WININGHAM & William E.
Winingham -- winingham@wkw.com -- WILSON KEHOE & WININGHAM.

THE TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY, Defendant, represented by Ann
O. McCready -- amccready@taftlaw.com -- TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER
LLP, Frank J. Deveau -- fdeveau@taftlaw.com -- TAFT STETTINIUS &
HOLLISTER LLP, Scott R. Alexander -- salexander@taftlaw.com -- TAFT
STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP & Thomas A. Barnard --
tbarnard@taftlaw.com -- TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP.


INFORMED ELECTORATE: Robinson Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
FREDERICK ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. INFORMED ELECTORATE and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:18-cv-09705
(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 2018,
the Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's home telephone
number ending in -6241, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to
purchase Defendant's services. The 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 (813) 295-2840, (646) 813-2670, and (617)
581-0895, confirmed to belong to Defendant. The Defendant's calls
constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as defined
by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A).

Defendant's calls were placed to telephone number assigned to a
cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for
incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1). The
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 telephone pursuant to 47
U.S.C. section 2 227(b)(1)(A). The Plaintiff received multiple
calls from Defendant beginning in or around July 2018, 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

INTERGLOBO NORTH: Genova Burns Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick McGovern, Esq. -- pmcgovern@genovaburns.com -- of Genova
Burns LLC, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on October 29,
2018 a N.J. Appellate Division panel reversed a dismissal of class
action overtime pay claims brought against a freight-forwarding
company that convinced the lower court that the company's drivers
and deliverers lacked standing to sue because they signed
independent contractor agreements to provide services through their
separate corporations. In an unpublished opinion, the Appellate
Division found that the court below prematurely ended its inquiry
into whether the plaintiff was an employee or an independent
contractor, and directed the lower court to look beyond the terms
of the contract to consider the totality of the circumstances
surrounding the relationship between the drivers and the company.
Veras v. Interglobo North America, Inc., et al., Docket No.
A-3313-16T1 (Oct. 29, 2018).

In 2014, Raymond Veras, through his corporation J&K Trucking
Solution, signed a "Contractor Lease Agreement" (CLA) with
Interglobo and then provided driver services to Interglobo.  He
claimed that he routinely worked in excess of 40 hours each week
but received no overtime pay, and that Interglobo took illegal
deductions from his pay. In 2015 he filed a class action under the
N.J. Wage and Hour Law (WHL) and the Wage Payment Law (WPL) against
two Interglobo entities. The CLA clearly stated that J&K was an
independent delivery operator. However, Veras's complaint alleged
that, despite the CLA which his corporation signed, he was an
employee protected by the WHL and WPL since he took direction from
Interglobo and its employees, wore its uniforms, dealt with its
customers' invoices, and was subject to discipline and termination
by Interglobo.

The lower court dismissed Veras's complaint on the grounds that he
lacked standing to bring the action. The Appellate Division
reversed and held that the A-B-C test articulated by the N.J.
Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Hargrove v. Sleepy's applied to
determine whether Veras' relationship with Interglobo was that of
an employee as opposed to an independent contractor. The Appellate
Division held that "a court is not limited to the terms of the
contract between the parties" and the court should review "the
substance, not the form of the relationship . . . to determine if
[the relationship] is exempt from the WPL and WHL."

The A-B-C test presumes that a service provider is an employee,
unless the service recipient can prove A, B and C: (A) the service
provider is free from direction or control by the service
recipient, (B) the services rendered to the recipient are outside
the recipient's usual course of business, or are performed outside
all places of the recipient's business, and (C) the service
provider is customarily engaged in an independently established
trade, occupation, profession, or business.

Interglobo argued that the A-B-C test did not apply because Veras's
employer was his own corporation, J&K Trucking Solution, and under
the economic realities test, Interglobo was not the employer. The
court rejected this argument, too, and held that the economic
realities test does not apply to WHL and WPL claims.

The Appellate Division held that the A-B-C test applied to Veras
regardless of whether the CLA was signed by Veras as an individual
or by his corporation, and stated that the A-B-C test presumes that
Veras was an employee, not an independent contractor. The Appellate
Division reasoned that even if the economic realities test did
apply, dismissal of the complaint at the motion to dismiss stage
was not warranted solely because of the CLA, because this test is
fact-intensive, and courts rarely decide a worker's status on a
summary judgment motion, let alone on a motion to dismiss before
discovery is taken.

Ultimately, this Appellate Division panel decided that the mere
fact that the service provider's corporation, and not the driver
himself, signed an independent contractor agreement with the
service recipient was not dispositive of the issue of employee
versus independent contractor status at the motion to dismiss
stage, and the underlying facts must be examined to determine
whether, despite the contract, the service provider is an employee
and has standing to sue the service recipient under the WHL or the
WPL.  As businesses attempt to create more separateness between
themselves and their service providers, this court cautions that
employee status will not depend on the existence of a contract
alone, but will be analyzed under the rigorous A-B-C test. [GN]


INVESTMENTS LIMITED: Sued over Mishandling of Security Deposits
---------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS PELKEY and CHLOE WALKER on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, vs. INVESTMENTS LIMITED MANAGEMENT,
INC., and JHB MASSACHUSETTS PROPERTIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case
No. 18-3165 (Mass. Super. Ct., Nov. 5. 2018), seeks to stop
Defendants' unlawful practices of mishandling and failing to
provide the required written receipts, properly maintain, and/or
promptly return residential tenants' security deposits in violation
of G.L. c. 186, section l5B (the "Security Deposit Law").
Plaintiffs contend that Defendants failed to pay interest on last
month's rent deposits and security deposits in violation of the
Security Deposit Law; and included unlawful lease terms, including
unlawful late fees.

According to the complaint, Thomas Pelkey and Chloe Walker  rented
unit No. 3 at 364 Riverway in Boston, Massachusetts from Defendants
since June 2016, and continue to reside in the unit. Investments
Limited Management, Inc. is a Florida corporation and has its
principal place of business in Boca Raton, Florida, and is the
landlord and manager of the 2Riverway property.

The Plaintiffs paid a $700 security deposit at the inception of
their tenancy in 2016. The Plaintiffs never received any receipt
from Defendants stating where their security deposit was being
held. The Plaintiffs, though counsel, sent a letter dated September
24, 2018, to Defendants demanding the return of their security
deposit. The Defendants, in a letter dated October 17, 2018,
responded to Plaintiffs stating that the security deposit would be
returned after Plaintiffs vacate the property and only if the unit
was left in condition required by the lease. To date Defendants
have not returned Plaintiffs' security deposit, the lawsuit says.

According to "The Security Deposit Law", Massachusetts law allows
landlords to collect only 4 types of payment at the commencement of
the rental term -- first month's rent, last month's rent, lock
installation and key costs, and "a security deposit provided that
such security deposit is deposited as required by [the law], and
the tenant is given the statement of condition as required by [the
law]." G.L. c. 186, section l5B (1) (b). Security deposits continue
to be the property of the tenant and cannot be commingled with the
landlord's other assets. A landlord that accepts security deposits
must provide tenants a written statement concerning the condition
of the premises upon commencement of the lease term, and must
retain records that contain a detailed description of any damage
done by a tenant during the lease term, including receipts for 3any
work performed. These records must be kept for two years after
termination of the tenancy. See G.L. c. 186 section l 5B (2)
(d).[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Josh Gardner, Esq.
          GARDNER & ROSENBERG, P.C.
          One State St., Fourth Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 390-7570
          E-mail: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com

               - and -

          Edward Rice, Esq.
          45 Pierce Street
          Malden MA 02148
          Telephone: (617) 475-0909
          E-mail: ed@edricelaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher Saccardi, Esq.
          58 Day St., #441538
          Somerville, MA 02144
          Telephone: (617) 500-3198
          chris@attomeysaccardi.com

INVITATION HOMES: Faces Class Action in California Over Late Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Liberatore, writing for Think Realty, reports that recently,
industrial single-family home companies are getting some very bad
press and facing some pretty nasty class-action accusations. For
example, Invitation Homes, a Blackstone vehicle that began buying
distressed single-family properties and rehabbing them for rent in
2012, faces a potential class-action suit in California that claims
the company's late fees violate the law in each of the dozen states
in which the company does business. The suit hinges on alleged
"fee-stacking" of $95 late fees that compound over time even,
plaintiffs say, if the late rent is due to malfunctioning company
payment portals. The same company has been swamped with negative
publicity as tenants come forward to local press to complain of
terrible property neglect and under- and unperformed maintenance.

As you read this, you might be tempted to think simply, "At least
it's them, not me," but don't forget this topic so quickly. The
same issues that institutional landlords face are issues for
individual landlords as well. No matter the size of your portfolio,
establishing certain key, consistent practices will help protect
you from allegations and lawsuits like the ones currently troubling
corporate landlords.

1. Establish the Process for Fee Assessments at Lease-Signing
One "black mark" many media outlets are reporting against
Invitation Homes is that residents say they are unfairly charged
for late rent payments. To be clear: At present, there is no public
evidence to this effect, so this is not a statement about whether
or not the accusations are true. What you can learn from these
accusations, however, could save you a great deal of time and money
if one of your residents ever accuses you of the same.

How to protect yourself:
Establish a formal fee-assessment process and explain it in detail
to tenants via a recorded video that they must affirm they viewed
either via their signature on the lease or via a cloud-based
confirmation that goes in their electronic record. This not only
keeps your process entirely consistent across every tenant's
experience, but it creates a clear, indisputable record that your
tenants understand when, how, and under what circumstances they
will be charged late fees.

2. Incorporate Discussion of the Maintenance Process into Your
Leasing Procedures
One of the biggest issues Invitation Homes is facing right now is
an onslaught of allegations that it simply does not respond to
maintenance requests in an effective or timely manner. To make
matters worse, residents' accounts of issues and the company's
written documentation of the same issues simply do not match up. As
more residents go to the press, the corporate landlord's public
perception worsens.

How to protect yourself:
Establish the process for reporting maintenance requests at the
earliest possible point in your relationship with a resident. You
may list individual processes in the lease or distribute a handbook
to the tenant when they sign.

Either way, address the following:

How to report a maintenance request, including different protocols
for emergency and non-emergency issues
Tenant responsibilities once an issue is reported, including
permitting a maintenance team to access the property to address the
problem
A detailed list of common maintenance issues and associated
protocols
Information on municipal issues like pet clean-up or yard clean-up
fines
Instructions for proper maintenance and care for appliances and
fixtures, including how to change filters and lightbulbs, if
tenants are expected to perform these basic duties
Specific delineation of appliance responsibilities
You must note if appliances will be repaired at tenant's or owner's
expense.

A Word of Warning
Making repairs as a favor or "on the fly" may well come back to
haunt you. Asking tenants to follow your processes for making
maintenance requests protects you and them. Making exceptions can
expose you to fair housing complaints and increases your risk of
facing litigation.

Our Preferred Maintenance Request Process at Secure Pay One:
Fill out an online request through the tenant portal. All progress
on the request is tracked online and in real time, and every tenant
uses an identical process to file requests and have them
addressed.

4. Do Not Fail in Your Documentation
Document everything. No exceptions.

For example, if your pest control company or your service team goes
out to a property and identifies housekeeping issues contributing
to a maintenance problem, you cannot afford to be shy about
documenting tenant contributions to the issue. Once the issue is
documented, you have a responsibility to share that information
with your tenant for your own protection and theirs.

How to protect yourself:
Develop a system to document and communicate these issues in
writing. Housekeeping issues are a sensitive topic, and most team
members will shy away from anything that feels like criticizing a
tenant. You must have clear documentation of the specific issues
that a resident must address and an equally clear, consistent
procedure for bringing those issues and action items to the
resident's attention.

Our Preferred Documentation Process:
Use a resident portal and/or texting system where images may be
uploaded and interactions documented. Tenant-provided images will
also help you gauge the severity of maintenance requests and
protect you in the event that residents wish to litigate, alleging
ignored maintenance. Setting communication expectations about how
and when a visit will be scheduled also keeps residents and
maintenance teams in the loop so that if something does slip, it is
addressed quickly.

For example, if a resident describes an urgent leak in the home but
documents that the leak does not fill a standard water glass in a
24-hour period, you will be able to prioritize maintenance on that
leak based on that information. Of course, it is imperative to
contain the leak as quickly as possible in order to prevent damage,
but this information and documentation will enable you to share a
timeline with your resident that will set expectations for when and
how maintenance will address the problem.

Big Landlords' Troubles Will be Yours as Well
This article is not intended to pass judgment on Invitation Homes
or any other corporate landlord, nor is it intended to be a
negative series of observations about tenants. This content should
simply serve all landlords as educational material that can help
you standardize your processes regardless of your portfolio size.

Whether you own one property, 100 properties, or more than 1,000,
when big headlines hit the press about "bad blood" between tenants
and landlords, a certain population of tenants will start wondering
if they, too, have been mistreated by you, and a certain population
of litigious attorneys will be all too eager to help them start the
process of suing you if it appears that there is any chance of a
big payout at the end. Protect yourself from these complaints and
your tenants from predatory litigators by making all processes from
rent collection to maintenance requests clear, consistent, and
nonnegotiable.

Using the many methods available to communicate with your residents
from tenant portals to text messaging keeping open professional and
transparent dialogue may help you avoid the court room. [GN]


IPIC ENTERTAINMENT: Still Defends Ryan-Nielson Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
iPic 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 the company
continues to defend itself from a class action suit entitled, Mary
Ryan and Johanna Nielson v. iPic-Gold Class Entertainment, LLC.

The Company currently is a defendant in a class action lawsuit
captioned Mary Ryan and Johanna Nielson v. iPic-Gold Class
Entertainment, LLC, Case No. BC 688633, which was filed in Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, on
December 29, 2017.

This lawsuit asserts failure to pay minimum wage, pay overtime
wages, provide meal breaks and rest periods, and provide accurate
itemized wage statements with respect to certain workers.

The Company reserves for costs related to contingencies when a loss
is probable and the amount is reasonably estimable.

iPic Entertainment said, "As of this date, the Company has not made
a provision for the claim described above, due to the fact that it
is currently not probable nor reasonably estimable. However, the
outcome of the legal proceeding is uncertain, and depending upon
what the facts reveal once the Company completes its investigation
of the claim, it may choose to contest the suit or settle this
claim. In either scenario, the Company could be subject to paying
an amount that could have a material adverse impact on its results
of operations in any given future reporting period."

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

iPic Entertainment Inc. operates restaurants and theaters in the
United States. The company operates casual restaurants,
farm-to-glass full-service bars, and theater auditoriums with
in-theater dining. It operates restaurants under the City Perch
Kitchen + Bar, Tanzy, The Tuck Room, The Tuck Room Tavern, and iPic
Express brands. The company was founded in 2010 and is
headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida.


J.S.P. LIFE: Tackie Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------
GWENDOLYN TACKIE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. J.S.P. LIFE AGENCY, INC.,
the Defendant, Case 1:18-cv-10786 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2018), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages under the New York Labor Law and
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Specifically, the available payroll records show that for pay
periods in which the plaintiff was owed overtime pay, for working
more than 40 hours in a workweek, the Defendant intentionally
manipulated and reduced her applicable hourly rates in order to
compute less overtime compensation than she was owed and should
have been paid. This deliberate scheme to avoid paying overtime
premiums to the plaintiff violated federal and state labor laws,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Steven M. Warshawsky, Esq.
          THE WARSHAWSKY LAW FIRM
          Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 601-1980
          E-mail: smw@warshawskylawfirm.com

               - and -

          Tomasz J. Piotrowski, esq.
          T.J. PIOTROWSKI LAW FIRM
          176 Kent Street, Suite 2L
          Brooklyn, NY 11222
          Telephone: (917) 612-0788
          E-mail: tomjerzy@msn.com

JAGUAR HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Tony Plant's Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jaguar Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that plaintiff's
memorandum of law in opposition to the defendants' motion to
dismiss is due on December 21, 2018.

On July 20, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court, Northern District of California,
Civil Action No. 3:17‑cv‑04102, by Tony Plant (the "Plaintiff")
on behalf of shareholders of the Company who held shares on
September 30, 2017 and were entitled to vote at the 2017 Special
Shareholders Meeting, against the Company and certain individuals
who were directors as of the date of the vote (collectively, the
"Defendants"), in a matter captioned Tony Plant v. Jaguar Animal
Health, Inc., et al., making claims arising under Section 14(a) and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a‑9, 17 C.F.R.
Section 240.14a‑9, promulgated thereunder by the SEC.

The claims alleged false and misleading information provided to
investors in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus on Form S‑4
(File No. 333‑217364) declared effective by the Commission on
July 6, 2017 related to the solicitation of votes from shareholders
to approve the merger and certain transactions related thereto.

The Company accepted service of the complaint and summons on behalf
of itself and the United States-based director Defendants on
November 1, 2017.

The Company has not accepted service on behalf of, and Plaintiff
has not yet served, the non-U.S.-based director Defendants.

On October 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking appointment as
lead plaintiff and appointment of Monteverde & Associates PC as
lead counsel. That motion was granted. Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint against the Company and the United States-based director
Defendants on January 10, 2018.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 12, 2018, for
which oral arguments were held on June 14, 2018.  The court
dismissed the complaint on September 20, 2018. Plaintiff was
entitled to amend the complaint within 20 days from the date of
dismissal.  

On October 10, 2018, Plaintiff amended the complaint to focus on
the Company's commercial strategy in support of Equilevia. On
November 6, 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint. The Defendants argue in their motion that the
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
because the omissions and misrepresentations alleged in the
complaint are immaterial as a matter of law.

Plaintiff's memorandum of law in opposition to the Defendants'
motion to dismiss is due on December 21, 2018. If the Plaintiff
were able to prove its allegations in this matter and to establish
the damages it asserts, then an adverse ruling could have a
material impact on the Company.

Jaguar Health said, "The Company believes that it is not probable
that an asset has been impaired or a liability has been incurred as
of the date of the financial statements and the amount of any
potential loss is not reasonably estimable."

Jaguar Health, Inc., a commercial stage natural-products
pharmaceuticals company, focuses on developing gastrointestinal
products for human prescription use and animals worldwide. The
company, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Napo Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., focuses on developing and commercializing proprietary human
gastrointestinal pharmaceuticals for the global marketplace from
plants used traditionally in rainforest areas. Jaguar Health, Inc.
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


JONES FINANCIAL: Anderson Class Action Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 13, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 28,
2018, that Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. continues to defend itself
in a class action suit entitled, Anderson, et. al. v. Edward D.
Jones & Co., L.P., et. al.

On March 30, 2018, Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. and its affiliated
entities and individuals were named as defendants in a putative
class action (Anderson, et. al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et.
al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California.  

The lawsuit was brought under the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Missouri and California
law and alleges that the defendants inappropriately transitioned
clients from commission-based accounts to fee-based programs. The
plaintiffs have requested declaratory, equitable, and exemplary
relief, and compensatory damages.  

Edward Jones and its affiliated entities and individuals deny the
allegations and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

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

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The company provides investment advisory services;
shareholder accounting services, including maintaining client
account information and other administrative services for the
mutual funds; insurance contract services to insurance companies;
and custodial and other account services. The Jones Financial
Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded in 1871 and is headquartered in Des
Peres, Missouri.


JONES FINANCIAL: Class Action over 401(k) Plan Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 13, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 28,
2018, that the company continues to defend itself in a class action
suit involving the Edward D. Jones & Co. Profit Sharing and 401(k)
Plan.

On August 19, 2016, JFC, Edward Jones and certain other defendants
were named in a putative class action lawsuit (McDonald v. Edward
D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri brought under Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA), by a participant in the Edward D.
Jones & Co. Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan (the "Retirement Plan").


The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to Retirement Plan participants and seeks declaratory and
equitable relief and monetary damages on behalf of the Retirement
Plan.  

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the McDonald lawsuit which
was granted in part dismissing the claim against JFC, and denied in
part as to all other defendants on January 26, 2017.

On November 11, 2016, a substantially similar lawsuit (Schultz, et
al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) was filed in the same
court. The plaintiffs consolidated the two lawsuits by adding the
Schultz plaintiffs to the McDonald case, and the Schultz action was
dismissed.  

The plaintiffs filed their first amended consolidated complaint on
April 28, 2017. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit on May 26, 2017, which was denied on March 27, 2018.

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

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The company provides investment advisory services;
shareholder accounting services, including maintaining client
account information and other administrative services for the
mutual funds; insurance contract services to insurance companies;
and custodial and other account services. The Jones Financial
Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded in 1871 and is headquartered in Des
Peres, Missouri.


JONES FINANCIAL: Settlement Accounting in "White" Set for Jan. 2019
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 13, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 28,
2018, that the final settlement accounting in White v. Edward D.
Jones & Co., L.P., is scheduled to be completed in January 2019.  


On September 22, 2017, Edward Jones was named as a defendant in a
purported collective and class action lawsuit (White v. Edward D.
Jones & Co., L.P.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio by a former branch office administrator.


The lawsuit was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act as well
as Ohio law and alleges that Edward Jones underpaid overtime
compensation to branch office administrators. The lawsuit seeks
compensatory damages in the amount of the unpaid wages as well as
liquidated damages in an equal amount.  

On April 24, 2018, the court approved the parties' settlement and
issued its final order of dismissal, without prejudice. The case
will be considered to be dismissed with prejudice in late December
2018.  

The final settlement accounting is scheduled to be completed in
January 2019.   

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The company provides investment advisory services;
shareholder accounting services, including maintaining client
account information and other administrative services for the
mutual funds; insurance contract services to insurance companies;
and custodial and other account services. The Jones Financial
Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded in 1871 and is headquartered in Des
Peres, Missouri.


JONES MOTOR: 7th Cir. Tosses Daley Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit dismissed the
appeals case captioned MICHAEL DALEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JONES
MOTOR COMPANY, INCORPORATED and ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellees, No. 18-1924 (7th Cir.)  for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.

Michael Daley worked for Jones Motor Company as a truck driver.
During that time, he alleged that Jones Motor improperly classified
him and his fellow drivers as independent contractors rather than
employees, resulting in an illicit denial of workers' compensation
benefits. He further alleged that Jones Motor forced the drivers to
purchase their own insurance policies from Zurich American
Insurance Company. The workers paid for these policies through
weekly deductions of about $38 from their paychecks. Finally, Daley
alleged that Jones Motor and Zurich conspired to prevent workers
from filing claims with the Illinois Workers Compensation
Commission by settling the claims, effectively buying the injured
workers' silence and avoiding governmental scrutiny of Jones
Motor's practice.

Daley filed a class action suit in federal court. He alleged six
counts, including civil conspiracy between Jones Motor and Zurich,
violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Illinois
Wage Payment and Collection Act. But before Daley could obtain
class certification, the district court dismissed the case for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The
district court determined that although Daley might theoretically
prosecute his claims in federal court, he first had to obtain a
factual determination that he was an employee and not an
independent contractor. Illinois law seems to reserve that question
to the Commission.  As a result, the district court dismissed the
case without prejudice. Daley appealed that question of law.

Because Daley's proposed class does not contain at least 100
members, the Court lack subject matter jurisdiction under section
1332(d). As well, because complete diversity does not exist between
the parties, the Court lack diversity jurisdiction under section
1331(a). The Court, therefore, vacates the opinion of the district
court and modifies the district court's judgment of dismissal
without prejudice to reflect dismissal for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

A copy of the Seventh Circuit's Order dated Nov. 20, 2018 is
available at https://bit.ly/2zFiX3S from Leagle.com.

Roy C. Dripps for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Michael Todd Blotevogel -- mikeb@adwblaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Beth Ann Berger Zerman -- bethann.berger@lewisbrisbois.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Emily Collins Fess for Defendant-Appellee.

David M. Krueger -- dkrueger@beneschlaw.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Joseph N. Gross for Defendant-Appellee.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Still Defends Class Suits vs. ARCP in New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial 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 continues to defend itself as one of the 17
underwriters in two purported class action suits filed against
American Realty Capital Partners, Inc. ("ARCP").

In December 2014 and January 2015, two purported class action suits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against American Realty Capital Partners, Inc. ("ARCP"),
certain affiliated entities and individuals, ARCP's auditing firm,
and the underwriters of ARCP's May 2014 $1,656,000 common stock
offering ("May 2014 Offering") and three prior note offerings. The
complaints have been consolidated.

Ladenburg was named as a defendant as one of 17 underwriters of the
May 2014 Offering and as one of eight underwriters of ARCP's July
2013 offering of $300,000 in convertible notes. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the offering materials were
misleading based on financial reporting of expenses,
improperly-calculated AFFO (adjusted funds from operations), and
false and misleading Sarbanes-Oxley certifications, including
statements as to ARCP's internal controls, and that the
underwriters are liable for violations of federal securities laws.
The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
as well as other relief.

In June 2016, the court denied the underwriters' motions to dismiss
the complaint. In August 2017, the court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

Ladenburg intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

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

Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. operates as a
diversified financial services company in the United States. Its
Independent Advisory and Brokerage Services segment offers advisory
and securities brokerage services for clients, including advisor
managed accounts, general securities, mutual funds, and variable
and fixed annuities; brokerage support services, such as access to
stock, bond, ETF, and options execution; products comprising
insurance, non-traded real estate investment trusts, and unit
trusts; and research, compliance, supervision, accounting, and
related services. Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. was
founded in 1876 and is based in Miami, Florida.


LEXINGTON LAW: Starace Sues over Debiting of Bank Accounts
----------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN STARACE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LEXINGTON LAW FIRM and DOES 1-10, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-at-00844 (E.D. Cal., Nov. 19, 2018),
seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendants debiting Plaintiff's bank accounts on a recurring basis
without obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly
authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund for violation of
the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, and violation of the Unfair
Competition Law.

According to the complaint, in or around, 2018, the Plaintiff
contacted Defendant in an attempt to repair Plaintiff's credit. The
Defendant's agent informed Plaintiff that he could initiate service
with Defendant by providing his debt card information. The
Plaintiff provided Defendant's agent with his debit card number.
However, without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent, Defendant
continued to deduct funds from Plaintiff's account multiple times
on a reoccurring basis, without providing Plaintiff a written
authorization to do so. The Plaintiff was only given an update on
the disputes Defendant had filed for him. The Plaintiff never
provided Defendant with any authorization to deduct these sums of
money on a regular recurring basis from Plaintiff's banking
account. The Defendants did not provide to Plaintiff, nor did
Plaintiff execute, any written or electronic writing memorializing
or authorizing these recurring or automatic payments, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, 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


LI YA NAIL: Mengni Sun Seeks Overtime Compensation
--------------------------------------------------
Mengni Sun, individually and on behalf of all other Employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff(s), vs. LI YA NAIL SPA INC.
d/b/a. LI YA NAIL SPA, AILLEN NAIL & SPA INC d/b/a BAI LI NAIL,
Jane Doe a/k/a Lily Gao, John Doe and Jane Doe No. 1-10, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06609 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2018),
alleges that Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to
pay their employees, including Plaintiff, overtime compensation for
all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

According to the complaint, Defendants failed to provide Ms. Sun
with written notices providing the information required by the Wage
Theft Prevention Act -- including, inter alia, Defendants' contact
information, her regular and overtime rates, and intended
allowances claimed -- and failed to obtain her signatures
acknowledging the same, upon her hiring or at any time thereafter,
in violation of the Wage Theft Prevention Act in effect at the
time. The Defendants knew that the nonpayment of overtime and the
"spread of hours" premium would economically injure Plaintiff and
the Collective Members by their violation of federal and
state laws, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff(s):

          Hui Chen, Esq.
          HUI CHEN AND ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          136-20 38th Ave., Suite 9E
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 463-2666
          E-mail: hui.chen@alum.cardozo.yu.edu

LINCOLN ELECTRIC: Slaughter Seeks Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------
QUINTIN SLAUGHTER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THE LINCOLN ELECTRIC COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02705 (N.D. Ohio, Nov. 20, 2018),
challenges policies and practices of Defendant that violate the
Fair Labor Standards Act and concerns underpayment of overtime to
non-exempt employees, pursuant to the the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt production
employee at Defendant's Euclid, Ohio location since approximately
June 25, 2018. Other employees similarly-situated to Plaintiff are
or were employed at Defendant's Euclid and Mentor, Ohio locations.
The Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees were
non-exempt employees under the FLSA and the OMFWSA, who were paid
piece rate or hourly wages and who were paid non-discretionary
bonuses. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
routinely worked 40 or more hours per workweek. Defendant's failure
to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated resulted in Plaintiff
and those similarly situated being denied overtime compensation,
the lawsuit says.

Lincoln Electric is an American multinational and a global
manufacturer of welding products, arc welding equipment, welding
consumables, plasma and oxy-fuel cutting equipment and robotic
welding systems.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          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
                  rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

LM FUNDING: Solaris Class Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the action entitled Solaris at Brickell Bay Condominium
Association, Inc. v. LM Funding, LLC, the Court entered an order on
November 6, 2018 granting Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement, according to LM Funding America, Inc.'s
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.  The New
Settlement Agreement will also reimburse the Plaintiff's opposing
counsel US$99,000 plus an administrative fee.

The Company said, "We were a defendant in an action entitled
Solaris at Brickell Bay Condominium Association, Inc. v. LM
Funding, LLC, which was brought before the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade Civil Division on July 31,
2014.  In this matter, which was initially preliminarily settled in
August 2017, the plaintiff (an association under contract with us)
alleged claims such as a usurious loan transaction, state and
federal civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act
claims, Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA")
violations, and other related claims, and the plaintiff requested
rescission of their agreement with us, forfeiture of all amounts
lent by us to the plaintiff, a declaratory judgment that we have
violated FDUTPA, other damages for breach of contract and
violations of FDUTPA, and attorneys' fees.  On August 4, 2017, an
order by the court was entered on Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement.  In the
order, the motion of the Plaintiff, Solaris at Brickell Bay
Condominium Association, Inc., individually and on behalf of the
certified plaintiff class ("Plaintiffs"), for approval of the Class
Action Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") with
Defendant LM Funding, LLC was granted.

"Despite our belief that we are not liable for the claims asserted
and that we have good defenses thereto, we nevertheless agreed to
enter into the Settlement Agreement in order to: (1) avoid any
further expense, inconvenience, and distraction of burdensome and
protracted litigation and its consequential negative financial
effects to our operations; (2) obtain the releases, orders, and
final judgment contemplated by the Settlement Agreement; and (3)
put to rest and terminate with finality all claims that had been or
could have been asserted against us by the Plaintiffs arising from
the facts alleged in the lawsuit.  Pursuant to the agreement
subsequently reached between counsel, all required actions and
deadlines set forth in the Settlement Agreement are currently
stayed.  On March 1, 2018 a continuation of the abatement was
granted until April 2, 2018.  As of December 31, 2017, the Company
had accrued costs of US$505,000 as part of the Settlement
Agreement.  The settlement amount was contingent upon the Company
obtaining sufficient financing within the allotted timeframe of the
Settlement Agreement.  On April 2, 2018, the Plaintiffs withdrew
from the Settlement Agreement.

"On August 14, 2018, the parties to the Solaris class action
litigation entered into a revised settlement in which the
Plaintiffs amended their complaint (the Fourth Amended Complaint)
to reflect no demand for damages and only a claim for declarative
and injunctive relief and amended the class definition to reflect a
requirement that class members must have active units still under
contract with LMF under a "Traditional Model" waterfall in the
Allocation of Collection Proceeds.  This was submitted to the court
who approved the amended Complaint and Class Action Settlement
Agreement.  On November 6, 2018, the court entered an order
granting Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement.  The New Settlement Agreement will also reimburse the
Plaintiff's opposing counsel US$99,000 plus an administrative fee.

"As such, the Company adjusted the class action accrual to
US$100,000 and recorded a US$405,000 class action reversal to the
statement of operations.  The amount was paid in the third quarter
ended September 30, 2018.

"The Company received a US$200,000 insurance reimbursement for a
previously resolved case that is reflected as a reduction of
professional fees for the three and nine months ended September 30,
2018."

LM Funding America, Inc., through its subsidiary, LM Funding, LLC,
operates as a specialty finance company. It provides funding to
nonprofit community associations (Associations) primarily located
in the state of Florida, as well as in the states of Washington,
Colorado, and Illinois. The company offers funding to Associations
by purchasing their rights under delinquent accounts that are
selected by the Associations arising from unpaid Association
assessments. The company is based in Tampa, Florida.


MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: Amended Freedman Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT FREEDMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MAGICJACK VOCALTEC LTD.,
an Israeli corporation; DON C. BELL III; GERALD VENTO; DONALD A.
BURNS; RICHARD HARRIS; YUEN WAH SING; ALAN HOWE; IZHAK GROSS; and
TALI YARON-ELDAR, Defendants, Case No.
9:17-CV-80940-ROSENBERG/REINHART (S.D. Fla.), Judge Robin L.
Rosenberg of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended
Complaint.

Freedman brought te action on Aug. 11, 2017 by filing a Class
Action Complaint against magicJack, YMax Corp., Bell, Vento, Burns,
Harris, Sing, Howe, Gross, Yaron-Eldar and Yoseph Daube.  On Jan.
2, 2018, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims against
Dauber, and filed an amended complaint.  On April 19, 2018, the
remaining Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.  By
Order dated Au. 9, 2018; the Court dismissed the amended complaint
without prejudice, and permitted the Plaintiff one more opportunity
to amend.  The Plaintiff subsequently filed his Second Amended
Complaint against all the remaining Defendants except for YMax.

Defendant magicJack is a publicly-traded company organized under
the laws of Israel, with its principal place of business in
Florida.  The Individual Defendants are current or former directors
of magicJack.

On Nov. 9, 2017, magicJack entered into an agreement under which
the Company would be sold to B. Riley & Co. for a price of $8.71
per share.  On Feb. 8, 2018, magicJack issued a proxy statement in
connection with a shareholder meeting to be held on March 19, 2018
for the purpose of voting on whether to approve the B. Riley
Transaction.  The transaction was approved by shareholders.

The Complaint alleges that the Defendants made material
misrepresentations, or omitted material facts, in two proxy
statements regarding the valuation and financial prospects of a
company known as Broadsmart, which magicJack acquired in March 2016
for $40 million.

The Plaintiff seeks damages to redress an injury suffered relating
to the $8.71 per share price, which the Plaintiff argues is less
than an earlier non-binding, pre-due diligence offer for the
Company.  However, the Plaintiff does not allege that the proxy
statement regarding the B. Riley Transaction contained any
misleading statements or omissions, and does not challenge that
proxy statement in the Complaint in any way.

The Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of himself and a putative
class of all holders of magicJack common stock who were or will be
harmed by the Defendants' actions as described in the Complaint,
which refers to a class of shareholders who received proxy
statements in connection with shareholder votes in the spring of
2017.  The Plaintiff also defines the putative class as all
purchasers of the common stock of magicJack during the Class
Period.

The Complaint contains two counts: one against all the Defendants,
for violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9, and the other against the individual
Defendants for control-person liability under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's claims are derivative in
nature and that the claims should be dismissed for failure to
allege a demand made upon the defendant corporation.

Judge Rosenberg agrees.  In its August 2018 Order, the Court
provided the Plaintiff with a clear directive, after the Plaintiff
already had amended his complaint once on Jan. 2, 2018, DE 37, that
he would need to allege direct injuries to proceed with an
individual action, given that he failed to allege that he made a
demand on the corporation.  The Plaintiff was specifically
instructed by the Court to amend the Complaint in a manner that
would make it clear that the alleged injuries in the case flowed to
the Plaintiff and not the Defendant corporation.  The Plaintiff's
failure to follow those instructions and cure the pleading
deficiencies warrants the Court's dismissal of the Second Amended
Complaint without further leave to amend.

Furthermore, the case has been pending since Aug. 11, 2017, thus
providing the Plaintiff with ample opportunity to sufficiently
allege a cause of action against the Defendants.  As the Plaintiff
has not attempted to plead a corporate derivative claim, but rather
has persisted in his efforts to allege an individual claim, this
dismissal does not address the Plaintiff's ability to bring a
derivative action.

Accordingly, Judge Rosenberg granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismis.  The Second Amended Complaint as pled as an individual
action is dismissed with prejudice.  She denied the request for
oral argument.  The Clerk is ordered to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/VJv4iL from Leagle.com.

Robert Freedman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey R. Krinsk --
jrk@classactionlaw.com -- Finkelstein and Krinsk, LLP, pro hac vice
& Kyle Charles Young -- kcy@lawyer.com -- Kyle Charles Young PL.

Magicjack Vocaltec Ltd., Don C. Bell, III, Gerald Vento, Donald A.
Burns, Richard Harris, Yuen Wah Sing, Alan Howe, Izhak Gross & Tali
Yaron-Eldar, Defendants, represented by Chris LaRocco --
chris.larocco@bclplaw.com -- Bryan Cave LLP, pro hac vice, Eric
Rieder -- ERieder@bclplaw.com -- Bryan Cave LLP, pro hac vice,
Glenn B. Coleman -- GBColeman@bclplaw.com -- Bryan Cave LLP, pro
hac vice & David Axelman -- David.Axelman@bclplaw.com -- Bryan Cave
Leighton Paisner LLP.


MAHABIR ENTERPRISES: Underpays Waitresses, Acteopan et al. Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
BERNARDINA ACTEOPAN, and ANA KAREN RAMIREZ ACTEOPAN, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MAHABIR
ENTERPRISES LLC D/B/A SOPHIE'S CUBAN CUISINE; SOPHIE'S RESTAURANT
#3 LLC D/B/A SOPHIE'S CUBAN CUISINE; PATRICIA MAHABIR SANTOS;
EDUARDO MAREO; VIVIANA SANTACRUZ; MANUELA MATOS; JUANITO DOE; HELEN
DOE; and SELENA DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-09971 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 29, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal
and rest periods.

The Plaintiff were employed by the Defendants as waitresses.

Mahabir Enterprises LLC d/b/a Sophie's Cuban Cuisine owns, operate,
and control two Cuban restaurants in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          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


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit in D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 a consolidated class action suit in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

On January 23, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and its CEO in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, captioned Patricia A. Shenk v. Mallinckrodt
plc, et al. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all
persons who purchased Mallinckrodt's publicly traded securities on
a domestic exchange between November 25, 2014 and January 18, 2017.


The lawsuit generally alleges that the Company made false or
misleading statements related to H.P. Acthar Gel and Synacthen to
artificially inflate the price of the Company's stock. In
particular, the complaint alleges a failure by the Company to
provide accurate disclosures concerning the long-term
sustainability of H.P. Acthar Gel revenues, and the exposure of
H.P. Acthar Gel to Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates.

On January 26, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit,
captioned Jyotindra Patel v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al. was filed
against the same defendants named in the Shenk lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia. The Patel complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders during the same
period of time as that set forth in the Shenk lawsuit and asserts
claims similar to those set forth in the Shenk lawsuit.

On March 13, 2017, a third putative class action lawsuit, captioned
Amy T. Schwartz, et al., v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al., was filed
against the same defendants named in the Shenk lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia. The Schwartz complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased
shares of the Company between July 14, 2014 and January 18, 2017
and asserts claims similar to those set forth in the Shenk lawsuit.


On March 23, 2017, a fourth putative class action lawsuit,
captioned Fulton County Employees' Retirement System v.
Mallinckrodt plc, et al., was filed against the Company and its CEO
and CFO in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The Fulton County complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
shareholders during the same period of time as that set forth in
the Schwartz lawsuit and asserts claims similar to those set forth
in the Shenk lawsuit.

On March 27, 2017, four separate plaintiff groups moved to
consolidate the pending cases and to be appointed as lead
plaintiffs in the consolidated case. Since that time, two of the
plaintiff groups have withdrawn their motions. Lead plaintiff was
designated by the court on March 9, 2018. Lead Plaintiff filed a
consolidated complaint on May 18, 2018, alleging a class period
from July 14, 2014 to November 6, 2017, the Company, its CEO, its
CFO, and Executive Vice President, Hugh O'Neill, as defendants, and
containing similar claims, but further alleging misstatements
regarding payer reimbursement restrictions for H.P. Acthar Gel. On
August 30, 2018, Lead Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the claims
against Mr. O'Neill without prejudice.

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.


MARTIN COUNTY, FL: Randolph at al. Suit Wins Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
DIANA RANDOLPH, DANA LIBERANTE & LISA EWELL, and all other
similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. WILLIAM D.
SNYDER, in his official capacity as SHERIFF OF MARTIN COUNTY, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-14120-RLR (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
Robin L. Rosenberg entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for
authorized class notification and collective action certification
of:

   "all current and former officers of Defendant who, since
   January of 2018, were required to attend    mandatory briefings

   and were not paid for overtime for such attendance."

The Court said, "First, Defendant requests that instead of being
addressed to "All Custodial Officers," the notice should be
addressed to "Corrections Deputies." The Court disagrees -- the
Court has conditionally certified a collective action for all
officers -- not just correctional officers -- who were required to
attend briefings and who were not compensated accordingly. Second,
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' affidavits are vague and
conclusory. The Court does not agree. Third and finally, Defendant
argues that Plaintiffs have not shown that there are more
similarly-situated employees who desire to opt-in to this suit. In
light of the large number of officers employed by Defendant and
that thirteen Plaintiffs have already joined this suit, the
Defendant's argument on this point is unpersuasive."[CC]

MAXIMUS INC: Appeal in Virginia Class Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Maximus, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 20, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, that the plaintiffs in the
putative class action suit filed in the  U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, have filed a notice of appeal to
the U.S. Circuit Court for the Fourth Circuit. That appeal is
pending.

In August 2017, the Company and certain officers were named as
defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants made a variety of materially
false and misleading statements, or failed to disclose material
information, concerning the status of the Company's Health
Assessment Advisory Service project for the U.K. Department for
Work and Pensions from the period of October 20, 2014 through
February 3, 2016.

In August 2018, the defendants' motion to dismiss the case was
granted, and the case was dismissed. In October 2018, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court for
the Fourth Circuit. That appeal is pending.

Maximus said, "At this time, it is not possible to reasonably
predict whether this matter will be permitted to proceed as a class
or to reasonably estimate the value of the claims asserted, and we
are unable to estimate the potential loss or range of loss."

Maximus, Inc. provides business process services (BPS) to
government health and human services programs worldwide. The
company was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Reston,
Virginia.


MDL 2624: $8.3MM Settlement in Lenovo Adware Suit Has Prelim OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: LENOVO ADWARE LITIGATION. This Document Relates
to All Cases, Case No. 15-md-02624-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood
S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.

The Plaintiffs bring the consumer class action against Defendants
Lenovo, Inc. and Superfish, Inc., asserting claims under federal,
California, and New York law.  The Plaintiffs allege that
Superfish's VisualDiscovery software, which Lenovo had preinstalled
on its laptops, created performance, privacy, and security issues.
Id. Plaintiffs allege several causes of action against Superfish
and Lenovo for violations of: (1) the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act;
(2) California's Unfair Competition Law; (3) California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act; (4) California's Computer Crime Law; (5)
California's Invasion of Privacy Act; (6) trespass to chattels
under California law; (7) New York's Deceptive Acts and Practices
Statute; and (8) trespass to chattels under New York law.  The
Plaintiffs also allege a violation of the Wiretap Act against
Superfish.

On Jan. 21, 2016, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing and failure to state a
claim.  On July 22, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  On Oct. 27, 2016, the Court granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss in part.  It also granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in part, certifying an indirect purchaser
class and California class.

The "Indirect Purchaser Class" includes all persons who purchased
one or more Lenovo computer models, on which VisualDiscovery was
installed, in the United States from someone other than Lenovo.
The "California Class" includes all persons who purchased one or
more Lenovo computer models, on which VisualDiscovery was installed
in California.

The Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a direct
purchaser class.  In response, the Plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated class action complaint ("ACCAC") on Decber 7. 2016.
On Jan. 17, 2017, Lenovo moved to dismiss only the Plaintiffs'
realleged claim under New York's Deceptive Acts and Practices
Statute.  On Jan. 30, 2018, the Court granted Lenovo's partial
motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiffs initially reached a settlement with Superfish and
filed a motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement
as to Superfish on Dec. 9, 2016.  The parties agreed to hold the
motion for preliminary approval of that partial settlement in
abeyance until the Court ruled on further motions regarding class
certification.  The Plaintiffs withdrew their motion for
preliminary approval of the Superfish settlement when the currently
pending motion for preliminary approval, which covers settlements
with both Superfish and Lenovo, was filed.

Following extensive formal discovery and with the assistance of a
mediator, the Plaintiffs and Superfish entered into a settlement
agreement in October 2015.  Superfish has since been dissolved.

The key terms of the Superfish settlement are as follows:

     a. Class Definition: The Settlement Class is defined as all
persons who purchased a Lenovo computer in the United States on
which VisualDiscovery was installed by Lenovo.

     b. Settlement Benefits: Superfish agreed to pay $1 million to
settle the claims against it.  Superfish agreed to provide
substantial cooperation to the Plaintiffs, including producing
additional documents and discovery relevant to the litigation,
providing assistance to establish the authenticity and
admissibility of documents, making knowledgeable persons
then-employed by Superfish available for interviews, responding to
requests for assistance in understanding the facts at issue,
producing at trial in person, by deposition or affidavit,
representatives to testify, and assisting in seeking certification
of the Settlement Class.

     c. The Settlement Fund will be used to: (i) pay all necessary
expenses associated with the Escrow Account; (ii) pay all necessary
expenses to administer the Settlement, including the cost of a
settlement administrator and notice costs; (iii) pay any award to
the Class Counsel of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
litigation expenses; (iv) pay the class members pursuant to a plan
of allocation; (v) pay any cy pres recipients; and (vi) pay any
taxes and tax expenses, which are treated as costs of
administration of the Settlement Fund.  Unless the Settlement does
not become final, no portion of the Settlement Fund will revert to
Superfish.

     d. Release: The Class members release any and all claims
arising out of the installation and operation of Superfish
VisualDiscovery software on certain laptop computers as alleged in
the litigation.

     e. Class Notice, Opt-Out: The class notice will be provided in
accordance with the Lenovo Settlement Agreement.

     f. Incentive Award, Attorneys' Fees and Costs: The Superfish
Settlement Agreement does not limit the potential amount sought for
an incentive award, or for attorneys' fees.

The Plaintiffs and Lenovo, also after extensive discovery and with
the assistance of a mediator, entered into a settlement agreement
on April 27, 2018.

The key terms are as follows:

     a. Class Definition: The Settlement Class is defined as all
Persons who purchased one or more of the following computers, not
for resale, within the United States between Sept. 1, 2014 and
Feb.y 28, 2015: (i) G Series: G410, G510, G710, G40-70, G50-70,
G40-30, G50-30, G50-45; (ii) U Series: U430P, U430Touch, U530Touch;
(iii) Y Series: Y40-70, Y50-70; (iv) Z Series: Z50-75, Z40-70,
Z50-70; (v) Flex Series: Flex2 14D, Flex2 15D, Flex2 14, Flex2 15,
Flex2 15(BTM), Flex 10; (vi) MIIX Series: MIIX2-10, MIIX2-11; and
(vii) YOGA Series: YOGA2Pro-13, YOGA2-13, YOGA2-11BTM,
YOGA2-11HSW.

     b. Settlement Benefits: Lenovo will make a $7.3 million
non-reversionary payment that will be added to the $1 million
non-reversionary payment Superfish previously made.  The two
payments will constitute the Settlement Fund from which any class
member may make a claim.

     c. Lenovo has separately entered into a consent decree with
the Federal Trade Commission and 32 attorneys general.  The consent
decree forbids Lenovo from misrepresenting any features of software
preloaded on laptops to inject advertising into browsing sessions
or to transmit sensitive consumer information to third parties.  If
Lenovo preinstalls such software, it must obtain consumers'
affirmative consent before the software runs on their laptops, and
Lenovo also must implement a comprehensive security program for 20
years for most consumer software preloaded on its laptops.     

     d. Release: All settlement class members will release: any and
all claims, rights, causes of action, liabilities, actions, suits,
damages, or demands of any kind whatsoever, known or unknown,
matured or unmatured, at law or in equity, existing under federal
or state law, that relate to the installation of VisualDiscovery on
a Class Computer between Sept. 1, 2014, and Feb. 28, 2015 and that
were or could have been alleged in the Litigation against the
Defendant, including Unknown Claims.  The Released Claims does not
include claims relating to the enforcement of the settlement.

     e. Class Notice: A third-party settlement administrator will
send class notices via U.S. mail and/or email based on lists
provided by Lenovo and third parties.  The settlement administrator
will also implement a digital media campaign targeting
approximately 3,410,000 Lenovo users.

     f. Opt-Out Procedure: The parties initially proposed that any
putative class member who does not wish to participate in the
settlement must submit a request for exclusion from the class no
later than 75 days after entry of the Preliminary Approval Order.
The parties agreed at hearing that the deadline for a putative
class member to submit a request for exclusion would be 75 days
after the mailing of class notice.

     g. Incentive Award: Although the Lenovo Settlement Agreement
does not include a limit on the incentive awards that the Named
Plaintiffs may seek, the exemplar notice forms indicate that each
of the Named Plaintiffs will apply for an incentive award of
$5,000.

     h. Attorneys' Fees and Costs: Neither settlement agreement
includes a limit on attorneys' fees and costs.  One exemplar notice
form indicates that attorneys' fees will not exceed 30% of the
Settlement Fund, and the Plaintiffs' counsel confirmed at hearing
that counsel will not seek attorneys' fees beyond 30% of the
Settlement Fund.

Judge Gilliam granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement.  He directed the parties to
meet and confer and stipulate to a schedule of dates for each event
listed, which will be submitted to the Court within seven days of
the date of the Order:

     a. Deadline for Settlement Administrator to mail notice to all
putative class members

     b. Filing Deadline for attorneys' fees and costs motion

     c. Filing deadline for incentive payment motion

     d. Deadline for class members to opt-out or object to
settlement and/or application for attorneys' fees and costs and
incentive payment

     e. Filing deadline for final approval motion

     f. Final fairness hearing and hearing on motions

The parties are further directed to implement the proposed class
notice plan.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/9Z32P8 from Leagle.com.

In Re: Lenovo Adware Litigation, In Re, represented by Jonathan
Krasne Levine -- jkl@pritzkerlevine.com -- Pritzker Levine, LLP.

Sterling International Consulting Group, Plaintiff, represented by
Elizabeth Cheryl Pritzker -- ecp@pritzkerlevine.com -- Pritzker
Levine LLP & Jonathan Krasne Levine , Pritzker Levine, LLP.

David Hunter, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Harris Richman --
brichman@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Jay Edelson , Edelson PC, Rafey
Sarkis Balabanian -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- Edelson PC & Samuel
Lasser -- samlasser@hotmail.com -- Law Office of Samuel Lasser.

Lenovo Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel James Stephenson --
dan.stephenson@klgates.com -- K&L Gates, Amanda G. Ray , Womble
Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Betsy Cook Lanzen , Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Hayden J. Silver, III , Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Matthew N. Lowe -- matthew.love@klgates.com
-- KL Gates LLP, pro hac vice, Raymond M. Bennett , Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, & Rebecca Liu -- Rebecca.liu@klgates.com --
KL Gates LLP.

Superfish, Inc., defendant STAYED re Order, Defendant, represented
by Rodger R. Cole -- rcole@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP,
Annasara Guzzo Purcell -- apurcell@fenwick.com -- Fenwick and West
LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby -- tnewby@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West
LLP.


MDL 2785: West Va. State Law Claims in Antitrust Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP) Marketing,
Sales Practices and Antitrust Litigation. (This Document Applies to
Consumer Class Cases), MDL No 2785, Case No. 17-md-2785-DDC-TJJ (D.
Kan.), Judge Daniel D. Crabtree of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas granted the the Mylan and the Pfizer Defendants'
Joint Motion to Dismiss Class Plaintiffs' West Virginia State Law
Claims.

On Oct. 22, 2018, the Mylan and Pfizer Defendants jointly filed the
Motion to Dismiss, asking the Court to dismiss the class
Plaintiffs' claims asserted under the West Virginia Consumer Credit
and Protection Act (Count VII.UU) and their antitrust and unjust
enrichment claims asserted under West Virginia law (Counts III-VI &
IX) because the Class Complaint no longer includes any named
Plaintiff who resides in West Virginia.

On Aug. 20, 2018, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order that,
among other things, dismissed the class Plaintiffs' state law
claims for which the Class Complaint includes no named Plaintiff
from those states.  As it explained, the Circuit has held that
prior to class certification, the named Plaintiffs' failure to
maintain a live case or controversy is fatal to the case as a whole
-- that unnamed Plaintiffs might have a case or controversy is
irrelevant.  So, following that reasoning, the Court and others
have concluded that where the only named plaintiff in a putative
class action lacks standing from the outset of the case, and a
class is yet to be certified, the proper course is dismissal.

After the Court issued its Aug. 20, 2018, Order, the Class
Complaint's only named Plaintiff residing in West Virginia
voluntarily dismissed his claims without prejudice. Thus, the Class
Complaint no longer includes a named Plaintiff who resides in West
Virginia.  As a consequence, the Defendants argue, the Court should
dismiss the Plaintiffs' West Virginia state law claims for the same
reasons that it already has dismissed the state law claims for
which the Class Complaint includes no named Plaintiff from those
states.

The state court's local rules required the class Plaintiffs to
respond to the Defendants' motion within 21 days, or by Nov. 12,
2018.  Because that deadline fell on a federal holiday, the class
Plaintiffs' deadline was extended to Nov. 13, 2018.  That deadline
now has expired.  And, to date, the class Plaintiffs have filed no
response to the Defendants' motion.  Ordinarily, the Court will
grant the motion without further notice.

Because the class Plaintiffs never have responded to the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Class Plaintiffs' West Virginia State
Law Claims and the time for doing so has expired, and for the
reasons explained in the Court's Aug. 20, 2018, Memorandum and
Order, Judge Crabtree dismissed the class Plaintiffs' claims
asserted under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act
(Count VII.UU) and their antitrust and unjust enrichment claims
asserted under West Virginia law (Counts III-VI & IX) because the
Class Complaint no longer includes any named Plaintiff who resides
in West Virginia.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/AyYMuq from Leagle.com.

All Plaintiffs, In Re, represented by Amanda Klevorn --
aklevorn@burnscharest.com -- Burns Charest LLP, Lynn Lincoln Sarko
-- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLC, Paul J.
Geller -- PGeller@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP,
Rex A. Sharp -- Rex A. Sharp, PA, Ryan C. Hudson --
rhudson@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA & Warren T. Burns --
wburns@burnscharest.com -- Burns Charest, LLP.

Mylan N.V., Defendant, represented by Adam K. Levin --
adam.levin@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, pro hac vice,
Benjamin Frederick Holt -- benjamin.holt@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Brian C. Fries -- bfries@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop
Gage LLP, Brian R. Richichi -- brian.richichi@hoganlovells.com --
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Carolyn Anne DeLone --
carrie.delone@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad E.
Blomberg -- cblomberg@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop Gage, LLP,
Christopher D. Edelman, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Daniel Thomas Graham
-- dgraham@clarkhill.com -- Clark Hill, PLC, pro hac vice, David M.
Foster -- david.foster@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP,
pro hac vice, James Moloney -- jmaloney@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop
Gage LLP, Jon Myer Talotta -- jon.talotta@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Justin Bernick -- justin.bernick@hoganlovells.com
-- Kathryn M. Ali -- kathryn.ali@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells
US LLP, pro hac vice, Sue Lin -- tony.lin@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Timothy Robert Herman -- therman@clarkhill.com --
Clark Hill, PLC, pro hac vice & Yuri Fuchs --
yuri.fuchs@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US, LLP.


MENLO THERAPEUTICS: Faces Savelstrov Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Menlo Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on November 13, 2018,
2018, that the company has been named as defendant in a putative
securities class action lawsuit entitled, Pavel Savelstrov v. Menlo
Therapeutics, Inc., et al.

On November 8, 2018, a putative securities class action complaint
captioned Pavel Savelstrov v. Menlo Therapeutics, Inc., et al.,
Case No.18-CIV-06049, was filed in state court in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against
Menlo Therapeutics, Inc. (the "Company"), certain of its current
executive officers and its directors, and certain underwriters in
the Company's initial public offering.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and misleading
statements in connection with the Company's initial public
offering.

Menlo Therapeutics said, "The Company believes that the lawsuit is
without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself."

Menlo Therapeutics Inc., a late-stage biopharmaceutical company,
focuses on the development and commercialization of serlopitant for
the treatment of pruritus associated with dermatologic conditions
in the United States. Menlo Therapeutics Inc. was founded in 2011
and is headquartered in Redwood City, California.


MERCK & CO: Snell Sues over Zostavax Vaccine
--------------------------------------------
Carolyn Snell, Plaintiff, vs. MERCK & CO., INC., MERCK SHARP &
DOHME CORP., the Defendants, Case No.: 2:18-cv-00749-SPC-CM (M.D.
Fla., Nov. 5, 2018), alleges that Merck failed to warn the
Plaintiffs and other consumers of the defective condition of
Zostavax, as manufactured and/or supplied by Merck.

According to the complaint, in October, 2015, Plaintiff was treated
by a healthcare provider at Millenium Physician Group located in
Fort Myers, Florida for Shingles. Plaintiff was diagnosed with
Shingles and/or other zoster-related injuries after and despite
being inoculated with the Zostavax vaccine, and suffered serious
physical, emotional, and economic damages as a result of
Plaintiff's injuries. As a direct and proximate result of the
Zostavax vaccine, Plaintiff has and will continue suffer ongoing
injuries, including but not limited to: mental and physical pain
and suffering; extensive medical care and treatment for these
injuries; significant medical and related expenses as a result of
these injuries, including but not limited to medical losses and
costs include care for hospitalization, physician care, monitoring,
treatment, medications, and supplies; diminished capacity for the
enjoyment of life; a diminished quality of life; increased risk of
premature death, aggravation of preexisting conditions and
activation of latent conditions; and other losses and damages; and
will continue to suffer such losses, and damages in the future.

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Carmen A. DeGisi, Esq.
          Marc J. Bern & Partners LLP
          101 West Elm Street, Suite 215
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 941-9880
          Facsimile: (610) 941-1088
          E-mail: cdegisi@bernllp.com


MGT CAPITAL: Faces 2 Class Suits Alleging Pump-and-Dump Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
MGT Capital Investments, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
faces two class action lawsuits related to a pump-and-dump scheme
to artificially inflate the company's stock price.

In September 2018 and October 2018, various shareholders of the
Company filed two putative class action lawsuits against the
Company, its former CEO and certain of its individual officers and
shareholders, alleging violations of federal securities laws and
seeking damages.

The lawsuits followed, and referenced allegations made against the
Company's former CEO and others in a complaint filed by the SEC on
September 7, 2018.

The first putative class action lawsuit was filed on September 28,
2018, in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, and alleges generally that defendants were engaged in a
pump-and-dump scheme to artificially inflate MGT's stock price and
that, as a result, defendants' statements about MGT's business and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

The second action was filed on October 9, 2018, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York and
makes similar allegations.

The Company intends to defend against the actions vigorously.

MGT Capital Investments, Inc. engages in bitcoin mining operations
in the Wenatchee Valley area of central Washington. The company was
founded in 1979 and is headquartered in Durham, North Carolina.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Padron Sues over Debt Collections Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
LIZETH PADRON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.,
MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-04407 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 20, 2018), seeks to recover damages
and declaratory relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices
Act.

According to the complaint, Midland Funding is a company that uses
the mail, telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in
business the principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect
debts alleged to be due another. Some time prior to November 30,
2017, an obligation was allegedly incurred to Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. The Wells Fargo Bank obligation arose out of a Wells Fargo
credit card involving the use of credit funds for transactions in
which money, property, insurance or services were primarily for
personal, family or household purposes. Due to her financial
constraints, the Plaintiff could not pay the alleged debt, and it
went into default.

Sometime thereafter, Defendant Midland Funding purportedly
purchased the alleged debt. The Defendant, a subsequent owner of
the Wells Fargo debt, contracted with the Defendant MCM to collect
the alleged debt. MCM and Defendant Midland Funding collect and
attempt 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.

On or about November 30, 2017, Defendant MCM sent Plaintiff a
collection letter regarding the alleged debt owed to Defendant
Midland Funding. The very bottom of the Collection Letter states in
part: "The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Due to
the age of this debt, we will not sue you for it." The alleged debt
is time-barred, meaning that no party can legally sue to collect
this debt. The Letter implies that Defendant MCM has chosen not to
sue ("we will not sue you"), instead of the true fact that neither
Defendant MCM, nor Defendant Midland Funding, nor any subsequent
creditor/collector can file a lawsuit.

In fact, the Letter is patently false as Defendant MCM is merely
the debt collector in this instance and does not possess legal
standing to sue the consumer on the debt. Only the creditor or
entity who owns the debt has the legal right to sue -- a right
which has been time-barred, and Defendant MCM fails to advise
Plaintiff of this, only deceptively advising that it is choosing
not to sue. The statement contained in Defendant MCM's letter is
materially false and deceptive to the unsophisticated consumer, who
would believe that Defendant MCM or Midland Funding or a subsequent
creditor has the option to change its mind should he/she not pay
the alleged debt, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Lizeth Padron:

          Jonathan Kandelshein, Esq.
          18208 Preston Rd, Suite D-9 No. 256
          Dallas, TX 75252
          Telephone: 469 677-7863
          Facsimile: 972 380-8118
          E-mail: jonathan.kandelshein@gmail.com

MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL: Court Dismisses FLSA Claims in Cress Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order dismissing the FLSA Claims in the case
captioned HENRY CRESS and JEANINE ROBERTS as individuals and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MITSUBISHI
CHEMICAL CARBON FIBER AND COMPOSITES, INC., a California
Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendant. Case No.
2:18-CV-01854-KJM-EFB. (E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs filed a Class Action against Defendant in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento, Case No.
34-2017-00222101 on November 13, 2017.

The Parties have met and conferred regarding these matters and
agreed that the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims will be dismissed without
prejudice, that supplemental jurisdiction of the remaining state
law claims should be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1367(c)(2)-(3) and Rodriguez v. Emeritus Corp., 2018 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 151295 (E.D. Cal. 2018), and that the Court should remand the
lawsuit back to the Superior Court of California for the County of
Sacramento, Case No. 34-2017-00222101.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims are dismissed without
prejudice.

The Court will decline supplemental jurisdiction of the Plaintiffs'
remaining state law claims.

The case is remanded to the Superior Court of California for the
County of Sacramento, Case No. 34-2017-00222101.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 19, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7l8lmln from Leagle.com.

Henry Cress & Jeanine Roberts, Plaintiffs, represented by Galen T.
Shimoda -- attorney@shimodalaw.com -- Shimoda Law Corp. & Justin
Paul Rodriguez -- jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com -- Shimoda Law Corp.

Mitsubishi Chemical Carbon Fiber and Composites, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Julie A. Totten -- jatotten@orrick.com -- Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.


MOVIEPASS INC: Tabas et al. Allege Fraud and Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------------------
JACKIE TABAS AND KATHERINE ROSENBERG-WOHL, ON BEHALF OF THEMSLEVES
AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, vs. MOVIEPASS,
INC., HELIOS AND MATHESON ANALYTICS INC., TED FARNSWORTH, STUART
BENSON, MITCH LOWE, AND DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case
3:18-cv-07087 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 21, 2018), alleges that Moviepass
breached Plaintiffs' contracts by violating the terms of good faith
and fair dealing implied by fact and law of contracts.

According to the complaint, Moviepass is a company, as its name
implies, that sells consumers subscriptions to go out to see movies
in movie theaters. For a subscription, a consumer pays Moviepass a
monthly fee, for which she gains access to the movies in showing in
movie theaters, nationwide. Using an app that the consumer
downloads to his or her phone, the consumer identifies the movies
playing in the area, selects a movie of choice at a showtime of
choice, goes to the theater and uses the Moviepass card as a debit
card, transferring payment for the movie selected from Moviepass to
the theater.

From its start in 2011, Moviepass has struggled to find its proper
model, both in terms of what it offers and its price. As it grew in
size, Moviepass tried several pricing structures, from 2-3
films/month, to "unlimited" plans with pricing based on market
size. In December 2016, the service had 20,000 subscribers. On
August 15, 2017, a majority interest in Moviepass was purchased by
the data analytics firm Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc.
Moviepass had a growing customer database. HMNY had money. The
prize sought by HMNY's investment was the moviegoing habit data of
Moviepass customers. HMNY wanted to sell this data. HMNY
subsequently doubled down on its bet, increasing its ownership of
Moviepass to 91.8% and initiating a merger of Moviepass into HMNY.

The cash infusion allowed Moviepass growth to explode. Following
HMNY's investment in August 2017, Moviepass membership shot up from
the 20,000 subscribers of December 2016 to 400,000 in September
2017. The number was 600,000 in October 2017, 1 million in December
2017, 2 million in February 2018, and 3 million in June 2018.

To fund this growth, HMNY has mortgaged its future. While Moviepass
membership continues to increase, the company has struggled to find
a model that allows it to be profitable. Moviepass survives on HMNY
cash, and HMNY has increasingly bet its company on the ultimate
profitability of Moviepass data. The net income of HMNY in 2017 was
$151 million. In April 2018 HMNY sold $150 million in stock. A
considerable portion of the proceeds went to fund Moviepass. In May
2018, HMNY lost $40 million. In July, HMNY filed to raise another
$1.2 billion to keep Moviepass alive. In August, HMNY reported a
loss of $100 million in the second quarter.

Simultaneously with its fraud and breach of contract, HMNY made it
virtually impossible for consumers to resolve any concerns. HMNY
itself was nonexistent on Moviepass websites. HMNY directed
Moviepass to offer customer service in name, but in fact responses
to email inquiries would consist of boilerplate language.
Moviepass, at the direction of HMNY, continually changed its
language and removed the prior versions of terms and conditions
from the Moviepass website, making it impossible for consumers to
know the terms that actually applied when they signed up.
Originally not offering arbitration as a way of resolving disputes,
once it did so, even if a consumer wished to arbitrate a dispute,
HMNY made sure that it was never clear just where a consumer was to
submit this request and what the consumer was supposed to do to
commence arbitration. And when consumers did submit a request to
arbitrate with Moviepass, HMNY made sure that Moviepass met those
requests with silence.

As a result of Moviepass' conduct, the Plaintiffs have paid for a
product they did not seek out, did not agree to, and have never
been given adequate opportunity to cancel, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          David M. Rosenberg-WOHL, Esq.
          HERSHENSON ROSENBERG-WOHL,
          315 Montgomery St., 8 th Fl.
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 829-4330
          E-mail: david@hrw-law.com

MUSEUM OF SEX: Website not Accessible to Blind, Figueroa Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE FIGUEROA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE MUSEUM OF SEX LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-10841-JGK (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2018), alleges that
Defendant's failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Defendant's
denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore
denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA").

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

MY SIZE: Suit Against Lightcom Dismissed
----------------------------------------
My Size, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that with respect to the
litigation with Lightcom (Israel) Ltd., on October 16, 2018 the
appellants in two cases pending before the Israeli Supreme Court
withdrew their appeals without prejudice, following the Supreme
Court's recommendation.

The Supreme Court commented that it appears that the lower courts'
judgments in the cases before him, which accepted arguments similar
to the Company's arguments in its motion to dismiss, appear to be
correct. The Supreme Court recommended that to avoid additional
future doubts, the legislator should attend to the matter of the
proper choice of law applicable to foreign companies with dual
listings.

Following the dismissal of the Supreme Court pending cases, at a
hearing held on November 19, 2018, the court ordered dismissal of
the class action with prejudice. No order for costs was made.

My Size, Inc., a technology company, engages in the development of
applications to take measurements of various items through a
smartphone in Israel. It offers MySizeID, an application, which
enables consumers to create a secure online profile of their
personal measurements to get the right fit; and SizeUp app, which
allows users to utilize their smartphone as a tape measurer. The
company was formerly known as Knowledgetree Ventures, Inc. and
changed its name to My Size, Inc. in January 2014. My Size, Inc.
was founded in 1999 and is based in Airport City, Israel.


MYLAN NV: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended N.Y. Securities Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 defendants' motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint in federal securities litigation
remains pending.

Purported class action complaints were filed in October 2016
against Mylan N.V., Mylan Inc. and certain of their current and
former directors and officers (collectively, for purposes of this
paragraph, the "defendants") in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of certain
purchasers of securities of Mylan N.V. and/or Mylan Inc. on the
NASDAQ.

The complaints alleged that defendants made false or misleading
statements and omissions of purportedly material fact, in violation
of federal securities laws, in connection with disclosures relating
to Mylan N.V. and Mylan Inc.'s classification of their EpiPen(R)
Auto-Injector as a non-innovator drug for purposes of the Medicaid
Drug Rebate Program (MDRP). The complaints sought damages, as well
as the plaintiffs' fees and costs.

On March 20, 2017, after the actions were consolidated, a
consolidated amended complaint was filed, alleging substantially
similar claims and seeking substantially similar relief, but adding
allegations that 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 federal
securities laws (on behalf of a purported class of certain
purchasers of securities of Mylan N.V. and/or Mylan Inc. on the
NASDAQ) and Israeli securities laws (on behalf of a purported class
of certain purchasers of securities of Mylan N.V. on the Tel Aviv
Stock Exchange).

On March 28, 2018, defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint was granted in part (including the dismissal of
claims arising under Israeli securities laws) and denied in part.

On July 6, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
including certain current and former directors and officers and
additional allegations in connection with purportedly
anticompetitive conduct with respect to EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and
certain generic drugs. On August 6, 2018, defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the second amended complaint, which is currently
pending.

Mylan said, "We believe that the claims in this lawsuit 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: Still Defends Antitrust Lawsuits Over Various Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 company continues to
defend itself from civil lawsuits over antitrust matters related to
various products.

The Company, along with other manufacturers, has been named as a
defendant in putative class action lawsuits filed in 2016 and 2017
generally alleging anticompetitive conduct with respect to
doxycycline hyclate (regular and delayed release), digoxin,
divalproex, levothyroxine, propranolol, clomipramine, albuterol,
benazepril and amitriptyline products (as well as a number of
non-Mylan products).

The lawsuits have been filed by putative classes of direct
purchasers, indirect purchasers and indirect resellers and allege
harm under federal and state antitrust laws, state consumer
protection laws and unjust enrichment. These lawsuits have been
consolidated in an MDL proceeding in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (EDPA). The Court has
sequenced these lawsuits into three separate product groups.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss complaints in the first product
group.

On October 16, 2018, the Court denied the motions with respect to
the federal law claims and a decision on the state law claims
remains pending.

On January 22, 2018, three direct purchaser retailers filed a
complaint against Mylan and other manufacturers asserting similar
allegations with respect to the products identified above, as well
as doxycycline monohydrate, glipizide-metformin, and verapamil (as
well as other non-Mylan products).

Subsequently, putative classes of direct purchasers, indirect
purchasers, and indirect resellers filed complaints against Mylan
and other manufacturers alleging harm under federal and state
antitrust laws, state consumer protection laws and unjust
enrichment and asserting similar allegations with respect to a
number of products, including Mylan’s doxycycline products,
glipizide-metformin, and verapamil (as well as other non-Mylan
products).

These complaints also name Mylan's President as a defendant and
include allegations against him with respect to doxycycline hyclate
delayed release. On August 3, 2018, a complaint was filed by a
plaintiff claiming to be a direct and indirect purchaser against
Mylan and other defendants alleging anti-competitive conduct with
respect to certain of the products identified above as well as
pravastatin. On September 25, 2018, a complaint was filed by
plaintiffs on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect
purchasers against Mylan and other defendants alleging
anti-competitive conduct with respect to generic drugs.

Mylan N.V. said, "The Company believes that the claims in these
lawsuits are without merit and intends 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.


NAMASTE TECHNOLOGIES: Sued over Misleading Financial Report
-----------------------------------------------------------
WILLARD WORKMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NAMASTE TECHNOLOGIES INC., SEAN
DOLLINGER, PHILIP VAN DEN BERG and KENNETH NGO, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-10830 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2018), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the case is a class action on behalf of
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded Namaste securities between November 29, 2017 and October 4,
2018, inclusive. The company retails vaporizers and smoking
accessories through e-commerce sites in 26 countries. It is also
involved in the product design and manufacturing activities; and
distribution of medical cannabis products. On November 28, 2017,
Namaste announced that it had signed a stock purchase agreement to
sell its wholly owned U.S. subsidiary, Dollinger Enterprises US
Inc.

Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Namaste failed to
disclose that it had sold its wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary to
Namaste executives; (ii) consequently, Namaste did not sell its
U.S. subsidiary in an arm's length transaction; and (iii) as a
result, Namaste's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. On October 4, 2018, Citron
Research published an article entitled "Namaste: Citron has exposed
complete Fraud that underpins the 'Business' of Namaste," stating
that the Company had entered into an "undisclosed related party"
transaction. The Citron report alleged, among other issues, that
Namaste's Chief Executive Officer had falsely "promised investors
as Nasdaq listing" and had falsely represented that Namaste had
divested the Company of its U.S. assets in a sale to an "arm's
length" purchaser, when the purchaser was in reality a Namaste
executive.

Following publication of the Citron report, Namaste's stock price
fell $0.19 per share, or roughly 10.5% over the next two trading
days, to close at $1.62 per share on October 5, 2018. As a result
of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company’s securities,
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ
          & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42 nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC: Faces Nixon ADA Class Suit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Geographic
Partners, LLC. The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National
Geographic Partners, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06770 (E.D.
N.Y., Nov. 28, 2018).

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

National Geographic Partners operates television channels. The
Company engages in the business of magazine and book publishing,
digital and social media platforms, archival sales, e-commerce
businesses, and studios. National Geographic Partners serves
customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONAL VISION: Amended Complaint Filed in Suit vs. FirstSight
---------------------------------------------------------------
National Vision 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 its
subsidiary FirstSight Vision Services, Inc., continues to defend
itself in a class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California

The Company's FirstSight subsidiary is a defendant in a purported
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California that alleges that FirstSight participated in
arrangements that caused the illegal delivery of eye examinations
and that FirstSight thereby violated, among other laws, the
corporate practice of optometry and the unfair competition and
false advertising laws of California.

The lawsuit was filed in 2013 and FirstSight was added as a
defendant in 2016. In March 2017, the court granted the motion to
dismiss previously filed by FirstSight and dismissed the complaint
with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in April 2017. In July 2018, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated in part, and
reversed in part, the district court's dismissal and remanded for
further proceedings.

In October 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
with the district court.

National Vision  said, "The Company believes that the claims are
without merit and intends to continue to defend the litigation
vigorously."

National Vision Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates
as an optical retailer primarily in the United States. The company
operates in two segments, Owned & Host and Legacy. It offers
eyeglasses and contact lenses under the America's Best, Eyeglass
World, Walmart Vision Center, Vista Optical Fred Meyer, and Vista
Optical Military brand stores, as well as provides optometric
services. National Vision Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is
based in Duluth, Georgia.


NATIONWIDE EXPRESS: Omar et al Seek Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
ABDULLAHI WARFA, and OMAR OMAR, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the Minnesota Rule 23
Class, the Plaintiffs, vs. NATIONWIDE EXPRESS, LLC, and AMAZON
LOGISTICS, INC., the Defendants, Case 0:18-cv-03103, (D. Minn.,
Nov. 5, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime compensation for hours worked
over 40 in a workweek.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in a
pattern of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Minnesota
Fair Labor Standards Act, by failing to pay delivery drivers
overtime compensation as required by law. The Defendants knowingly,
willfully, or in reckless disregard of the law, maintained an
illegal practice of failing to pay Plaintiffs and those similarly
situated proper overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40,
the lawsuit says.

Nationwide Express is a courier services company headquartered in
Minnesota. According to its website, Amazon Logistics, Inc. is
Amazon's franchise model for a courier delivery service.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
          Neil D. Pederson, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          E-mail: fisher@nka.com
                  npederson@nka.com

               - and -

          Gregory Walz, Esq.
          WALZ LAW OFFICE
          1411 West Saint Germain, No. 206
          P.O. Box 1794
          Saint Cloud, MN 56302
          Telephone: (320) 251-5000
          E-mail: greg@walzlaw.com

NEW JERSEY: Wahab Appeals D.N.J. Ruling to Third Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Atiya Wahab filed an appeal from a court ruling in her
lawsuit titled Atiya Wahab v. State of New Jersey, et al., Case No.
3-18-cv-06067, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.

The appellate case is captioned as Atiya Wahab v. State of New
Jersey, et al., Case No. 18-3526, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ATIYA WAHAB, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Donald F. Burke, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DONALD F. BURKE
          45 Gale Road
          Brick, NJ 08723
          Telephone: (732) 966-4922
          E-mail: donaldburkeesq@gmail.com

Defendants-Appellees STATE OF NEW JERSEY; NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; GURBIR S. GREWAL, Attorney General of the
State of New Jersey; and PHILIP DUNTON MURPHY, Governor of the
State of New Jersey, are represented by:

          Nicole E. Adams, Esq.
          Rachel S. Frey, Esq.
          OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
          25 Market Street
          Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex
          Trenton, NJ 08625
          Telephone: (609) 633-1971
          E-mail: Nicole.adams@law.njoag.gov


NFL: Court Won't Review Ruling in New England Patriot Fans' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appeals Court of Massachusetts issued an Order affirming the
judgment of the District Court denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Postjudgemnt Relief in the case captioned NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS
FANS, vs. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE & others. No. 18-P-269. (Mass.
App.).

The plaintiffs purported to bring a class action seeking damages
and injunctive relief against the defendants concerning forfeiture
of the New England Patriots's first round draft choice as
punishment for an incident commonly referred to as Deflategate.

After their case was dismissed, the plaintiffs sought post-judgment
relief, which was denied.

The Court reviews the order denying the motion for reconsideration
for abuse of discretion. A judge's discretionary decision
constitutes an abuse of discretion where the Court conclude the
judge made 'a clear error of judgment in weighing' the factors
relevant to the decision such that the decision falls outside the
range of reasonable alternatives.

A notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of the date of
the entry of the judgment appealed from.

In this case, the plaintiffs filed the first appeal on April 12,
2017, forty-four days after the February 27, 2017, entry of
judgment. The plaintiffs argue that their first appeal nonetheless
is timely because the postjudgment motion for findings tolled the
deadline to file the first appeal. However, certain postjudgment
motions including motions for findings, as was filed here only toll
the appeal period when the motion is made within ten days of the
entry of judgment.   

In this case, the postjudgment motion for findings was not made
within ten days of the entry of judgment; the plaintiffs served the
postjudgment motion for findings on March 10, 2017, eleven days
after the entry of judgment on February 27, 2017.

On appeal, the plaintiffs do not dispute that their postjudgment
motion for findings was filed more than ten days after entry of
judgment. Instead, the plaintiffs argue that the judge erred in
denying the motion for reconsideration because Mass. R. Civ. P. 6
(d), 365 Mass. 747 (1974), commonly known as the mailbox rule,
provided them with three additional days to serve the postjudgment
motion for findings. Specifically, the plaintiffs assert that they
did not receive the February 27, 2017, judgment by mail until March
2, 2017; thus, their March 10, 2017, postjudgment motion for
findings was within the ten-day deadline.

The Court disagrees.

As the judge explained in a well-reasoned memorandum, the three-day
extension due to service by mail does not apply to the plaintiffs'
deadline for filing their postjudgment motion for findings. Rule 6
(d) provides, in pertinent part: Whenever a party is required to do
some act within a prescribed period after the service of a notice
or other papers upon him and the notice or paper is served upon him
by mail, 3 days shall be added to the prescribed period.

Here, however, the plaintiffs were not responding to a notice or
paper served upon them by mail; thus, rule 6 (d) by its terms does
not apply. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the judge did not
abuse his discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration.

A full-text copy of the Mass. App.'s November 19, 2018 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycn74hfd from
Leagle.com.

Seth Carey, Esquire , for New England Patriots Fans,
Plaintiff/Appellant.
John P. Bueker - John.Bueker@ropesgray.com - Esquire , John D.
Donovan, Jr. -John.Donovan@ropesgray.com - Esquire , for Roger
Goodell and National Football League, Defendants/Appellees.

Daniel L. Goldberg - daniel.goldberg@morganlewis.com - Esquire ,
Charles L. Solomont- carl.solomont@morganlewis.com - Esquire , Emma
Diamond Hall - emma.hall@morganlewis.com - Esquire , for Robert
Kraft, Defendant/Appellee.


NIRANJAN MITTAL: Rhoden Seeks Wages for Nurses & Technicians
------------------------------------------------------------
SHAKEYA RHODEN, and and other similarly situated current and former
nurses and technicians, the Plaintiff, vs. NIRANJAN MITTAL,
NIRANJAN K. MITTAL, PHYSICIAN, PLLC, the Defendant, Case
1:18-cv-06613 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation and earned wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the collective class
are current and former nurses and technicians, who have worked at
Defendants. As part of its regular business practice, the
Defendants have intentionally, willfully and repeatedly harmed
Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective by engaging in a pattern and/or
policy of violating the FLSA.

The policy includes, failing to pay employees the applicable
overtime rate for all time worked in excess of 40 hours per week;
failing to keep accurate records of hours worked by employees as
required by the FLSA and NYLL, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          THE LAW OFFICE OF JASON TENENBAUM P.C.
          595 Stewart Avenue, Suite 400
          Garden City, New York 11750
          Telephone: (516) 750-0595

NLFIC: Failed to Reimburse Medicare Payments, MSP Recovery Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware entity, and SERIES
16-08-483, a Designated Series of MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC,
a Delaware series limited liability company, the Plaintiffs, v.
NATIONAL LIABILITY AND FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut
entity, the Defendant, Case 3:18-cv-01827 (D. Conn., Nov. 6, 2018),
is a lawsuit over Defendant's systematic and uniform failure to
reimburse conditional Medicare payments under the Medicare
Secondary Payer.

According to the complaint, Defendant has failed to fulfill its
statutory duties under the MSP Law as a "no-fault" insurer.
Specifically, 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 (the "Enrollees") for
medical expenses resulting from injuries sustained in automobile
accidents (the "accident-related medical expenses"). 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).

The Plaintiffs' assignors and the putative Class Members are MAOs
that provided Medicare benefits to the Enrollees. These Enrollees
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:

          Daniel S. Jo, Esq.
          RAO & JO, LLC
          115 Technology Drive, Suite A303
          Trumbull, Connecticut 06611
          Telephone: 203-880-5999
          E-mail: djo@raojo.com

               - and -

          John Boundas, Esq.
          Brian Abramson, Esq.
          Margot Trevino, Esq.
          Walt Cubberly, Esq.
          WILLIAMS KHERKHER HART BOUNDAS, LLP
          8441 Gulf Freeway, Suite 600
          Houston, TX 77017
          Telephone: 713 230-2200
          E-mail: jboundas@williamskherkher.com
                  babramson@williamskherkher.com
                  mtrevino@williamskherkher.com
                  wcubberly@williamskherkher.com

NOVUS THERAPEUTICS: Wu v. Tokai Class Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------
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 company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Wu v.
Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., 16-3725 BLS.

On December 5, 2016, a putative securities class action was filed
in the Massachusetts State Court, entitled Wu v. Tokai
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., 16-3725 BLS ("Wu Action").

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of purchasers of Tokai
common stock in or traceable to Tokai's IPO. On December 19, 2016,
defendants removed the Wu Action to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, where it was captioned Wu v. Tokai
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., 16-cv-12550.

On January 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the Wu
Action to Massachusetts State Court. On September 28, 2017, the
court stayed the case pending a decision by the United States
Supreme Court in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement
Fund, S. Ct. Case No. 15-1439. On March 20, 2018, the United States
Supreme Court ruled in Cyan that state courts have subject matter
jurisdiction over covered class actions alleging only Securities
Act claims and that such actions are not removable to federal
court.

On March 22, 2018, plaintiff moved for leave to submit the Cyan
decision in support of plaintiff's remand motion. On March 27, 2018
the Wu Action was remanded to the Massachusetts State Court. On May
3, 2018, plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint.

Following the refiling of the Jackie888, Inc. v. Tokai
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. CGC-16-553796 in Massachusetts
State Court, on June 28, 2018, plaintiff Wu moved to consolidate
the Jackie888 Action with the Wu Action.

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. Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint on August 15, 2018, plaintiffs filed their opposition
thereto on September 28, 2018, and defendants filed their reply in
support of their motion on October 19, 2018.

In addition, Defendants moved to strike the class allegations in
the consolidated complaint on August 15, 2018, plaintiffs filed
their opposition thereto on September 11, 2018, and defendants
filed their reply in support of their motion on September 21, 2018.


The court set a hearing for November 15, 2018 on defendants' motion
to dismiss and motion to strike.

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.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Agreement in Principle Entered in McWhorter Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial 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 company has
entered into an agreement in principle to resolve McWhorter et al.
v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2:15-cv-01831 (N.D. Ala.).   

In 2014, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Ocwen in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, alleging that Ocwen violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA) by charging borrowers a convenience fee for
making certain loan payments. The case is entitled, McWhorter et
al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2:15-cv-01831 (N.D. Ala.).

The plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages under the FDCPA,
compensatory damages and injunctive relief. The presiding court
previously ruled on Ocwen's motions to dismiss, and Ocwen answered
the operative complaint. Ocwen subsequently entered into an
agreement in principle to resolve this matter, and the presiding
court is considering motions to approve the settlement.

Ocwen Financial said, "While Ocwen believes that it has sound legal
and factual defenses, Ocwen has agreed to this settlement in
principle in order to avoid the uncertain outcome of litigation and
the additional expense and demands on the time of its senior
management that such litigation would involve. There can be no
assurance that the court will finally approve the settlement. In
the event the settlement is not finally approved, the litigation
would continue, and we would vigorously defend the allegations made
against Ocwen. Our accrual with respect to this matter is included
in the $53.4 million legal and regulatory accrual referenced above.
We cannot currently estimate the amount, if any, of reasonably
possible loss above the amount accrued."

Ocwen Financial Corporation, a financial services holding company,
originates and services loans in the United States, the United
States Virgin Islands, India, and Philippines. Ocwen Financial
Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in West Palm
Beach, Florida.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Appeal in Carvelli Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial 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' notice
of appeal in the case, Carvelli v. Ocwen Financial Corporation et
al., is pending

Several putative securities fraud class action lawsuits were filed
against Ocwen and certain of its officers that contain allegations
in connection with Ocwen's statements concerning its efforts to
satisfy the evolving regulatory environment, and the resources it
devoted to regulatory compliance, among other matters. Those
lawsuits were consolidated in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida in the matter captioned Carvelli
v. Ocwen Financial Corporation et al., 9:14-cv-9:17-cv-80500-RLR
(S.D. Fla.).

On April 27, 2018, the court in Carvelli granted the company's
motion to dismiss, and dismissed the consolidated case with
prejudice. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a notice of appeal, and that
appeal remains pending. Ocwen and the other defendants intend to
defend themselves vigorously.

Ocwen Financial said, "Additional lawsuits may be filed against us
in relation to these matters. At this time, Ocwen is unable to
predict the outcome of this existing lawsuit or any additional
lawsuits that may be filed, the possible loss or range of loss, if
any, associated with the resolution of such lawsuits or the
potential impact such lawsuits may have on us or our operations. If
additional lawsuits are filed, Ocwen intends to vigorously defend
itself against such lawsuits. If our efforts to defend the existing
lawsuit or any future lawsuit are not successful, our business,
financial condition, liquidity and results of operations could be
materially and adversely affected."

Ocwen Financial Corporation, a financial services holding company,
originates and services loans in the United States, the United
States Virgin Islands, India, and Philippines. Ocwen Financial
Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in West Palm
Beach, Florida.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Directed to Pay $53K to Claims Administrator
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs George and Claudia Camberis filed the class action
lawsuit captioned GEORGE L. CAMBERIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OCWEN
LOAN SERVICING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-02970-EMC (N.D. Cal.)
against Defendant Ocwen Financial Corporation alleging that Ocwen
failed to report negative amortization mortgage interest that
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated homeowners had paid to the
IRS for tax year 2013, causing them to lose substantial tax
deductions. The parties reached a proposed settlement agreement,
and the Court granted final approval of the agreement on Dec. 7,
2015. To date, approximately $108,000 in settlement funds have not
been claimed. Ocwen filed a motion for court approval of its
proposed distribution plan for the unclaimed funds.

Upon analysis, District Judge Edward M. Chen orders the following:

   (1) Ocwen must pay the $53,014.01 owed to the Claims
Administrator for the initial distribution;

   (2) The parties must carry out a secondary distribution sending
$6.76 to each of the 16,047 class members who cashed their initial
checks;

   (3) Any remaining funds unclaimed after the secondary
distribution must be allocated to cover the administrative costs of
the secondary distribution, and Ocwen must bear any additional
costs not covered by the unclaimed funds;

   (4) If the funds unclaimed after the secondary distribution
exceed the administrative costs of the distribution, the leftover
funds will be donated to HomeFree USA via cy pres.

Ocwen proposed that all unclaimed funds should be donated to
charity under the cy pres doctrine.  Alternatively, Ocwen admitted
that a secondary distribution to class members is possible, but
argued that the administrative cost of such a distribution should
be deducted from the residual fund, rather than borne by Ocwen
(although Ocwen agreed to pay all fees and costs for the first
distribution).  It suggests that any remaining funds unclaimed
after the secondary distribution be donated to the charities
described above, instead of being processed in a third round of
distributions.

Plaintiffs proposed that the remaining funds be distributed to
class members, and that Ocwen should cover the administrative costs
of the secondary distribution. Plaintiffs agree with Ocwen that any
funds remaining after the secondary distribution can be donated to
"an appropriate charity," without indicating that they approve of
the two organizations Ocwen proposed.

Ocwen argued that it should not have to pay the costs of the
secondary distribution for two reasons. First, the settlement
agreement apparently only contemplated one round of distribution.
Second, the Court's Order granting final approval of the settlement
agreement noted that the expected class administration costs would
be $55,000,  and Ocwen has already agreed to pay the $53,014.01
owed to the Claims Administrator for the initial distribution.
While there is some merit to Ocwen's position, the settlement
agreement also provides, without any limitations, that "Ocwen shall
also pay the Claims Administrator's fees and costs." Moreover,
although Ocwen characterizes the difference between each class
member receiving $6.76 and $5.05 in the secondary distribution as
"de minimum," that difference in fact represents an approximate
decrease of 25%.

On balance, the Court determined that it would be equitable to
distribute the full $6.76 amount to each class member and use any
funds still unclaimed after the secondary distribution to cover the
administrative costs. In the event that unclaimed funds still
remain after the costs of the secondary distribution are paid,
donation to a cy pres recipient is appropriate.

Ocwen also proposed HomeFree USA and Habitat for Humanity Buffalo
as cy pres recipients.

The Ninth Circuit has instructed that a cy pres distribution must
be guided by "the objectives of the underlying statute(s)", the
"interests of the silent class members," and "the nature of the
plaintiffs' lawsuit." Plaintiffs here primarily allege violations
of 26 U.S.C. section 6050H, which "requires any individual who
receives interest aggregating over $600 on a mortgage in a given
year from another individual to furnish the Internal Revenue
Service with an information return identifying the amount of
interest received." The objective of section 6050H is to "assist
the [IRS] in verifying the accuracy of claimed mortgage interest
deductions." By doing so, section 6050H benefits homeowners by
allowing them to obtain tax deductions.

HomeFree USA, as an organization that promotes homeownership by
providing financial and mortgage literacy resources to homebuyers
and homeowners, comports with the purpose of section 6050H.
HomeFree USA, therefore, relates to the nature of Plaintiffs'
lawsuit, which concerns homeowners' awareness of their rights
regarding mortgage loans, and aligns with the interests of the
silent class members. Moreover, although HomeFree USA's nationwide
network of affiliates includes "ethnically and culturally diverse
faith and community-based nonprofit partners," there is nothing to
suggest that HomeFree USA is itself a faith-based organization,
contrary to Plaintiffs' objection. Accordingly, the Court
determines that HomeFree USA shall be the cy presrecipient of any
settlement funds remaining after the secondary distribution.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 20, 2018 is available at
https://bit.ly/2Rz6MMG from Leagle.com.

George L. Camberis, individually, and on behalf of the class and
all others similarly situated & Claudia Camberis, individually and
on behalf of the class of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Michael R. Brown , Michael R. Brown APC
& David James Vendler, Morris Polich & Purdy LLP.

Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, Defendant, represented by Jeff Eric Scott
-- scottj@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Jennifer Lee Gray --
grayj@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP & Sarah Elizabeth Barrows
-- barrows@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: TCPA Class Action in Illinois Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial 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 parties in
Snyder v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, and Beecroft v. Ocwen Loan
Servicing, advised the Court of their intention to further mediate
the dispute, in an effort to address certain issues raised by the
Court.

Ocwen has been named in putative class actions and individual
actions related to its compliance with the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA). Generally, plaintiffs in these actions
allege that Ocwen knowingly and willfully violated the TCPA by
using an automated telephone dialing system to call class members'
cell phones without their consent.

On July 28, 2017, Ocwen entered into an agreement in principle to
resolve two such putative class actions, which have been
consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. Snyder v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC,
1:14-cv-08461-MFK (N.D. Ill.); Beecroft v. Ocwen Loan Servicing,
LLC, 1:16-cv-08677-MFK (N.D. Ill.). Subject to final approval by
the court, the settlement will include the establishment of a
settlement fund to be distributed to impacted borrowers that submit
claims for settlement benefits pursuant to a claims administration
process.

While Ocwen believes that it has sound legal and factual defenses,
Ocwen agreed to this settlement in principle in order to avoid the
uncertain outcome of litigation and the additional expense and
demands on the time of its senior management that such litigation
would involve. In October 2017, the court preliminarily approved
the settlement and, thereafter, the company paid the settlement
amount into an escrow account held by the settlement administrator.


However, on September 28, 2018, the Court denied the motion for
final approval. On October 9, 2018, the parties advised the Court
of their intention to further mediate the dispute, in an effort to
address certain issues raised by the Court.

Ocwen Financial said, "There can be no assurance that the Court
will finally approve the settlement or any revisions to it to which
the parties may agree. In the event the settlement or any agreed
upon revisions are not finally approved, the litigation would
continue, and we would vigorously defend the allegations made
against Ocwen. Additional lawsuits may be filed against us in
relation to these matters. At this time, Ocwen is unable to predict
the outcome of these existing lawsuits or any additional lawsuits
that may be filed, the possible loss or range of loss, if any,
associated with the resolution of such lawsuits or the potential
impact such lawsuits may have on us or our operations. Ocwen
intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. If our efforts
to defend these lawsuits are not successful, our business,
financial condition liquidity and results of operations could be
materially and adversely affected."

Ocwen Financial Corporation, a financial services holding company,
originates and services loans in the United States, the United
States Virgin Islands, India, and Philippines. Ocwen Financial
Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in West Palm
Beach, Florida.


ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Pretrial & Settlement Conference on Dec. 11
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orrstown Financial Services, 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
mandatory pretrial and settlement conference in the SEPTA Putative
Class Action suit is set for December 11, 2018.

On May 25, 2012, SEPTA filed a putative class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
against the Company, the Bank and certain current and former
directors and executive officers (collectively, the "Defendants").


The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i) in connection
with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated
February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated March 23,
2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of March 24, 2010
through October 27, 2011, the Company issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's lending practices and
financial results, including misleading statements concerning the
stringent nature of the Bank's credit practices and underwriting
standards, the quality of its loan portfolio, and the intended use
of the proceeds from the Company's March 2010 public offering of
common stock.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
seeks class certification, unspecified money damages, interest,
costs, fees and equitable or injunctive relief. Under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), motions for
appointment of Lead Plaintiff in this case were due by July 24,
2012. SEPTA was the sole movant and the Court appointed SEPTA Lead
Plaintiff on August 20, 2012.


Pursuant to the PSLRA and the Court's September 27, 2012 Order,
SEPTA was given until October 26, 2012 to file an amended complaint
and the Defendants until December 7, 2012 to file a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint. SEPTA's opposition to the
Defendant's motion to dismiss was originally due January 11, 2013.
Under the PSLRA, discovery and all other proceedings in the case
were stayed pending the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss.
The September 27, 2012 Order specified that if the motion to
dismiss were denied, the Court would schedule a conference to
address discovery and the filing of a motion for class
certification.

On October 26, 2012, SEPTA filed an unopposed motion for
enlargement of time to file its amended complaint in order to
permit the parties and new defendants to be named in the amended
complaint time to discuss plaintiff's claims and defendants'
defenses. On October 26, 2012, the Court granted SEPTA's motion,
mooting its September 27, 2012 scheduling Order, and requiring
SEPTA to file its amended complaint on or before January 16, 2013
or otherwise advise the Court of circumstances that require a
further enlargement of time. On January 14, 2013, the Court granted
SEPTA's second unopposed motion for enlargement of time to file an
amended complaint on or before March 22, 2013.

On March 4, 2013, SEPTA filed an amended complaint. The amended
complaint expands the list of defendants in the action to include
the Company's independent registered public accounting firm and the
underwriters of the Company's March 2010 public offering of common
stock. In addition, among other things, the amended complaint
extends the purported 1934 Exchange Act class period from March 15,
2010 through April 5, 2012.

Pursuant to the Court's March 28, 2013 Second Scheduling Order, on
May 28, 2013, all defendants filed their motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, and on July 22, 2013, SEPTA filed its "omnibus"
opposition to all of the defendants' motions to dismiss. On August
23, 2013, all defendants filed reply briefs in further support of
their motions to dismiss. On December 5, 2013, the Court ordered
oral argument on the Orrstown Defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint to be heard on February 7, 2014. Oral argument on
the pending motions to dismiss SEPTA's amended complaint was held
on April 29, 2014.

The Second Scheduling Order stayed all discovery in the case
pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss, and informed the
parties that, if required, a telephonic conference to address
discovery and the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification
would be scheduled after the Court's ruling on the motions to
dismiss.

On April 10, 2015, pursuant to Court order, all parties filed
supplemental briefs addressing the impact of the U.S. Supreme
Court's March 24, 2015 decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers
District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund on defendants'
motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

On June 22, 2015, in a 96-page Memorandum, the Court dismissed
without prejudice SEPTA's amended complaint against all defendants,
finding that SEPTA failed to state a claim under either the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended. The Court ordered that, within 30 days, SEPTA
either seek leave to amend its amended complaint, accompanied by
the proposed amendment, or file a notice of its intention to stand
on the amended complaint.

On July 22, 2015, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to amend under
Local Rule 15.1, and attached a copy of its proposed second amended
complaint to its motion. Many of the allegations of the proposed
second amended complaint are essentially the same or similar to the
allegations of the dismissed amended complaint. The proposed second
amended complaint also alleges that the Orrstown Defendants did not
publicly disclose certain alleged failures of internal controls
over loan underwriting, risk management, and financial reporting
during the period 2009 to 2012, in violation of the federal
securities laws.

On February 8, 2016, the Court granted SEPTA's motion for leave to
amend and SEPTA filed its second amended complaint that same day.

On February 25, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling Order
directing: all defendants to file any motions to dismiss by March
18, 2016; SEPTA to file an omnibus opposition to defendants'
motions to dismiss by April 8, 2016; and all defendants to file
reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss by April 22,
2016. Defendants timely filed their motions to dismiss the second
amended complaint and the parties filed their briefs in accordance
with the Court-ordered schedule.

The February 25, 2016 Order stays all discovery and other deadlines
in the case (including the filing of SEPTA's motion for class
certification) pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss.
The allegations of SEPTA's proposed second amended complaint
disclosed the e

OVASCIENCE INC: Adlard and Wheby Securities Class Suits Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
OvaScience Inc., said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on November 19, 2018, that
the company is facing two class action suits entitled, Adlard v.
OvaScience, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-12332-WGY (D. Mass. filed
Nov. 6, 2018) and Wheby v. OvaScience, Inc., et al., No.
1:18-cv-01811 (D. Del. filed Nov. 16, 2018.

On November 5, 2018, OvaScience, Inc. ("OvaScience" or the
"Company") filed a final proxy statement, prospectus and
information statement (the "Definitive Proxy Statement") with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") with respect to the
special meeting of OvaScience's stockholders scheduled to be held
on December 4, 2018 in order to, among other things, obtain the
stockholder approvals necessary to complete the planned merger of
Millendo Therapeutics, Inc. ("Millendo") with and into Orion Merger
Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of OvaScience ("Merger Sub"),
under an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization dated as
of August 8, 2018, as amended (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to
which, among other matters, and subject to the satisfaction or
waiver of the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger
Sub will merge with and into Millendo, with Millendo continuing as
a wholly owned subsidiary of OvaScience and the surviving
corporation of the merger (the "Millendo Transaction").

In connection with the Millendo Transaction, two putative
securities class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts and the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware, respectively, against OvaScience,
Christopher Kroeger, Richard Aldrich, Jeffrey D. Capello, Mary
Fisher, John Howe, III, Marc Kozin and John Sexton.

The complaints are captioned as follows: Adlard v. OvaScience,
Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-12332-WGY (D. Mass. filed Nov. 6, 2018)
("Adlard") and Wheby v. OvaScience, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-01811
(D. Del. filed Nov. 16, 2018) ("Wheby").

The lawsuits allege that the Definitive Proxy Statement made false
and misleading statements and omissions in connection with the
Millendo Transaction, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.

The Adlard plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons and
entities that own OvaScience common stock.

Similarly, the Wheby plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all
public stockholders of OvaScience.

The lawsuits seek, among other things, preliminary and permanent
injunctions of the Millendo Transaction unless OvaScience discloses
certain information requested by plaintiffs, rescission and
unspecified damages if the Millendo Transaction is consummated, and
attorneys' fees.

The Company believes that no supplemental disclosures are required
under applicable laws. However, to avoid the risk of the
Stockholder Litigation delaying or adversely affecting the closing
of the Millendo Transaction and to minimize the expense of
defending the Stockholder Litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, the Company is making certain disclosures
that supplement and revise those contained in the Definitive Proxy
Statement, which the company refers to as the "litigation-related
supplemental disclosures." The litigation-related supplemental
disclosures contained below should be read in conjunction with the
Definitive Proxy Statement, which is available on the Internet site
maintained by the SEC at http://www.sec.gov,along with periodic
reports and other information the Company files with the SEC.

The Company and the other named defendants deny that they have
committed or assisted others in committing any violations of law or
breaches of duty to Company stockholders, and expressly maintain
that they have complied with their fiduciary and other legal duties
and are providing the litigation-related supplemental disclosures
below solely to try to eliminate the burden and expense of further
litigation, to put the claims that were or could have been asserted
to rest, and to avoid any possible delay to the closing of the
Millendo Transaction that might arise from further litigation.

Nothing in the litigation-related supplemental disclosures shall be
deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under
applicable laws of any of the litigation-related supplemental
disclosures. To the extent that the information set forth differs
from or updates information contained in the Definitive Proxy
Statement, the information set forth shall supersede or supplement
the information in the Definitive Proxy Statement.

References to sections and subsections herein are references to the
corresponding sections or subsections in the Definitive Proxy
Statement, all page references are to pages in the Definitive Proxy
Statement, and terms used herein, unless otherwise defined, have
the meanings set forth in the Definitive Proxy Statement.

A copy of the company's supplement to the definitive proxy
statement is available at https://goo.gl/KmrBRB.

OvaScience, Inc., a fertility company, discovers, develops, and
commercializes fertility treatment options for women and families
struggling with infertility worldwide. The company was formerly
known as Ovastem, Inc. and changed its name to OvaScience, Inc. in
May 2011. OvaScience, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is headquartered
in Waltham, Massachusetts.


PANDORA MEDIA: Dawson Balks at Merger Deal with Sirius XM
---------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM DAWSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PANDORA MEDIA, INC., ROGER LYNCH,
ROGER FAXON, DAVID FREAR, JASON HIRSCHHORN, TIMOTHY LEIWEKE,
MICHAEL LYNTON, GREGORY MAFFEI, JAMES MEYER, MICKIE ROSEN, WHITE
OAKS ACQUISITION CORP., and SIRIUS XM HOLDINGS INC., the
Defendants, Case 3:18-cv-07001-JST (N.D. Cal., Nov. 19, 2018),
alleges that Defendants violated Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R.
240.14a-9, arising out of company's Board of Directors' attempt to
sell the Company to Sirius XM Holdings Inc. through its
wholly-owned subsidiary White Oaks Acquisition Corp.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have violated the
above-referenced Sections of the Exchange Act by causing a
materially incomplete and misleading registration statement to be
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31,
2018. The S-4 recommends that Pandora shareholders vote in favor of
a proposed transaction whereby Pandora is acquired by SiriusXM. The
Proposed Transaction was first disclosed on September 24, 2018,
when Pandora and SiriusXM announced that they had entered into a
definitive merger agreement pursuant to which SiriusXM will acquire
all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Pandora for 1.44
shares of SiriusXM common stock. The deal is valued at
approximately $3.5 billion and is expected to close in the first
quarter of 2019.

The Proposed Transaction is unfair to Pandora's shareholders, as it
offers an unfair price for their investment and is the result of an
unfair process. The Merger Consideration is considerably less than
analyst target prices for the Company, with one analyst setting a
target price as high as $13.00 per share. The Merger Consideration
fails to compensate Pandora's shareholders for the significant
benefits the Proposed Transaction provides to SiriusXM. And three
of the Company's directors, who are fiduciaries of SiriusXM,
pressured the Board into considering a sale of Pandora to SiriusXM.
Furthermore, the S-4 is materially incomplete and contains
misleading representations and information in violation of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the S-4 contains
materially incomplete and misleading information concerning the
sales process and the financial analyses conducted by Centerview
Partners LLC and LionTree Advisors LLC, Pandora's financial
advisors, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Ryan P. Cardona, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 534-2590
          Facsimile: (310) 247-0160
          E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com
                  rcardona@brodskysmith.com

               - and -

          Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
          Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq.
          ROWLEY LAW PLLC
          50 Main Street, Suite 1000
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 400-1920
          Facsimile: (914) 301-3518

PANDORA MEDIA: Richard Irvin Balks at Merger Deal with Sirius
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD IRVIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PANDORA MEDIA, INC., GREGORY B.
MAFFEI, ROGER CONANT FAXON, DAVID J. FREAR, JASON HIRSCHHORN,
TIMOTHY LEIWEKE, ROGER J. LYNCH, MICHAEL M. YNTON, JAMES E. MEYER,
MICKIE ROSEN, SIRIUS XM HOLDINGS INC., and WHITE OAKS ACQUISITION
CORP., the Defendants, Case No. R618927947 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov.
8, 2018) contends that the Defendants' transaction is the result of
an unfair process for unfair price.  The lawsuit seeks to enjoin an
upcoming stockholder vote on the proposed all-stock transaction
valued at approximately $3.5 billion.

The terms of the Proposed Transaction were memorialized in a
September 24, 2018, filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Form 8-K attaching definitive Agreement and Plan of
Merger. Under the terms of the Merger and Agreement, Pandora will
become an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Sirius, Pandora
stockholders will receive 1.44 shares of Sirius common stock for
each share of Pandora common stock. they own, resulting in a merger
consideration of approximately $10.14 per share of Pandora common
stock based upon the 30-day volume-weighted average price of$7.04
per Sirius common stock preceding entry into the merger agreement.

Thereafter, on October 31, 2018, Sirius filed a Registration
Statement  Form S-16 with the SEC in support of the Proposed
Transaction. The Proposed Transaction represents an effort by
Sirius, which already wins 15.6% of Pandora, to freeze out all
other public stockholders of Pandora. To that end the Proposed
Transaction was orchestrated by Sirius, whose own executives and
Board members, the lawsuit says.

Pandora Media Inc. is a music streaming and automated music
recommendation internet radio service powered by the Music Genome
Project. As of August 1, 2017, the service, operated by Pandora
Media, Inc., is available only in the United States. The service
plays songs that have similar musical traits.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Ryan P. Cardona, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 667 6200
          E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com
                  rcardona@brodskysmith.com

PANDORA MEDIA: Staab Balks at Merger Deal with Sirius
-----------------------------------------------------
DOUG STAAB, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PANDORA MEDIA, INC., GREGORY B.
MAFFEI, ROGER CONANT FAXON, DAVID J. FREAR, JASON HIRSCHHORN,
TIMOTHY LEIWEKE, ROGER J. LYNCH, MICHAEL M. LYNTON, JAMES E. MEYER,
and MICKIE ROSEN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01830-UNA (D.
Del., Nov. 20, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any
steps to consummate a proposed transaction or, in the event the
proposed transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting
from Defendants' conduct.

According to the complaint, the action stems from a proposed
transaction announced on September 24, 2018, pursuant to which
Pandora Media, Inc. will be acquired by Sirius XM Holdings Inc.,
through its wholly owned subsidiary, White Oaks Acquisition Corp.
Sirius currently owns 15.6% of Pandora. On September 23, 2018, the
Company's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization with Sirius XM and
White Oaks. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, in an all-stock
transaction valued at approximately $3.5 billion, the owners of the
outstanding shares in Pandora that Sirius XM does not currently own
will receive a fixed exchange ratio of 1.44 newly issued Sirius XM
shares for each share of Pandora they hold. Upon completion of the
Merger, Pandora will be integrated into Sirius XM as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Sirius XM, and Pandora's shareholders will own
approximately 8.6% of Sirius.

On October 31, 2018, the Defendants and Sirius XM filed a
registration statement on a Form S-4 with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission. The Proxy omits certain
material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction,
which renders it false and misleading, in violation of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the lawsuit
says.

Pandora Media Inc. is a music streaming and automated music
recommendation internet radio service powered by the Music Genome
Project. As of August 1, 2017, the service, operated by Pandora
Media, Inc., is available only in the United States. The service
plays songs that have similar musical traits.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

              - and -

          Carl L. Stine, Esq.
          Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone.: 212-759-4600
          Facsimile: 212-486-2093
          E-mail: cstine@wolfpopper.com
                  fqian@wolfpopper.com

PAPA JOHN'S: Investors' Class Action Underway in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Papa John's International, 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
is defending against a class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York.

On August 30, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of
a class of investors who purchased or acquired stock in Papa John's
through a period up to and including July 19, 2018.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections l0(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company believes that it has
valid and meritorious defenses to these suits and intends to
vigorously defend against them.  

The Company has not recorded any liability related to these
lawsuits as of September 30, 2018 as it does not believe a loss is
probable or estimable.

Papa John's International, Inc. operates and franchises pizza
delivery and carryout restaurants under the Papa John's trademark
in the United States and internationally. It operates through five
segments: Domestic Company-Owned Restaurants, North America
Commissaries, North America Franchising, International Operations,
and All Others. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky.


PC SHIELD: Court Won't Certify TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in
the case captioned WENDELL H. STONE COMPANY, INC. individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated doing business as STONE
& COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. PC SHIELD INC. an Oklahoma corporation,
Defendant. No. 18cv1135. (W.D. Pa.).

The Plaintiff's putative class action is brought pursuant to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (TCPA). The Plaintiff alleges that in
August 2017, the Defendant caused one unsolicited facsimile to be
transmitted by telephone facsimile machine to the Plaintiff. What
was sent was an advertisement of the Defendant's computer
protection software and other products, which the Defendant created
or caused to be created, and which the Defendant intended to, and
did distribute to the Plaintiff.

Thus, to bring a class action, a plaintiff must sufficiently
establish the prerequisites set forth in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a), the first of which is that the class is so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The
numerosity requirement was recently addressed by the Court of
Appeals in Mielo v. Steak'n Shake Operations, Inc., 897 F.3d 467
(3d Cir. 2018):

Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the proposed class be so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable.   

The class Plaintiff seeks to certify is:

     No Consent Class: All persons who (1) on or after four years
prior to the filing of this action, (2) were sent, by Defendant or
on Defendant's behalf an unsolicited telephone facsimile message
substantially similar to Exhibit A [the faxed advertisement sent
from Defendant to Plaintiff, (3) from whom Defendant claims it
obtained prior express permission or invitation to send those faxes
in the same manner as Defendant claims it obtained prior express
consent to fax Plaintiff.

Significantly, the Plaintiff did not submit any evidence in support
of the number of class members, relying upon its allegation that
Defendant sent unlawful fax advertisements to hundreds or thousands
of consumers: Hence, the proposed Class satisfies the numerosity
requirement and discovery can confirm this if needed. Clearly, the
Plaintiff has not established by a preponderance of the evidence
that the proposed class is so numerous that joinder of all members
is impracticable.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification will be
denied.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 19, 2018
Memorandum Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaxneo2z from
Leagle.com.

WENDELL H. STONE COMPANY, INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick H.
Peluso -- ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com -- Woodrow & Peluso, LLC, pro
hac vice & Stuart C. Gaul, Jr. -- stuart.gaul@gaul-legal.com


PDC ENERGY: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Dufresne Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PDC 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 company has
filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in Dufresne,
et al. v. PDC Energy, et al., and is now awaiting court's
decision.

In December 2017, the company received an action entitled Dufresne,
et al. v. PDC Energy, et al., filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint states that it is
a derivative action brought by a number of limited partner
investors seeking to assert claims on behalf of the company's two
affiliated partnerships, Rockies Region 2006 LP and Rockies Region
2007 LP, against PDC and includes claims for breach of fiduciary
duty and breach of contract.

The plaintiffs also included claims against two of the company's
senior officers for alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The lawsuit
accuses PDC, as the managing general partner of the two
partnerships, of, among other things, failing to maximize the
productivity of the partnerships' crude oil and natural gas wells.


The company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on February 1,
2018, on the grounds that the complaint is deficient, including
because the plaintiffs failed to allege that PDC refused a demand
to take action on their claims. On March 14, 2018, the motion was
denied as moot by the court because the plaintiffs requested leave
to amend their complaint.

In late April 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amendment to their
complaint. Such amendment primarily alleges additional facts to
support the plaintiffs' claims and purports to add direct class
action claims in addition to the original derivative claims. The
amendment also adds three new individual defendants, all of whom
are currently independent members of the company's Board of
Directors.

The company moved to dismiss the claims against the individuals
named as defendants and in response, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint on July 10, 2018. The company filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint and the claims against the
individuals named as defendants on July 31, 2018 and are awaiting a
ruling at this time.

PDC Energy said, "We are currently unable to estimate any potential
damages resulting from this lawsuit."

PDC Energy, Inc., an independent exploration and production
company, acquires, explores for, develops, and produces crude oil,
natural gas, and natural gas liquids in the United States. The
company’s operations are primarily located in the Wattenberg
Field in Colorado and the Delaware Basin in Texas. The company was
formerly known as Petroleum Development Corporation and changed its
name to PDC Energy, Inc. in June 2012. PDC Energy, Inc. was founded
in 1969 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Ct. Partly Grants Bid for Judgment on Pleadings
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Carlos Beaufrand, Bonnie Meyer, Jacqueline Olson, and
Mary Schneider in the case captioned CARLOS BEAUFRAND, BONNIE
MEYER, JACQUELINE OLSON, and MARY SCHNEIDER, Individually and on
Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. PORTFOLIO
RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-214 (E.D. Wis.)
filed an amended class action complaint against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC alleging that PRA sent debt validation notices that
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, (the "FDCPA"). PRA
submitted its answer, and also moved for judgment on the pleadings
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).

Magistrate Nancy Joseph denies the motion as to Count I, but grants
the motion for all other counts. The Plaintiffs' two motions for
leave to submit additional authority pursuant to Civil Local Rule
7(h) is granted.

The amended complaint alleges that Plaintiff Beaufrand received a
collection letter from PRA dated March 30, 2018 that contained a
validation notice. Count I alleges that the notices violated
sections 1692e, 1692e(10), 1692f, 1692g(a)(4), 1692g(a)(5), and
1692g(b).

Count II claims that the notices sent to all the plaintiffs failed
"to unambiguously inform the consumer that, in order to invoke his
or her right to obtain validation of the debt, the consumer must
make the request in writing to PRA, not the original creditor." The
amended complaint alleges that including the name and address of
the original creditor near PRA's name at the top of the notices
might confuse an unsophisticated consumer as to the owner of the
debt or the address to which to direct correspondence, including
payments or disputes. Thus, Count II alleges that PRA violated 15
U.S.C. sections  1692g, 1692g(a), and 1692g(b). Similarly, Count
III claims that listing the address of the original creditor next
to the name of the current owner of the debt "is false, misleading
and confusing to the unsophisticated consumer. Including the
address of the former creditor who has no interest in the alleged
debt misleads the consumer into directing disputes to the wrong
party."

Count IV claims that the validation notice to Schneider "falsely
states the date on which PRA purchased Schneider's account from
Comenity," and that "the unsophisticated consumer would be misled
as to who owned the debt and to which address to send payment."
Thus, Count IV claims that PRA violated sections 1692e, 1692e(2)
and 1692e(10).

Here, the Court finds that PRA's defense of the language in the
letters to Plaintiff Beaufrand is unavailing. In essence, PRA
argues that this letter does not overshadow the validation notice
because it falls outside several categories of overshadowing or
contradictory language discussed in other cases. But simply
distinguishing this case from other cases of overshadowing or
contradiction does not answer the relevant question, which is
whether the unsophisticated consumer would be materially confused
or misled. Applying that standard directly, I find that the
language is sufficiently ambiguous to confuse or mislead an
unsophisticated consumer into disputing a debt by phone instead of
in writing.

Because the Court finds that allegations in the amended complaint
support a reasonable inference that an unsophisticated consumer
would be materially confused by PRA's notices,  the Court denies
the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect
to Count I.

On Count II, the Court finds that there are other characteristics
of PRA's letters that minimize potential confusion. The bottom of
the page of PRA’s letter consists of a detachable coupon with
PRA's name and address; in other words, PRA pre-filled the payment
address for the consumer. On the reverse side, the first item is an
instruction to make all checks payable to PRA and send all payments
to PRA at its listed mailing address. It then gives the company
address, followed by an instruction to send written disputes to
PRA's disputes address.

In light of these factors, the Plaintiffs' claim that consumers
would be confused or misled into directing payments or disputes to
the original creditor seems implausible. Thus, the Court must
conclude that these letters are clear and not misleading on their
face. For this reason, the Court grants PRA's motion for judgment
on the pleadings with respect to Counts II and III.

In light of the overwhelming consistency between the letters, the
Court does not find that the Plaintiffs have asserted a claim for
relief that is plausible on its face simply because, upon close
scrutiny, there was some ambiguity as to the exact date of the
sale. Thus, the Court grants the defendants' motion for judgment on
the pleadings with respect to Count IV.

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

Bonnie Meyer, Jacqueline Olson, Mary Schneider & Carlos Beaufrand,
Plaintiffs, represented by Ben J. Slatky -- bslatky@ademilaw.com --
Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, Jesse Fruchter --
jfruchter@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, Mark A. Eldridge --
meldridge@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP & John D. Blythin --
jblythin@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP.

Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC, Defendant, represented by Avanti
D. Bakane -- abakane@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP
& Chirag Haresh Patel, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP.


POULIN VENTURES: Meneses Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEANETTE MENESES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. POULIN VENTURES, LLC D/B/A
LADY BOSS, a New Mexico Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No.
5:18-cv-00593 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 20, 2018), 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, and seeks statutory damages
on behalf of herself and members of the class, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies, for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is an online global
weight loss system for women. To promote its services, Defendant
engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in
the process. On or about September 5, 2018 and September 7, 2018,
the Defendant sent telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff's
cellular telephone number ending in 9814.  Defendant's text
messages constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the
future purchase or investment in property, goods, or services,
i.e., selling Plaintiff diet plans and coaches. The information
contained in the text message advertises Defendant's "Certified
Results Coach" and other individuals results working with Defendant
which Defendant sends to promote its business, 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

PREMIUM DESTINATIONS: Sued over Unwanted Calls & Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
CEBIL RILEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PREMIUM DESTINATIONS, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-02017 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 20, 2018), seeks
to recover damages and other equitable relief resulting from the
unlawful conduct of Defendant in negligently or knowingly and/or
willfully placing calls and sending text messages to the cellular
telephones of Plaintiff and putative Class Members for
non-emergency purposes, using an automatic telephone-dialing system
without their prior express consent, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has been an AT&T
subscriber since at least November 1, 2008, and holder of his
cellular telephone number, (904) XXX-8024, since that time. The
Plaintiff was the called party and recipient of Defendant’s calls
and text messages, as described herein. Between August 3, 2018 and
the present, Defendant placed at least 10 automated calls and sent
at least 2 text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number
using an automatic telephone dialing system or pre-recorded or
artificial voice. The automated calls were initiated from several
different telephone numbers, including (888) 912-4484, (754)
967-8487 and (407) 603-0495, and the text messages were sent from
(916) 573-5898, which are telephone numbers assigned to Defendant.
The calls and text messages were placed and sent regarding the
telemarketing of vacation club and travel services product.

As a result of each of the calls and text messages, Plaintiff and
putative Class Members suffered an invasion of privacy, as well as
particularized and concrete injuries, including the inducement of
stress, anxiety, nervousness, embarrassment, distress, and/or
aggravation. Plaintiff and putative Class Members also suffered
out-of-pocket losses, including the monies paid to their wireless
carriers for the receipt of such calls and text messages.
Additionally, due to both the answered and unanswered calls placed
and text messages sent by Defendant, the Plaintiff and putative
Class Members suffered the expenditure of their time, exhaustion of
their cellular telephone batteries, unavailability of their
cellular telephones while Defendant's calls and text messages were
incoming, and trespass upon their respective chattels, the lawsuit
says.

Premium Destinations LLC is in the travel agencies business.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 222-2434
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  jcohen@forthepeople.com

PROTHENA CORP: Two Securities Class Suits Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------
Prothena Corporation plc 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 has
consolidated the cases Simon James v. Prothena Corporation plc, et
al. and Granite Point Capital v. Prothena Corporation plc, et al.
and  is now entitled In re Prothena Corporation plc Securities
Litigation.

ase seeking to be appointed as the lead plaintiffs in that
purported class action. That motion was granted on October 31,
2018, and that proceeding is now entitled In re Prothena
Corporation plc Securities Litigation.

On May 17, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Arkansas
Teacher Retirement System v. Prothena Corporation plc, et al.,
Civil Action No. 18-cv-2865-WHA, was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its current and former officers; the plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed that case on July 10, 2018.

On July 5, 2018, another purported class action lawsuit, entitled
Michael Ramezani v. Prothena Corporation plc, et al., Civil Action
No. 3:18-cv-04035-WHA, was filed in the same court against the same
parties; the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed that case on July 13,
2018.

On July 16, 2018, an additional purported class action lawsuit,
entitled Simon James v. Prothena Corporation plc, et al., Civil
Action No. 18-cv-04261-JST, was filed in the same court against the
same parties; the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed that case on
August 7, 2018.

On July 16, 2018, another purported class action lawsuit, entitled
Granite Point Capital v. Prothena Corporation plc, et al., Civil
Action No. 18-cv-06425, was filed against the same parties, but in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The plaintiff in this case, as in the previously-filed cases, seeks
compensatory damages, costs and expenses in an unspecified amount
on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased the
Company's ordinary shares between October 15, 2015 and April 20,
2018, inclusive. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading
statements and omitting certain material facts in certain public
statements and in the Company's filings with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission during the putative class period, regarding
the clinical trial results and prospects for approval of the
Company's NEOD001 drug development program.

On September 17, 2018, the plaintiff in the Granite Point Capital
case, together with the plaintiff in the previously-dismissed Simon
James lawsuit, filed a motion with the court in the Granite Point
Capital case seeking to be appointed as the lead plaintiffs in that
purported class action. That motion was granted on October 31,
2018, and that proceeding is now entitled In re Prothena
Corporation plc Securities Litigation.

Prothena Corporation plc, a late-stage clinical biotechnology
company, focuses on the discovery, development, and
commercialization of novel immunotherapies for the treatment of
diseases in the neuroscience and orphan categories. Prothena
Corporation plc was incorporated in 2012 and is headquartered in
Dun Laoghaire, Ireland.


QUALITY SYSTEMS: Court Approves Settlement in Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Southern Division, issued a Judgment and Order granting
Final Approval of Settlement Agreement in the case captioned In re
QUALITY SYSTEMS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. Case No. SACV
13-01818-CJC-JPR. (C.D. Cal.).

This matter came before the Court for hearing pursuant to the Order
of this Court, dated July 30, 2018, on the application of the
Settling Parties for approval of the Settlement set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement dated July 16, 2018 (Stipulation).  

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court hereby affirms its determinations in the Preliminary Approval
Order, which certified, for purposes of effectuating the
Settlement, a Class defined as all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired QSI common stock during the period
from May 26, 2011 through July 25, 2012, inclusive, and were
damaged thereby.  

With respect to the Class, the Court finds for the purposes of
effectuating the Settlement that: (a) the Members of the Class are
so numerous that joinder of all Class Members in the Litigation is
impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact common to
the Class; (c) the claims of Lead Plaintiffs are typical of the
claims of the Class; (d) Lead Plaintiffs and their counsel have
fairly and adequately represented and protected the interests of
the Class Members; (e) the questions of law and fact common to the
Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual
Members of the Class; and (f) a class action is superior to other
available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the
controversy.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court certifies Lead Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class.
Lead Counsel are also certified as counsel to Lead Plaintiffs and
the Class in the Litigation.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court approves the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation and
finds that: (a) the Stipulation and the Settlement contained
therein are, in all respects, fair, reasonable and adequate; (b)
there was no collusion in connection with the Stipulation; (c) the
Stipulation was the product of informed, arm's-length negotiations
among competent, able counsel; and (d) the record is sufficiently
developed and complete to have enabled Lead Plaintiffs and
Defendants to have adequately evaluated and considered their
positions.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 19, 2018 Judgment
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9zyg2dx from
Leagle.com.

Deerfield Beach Police Pension Fund, Individually and on Behalf of
all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin
Galdston -- BenG@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger and
Grossmann LLP.

Quality Systems, Inc., Steven T Plochocki, Paul A Holt & Sheldon
Razin, Defendants, represented by Peter Allen Wald --
peter.wald@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins LLP, Andrew Gray --
andrew.gray@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins LLP, Kathryn K. George --
kathryn.george@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins LLP, pro hac vice,
Michele D. Johnson -- Emichele.johnson@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins
LLP, Nicholas J. Siciliano -- nicholas.siciliano@lw.com -- Latham
and Watkins LLP, pro hac vice & Whitney Bruder Weber --
whitney.weber@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins LLP.

Fredric Firehammer, Interested Party, represented by Jeff S.
Westerman -- jwesterman@jswlegal.com -- Westerman Law Corp &
Jordanna G. Thigpen -- jthigpen@jjllplaw.com -- Johnson & Johnson
LLP.


QWEST CORP: Sales Practices Suit v. CenturyLink Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Qwest 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 the CenturyLink,
Inc. continues to defend itself against a consolidated class action
suit entitled, In Re: CenturyLink Sales Practices and Securities
Litigation.

In June 2017, McLeod v. CenturyLink, a putative consumer class
action, was filed against CenturyLink, Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California alleging that
CenturyLink charged some of its retail customers for products and
services they did not authorize.

A number of other complaints asserting similar claims have been
filed in other federal and state courts, as well. The lawsuits
assert claims including fraud, unfair competition, and unjust
enrichment.

Also, in June 2017, Craig. v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al., a putative
securities investor class action, was filed in U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, alleging that CenturyLink
failed to disclose material information regarding improper sales
practices, and asserting federal securities law claims.

A number of other cases asserting similar claims have also been
filed.

Both the putative consumer class actions and the putative
securities investor class actions have been transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota for coordinated and
consolidated pretrial proceedings as In Re: CenturyLink Sales
Practices and Securities Litigation.

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

Qwest Corporation, an integrated communications company, provides
communications services to business and residential customers in
Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. The company was incorporated in 1911 and is based in
Monroe, Louisiana. Qwest Corporation operates as a subsidiary of
CenturyLink, Inc.


RCR TOMLINSON: Faces Class Action in Australia Over Share Drop
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ewen Hosie, writing for Australian Mining, reports that engineering
firm RCR Tomlinson has requested an extension to its voluntary
market suspension following news of a class action filed by a law
firm on behalf of its shareholders.

Litigators Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (Quinn Emanuel for
short) filed the class action proceedings in the Supreme Court of
New South Wales on November 16.

The action relates to a large fall in RCR's share price that
occurred in August this year.

While RCR's share price had seen a gradual decline since April, it
suffered a sharp fall throughout August; on July 28, RCR's share
price was $2.12 but fell to $1.05 by September 3.

The August drop was largely related to issues arising from the
company's solar farm investments in Northern Queensland, which
helped contribute to a statutory post-tax loss of $16.1 million in
the 2018 financial year.

The Daydream and Hayman solar farm projects have suffered cost
overruns and time delays resulting in a cumulative write-down of
$57 million on the original tendered margin.

The year-to-date fall is even larger -- from the start of 2018 to
today, RCR's share price has plunged over 70 per cent from $3.03 to
just 85 cents.

"It's unlikely that the recent alarming disclosures by the company
could have come as a surprise to management -- if they did, that's
worse," said Quinn Emanuel partner Damian Scattini.

"RCR shareholders have seen a catastrophic decline in their share
value."

The class action pertains to shareholders who acquired ordinary
shares in the company between August 11 2017 and July 27 2018.

RCR initially filed a trading suspension on November 14 pending the
release of its earnings in the 2019 financial year.

It has now requested an extension of this suspension until
whichever date comes first of either the company announcing its
2019 financial results or November 27. [GN]


RITE AID: District Court Dismisses Josten Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
District Judge Anthony J. Battaglia granted Defendant Rite Aid
Corporation's motion to dismiss the case captioned ROBERT JOSTEN,
on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,
v. RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-0152-AJB-JLB
(S.D. Cal.).

Rite Aid moved to dismiss plaintiff Robert Josten's complaint,
asserting nearly identical arguments made in its motion to dismiss
filed in a related case, Stafford v. Rite Aid Corp. The crucial
missing piece in Josten's complaint, like Stafford's, is his
failure to plead tolling with specificity.

Plaintiff's claims are all based on the assertion that he was
forced to pay an inflated copayment under his insurance plan
because Rite Aid reported prescription drug prices to his insurance
carrier that were not its "usual and customary" prices for those
drugs. About 90% of all United States citizens are now enrolled in
private or public health insurance plans that cover at least a
portion of the costs of medical and prescription drug benefits. A
feature of most of these health insurance plans is the shared cost
of prescription drugs. Typically, when a consumer fills a
prescription for a medically necessary prescription drug under his
or her health insurance plan, the third-party payor (TPP) pays a
portion of the cost and the consumer pays the remaining portion of
the cost directly to the pharmacy in the form of a copayment,
coinsurance, or deductible payment.

In an effort to control their prescription drug costs, many
insurance companies and TPPs require consumers to purchase generic
prescription drugs when available because generic drugs often cost
less than the brand-name version.  Plaintiff alleged that he and
the members of the Class are paying much more for certain generics
than Rite Aid's cash-paying customers who fill their generic
prescriptions through Rite Aid's discount generic drug program,
called the "Rx Savings [P]rogram" ("Rx Program" or "RSP"), without
using health insurance.

Plaintiff alleged causes of action for violations of: (1) Negligent
Misrepresentation; (2) Unjust Enrichment; (3) Unfair Competition
law ("UCL") based on unfair acts and practices; (4) UCL based on
unlawful acts and practices; (5) Consumer Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA"); and (6) Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. In his prayer
for relief, Plaintiff requested the Court certify his action as a
class action, award compensatory, consequential, and general
damages, grant permanent injunctive relief and award statutory
treble, punitive, or exemplary damages, among other things.

Rite Aid argued that the complaint should be dismissed for the
following reasons: (1) Plaintiff failed to plead any element of the
negligent misrepresentation claim; (2) Plaintiff failed to plead
CLRA and UCL standing; (3) Plaintiff failed to plead a CLRA claim;
(4) Plaintiff failed to plead a UCL claim; (5) Plaintiff wrongfully
makes a claim for unjust enrichment; (6) Plaintiff failed to
overcome third-party issues; and (7) some of Plaintiff's claims are
time-barred.

Upon analysis of the facts and evidence presented, the Court finds
Josten plausibly alleged claims for negligent misrepresentation and
under the UCL's unfair prong. Further, Josten has alleged standing
under the UCL and the CLRA. However, the Court also finds that
Josten failed to specifically allege the discovery of the scheme
such that his claims under the CLRA, for negligent
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment cannot be tolled as
currently pled. Accordingly, those claims are dismissed leaving his
UCL unlawful claim to be dismissed as well since he has not pleaded
an underlying violation. Nevertheless, the Court grants Josten
leave to amend. The first amended complaint is due by Dec. 11,
2018.

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

Robert Josten, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated,, Plaintiff, represented by Erin Green Comite ,
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, pro hac vice, Hal D. Cunningham
-- hcunningham@scott-scott.com -- Scott Scott LLP, Joseph P.
Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- Scott+Scott, Attorneys
at Law, LLP, pro hac vice, Julie A. Kearns --
jkearns@scott-scott.com -- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP &
Walter W. Noss -- wnoss@scott-scott.com -- ScottScott LLP.

Rite Aid Corporation, Defendant, represented by Joseph H. Bias --
joseph.bias@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius & Tera Marie
Heintz – tera.heintz@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.


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

Santander Consumer USA Inc. (SC) is a defendant in a purported
securities class action lawsuit (the "Deka Lawsuit") in the United
States District Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned Deka
Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et
al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K.

The Deka Lawsuit is against SC, certain of its current and former
directors and executive officers and certain institutions that
served as underwriters in SC's initial public offering (the "IPO"),
including Santander Investment Securities Inc. (SIS), on behalf of
a class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired SC
securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014.

The amended class action complaint alleges, among other things,
that the IPO registration statement and prospectus and certain
subsequent public disclosures violated federal securities laws by
containing misleading statements concerning SC's ability to pay
dividends and the adequacy of SC's compliance systems and
oversight.

In December 2015, SC and the individual defendants moved to dismiss
the lawsuit, which was denied. In December 2016, the plaintiffs
moved to certify the proposed classes. In July 2017, the court
entered an order staying the Deka Lawsuit pending the resolution of
the appeal of a class certification order in In re Cobalt Int'l
Energy, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. H-14-3428, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
91938 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2017).

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

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking
products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A.


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Settlement in Parmelee Suit Wins Initial Okay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA, 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 court
has entered an order granting the motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement of the Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA
Holdings Inc. et al. lawsuit.

Santander Consumer USA Inc. (SC) is a defendant in two purported
securities class action lawsuits filed in March and April 2016 in
the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas. The
lawsuits were consolidated and are now captioned Parmelee v.
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783.

The lawsuits were filed against SC and certain of its current and
former directors and executive officers on behalf of a class
consisting of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired SC
securities between February 3, 2015 and March 15, 2016.

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

In January 2018, the court granted SC's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit as to defendant Ismail Dawood (SC's former Chief Financial
Officer) and denied the motion as to all other defendants. In July
2018, the lead plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of a class action settlement of the lawsuit for a cash
payment of $9.5 million.

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

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking
products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Discovery Ongoing in Baker Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 discovery
is currently ongoing in the case entitled, Baker v. SeaWorld
Entertainment, Inc., et al., with the trial scheduled for 2019.

On September 9, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the
periods between April 18, 2013 and August 13, 2014, captioned Baker
v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California against the
Company, the Chairman of the Company's Board, certain of its
executive officers and Blackstone.  

On February 17, 2015, Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs,
Pensionskassen For Borne―Og Ungdomspedagoger and Arkansas Public
Employees Retirement System, together with additional plaintiffs,
Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System and Pembroke Pines
Firefighters and Police Officers Pension Fund (collectively,
"Plaintiffs"), then filed an amended complaint against the Company,
the Chairman of the Company's Board, certain of its executive
officers, Blackstone, and underwriters of the initial public
offering and secondary public offerings.  

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the
prospectus and registration statements filed contained materially
false and misleading information in violation of the federal
securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
other relief. Plaintiffs contend that defendants knew or were
reckless in not knowing that Blackfish was impacting SeaWorld's
business at the time of each public statement.

On May 29, 2015, the Company and the other defendants filed motions
to dismiss the amended complaint, which the Court granted on March
31, 2016. On May 31, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated class action complaint ("Second Amended Complaint"),
which, among other things, no longer names the Company's Board or
underwriters as defendants. The Court later denied a renewed motion
to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. In May 2017, Plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification which the Court granted on
November 29, 2017.  

On December 13, 2017, Defendants filed a petition for permission to
appeal the Court's class certification order with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which was denied on June
28, 2018. Discovery is currently ongoing with the trial scheduled
for 2019.

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

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.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Trial in Anderson Suit Set for Oct. 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 trial in
the case, Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks &
Entertainment, Inc., is currently scheduled for October 2019.  

On April 13, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County
of San Francisco against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc.,
captioned Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks &
Entertainment, Inc., (the "Anderson Matter").  

The putative class consisted of all consumers within California
who, within the past four years, purchased tickets to SeaWorld San
Diego. The complaint (as amended) alleges causes of action under
the California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition
Law and California CLRA.  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 and orca plush
purchasers with intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiffs and
purported class members. The complaint seeks actual damages,
equitable relief, attorneys' fees and costs.  

Based on plaintiffs' definition of the class, the amount in
controversy exceeds $5.0 million, but the liability exposure is
speculative. On May 14, 2015, the Company removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on October 30, 2017
which the Court granted in part and denied in part. All three named
plaintiffs continue to have claims for individual restitution and
injunctive relief. The case is in the preliminary stages of
discovery. On May 23, 2018, the Plaintiffs represented to the Court
that they will not file a motion for class certification. Trial is
currently scheduled for October 2019.

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

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.


SECURUS TECH: Robert Teel Appointed Class Counsel in Romero Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUAN ROMERO; FRANK TISCARENO; and KENNETH ELLIOTT, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16cv1283 JM
(MDD) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Jeffrey T. Miller of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California (i) denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment; and (ii) granted
in part their renewed motion for class certification.

Romero, Tiscareno, and Elliot filed the putative class action on
May 27, 2016, alleging Securus unlawfully recorded
detainee-attorney calls.  Securus provides inmate communication
services for correctional facilities throughout California.  The
Plaintiffs are two former inmates and a criminal defense attorney,
all of whom used Securus' telephone systems to make calls to and
from certain correctional facilities in California and allege that
their calls were recorded.

On Oct. 10, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  The Court denied the motion, finding that the
Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently identify an ascertainable class
as the proposed class may have included anywhere between 22 and
thousands of members.   On April 20, 2018, Securus filed a motion
to alter or amend the order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification arguing that, contrary to the court's order,
Securus had produced call logs by the time briefing on the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was complete.  The Court
denied Securus' motion, stating that Securus could raise any
arguments regarding factual discrepancies in its opposition to the
Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification.

Presently before the Court are the Plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment, and their renewed motion for class certification.
The Defendant opposes both motions.  

The Plaintiffs seek to certify the class of every person who was a
party to any portion of a conversation between a person who was in
the physical custody of a law enforcement officer or other public
officer in California, and that person's attorney, on a telephone
number designated or requested not to be recorded, any portion of
which was eavesdropped on or recorded by Defendant Securus
Technologies, Inc. by means of an electronic device during the
period from July, 10, 2008 to the applicable opt-out date,
inclusive.  They seek class certification pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3).

With respect to their motion for partial summary judgment, the
Plaintiff seek partial summary judgment on one element of their
claims -- whether violation of California Penal Code Section 636(a)
requires Securus to intentionally record a conversation between a
detainee and his or her attorney without permission.  They argue
that violation of California Penal Code Secion 636(a) does not
require a defendant to intentionally record a conversation between
a detainee and his or her attorney without permission.  

Securus makes two arguments in opposition.  First, Securus argues
that ruling on Pthe laintiffs' motion would be an advisory opinion.
Second, Securus argues that Section 636 has an intent
requirement.

Judge Miller denied the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as
Section 636(a) is not a strict liability offense and the Plaintiffs
fail to establish there is no genuine issue of material fact as to
whether Securus had the intent necessary to violate the statute.

The Judge granted in part and denied in part their renewed motion
for class certification.  The Plaintiffs' requests for monetary
damages under CIPA are certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) and
their requests for injunctive and declaratory relief are certified
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2).

The Judge certified the class is of every person who was a party to
any portion of a conversation between a person who was in the
physical custody of a law enforcement officer or other public
officer in California, and that person's attorney, on a telephone
number designated or requested not to be recorded, any portion of
which was eavesdropped on or recorded by Defendant Securus
Technologies, Inc. by means of an electronic device during the
period from July, 10, 2008 to the applicable opt-out date,
inclusive.

The Law Office of Robert L. Teel, the Law Offices of Ronald A.
Marron, APLC, and Foley & Lardner, LLP are appointed as the class
counsel; and Plaintiffs Romero, Tiscareno, and Elliot are appointed
as the class representatives.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/AjLjfH from Leagle.com.

Juan Romero, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Geoffrey M. Raux --
graux@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, pro hac vice, Kas L.
Gallucci -- admin@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald
A. Marron, Michael Houchin -- mike@consumersadvocates.com -- Law
Offices of Ronald A. Marron, Robert L. Teel -- lawoffice@rlteel.com
-- Law Office of Robert L. Teel, Ronald Marron --
ron@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Office of Ronald Marron & Adam
Belsey -- adam@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A.
Marron.

Frank Tiscareno, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated & Kenneth Elliott, Plaintiffs, represented by Geoffrey M.
Raux, Foley & Lardner LLP, pro hac vice, Kas L. Gallucci, Law
Offices of Ronald A. Marron, Michael Houchin, Law Offices of Ronald
A. Marron, Robert L. Teel, Law Office of Robert L. Teel, Ronald
Marron, Law Office of Ronald Marron, Eileen Regina Ridley, Foley
and Lardner LLP, J. Mark Waxman, Foley & Lardner LLP & Nicholas J.
Fox, Foley & Lardner, LLP.

Securus Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam R. Fox
-- adam.fox@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP.


SELECT INCOME: Schwartz Sues over Misleading Report, Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
MELVIN SCHWARTZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SELECT INCOME REIT, DONNA D. FRAICHE,
WILLIAM A. LAMKIN, JEFFREY P. SOMERS, ADAM D. PORTNOY, and DAVID M.
BLACKMAN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10790 (S.D.N.Y., Nov.
19, 2018), alleges that Defendants violated Section 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with a
proposed merger of the Company with Government Properties Income
Trust.

According to the complete, on September 14, 2018, the Company
announced that it had entered into an agreement and plan of merger
with Government Properties, pursuant to which the Company's
shareholders will receive 1.04 Government Properties common shares
per Select Income common share. Once the Proposed Transaction is
consummated, Government Properties will change its ticker symbol to
"OPI." The special meeting of shareholders to vote on whether to
approve the Proposed Transaction is currently scheduled to take
place on December 20, 2018.

On October 1, 2018 the Board authorized the filing of a materially
incomplete and misleading registration statement on form S-4 by
Government Properties with the SEC in connection with the Proposed
Transaction (subsequently amended on October 26, 2018, November 9,
2018, and November 15, 2018). Thereafter, on November 16, 2018, the
Company filed a joint materially incomplete and misleading proxy
statement on Form DEFM14A with the SEC, which omits material
information regarding the Proposed Transaction, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

          Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
          LIFSHITZ & MILLER LLP
          821 Franklin Avenue, Suite 209
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 493-9780
          Facsimile: (516) 280-7376
          E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com

SEPHORA USA: Sued over Storage of Biometrics Information
--------------------------------------------------------
AUSTE SALKAUSKAITE, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. SEPHORA USA, INC., a
Delaware corporation, and MODIFACE, INC., a Toronto corporation,
the Defendants, Case No. 2018CH14379 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.,
Nov. 19, 2018), seeks to recover damages and other legal and
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendants
in capturing, collecting, storing, using, and transmitting
Plaintiff's biometrics, and those of thousands of consumers
throughout the state of Illinois, without informed written consent,
and without informing them through a publicly available written
policy of how it was going to store and dispose of this
irreplaceable information, in direct violation of the Illinois
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to honestly
inform their customers, including Plaintiff, the unlawful nature of
the face scanning system in which they would be required to
participate in or knowingly be subjected to, thus failing to obtain
the necessary consent to disseminate their biometrics to third
parties; failing to maintain a lawful biometric storage program
which deletes biometric information in the proscribed period;
failing to provide the required disclosures at the time of
collection; and failing to provide a retention and destruction
schedule.

To the extent Defendants are still retaining Plaintiffs biometrics,
such retention is unlawful and an ongoing infringement of her right
to privacy regarding her biometrics as afforded by the BIPA. The
Plaintiff would not have provided her biometrics to Defendants had
she known that Defendants would retain such information for an
indefinite period without her consent or subject such information
to unauthorized disclosure to unknown third parties, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

SERENDIPITY 3: Website not Accessible to Blind, Garey Says
----------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN GAREY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. SERENDIPITY 3, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-10511 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018), seeks to put an
end to systemic civil rights violations committed by Defendant,
against sight-impaired, disabled individuals under the Americans
with Disability Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impaired
and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to
access and read website content using his computer. The Plaintiff
uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all
individuals with visual impairments who meet the legal definition
of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of
less than or equal to 20/200. Some blind individuals who meet this
definition have limited vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau
report, approximately 8.1 million individuals in the United States
are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and
according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report,
approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State
of New York.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Oregon Civil Servants Sue Over Union Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation on Nov. 20
disclosed that a group of Oregon public employees have filed a
federal class action complaint against two public sector unions and
their employers. The lawsuit seeks to end union officials' "window
period" policies that block thousands of workers from exercising
their constitutional right under the U.S. Supreme Court Janus
decision to refrain from financially supporting a union.

The case was filed at the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon by ten public employees with free legal
representation from staff attorneys at the National Right to Work
Legal Defense Foundation and the Freedom Foundation. The lawsuit
names as defendants Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
Local 503, Oregon Public Employees Union; American Federation of
State, Local, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 75; and the
employers who continue to extract money from the workers' wages
under the "window period" policies without the workers' consent.

After the Supreme Court decision in Janus v. AFSCME, briefed and
won by Foundation staff attorneys, held that public sector workers
cannot be forced to pay union fees without their affirmative
consent, each plaintiff employee resigned his or her union
membership and notified the union and their employer that they no
longer authorized deductions of union dues and fees from their
paychecks.

However, union officials refused to allow the workers to stop
paying union dues. Instead, union officials informed them that they
could only stop payments during a short annual "window period" of
just a few days. Despite the workers' asserting their rights under
Janus, the government agencies continue to deduct union dues from
their wages at the unions' behest.

The case challenges the union officials' "window period" policies
as a violation of the First Amendment. In the landmark Janus
decision, the Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to require
government workers to pay any union dues or fees as a condition of
employment. Additionally, the Court clarified that no union dues or
fees can be taken from those workers without their affirmative
consent and knowing waiver of their First Amendment right to
refrain from financially supporting a union.

The class action lawsuit argues that the workers' deduction
authorizations signed before Janus were not and could not have been
knowing waivers of their First Amendment rights, as the Janus
protections had not been recognized at the time. The suit also
argues that the unions' policies restricting workers' First
Amendment rights to a window of time is unconstitutional.

The complaint asks that the court certify classes to include all
employees under the monopoly bargaining contracts of SEIU Local 503
and AFSCME Council 75 who were blocked from exercising their First
Amendment rights when they resigned union membership and attempted
to halt dues deductions after the Janus decision. Only the union
officials know the exact number of employees who have attempted to
but have been blocked by the policies, but the classes potentially
include hundreds or thousands of victims.

"These public sector workers join many others across the country in
standing up to Big Labor's coercive tactics," commented National
Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. "Union officials have
a long history of manipulating ‘window period' schemes, arbitrary
union-enacted limitations trapping workers into forced dues, and
other obstacles designed to block individuals from exercising their
constitutional rights. The Foundation's victory in Janus at the
Supreme Court provided much-needed protection, but as this case
shows union bosses are now defying the Supreme Court to continue
their abusive practices."

National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have filed
similar class action lawsuits enforcing the Janus ruling across the
country, and are receiving more calls from workers seeking to
exercise their rights under the Janus precedent. To assist public
employees in learning about their First Amendment rights under
Janus, the Foundation established a special website:
MyJanusRights.org.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit,
charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose
human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism
abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at
1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in more than 250
cases nationwide per year. [GN]


SOLID BIOSCIENCES: Watkins Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Solid Biosciences 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 Mr. James Watkins
voluntarily dismissed his claims without prejudice to his ability
to participate in any putative class action as an absent class
member.

On March 27, 2018, James Watkins, a purported stockholder of the
company, filed a putative class action complaint alleging
violations of the federal securities laws, in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Case No.
18-10587), against the company, Ilan Ganot, its Chief Executive
Officer, Jennifer Ziolkowski, its Chief Financial Officer, and the
underwriters in its initial public offering, J.P. Morgan Securities
LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Leerink Partners, LLC, Nomura
Securities Co., LLC and Chardan Capital Markets LLC.

The plaintiff in this suit claims to represent purchasers of the
company's common stock during the period from January 25, 2018 to
March 14, 2018 and seeks unspecified damages arising out of the
alleged failure to disclose risks associated with toxicity and
potential for adverse events related to the company's lead product
candidate.  

On May 29, 2018, the plaintiff, Mr. Watkins, and Ashish Bhandari,
another purported stockholder, filed separate motions each seeking
his appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of his selected lead
counsel. On June 5, 2018, Mr. Watkins withdrew his motion. On
August 14, 2018, Mr. Bhandari withdrew his motion. On October 16,
2018, Mr. Watkins voluntarily dismissed his claims without
prejudice to his ability to participate in any putative class
action as an absent class member.

Solid Biosciences Inc. engages in identifying and developing
therapies for duchenne muscular dystrophy in the United States. The
company was founded in 2013 and is headquartered in Cambridge,
Massachusetts.


SOUTHSTAR LLC: Thomas Seeks Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------
JAMES THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SOUTHSTAR LLC, the Defendant, Case
4:18-cv-00937-A (N.D. Tex., Nov. 20, 2018), alleges that Defendant
failed to pay Plaintiff in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards
Act. Specifically, Plaintiff was not paid time-and-one-half of his
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek. Rather, Defendant misclassified Plaintiff as exempt from
the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and paid him
primarily on a salaried basis and without regard to the number of
hours Plaintiff actually worked.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members are
Defendant's current and former "Warehouse Supervisors" (or
individuals who performed similar duties but were employed under
distinct titles) and were paid primarily on salaried basis and/or
not compensated for all hours worked, including overtime hours.
While employed in this capacity, the Plaintiff was employed as a
"Warehouse Supervisor" for Defendant at a Tarrant County warehouse
that supplies groceries to Kroger stores in North Texas. In this
capacity, the Plaintiff was primarily responsible for overseeing
Defendant's shipping services and was a task, rather than people,
manager. The Plaintiff did not possess the actual authority to
hire, fire, or discipline employees. Defendant maintains a human
resource department that is responsible for such "executive"
functions.

Plaintiff was also responsible for other routine and
nondiscretionary duties associated with providing Defendant's
services to Defendant’s clients, such as Kroger. Plaintiff was
not employed in a recognized "administrative" capacity as he did
not exercise independent judgment and discretion in performing
these job duties but was subject to the guidelines, command and
control of an Operations Manager (or individuals who performed
similar supervisory duties over Plaintiff and the Class Members
under distinct titles). The Plaintiff was neither required to
possess a professional degree nor to have obtained a particular
educational level in order to be employed by Defendant in this
capacity. Consequently, the Plaintiff was not employed in a
"professional" capacity as recognized by the FLSA, the lawsuit
says.

SouthStar LLC operates as a commercial real estate development
company. The company focuses on commercial and mixed use
developments.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jay Forester, Esq.
          D. Matthew Haynie, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (214) 346-5909

SPAR GROUP: Appeal in Hogan Suit Pending
----------------------------------------
SPAR Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company is
currently awaiting the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit on its appeal from a class action case ruling.

Paradise Hogan was engaged by and provided services to SBS as an
independent contractor pursuant to the terms of an "Independent
Contractor Master Agreement" with SBS (prepared solely by SBS)
acknowledging his engagement as an independent contractor. On
January 6, 2017, Hogan filed suit against SBS and SPAR Group, Inc.
(SGRP) (and part of the Company), styled Civil Action No.
1:17-cv-10024-LTS, in the U.S. District Court for District of
Massachusetts.

Hogan initially asserted claims on behalf of himself and an alleged
nationwide class of similarly situated individuals who provided
services to SBS and SGRP as independent contractors. Hogan alleged
that he and other alleged class members were misclassified as
independent contractors, and as a result of this purported
misclassification, Hogan asserted claims on behalf of himself and
the alleged Massachusetts class members under the Massachusetts
Wage Act and Minimum Wage Law for failure to pay overtime and
minimum wages, as well as state law claims for breach of contract,
unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing.  

In addition, Hogan asserted claims on behalf of himself and the
nationwide class for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act's
overtime and minimum wage provisions.  On March 28, 2017, the
Company moved to refer Hogan's claim to arbitration pursuant to his
agreement, to dismiss or stay Hogan's case pending arbitration, and
to dismiss Hogan's case for failure to state a specific claim upon
which relief could be granted.

On November 13, 2017, the Court convened a status conference call
with the parties to discuss the impact on the case of the Supreme
Court's pending decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, in which
the Supreme Court heard arguments in October 2017 and ultimately
will decide whether arbitration clauses that include a waiver of a
worker's right to bring or participate in a class action violate
the National Labor Relations Act.

On March 12, 2018, the Court denied both defendants' Motion to
Dismiss for failure to state a claim, denied the Motion to Compel
Arbitration as to SGRP, denied the Motion to Stay as to SGRP, and
allowed the Motion to Stay as to SBS pending the outcome of the
Supreme Court's decision in Epic Systems), which (depending on the
Supreme Court's ruling) could result in all SBS disputes being sent
to arbitration.

On April 24, 2018, SGRP filed a notice of appeal with the First
Circuit of the District Court's decision. The Parties have agreed
to stay the District Court litigation pending the First Circuit's
decision on SGRP's appeal.

Briefing on SGRP's appeal closed on August 8, 2018 and the appeal
hearing was heard by the First Circuit on September 11, 2018. SGRP
is currently awaiting the First Circuit's decision on its appeal.
If SGRP's appeal is unsuccessful, SGRP will vigorously defend
itself against all claims.

SPAR Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
merchandising and marketing services worldwide. SPAR Group, Inc.
was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in White Plains, New
York.


SPITZER INDUSTRIES: Court Denies Bid to Alter Judgment in Sarabia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division, issued a Memorandum and Order denying
Objectors' Motion for Relief from Judgment or Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment in the case captioned AGAPITO SARABIA, et al,
Plaintiffs, v. SPITZER INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant. Civil Action
No. 4:17-CV-2092. (S.D. Tex.).

Agapito Sarabia filed suit against Spitzer Industries, Inc., on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated parties. The
Plaintiffs are a group of welders who alleged that the Defendant
misclassified them as independent contractors and failed to pay
them overtime compensation.

The Plaintiffs' and Defendant's counsel agreed on the settlement
after a day-long mediation with an experienced FLSA mediator. They
state that the settlement award represents more than one hundred
percent (100%) of the overtime compensation allegedly owed to the
Class Members by Defendant.

The eleven Objectors now argue that the Plaintiffs' class counsel
never gave them notice of the settlement, notice that they had the
opportunity to object, or any opportunity to provide input into the
settlement negotiations. They also argue that the Court should not
have approved the settlement because: (1) there was no bona fide
dispute present in this case; and (2) the settlement was not fair
or reasonable.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 states: "On motion and just
terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative
from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following
reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence,
could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial
under Rule 59(b)  (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or
extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party
(4) the judgment is void  (5) the judgment has been satisfied,
released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that
has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no
longer equitable  or (6) any other reason that justifies relief."

The Court finds that the Objectors have not met the high standards
of either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60. As a starting point, the Court is
mindful that there is a strong presumption that the Plaintiffs'
counsel validly agreed to the settlement on behalf of the class. An
attorney of record is presumed to have authority to compromise and
settle litigation on behalf of his client, and a judgment entered
upon by the attorney of record will be set aside only upon
affirmative proof of the party seeking to vacate the judgment that
the attorney had no right to consent to its entry.

Although the Objectors express legitimate concerns about
communications with their attorneys, they have not explicitly
argued that their attorneys lacked authority to enter into the
settlement or offered any affirmative proof thereof. Indeed, four
of the Objectors specifically authorized class representative
Sarabia and Plaintiffs' class counsel to make all decisions
regarding this litigation, including all decisions regarding
settlement. Accordingly, there is a strong presumption that
Plaintiffs' counsel had authority to consent to the settlement on
behalf of the class.

The Objectors have not shown that the Court committed made any
manifest error of law or fact or manifest injustice in approving
the settlement. Nor have they provided new evidence that warrants
reconsideration of the judgment. In order to approve a settlement
of FLSA claims, the Court must determine: (1) whether a bona fide
dispute exists between the parties, (2) whether the settlement
agreement is a fair and reasonable resolution of the dispute, and
(3) whether the requested attorney's fees are fair and reasonable.

The Plaintiffs have also offered evidence that there is a bona fide
dispute about the number of hours that the class members actually
worked because many of their pay records were destroyed or missing.
Objectors' only counter evidence consists of a single objector's
business records and affidavit describing the hours that he worked.
This is inadequate to establish that there was no bona fide dispute
over Plaintiffs' hours. Plaintiffs also argue that there is a bona
fide dispute over whether they were independent contractors or
employees.

Throughout this litigation, the Defendant has consistently denied
that the Plaintiffs were employees. Although the Objectors
disagree, the affidavits of class members describing their working
conditions are not, as they claim, adequate to establish as a
matter of law that the Plaintiffs were employees. As the parties
discussed at the October 30, 2018 hearing, there are numerous
factual disputes about Plaintiffs' status. Accordingly, Objectors
have failed to show that the Court committed a manifest error of
law or fact in concluding that the settlement resolved bona fide
disputes between the parties.

There is no evidence that the settlement was obtained by fraud or
collusion. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant argue that the case was
complex and would have resulted in long and expensive litigation.
Indeed, when the parties settled, the case was already
approximately ten months old and would have continued for at least
fourteen more months had they gone to trial. Moreover, there were a
number of critical issues in dispute, including whether the
Plaintiffs were independent contractors or employees and whether
the alleged violations of the FLSA were willful. It was therefore
uncertain whether or how much Plaintiffs would have been able to
recover absent settlement.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 19, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycbxmen9 from Leagle.com.

Agapito Sarabia, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Wells Dunlap --
adunlap@mybackwages.com -- Josephson Dunlap Law Firm, Richard Mark
Schreiber -- rschreiber@mybackwages.com -- Josephson Dunlap Law
Firm & Michael A. Josephson -- mjosephson@mybackwages.com --
Josephson Dunlap Law Firm.

Pascual Rosario, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth T. Ward ,
Attorney at Law, 9639 Hillcroft St # 864 Houston, TX 77096-3805 &
Michael A. Josephson , Josephson Dunlap Law Firm.
Desiderio Donan, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth T. Ward ,
Attorney at Law.

Spitzer Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Michael
Rose -- mrose@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord et al, Jeffrey M. McPhaul
-- jmcphaul.lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP & Kristin Noel
Volentine -- kristin.volentine@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord.

Arnold Pena, Luis Cavazos, Roberto Cavazos, Carlos Valdez, Jorge
Andres, David San Miguel, Ignacio Perez, Jose Antonio Perez &
Arnulfo Rodriguez, Interested Partys, represented by Kenneth T.
Ward , Attorney at Law.


SUMMIT RETAIL: Modeski Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH MODESKI 4058 Saint Augustine Lane Baltimore, Maryland 21222
Resident of Baltimore City; GIOVANNI ZAMMITO, 7518 189th Street
Flushing, New York 11366 Resident of New York City; and NATHAN
DAMBOISE 589 East Market Street Marietta, Pennsylvania 17547
Resident of Lancaster County, the Plaintiffs, Individually and on
Behalf of All Similarly Situated Employees, vs. SUMMIT RETAIL
SOLUTIONS, INC. 227 Union Street New Bedford, Massachusetts 02740
Serve: Allstate Corporate Services Corp. 9 E. Loockerman Street,
Suite 311 Dover, Delaware 19901, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01099, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts (Boston) on Nov. 15.2018. The District of
Massachusetts assigned Case No.: 1:18-cv-12383-FDS to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge F. Dennis
Saylor, IV.

The Plaintiffs sought to recover from Defendant, unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Maryland
Wage and Hour Law, and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Benjamin L Davis, III, Esq.
          George Edward Swegman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
          Charles Center South
          36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 244-7005
          Facsimile: (410) 244-8454
          E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
                  gswegman@nicholllaw.com

SUNPOWER CORP: Court Dismisses Shareholder Derivative Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Upon the stipulation agreed by the parties, District Judge Richard
Seeborg dismissed without prejudice the case captioned IN RE
SUNPOWER CORPORATION SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, Case No.
3:16-cv-05312-RS, Consolidated with Case Nos. 5:16-cv-05381-RS,
3:16-cv-05988-RS (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Bernard Stern, Peter Moscone, and Melvin Brenner,
defendants Thomas H. Werner, Charles D. Boynton, Bernard Clement,
Ladislas Paszkiewicz, Daniel Laure, Catherine A. Lesjak, Thomas R.
McDaniel, Pat Wood III, Arnaud Chaperon, Denis Giorno, Jean-Marc
Otero del Val, and Humbert de Wendel and nominal defendant SunPower
Corporation met and conferred regarding coordination of the
Consolidated Action with the related Securities Action and agreed
that it was in the best interests of SunPower to temporarily stay
the Consolidated Action pending resolution of defendants'
anticipated motion to dismiss in the Securities Action.

Plaintiffs wished to voluntarily dismiss the Consolidated Action
without prejudice, with each party to bear their own costs and
fees, and Defendants do not oppose such a dismissal.

The Parties submit that notice of said dismissal is unnecessary to
protect the interests of SunPower and its shareholders for the
following reasons: (i) Plaintiffs seek dismissal without prejudice;
(ii) there has been no settlement or compromise between the Parties
nor attempts to seek such; (iii) there has been no collusion among
the Parties; and (iv) neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel have
received nor will receive any consideration from Defendants for the
dismissal.

Acting on the agreed stipulation, the Court dismisses the
consolidation action without prejudice. Each party must bear their
own costs, fees, and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 20, 2018 is available at
https://bit.ly/2KVHy8P from Leagle.com.

Bernard Stern, derivatively on behalf of Sunpower Corporation,
Plaintiff, represented by Evan Jason Smith --
esmith@brodskysmith.com  -- Brodsky & Smith LLC, Alfred Glenn
Yates, Jr. , Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr, P.C, David M.
Promisloff -- david@prolawpa.com -- Profy Promisloff & Ciarlanto,
P.C., Gerald L. Rutledge , Law Offices of Alfred G. Yates, Jr.,
Jeffrey Joseph Ciarlanto , The Weiser Law Firm, P.C. & Joseph Mark
Profy , Profy Promisloff & Ciarlanto, P.C.

Melvin Brenner, Derivatively on Behalf of SunPower Corporation,
Plaintiff, represented by Ashley Rawlins Rifkin --
arifkin@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP, Brian J. Robbins
-- brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP & George Carlos
Aguilar -- gaguilart@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP.

Thomas H. Werner, Charles D. Boynton, Arnaud Chaperon, Bernard
Clement, Denis Giorno, Daniel Laure, Catherine A. Lesjak, Thomas R.
McDaniel, Humbert De Wendell, Pat Wood, III, SunPower Corporation,
Nominal Defendant, Ladislas Paszkiewicz & Jean-Marc Otero del Val,
Defendants, represented by Steven Mark Schatz -- Sschatz@wsgr.com
-- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Katherine Leigh Henderson
--khenderson@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati A
Professional Corporation & Michael Roland Petrocelli , Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.


SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Dist. Court Dismisses Jones FDCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Cynthia Bashant granted Defendants Synergetic
Communication, Inc. and Collecto, Inc. d/b/a EOS CCA's motions to
dismiss the case captioned STEPHEN JONES, Plaintiff, v. SYNERGETIC
COMMUNICATION, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-1860-BAS-RBB (S.D. Cal.) in its entirety.

Plaintiff Stephen Jones is a California resident. Prior to Jan. 5,
2018, "an obligation was allegedly incurred to AT&T Mobility" by
Plaintiff.  Plaintiff "could not pay the alleged debt, and it went
into default." EOS "purchased the alleged debt" and "contracted
with [] Synergetic to collect" it.

On Jan. 5, 2018, Synergetic sent Plaintiff a letter. The Letter
indicated that "[o]ur client, EOS Cca, has placed" the alleged debt
"with our office for collection in the amount of $691.60." The
second paragraph notified Plaintiff how he could dispute the
validity of the debt. The middle portion of the letter stated that
the "Client has agreed to offer" a "settlement" of the debt for
$276.64 the payment of which "must be received by" Feb. 19, 2018.
The Letter continued that "upon receipt of the settlement, our
client will report the account has been settled in full." The final
sentence of the Letter stated that "[t]he law limits how long you
can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, the
creditor listed on the debt will not sue you for it . . ."

Plaintiff has filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of
California consumers against alleged debt collectors Synergetic and
EOS for alleged violations of the Federal Debt Collection Practices
Act ("FDCPA"). Plaintiff seeks damages, declaratory relief, and
attorneys' fees.

Plaintiff asserts two FDCPA claims. "There are four elements to an
FDCPA cause of action: (1) the plaintiff is a 'consumer' under 15
U.S.C. section 1692a(3); (2) the debt arises out of a transaction
entered into for personal purposes; (3) the defendant is a 'debt
collector' under 15 U.S.C. section  1692a(6); and (4) the defendant
violated one of the provisions contained in 15 U.S.C. sections
1692a-1692o." Synergetic and EOS moved to dismiss on the ground
that Plaintiff has failed to allege violations of Section 1692e and
Section 1692g. The Court agrees with Defendants.

Plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 1692e(2)(A) and 1692e(10)
based on: (1) an alleged misleading and deceptive representation
about the nature of the statute of limitations applicable to
Plaintiff's alleged debt because the Letter states that Defendants
"will not sue" for a time-barred debt instead of stating "cannot
sue;" (2) an alleged failure to disclose that any payment by
Plaintiff of the settlement amount would result in a novation that
would reset the statute of limitations applicable to the alleged
debt; and (3) an alleged omission regarding Synergetic's purported
rights to sue on the debt. Synergetic and EOS moved to dismiss the
Section 1692e claim in its entirety on the ground that the Letter
is not misleading or deceptive as a matter of law.

The Court finds persuasive the line of authorities which have
sustained FDCPA claims concerning debt collection letters that
contain the disclaimer but which have other language which may
mislead the least sophisticated consumer.  But Plaintiff's other
allegations regarding the Letter, in this case, do not state an
FDCPA claim and thus this line of authority cannot sustain
Plaintiff's Complaint.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have violated Section 1692
because the Letter fails to disclose that the previously-lapsed
statute of limitations . . . will recommence upon payment by
Plaintiff." Synergetic and EOS moved to dismiss on the ground that
"the Letter does not create a novation that would reset the statute
of limitations." In effect, Defendants contend that Plaintiff has
not plausibly alleged a failure to disclose a novation because the
Letter does not create one. Although the Complaint does not
expressly use the term "novation," both sides agree that the
alleged failure to disclose concerns a novation. The Court agrees
that Plaintiff has failed to state a Section 1692e claim on this
basis.

The Complaint also alleges that Defendants have violated Section
1692e because "the Letter is completely silent as to the rights of
debt collector, Defendant Synergetic, to file a lawsuit against the
consumer." Synergetic contends that it "does not own the debt and
only the owner can sue on the debt." In opposition, Plaintiff fails
to respond to this assertion by Synergetic and argues the
sufficiency of his Section 1692e claim based only on the prior two
bases, i.e. misrepresentation regarding the statute of limitations
and failure to disclose the creation of a novation. The Court
construes Plaintiff's failure to respond as a concession to
dismissal of the Section 1692e claim insofar as it is premised on
the alleged omission regarding Synergetic's purported "rights" to
file a lawsuit against him.  Moreover, on the merits, a Section
1692e claim on this basis is not plausible. Synergetic does not own
the debt and "merely being retained to collect a debt does not
convey the ownership of the debt to the debt collector" that would
permit a party to sue on the debt.  

The Court also finds that the caption and the factual allegations
gave Defendants fair notice that Plaintiff's FDCPA allegations
might also state an RFDCPA claim. Even so, because Plaintiff has
failed to state any violations of the FDCPA, he has failed to state
any claim pursuant to the RFDCPA. Accordingly, the Court dismisses
his RFDCPA claims without prejudice.

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

Stephen Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Stieglitz .

Synergetic Communication, Inc. & Collecto, Inc. dba EOS CCA,
Defendants, represented by Timothy P. Johnson , Law Offices of
Timothy P. Johnson.


TANDEM CORP: Telecommunications Subcontractors File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Damian McIver, writing for ABC, reports that telecommunications
workers have launched what lawyers have called an "unprecedented"
class action, alleging they are victims of sham contracting.

The case is against workforce management company ISGM (now trading
as Tandem Corporation), which supplies subcontractors to Telstra,
Foxtel and NBN Co.

"In terms of class actions, we think this particular action is the
biggest in Australia [involving workers] and probably quite
unprecedented," said Vicky Antzoulatos, a special counsel for Shine
Lawyers, which is running the case.

"We expect that there's over 4,000 people that are eligible to join
the claim."

In documents filed to the Federal Court, lawyers alleged that the
subcontractors engaged by ISGM from 2011 onwards were legally
entitled to be treated as employees and should thus receive
significant compensation.

They said the company had overarching control of the workers,
including the hours in which they were available to work, and the
circumstances in which they could work for others.

"The central allegation against ISGM will be that it set up a
system of work that was designed to avoid paying workers their
lawful entitlements," Ms Antzoulatos said.

"Those rights include the right to receive a wage, to annual leave,
long-service leave, to overtime and other allowances."

Tandem (ISGM) denied the allegations and said its arrangements with
subcontractors had been approved by regulators.

"Tandem cares for its staff and subcontractors and is committed to
ensuring that all forms of engagement are managed in a compliant
way," the company said in a statement.

Shine Lawyers first began investigating the company after the ABC's
730 program reported on the company's treatment of vulnerable young
workers.

The lead applicant in the case is Victorian man Robert Mutch, who
said his experience working for the company had a devastating
impact on his mental health.

"Unfortunately, I tried self-harming not so long ago, believing it
would be easier if I just gave up," he told 7.30 earlier this
year.

Implications are 'considerable'
Andrew Stewart from the University of Adelaide's law school said
the case had the potential to significantly alter the industrial
relations landscape.

"We've seen a few class actions started but covering very different
kinds of workers. For example, there's a class action going on to
cover telemarketers. This is a very different case," Professor
Stewart said.

"It's involving much more highly skilled work and the implications
are really considerable -- if these workers are found to be
employees they're going to be owed potentially a lot of money.

"For other companies in the telecommunications industry who have
been engaging technicians of this sort as contractors, this really
could have major ramifications."

Ms Antzoulatos was unwilling to disclose the damages being sought
for each individual worker, but said "we do expect the quantum of
the claim to be significant".

The national president of the Communication Workers Alliance, Len
Cooper, is advising Shine Lawyers, and said plenty of industries
would be following the case closely.

"I would imagine every employer organisation in the land will be
interested in this one," he said.

"I've been in the union business and telecommunications for decades
now and I haven't seen a worse case of exploitation of workers than
this.

Ms Antzoulatos said workers across the country have reported
similar stories.

"Many of the workers have been personally and financially
devastated by these events, to the point where some of them have
attempted to take their own lives," she said.

"ISGM prescribed the clothes they were to wear, the equipment they
were going to use and the car they had to drive.

"They often had to take out large personal loans and go into large
personal debt in order to buy this equipment and the cars and this
ultimately put many of them into personal and financial hardship."

Toxic environment

ISGM was formed in 2010 and said its business model was based on
the idea that "large workforces could be managed in a better way."

After establishing itself in telecommunications, it has recently
branched out into insurance, trade and in-home services.

It turned over $650 million last financial year and owners recently
considered listing the company on the ASX.

Critics said the company's growth had been fuelled by the
exploitation of workers.

Bill Makalovski is a former subcontractor with ISGM who's been in
the industry for almost 30 years.

"I decided to get into contracting because of the flexibility of
managing your own time . . . being your own boss, basically," Mr
Makalovski said.

"All those things that appealed to me in contracting were taken
away from us to the point that a toxic environment was created," he
said.

"Our time was no longer managed by ourselves but was managed by a
computer that dictated when we start and when we finish in a day.

"They had exclusivity to our time right across the day and it
prevented us from being able to do any other work."

Professor Stewart said it was difficult to predict how the Federal
Court would view the case.

"When a court has to work out whether someone is an employee,
there's no single test or single question they ask," he said.

"They look at a number of different factors and it's all very
impressionistic.

"Among the factors they consider is how much control is being
exercised over the workers.

"They look at whether the workers are visibly associated with the
organisation with which they're working -- for example, do they
drive a company vehicle? Do they wear a company uniform?"

The only certainty appears to be that the allegations will be
vigorously defended and the case is likely to drag on for some
time.

"There's no question of resources at our end but to prosecute the
case will take two to three years I expect," Ms Antzoulatos said.

Regardless of the outcome, Bill Makalovski is happy the company has
now been called upon to defend its conduct.

"Finally someone's going to be held accountable," he said.

"I hope that it cleans the whole industry up." [GN]


TANGOE INC: Court Junks Bid to Dismiss Sciabacucchi Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of Delaware denied the motion to dismiss the
case captioned IN RE TANGOE, INC. STOCKHOLDERS LITIGATION,
Consolidated C.A. No. 2017-0650-JRS (Del. Ch.) filed by the members
of Tangoe's Board.

Lead Plaintiff Matthew Sciabacucchi, a former stockholder of
Tangoe, Inc., alleges that former members of Tangoe's Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties to Tangoe stockholders by
steering the Company into an ill-advised take-private acquisition
by TAMS Inc., Asentinel, LLC and Marlin Equity Partners. According
to Plaintiff, the members of Tangoe's Board (the "Director
Defendants") recommended the transaction to stockholders in the
midst of a storm conjured by the Board's false filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, a failed effort to restate the
Company's financials and correct the false filings, the subsequent
delisting of the Company's stock by the NASDAQ exchange, the near
deregistration of the stock by the SEC due to the Board's ongoing
failure to file the restatement, rumblings of a proxy contest that
threatened the Director Defendants' Board seats and, finally, the
enticement of significant equity awards to the Director Defendants
that would be triggered only by a change of control. Rather than
navigate through or around the storm, according to Plaintiffs, the
Director Defendants sailed Tangoe directly "into an iceberg and
then faithlessly commandeered the lifeboats, leaving stockholders
to drown."

The Complaint pleads a single count against the Director Defendants
for breaching their fiduciary duties by: (1) "agreeing to sell
Tangoe to Marlin for an inadequate price, pursuant to an
unreasonable process, while they were inadequately informed,
ultimately failing to maximize stockholder value"; and (2) failing
to "disclose to Plaintiff and the Class all information material to
Tangoe stockholders' decision on whether to tender their shares and
agree to the sale of the Company."

The Director Defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint. Their
showcase argument is that they are entitled to business judgment
rule deference under Corwin v. KKR Fin. Hldgs. LLC because a
majority of disinterested, fully informed and uncoerced
stockholders approved the Transaction. Alternatively, they maintain
that because Tangoe's certificate of incorporation contained a
Section 102(b)(7) exculpatory provision, Plaintiff was obliged, but
failed, to plead a non-exculpated claim for breach of the duty of
loyalty.

Plaintiff sees his Complaint in a different light. He argues that
he has pled facts from which it may reasonably be inferred that
stockholders were either coerced to tender or did so without the
benefit of material information. Moreover, he maintains that he has
pled facts to support a reasonably conceivable breach of the duty
of loyalty claim that is not, as a matter of law, subject to
Section 102(b)(7) exculpation.

The Court concludes that that Corwin "cleansing" is not available
at the pleading stage because it is reasonably conceivable that the
stockholders' approval of the transaction was uninformed. The Court
also concludes that Plaintiff has adequately pled a non-exculpated
claim for breach of the duty of loyalty against the Director
Defendants because it is reasonably conceivable they approved the
Transaction and recommended it to stockholders for self-interested
reasons.

The Director Defendants may ultimately demonstrate that they
discharged their duty of full disclosure and discharged their duty
of loyalty in recommending the Transaction to Tangoe stockholders.
At this pleading stage, however, Plaintiff has stated a viable
breach of fiduciary claim and is entitled to take discovery to
support it. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss must be denied.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Nov. 20, 2018 is
available at https://bit.ly/2AKD7sM from Leagle.com.

Kurt M. Heyman Esquire -- kheyman@hegh.law -- and Melissa N.
Donimirski Esquire -- mdonimirski@hegh.law -- of Heyman Enerio
Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Jason M. Leviton
Esquire -- jason@blockesq.com --  and Joel A. Fleming Esquire --
joel@blockesq.com -- of Block & Leviton LLP, Boston, Massachusetts;
and Jeremy S. Friedman, Esquire -- jfriedman@fotpllc.com -- Spencer
Oster Esquire -- soster@fotpllc.com -- and David F.E. Tejtel
Esquire -- dtejtel@fotpllc.com -- of Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC,
New York, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Catherine G. Dearlove Esquire -- dearlove@rlf.com -- and Sarah A.
Galetta Esquire -- galetta@rlf.com -- of Richards, Layton & Finger,
P.A., Wilmington, Delaware and William H. Paine, Esquire --
william.paine@wilmerhale.com -- Timothy J. Perla, Esquire --
timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com -- Peter A. Spaeth Esquire --
peter.spaeth@wilmerhale.com -- and Alexander C. Boudreau Esquire --
alexandra.boudreau@wilmerhale.com -- of Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, Attorneys for
Defendants.


TECHNIPFMC PLC: Still Defends Prause Shareholder Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
TechnipFMC plc 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 purported shareholder class
action suit entitled, Prause v. TechnipFMC, et al.

A purported shareholder class action filed in 2017 and amended in
January 2018 and captioned Prause v. TechnipFMC, et al., No.
4:17-cv-02368 (S.D. Texas) is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and certain
current officers and a former employee of the Company.

The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with the Company's restatement of our first quarter 2017
financial results and a material weakness in our internal control
over financial reporting announced on July 24, 2017.

TechnipFMC said, "The Company is vigorously contesting the
litigation and cannot predict its duration or outcome."

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

TechnipFMC plc engages in the oil and gas projects, technologies,
and systems and services businesses. It operates through three
segments: Subsea, Onshore/Offshore, and Surface Technologies.
TechnipFMC plc was founded in 1958 and is headquartered in London,
the United Kingdom.


TECOGEN INC: Judgment on Pleadings in Vardakas Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tecogen 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 parties in the case,
Vardakas v. American DG Energy, Inc., Case No. 17-CV-10247(LTS),
are awaiting a decision on the motion for judgment on the
pleadings.

On or about February 15, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by Lee
Vardakas ("Vardakas"), individually and on behalf of other
stockholders of American DG Energy (ADGE), naming ADGE, John N.
Hatsopoulos, George N. Hatsopoulos, Benjamin Locke, Charles T.
Maxwell, Deanna M. Petersen, Christine M. Klaskin, John Rowe, Joan
Giacinti, Elias Samaras, Tecogen., Merger Sub., and Cassel Salpeter
and Co., LLC, as defendants (the "Defendants").

The action is captioned Vardakas v. American DG Energy, Inc., Case
No. 17-CV-10247(LTS). At the time Vardakas commenced the action,
his complaint challenged the proposed Merger between Tecogen and
ADGE.

Following the consummation of the Merger (and the appointment of
May, from the Massachusetts Superior Court Action, as lead
plaintiff), Vardakas filed an Amended Class Action Complaint (the
"Amended Complaint").

The Amended Complaint discontinued the claims against Cassel
Salpeter & Co., LLC but asserted against the remaining defendants
claims under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 14a-9; claims against certain
defendants for control person liability under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act (collectively, the "Federal Securities Law Claims");
and common law claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and
abetting (the "State Law Claims").

The Federal Securities Law Claims allege, in substance, that
defendants made material nondisclosure in the proxy statement about
the process leading to the Merger and about the fairness opinion
relied upon by ADGE's Board of Directors in recommending the Merger
to shareholders.

The State Law Claims assert, in substance, that defendants breached
their fiduciary duties in negotiating and approving the Merger,
which, plaintiff claims, deprived ADGE's nonaffiliated shareholders
of fair value for their shares.

On July 19, 2017, defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint. In their motion papers, defendants contended that the
Federal Securities Law Claims are not sufficiently pleaded and fail
to state a viable claim.

On February 28, 2018, the parties presented their oral arguments on
the defendant's motion to dismiss. On March 2, 2018, the district
court rendered its decision, dismissing the Federal Securities Law
Claims, but retaining the State Law Claims. The district court
exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the State Law Claims and
ordered the Defendants to file an answer to the Amended Complaint
addressing the State Law Claims.

On March 12, 2018, the Defendants filed their first answer. On May
2, 2018, the Defendants filed their amended answer to assert
further defenses, and the judge in the district court ordered the
parties to hold a mediation session.

On May 21, 2018, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings. A hearing on the motion for judgment on the pleadings
was held on November 2, 2018, and the parties are awaiting a
decision on the motion.

On July 6, 2018 plaintiff filed a motion for class certification
and plaintiff and defendants filed briefs regarding class
certification in August and September 2018.

The parties are awaiting a hearing or a decision on the class
certification motion if defendants' motion for judgment on the
pleadings is not granted.

The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends
to defend vigorously. The Amended Complaint does not specify the
amount of damages claimed and the likelihood of an unfavorable
outcome is not reasonably estimable.


Tecogen Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells industrial and
commercial cogeneration systems that produce combinations of
electricity, hot water, and air conditioning in the United States
and internationally. It operates through two segments, Products and
Services and Energy Production. The company was incorporated in
2000 and is headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts.


TESLA INC: Inter-Local Pension Fund Sues over Model 3 Production
----------------------------------------------------------------
INTER-LOCAL PENSION FUND GCC/IBT, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others 11 Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TESLA, INC., ELON
MUSK, GOLDMAN SACHS & COMPANY, LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & COMPANY, LLC,
BARCLAYS CAPITAL, INC., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & 17 SMITH
INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC., DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES,
INC., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, and DOES 1-25, Inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 18CV337109 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 2, 2018),
asserts strict liability claims under sections 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff brought this class action
on behalf of purchasers of Tesla's 5.3% Senior Notes due 2025.
Pursuant to a materially misleading offering circular dated August
11, 2017, Tesla issued and sold $1.8 billion worth of the  Notes.
The Offering closed on or about August 18, 2017. The Offering
Circular contained misleading statements regarding the production
of Tesla's Model 3 line of vehicles. In particular, the Offering
Circular claimed that Tesla would be able to quickly scale its
production of the Model 3 to 5,000 vehicles per week by the end of
2017 and 10,000 vehicles per week by the end of 2018 with the help
of its Gigafactory 1.

Just two months after the issuance of the Notes, the Company
admitted that it would be unable to make 5,000 vehicles per week by
2017. Further, as first reported by The Wall Street Journal, rather
than using the high tech assembly line described in the Offering
Circular, Tesla was still making a significant portion of the Model
3s by hand. Since that time, Tesla has continually moved back when
it will be able to consistently produce 5,000 Model 3s per week. In
addition, the Company has since admitted that its battery factory,
the "Gigafactory 1," did not have the ability to make the batteries
in the needed amounts for the Model 3 throughout 2017, and still
did not as of February 2018.  

The Defendants offered and sold the Notes to plaintiff and the
Class. In offering and selling the Notes, the Defendants made
written untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state
material facts to plaintiff that was necessary in order to make the
statement made in light of the circumstances under which they were
made, not misleading. These misstatements and omissions were
"material facts" because there was a 19 substantial likelihood
that, under all the circumstances, a reasonable investor would
consider it important in reaching an investment decision, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          3 San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
                  soddo@robbinsarroyo.com

TIGER NATURAL: Court Allows 2nd Amended Answer in Fishman Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to for Leave
to Amend Answer in the case captioned EMILY FISHMAN and SUSAN
FARIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. TIGER NATURAL GAS, INC., an Oklahoma corporation;
COMMUNITY GAS CENTER INC., a Colorado corporation; JOHN DYET, an
individual; and DOES 3-100, Defendants. No. C 17-05351 WHA. (N.D.
Cal.) to include additional factual allegations to support its
affirmative defenses.

The controversy allegedly began when defendant Tiger Natural Gas,
Inc., through defendant Community Gas Center Inc. (CGC), called
each of plaintiffs Emily Fishman and Susan Faria to solicit them to
buy natural gas from Tiger through its price protection program.
Plaintiffs' allegations have been summarized in prior orders.

The Plaintiffs moved to strike Tiger's affirmative defenses to the
operative third amended complaint. A September 18 order granted in
part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion to strike without a
hearing, striking thirty-four of Tiger's thirty-five affirmative
defenses. That order gave Tiger until October 4 to file a motion
for leave to amend its answer. Tiger timely moved for leave to
amend and submitted a proposed amended answer. At oral argument the
undersigned judge indicated his tentative view that Tiger asserted
too many conclusory affirmative defenses which lacked sufficient
facts. Tiger was allowed to submit a new proposed answer, limited
to pleading additional relevant facts supporting only those
affirmative defenses previously asserted in its proposed amended
answer. Tiger timely submitted a second proposed amended answer.

The judge has reviewed the proposed amendments to Tiger's six
affirmative defenses and concludes they are not entirely futile.
Although they may or may not operate to bar one or more of
plaintiffs' claims to relief, that can be determined at trial or on
a motion for summary judgment.

For present purposes, these defenses have been sufficiently
pleaded. Accordingly, Tiger's motion for leave to amend is
granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 19, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yb4aqbzb from Leagle.com.

Emily Fishman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Susan Faria, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel L. Balsam --
calbar@danbalsam.com -- The Law Offices of Daniel Balsam, Jacob N.
Harker -- harkerjacob@gmail.com -- Law Offices of Jacob Harker,
Kathleen Styles Rogers -- krogers@kraloweclaw.com -- Kralowec Law,
P.C. & Kimberly Ann Kralowec -- kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com --
Kralowec Law, P.C.

Tiger Natural Gas, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation, Defendant,
represented by Janet Chung -- janet.chung@hklaw.com -- Holland and
Knight LLP, John Andrew Canale -- John.Canale@hklaw.com -- Holland
and Knight LLP, Leah E. Capritta -- Leah.Capritta@hklaw.com --
Holland & Knight LLP, Thomas Drew Leland -- Thomas.Leland@hklaw.com
-- Holland and Knight LLP & Vince Lee Farhat, Holland and Knight
LLP.


TIGER NATURAL: Ct. Partly OK's Fishman Bid for Discovery Sanctions
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup granted in part and denied in part
plaintiffs' motion for discovery sanctions in the case captioned
EMILY FISHMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and SUSAN FARIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TIGER NATURAL GAS, INC., an
Oklahoma corporation, COMMUNITY GAS CENTER, INC., a Colorado
corporation, JOHN DYET, an individual; and DOES 3-100, Defendants,
No. C 17-05351 WHA (N.D. Cal.).

Tiger hired defendant Community Gas Center, Inc. to conduct
telemarketing. Defendant John Dyet owned several telemarketing
companies, including CGC. Beginning in 2014, CGC called PG&E
customers to promote Tiger's capped-rate program, pursuant to which
program Tiger's supply rate for natural gas would be capped at
$0.69 per therm (and the gas would be delivered via the PG&E
system). This case stems from alleged misrepresentations made
during these phone solicitations to PG&E's customers.

FRCP 37(e) sanctions are available when "electronically stored
information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or
conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take
reasonable steps to preserve it, and [the information] cannot be
restored or replaced through additional discovery." Two categories
of sanctions exist. First, where the district court finds that the
loss of information has prejudiced the moving party, the district
court may order "measures no greater than necessary to cure the
prejudice." Second, where the district court finds that the
offending party "acted with the intent to deprive another party of
the information's use in the litigation," the district court may
require an adverse evidentiary presumption, dismiss the case, or
enter default judgment. The issue presented is the extent to which
CGC's call to Fishman should be considered representative of calls
made to all putative class members.

As an initial matter, where a customer enrolled in Tiger's program
over the phone, Tiger had an obligation under Gas Rule 23 to
"retain the audio recording of the sales call for one (1) year and
the TPV of the Customer's enrollment for two years" Although Tiger
maintained copies of all TPV recordings, it has eventually
developed that Tiger did not retain recordings of the sales pitches
made to putative class members. Attempting to skirt this
responsibility under Gas Rule 23, Tiger argues that it operated on
the understanding that CGC retained copies of the sales pitches. In
support, Tiger points to a provision in its marketing agreement
with CGC by which both parties agreed to "comply with all utility,
federal, state, and local laws, regulations and rules as well as
industry accepted business practices." But nothing in Gas Rule 23
indicated that Tiger's responsibility to maintain recordings was
delegable. In fact, the text of Gas Rule 23 indicated the opposite.
Certain provisions of Gas Rule 23, such as Rule 23.D.1's consumer
protection provisions, imposed obligations on "the CTA or its
authorized agent(s)." Rule 23.E.2.i, by contrast, imposed its
obligations directly on the CTA (and the CTA only) to retain audio
recordings.

As plaintiffs' parallel motion for class certification
demonstrates, plaintiffs have been prejudiced by Tiger's failure to
take reasonable steps to preserve recorded sales calls. This order
rejects Tiger's argument that plaintiffs have failed to show that
these recordings "cannot be restored or replaced through additional
discovery," FRCP 37(e), as Tiger offers no suggestions as to an
evidentiary substitute. Although Tiger has produced telemarketing
scripts it contends were used by CGC during sales pitches, the call
to Fishman indisputably deviated from those scripts, rendering them
suspect.

To ameliorate the prejudice to plaintiffs, the litigation will
proceed as follows. At trial, jury will be informed of the
foregoing destruction of evidence  and the jury will be permitted
to decide whether or not the call made to Fishman was
representative of the sales pitches made to the putative class
members (both in terms of content and the fact that the call was
recorded). The jury could alternatively decide, for example, that
the telemarketing scripts produced by Tiger are more representative
of the calls made to the putative class. Whether the same course of
conduct occurred class-wide will be for the jury to determine.
Moreover, the Fishman sales pitch arguably failed to request
consent to record as required by Section 632 of the California
Penal Code. The jury will likewise be allowed to infer that the
other sales calls, had they been preserved, would have similarly
been recorded without consent obtained up front. To this extent,
plaintiffs' motion for discovery sanctions is granted. Because the
record thus far fails to demonstrate that Tiger "acted with the
intent to deprive another party of the information's use in the
litigation," FRCP 37(e)(2), the motion is otherwise denied, subject
to revisiting if the trial evidence proves to be stronger.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 20, 2018 is available at
https://bit.ly/2RtJ1FH from Leagle.com.

Emily Fishman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Susan Faria, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel L. Balsam ,
The Law Offices of Daniel Balsam, Jacob N. Harker --
jacob@harkercounsel.com -- Law Offices of Jacob Harker, Kathleen
Styles Rogers -- krogers@kraloweclaw.com -- Kralowec Law, P.C. &
Kimberly Ann Kralowec -- kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com -- Kralowec Law,
P.C.

Tiger Natural Gas, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation, Defendant,
represented by Janet Chung -- Janet.chung@hkalw.com -- Holland and
Knight LLP, John Andrew Canale -- john.canale@hklaw.com -- Holland
and Knight LLP, Leah E. Capritta -- leah.capritta@hklaw.com --
Holland & Knight LLP, Thomas Drew Leland -- thomas.leland@hklaw.com
-- Holland and Knight LLP & Vince Lee Farhat --
vince.farhat@hklaw.com -- Holland and Knight LLP.

John Dyet, Defendant, pro se.


TIGER NATURAL: Fishman Bid for Class Certification Partly Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup granted in part and denied in part
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case captioned
EMILY FISHMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and SUSAN FARIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TIGER NATURAL GAS, INC., an
Oklahoma corporation, COMMUNITY GAS CENTER, INC., a Colorado
corporation, JOHN DYET, an individual, and DOES 2-100, Defendants,
No. C 17-05351 WHA (N.D. Cal.). The Court also granted plaintiffs'
motion for relief from failing to meet their filing deadline.

Plaintiffs' operative complaint asserted the following claims: (1)
violations of California's Recording Law (California Penal Code
sections 632 et seq.); (2) breach of oral contract; (3) violations
of PG&E Gas Rule 23; (4) breach of third-party beneficiary
contract; (5) violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies
Act; (6) fraud; (7) negligent misrepresentation; (8) violations of
the Regulations on Core Transport Agents (California Public
Utilities Code sections 980-989.5); (9) violations of California's
False Advertising Law; and (10) violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law  Plaintiffs sought to certify the following
classes:

1. Tiger/PG&E Customer Class: All California consumers and
businesses that were customers of PG&E at the time they enrolled in
Tiger's capped-rate price protection program after receiving a
telemarketing call advertising the program between August 18, 2013,
and the present.

2. Tiger/PG&E Consumer Sub-Class: All California consumers that
were customers of PG&E at the time they enrolled in Tiger's
capped-rate price protection program after receiving a
telemarketing call advertising the program between August 18, 2013,
and the present.

Following oral argument, at the Court's request, plaintiffs
submitted a proposed trial plan which narrowed the issues
plaintiffs sought to certify for class treatment. Plaintiffs then
sought certification of the following claims only: (1) violations
of California's Recording Law; (2) violations of California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act; and (3) violations of California's
Unfair Competition Law.

Class certification under FRCP 23(b)(3) is appropriate only if
class resolution "is superior to other available methods for fairly
and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." Tiger does not
contest superiority and this order finds the superiority element
satisfied. Given the relatively low recovery at issue, class
members will not have an interest in individually controlling the
prosecution of separate actions. Neither party identifies any
pending litigation regarding plaintiffs' Recording Law claim. A
class action is accordingly a superior method of resolving this
claim.

Plaintiffs also sought to certify claims under California's Unfair
Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code Section
17200 et seq., and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
California Business and Professions Code Section 1750 et seq. These
claims are primarily based on plaintiffs' allegations that
defendants made fraudulent or misleading statements during
telemarketing calls to putative class members. The dispositive
issue is whether these claims may be certified under FRCP 23(b)(3)
and accordingly this order need only address whether individual
questions predominate. In light of Tiger's stipulation that
Fishman's TPV call was substantially the same as those made to
other putative class members, the parallel order granting in part
plaintiffs' motion for discovery sanctions substantially aided
plaintiffs in showing a common course of conduct with respect to
the class. Nevertheless, because plaintiffs have failed to show
that injury can be established on a classwide basis, they have not
met their burden of demonstrating that FRCP 23(b)(3)'s requirements
are met.

Thus, these claims will not be certified on the current record. In
the event that plaintiffs obtain the necessary proof from PG&E, the
Court would consider a supplemental motion for class certification
so long as doing so would not otherwise disrupt orderly case
management.

In sum, plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted in
part and denied in part. The following class is certified:

1. Tiger/PG&E Customer Class: All California consumers and
businesses that were customers of PG&E at the time they enrolled in
Tiger's capped-rate price protection program after receiving a
telemarketing call advertising the program between August 18, 2013,
and the present.

The Customer Class is certified only with respect to plaintiffs'
Recording Law claim. Emily Fishman and Susan Faria are appointed as
class representatives.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 20, 2018 is available at
https://bit.ly/2Uf27S3 from Leagle.com.

Emily Fishman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Susan Faria, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel L. Balsam --
legal@danbalsam.com -- The Law Offices of Daniel Balsam, Jacob N.
Harker, Law Offices of Jacob Harker -- jacob@harkercounsel.com --
Kathleen Styles Rogers -- krogers@kraloweclaw.com -- Kralowec Law,
P.C. & Kimberly Ann Kralowec -- kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com --
Kralowec Law, P.C.

Tiger Natural Gas, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation, Defendant,
represented by Janet Chung -- Janet.chung@hklaw.com -- Holland and
Knight LLP, John Andrew Canale -- john.canale@hklaw.com -- Holland
and Knight LLP, Leah E. Capritta -- leah.capritta@hklaw.com --
Holland & Knight LLP, Thomas Drew Leland -- Thomas.leland@hklaw.com
-- Holland and Knight LLP & Vince Lee Farhat --
vince.farhat@hklaw.com -- Holland and Knight LLP.

John Dyet, Defendant, pro se.


TIVITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Weiner Class Action Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tivity Health, 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
sought dismissal of the first amended complaint filed by Eric
Weiner.

On November 20, 2017, Eric Weiner, claiming to be a stockholder of
the Company, filed a complaint on behalf of stockholders who
purchased the Company's common stock between February 24, 2017 and
November 3, 2017 ("Weiner Lawsuit").  

The Weiner Lawsuit was filed as a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, naming as defendants
the Company, the Company's chief executive officer, chief financial
officer and a former executive who served as both chief accounting
officer and interim chief financial officer.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act in making
false and misleading statements and omissions related to the United
Press Release. The complaint seeks monetary damages on behalf of
the purported class.  

On April 3, 2018, the Court entered an order appointing the
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System as lead
plaintiff, designated counsel for the lead plaintiff, and
established certain deadlines for the case.  

On June 4, 2018, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. On
August 3, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the first
amended complaint and a memorandum in support of motion to dismiss
seeking dismissal on grounds that the first amended complaint fails
to plead any actionable statement or omission and fails to allege
facts sufficient to give rise to a strong inference of scienter
(the "Motion to Dismiss").

Tivity Health, Inc. provides fitness and health improvement
programs in the United States. The company offers SilverSneakers
senior fitness program to the members of Medicare advantage,
Medicare supplement, and group retiree plans; and Prime fitness, a
fitness facility access program through commercial health plans and
employers. The company was formerly known as Healthways, Inc. and
changed its name to Tivity Health, Inc. in January 2017. Tivity
Health, Inc. was founded in 1981 and is headquartered in Franklin,
Tennessee.


TOTAL SYSTEM: Unit Still Defends Telexfree Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total System Services, 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 ProPay, a company's
subsidiary continues to defend a consolidated class action suit
entitled, In Re: Telexfree Securities Litigation
(4:14-md-02566-TSH) (D. Mass.).

ProPay, Inc. ("ProPay"), a subsidiary of the Company, has been
named as one of a number of defendants (including other merchant
processors) in several purported class action lawsuits relating to
the activities of TelexFree, Inc. and its affiliates and
principals.

TelexFree is a former merchant customer of ProPay. With regard to
TelexFree, each purported class action lawsuit generally alleges
that TelexFree engaged in an improper multi-tier marketing scheme
involving voice-over Internet protocol telephone services. The
plaintiffs in each of the purported class action complaints
generally allege that the various merchant processor defendants,
including ProPay, aided and abetted the improper activities of
TelexFree. TelexFree filed for bankruptcy protection in Nevada. The
bankruptcy proceeding was subsequently transferred to the
Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court.

Specifically, ProPay has been named as one of a number of
defendants (including other merchant processors) in each of the
following purported class action complaints relating to TelexFree:
(i) Waldermara Martin, et al. v. TelexFree, Inc., et al. (Case No.
BK-S-14-12524-ABL) (Bankr. D. Nev.); (ii) Anthony Cellucci, et al.
v. TelexFree, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 4:14-BK-40987) (Bankr. D.
Mass.); (iii) Maduako C. Ferguson Sr., et al. v. Telexelectric,
LLP, et. al (Case No. 5:14-CV-00316-D) (E.D.N.C.); (iv) Todd Cook
v. TelexElectric LLP et al. (Case No. 2:14-CV-00134) (N.D. Ga.);
(v) Felicia Guevara v. James M. Merrill et al., CA No.
1:14-cv-22405-DPG) (S.D. Fla.); (vi) Reverend Jeremiah Githere, et
al. v. TelexElectric LLP et al. (Case No. 1:14-CV-12825-GAO) (D.
Mass.); (vii) Paulo Eduardo Ferrari et al. v. Telexfree, Inc. et
al. (Case No. 14-04080) (Bankr. D. Mass); (viii) Magalhaes v.
TelexFree, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-12437 (D. Mass.); (ix) Griffith
v. Merrill et al., No. 14-CV-12058 (D. Mass.); (x) Abelgadir v.
Telexelectric, LLP, No. 14-09857 (S.D.N.Y.); and (xi) Rita Dos
Santos, v. TelexElectric, LLP et al., 2:15-cv-01906-NVW (D. Ariz.)
(together, the "Actions").

On October 21, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") transferred and consolidated the Actions filed before that
date to the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (the "Consolidated Action"). The JPML subsequently
transferred the remaining Actions to the Consolidated Action. The
Consolidated Action is styled In Re: Telexfree Securities
Litigation (4:14-md-02566-TSH) (D. Mass.).

The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed a First
Consolidated Amended Complaint on March 31, 2015 and filed a Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint") on
April 30, 2015. The Second Amended Complaint, which supersedes the
complaints filed prior to consolidation of the Actions, purports to
bring claims on behalf of all persons who purchased certain
TelexFree "memberships" and suffered a "net loss" between January
1, 2012 and April 16, 2014.

With respect to ProPay, the Second Amended Complaint alleges that
ProPay aided and abetted tortious acts committed by TelexFree, and
that ProPay was unjustly enriched in the course of providing
payment processing services to TelexFree.

Several defendants, including ProPay, moved to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint on June 2, 2015. The court held a hearing on the
motions to dismiss on November 2, 2015, but has not yet issued a
ruling on the vast majority of the motions. The court did, however,
deny the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Katia Wanzeler, the
wife of one of the principals of TelexFree, in an order dated May
7, 2018. The court has not ruled on any motions to dismiss since
that time.

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

Total System Services, Inc. provides payment processing, merchant,
and related payment services to financial and nonfinancial
institutions worldwide. The company operates through three
segments: Merchant Solutions, Issuer Solutions, and Netspend. Total
System Services, Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Columbus, Georgia.


TRAFFIC ENGINEERING: Underpays Traffic Control Workers, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEX BELLAUS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-04639-JLS (E.D. Pa., Oct. 29, 2018)
seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime compensation,
prejudgment interest, maximum liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Bellaus was employed by the Defendant as traffic
control worker.

Traffic Engineering Services, LLC is a for-profit entity created
and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of
Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          Ching-Yuan Teng, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          155 2nd Street, Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
                  tonyteng@jtblawgroup.com


TRINITY HEATING: Womble Bond Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Troutman, Esq., of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, reports that can a named class
representative continue to represent a putative TCPA class action
even after a Defendant pays the Plaintiff the highest amount he/she
could possibly recover on their individual claim? That question was
left open in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald
Co. v. Gomez,136 S. Ct. 663 (2016) but was answered affirmatively
by a district court in Maryland in Boger v. Trinity Heating & Air,
Inc., Case No. 17-7729, 2018 WL 6050886 (D. Md. Nov. 16, 2018.)

Setting the stage. Supreme Court precedent counsels that a named
class representative must have standing at all stages of the
litigation. Black letter law also dictates that an uncertified
class is not a legal entity capable of pursuing a claim on its own.
So if a named class representative's claim is mooted, the entire
action -- including the class components -- should go away.

At least in theory.

In practice appellate courts over the years have concocted numerous
"relation back" doctrines designed to save class actions from
efforts by Defendants to "pick off" class representatives by paying
them the full amount recoverable on their individual claims. The
fear is that class actions under Rule 23 would evaporate if a
Defendant could always just throw  few bucks at a class
representative and make the claim disappear.

The law in this area continues to be in flux. In Campbell-Ewald the
Supreme Court confirmed that an offer to settle a claim exceeding
the amount recoverable by a class representative is insufficient to
moot a claim at all -- a rejected offer is a legal nullity with no
effect on an underlying claim (probably).  But the divided Supreme
Court in Campbell-Ewald reserved the issue of whether mootness can
be bought with an effective delivery of the necessary sums to the
Plaintiff.

Since Cambpell Ewald, many have tried and failed to pick off TCPA
claims using the old "deposit-money-with-the-court trick." The
Ninth Circuit was first to determine that class representatives
cannot be forcefully bought off in Chen v. Allstate Insurance
Company, 819 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2016).  The Seventh and Second
Circuits have followed suit–although the Seventh Circuit has
suggested that a pick off move may create valid grounds to
challenge a class representative's adequacy to represent the class.
See Fulton Dental v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2017).

That brings us to Boger. In that case a named class representative
received 3 faxes. It sued on behalf of thousands of others that had
received similar faxes. The Defendant deposited $6,000.00 with the
court for Plaintiff's benefit–more than Plaintiff could have ever
recovered on its individual claim. Defendant then moved to dismiss
on the ground that the claim had been mooted by the tender of
complete relief.

The Boger court disagreed. Following Chen the court concluded "a
class action plaintiff should have the opportunity to seek class
certification before a defendant can force a settlement." Even if a
complete payment is made, therefore, the Boger court finds that it
does not "necessarily satisfy Boger's interest in pursuing a class
action, which simply cannot be met by any offer that precludes him
from seeking class certification." Boger at *5.

The idea that a Plaintiff has a non-pecuniary "interest" in
representing a class that cannot be mooted is curious and does not
appear to derive from Rule 23 or any other federal statute.
Nonetheless, this notion has cropped up time and again in TCPA
"pick off" cases. Keep it in mind folks. [GN]


TRUSTMARK CORP: TNB Still Faces Class Suit over Stanford Financial
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trustmark 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 Trustmark National
Bank (TNB) continues to defend itself from a class action suit
related to the collapse of the Stanford Financial Group.

Trustmark's wholly-owned subsidiary has been named as a defendant
in three lawsuits related to the collapse of the Stanford Financial
Group. The first is a purported class action complaint that was
filed on August 23, 2009 in the District Court of Harris County,
Texas, by Peggy Roif Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell,
Steven Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein and Juan C. Olano
(collectively, Class Plaintiffs), on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, naming TNB and four other financial
institutions unaffiliated with Trustmark as defendants.  

The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent transfers
from each of the defendants in the amount of fees and other monies
received by each defendant from entities controlled by R. Allen
Stanford (collectively, the Stanford Financial Group) and (ii)
damages allegedly attributable to alleged conspiracies by one or
more of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit
fraud and/or aid and abet fraud on the asserted grounds that
defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group
was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme.  Plaintiffs have
demanded a jury trial. Plaintiffs did not quantify damages.  

In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings. In May 2010, all
defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit.
In August 2010, the court authorized and approved the formation of
an Official Stanford Investors Committee (OSIC) to represent the
interests of Stanford investors and, under certain circumstances,
to file legal actions for the benefit of Stanford investors. In
December 2011, the OSIC filed a motion to intervene in this action.


In September 2012, the district court referred the case to a
magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain pretrial
issues. In December 2012, the court granted the OSIC's motion to
intervene, and the OSIC filed an Intervenor Complaint against one
of the other defendant financial institutions. In February 2013,
the OSIC filed a second Intervenor Complaint that asserts claims
against TNB and the remaining defendant financial institutions.  

The OSIC seeks to recover: (i) alleged fraudulent transfers in the
amount of the fees each of the defendants allegedly received from
Stanford Financial Group, the profits each of the defendants
allegedly made from Stanford Financial Group deposits, and other
monies each of the defendants allegedly received from Stanford
Financial Group; (ii) damages attributable to alleged conspiracies
by each of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to
commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud and conversion on the
asserted grounds that the defendants knew or should have known the
Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent
scheme; and (iii) punitive damages. The OSIC did not quantify
damages.  

In July 2013, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the OSIC's claims. In March 2015, the court entered an
order authorizing the parties to conduct discovery regarding class
certification, staying all other discovery and setting a deadline
for the parties to complete briefing on class certification issues.
In April 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motions to dismiss the Class Plaintiffs' claims and the
OSIC's claims. The court dismissed all of the Class Plaintiffs'
fraudulent transfer claims and dismissed certain of the OSIC's
claims. The court denied the motions by TNB and the other financial
institution defendants to dismiss the OSIC's constructive
fraudulent transfer claims.  

On June 23, 2015, the court allowed the Class Plaintiffs to file a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint (SAC), which asserted new
claims against TNB and certain of the other defendants for (i)
aiding, abetting and participating in a fraudulent scheme, (ii)
aiding, abetting and participating in violations of the Texas
Securities Act, (iii) aiding, abetting and participating in
breaches of fiduciary duty, (iv) aiding, abetting and participating
in conversion and (v) conspiracy.  

On July 14, 2015, the defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the SAC and to reconsider the court's prior denial to
dismiss the OSIC's constructive fraudulent transfer claims against
TNB and the other financial institutions that are defendants in the
action. On July 27, 2016, the court denied the motion by TNB and
the other financial institution defendants to dismiss the SAC and
also denied the motion by TNB and the other financial institution
defendants to reconsider the court's prior denial to dismiss the
OSIC's constructive fraudulent transfer claims.  On August 24,
2016, TNB filed its answer to the SAC.  

On October 20, 2017, the OSIC filed a motion seeking an order
lifting the discovery stay and establishing a trial schedule. On
November 7, 2017, the court denied the OSIC's motion seeking class
certification and designation of class representatives and counsel,
finding that common issues of fact did not predominate.  The court
granted the OSIC's motion to lift the discovery stay that it had
previously ordered.

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

Trustmark Corporation operates as the bank holding company for
Trustmark National Bank that provides banking and other financial
solutions to individuals and corporate institutions in the United
States. The company offers checking, savings, and money market
accounts; individual retirement accounts; certificates of deposits;
financing for commercial and industrial projects, income producing
commercial real estate, owner-occupied real estate, and
construction and land development; and installment and real estate
loans, and lines of credit. Trustmark Corporation was founded in
1889 and is headquartered in Jackson, Mississippi.


TURTLE BEACH: Shareholders Class Action Trial Set for Nov. 2019
---------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit is set for trial in November
2019, Turtle Beach 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.

On August 5, 2013, VTB Holdings, Inc. (VTBH) and the Company (f/k/a
Parametric) announced that they had entered into the Merger
Agreement pursuant to which VTBH would acquire an approximately 80%
ownership interest and existing shareholders would maintain an
approximately 20% ownership interest in the combined company (the
"Merger").

Following the announcement, several shareholders filed class action
lawsuits in California and Nevada seeking to enjoin the Merger. The
plaintiffs in each case alleged that members of the Company's Board
of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders by
agreeing to a merger that allegedly undervalued the Company. VTBH
and the Company were named as defendants in these lawsuits under
the theory that they had aided and abetted the Company's Board of
Directors in allegedly violating their fiduciary duties.

The plaintiffs in both cases sought a preliminary injunction
seeking to enjoin closing of the Merger, which, by agreement, was
heard by the Nevada court with the California plaintiffs invited to
participate. On December 26, 2013, the court in the Nevada cases
denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
Following the closing of the Merger, the Nevada plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint, which made essentially the same
allegations and sought monetary damages as well as an order
rescinding the Merger.

The California plaintiffs dismissed their action without prejudice,
and sought to intervene in the Nevada action, which was granted.
Subsequent to the intervention, the plaintiffs filed a third
amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations as
prior complaints and sought monetary damages.

On June 20, 2014, VTBH and the Company moved to dismiss the action,
but that motion was denied on August 28, 2014. On September 14,
2017, a unanimous en banc panel of the Nevada Supreme Court granted
defendants' petition for writ of mandamus and ordered the trial
court to dismiss the complaint but provided a limited basis upon
which plaintiffs could seek to amend their complaint.

Plaintiffs amended their complaint on December 1, 2017 to assert
the same claims in a derivative capacity on behalf of the Company,
as a well as in a direct capacity, against VTBH, Stripes Group,
LLC, SG VTB Holdings, LLC, and the former members of the Company's
Board of Directors.

All defendants moved to dismiss this amended complaint on January
2, 2018, and those motions were denied on March 13, 2018.
Defendants petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court to reverse this
ruling on April 18, 2018. On June 15, 2018, the Nevada Supreme
Court denied defendants' writ petition without prejudice. The
district court subsequently entered a pretrial schedule and set
trial for November 2019.

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

Turtle Beach Corporation operates as an audio technology company.
It provides various gaming headset solutions for various platforms,
including video game and entertainment consoles, handheld consoles,
personal computers, and mobile and tablet devices under the Turtle
Beach brand.  The company was founded in 1975 and is headquartered
in San Diego, California.


UNIT CORP: Chieftain Royalty Class Suit Ongoing in Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------
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 putative class action suit entitled, Chieftain
Royalty Company v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. CJ-16-230, District
Court of LeFlore County, Oklahoma.

On November 3, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Unit Petroleum Company styled Chieftain Royalty Company v.
Unit Petroleum Company in LeFlore County, Oklahoma. Plaintiff
alleges that Unit Petroleum breached its duty to pay royalties on
natural gas used for fuel off the lease premises.

The lawsuit seeks actual and punitive damages, an accounting,
injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. Plaintiff is seeking relief
on behalf of Oklahoma citizens who are or were royalty owners in
the company's Oklahoma wells.

The company filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the claims
asserted by the Plaintiff and the putative class are barred because
they have already been asserted by the putative class in the Panola
lawsuit and are subject to its reversal of class certification. The
court denied the company's motion to dismiss and the company has
asked the court to certify its order so that it can be immediately
appealed. That issue is still pending before the court.

Unit Corp. said, "If we do not ultimately prevail on our claim of
issue preclusion, we have several other defenses, including that
the case cannot be properly certified as a class action because of
the wide variety of circumstances that determine whether a royalty
payment was wrongfully withheld. At this point, the issue of class
certification has not been set before the court."

Unit Corp. further said, "We continue to vigorously defend against
each of the pending claims. At this time we are unable to express
an opinion with respect to the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome
or provide an estimate of potential losses, if any."

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.


UNIT CORP: Cockerell Oil Properties Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
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 putative class action suit entitled, Cockerell
Oil Properties, Ltd., v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. 16-cv-135-JHP,
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

On March 11, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Unit Petroleum Company styled Cockerell Oil Properties,
Ltd., v. Unit Petroleum Company in LeFlore County, Oklahoma. The
company removed the case to federal court in the Eastern District
of Oklahoma.

The plaintiff alleges that Unit Petroleum wrongfully failed to pay
interest with respect to untimely royalty payments under Oklahoma's
Production Revenue Standards Act. The lawsuit seeks actual and
punitive damages, an accounting, disgorgement, injunctive relief,
and attorney's fees.

Plaintiff is seeking relief on behalf of royalty owners in the
company's Oklahoma wells.

Unit Corp. said, "We have asserted several defenses including that
the case cannot be properly certified as a class action because of
the wide variety of circumstances that determine whether a royalty
payment was timely made or has accrued interest under Oklahoma law.
At this point, the court has not taken any action on the issue of
class certification."

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 STATES: 9th Cir. Remands Immigrant Bond Hearing Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued an Order
remanding to the District Court the case captioned ALEJANDRO
RODRIGUEZ, for himself and on behalf of a class of
similarly-situated individuals; ABDIRIZAK ADEN FARAH, for himself
and on behalf of a class of similarly-situated individuals; JOSE
FARIAS CORNEJO; YUSSUF ABDIKADIR; ABEL PEREZ RUELAS,
Petitioners-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, and EFREN OROZCO,
Petitioner, v. DAVID MARIN, Field Office Director, Los Angeles
District, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; KIRSTJEN NIELSEN,
Secretary, Homeland Security; MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney
General; WESLEY LEE, Assistant Field Office Director, Immigration
and Customs Enforcement; RODNEY PENNER, Captain, Mira Loma
Detention Center; SANDRA HUTCHENS, Sheriff of Orange County;
NGUYEN, Officer, Officer-in-Charge, Theo Lacy Facility; DAVIS
NIGHSWONGER, Captain, Commander, Theo Lacy Facility; MIKE KREUGER,
Captain, Operations Manager, James A. Musick Facility; ARTHUR
EDWARDS, Officer-in-Charge, Santa Ana City Jail; RUSSELL DAVIS,
Jail Administrator, Santa Ana City Jail; JAMES MCHENRY, Director,
Executive Office for Immigration Review,
Respondents-Appellants/Cross-Appellees. Nos. 13-56706, 13-56755.
(9th Cir.).

Alejandro Rodriguez is a Mexican citizen. Since 1987, he has also
been a lawful permanent resident of the United States. In April
2004, after Rodriguez was convicted of a drug offense and theft of
a vehicle, the Government detained him under Section 1226 and
sought to remove him from the country.  At his removal hearing,
Rodriguez argued both that he was not removable and, in the
alternative, that he was eligible for relief from removal.  In July
2004, an Immigration Judge ordered Rodriguez deported to Mexico.
Rodriguez chose to appeal that decision to the Board of Immigration
Appeals, but five months later the Board agreed that Rodriguez was
subject to mandatory removal.  Once again, Rodriguez chose to seek
further review, this time petitioning the Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit for review of the Board's decision.

In May 2007, while Rodriguez was still litigating his removal in
the Court of Appeals, he filed a habeas petition in the District
Court for the Central District of California, alleging that he was
entitled to a bond hearing to determine whether his continued
detention was justified.  Rodriguez's case was consolidated with
another, similar case brought by Alejandro Garcia, and together
they moved for class certification.  The District Court denied
their motion, but the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed, concluding that the proposed class met the certification
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S.Ct. 830 (2018), the Supreme Court
held that the Court misapplied the canon of constitutional
avoidance to hold that certain immigration detention statutes,
namely 8 U.S.C. Sections 1225(b), 1226(a), and 1226(c), implicitly
contain a reasonableness determination after which due process
concerns require that persons in prolonged mandatory detention are
entitled to individualized bond hearings and possibly, conditional
release. Although the Court sought and received briefing on the
straightforward constitutional question, i.e. without the implicit
requirement of due process for persons in arbitrary prolonged
detention, whether these detention statutes are constitutional, it
declined to reach the constitutional question.

The Court instead chose to answer only the question whether the
statutory text itself included a limit on prolonged detention or a
requirement of individual bond hearings. In an opinion authored by
Justice Alito, the Court concluded that as a matter of statutory
construction, the only exceptions to indefinite detention were
those expressly set forth in the statutes or related regulations.


The Court also decided to give the Ninth Circuit some homework on
issues not raised by the parties, asking the appellate court to
reexamine whether the class should remain certified for
consideration of the constitutional issues and available class
remedies and whether a Rule 23(b)(2) class action remains the
appropriate vehicle in light of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564
U.S. 338 (2011), and as a means for resolving petitioners' due
process clause claims. The composition of the various subclasses
may also require reconsideration. Because district courts have
vastly more experience with class litigation than appellate courts,
the Ninth Circuit also remands these questions to the district
court to be decided in the first instance.

The Court need not remand the question of jurisdiction over this
habeas claim, as it is clear that the Ninth Circuit has
jurisdiction over petitioners' claims, as does the district court.


First, the Court have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. Section
1252(f)(1), which states that no court (other than the Supreme
Court) shall have jurisdiction or authority to enjoin or restrain
the operation of Sections 1221-1232, other than with respect to the
application of such provisions to an individual alien against whom
proceedings under such part have been initiated All of the
individuals in the putative class are individuals against whom
proceedings under such part have been initiated and are pursuing
habeas claims, albeit as a class, which nowhere appear affected by
Section 1252(f)(1).  

Second, 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(b)(9) does not preclude jurisdiction.
Section 1252(b)(9) restricts judicial review of all questions of
law and fact arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to
remove an alien, except review of final orders of removal. Here,
Petitioners are not asking for review of an order of removal; they
are not challenging the decision to detain them in the first place
or to seek removal; and they are not even challenging any part of
the process by which their removability will be determined.

Like the Supreme Court, the Court will not vacate the permanent
injunction pending the consideration of these vital constitutional
issues. The Court have grave doubts that any statute that allows
for arbitrary prolonged detention without any process is
constitutional or that those who founded our democracy precisely to
protect against the government's arbitrary deprivation of liberty
would have thought so. Arbitrary civil detention is not a feature
of our American government. Liberty is the norm, and detention
prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception.


The Court therefore remand with instructions to the district court
to consider and determine: (1) whether the class certified by the
district court should remain certified for consideration of the
constitutional issue and available class remedies; (2) whether
classwide injunctive relief is available under 8 U.S.C. Section
1252(f)(1); (3) whether a Rule 23(b)(2) class action (a) remains
the appropriate vehicle in light of Walmart Stores, Inc. v. Duke,
564 U.S. 338 (2011), and (b) whether such a class action is
appropriate for resolving Petitioners' due process claims; (4)
whether composition of the previously identified subclasses should
be reconsidered; (5) the minimum requirements of due process to be
accorded to all claimants that will ensure a meaningful time and
manner of opportunity to be heard; and (6) a reassessment and
reconsideration of both the clear and convincing evidence standard
and the six-month bond hearing requirement.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' November 19, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8tox67h from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Class Certification Sought in Case v. Transport Dept
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned ANDREW J. BRIGIDA, POLLYANNA
L. WANG, SUZANNE M. REBICH; MATTHEW L. DOUGLAS-COOK, the
Plaintiffs, vs. ELAINE L. CHAO, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Transportation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02227-DLF (D.
Colo.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an Order:

   a. certifying a class of:

      "all persons who met the requirements for graduation from a
      Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") approved Air Traffic

      Collegiate Training Initiative ("AT-CTI") program and U.S.
      Office of Personnel Management qualification standards for
      employment as an air traffic control specialist on, or prior

      to, December 31, 2013 and who:

         (1) were on, or eligible to be on, the FAA's AT-CTI
             Qualified Applicant Register;

         (2) received, or was eligible to receive, a
             recommendation from an AT-CTI institution; and

         (3) have not been employed by the FAA as an air traffic
             control series, GS-2152, air traffic control
            specialist.

   b. appointing Plaintiffs class representative(s); and

   c. appointing their attorneys as class counsel.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          William Perry Pendley, Esq.
          Christian B. Corrigan, Esq.
          MOUNTAIN STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION
          2596 South Lewis Way
          Lakewood, CO 80227
          Telephone: (303) 292-2021

VECTRUS INC: Settlement in Employee Suit Gets Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Vectrus, 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 28, 2018, that the Company has
received final approval of the class settlement in the class action
suit initiated by the company's employee, by the District Court
following a fairness hearing.

Vectrus said, "We are defending a class action employment lawsuit
that was initiated in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington in April 2010 against the
predecessor of our Former Parent by individuals who worked on a
particular contract in Kuwait after April 12, 2009."

The plaintiffs are alleging a breach of employment contract by the
predecessor of the company's Former Parent due to an alleged
violation of Kuwait labor law. In November 2016, following an
interlocutory appeal by Vectrus, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the District Court's decision certifying a class of
plaintiffs.

Although the company continues to dispute liability, the parties
have negotiated a settlement, the terms of which include a
settlement fund of up to $3.75 million, plus payroll taxes for
wages paid to class members. The settlement fund includes the
judge's award of attorney's fees, costs and class representative
fees, with the remainder available to eligible class members
pursuant to an allocation formula.

The Company received final approval by the District Court following
a fairness hearing on October 16, 2018.

Vectrus, Inc. provides facility and logistics, and information
technology and network communication services to the U.S.
government worldwide. It offers facility and logistics services,
such as airfield management, ammunition management, civil
engineering, communications, emergency services, life support
activities, public works, security, transportation operations,
warehouse management and distribution, and equipment maintenance,
repair, and services for U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines.
The company was incorporated in 2014 and is headquartered in
Colorado Springs, Colorado.


VEREIT INC: Trial in ARCP Litigation to Begin Sept. 2019
---------------------------------------------------------
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 a trial date has been set for
September 9, 2019, in the case entitled, In re American Realty
Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation, No. 15-MC-00040 (AKH).

Between October 30, 2014 and January 20, 2015, the Company and
certain of its former officers and directors, among other
individuals and entities, were named as defendants in ten
securities class action complaints filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The court consolidated these actions under the caption In re
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation, No.
15-MC-00040 (AKH) (the "SDNY Consolidated Securities Class
Action"). The plaintiffs filed a second amended class action
complaint on December 11, 2015, which asserted claims for
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Certain defendants, including the Company and the OP, filed motions
to dismiss the second amended class action complaint (or portions
thereof), which were granted in part and denied in part by the
court. The Company and the OP answered the second amended class
action complaint on July 29, 2016.

On September 8, 2016, the court issued an order directing
plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint to reflect certain
prior rulings by the court. The third amended complaint was filed
on September 30, 2016 and the defendants were not required to file
new answers. Discovery is ongoing.

Plaintiffs in the SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action filed a
motion for class certification and a hearing on the motion was held
on August 24, 2017. On August 31, 2017, the court issued an order
granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Defendants'
petitions seeking leave to appeal the court's order granting class
certification were denied on January 24, 2018.

During a status conference with the court on June 11, 2018, the
court ordered that all fact depositions should be completed by the
end of 2018 and set a trial date for September 9, 2019. The next
status conference with the court was scheduled for November 29,
2018.

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.


VICTOR'S CAFE: Vasquez Seeks Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------
EUGENIO VASQUEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, the Plaintiff, vs. VICTOR'S CAFE 52ND STREET, INC.
d/b/a VICTOR’S CAFE, and SONIA ZALDIVAR, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-10844 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
wages due to improper rounding of hours worked, liquidated damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff did not receive proper wage
and hour notice or wage statements with his wage payments each
week. The wage statements failed to accurately reflect Plaintiff's
actual hours worked each week due to Defendants' improper rounding
of his hours worked. The Defendants knowingly and willfully
operated their business with a policy of not paying Plaintiff, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members for all regular or overtime
hours due to Defendants' improper rounding of hours worked, in
violation of the FLSA and NYLL, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class:

          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

VISA U.S.A.: Rochin Sues over Multiple Debiting of Bank Accounts
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA GUADALUPE ROCHIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. VISA U.S.A., INC.; and DOES
1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-09725 (C.D. Cal.,
Nov. 19, 2018), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal
actions of Defendants debiting Plaintiff's bank accounts on a
recurring basis without obtaining a written authorization signed or
similarly authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund for
violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, and violation of
the Unfair Competition Law.

According to the complaint, on or about October 4, 2017, Plaintiff
subscribed to a Personal Training Membership, at a local gym for
$160.00 per month. Furthermore, the Training Membership was a
month-to-month agreement that Plaintiff could cancel at any time.
Plaintiff provided Defendant with very specific authorization to
deduct funds from Plaintiff's account on a reoccurring basis.

On or about October 5, 2017, Plaintiff cancelled her membership.
However, Defendant VISA continued to permit unauthorized deductions
funds from Plaintiff's account multiple times and without
Plaintiff's consent or authorization. LA Fitness' automatic
withdrawals caused Plaintiff to suffer a measurable and significant
financial loss for which VISA has since and continually refused to
reimburse Plaintiff, the lawsuit says.

Visa U.S.A. Inc., a payments technology company, operates retail
electronic payments network in the United States. It also
administers Visa payment programs.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

VITAL PHARMCEUTICALS: Faces Class Action Over Bang Energy Drinks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Archer, writing for Law360, reports that energy drink maker
Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc. is facing a new proposed class action --
this time, in Florida federal court relating to the company's Bang
energy drinks. [GN]


VIVINT SOLAR: Continues to Defend Power Purchase-Related Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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 itself from a putative class action suit
related to its customers' power purchase agreements.

In June 2018, four of the Company's customers, on behalf of
themselves and a purported class, named the Company in a putative
class action alleging violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies
Act and California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 and
requesting relief pursuant to Section 1689 of the California Civil
Code.

The complaint sought (1) rescission of their power purchase
agreements' (PPAs) along with restitution to the plaintiffs
individually and (2) declaratory and injunctive relief.

Vivint Solar said, "Company disputes the allegations in the
complaint and intends to vigorously defend itself. 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.


WELLS FARGO: Judge Orders Class to Amend Claims in Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge ordered a class on Nov. 19 to amend their claims that
Wells Fargo encourages retailers to build the fees they must pay
Wells Fargo to use its credit cards into the price of goods and
services, while telling customers the goods and services are being
financed at zero percent interest, unjustly enriching itself in
violation of lending and consumer laws.


WELLS FARGO: Lawsuits over Retail Sales Practices Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
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 from various suits related to the
company's retail sales practices.

Federal, state, and local government agencies, including the
Department of Justice, the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission and the United States Department of Labor, and state
attorneys general, including the New York Attorney General, and
prosecutors' offices, as well as Congressional committees, have
undertaken formal or informal inquiries, investigations or
examinations arising out of certain retail sales practices of the
Company that were the subject of settlements with the BCFP, the OCC
and the Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney announced by the
Company on September 8, 2016. These matters are at varying stages.


The Company has responded, and continues to respond, to requests
from a number of the foregoing and has discussed the resolution of
some of the matters, including with a multi-state attorneys general
group. In October 2018, the Company entered into an agreement to
resolve the New York Attorney General's investigation pursuant to
which the Company will pay $65 million to the State of New York.

In addition, a number of lawsuits have also been filed by
non-governmental parties seeking damages or other remedies related
to these retail sales practices. First, various class plaintiffs
purporting to represent consumers who allege that they received
products or services without their authorization or consent have
brought separate putative class actions against the Company in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California and various other jurisdictions.

In April 2017, the Company entered into a settlement agreement in
the first-filed action, Jabbari v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., to
resolve claims regarding certain products or services provided
without authorization or consent for the time period May 1, 2002 to
April 20, 2017. Pursuant to the settlement, the Company will pay
$142 million for remediation, attorneys' fees, and settlement fund
claims administration. In the unlikely event that the $142 million
settlement total is not enough to provide remediation, pay
attorneys' fees, pay settlement fund claims administration costs,
and have at least $25 million left over to distribute to all class
members, the Company will contribute additional funds to the
settlement.

In addition, in the unlikely event that the number of unauthorized
accounts identified by settlement class members in the claims
process and not disputed by the claims administrator exceeds
plaintiffs' 3.5 million account estimate, the Company will
proportionately increase the $25 million reserve so that the ratio
of reserve to unauthorized accounts is no less than what was
implied by plaintiffs' estimate at the time of the district court's
preliminary approval of the settlement in July 2017. The district
court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement on
June 14, 2018.

Several appeals of the district court's order granting final
approval of the settlement have been filed with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Second, Wells Fargo shareholders are pursuing a consolidated
securities fraud class action in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California alleging certain
misstatements and omissions in the Company's disclosures related to
sales practices matters.

The Company has entered into a settlement agreement to resolve this
matter pursuant to which the Company will pay $480 million. The
amount was fully accrued as of March 31, 2018. The district court
issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement on
September 4, 2018.

Third, Wells Fargo shareholders have brought numerous shareholder
derivative lawsuits asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims,
among others, against current and former directors and officers for
their alleged failure to detect and prevent sales practices issues.
These actions have been filed or transferred to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California and
California state court for coordinated proceedings. An additional
lawsuit asserting similar claims in Delaware state court has been
stayed.

Fourth, multiple employment litigation matters have been brought
against Wells Fargo, including an Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) class action in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of 401(k) plan
participants that has now been dismissed; a class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of team members who allege that they protested
sales practice misconduct and/or were terminated for not meeting
sales goals that has now been dismissed, and the company had
entered into a framework with plaintiffs' counsel to address
individual claims that have been asserted; various wage and hour
class actions brought in federal and state court in California, New
Jersey, and Pennsylvania on behalf of non-exempt branch based team
members alleging that sales pressure resulted in uncompensated
overtime; and multiple single plaintiff Sarbanes-Oxley Act
complaints and state law whistle blower actions filed with the
United States Department of Labor or in various state courts
alleging adverse employment actions for raising sales practice
misconduct issues.

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: Still Defends Automobile Lending 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 from a consolidated class action suit
related to automobile lending.

On April 20, 2018, the Company entered into consent orders with the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Bureau of
Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP) to resolve, among other
things, investigations by the agencies into the Company's
compliance risk management program and its past practices involving
certain automobile collateral protection insurance (CPI) policies
and, certain mortgage interest rate lock extensions.

The consent orders require remediation to customers and the payment
of a total of $1 billion in civil money penalties to the agencies.
In July 2017, the Company announced a plan to remediate customers
who may have been financially harmed due to issues related to
automobile collateral protection insurance (CPI) policies purchased
through a third-party vendor on their behalf.

Multiple putative class action cases alleging, among other things,
unfair and deceptive practices relating to these CPI policies, have
been filed against the Company and consolidated into one
multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California.

A putative class of shareholders also filed a securities fraud
class action against the Company and its executive officers
alleging material misstatements and omissions of CPI-related
information in the Company's public disclosures.

Former team members have also alleged retaliation for raising
concerns regarding automobile lending practices. In addition, the
Company has identified certain issues related to the unused portion
of guaranteed automobile protection (GAP) waiver or insurance
agreements between the dealer and, by assignment, the lender, which
will result in refunds to customers in certain states.

Allegations related to the CPI and GAP programs are among the
subjects of shareholder derivative lawsuits pending in federal and
state court in California. The court dismissed the state court
action in September 2018, but granted plaintiffs leave to file an
amended complaint by November 23, 2018.

Wells Fargo said, "These and other issues related to the
origination, servicing, and/or collection of consumer automobile
loans, including related insurance products, have also subjected
the Company to formal or informal inquiries, investigations, or
examinations from federal and state government agencies, including
a multi-state attorneys general group that is conducting an
investigation into CPI and GAP. The Company anticipates it may
continue to identify and remediate issues related to historical
practices concerning the origination, servicing, and/or collection
of consumer automobile loans."

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: Still Defends Mortgage Rate Lock Extension Fees 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 from a class action suit related to
mortgage rate lock extension fees.

On April 20, 2018, the Company entered into consent orders with the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Bureau of
Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP) to resolve, among other
things, investigations by the agencies into the Company's
compliance risk management program and its past practices involving
certain automobile collateral protection insurance (CPI) policies
and certain mortgage interest rate lock extensions. The consent
orders require remediation to customers and the payment of a total
of $1 billion in civil money penalties to the agencies.

On October 4, 2017, the Company announced plans to reach out to all
home lending customers who paid fees for mortgage rate lock
extensions requested from September 16, 2013, through February 28,
2017, and to provide refunds, with interest, to customers who
believe they should not have paid those fees.

The Company was named in a putative class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging violations of federal and state consumer fraud
statutes relating to mortgage rate lock extension fees.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss and the court granted the
motion. Subsequently, a putative class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Oregon, raising
similar allegations. In addition, former team members have asserted
claims, including in pending litigation, that they were terminated
for raising concerns regarding mortgage interest rate lock
extension practices. Allegations related to mortgage interest rate
lock extension fees are also among the subjects of two shareholder
derivative lawsuits filed in California state court.

Wells Fargo said, "This matter has also subjected the Company to
formal or informal inquiries, investigations or examinations from
other federal and state government agencies, including a
multi-state attorneys general group."

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.


WILLIAMS INDUSTRIAL: Budde Plaintiffs Seek Appeal from Nixed Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Williams Industrial Services Group Inc. (formerly known as Global
Power Equipment Group Inc. until June 2018) disclosed in its Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the "Budde"
putative shareholder class action has been brought to the Fifth
Circuit after the third amended complaint has been dismissed.

The putative shareholder class action is captioned Budde v. Global
Power Equipment Group Inc., and was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas naming the Company and
certain former officers as defendants.  This action and another
action were filed on May 13, 2015 and June 23, 2015, respectively,
and on July 29, 2015, the court consolidated the two actions and
appointed a lead plaintiff.

On May 1, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a second consolidated
amended complaint that names the Company and three of its former
officers as defendants.  It alleges violations of the federal
securities laws arising out of matters related to the Company's
restatement of certain financial periods and claims that the
defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions of
material fact in certain public disclosures during the putative
class period in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5, as
promulgated thereunder.  The plaintiffs seek class certification on
behalf of persons who acquired the Company's stock between
September 7, 2011 and May 6, 2015, monetary damages of "more than
US$200 million" on behalf of the putative class and an award of
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and experts' fees.
The Company intends to defend against this action.  On June 26,
2017, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint.  After full briefing, on December 27, 2017,
the court issued a memorandum opinion and order granting the motion
to dismiss, allowing the plaintiffs until January 15, 2018 to file
an amended complaint.  The court found that, with respect to each
of the defendants, plaintiffs failed to plead facts supporting a
strong inference of scienter, or the required intent to deceive,
manipulate or defraud, or act with severe recklessness.

On January 15, 2018, the plaintiffs filed their third amended
complaint, and in response the Company filed a renewed motion to
dismiss.  After full briefing and oral argument, on September 11,
2018, the court dismissed with prejudice the third amended
complaint.  The court found that, even with Plaintiffs' amended
allegations, plaintiff failed to plead facts supporting a strong
inference of scienter.  Also on September 11, 2018, plaintiff filed
a notice of appeal to the Fifth Circuit.

The Company said, "Litigation is subject to many uncertainties, and
the outcome of this action is not predictable with assurance.  At
this time, the Company is unable to predict the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of this
litigation, or any potential effect such may have on the Company or
its business or operations."

Formerly known as Global Power Equipment Group, Williams Industrial
Services Group has been safely helping plant owners and operators
enhance asset value for more than 50 years.  The Company provides a
broad range of general and specialty construction, maintenance and
modification, and plant management support services to the nuclear,
hydro and fossil power generation, pulp and paper, refining,
petrochemical and other process and manufacturing industries.
Williams' mission is to be the preferred provider of construction,
maintenance, and specialty services through commitment to superior
safety performance, focus on innovation, and dedication to
delivering unsurpassed value to its customers.


ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Class Suit over Symbol Acquisition Concluded
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zebra Technologies 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 29, 2018, that a court has
entered the Final Judgment Approving Class Action Settlement and
Order of Dismissal with Prejudice.

In connection with the acquisition of the Enterprise business from
Motorola Solutions, Inc., the Company acquired Symbol Technologies,
Inc., a subsidiary of Motorola Solutions ("Symbol").

A putative federal class action lawsuit, Waring v. Symbol
Technologies, Inc., et al., was filed on August 16, 2005 against
Symbol Technologies, Inc. and two of its former officers in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
by Robert Waring. After the filing of the Waring action, several
additional purported class actions were filed against Symbol and
the same former officers making substantially similar allegations
(collectively, "the New Class Actions").

The Waring action and the New Class Actions were consolidated for
all purposes and on April 26, 2006, the Court appointed the Iron
Workers Local No. 580 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and approved
its retention of lead counsel on behalf of the putative class. At a
mediation held on March 15, 2018, the parties reached an agreement
in principle to settle the matter, and Zebra reached agreements
with certain of its insurers to fund the settlement and therefore,
no amounts have been recorded. On October 30, 2018, the Court
entered the Final Judgment Approving Class Action Settlement and
Order of Dismissal with Prejudice.

Zebra Technologies Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
designs, manufactures, and sells a range of automatic
identification and data capture (AIDC) products worldwide. Zebra
Technologies Corporation was founded in 1969 and is headquartered
in Lincolnshire, Illinois.


ZESTFINANCE INC: Court Stays Titus Suit Pending Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma, issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to
Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal of Order Denying Arbitration in the
case captioned TERESA TITUS, as an individual and as a
representative of the class, Plaintiff, v. ZESTFINANCE, INC.,
BLUECHIP FINANCIAL, and DOUGLAS MERRILL, Defendants. Case No.
18-5373 RJB. (W.D. Wash.).

This putative class action arises from a series of loans the
Defendants made to the Plaintiff, which the Plaintiff alleges carry
triple digit interest rates, sometimes exceeding 400%, that violate
Washington State usury law, RCW 19.52.030, the Washington Consumer
Protection Act (WCPA), and unjustly enriches the Defendants.  The
Plaintiff also makes a claim against the Defendants for violation
of Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), asserting
that the Defendants associated for the common purpose of profiting
off of the collection of unlawful debt by offering and collecting
on loans to consumers throughout the United States.
  
A stay is not a matter of right, the Court held.  It is instead an
exercise of judicial discretion that is dependent upon the
circumstances of the particular case. In deciding whether to issue
a stay in the Ninth Circuit, courts consider four questions: (1)
whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is
likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be
irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay
will substantially injure the other parties interested in the
proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.

Strong Showing of Likelihood of Success on the Merits

The parties dispute the degree of success the Defendants must show
to prevail on this factor. The Ninth Circuit acknowledges that
there is some uncertainty regarding the degree of success a party
seeking a stay must show.  

The Defendants here have shown at a minimum, that they have a
substantial case for relief on the merits. The decision on whether
to order arbitration was a close one. This factor weighs in favor
of Defendants.

Irreparable Injury Absent a Stay

The Defendants point out that they will be injured absent a stay.
They point out that they will be forced to engage in extensive
discovery, especially if this case is certified as a class action)
that will be significantly unnecessary if their motion to compel
arbitration is granted. This factor weighs in favor of Defendants.

Substantial Injury to Other Parties Interested in the Proceeding

The Plaintiff points out that she will continue to have to pay
what, in her view, is an illegal loan, if a stay is granted. She
asserts that other potential members of the class are also injured
by staying the case. She maintains that they will also have to pay
on their illegal loans, and that the individuals who take these
types of loans are often people of little means. While the
Plaintiff's and other potential parties to the litigation are in a
rough spot, it is not clear that granting a stay will materially
change this situation quickly. This factor weighs slightly in favor
of the Plaintiff.

Public Interest

There is a strong public policy in favor of arbitration. There is a
strong policy in Washington against usurious loans. This factor is
neutral on whether to grant a stay.

Conclusion on Motion for a Stay

The Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal of Order
Denying Arbitration should be granted. The Defendants have
demonstrated that they have a substantial case for relief on the
merits of their appeal. They have shown that, absent a stay, they
would be forced to engage in at least some unnecessary discovery if
the Ninth Circuit overturns this Court decision on the motion to
compel. While the Plaintiff has shown that she and the other
potential class members will be injured absent a stay, on balance,
a stay is warranted. The motion for a stay should be granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 19, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ya4jk6gg from Leagle.com.

Teresa Titus, an individual and as a representative of the class,
Plaintiff, represented by Beth E. Terrell --
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC,
Elizabeth Anne Adams -- eadams@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL
MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, E. Michelle Drake -- emdrake@bm.net --
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennifer Rust Murray --
jmurray@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC,
John G. Albanese -- jalbanese@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.,
pro hac vice & Matt Wessler, GUPTA WESSLER PLLC, pro hac vice.

ZestFinance, Inc. & Douglas Merrill, Defendants, represented by
Thomas C. Rubin - tomrubin@quinnemanuel.com - QUINN EMANUEL
URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, John Baumann - johnwbaumann@gmail.com -
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, pro hac vice & Shon Morgan
- shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com - QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN
LLP, pro hac vice.

BlueChip Financial, Defendant, represented by Kay Fitz-Patrick
-FITZPATRICKK BALLARDSPAHR.COM -BALLARD SPAHR LLP, pro hac vice,
Scott M. Pearson - PEARSONS BALLARDSPAHR.COM - BALLARD SPAHR LLP,
pro hac vice & Timothy E. Steen , BERESFORD BOOTH PLLC, A145 3rd
Avenue South, Edmonds, WA 98020


ZICAM LLC: Court Approves Stipulation of Settlement in Melgar Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned YESENIA MELGAR, on Behalf of Herself and all
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ZICAM LLC and MATRIXX
INITIATIVES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-00160-MCE-AC (E.D.
Cal.), District Judge Morrison C. England granted final approval of
the proposed class action settlement between the parties
("Stipulation of Settlement").

The Settlement Class is defined as: all residents of the United
States of America who, from February 15, 2011 through June 5, 2018,
purchased any of the Zicam Products (Zicam RapidMelts Original,
RapidMelts Ultra, Oral Mist, Ultra Crystals, Liqui-Lozenges,
Lozenges Ultra, Soft Chews, Medicated Fruit Drops, and Chewables).
Excluded from this definition are the Released Persons.

On Nov. 15, 2018, the Court held a duly noticed final approval
hearing to consider: (1) whether the terms and conditions of the
Stipulation of Settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate; (2)
whether a judgment should be entered dismissing the complaint on
the merits and with prejudice in favor of Defendants and against
all persons or entities who are Settlement Class members herein who
have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class; and (3)
whether and in what amount to award attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses to Class Counsel and whether and in what amount to make an
incentive award to Plaintiff Yesenia Melgar.

The Court, having considered all matters submitted to it at the
hearing and otherwise, approves the Stipulation of Settlement as
fair, reasonable and adequate, and the Settlement Class Members and
the Parties are directed to consummate the Stipulation of
Settlement in accordance with its terms and conditions.

The Court awards Class Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses in the
amount of $5,333,333.33. The Court also orders payment of an
incentive award(s) in the amount(s) of $10,000 to Plaintiff Yesenia
Melgar. These amounts are to be paid in the time and manner
described in the Stipulation of Settlement.

The Action is, therefore, dismissed with prejudice and without
costs as against Defendants and the Released Persons.

A copy of the Court's Order and Judgment dated Nov. 20, 2018 is
available at https://bit.ly/2Ec7Pzb from Leagle.com.

Yesenia Melgar, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph I. Marchese --
jmarchese@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., pro hac vice,
Lawrence Timothy Fisher -- lfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor and Fisher,
PA, Scott A. Bursor -- sbursor@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher PA &
Thomas Andrew Reyda -- treyda@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Zicam LLC & Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., Defendants, represented by
Alan J. Lazarus -- alan.lazarus@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath
LLP, Ashley Neglia --ashley.neglia@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis
LLP, Kathryn Michelle Jackson -- Kathryn.jackson@dbr.com -- Drinker
Biddle & Reath, LLP, Leslie M. Smith -- leslie.smith@kirkland.com
-- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Robyn E. Bladow , Kirkland &
Ellis LLP & William A. Hanssen --  William.hanssen@dbr.com --
Drinker Biddle and Reath LLP.

Patrick S. Sweeney, Claimant, pro se.


ZILLOW GROUP: Wins Dismissal of Consolidated Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Zillow Group, 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's
motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit pending in
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington has been
granted.

In August and September 2017, two purported class action lawsuits
were filed against the company and certain of its executive
officers, alleging, among other things, violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of a class of those who purchased the
company's common stock between February 12, 2016 and August 8,
2017.

One of those purported class actions, captioned Vargosko v. Zillow
Group, Inc. et al, was brought in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California. The other purported class action
lawsuit, captioned Shotwell v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al, was
brought in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington.

The complaints allege, among other things, that during the period
between February 12, 2016 and August 8, 2017, the company issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding its business
practices. The complaints seek to recover, among other things,
alleged damages sustained by the purported class members as a
result of the alleged misconduct.

In November 2017, an amended complaint was filed against the
company and certain of its executive officers in the Shotwell v.
Zillow Group class action lawsuit, extending the beginning of the
class period to November 17, 2014.

In January 2018, the Vargosko v. Zillow Group purported class
action lawsuit was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington and consolidated with the Shotwell
v. Zillow Group purported class action lawsuit.

In February 2018, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, and in April 2018, the company filed its motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. In May 2018, the
plaintiffs filed their opposition to the company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. In June 2018, the
company filed its reply in support of its motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

In October 2018, the company's  motion to dismiss was granted,
though the plaintiffs have 45 days to attempt to cure the defects
in their consolidated amended complaint.

Zillow Group said, "We have denied the allegations of wrongdoing
and intend to vigorously defend the claims in this lawsuit. We have
not recorded an accrual related to this lawsuit as of September 30,
2018 and December 31, 2017, as we do not believe a loss is
probable."

Zillow Group, Inc. operates real estate and home-related
information marketplaces on mobile and the Web in the United
States. The company offers a portfolio of brands and products to
enable consumers find information about homes and connect with
local professionals.  Zillow Group, Inc. was incorporated in 2004
and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington.


ZOE'S KITCHEN: Continues to Defend Four Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------
Zoe's Kitchen, 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 is a
defendant in four separate class actions.  

A first putative class action captioned Jonathan Reigrod,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Zoe's Kitchen, Inc., Greg Dollarhyde, Kevin Miles, Thomas Baldwin,
Sue Collyns, Cordia Harrington and Alec Taylor (Case No.
1:18-cv-01536-UNA), was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware on October 3, 2018.

The complaint alleges claims under Sections 14(a) and Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act 15 U.S.C. Sections 78n(a) and 78t(a) and SEC
Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.14a-9, against the Company and
the director defendants in connection with the proposed Merger.  

The complaint alleges that the preliminary proxy statement filed by
the Company with the SEC on September 25, 2018 omitted certain
material information. Specifically, plaintiff alleges, among other
things, that the preliminary proxy statement omitted certain
information relating to Mr. Ronald Shaich's role with the Company
following the consummation of the Merger and his relationship with
the Company's largest stockholder, and certain details concerning
the financial analyses and valuation methodologies used by Piper
Jaffray in connection with its fairness opinion.

The complaint seeks (i) to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the
defendants from proceeding with, and consummating, or closing the
Merger unless and until the defendants disclose the information
allegedly omitted from the preliminary proxy statement, (ii)
rescission, to the extent already implemented, of the Merger
Agreement or any of the terms thereof, or granting the plaintiff
and the putative class rescissory damages, and (iii) the award of
unspecified damages, costs and disbursements, including reasonable
attorneys' and expert fees and expenses, to the plaintiff and the
putative class.

A second putative class action captioned Mary Toth, on Behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Zoe's Kitchen, Inc.,
Greg Dollarhyde, Thomas Baldwin, Sue Collyns, Cordia Harrington,
Kevin Miles and Alec Taylor (Civil Action No. 4:18-cv-0706), was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Texas, Sherman Division on October 5, 2018.

The complaint alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duties and
claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the director
defendants, and claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and
SEC Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.14a-9, against the Company
and the director defendants in connection with the proposed Merger.


The complaint alleges that the director defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by entering into the Merger through a "flawed and
unfair process", failing to take steps to maximize the value of the
Company and failing to disclose certain material information. The
complaint also alleges that the preliminary proxy statement filed
by the Company with the SEC on September 25, 2018 omitted or
misrepresented certain material information in violation of the
Exchange Act, including, among other things, information regarding
the following: any confidentiality agreements entered into between
the Company and any interested third party; the role of the Special
Committee; the role of Mr. Ronald Shaich in the sale process; and
the financial analyses and valuation methodologies used by Piper
Jaffray in connection with its fairness opinion.

The complaint seeks (i) to enjoin defendants from proceeding with,
and consummating, or closing the Merger; (ii) if the Merger is
consummated, to rescind and set aside the Merger or to award
plaintiff and the putative class rescissory damages; (iii) a
declaration that the Merger Agreement was agreed to in breach of
the director defendants' fiduciary duties and therefore
unenforceable; (iv) to direct the director defendants to exercise
their fiduciary duties to commence a sales process that is
"reasonably designed to secure the best possible consideration for"
the Company; (v) an accounting for the unspecified damages
sustained by the plaintiff and the putative class; and (vi)
unspecified costs, including reasonable attorneys' and expert fees
and expenses, to the plaintiff.

A third putative class action captioned Jo-Ann Calcagno,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
Zoe’s Kitchen, Inc., Greg Dollarhyde, Thomas Baldwin, Sue
Collyns, Cordia Harrington, Kevin Miles, and Alec Taylor, (Case No.
1:18-cv-01571-MN), was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware on October 11, 2018.

The complaint alleges claims under Sections 14(a) and Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78n(a) and 78t(a), and SEC
Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.14a-9, against the defendants in
connection with the proposed Merger.  

The complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement omitted certain
material information relating to the Merger, including, among other
things, (i) certain details relating to the financial analyses and
valuation methodologies used by Piper Jaffray in connection with
its fairness opinion, (ii) certain provisions of the
confidentiality agreements entered into by the Company and (iii)
the fact that Ron Shaich will serve as Chairperson of the Surviving
Corporation.

The complaint seeks (i) to enjoin the defendants from proceeding
with, and consummating, or closing the Merger, (ii) in the event
the defendants consummate the Proposed Transaction, to rescind it
and set it aside or award rescissory damages, (iii) to direct the
defendants to file a proxy statement that states all material facts
required in it or necessary to make the statements contained
therein not misleading, (iv) to declare that the defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and (v) the award of unspecified
costs, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees, to the
plaintiff.

A fourth putative class action captioned Jason Connole,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
Zoe’s Kitchen, Inc., Greg Dollarhyde, Kevin Miles, Thomas
Baldwin, Sue Collyns, Cordia Harrington and Alec Taylor (Case No.
1:99-mc-09999), was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware on October 12, 2018.

The complaint alleges claims under Sections 14(a) and Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78n(a) and 78t(a), and SEC
Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.14a-9, against the defendants in
connection with the proposed Merger.  

The complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement omitted or
misrepresents certain material information, including, among other
things, certain information relating to (i) potential conflicts of
interest faced by Company insiders and Piper Jaffray, (ii) the
background process leading to the Merger and (iii) certain details
concerning the financial analyses and valuation methodologies used
by Piper Jaffray in connection with its fairness opinion.

The complaint seeks (i) to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the
defendants from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the
Merger, unless and until the defendants disclose the information
allegedly omitted from the proxy statement, (ii) in the event the
defendants consummate the Merger, to rescind it and set it aside or
award rescissory damages, (iii) ) to declare that the defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and (iv) the award of unspecified
costs, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees, to the
plaintiff.

The Company and the director defendants deny the allegations,
believe that each of the above-referenced lawsuits is wholly
without merit, and intend to vigorously defend these actions, as
necessary.

The Company believes that no additional disclosure is required to
supplement any of the disclosures contained in the Company's
definitive proxy materials disseminated to holders of record of the
Company's common stock to enable such holders to make a fully
informed voting decision whether to adopt the Merger Agreement. As
such, the Company has made no accruals for these matters.

However, to eliminate certain administrative burdens, unnecessary
Company expenses and uncertainties inherent in any pending
litigation, the Company has voluntarily made certain additional
disclosures set forth in response to plaintiffs' claims and
allegations as referenced in the Company's Form 8-K filed on
October 29, 2018.

Zoe's Kitchen said, "We are currently involved in various claims
and legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of our
business, including claims resulting from employment related
matters. None of these claims, most of which are covered by
insurance, has had a material effect on us, and as of the date of
this report, we are not party to any material pending legal
proceedings and are not aware of any claims that could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows. However, a significant
increase in the number of these claims or an increase in amounts
owing under successful claims could materially and adversely affect
our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows."

Zoe's Kitchen, Inc., through its subsidiaries, develops and
operates a chain of fast-casual restaurants. It operates a range of
restaurant formats, including in-line, end-cap, and free-standing
restaurants. Zoe's Kitchen, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is based
in Plano, Texas. As of November 21, 2018, Zoe's Kitchen, Inc.
operates as a subsidiary of Cava Group, Inc.



                            *********

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 ***