CAR_Public/181212.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, December 12, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 248

                            Headlines

155 S.G.S. CORP: Underpays Nail Saloon Workers, Cao Claims
228 BLEECKER: Chavez Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
A.J. PIEDIMONTE: FLSA Action in Cardenas Conditionally Certified
A1 SOUVLAKI: Sued over $50,000 Unpaid Judgment
ADOBE SYSTEMS: Fails to Disclose Program Defect, Cooper Claims

AFFINION GROUP: Bid for Class Status Still Pending in Calif. Suit
ALABAMA: Cook et al Seek to Certify Class in Traffic Ticket Suit
ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS: Leavitt Suit Transferred to Massachusetts
ALPINE ACCESS: Court Approves Morse FLSA Suit Settlement
AMERICAN FINANCE: Misled Shareholders According to Class Action

AMERICAN INCOME: Golz Suit Moved to Central District of California
ANZAI ASIAN: Denied Chen Overtime Pay, Wage Statements
BARNES & NOBLE: PIN Pads Consolidated Class Action Suit Ongoing
BECTON DICKINSON: Has Deal for 15,021 Women's Health Product Claims
BECTON DICKINSON: Has Favorable Judgment in Filter Products Case

BLACKSTONE LABS: Accused by Kavlakian Suit of Violating TCPA
BLUE APRON: IPO-Related Class Suits Pending in N.Y. State Court
BRISTOL-MYERS: Akin Gump Attorney Discusses TCPA Court Ruling
BUTTS FOODS: Hayes Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay, Damages Under FLSA
CANADA: Forcibly Sterilized Indigenous Women File Class Action

CAPITAL RESORTS: Thomas Sues over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Court Certifies Class in Kautsman CPA Suit
CCK PIZZA: Westley Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Delivery Drivers
CENTURY PARK: Response to Class Cert. Bid Due Dec. 14
CHEGG INC: Kirby McInerney Files Class Action Lawsuit

CHICAGO, IL: Court Dismisses Aviation Security Officers' Suit
CITY BUFFET MONGOLIAN: Underpays Hibachi Chefs, Rodriguez Says
CLAUDIO & JOHNSON: Toler Remanded to W. Va. State Court
COLLECTO INC: Sued over Illegal Consumer Debt Collection
CONCENTRIX CORP: Knight Seeks OT Pay for Call Center Workers

CORONA REGIONAL: 9th Cir. Reverses Sali Class Certification Denial
COSTA HOLLYWOOD: Breached Staffing Service Agreement, Suit Says
COVANCE INC: Feckley Seeks Unpaid Compensation upon Termination
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Sued Over Professional Misconduct Allegations
DATAWATCH CORPORATION: Stier Balks at Merger Deal with Altair

DEUTSCHE BANK: Discovery Ongoing in BlackRock Suit in California
DEUTSCHE BANK: Discovery Still Stayed in Blackrock Suit in N.Y.
DITECH HOLDING: Dec. 5 Hearing for Final OK of Elkin Case Deal
EDUCARE COMMUNITY: Mathis et al. Seek Unpaid Wages
ELITE WHEEL: Rodriguez Seeks Overtime Compensation

EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Jan. 22 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
ENDO PHARMA: Faces RICO Racketeering Lawsuit in Alaska
FACEBOOK INC: Accused by Suttles of Sending Unsolicited Texts
FARIS PROPERTIES: Beyer Seeks to Certify Class
FCA US LLC: Grigorian Sues Over Auto-dialed Telemarketing Calls

FCB FINANCIAL: Suits over Synovus Financial Merger Deal Underway
FIFTH THIRD BANK: Made Illegal Bank Account Debits, Starace Says
FIVE POINT: Still Faces Class Suit by Bayview Hunters Residents
FL CASH: Rodriguez Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages
GLYNN COUNTY, GA: Golden Isles Residents Sue Over Excessive Taxes

GOLD STANDARD: Court Denies Motion to Certify Class as Moot
GREAT PLAINS: Qureshi Wants Loans Deemed Void and Unenforceable
GREY DOG CHELSEA: Kitchen Staff Sue to Recover Overtime Pay
GURU TEG HOLDING: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Campos Suit Alleges
H&H FRANCHISING: Court Certifies Class of Glenkat Franchise Workers

H&R BLOCK: Faces Ramsey Antitrust Suit Over No-Poach Policy
HELIOS AND MATHESON: Consolidation of Chang & Braxton Cases Sought
HIBERNIA CONSTRUCTION: Cedeno et al. Seek Overtime Pay
HIGHGATE HOTELS: Sayodi et al Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
HP INC: Reaches Settlement with Opt-In Plaintiffs in Forsyth Case

INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Students' Attorneys Seek Restraining Order
INMATE SERVICES: Court Denies Bid to Amend Hastings Suit
IQVIA INC: Reed Smith Attorney Discusses TCPA Court Ruling
IZEA WORLDWIDE: Still Defends Perez Securities Suit in Calif.
JETPAY CORPORATION: Faces Franchi Suit Over NCR Merger

JOHNSON CONTROLS: Bid to Dismiss Gumm Class Suit Still Pending
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Court Approves Settlement in Laufer Class Suit
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Suits over Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Ongoing
JONES FINANCIAL: Bland Class Suit Remains Pending in Illinois
JONES FINANCIAL: Bland Discrimination Class Suit Ongoing

JPMORGAN CHASE: Manipulated Share Prices, Cognata Suit Claims
JUUL LABS: Faces Yannucci Suit over Sale of e-Cigarettes
KANSAS: Addresses Foster Care System Issue Amid Class Action
KELLOGG'S DINER: Romero Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages & Overtime
KROLL FACTUAL: Butt Sues Over Erroneous Credit Report

L'OREAL USA: Website not Accessible to Blind, Diaz Says
LOS ANGELES, CA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Pimentel Suit
LYFT INC: Class Action Over Applicant Background Checks Tossed
MAGAZINES.COM: Parde et al Sue over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
MARQUETTE MANAGEMENT: Underpays Leasing Consultants, Jones Claims

MAYFLOWER INTERNATIONAL: Xing Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under FLSA
MCHENRY SCHOOL: Underpays School Bus Drivers, Klatt & Zenner Claim
MCKESSON CORP: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
MCLANE CO: Viramontes Stayed Pending Ruling in Sampson
MDL 2741: Bindon Suit vs. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MDL 2741: Brunson Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Hill Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Jarrett Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Mabus Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Musso Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MDL 2741: Newton Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Purdy Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MEDLEY LLC: Still Faces Consolidated Class Action Suit in Virginia
MEDTRONIC INC: Settles HeartWare Investors' Class Action
MEDTRONIC PLC: Accord Reached in Teachers' Retirement Fund Suit

MEDTRONIC PLC: Settlement Paid in INFUSE Bone Graft Suit
MEDTRONIC PLC: Suit over Covidien Acquisition Still Ongoing
MERIDIAN DREAMS: Sandoval Seeks Unpaid Overtime
METEOR SEALING: Riley Seeks Overtime Pay
MI NUMERO: Steven Nod Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages

MICHIGAN: Black Applicants' Discrimination Class Action Certified
MILBERG LLP: Bobbitt Appeals D. Arizona Ruling to Ninth Circuit
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Fraud Suit
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit
MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Court Allows Filing of 2nd Amended Brinkley

MOUNT IDA COLLEGE: Squeri et al. Sue over Sudden Closure
MUSCLEPHARM CORP: Durnford Class Suit Remanded to N.D. Calif.
NCAA: Patterson Sues over College Football Revenues
NISSAN MOTOR: RM Law Investigates Possible Securities Violations
NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Court to Take Up Jurisdictional Rules Issue

OCWEN LOAN: Court Denies Bid to File Under Seal in Gonzalez Suit
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Kane et al Suit Transferred to M.D. Pennsylvania
OVASCIENCE INC: Kim Securities Suit Challenges Millendo Merger
PACIFIC BELL: Court Grants Bid for Writ of Mandate in Leggins Suit
PACIFIC GAS: Faces Class Action Over Camp Fire

PARKSIDE CHEMISTS: Manigo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
PDC ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Dufresne Complaint Pending
PEOPLE 2.0: Duran Stayed Pending Final Approval of Grady Settlement
PLAYBOY.COM INC: Faces Nixon ADA Class Action in NY
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Gomes Seeks to Certify Class

POST HOLDINGS: Opt-Out Plaintiffs' Antitrust Suit v. Unit Ongoing
PREMIUM RECEIVABLES: Rittle FDCA Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Still Faces Advance Trust Class Action Complaint
PURDUE PHARMA: Reynolds RICO Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
PURDUE PHARMA: W.E. Files Suit for Personal Injury

RESHAPE LIFESCIENCES: Dec. 17 Hearing Set for Du Case Settlement
REVLON INC: Website not Accessible to Blind, Diaz Says
ROYAL OAK, MI: Court Denies Gale's Prelim Injunction Bid v. Police
RYB EDUCATION: Zhang Sues over Plunge in ADS Trading Price
SANOFI PASTEUR: Summary Judgment in Weitzner TCPA Suit Affirmed

SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: EZ Seed Final Approval Hearing Set for Dec. 19
SELLAS LIFE: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Complaint in "Abstral"
SETERUS INC: Baxas Ask Court for Hearing on Class Certification
SHIFTPIXY INC: Unit Defending Against Ramirez Class Suit
SINEMIA: Class Action Over Movie Subscription Services Ongoing

SITO MOBILE: Bid to Dismiss Roper Suit Still Pending
SKECHERS USA: Fishman Sues Over Share Price Drop
SNAP INC: Ghosh Suit Alleges Securities Exchange Act Violations
SOAPIN INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Gross Suit Alleges
SOLID BIOSCIENCES: Lowinger Class Action Stayed

SPRITE ENTERTAINMENT: Sued over Unwanted Telephone Calls
STARBUCKS CORP: Wants Class Action to Remain in Federal Court
STARHOTELS INT'L: Olsen Sues Over Blind-inaccessible Web Site
STINE SEED: Black Farmers Get OK to Move Ahead With Suit
SWITCH INC: Stockholders Class Suits over IPO Underway

SYMANTEC CORP: Securities Class Action Remains Pending
TAHOE RESOURCES: Faces Securities Class Action in Ontario
TD AMERITRADE: Defendants Appeal from Ford Class Cert. Ruling
TD AMERITRADE: Still Faces Aequitas Securities Litigation
TEAM ENTERPRISES: Denied Workers Overtime Pay, Cipolla Suit Says

TEKFOR INC: Graybill Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages
TESLA INC: Largely Settles Class-Action Suit
TIGER NATURAL: Court Certifies Customer Class in Fishman Suit
TIME WARNER: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Sims FLSA Suit
UBER: Steers TCPA Class Action Into Arbitration

UGI CORP: Suits over Underfilled Portable Propane Cylinders Ongoing
UNITED DEVELOPMENT: Scharlene Brooks Files Class Suit in Texas
UPS EXPEDITED: Sued over Collection of Insurance Premium Fees
VISA INC: Bid for Class Status Pending in Suit over EMV Liability
VISA INC: Consumer Class Suit over ATM Access Fees Still Ongoing

VISA INC: National ATM Council Class Action Ongoing in Columbia
VISA INC: Settlement Talks with Injunctive Relief Class Ongoing
VISA INC: Walmart, Home Depot Appeal Settlement Approval
VOYA RETIREMENT: Appeal in Dezelan Class Action Suit Still Pending
VOYA RETIREMENT: Motion to Drop Goetz Class Action Remains Pending

WEYERHAEUSER NR: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in Waleski Suit
ZOCDOC INC: 2nd Cir. Vacates Judgment in Geismann TCPA Suit

                            *********

155 S.G.S. CORP: Underpays Nail Saloon Workers, Cao Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
SHUZHEN CAO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 155 S.G.S. CORP. d/b/a SPA BUTTERFLY; CHOI
SANG; SUNNY SANG; JIE "DOE"; and "JOHN" LEE a/k/a G LEE;
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10338 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2018) is an
action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Cao was employed by the Defendants as nail saloon
worker.

155 S.G.S. CORP. d/b/a Spa Butterfly is a domestic business
corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York. The
Company is engaged in the spa business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324


228 BLEECKER: Chavez Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Chavez Melchor, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. 228 Bleecker LLC dba Aria West Village,
Briciola Corp., John Does 1-6, Roberto Passon, and Tanya Hira
Passon, Case No. 1:18-cv-10527 (S.D. N.Y., November 13, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime premium pay under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff also brings claims against the Defendants for unpaid
spread-of-hours premiums and for failure to provide proper wage
notices and wage statements, pursuant to NYLL.

The Plaintiff is a former porter, dishwasher, and cook at the
Defendants' wine bar and restaurant located in the West Village
neighborhood of Manhattan, New York.

The Defendant 228 Bleecker LLC is an active New York Corporation
doing business as "Aria West Village" with its principal place of
business at 117 Perry St., New York, NY 10014.

The Defendant Briciola Corp. is an active New York Corporation with
its principal executive office at 48-50 White Street, 5th Floor,
New York, NY 10013.

The Individual Defendants own and operate the wine bar and
restaurant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
      PELTON GRAHAM LLC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Tel: (212) 385-9700
      Fax: (213) 385-0800
      E-mail: pelton@peltongraham.com
              graham@peltongraham.com


A.J. PIEDIMONTE: FLSA Action in Cardenas Conditionally Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ARMANDO CARDENAS, JOSE F. CARDENAS, JUANITA SENTENO,
VERONICA SIMMONS BAILEY, ISAIAH ALEXANDER, KATHY ALEXANDER, and
SHONDA TATE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. A.J. PIEDIMONTE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT,
LLC, JAMES J. PIEDIMONTE & SONS, INC., JAMES J. PIEDIMONTE & SONS,
LLC, MAGC, INC., ANTHONY JOSEPH PIEDIMONTE, in his individual
capacity, and SCOTT JAMES BENNETT, in his individual capacity,
Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-881-EAW-MJR (W.D. N.Y.), Magistrate
Judge Michael J. Roemer of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York granted the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective
action.

The Plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated individuals seeking relief for alleged
willful violations of the FLSA overtime compensation requirements
by the Defendants.  Since the filing of the complaint, several
other individuals have "opted in" to the lawsuit by filing "consent
to sue" forms with the Clerk of Court.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants comprise a large-scale
agricultural and produce packaging, storage, and distribution
business operating under common ownership and control.  They hired
the Plaintiffs and other individuals to work as hourly employees
performing physical labor at the Defendants' worksites in Holley,
New York.  The gravamen of Plaintiffs' FLSA claim is that the
Defendants maintained a uniform policy and practice of failing to
pay their hourly employees a premium rate for each hour over 40
that they worked in a week -- i.e., overtime compensation.  

The Defendants dispute that the Plaintiffs are entitled to overtime
compensation, arguing that the Plaintiffs are exempt from the
overtime provisions of the FLSA because they are "agriculture
employees" within the meaning of the Act.  The Plaintiffs contend
that they are not agriculture employees because some of the work
they performed for the Defendants -- namely, cleaning, sorting, and
packing produce received from other sources -- is outside the
definition of "agriculture" under the FLSA.

Shortly after commencing the action, the Plaintiffs filed the
instant motion for conditional certification of an FLSA collective
action, which, if granted, will allow them to obtain contact
information regarding potential opt-in Plaintiffs from the
Defendants so that they may notify the potential opt-in Plaintiffs
of the pendency of the lawsuit and their opportunity to join in as
represented Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs' proposed opt-in class consists of all current and
former employees who have worked for the Defendants within the past
three years of the filing of the complaint and the date of final
judgment in this matter and who performed physical labor for more
than 40 hours in any single work week and were paid on an hourly
basis but did not receive overtime compensation.

The Defendants oppose the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification, but in the event conditional certification is
granted, they ask the Court to make certain modifications to the
Plaintiffs' proposal regarding the content and manner of notice to
the potential opt-in Plaintiff class.

Magistrate Judge Roemer granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification as set forth.  The potential opt-in
Plaintiff class will consist of all current and former employees
who have worked for the Defendants within the past three years of
the filing of the complaint and the date of final judgment in this
matter and who performed physical labor for more than 40 hours in
any single work week and were paid on an hourly basis but did not
receive overtime compensation.  The Plaintiffs may notify the
potential opt-in Plaintiffs of the pendency of the lawsuit and
their opportunity to opt-in as represented Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs' counsel will revise the proposed notice,
consent-to-sue form, and text-message notice to reflect the
revisions and any other revisions necessitated by the terms of the
Decision and Order.  The Plaintiffs' counsel will provide the
revised forms to the defense counsel, who will then have seven days
to file with the Court any objections relating to the revisions.
Based on the Plaintiffs' representation that a substantial number
of the Defendants' former employees' primary language is Spanish,
the notice, consent-to-sue form, and text-message notice may be
translated into Spanish.

The Magistrate directed that posting the notice and consent form in
the Defendants' workplace is appropriate as well given that posting
is routinely granted in FLSA cases and has not been shown by the
Defendants to be unduly burdensome.  He declined, however, to
require the Defendants to include the notice and consent form along
with payment of wages to their current employees, as doing so is
largely duplicative of posting notice in the workplace.  Finally,
the Plaintiffs' counsel, not a third-party administrator, should be
responsible for sending the notice and consent form via first-class
mail, text message, and e-mail.  Employing a third-party
administrator to send these documents would simply result in undue
cost and delay.  The Plaintiffs' counsel may also send a reasonable
number of reminder post cards, text messages, and e-mails to any
potential opt-in Plaintiffs who have not responded within thirty
days after the initial mailing, texting, and e-mailing of the
notice.

In order to facilitate the Plaintiffs' counsel in sending notice to
potential opt-in Plaintiffs, the Magistrate further directed the
Defendants to produce the following information within their
possession to the Plaintiffs' counsel within 10 days of entry of
the Decision and Order: names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail
addresses, work locations, and dates of employment for all
potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for defendants from Aug.8,
2015 to the present.  Although the Plaintiffs request information
dating back to Aug. 8, 2012, a six-year timeframe is not warranted
because the potential FLSA opt-in Plaintiff class consists of
employees who worked for the Defendants within only three years of
the filing of the complaint.

The potential opt-in Plaintiffs who wish to join the action will
return their consent forms to the Plaintiffs' counsel, who will
have no more than six months from the date notice is first
distributed to file the forms with the Clerk of Court.  The 30-day
opt-in deadline proposed by the Defendants is too short given that
it may take the Plaintiffs' counsel an extended amount of time to
track down members of the potential opt-in class, many of whom are
migrant and seasonal agricultural workers.  The Plaintiffs are
directed to notify the Court in writing of the opt-in deadline
date.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/plHAhJ from Leagle.com.

Armando Cardenas, Jose F Cardenas, Veronica Simmons Bailey, Isaiah
Alexander, Kathy Alexander, Juanita Senteno, Shonda Tate, Dymon
Close & Chanel Conner, Plaintiffs, represented by John Anthony
Marsella -- jmarsella@wjcny.org -- Worker Justice Center of New
York & Robert David McCreanor -- rmccreanor@wjcny.ort -- Worker
Justice Center of New York.

April Colson, Lynnette Schumacher, Clarence Campbell, Tanya Conner,
Miguel Cardenas, Robert Scott, Curtis Siler, Kenneth McNeil,
Saprina Simmons, Bradley Chadsey, Brian White, Jarred Hodgins,
Benith White, Blossom Coger, Everton Ohara, Donovan Conner,
Christopher Capen, Cheyenne Russaw, Pamela Rodriguez, Paul
Gulczewski, William Weiss & Melissa Peruzzini, Plaintiffs,
represented by John Anthony Marsella, Worker Justice Center of New
York.

Monica Santes, Plaintiff, represented by Robert David McCreanor,
Worker Justice Center of New York.

A.J. Piedimonte Agricultural Development, LLC, James J. Piedimonte
& Sons, Inc., James J. Piedimonte & Sons, LLC, MAGC, INC., Anthony
Joseph Piedimonte & Scott James Bennett, Defendants, represented by
David L. Cook -- david.cook@leclairryan.com -- LeClairRyan.


A1 SOUVLAKI: Sued over $50,000 Unpaid Judgment
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Charalambos Papakleovoulou,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. A1 Souvlaki Corp. and Antonias Manolas, in his
individual and professional capacity, Case No. 718071/2018 (N.Y.
Sup., Ct., Nov. 26, 2018), Mr. Joseph Dimitrov, Esq., has made an
affirmation in support of Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment
in lieu of a complaint pursuant to CPLR section 3213.

This action involves an unpaid Stipulation of Settlement supported
by a confession of judgment signed and authorized by Defendants
from an action for unpaid wages in the United States District
Court, Eastern District of New York, bearing Case No.:
1:16-CV-01626-ENV-RML.  According to the complaint, the Plaintiff
seeks to collect $50,000.00 that is due and owing under a
stipulation of settlement and confession of judgment executed by
Defendants.

In 2016, as reported by the Class Action Reporter, Papakleovoulou
sued Defendants for unpaid overtime pay.  That case was captioned,
Charalambos Papakleovoulou, on behalf of himself, Plaintiff, v. A1
Souvlaki Corp. and Antonias Manolas in his individual and
professional capacity, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-01626 (E.D.N.Y.,
April 1, 2016), and sought recovery of minimum and overtime pay,
spread-of-hours premium, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's
fees and costs and such other and further relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

Defendants operate a food truck where Plaintiff prepared food,
serviced customers and manned the cash register. He worked over 68
hours per week without overtime compensation and was not issued
work stubs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Dimitrov, Esq.
          PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA LLP
          950 Third Ave., 25th Fl.
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 213 8511

ADOBE SYSTEMS: Fails to Disclose Program Defect, Cooper Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID KEITH COOPER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED,
Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-06742-BLF (N.D. Cal., Nov. 7, 2018)
alleges that Adobe's professional-grade video editing software,
Adobe Premiere Pro CC 2017.1 (Version 11.1.0) ("PP2017.1"),
permanently deleted the Plaintiff's and the Class members' "Files
and Data", including but not limited to Files and Data that had
never been associated with Premiere Pro CC 2017.1, when the
Plaintiff and the Class members executed Premiere Pro CC 2017.1's
"Clean Cache" function.

According to the complaint, when operating properly, the "Clean
Cache" function in Adobe Premiere Pro CC should delete only the
temporary files within the "Media Cache" folder and its
subdirectories. The "Clean Cache" function in Premiere Pro CC
2017.1, however, did not delete only the temporary files within the
"Media Cache" folder and its subdirectories. Instead, in Premiere
Pro CC 2017.1, the "Clean Cache" command permanently deleted
substantial and numerous Files and Data that were not within the
"Media Cache" folder or any of its subdirectories, including but
not limited to Files and Data that had never been associated with
Premiere Pro CC 2017.1, so long as the Files and Data had not been
referenced or opened during the 90 days prior to the time that the
Plaintiff or the Class member executed the "Clean Cache" command.

The Plaintiff and the Class members all suffered financial injuries
in that they paid recurring license fees to Adobe on an annual or
monthly basis to use Premiere Pro CC 2017.1 that they would not
have paid, or that they would have been willing to pay only in
materially lower amounts, had Adobe disclosed that Premiere Pro CC
2017.1's "Clean Cache" function would permanently delete their
Files and Data.

Adobe Inc. operates as a diversified software company worldwide.
The company was formerly known as Adobe Systems Incorporated and
changed its name to Adobe Inc. in October 2018. The company was
founded in 1982 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          George V. Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
                  ggranade@reesellp.com

               - and -

          David C. Deal, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID C. DEAL, P.L.C.
          Post Office Box 1042
          Crozet, VA 22932
          Telephone: (434) 233-2727
          Facsimile: (888) 965-8083
          E-mail: david@daviddeal.com


AFFINION GROUP: Bid for Class Status Still Pending in Calif. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 has taken under
advisement the Plaintiff's motion for class certification on his
claims for violation of the EFT on behalf of a nationwide class,
and on his claims for conversion, and violation of CBPC on behalf
of a California class.

On June 7, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Webloyalty in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.  After filing several amended complaints, the plaintiff
asserted a variety of claims, including claims under the EFT, the
ECPA, California Business and Professional Code Sec. 17200, et seq.
(the "CBPC"), CUTPA, various privacy statutes, and common law.  The
plaintiff did so on behalf of a purported nationwide class of
consumers whose credit or debit card information was obtained by
Webloyalty via data pass, and had their credit or debit cards
charged on or after October 1, 2008.

On June 22, 2015, the District Court of S.C. entered judgment
dismissing the plaintiff's federal claims with prejudice, and his
state claims without prejudice.  The plaintiff appealed that
judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit (the "Ninth Circuit").

On March 28, 2017, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the
plaintiff's ECPA and privacy-based state law claims, but reversed
and remanded the dismissal of other claims, including the
plaintiff's claims under the EFT, CBPC, and CUTPA.  On September 5,
2017, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint, which asserts
the claims that were remanded by the Ninth Circuit.  Webloyalty has
answered the complaint and denied all liability.

On June 29, 2018, the plaintiff moved for class certification on
his claims for violation of the EFT on behalf of a nationwide
class, and on his claims for conversion, and violation of CBPC on
behalf of a California class.  The court held a hearing on this
motion on October 29, 2018, and has taken it under advisement.
Discovery has been stayed pending the outcome of that decision.

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.


ALABAMA: Cook et al Seek to Certify Class in Traffic Ticket Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned LAKENDRA COOK, CHRISTOPHER
GRAY, and SHARON MOTLEY, on behalf of themselves and those
similarily situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HAL TAYLOR, in his
official capacity as Secretary of the Alabama Law Enforcement
Agency, the Defendant, Case 2:18-cv-00977-WKW-SRW (M.D. Ala.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court for an order certifying a class of:

   "all individuals whose driver's licenses are suspended for
   nonpayment of traffic tickets."[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Micah West, Esq.
          Sara Zampierin, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          400. Washington Avenue
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 956-8200
          Facsimile: (334) 956-8481
          E-mail: micah.west@splcenter.org
                  sara.zampierin@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Danielle Davis, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2000
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 526-8982
          Facsimile: (504) 486-8947
          E-mail: danielle.davis@splcenter.org

Attorneys for Defendant:

          James W. Davis, Esq.
          Section Chief Constitutional Defense Section
          Office of the Attorney General
          501 Washington Avenue
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          E-mail: jimdavis@ago.state.al.us

ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS: Leavitt Suit Transferred to Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned CARYL HULL LEAVITT, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
JOHN M. MARAGANORE, and MANMEET S. SONI, Case No. 1:18-cv-08845
(S.D.N.Y., September 26, 2018), was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on November 21,
2018, and assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-12433-NMG.

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than the Defendants, who purchased
or otherwise acquired Alnylam securities between February 15, 2018,
and September 12, 2018, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover
damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies, says the complaint.  The
Plaintiff alleges that Alnylam overstated the efficacy and safety
of its Onpattro (patisiran) lipid complex injection, and as a
result, its public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.  As a result of the Defendants' wrongful
acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value
of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members
have suffered significant losses and damages, according to the
complaint.

Alnylam is incorporated in Delaware and its principal executive
offices are located in Cambridge, Massachusetts.  John M.
Maraganore has served as the Chief Executive Officer of Alnylam at
all relevant times.  Manmeet S. Soni has served as the Chief
Financial Officer of Alnylam at all relevant times.

Alnylam is a global biopharmaceutical company developing
therapeutics based on RNA interference ("RNAi").  RNAi is a
naturally occurring biological pathway within cells for
sequence-specific silencing and regulation of gene expression.
Alnylam purports to harness the RNAi pathway to develop a potential
new class of innovative medicines, known as RNAi therapeutics. RNAi
therapeutics are comprised of small interfering RNA, or siRNA, and
function upstream of today's medicines by potently silencing
messenger RNA, or mRNA, that encode for disease-causing proteins,
thus, preventing them from being made.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


ALPINE ACCESS: Court Approves Morse FLSA Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAROL MORSE, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. ALPINE ACCESS, INC., and SYKES ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Jointly and Severally as, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00235
(BKS/ATB) (N.D. N.Y.), Judge Brenda K. Sannes of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of New York granted the parties'
settlement.

Upon consideration of the joint stipulation for approval of
settlement and dismissal of claims, the unopposed motion for
approval of the collective action settlement, the supplemental
letter brief requesting approval of attorneys' fees, the
Plaintiffs' Lodestar calculation, and the Plaintiffs' attorneys'
contemporaneous time records, as well as the representations by the
counsel at the Nov. 1 and 26, 2018 telephone conferences, the Judge
approved the parties' settlement as a fair and reasonable
resolution of a bona fide dispute regarding unpaid wages under the
FLSA and state laws.

The Judge (i) dismissed with prejudice the claims asserted by the
Settling Plaintiffs in the Collective and Class Action Complaint;
and (ii) dismissed without prejudice the claims asserted by the
Non-Participating Opt-in Plaintiffs, Angelisa Collins, Sharlyn
McCray, Kathryn Long-Krueger, Jessica Seward, Carolyn Carlisle,
Talib Abu-Sufyaan, Daniel Terri, Darryl E. King, Melvin Miller, and
Peggy Young.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 is available at
https://is.gd/uHKSYv from Leagle.com.

Carol Morse, other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff,
represented by Charles R. Ash, IV -- crash@sommerspc.com -- Sommers
Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice, Jason T. Brown -- jtb@jtblawgroup.com
-- JTB Law Group, LLC, Kevin J. Stoops -- kstoops@sommerspc.com --
Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice, Nicholas Raymond Conlon --
nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com -- JTB Law Group, LLC, pro hac vice
& Zijian Guan, JTB Law Group, LLC, pro hac vice.

Alpine Access, Inc., Jointly and Severally & Sykes Enterprises,
Inc., Jointly and Severally, Defendants, represented by Andrew J.
Voss -- avoss@littler.com -- Littler, Mendelson Law Firm, pro hac
vice & Paul R. Piccigallo -- ppiccigallo@littler.com -- Littler,
Mendelson Law Firm.


AMERICAN FINANCE: Misled Shareholders According to Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that
purchasers of American Finance Trust, Inc. 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 October 2016 merger with American Realty Capital –
Retail Centers of America, Inc. ("RCA"). American Finance Trust,
Inc. ("AFIN") is a publicly traded real estate investment trust
focused on acquiring and managing a diversified portfolio of retail
and distribution related commercial real estate properties in the
U.S.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
https://www.robbinsarroyo.com/american-finance-trust-inc/

American Finance Trust Accused of Filing Misleading Registration
Statement

According to the complaint, AFIN's registration statement issued in
connection with the merger misled investors about the consequential
negative financial impact to the merged companies and shareholders.
Specifically, AFIN misled investors about changes to advisory
agreements between AFIN and American Finance Advisors, Inc. and the
advisory agreement between RCA and RCA advisers, which were
conditioned upon approval of the merger. When AFIN filed the
registration statement on October 21, 2016 in connection with the
merger, AFIN officials failed to disclose that externally managed
real estate investment trusts such as AFIN incur higher advisory
fees and trade at massive discounts. In addition, the registration
statement omitted important information about AFIN's inability to
obtain a public listing of its stock in 2015 and 2016. When AFIN
listed its stock for public trading in July 2018, the company's
stock plunged.

American Finance Trust Shareholders Have Legal Options

         Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
         Robbins Arroyo LLP
         600 B Street, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 525-3990
         Toll Free: (800) 350-6003
         Email: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN]


AMERICAN INCOME: Golz Suit Moved to Central District of California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alisa Golz, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. American Income Life Insurance
Company, an Indiana corporation, and Torchmark Corporation, a
Delaware corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 18STCV01354, was
removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Western Division -
Los Angeles) on Nov. 26, 2018. The Central District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-09879 to the proceeding. The
suit alleges Job-related violation.

American Income Life Insurance Company, based in Waco, Texas, is an
insurance company that provides supplemental life insurance to
labor unions, credit unions, and associations. American Income Life
was founded in 1951. The company's executive offices have been
located in Waco, Texas, since 1959.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Albert Q. Giang, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          725 South Figueroa Street 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5524
          Telephone: (213) 629-9040
          Facsimile: (213) 629-9022
          E-mail: agiang@bsfllp.com

ANZAI ASIAN: Denied Chen Overtime Pay, Wage Statements
------------------------------------------------------
Kewei Chen, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Anzai Asian Inc., Anzai Asian
East Meadow, Inc., Hongyan Shen and Andy Chen, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-06659 (E.D. N.Y., November 21, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid "spread-of-hours" premium, compensation for
failure to provide wage notice at the time of hiring and failure to
provide paystubs, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Defendants operate as "Anzai Asian," a restaurant located at 1856
Front Street, East Meadow, NY 11554. Chen was employed as a
teriyaki chef from around August 9, 2018 to on or around November
4, 2018. He worked in excess of 40 hours per work week without
overtime pay and/or spread-of-hours pay and was not given wage
statements, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BARNES & NOBLE: PIN Pads Consolidated Class Action Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 20, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended October 27, 2018, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit related to tampered PIN
pads.

The Company discovered that PIN pads in certain of its stores had
been tampered with to allow criminal access to card data and PIN
numbers on credit and debit cards swiped through the terminals.

Following public disclosure of this matter on October 24, 2012, the
Company was served with four putative class action complaints
(three in federal district court in the Northern District of
Illinois and one in the Northern District of California), each of
which alleged on behalf of national and other classes of customers
who swiped credit and debit cards in Barnes & Noble Retail stores
common law claims such as negligence, breach of contract and
invasion of privacy, as well as statutory claims such as violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state data breach notification
statutes, and state unfair and deceptive practices statutes.

The actions sought various forms of relief including damages,
injunctive or equitable relief, multiple or punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, and interest.

All four cases were transferred and/or assigned to a single judge
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, and a single consolidated amended complaint was filed.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint in its entirety, and in September 2013, the Court granted
the motion to dismiss without prejudice.

The Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint, and the Company
filed a second motion to dismiss. On October 3, 2016, the Court
granted the second motion to dismiss, and dismissed the case
without prejudice; in doing so, the Court permitted plaintiffs to
file a second amended complaint by October 31, 2016. On October 31,
2016, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, and on
January 25, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint.

On June 13, 2017, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

On April 11, 2018, the Court of Appeals reversed the District
Court's decision granting the motion to dismiss the case, and
remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings.
The Company filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for
rehearing and rehearing en banc; that petition was denied on May
10, 2018. The case is currently pending in the District Court.

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

Barnes & Noble, Inc. primarily operates as a bookseller in the
United States. The company operates through two segments, B&N
Retail and NOOK. The company was founded in 1986 and is based in
New York, New York.


BECTON DICKINSON: Has Deal for 15,021 Women's Health Product Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21,
2018, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, that as of
September 30, 2018, the Company has reached agreements or
agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to
settle their respective inventories of cases totaling approximately
15,021 of the Women's Health Product Claims.

As of September 30, 2018, the Company is defending approximately
1,322 product liability claims involving Bard's line of pelvic mesh
devices. The majority of those claims are currently pending in a
federal MDL in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, but claims are also pending in other
state and/or federal court jurisdictions, including a coordinated
proceeding in New Jersey State Court.

In addition, those claims include putative class actions filed in
the United States. Not included in the figures above are
approximately 1,037 filed and unfiled claims that have been
asserted or threatened against Bard but lack sufficient information
to determine whether a Bard pelvic mesh device is actually at
issue.

The claims identified above also include products manufactured by
both Bard and two subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as successor in
interest to Covidien plc) ("Medtronic"), each a supplier of Bard.
Medtronic has an obligation to defend and indemnify Bard with
respect to any product defect liability relating to products its
subsidiaries had manufactured.

In July 2015 the Company reached an agreement with Medtronic (which
was amended in June 2017) regarding certain aspects of Medtronic's
indemnification obligation. The foregoing lawsuits, unfiled claims,
putative class actions, and other claims, together with claims that
have settled or are the subject of agreements or agreements in
principle to settle, are referred to collectively as the "Women's
Health Product Claims."

The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek damages for
personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the products.

As of September 30, 2018, the Company has reached agreements or
agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to
settle their respective inventories of cases totaling approximately
15,021 of the Women’s Health Product Claims.

The Company believes that these Women's Health Product Claims are
not the subject of Medtronic's indemnification obligation. These
settlement agreements and agreements in principle include unfiled
and previously unknown claims held by various plaintiffs’ law
firms, which are not included in the approximate number of lawsuits
set forth in the first paragraph of this section.

Each agreement is subject to certain conditions, including
requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a
certain minimum number of plaintiffs. The Company continues to
engage in discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding
potential resolution of unsettled Women's Health Product Claims,
which may include additional inventory settlements.

Starting in 2014 in the MDL, the court entered certain pre-trial
orders requiring trial work up and remand of a significant number
of Women's Health Product Claims, including an order entered in the
MDL on January 30, 2018, that requires the work up and remand of
all remaining unsettled cases (the "WHP Pre-Trial Orders").

The WHP Pre-Trial Orders may result in material additional costs or
trial verdicts in future periods in defending Women's Health
Product Claims. Trials are anticipated in 2018 and throughout 2019
in state courts. A trial in the New Jersey coordinated proceeding
began in March 2018, and in April 2018 a jury entered a verdict
against the Company in the total amount of $68 million ($33 million
compensatory; $35 million punitive). The Company is in the process
of challenging that verdict. The Company expects additional trials
of Women's Health Product Claims to take place over the next 12
months.

In July 2015, as part of the agreement with Medtronic noted above,
Medtronic agreed to take responsibility for pursuing settlement of
certain of the Women's Health Product Claims that relate to
products distributed by Bard under supply agreements with
Medtronic, and Bard has paid Medtronic $121 million towards these
potential settlements.

In June 2017, Bard amended the agreement with Medtronic to transfer
responsibility for settlement of additional Women's Health Product
Claims to Medtronic on terms similar to the July 2015 agreement,
including with respect to the obligation to make payments to
Medtronic towards these potential settlements. Bard also may, in
its sole discretion, transfer responsibility for settlement of
additional Women's Health Product Claims to Medtronic on similar
terms.

The agreements do not resolve the dispute between Bard and
Medtronic with respect to Women's Health Product Claims that do not
settle, if any.

During the course of engaging in settlement discussions with
plaintiffs' law firms, the Company has learned, and may in future
periods learn, additional information regarding these and other
unfiled claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact
the Company's estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against
the Company.

Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells
medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic
products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in
1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.


BECTON DICKINSON: Has Favorable Judgment in Filter Products Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21,
2018, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, that a jury in
the fourth MDL trial in the Filter Product Claims unanimously found
in favor of the Company on all claims.

As of September 30, 2018, the Company is defending approximately
4,515 product liability claims involving Bard's line of inferior
vena cava filters (collectively, the "Filter Product Claims”).

The majority of those claims are currently pending in an MDL in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona, but
claims are also pending in other state and/or federal court
jurisdictions, including a coordinated proceeding in Arizona State
Court. In addition, those claims include putative class actions
filed in the United States and Canada.

The Filter Product Claims generally seek damages for personal
injury allegedly resulting from use of the products. The Company
has limited information regarding the nature and quantity of
certain of the Filter Product Claims.

The Company continues to receive claims and lawsuits and may in
future periods learn additional information regarding other unfiled
or unknown claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact
the Company's estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against
the Company.

Trials are scheduled throughout 2018 in the MDL and state courts.
On March 30, 2018, a jury in the first MDL trial found the Company
liable for negligent failure to warn and entered a verdict in favor
of plaintiffs.

The jury found the Company was not liable for (a) strict liability
design defect; (b) strict liability failure to warn; and (c)
negligent design. The Company has appealed that verdict.

On June 1, 2018, a jury in the second MDL trial unanimously found
in favor of the Company on all claims.

On August 17, 2018, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of
the Company on all claims in the third MDL trial.

On October 5, 2018, a jury in the fourth MDL trial unanimously
found in favor of the Company on all claims.

The Company expects additional trials of Filter Product Claims may
take place over the next 12 months.

Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells
medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic
products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in
1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.


BLACKSTONE LABS: Accused by Kavlakian Suit of Violating TCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
NAREG KAVLAKIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BLACKSTONE LABS, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, Case No. 9:18-cv-81602-DMM (S.D. Fla., November 21, 2018),
seeks to secure redress for alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Blackstone Labs, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company whose
principal office is located in Boca Raton, Florida.  Blackstone
Labs is a company that makes supplements.

To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process, the
Plaintiff contends.  The case arises from the Defendant's alleged
unauthorized text messages to cellular subscribers, who never
provided Defendant with prior express consent, as well as cellular
subscribers, who expressly requested not to receive the Defendant's
text messages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st 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., #607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com


BLUE APRON: IPO-Related Class Suits Pending in N.Y. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that the Company remains subject
to two putative class action lawsuits filed in New York Supreme
Court alleging federal securities law violations in connection with
the Company's June 2017 initial public offering.  These cases are
substantially similar to a pending a consolidated putative class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.

The parties have entered into a stipulation staying one of the
state court actions pending resolution of the motion to dismiss
filed in the federal court action.

In the other state court action, no schedule has been entered by
the court.

The Company is unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate
outcome of any of these lawsuits or that an adverse resolution of
any of these lawsuits would not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's consolidated financial position or results of
operations.

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


BRISTOL-MYERS: Akin Gump Attorney Discusses TCPA Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Neal Marder, Esq. -- nmarder@akingump.com -- Andrew Jick, Esq. --
ajick@akingump.com -- Kelly Handschumacher, Esq. --
khandschumacher@akingump.com -- of Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, and
law clerk Shelly Kim, in an article for Law.com, report that this
year has seen significant developments in the field of class action
litigation. Last year's Bristol-Myers decision has created a
growing split as to the viability of a large number of nationwide
class actions. The D.C. Circuit issued its long-awaited decision in
the ACA International case, significantly altering the landscape
for Telephone Consumer Protection Act litigation. Spokeo's impact
on standing challenges continues to wind its way through courts
across the country. The U.S. Supreme Court and appellate courts
have also issued significant decisions on related topics, including
the judicial approval of nationwide class action settlements, the
tolling of statutes of limitations during the pendency of class
actions, and state court jurisdiction over securities class
actions. This article highlights at a high level the year's most
noteworthy developments in this field and offers insights for their
likely impact for litigants and practitioners.

Split on 'Bristol-Myers'
In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Bristol-Myers Squibb v.
Superior Court that a California court lacked jurisdiction over the
claims of nonresidents where Bristol-Myers was not a "citizen" of
California and the nonresident claims lacked any connection to
California. Since Bristol-Myers was decided, defendants have argued
that the decision should similarly bar nationwide or multistate
class actions where the defendant is not subject to general
jurisdiction. District courts have diverged on this question, and
the split has only continued to deepen over the past year as
additional decisions have come out. This issue will surely continue
to work its way through the federal courts of appeals in the coming
year, and could potentially have a major impact on the continued
viability of nationwide and multistate class actions.

TCPA Cases
In March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit released
its long-awaited ACA International v. Federal Communications
Commission decision, which reviewed the validity of a 2015 FCC
order that had broadly interpreted the statutory language of the
TCPA.

The decision set aside the FCC's interpretation of "automatic
telephone dialing systems," including rejecting the interpretation
that they included all equipment with the potential capacity (not
just present capacity) to perform certain statutorily specified
functions, reasoning in part that such a broad interpretation would
cover everyday devices like personal smartphones. The decision also
set aside the FCC's one-call safe harbor, under which a caller may
contact the reassigned number of a previously consenting party one
time without violating the TCPA, because the FCC could not justify
a one-call limit that may or may not give the caller notice that a
number was reassigned. The D.C. Circuit upheld the FCC's rule that
a called party may revoke consent at any time through any
reasonable means, orally or in writing, that clearly expresses a
desire not to receive further messages. The decision also upheld
the exemption of certain nontelemarketing health care calls from
the TCPA's general ban.

The ACA International decision has already impacted numerous cases
and opened the door for further interpretive issues, including
before the FCC, which has sought and received comment on the impact
of the decision. In particular, a consensus has begun to emerge
among the courts of appeal that ACA International vacated the FCC's
interpretation of dialing systems, but the courts have differed
thus far in their interpretations of the statutory definition. In
addition, courts and the FCC are considering whether and to what
extent individuals can revoke consent to receive communications
when that consent was given in a bilateral contract.

Grappling With 'Spokeo'
Since the Supreme Court issued its decision in Spokeo v.
Robins—holding that plaintiffs asserting claims based on
statutory violations must nonetheless satisfy Article III's
"concrete injury" requirement—district and circuit courts across
the country have grappled with the decision's impact on class
actions arising under various statutes.

Over the past year, courts have continued to find a lack of Article
III standing for certain Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
violations that were not shown to increase the risk of identity
theft. For instance, in February the Ninth Circuit joined the
Second and Seventh circuits in holding that failing to truncate
credit card expiration dates on receipts by itself does not give
rise to Article III standing. The Ninth Circuit similarly held in
March that taxi companies' alleged printing and distributing credit
card receipts containing the first digit and final four digits of a
consumer's credit card number was not a harm sufficient to give
consumers Article III standing.

On the other hand, this year's case decisions generally have
continued to find injuries in fact for violations involving
invasion of privacy under the TCPA, even without a showing of
tangible harm. Recent decisions have also continued the trend of
finding standing where personal information was improperly
disclosed in violation of a privacy statute. This last area is
likely to develop further in the coming year with the rise of data
breach litigation.

Also of note this year is a Seventh Circuit opinion holding that
the existence of Article III standing is a prerequisite for removal
to federal court, and thus, where a case is removed and the court
finds that the plaintiff lacks standing, the proper course is
remand to state court rather than dismissal for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.

Nationwide Settlement Rejection
Under Ninth Circuit precedent, material differences in state law
can overwhelm common issues and preclude predominance for a single
nationwide class. In In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation,
a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit applied this precedent in
vacating a nationwide settlement, holding that the district court
failed to undertake the required predominance analysis in granting
settlement approval. The panel's decision thus injects additional
complexity into settlement negotiations and increases the burden on
parties and courts in analyzing requests for approval of nationwide
settlements.

Subsequent decisions indicate that approval of nationwide
settlements remains possible. In July, for example, the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the $10 billion settlement in the Volkswagen
"Clean Diesel" litigation, noting that, unlike in Hyundai, the
district court had provided a thorough predominance analysis.
Notably, the Ninth Circuit has agreed to rehear the Hyundai
decision en banc. Oral argument occurred in September and the
court's decision was pending at press time.

Tolling Individual Claims
Under American Pipe and Construction v. Utah, the pendency of a
class action was held to toll the statute of limitations for class
members' claims that could be separately asserted. On June 11, the
U.S. Supreme Court clarified in China Agritech v. Resh that the
American Pipe doctrine does not extend to successive class actions.
In China Agritech, shareholders filed a putative class action
alleging securities fraud. The named plaintiffs had been absent
members of two nearly identical putative class actions where class
certification was denied. Under China Agritech, putative class
members hoping to file their own class action after the limitations
period are out of luck.

State Court Jurisdiction
Based on the Supreme Court's decision in Cyan v. Beaver County
Employees Retirement Fund, issuer defendants, such as newly public
companies, will likely have to defend themselves in state court
against class action suits brought under the Securities Act of
1933. In addition to holding that state courts have jurisdiction
over class actions alleging violations of only the Securities Act,
the court further held that the Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act of 1998 prohibits defendants from removing such cases
to federal court. Subsequent district court decisions have
clarified, however, that the act's anti-removal provision do not
bar defendants from removing cases under other statutes, such as
the Class Action Fairness Act.

The developments discussed here are wide-ranging in their impact,
affecting the viability and settlement of nationwide class actions,
TCPA cases, statutory damages class actions, removal of securities
class actions, and more. In the next year, district and circuit
courts will continue to grapple with these topics. The Supreme
Court also recently granted review of a case involving removal
under the Class Action Fairness Act. In short, the next year
promises to deliver additional significant developments in the
field of class action litigation. [GN]


BUTTS FOODS: Hayes Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay, Damages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DONDLI HAYES and MICHAEL PARR, individually, and on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated current and former
employees v. BUTTS FOODS, INC., a Tennessee Corporation, and RAY
BUTTS III, individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-01235 (W.D. Tenn.,
November 21, 2018), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act
to recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation and other damages
owed to the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and
former employees of the Defendants.

Butts Foods, Inc., is a Tennessee Corporation with its principal
office located in Jackson, Tennessee.  Ray Butts, III, is a
stockholder and principal officer of Butts Foods.

Butts Foods is a distributor of protein food products throughout
multiple states with warehouses located in Birmingham, Alabama;
Hattiesburg, Mississippi; Grenada, Mississippi; and Nashville,
Tennessee; as well as in Jackson, Tennessee.  Butts Foods owns and
operates a mixed fleet of trucks and vans in which it transports
food products to customers within and outside the state of
Tennessee, and from suppliers of food products and other items from
other states into Tennessee, consisting of tractor/trailer trucks
with a gross vehicle weight rating ("GVWR") in excess of five tons
and vans with a GVWR of less than five tons.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


CANADA: Forcibly Sterilized Indigenous Women File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Llowell Williams, writing for Care2.com, reports that in 2008, a
Native American woman identified as Anishinaabe had just given
birth to a child via emergency C-section at the Royal University
Hospital in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. While she was being
transferred to receive necessary surgery and -- and after being
given opioids -- Anishinaabe says that hospital staff plied her
with documents asking her to consent to tubal ligation, or
sterilization. They claimed that the procedure would be reversible
in the future if she changed her mind. In truth, however, this
would be a permanent operation.

In a haze, Anishinaabe signed the documents.

More than a year ago, Anishinaable and 20 other First Nations women
in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan filed a class action
lawsuit against various medical staff and medical centers, as well
as the Saskatchewan and Canadian government, for what they claim
were coerced sterilizations performed after they had given birth.

Since then, at least 60 women in Saskatchewan have joined the
lawsuit, all with accounts similar to Anishinaable's. Some cases go
back 25 years, but the most recent allegations are from 2017. Some
women say they were even told by hospital staff that they would be
unable to see their newborns until they consented to
sterilization.

A common thread among these accounts is that these women were
misled to believe that the sterilization could be undone at a later
time.

Some women were not even allowed to give birth in the first place.
A woman identified as Liz says that when she was 17 and became
pregnant, a government aid worker coerced her into having an
abortion and undergoing a sterilization procedure. Liz explains
that she was told the child would be taken from her regardless of
her choice.

Alisa Lombard, Esq. -- alombard@mauricelaw.com -- a lawyer
representing the group, says that these women have been left
feeling physically and emotionally traumatized. They've experienced
depression and anxiety — which, in tragic cases, has pushed some
of the victims to take their own lives.

Among the genocide and inhumane treatment inflicted upon native
peoples in Canada and the United States was the practice of forced
sterilization. This form of eugenics was inflicted upon not just
indigenous groups, but also individuals considered "degenerates" by
white supremacists, including people of color, the impoverished and
drug users.

Undeniably one of the most shameful moments of our shared past,
many people likely see it as just that -- an abandoned practice.
But this clearly is not the case.

Sen. Yvonne Boyer is calling on her peers in the Canadian Senate to
pursue a nationwide investigation into this act of systemic racist
eugenics. As she explains, "If it's happened in Saskatoon, it has
happened in Regina, it's happened in Winnipeg."

Europeans and their descendants have murdered and abused the
indigenous populations of North America for centuries. It is beyond
incredible that such programs, albeit performed less conspicuously
now, are still ongoing.

Add your name to this Care2 petition to demand that the Canadian
Senate authorize an in-depth, nationwide probe into the treatment
of First Nations women by health care providers. These gross human
rights violations must be brought to an end![GN]


CAPITAL RESORTS: Thomas Sues over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
STACY THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CAPITAL RESORTS GROUP, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00494-PLR-HBG (E.D. Tenn., Nov. 21,
2018), seeks to stop Defendant's practice of making unsolicited
telemarketing calls to the telephones of consumers nationwide and
to obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is a vacation resort
ownership company. In an effort to solicit potential customers,
Capital Resorts Group, LLC recruited, or employed call centers, to
place telephone calls, en masse, to consumers across the country.
On information and belief, Defendant and or its agents purchase
phone number databases of consumers' contact information and
creates an electronic database from which Defendant makes automated
calls. The Defendant conducted wide scale telemarketing campaigns
and repeatedly made unsolicited calls to consumers' telephones --
whose numbers appear on the National Do Not Call Registry --
without consent, all in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

By making the telephone calls at issue in this Complaint, Defendant
caused Plaintiff and the members of a putative Class of consumers
actual harm, including the aggravation, nuisance, and invasion of
privacy that necessarily accompanies the receipt of
unsolicited and harassing telephone calls, as well as the monies
paid to their carriers for the receipt of such telephone calls, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          John J. Griffin, Jr., Esq.
          Michael A. Johnson, Esq.
          KAY GRIFFIN, PLLC
          222 Second Ave. North, Suite 340-M
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 742-4800
          Facsimile: (615) 742-4801
          E-mail: john.griffin@kaygriffin.com
          michael.johnson@kaygriffin.com

               - and -

          W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120
          Galleria Tower I
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 554-2377
          Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
          E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com
                  jarrett@hughesellzey.com

CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Court Certifies Class in Kautsman CPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NIKOLAY KAUTSMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CARRINGTON
MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. C16-1940-JCC
(W.D. Wash.), Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, for an extension of
time to file a motion for class certification, and to amend their
complaint.

The Court previously dismissed all of the Plaintiffs' claims except
the claim alleging that the Defendants' rekeying and winterization
practices violate Washington's Consumer Protection Act ("CPA").  
The Plaintiffs now move for class certification on their CPA claim.


The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of all persons (a) who
own(ed) real property in Washington State subject to a deed of
trust or mortgage serviced or held by CMS; and (b) who, within the
applicable statute of limitations, had their property entered by
CMS and/or its agents for the purpose of changing the locks on the
property, prior to CMS completing a foreclosure of the property.
They move to be appointed as the class representatives and to have
their counsel appointed as the class counsel.

The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification 252 days
after filing the operative complaint.  They argue that there is
good cause for extending the deadline because their counsel have
had to deal with personal, time-consuming circumstances and because
counsel misinterpreted Local Civil Rule 23(i)(3).

The Defendants oppose the class certification.  They argue that,
because the deadline lapsed without the Plaintiffs seeking an
extension, the Court should apply an excusable neglect standard.
They also argue that, even if a good cause standard applies, there
is not good cause here because the Plaintiffs' operative motion for
class certification is a copy of their original class certification
motion with a cursory -- and deficient -- effort to scrub the
motion of references to claims or proposed classes that the Court
dismissed from the case.  The Defendants argue that these changes
did not require the two months that the Plaintiffs took beyond the
180-day deadline.

Judge Coughenour finds that while the Defendants' arguments are
reasonable, Plaintiffs have shown good cause for their delay.
Moreover, denying the Plaintiffs class certification on timeliness
grounds would be a disproportionate penalty.  He also finds that
the Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and the requirements of at least one of the
categories under Rule 23(b).  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' class
will be certified under Rule 23(b)(3).

However, the Judge concludes that the class definition is overbroad
and will narrow it to comply with Rule 23.  Defining a class as
those property owners who had their property entered "for the
purpose of" changing the locks is both impossible to quantify and
likely inclusive of property owners who were not ultimately
dispossessed.  

For that reason, he modified and certified the class as follows:
All persons (a) who own(ed) real property in Washington State
subject to a deed of trust or mortgage serviced or held by
Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC ("CMS"); and (b) who, within the
applicable statute of limitations, had their property entered and
rekeyed by CMS and/or its agents, prior to CMS completing a
foreclosure of the property.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Coughenour granted the Plaintiffs'
motions for class certification, to amend their complaint, and for
an extension of time to file a class certification motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/b35cSj from Leagle.com.

Nikolay Kautsman & Olga Kofanova, and each on behalf of
himself/herself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Harish Bharti -- mail@hbharti.com -- & Jason E.
Anderson --jason@jasonandersonlaw.com.

Carrington Mortgage Services LLC, a Delaware corporation &
Carrington Home Solutions L.P., formerly known as White Van Real
Estate Services, Defendants, represented by Jared L. Gardner --
JGardner@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE LLC, pro hac vice, Amanda
J. Beane -- ABeane@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE & Steven Douglas
Merriman -- SMerriman@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE.


CCK PIZZA: Westley Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Delivery Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL WESTLEY, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, vs. CCK PIZZA COMPANY, LLC and CHRIS
SCHLOEMANN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-13627-TLL-PTM (E.D.
Mich., Nov. 20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and
overtime hours owed to himself and similarly situated delivery
drivers employed by Defendants at its Domino's stores under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants operate numerous
Domino's franchise stores. The Defendants employ delivery drivers
who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items
to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery
drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of
their vehicles, the Defendants use a flawed method to determine
reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate
beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses incurred that
the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below
the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          J. Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 210 2100
          Facsimile: (214) 346 5909
          E-mail: www.foresterhaynie.com

               - and -

          David M. Blanchard, Esq.
          BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
          221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 929-4313
          E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com

CENTURY PARK: Response to Class Cert. Bid Due Dec. 14
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA PENAROUQUE, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
CENTURY PARK ASSOCIATES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-CV-122
(E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Harry Mattice entered an order on  
Nov. 20, 2018, granting Defendant's unopposed motion for extension
of time to file its response to the motion for conditional
certification.

The Court said, "Defendant represents that Plaintiff does not
oppose the requested extension. In light of the lack of opposition,
Defendant's motion is granted and its response to Plaintiff's
motion for conditional certification is due no later than December
14, 2018.[CC]

CHEGG INC: Kirby McInerney Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all persons or
entities who acquired Chegg, Inc. ("Chegg") (NYSE:CHGG) securities
between July 30, 2018 and September 25, 2018 (the "Class Period").
Investors have until November 26, 2018 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that on September 25, 2018, Chegg reported that
it had "learned that on or around April 29, 2018, an unauthorized
party gained access to a Company database that hosts user data for
chegg.com and certain of the Company's family of brands such as
EasyBib." The Company reported that approximately 40 million users'
data could have been obtained and that an investigation into the
incident was ongoing. On this news, the price of Chegg shares fell
$3.91, or over 12%, to close at $28.42 on September 26, 2018.

If you acquired Chegg securities, have information, or would like
to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of
Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.

         Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
         Kirby McInerney LLP
         Telephone: (212) 371-6600
         Email: investigations@kmllp.com
                telrod@kmllp.com [GN]


CHICAGO, IL: Court Dismisses Aviation Security Officers' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEIA YATES, LEONARDO RODRIQUEZ, and JOHNNY JIMMERSON,
as representative of that class of individuals working as Aviation
Security Officers of the City of Chicago, Department of Aviation,
Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, BRENT FISCHER, as Executive
Director of the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards
Board; the CITY OF CHICAGO; and GINGER EVANS, as Commissioner of
the City of Chicago Department of Aviation, Defendants, Case No. 18
C 2613 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, (i)
granted the State Defendants' motion to dismiss; and granted in
part and denied in part the City Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Yates, Rodriquez and Jimmerson, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated individuals working as Aviation Security
Officers of the City of Chicago, Department of Aviation, have
brought a four count putative class action complaint against State
Defendants, State of Illinois and Brent Fischer as Executive
Director of the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards
Board; and the City Defendants, City of Chicago and Ginger Evans as
Commissioner of the City of Chicago Department of Aviation
("CDA").

Counts I and II are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and
allege violations of the Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause and the
Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause respectively.  Counts III
and IV are state law claims for fraudulent inducement and
promissory estoppel.  All claims are brought against all the
Defendants.

According to the complaint, in approximately 1982 the City of
Chicago amended its municipal code to create the position of
Aviation Security Officer ("ASO") to serve a security function
within the CDA at O'Hare International and Midway International
airports.  Sometime in 1993, the City applied to the State for the
CDA to be recognized as a law enforcement agency ("LEA").  The
application was granted, giving the CDA the ability to send its
officers to the Chicago Police Academy and/or the Cook County
Sheriff's Training Academy for law enforcement training.  Each ASO
hired since 1993 through June of 2017 who completed those
requirements received a law enforcement officer ("LEO")
certification and a corresponding LEO ID Number.

After the World Trade Center attacks in 2001 and the creation of
the Transportation Safety Administration ("TSA"), the CDA
officially renamed ASOs as "Aviation Police Officers" ("APOs").  In
doing so, the City and CDA revised all documents and signs to
indicate Aviation Police rather than Aviation Security.  The CDA
held the officers out as "police" in a number of ways, including
giving them 5-point star badges, which are provided only to law
enforcement officers, and providing APOs with patrol cars that had
flashing red and blue emergency lighting, which in Illinois is
restricted to law enforcement vehicles.

On April 5, 2017, just four days before the flight 3411 incident,
the ILETSB had sent a letter to the First Deputy Chief of Staff for
the City, indicating that the Board had come to learn that APOs
were not authorized to carry firearms on or off duty, that
decisions of the Illinois Labor Relations Board ("ILRB") had
repeatedly determined that ASOs were not LEOs, and that the chain
of command for ASOs ended with the Chairman of the CDA but "at no
point is the Superintendent of CPD involved in their direction or
command.  The letter then indicated that as a result the board
could not trace law enforcement authority from the Illinois
statutes to these particular employees, in the manner that they can
for CPD officers, and they can no longer find them to be LEOs.

The Plaintiffs allege that the ILETSB knew that the CDA was an
independent LEA and had recognized it as such separate and apart
from the Chicago Police Department when it assigned the CDA its own
LEA ID Number.  They further allege, on information and belief,
that the April 5, 2017, letter was actually drafted later and was
intended to create the false impression that its decision to
decertify the CDA and APO was independent of -- and arose before --
the United Airlines Flight 3411 incident.

On June 20, 2017, Joseph Martinico of the City Law Department
responded to the ILETSB, indicating that he had responded earlier
and including a copy of a May 19 letter.  In the June 20 letter,
Martinico indicated that the City's Aviation Security Officers do
not receive any certification or appointment from the Chicago
Police Superintendent, are under the supervision of the
Commissioner of the CDA, and serve as an unarmed security function
and are not police officers or special police officers under the
Chicago Municipal Code.  Based on Martinico's letter, the ILETSB,
on June 29, 2017, indicated that it would deactivate the CDA as a
LEA and administratively separate all personnel currently listed on
that roster effective on the close of June 30, 2017.

The State Defendants and the City Defendants have each brought
separate motions to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim.

With respect to the State Defendants' Motion, Judge Gettleman finds
that the Pplaintiffs state that they did not initiate the action
because the Defendants stripped away their badges or prospectively
altered their job titles and duties.  They state in their response
brief that they do not challenge the City's right or authority to
change their status from LEOs to Airport Security Officers on a
prospective basis.  Instead, the Plaintiffs challenge the City's
and State's authority to retrospectively alter -- to in effect,
erase their employment history.  What that means, the Judge finds,
is that the Plaintiffs are simply seeking restoration of benefits
already earned, but are not alleging that they are entitled to earn
these benefits in the future.  They are seeking retrospective
relief.  As such, the claims are not protected by Ex parte Young
and are dismissed.

With respect to the City Defendants' Motion, the Judge finds that
(i) Count I fails to allege a constitutional violation; (ii) Count
III fails to state a claim because the complaint fails to allege
that the City knew that the statements made to the Plaintiffs were
false when made; (iii) Count II states a claim because the
Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that their injuries were caused
by a decisionmaker with authority;  and (iv) Count IV states a
claim against the City because Evans able to bind the City in her
promise when the Plaintiffs were hired and promised by her that
they would be certified LEOs.

For these reasons, Judge Gettleman granted the State Defendants'
motion to dismiss, and dismissed them.  He granted the City
Defendants' motion to dismiss as to Counts I and III, and denied as
to Counts II and IV. The City is ordered to answer Counts II and IV
by Dec. 18, 2018.  The Judge directed the parties to file a joint
status report using the Court's form on Dec. 21, 2018.  The matter
is set for a report on status on Jan. 9, 2019, at 9:10 a.m.

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

Keia Yates, Leonardo Rodriquez & Johnny Jimmerson, as
representatives of that class of individuals working as Aviation
Security Officers of the City of Chicago, Department of Aviation,
Plaintiffs, represented by John Joseph Scharkey --
jscharkey@sweeneyscharkey.com -- Sweeney & Scharkey LLC, Zachary
Michael Slavens -- zslavens@sweeneyscharkey.com -- Sweeney &
Scharkey & Robert D. Sweeney -- rsweeney@sweeneyscharkey.com --
Sweeney & Scharkey, LLC.

The City of Chicago & Ginger Evans, as Commissioner of the City of
Chicago Department of Aviation, Defendants, represented by Tiffany
S. Fordyce -- fordycet@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Howard
L. Mocerf -- mocerfh@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP & Monica
S. Harris -- harrisms@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig Llp.


CITY BUFFET MONGOLIAN: Underpays Hibachi Chefs, Rodriguez Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITY BUFFET MONGOLIAN BARBEQUE, INC.; and BI
XIA XIONG, Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-02745 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 7,
2018) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

Mr. Rodriguez was employed by the Defendants as Hibachi Chef from
May 2016 to June 2018.

City Buffet Mongolian Barbeque, Inc. is a Florida corporation
engaged in the restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Monica Espino, Esq.
          ESPINO LAW
          2655 S. Le Jeune Road, Suite 802
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 704-3172
          Facsimile: (305) 722-7378
          E-mail: me@espino-law.com


CLAUDIO & JOHNSON: Toler Remanded to W. Va. State Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph R. Goodwin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, Charleston Division, remanded the case,
SHANNA TOLER, Plaintiff, v. CLAUDIO & JOHNSON, ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-01267 (S.D. W.
Va.), to the Circuit Court of Fayette County, West Virginia.

On July 9, 2018, the Plaintiff commenced the civil action by filing
a putative class action complaint in the Circuit Court of Fayette
County, West Virginia.  

The Complaint contains two counts.  Count I alleges that the
Defendants have engaged in numerous violations of the West Virginia
Consumer Credit and Protection Act ("WVCCPA"), including: (i)
attempting to collect a debt by threats to take action that it did
not intend to take by threatening to file a lawsuit against the
Plaintiff immediately upon the expiration of 30 days when it had no
intention of taking the threatened action in violation of West
Virginia Code Section 46A-2-124; (ii) threatening to take any
action prohibited by the chapter or other law regulating the debt
collector's conduct by threatening to reduce the Plaintiff's time
to dispute the validity of her debt in violation of West Virginia
Code Section 46A-2-124(f); and (iii) engaging in unreasonable or
oppressive or abusive conduct towards the Plaintiff in connection
with the attempt to collect a debt by sending the letter to the
Plaintiff in violation of West Virginia Code Section 46A-2-125.
Count Two alleges class claims for relief, alleging, inter alia,
that the principal common issues involve whether C&J's conduct
regarding the aforementioned letters constitutes a violation of the
unfair debt collection practices provisions of the WVCCPA.

On Aug. 29, 2018, Defendant Professional Account Services, Inc.
("PASI") removed the action from state court purportedly on the
ground of federal question jurisdiction.  On Sept. 28, 2018,
Plaintiff moved to remand the action to the Circuit Court of
Fayette County.

To establish substantial federal question jurisdiction, the
state-law cause of action must implicate a federal issue that is
"necessarily raised."  Judge Goodwin finds that while one ground of
the Plaintiff's cause of action for a violation of the WVCCPA is
predicated on a breach of the FDCPA (federal law), all other
grounds are predicated only on state law.  Because she has
presented theories of recovery in support of her cause of action
for a violation of the WVCCPA that depend exclusively upon state
law, the application of federal law is not essential to the claim's
disposition.  As such, the "necessarily raised" requirement has not
been satisfied, and federal jurisdiction does not lie.

Even if the Plaintiff's claim necessarily depended on a question of
federal law, the Judge finds that the federal issue implicated by
the Complaint is not "substantial" as required to confer federal
jurisdiction.  The Plaintiff's Complaint does not implicate a
substantial federal issue.  The gravamen of her Complaint is that
the Defendants violated numerous sections of the WVCCPA.  For this
reason, the federal question is already well-settled, and all that
remains is to apply it to the facts of the present case.
Accordingly, no substantial federal issue is present, and the case
must be remanded to state court.

For these reasons, Judge Goodwin granted the Plaintiff's Motion to
Remand, and remanded the case to the Circuit Court of Fayette
County, West Virginia.  He directed the Clerk to send a copy of the
Memorandum Opinion and Order to the counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.

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

Shanna Toler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ruperto Yongque Dumapit --
ryoung@hamiltonburgess.com -- HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD &
Steven R. Broadwater, Jr. -- sbroadwater@hamiltonburgess.com --
HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD.

Professional Account Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Angela L. Beblo -- abeblo@spilmanlaw.com -- SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE
& Bruce M. Jacobs -- bjacobs@spilmanlaw.com -- SPILMAN THOMAS &
BATTLE.


COLLECTO INC: Sued over Illegal Consumer Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Crew, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. Collecto Inc. d/b/a EOS CCA, the Defendant, Case
No. 18-3382 (Mass. Super. Ct., Nov. 26, 2018), seeks injunction
preventing Defendant from placing in excess of two collection calls
within any seven days to any Massachusetts consumers' telephone, in
violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and
Massachusetts Debt Collection Regulations.

According to the complaint, the Defendant initiated communication
via telephone in excess of two times within a seven-day period
regarding a Debt to Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of
940 CMR section 7.04(l)(f). The Defendant's failure to comply with
940 CMR section 7.04(l)(f) constitutes an unfair or deceptive act
in violation of M.G.L. c. 93A section 2.741. The Defendant
willfully or knowingly violated 940 CMR section 7.04(1)(±), and as
such, Plaintiff is entitled to double or treble damages plus
reasonable attorney's fees and costs.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Sergei Lemberg. Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, LLC
          43 Danbury Road
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
          E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com

CONCENTRIX CORP: Knight Seeks OT Pay for Call Center Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
JACQLYN KNIGHT, AQUANETTA WRIGHT, and LAPRINCESS JUNE, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. CONCENTRIX
CORPORATION, a wholly-owned subsidiary of SYNNEX CORPORATION, Case
No. 4:18-cv-07101-KAW (N.D. Cal., November 21, 2018), is brought on
behalf of similarly situated current and former call center
employees of the Defendant to recover unpaid wages and overtime
premiums and damages for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Payment of Wages Act, the New York
Minimum Wage Age, the New York Code of Rules and Regulations and
other New York wage and hour laws.

Concentrix Corporation is "a global business services company,
delivering extraordinary customer, employee and user experience for
more than 450 of the world's best brands," according to its Web
site.  Concentrix "is the outsourced business service division of
SYNNEX Corporation, headquartered in Fremont, CA."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark E. Burton, Jr., Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102-3229
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
          E-mail: mburton@audetlaw.com

               - and -

          Molly E. Nephew, Esq.
          Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
          JOHNSONBECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436-1800
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: mnephew@johnsonbecker.com
                  jrusch@johnsonbecker.com


CORONA REGIONAL: 9th Cir. Reverses Sali Class Certification Denial
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of class
certification in the case, MARLYN SALI and DEBORAH SPRIGGS, on
behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated and the general
public, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CORONA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER;
UHS OF DELAWARE INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 15-56460 (9th
Cir.).

Sali and Spriggs appeal the district court's denial of class
certification in the putative class action alleging employment
claims against Corona and UHS.  

Corona operates a hospital in Southern California that employs
hourly-wage Registered Nurses ("RNs").  Sali and Spriggs are RNs
formerly employed by Corona.  They assert that a number of Corona's
employment policies and practices with respect to RNs violate
California law and have resulted in underpayment of wages.

They filed the putative class action in California State Court on
behalf of all RNs employed by Defendants in California at any time
during the Proposed Class Period who (a) were not paid all wages at
their regular rate of pay; (b) not paid time and a-half and/or
double time for all overtime hours worked; and (c) denied
uninterrupted, 'off-duty' meal-and-rest periods.  

They allege Corona violated California law by (1) failing to pay
all regular hourly wages; (2) failing to pay time-and-a-half for
all overtime; (3) failing to pay double time for all hours worked
in excess of twelve hours in a day; (4) not providing compliant
meal and rest breaks; (5) failing to timely pay all wages due to
separated former employees within seventytwo hours of separation;
and (6) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements.
Corona removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.

Sali and Spriggs moved for certification of the following seven
classes:

     1. Rounding Time Class: All current and former nurses who work
or worked for Defendants during the Proposed Class Period who were
not paid all wages due them, including straight time, overtime,
double time, meal premiums, and rest premiums due to the
Defendants' rounding time policy.

     2. Short Shift Class: All current and former nurses of the
Defendants who work or worked pursuant to an Alternative Workweek
Schedule ("AWS") during the Proposed Class Period who were flexed
between the 8th and 12th hour of work due to low patient census and
not paid daily overtime.

     3. Meal Period Class: All current and former nurses of the
Defendants who work or worked pursuant to an AWS during the
Proposed Class Period who signed an invalid meal period waiver, and
(1) not provided a second meal break after 10 hours of work; (2)
not provided meal periods before 5 and 10 hours of work; and/or,
(3) not provided a second meal period after 12 hours of work.

     4. Rest Break Class: All current and former nurses who work or
worked for the Defendants during the Proposed Class Period who were
not relieved of all duty and therefore not authorized and permitted
to take 10-minute, uninterrupted rest breaks for every four hours
worked.

     5. Regular Rate Class: All current and former nurses who work
or worked for the Defendants during the Proposed Class Period who
were not paid at the correct regular rate for overtime, double
time, meal premiums, and rest premiums.

     6. Wage Statement Class: All current and former nurses who
work or worked for Defendants during the Proposed Class Period who
were not provided pay stubs that complied with Labor Code Section
226.

     7. Waiting Time Class: All former nurses who worked for the
Defendants from Aug. 23, 2010 who were not paid all wages due at
the time of separation from their employment with the Defendants.

The district court denied certification of each of the proposed
classes on multiple grounds. First, the district court concluded
that Sali and Spriggs's proposed rounding-time, short-shift,
rest-break, and wage-statement classes failed to satisfy Rule
23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement.  Second, it held that Rule
23(a)'s typicality requirement was not satisfied for any of the
proposed classes because Sali and Spriggs failed to submit
admissible evidence of their injuries.  Third, the district court
concluded that Spriggs was not an adequate class representative
because she is not a member of the proposed class she is attempting
to represent.  Finally, the district court held the attorneys from
the law firm Bisnar Chase had not demonstrated they will adequately
serve as class counsel.

Sali and Spriggs appealed the district court's denial of class
certification.  Upon Sali and Spriggs's motion, the Appellat Court
stayed proceedings in the appeal pending resolution in the
California State Courts of Gerard v. Orange Coast Memorial Medical
Center, a case involving issues related to certain of the proposed
classes.  In light of the Gerard decision, Sali and Spriggs chose
to appeal only the district court's denial of class certification
with respect to the proposed rounding-time, regular-rate,
wage-statement, and waiting-time classes.

Judge Mendoza holds that the district court abused its discretion
by relying on each of these reasons to deny class certification.
He finds that (i) the district court's typicality determination was
premised on an error of law; (ii) Spriggs is not an adequate class
representative, but Sali remains as an adequate representative
Plaintiff; (iii) the district court abused its discretion by
concluding that attorneys from Bisnar Chase cannot serve as
adequate class counsel; and (iv) district court erred by denying
certification of the proposed rounding-time and wage-statement
classes on the basis that they failed Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance
requirement.

For these reasons, the Judge reversed the district court's denial
of class certification, and remanded for further proceedings
consistent with his Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 Order and Amended
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/eDAD1C from Leagle.com.

Jerusalem F. Beligan -- jbeligan@bisnarchase.com -- (argued) and
Brian D. Chase -bchase@bisnarchase.com -- Bisnar Chase LLP,
Newport Beach, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Christina H. Hayes -- chayes@littler.com -- (argued), Khatereh Sage
Fahimi -- sfahimi@littler.com -- and Stacey E. James --
sjames@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson P.C., San Diego,
California, for Defendants-Appellees.


COSTA HOLLYWOOD: Breached Staffing Service Agreement, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL SERVICE GROUP & ASSOCIATES, INC., the Plaintiff, vs. COSTA
HOLLYWOOD PROPERTY OWNER, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.:
CACE-18-026915 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward County), demands judgment
against Defendant for its breach of contract including the balance
of $168.418.10. together with prejudgment interest, applicable late
fees and any other relief deemed necessary and proper by the
Court.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff fully performed all of
its obligations as contemplated by the "Staffing Services
Agreement". The Defendant failed to properly compensate Plaintiff
pursuant to the "Staffing Services Agreement" entered into between
the parties. As a result of the foregoing, Defendant breached the
"Staffing Service Agreement. As a direct and proximate result of
Defendant's breach of the "Staffing Service Agreement", the
Plaintiff sustained damages, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Aaron Behar, Esq.
          BEHAR BEHAR
          490 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 300
          Sunrise, FL 33325
          Telephone: (954) 990-8639
          Facsimile: (954) 332-9260
          E-mail: ab@beharbehar.com

COVANCE INC: Feckley Seeks Unpaid Compensation upon Termination
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN FECKLEY individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. COVANCE, INC., a Delaware corporation;
LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Delaware corporation;
LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, a Delaware corporation;
LC LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a California corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
30-2018-01032788-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 16, 2018), seeks
to recover unpaid wages including compensation upon termination,
pursuant to the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, at the time of Plaintiff's termination,
on or about May 22, 2018, the Defendant had not paid Plaintiff
commissions owed as laid out in the commission agreement. The
Defendant has willfully, unfairly, fraudulently, or unlawfully
failed to pay Plaintiff compensation owed upon termination of
employment pursuant to California Labor Code section 201. The
Defendant has still not paid Plaintiff for all of the commissions
that are rightfully Plaintiff's wages. The Defendant is in
violation of California Labor Code section 201 et seq. for failing
to pay Plaintiff his final wages at the time of Plaintiff's
termination, the lawsuit says.

Covance Inc. is a contract research organization headquartered in
Princeton, New Jersey, providing drug development and animal
testing services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
          Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
          Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
          Jean P. Buchanan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM, LLP
          301 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 1550
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 432-8933
          Facsimile: (562) 435-1656
          E-mail: gary@carlinbuchs baum.com
                  brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  jean@carlinbuchsbaum.com

DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Sued Over Professional Misconduct Allegations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alyssa Dandrea, writing for Valley News, reports that seven female
science students filed a $70 million class-action lawsuit against
Dartmouth College on November 15, saying they and dozens of others
were sexually harassed and assaulted by three tenured professors
who have since left the Ivy League institution.

The women accuse college administrators of turning a blind eye to
the abuse for more than 16 years, despite knowing that the
professors "leered at, groped, sexted, intoxicated and even raped
female students," according to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District
Court in Concord.

The plaintiffs, some of whom still are at Dartmouth, say Todd
Heatherton, Bill Kelley and Paul Whalen "perpetuated an
alcohol-saturated 'party culture' " by conducting lab meetings at
bars, by inviting students to "hot tub parties" at their private
residencies, and by suggesting undergraduates use cocaine as part
of a class demonstration on addiction.

Sasha Brietzke, Annemarie Brown, Vassiki Chauhan, Andrea Courtney,
Marissa Evans, Kristina Rapuano and an anonymous plaintiff
identified as Jane Doe are bringing the lawsuit on behalf of every
current and former female undergraduate and graduate student
enrolled in Dartmouth's psychological and brain sciences department
between March 31, 2015, and the date of judgment. They have brought
six claims against the institution, including Title IX violations
to include sexual harassment and gender discrimination, as well as
claims of breach of fiduciary duty and negligent supervision and
retention under New Hampshire law.

The women accuse Heatherton, Kelley and Whalen of turning the
department into a "21st Century ‘Animal House.' " The suit
alleges the three professors objectified their female students by
making inappropriate comments about their physical attractiveness,
with Kelley going so far as to publicly rank them on what he called
a "Papi" scale. The scale began at zero, which equated to "would
never bang."

In late spring and early summer, Kelley and Whalen resigned and
Heatherton retired as Dartmouth took steps to fire them following
an internal investigation by the college and a criminal
investigation by the state's Department of Justice.

The professors were accused of creating a hostile work environment
in which undergraduate, graduate and postdoctoral students endured
a hostile workplace where the line between professional and
personal relationships was blurred.

Kelley and Whalen each are accused of assaulting a student after a
night of drinking, attempting to seduce women under their
supervision and punishing those who rebuffed their advances in the
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences.

"The seven plaintiffs, each an exemplary female scientist at the
start of her career, came to Dartmouth to contribute to a crucial
and burgeoning field of academy study," according to the lawsuit.
"Plaintiffs were instead sexually harassed and sexually assaulted
by the Department's tenured professors and expected to tolerate
increasing levels of sexual predation."

Whalen and Kelley could not be reached for comment, and it is
unclear if they have attorneys. Heatherton apologized for acting
inappropriately at conferences but said, through a lawyer, that he
never socialized or had sexual relations with students.

In a page-and-a-half long statement distributed by his attorney on
November 15 afternoon, Heatherton said that he "categorically
denies playing any role in creating a toxic environment at
Dartmouth College."

"The specific allegations in the lawsuit predominantly involve the
other professors and their relationships with students," the
statement said. "None of the complaining parties were
(Heatherton's) graduate students. He is disturbed by the graphic
allegations."

Six of the plaintiffs were graduate students and one was an
undergraduate.

The lawsuit paints a harrowing picture of women being forced to
endure a program in which their academic careers were dependent on
men who seemed mainly interested in drinking and getting them into
bed. Those who refused to take part in their parties or bar hopping
often were denigrated or ignored, according to the lawsuit.

Repeatedly, the lawsuit alleges, the three would set about grooming
incoming graduate students. They often would comment on their
physical appearances, give them extra attention and then bombard
them with invitations to drink with them at area bars or while out
at conferences. When the women would oblige, they would seek to get
them drunk and take advantage of them.

One of the plaintiffs, Rapuano, alleges that Whalen in March 2014
forced himself upon her and put his hands down her pants when she
visited his office. About a year later, she attended a conference
with Kelley and alleges that he got her drunk and raped her. The
lawsuit does not say whether she went to the police.

After the assault, she alleges Kelley kept pressing her for sexual
favors. When Rapuano finally rebuffed him, she said Kelley became
hostile, stopped providing her with academic guidance and attempted
to undermine her research by sharing it with colleagues.

"This is the person who really holds the keys to your future,"
Rapuano, who completed her doctoral degree at Dartmouth this spring
and now is at Yale University, told The Associated Press. "For me,
it became a situation where I felt trapped and I couldn't get away
from it because getting away from it meant leaving the career that
I had worked so hard to get at."

Chauhan, another plaintiff who still is at Dartmouth who alleges
she was raped by Whalen at his home, said everyone in the
department was aware of the trio's behavior but took no action. She
did seek medical attention, but the lawsuit does not say whether
she went to the police.

The New Hampshire Attorney General's Office also has been
investigating.

The women who now are suing Dartmouth say they were told they would
have a voice in the college's independent investigation, but
ultimately were ignored as the three professors departed.

They are seeking compensatory and punitive damages of at least $70
million, according to their lawsuit.

A group of female graduate students had contacted the college's
Title IX office in April 2017 to detail instances of sexual
harassment and assault by the professors, with the goal of ending
the "intolerable conditions." However, their complaints went
unanswered and, consequently, Whalen sexually assaulted a graduate
teaching assistant 20 days later, the suit says.

In an email to the college community on November 15 morning,
Dartmouth President Phil Hanlon said that while "sexual misconduct
and harassment have no place at Dartmouth," the college disputes
the allegations in the suit.

"We applaud the courage displayed by members of our community
within (the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences) who
brought the misconduct allegations to Dartmouth's attention last
year," Hanlon wrote. "And we remain open to a fair resolution of
the students' claims through an alternative to the court process.
However, we respectfully, but strongly, disagree with the
characterizations of Dartmouth's actions in the complaint and will
respond through our own court filings."

The lawsuit against Dartmouth was filed by Steven Kelly of the
Maryland-based law firm Sanford Heisler Sharp LLC, who represented
St. Paul's School sexual assault survivor Chessy Prout and her
parents in a 2016 federal lawsuit against the Concord prep school.
Concord attorney Charles Douglas served as local counsel in that
case and will do the same in this matter.

The Prouts accused St. Paul's of endangering the welfare of the
children entrusted in their care by allowing a sexually pervasive
culture to continue at the school for decades. The parties reached
a confidential settlement resolving the case in January. [GN]


DATAWATCH CORPORATION: Stier Balks at Merger Deal with Altair
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT STIER, 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, and RANDALL P.
SEIDL, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-11013 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 26,
2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants from closing a tender offer or
taking any steps to consummate the proposed transaction, unless and
until material information is disclosed to Datawatch stockholders
or, in the event the proposed transaction is consummated, to
recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of
Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On November 5,
2018, Datawatch, Altair, and Merger Sub entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger, whereby each holder of Datawatch common stock
will receive $13.10 per share in cash.

On November 14, 2018, in order to convince Datawatch stockholders
to tender their shares, the Board authorized the filing of a
materially incomplete and misleading Schedule 14D-9
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the SEC. In particular,
the Recommendation Statement contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning: (i) the financial analyses
conducted by the Company's financial advisor, GCA Advisors, LLC, in
support of their fairness opinion; (ii) the potential conflicts of
interest faced by the Board; and (iii) the background process
leading up to the Proposed Transaction. The Tender Offer is
scheduled to expire at 12:00 midnight, New York City time, at the
end of the day on December 12, 2018. It is imperative that the
material information that has been omitted from the Recommendation
Statement is disclosed to the Company's stockholders prior to the
Expiration Date so they can properly determine whether to tender
their shares, 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:

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 971-1341
          Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
          E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com

DEUTSCHE BANK: Discovery Ongoing in BlackRock Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the BlackRock lawsuit filed in California against Deutsche Bank
Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA"), discovery remains ongoing
regarding the Plaintiffs' request for voluntary dismissal with
prejudice as to all claims asserted by Sealink Funding Limited,
Kore Advisors LP, and a group of funds managed by Nationwide Asset
Management, LLC or an affiliate, as well as all claims asserted by
a group of funds managed by AEGON USA Investment Management, LLC
related to one trust.  

RFS Holding, L.L.C. disclosed in its Form 10-D filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly distribution
period from October 1, 2018 to October 31, 2018, that on March 25,
2016, the BlackRock plaintiffs filed a state court action against
DBTCA in the Superior Court of California, Orange County with
respect to 513 trusts.  On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint with respect to 465 trusts, and included DBNTC as
an additional defendant.  The amended complaint asserts three
causes of action:  breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty;
and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest.

Plaintiffs purport to bring the action on behalf of themselves and
all other current owners of certificates in the 465 trusts.  The
amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered
total realized collateral losses of US$75.7 billion, but does not
include a demand for money damages in a sum certain.

On August 22, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a demurrer as to
plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and breach of
the duty to avoid conflicts of interest cause of action and motion
to strike as to plaintiffs' breach of contract cause of action.  On
October 18, 2016, the court granted DBNTC and DBTCA's demurrer,
providing plaintiffs with thirty days' leave to amend, and denied
DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to strike.  Plaintiffs did not further
amend their complaint and, on December 19, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA
filed an answer to the amended complaint.

On January 17, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  On May 30, 2018, the court denied that motion.  On
June 8, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the denial
of that motion.  On July 16, 2018, the court stayed all trial court
proceedings during the pendency of Plaintiffs' appeal from the
denial of class certification.

On July 18, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a request for voluntary
dismissal with prejudice as to all claims asserted by Sealink
Funding Limited, Kore Advisors LP, and a group of funds managed by
Nationwide Asset Management, LLC or an affiliate, as well as all
claims asserted by a group of funds managed by AEGON USA Investment
Management, LLC related to one trust.  Discovery is ongoing.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Discovery Still Stayed in Blackrock Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
RFS Holding, L.L.C. disclosed in its Form 10-D filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly distribution
period from October 1, 2018 to October 31, 2018, that in the
lawsuit pending in New York against Deutsche Bank Trust Company
Americas ("DBTCA") and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
("DBNTC"), discovery remains stayed pending the resolution of any
FRCP 72 objections that Plaintiffs may file regarding the presiding
magistrate judge's August 7 report and recommendation.

On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed by
Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others, filed a
derivative action against DBNTC and DBTCA in New York State Supreme
Court purportedly on behalf of and for the benefit of 544
private-label RMBS trusts asserting claims for alleged violations
of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 ("TIA"), breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on DBNTC
and DBTCA's alleged failure to perform their duties as trustees for
the trusts.  Plaintiffs subsequently dismissed their state court
complaint and filed a derivative and class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of and for the benefit of 564 private-label RMBS trusts, which
substantially overlapped with the trusts at issue in the state
court action.

The complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total
realized collateral losses of US$89.4 billion, but the complaint
does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain.
DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss, and on January 19, 2016,
the court partially granted the motion on procedural grounds: as to
the 500 trusts that are governed by pooling and servicing
agreements, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction.  The court
did not rule on substantive defenses asserted in the motion to
dismiss.

On March 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in federal
court.  In the amended complaint, in connection with 62 trusts
governed by indenture agreements, plaintiffs assert claims for
breach of contract, violation of the TIA, breach of fiduciary duty,
and breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest.  The amended
complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total
realized collateral losses of US$9.8 billion, but the complaint
does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain.  On
July 15, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

On January 23, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part
DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to dismiss.  The court granted the motion
to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs' conflict-of-interest claim,
thereby dismissing it, and denied the motion to dismiss with
respect to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim and claim for
violation of the TIA, thereby allowing those claims to proceed.

On January 26, 2017, the parties filed a joint stipulation and
proposed order dismissing plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary
duty.  On January 27, 2017, the court entered the parties' joint
stipulation and ordered that plaintiffs' claim for breach of
fiduciary duty be dismissed.  On February 3, 2017, following a
hearing concerning DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to dismiss on February
2, 2017, the court issued a short form order dismissing (i)
plaintiffs' representation and warranty claims as to 21 trusts
whose originators and/or sponsors had entered bankruptcy and the
deadline for asserting claims against such originators and/or
sponsors had passed as of 2009 and (ii) plaintiffs' claims to the
extent they were premised upon any alleged pre-Event of Default
duty to terminate servicers.  On March 27, 2017, DBNTC and DBTCA
filed an answer to the amended complaint.

On April 6, 2018, the court entered the parties' joint stipulation
to dismiss the claims of Sealink Funding Limited and ordered that
Sealink's claims be dismissed with prejudice.  On April 24, 2018,
the court entered the parties' joint stipulation to dismiss the
claims of Kore Advisors LP and ordered that Kore's claims be
dismissed with prejudice.

On January 26, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.

On August 7, 2018, the presiding magistrate judge issued a report
and recommendation recommending that the court: (i) deny
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; (ii) dismiss
Plaintiffs' TIA claims as to 39 trusts; and (iii) decline to extend
jurisdiction over, and therefore dismiss without prejudice,
Plaintiffs' remaining claims as to the same 39 trusts, which claims
all arise under state law.

On August 9, 2018, the court stayed all discovery pending the
resolution of any FRCP 72 objections to the report and
recommendation that Plaintiffs may file.


DITECH HOLDING: Dec. 5 Hearing for Final OK of Elkin Case Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
A final settlement hearing is scheduled for December 5, 2018 in the
lawsuit styled Courtney Elkin, et al. vs. Walter Investment
Management Corp., et al., according to Ditech Holding Corporation's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

A federal securities fraud complaint was filed against the Company,
George M. Awad, Denmar J. Dixon, Anthony N. Renzi, and Gary L.
Tillett on March 16, 2017. The case, captioned Courtney Elkin, et
al. vs. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-02025-JCJ, is pending in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

The court has appointed a lead plaintiff in the action who filed an
amended complaint on September 15, 2017.  The amended complaint
seeks monetary damages and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act during a class period alleged to begin on
August 9, 2016 and conclude on August 1, 2017.

The amended complaint alleges that: (i) defendants made material
misstatements about the value of the Company's deferred tax assets;
(ii) the material misstatement about the value of the Company's
deferred tax assets required the Company to restate certain
financials in the Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the periods
ended June 30, 2016, September 30, 2016 and March 31, 2017 and the
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016,
and caused the Company to violate the financial covenants and
obligations in agreements with the Company's lenders and GSEs; and
(iii) defendants made material misstatements concerning the
Company's initiatives to deleverage the Company's capital
structure.

On November 3, 2017, the lead plaintiff voluntarily dismissed
defendant Denmar J. Dixon from the action.  On November 14, 2017,
the remaining defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

From December 1, 2017 to February 9, 2018, the action was stayed
pursuant to section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code.  On July 13, 2018,
the parties entered into a formal settlement agreement to settle
the action for US$2.95 million subject to notice to the alleged
class and court approval.

The court preliminarily approved the settlement and scheduled a
final settlement hearing for December 5, 2018.  The settlement, if
completed, will be paid by the Company's directors' and officers'
insurance carrier.

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.



EDUCARE COMMUNITY: Mathis et al. Seek Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------
DONTRAIL MATHIS; DONTRAUS JENKINS and RAMONA JAMES; individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
EDUCARE COMMUNITY LIVING CORP, - TEXAS.; EDUCARE COMMUNITY LIVING
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; and RES-CARE, INC., the Defendants, Case
2:18-cv-00518-JRG (E.D. Tex., Nov. 21, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid and incorrectly paid wages for all hours worked in a
workweek, as required by law, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
interest, and attorney fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are corporations engaged
in the business of providing living assistance, education, and
healthcare to persons with disabilities and infirmities. The
Defendants employed Plaintiffs as direct support professionals.
The Aides' primary job duties included grooming, feeding,
ambulating, and medically monitoring, transporting, cleaning,
bathing, and toileting, their Clients.

The Plaintiffs bring this action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section
216(b), on behalf of a collective of persons who are and were
employed by Defendants as direct support professionals during the
past 3 years through the final date of disposition of this action
who were not paid an overtime premium for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek in violation of the FLSA, the
lawsuit says.

Educare Community Living Corp Texas operates as a subsidiary of
Res-Care Inc. ResCare provides services and support to seniors,
people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, children,
and job seekers.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Jay D. Ellwanger, Esq.
          ELLWANGER LAW LLLP
          8310-1 N. Capital of Texas Highway, Suite 190
          Austin, TX 7831
          Telephone: (737) 808-2260
          E-mail: jellwanger@equalrights.law

               - and -

          James A. Vagnini, Esq.
          Robert R. Barravecchio, Esq.
          Alexander M. White, Esq.
          VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
          600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7180
          Facsimile: (516) 706-0248
          E-mail: jvagnini@vkvlawyers.com
                  rrb@vkvlawyers.com
                  awhite@vkvlawyers.com

ELITE WHEEL: Rodriguez Seeks Overtime Compensation
--------------------------------------------------
ERIC RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ELITE WHEEL DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a
Florida Profit Corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
8:18-cv-02832-EAK-JSS (M.D. Fla., Nov. 19, 2018), seeks unpaid
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt
hourly paid laborer for Defendant in Hillsborough County, Florida.
The Defendant has a policy and practice of paying non-exempt hourly
paid laborers like Plaintiff "straight time" for all overtime hours
worked in a workweek, in lieu of the federally mandated time and
one half rate for all overtime hours worked, the lawsuit says.

Elite Wheel provides automotive products. The Company distributes
wheels, tires, sensors, valve stems, wheel adapters, and lug
nuts.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Jan. 22 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP regarding the Emergent Securities Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
(Southern Division)

WILLIAM SPONN, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,
vs.
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS INC., et al.,
Defendants.

No. 8:16-cv-02625-RWT
CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE

TO:

ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED EMERGENT
BIOSOLUTIONS INC. ("EMERGENT") PUBLICLY-TRADED COMMON STOCK LISTED
ON THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE DURING THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 11,
2016, THROUGH AND INCLUDING JUNE 21, 2016, OR THEIR
SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS")

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland, that the above-captioned action
(the "Litigation") has been certified as a class action on behalf
of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities
who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set
forth in the full printed Amended Notice of Proposed Settlement of
Class Action (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Litigation, on behalf
of themselves and the other Members of the Settlement Class, have
reached a proposed settlement of the Litigation with defendants
Emergent, Fuad El-Hibri, Daniel J. Abdun-Nabi, Robert G. Kramer,
and Adam R. Havey (collectively, "Defendants") for the sum of
$6,500,000.00 in cash (the "Settlement"). If the Settlement is
approved, it will resolve all claims in the Litigation.

A hearing will be held on January 22, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. ET,
before the Honorable Roger W. Titus at the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland, 6500 Cherrywood Lane,
Greenbelt, MD 20770, for the purpose of determining: (1)whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable and adequate; (2)whether, thereafter, this Litigation
should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants as set
forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated October 16, 2018; (3)
whether the Plan of Allocation of Settlement proceeds is fair,
reasonable and adequate and therefore should be approved; and
(4)the reasonableness of the application of Lead Counsel for the
payment of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection with
this Litigation, together with interest thereon (which request may
include a request for reimbursement of Plaintiffs' reasonable costs
and expenses pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995).

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED EMERGENT PUBLICLY-TRADED COMMON STOCK
LISTED ON THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE DURING THE PERIOD FROM
JANUARY 11, 2016, THROUGH AND INCLUDING JUNE 21, 2016 (THE
"SETTLEMENT CLASS PERIOD"), YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THIS
LITIGATION AND THE SETTLEMENT THEREOF. If you have not received a
detailed Notice as referred to above and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to
Emergent Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi &
Co. LLC, P.O. Box 404093, Louisville, KY 40233-4093, or by
downloading this information at
www.EmergentSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a Settlement Class
Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release online at
www.EmergentSecuritiesLitigation.comby February 16, 2019, or by
mail postmarked no later than February 16, 2019, establishing that
you are entitled to a recovery. You will be bound by any judgment
rendered in the Litigation unless you request to be excluded, in
writing, postmarked by December 26, 2018.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Emergent publicly-traded
common stock listed on the New York Stock Exchange during the
Settlement Class Period and you desire to be excluded from the
Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that
it is postmarked no later than December 26, 2018, in the manner and
form explained in the detailed Notice referred to above. All
Members of the Settlement Class who do not validly request
exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgments
or orders entered in the Litigation pursuant to the Stipulation of
Settlement.

Any objection to any aspect of the Settlement must be filed with
the Clerk of the Court and also delivered by hand or First-Class
Mail to each of the following addresses such that it is received no
later than December 26, 2018:

COURT:

         CLERK OF THE COURT
         UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
         DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
         6500 Cherrywood Lane
         Greenbelt, MD 20770

LEAD COUNSEL:

         ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART
         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101

DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL:

         KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
         YOSEF J. RIEMER
         MATTHEW SOLUM
         601 Lexington Avenue
         New York, NY 10022

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: October 25, 2018           
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND


ENDO PHARMA: Faces RICO Racketeering Lawsuit in Alaska
------------------------------------------------------
On behalf of Kenaitze Indian Tribe, Asa'Carsarmiut Tribe, Akiak
Native Community, Native Village of Port Heiden, and the Native
Village of Afognak, the law firms of Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Sonosky Chambers Sachse Miller & Monkman, LLP, and
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP filed a RICO racketeering
lawsuit on November 16, 2018 in federal court in Anchorage against
Endo Pharmaceuticals, Purdue Pharma, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Teva,
Allergan, Johnson & Johnson, Watson Pharmaceuticals, Actavis,
Insys, Mallinckrodt, AmerisourceBergen, Health Mart Systems,
Walgreen Co., Albertson's, CVS, the Kroger Co. and related entities
who bear responsibility for the unprecedented destructive opioid
epidemic raging across the U.S. and in the affected Alaska Native
communities.

Alaska Tribes & Native Communities Unite in Class Action RICO
Lawsuit to Seek Justice from Opiate Drug Distributors and
Manufacturers for Worst Man-Made Epidemic in Modern Medical
History

"It is long past time these companies were held accountable for the
destruction they have brought to our Alaska Native communities,"
stated Mike Williams, Sr., member, Tribal Council of the Native
Village of Akiak. "The deceptive practices these companies use to
drain our people of money and their lives must be stopped."

Tribal suits over opioid deaths and staggering costs were first
filed in early 2017. Since then, more than 60 Native American
Tribes have filed suits, and these cases have joined up with over
1,100 other cases pending in federal court in Ohio against dozens
of companies across the opioid drug industry. At least 30 states,
including Alaska, have also filed lawsuits.

The class action complaint in the tribal lawsuit asserts two
categories of claims. First, the complaint asserts that the
pharmaceutical manufacturers of prescription opioid drugs engaged
in a massive false marketing campaign to drastically expand the
market for such drugs and their own market share thereof. Second,
the complaint asserts claims against numerous entities in the
prescription opiate supply chain that reaped enormous financial
rewards by refusing to monitor and restrict the improper
distribution of these drugs.

The complaint alleges the named companies engaged in a vast scheme
of false and deceptive prescription opioid drug marketing -- a
campaign that exploded the market for such drugs along with the
companies' share of that expanded market by convincing physicians,
hospitals, and patients that these opioid drugs were safe for
long-term use despite significant contrary evidence showing the
drugs are ineffective in treating chronic pain and highly
addictive. The complaint further alleges these companies engaged in
a widespread supply chain scheme that reaped massive financial
rewards by refusing to adequately monitor and restrict the improper
distribution of these lethal, addictive drugs.

The epidemic caused by prescription opioid drugs has taken such a
heavy toll in Alaska that Governor Bill Walker has had to declare a
public health crisis and issue a Declaration of Disaster Emergency
for the State. As the Governor noted in this Declaration, by 2012
the prescription opioid overdose death rate was more than twice
that of the national death rate. Indeed, this epidemic is so
widespread and pervasive that for the first time in recorded
history, the life expectancy for Americans has decreased since the
drugs flooded the U.S. market. These drugs are now the leading
cause of death for Americans under the age of 50.

Native Americans, including Plaintiffs' citizens and patients, have
been significantly impacted by this unimaginable epidemic. As noted
in the Complaint, American Indians and Alaska Natives suffer the
highest per capita rate of opioid overdoses. According to the U.S.
Indian Health Service's Chief Medical Officer, "American Indians
and Alaska Natives had the highest drug overdose death rates in
2015 and the largest percentage increase in the number of deaths
over time from 1999-2015 compared to other racial and ethnic
groups." As if that weren't bad enough, the opioid epidemic
resulting from Defendants' conduct has injured even the youngest
members of Indian tribes. In 1992, in the United States, only 2% of
pregnant women admitted for drug treatment services abused opioids.
By 2012, opioids accounted for 38% of all drug treatment admissions
of pregnant women. Over this time period, the drug-related death
rate among American Indians and Alaska Natives increased more than
500 percent. Pregnant American Indian women are up to 8.7 times
more likely than pregnant women from other groups to be diagnosed
with opioid dependency or abuse, and in some communities more than
one in 10 pregnant American Indian women have a diagnosis of opioid
dependency or abuse.

The complaint alleges that the myriad defendants worked to conceal
facts and disseminate a vast range of falsehoods relating to opioid
drugs through multiple channels, including direct marketing, paying
key opinion leaders to deceptively promote opioid use, through
continuing medical education programs, through "branded"
advertising to doctors and consumers and "unbranded" advertising to
promote opioid use for chronic pain without FDA review, and by
funding, editing, and distributing publications that supported
these and other misrepresentations. In doing so, the complaint
alleges the defendants deliberately disregarded their duties to
maintain effective controls and to identify, report, and take steps
to halt suspicious orders. The complaint asserts that their
conspiracy to engage in this wrongful conduct enabled them to
benefit both independently and jointly in their schemes relating to
the promotion, sale, and distribution of opioid drugs.

As further detailed in the complaint, this crisis was precipitated
by the defendants who manufacture, sell, and market prescription
opioids. Through massive marketing campaigns premised on false and
incomplete information, these entities engineered a dramatic shift
in how and when opioids were prescribed by the medical community
and used by patients. Relentlessly, methodically, and most
importantly untruthfully, these prescription opioid drug
manufacturers and distributors asserted that the risks of addiction
were low when opioids were used to treat chronic pain, and
overstated the benefits and trivialized the risks of long-term
opioid drug use. On the supply side, the crisis was fueled and
sustained by those involved in the supply chain of opioids,
including manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies, who failed
to maintain effective controls over the distribution of
prescription opioids, and who instead actively worked to evade such
controls.

The plaintiffs in this suit are federally-recognized Alaska Native
tribes with thousands of members, all of which provide medical,
dental, behavioral health, chemical dependency, wellness, physical
therapy, optometry, pharmacy support, and traditional healing
services to their members and communities.

The complaint asserts claims under the Federal Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), as well as claims for fraud,
public nuisance, unjust enrichment, negligence, unfair competition
under the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Act, product liability, and civil conspiracy. It seeks damages that
include the tribal organizations' healthcare and medical care
costs, additional therapeutic costs, drug purchase costs, costs of
training, preparing, and providing first responders, mental health
services, as well as losses caused by the diversion of limited
health care funds to address the opioid epidemic. The complaint
also seeks treble damages, equitable relief and injunctive relief,
including an order enjoining any further violations of RICO,
enjoining the future improper marketing of opioids, enjoining other
wrongful conduct, and forfeiting the defendants' ill-gotten
profits.

A copy of the Alaskan tribal entities opioids complaint is
available at https://is.gd/4Erdii

          About Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP is an 87-attorney law firm
with offices in San Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Seattle.
Lieff Cabraser has filed opioid-related cases on behalf of counties
and cities within California, Florida, Tennessee, and Washington,
and also serves on the Court-appointed Plaintiffs' Executive and
Settlement Committees and the Tribal Committee in the federal
Opioids multidistrict litigation. Lieff Cabraser represents tribes,
cities and counties, union plans, and others who have suffered
devastating economic losses in battling an Opioid crisis of the
defendants' making. The firm has recovered substantial economic
losses for government entities, businesses and individuals in cases
including the Tobacco litigation, the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater
Horizon Oil Spill litigations, and the Neurontin RICO litigation.

        About Sonosky Chambers Sachse Miller & Monkman, LLP

Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, LLP represents Native
American tribes and tribal organizations across the United States
in trial and appellate litigation. The firm's attorneys have
handled some of the most important Indian law cases to come before
the Supreme Court, including recent victories which led to the
recovery of nearly $2 billion against the United States on behalf
of tribal governments and governmental health and social service
providers. The firm represents two dozen Tribes and intertribal
organizations in connection with the National Opioid Litigation,
including the Navajo Nation and the bellwether tribal plaintiff the
Muscogee (Creek) Nation, and it also brought the first tribal
opioid case against the pharmaceutical industry (McKesson v
Hembree). The firm's partners sit on the six-member Plaintiff's
Tribal Committee in the Opioid Litigation.

         About Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP

Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP was formed on January 1, 1985.
Courts have selected Zwerling, Schachter many times as lead counsel
in antitrust, RICO, securities, and consumer class actions in state
and federal courts. The firm also represents tribes and
governmental entities in actions seeking to redress corporate
misconduct. The firm is counsel for a number of Tribes and Native
Villages on the West Coast and Alaska in the National Opioid
Litigation, including the Native Villages of Port Heiden, Akiak,
and Afognak, the Asa'carsarmiut Tribe of Mountain Village, the
Yurok and Hoopa Valley Tribes in Northern California, and the
Swinomish Tribe in Washington. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Accused by Suttles of Sending Unsolicited Texts
-------------------------------------------------------------
COLIN SUTTLES v. FACEBOOK, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-01004 (W.D. Tex.,
November 23, 2018), is brought on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated seeking to stop the Defendant's alleged practice
of sending unsolicited text messages to the telephone of the
Plaintiff and to obtain redress for their conduct.

Mr. Suttles contends that for reasons unknown to him, Facebook sent
text messages to his cellular phone encouraging him to go to
facebook.com or providing verification codes assigned to unknown
third parties.  He asserts that the Defendant repeatedly sent
unsolicited text messages to his cellular phone -- whose number
appears on the National Do Not Call Registry -- without consent,
all in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Facebook, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Delaware with its principal place of business located in
Menlo Park, California.  The Defendant is a social media
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          2700 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1120
          Galleria Tower I
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 554-2377
          Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
          E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com
                  jarrett@hughesellzey.com


FARIS PROPERTIES: Beyer Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned JEREMIAH BEYER, on his own
behalf, And on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
vs. FARIS PROPERTIES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
3:18-CV-00139-JRG-DCP (E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff moves the Court
for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "all persons to whom notice shall be sent regarding
      Plaintiff's claims in this action";

   2. approving Plaintiff's proposed form of notice; and

   3. requiring Defendant to produce an Excel spreadsheet (or
      similarly-used electronic software format) containing the
      full names, last-known addresses, last-known e-mail
      addresses, last-known telephone numbers (including cell
      phone numbers), and dates of employment of all employees who

      are covered by the scope of the proposed class within 10
      days of the Court's Order.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          James Friauf, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES W. FRIAUF, PLLC
          9724 Kingston Pike, Suite 104
          Knoxville, TN 37922
          Telephone: (865) 236-0347
          Facsimile: (865) 512-9174
          E-mail: james@friauflaw.com

               - and -

          Mark N. Foster, Esq.
          P.O. Box 869
          Madisonville, KY
          Telephone: (270) 213-1303
          E-mail: MFoster@MarkNFoster.com

FCA US LLC: Grigorian Sues Over Auto-dialed Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mariam Grigorian, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FCA US, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-24364 (S.D. Fla., October 22, 2018), seeks statutory damages
and any other available legal or equitable remedies for violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

FCA US LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware, and is wholly owned by
holding company Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., a Dutch corporation
headquartered in London, United Kingdom. FCA's principal place of
business and headquarters is in Auburn Hills, Michigan.

On July 17, 2018, FCA US sent a prerecorded telemarketing call
promoting their new Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid. At no point in time
did Grigorian provide FCA US with her express written consent to be
contacted using an automated dialer. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
      EDELSBERG LAW, PA
      19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 975-3320
      Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com


FCB FINANCIAL: Suits over Synovus Financial Merger Deal Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
FCB Financial Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on November 20, 2018,
2018, that the company is defending against two putative class
action suit in relation to its merger agreement Synovus Financial
Corp.

FCB Financial said, "the proposed acquisition of FCB Financial
Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") by Synovus Financial Corp.
("Synovus"). Subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement
and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), dated as of July 23,
2018, by and among the Company, Synovus and Azalea Merger Sub
Corp., a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Synovus ("Merger Sub"),
Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company (the "Merger"),
with the Company continuing as the surviving entity, immediately
after which the Company will merge with and into Synovus, with
Synovus continuing as the surviving entity.

In connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions
contemplated thereby, two putative class action lawsuits were filed
on behalf of Company stockholders in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida and the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware, respectively.  

The lawsuits are captioned Stephen Bushansky v. FCB Financial
Holdings, Inc. et al., Case 1:18-cv-62399-BB (filed October 9,
2018) and Paul Parshall v. FCB Financial Holdings, Inc. et al.,
Case 1:18-cv-01570-LPS (filed October 11, 2018).  

In general, the complaints assert claims against the Company and
the Company’s board of directors, alleging, among other things,
that the defendants failed to make adequate disclosures in the
joint proxy statement/prospectus relating to the Merger (in its
definitive form, the "Proxy Statement") forming a part of the Form
S-4 Registration Statement filed by Synovus in connection with the
Merger.

The Company believes that the allegations in the complaints are
without merit.

While the Company believes that the disclosures set forth in the
Proxy Statement comply fully with applicable law, to moot
plaintiffs’ disclosure claims, to avoid nuisance, potential
expense and delay and to provide additional information to the
Company's stockholders, the Company has determined to voluntarily
supplement the Proxy Statement with the below disclosures.  Nothing
in the supplemental disclosure shall be deemed an admission of the
legal necessity or materiality under applicable law of any of the
disclosure set forth herein or in the Proxy Statement.  To the
contrary, the Company denies all allegations in the litigations
that any additional disclosure was or is required.

A copy of the supplemantal disclosure is available at
https://goo.gl/7p2jcg.

FCB Financial Holdings, Inc. operates as the bank holding company
for Florida Community Bank, N.A. that provides various financial
products and services to individuals, small and medium-sized
businesses, large businesses, and other local organizations and
entities in south and central Florida. The company was formerly
known as Bond Street Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to FCB
Financial Holdings, Inc. in June 2014. FCB Financial Holdings, Inc.
was founded in 1923 and is headquartered in Weston, Florida.


FIFTH THIRD BANK: Made Illegal Bank Account Debits, Starace Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Starace, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Fifth Third Bank and Does 1-10, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-at-00846 (E.D. Cal., November 19, 2018) is a
complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendants in debiting Plaintiff's and also the putative Class
members' bank accounts on a recurring basis without obtaining a
written authorization signed or similarly authenticated for
preauthorized electronic fund transfers and/or after clear
revocation of any authorization or similar authentication for
preauthorized electronic fund transfers from Plaintiff's and also
the putative Class members' accounts, thereby violating the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act.

In or around December 2017, Plaintiff contacted Defendant in an
attempt to make payments for a car that Plaintiff purchased for his
daughter.

The Defendant's agent informed Plaintiff that he could initiate
service with Defendant by providing his routing and checking
account information. Plaintiff provided Defendant's agent with his
routing and checking account information. However, due to a
miscommunication, the payments that Plaintiff agreed to make were
never made. When Defendant's agent tried to notify Plaintiff,
Plaintiff did not respond due to the fact that Plaintiff's cell
phone was lost. When Plaintiff did learn of the late payments,
Plaintiff immediately overnighted payment in the form of personal
checks to Defendant. Plaintiff tried vigorously to contact
Defendant and explain the situation of why he could not be
contacted, however, Defendant refused to accept his excuse and
Defendant reported a late payment on his credit score.

The Defendant continued to deduct funds from Plaintiff's account
multiple times on a reoccurring basis, without providing Plaintiff
a written authorization to do so, says the complaint. Plaintiff was
only given an update on the disputes Defendant had filed for him.

Plaintiff never provided Defendant with any authorization to deduct
these sums of money on a regular recurring basis from Plaintiff's
banking account. Defendants did not provide to Plaintiff, nor did
Plaintiff execute, any written or electronic writing memorializing
or authorizing these recurring or automatic payments, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff, Martin Starace is a natural person residing in Tulare
County in the state of California.

Fifth Third Bank was a company engaged, by use of the mails and
telephone, in the business of collecting debts alleged to be due
another.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FIVE POINT: Still Faces Class Suit by Bayview Hunters Residents
---------------------------------------------------------------
Five Point Holdings, LLC still faces a putative class action suit
filed by the residents of the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood,
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 May 2018, Bayview Hunters residents filed the putative class
action in San Francisco Superior Court naming Tetra Tech, Inc.
("Tetra Tech"), Lennar Corporation and the Company as defendants.

The plaintiffs allege that, among other things, Tetra Tech, an
independent contractor hired by the U.S. Navy to conduct testing
and remediation of toxic radiological waste at The San Francisco
Shipyard, fraudulently misrepresented its test results and
remediation efforts.  The plaintiffs are seeking damages against
Tetra Tech and have requested an injunction to prevent the Company
and Lennar from undertaking any development activities at The San
Francisco Shipyard.

Five Point Holdings, LLC, through its subsidiary, Five Point
Operating Company, LP, plans, develops, and owns mixed-use
communities in California, the United States. It sells residential
and commercial land sites to homebuilders, commercial developers,
and commercial buyers. The company was formerly known as Newhall
Holding Company, LLC and changed its name to Five Point Holdings,
LLC in May 2016. Five Point Holdings, LLC was founded in 2009 and
is based in Aliso Viejo, California.


FL CASH: Rodriguez Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------
MARISA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FL CASH HOME BUYERS, LLC, a
Florida Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No.
0:18-cv-62841-RNS (S.D. Fla., Nov. 21, 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 knowingly and willfully
violated of the TCPA, by making unsolicited prerecorded
telemarketing calls in violation of consumers' privacy rights. The
Defendant, a Florida real estate investment company, knew that it
was prohibited by the TCPA from contacting consumers on their
cellular telephones with prerecorded calls, without their
prior express consent. Nevertheless, in a failed attempt to
circumvent the TCPA, Defendant did just that by utilizing
"ringless" voicemail technology to place calls to Plaintiff and
members of the Class to promote its products and services, 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

GLYNN COUNTY, GA: Golden Isles Residents Sue Over Excessive Taxes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Cooper, writing for The Brunswick News, reports that Golden
Isles residents say Glynn County is still overcharging them on
their property taxes despite a court ruling it was improperly
applying their homestead exemptions.

The Georgia Court of Appeals ruled on a class action lawsuit in
January, stating Glynn County had been overcharging around 7,500
residents on their property taxes by incorrectly applying their
homestead exemptions.

If a property owner is granted the Scarlett Williams homestead
exemption, their property taxes are calculated based on their
property's assessed value for the year they were granted the
exemption, called the base year.

In three companion civil cases filed in 2012, 2013 and 2014 --
certified as a class-action in 2015 -- residents claim the county
selected the wrong base year.

In the case of J. Matthew Coleman and Elizabeth Blair Coleman, two
members of the class, 2006 was selected as their base year. Their
property taxes from 2006 to 2012 were based on the 2006 assessed
value of $133,800 when, according to the court of appeals, it
should have been based on the 2005 value of $70,006.

The Colemans claim to have overpaid on their property taxes by
$1,500 per year from 2006 to 2012.

Jay Roberts, Esq.-- jroberts@beckerlawyers.com -- the lawyer
representing the residents, claimed in March the county had
overcharged the 7,500 landowners by $15-17 million in total. The
court of appeals did not rule on the plaintiffs' request to seek
refunds on taxes paid outside the three-year window allowed by
state law, however.

Roberts filed a motion in Glynn County Superior Court on November
16 requesting a preliminary injunction preventing the county from
collecting 2018 property taxes from members of the class. If the
taxes have already been collected, the motion asks the court to
prevent the county from spending the money.

Alternatively, the motion asks the court to order the county to
deposit their tax money into a trust until the residents can be
refunded.

Additionally, plaintiffs ask the court to make the county pay
"attorney's fees and expenses . . . related to recovering refunds
for the 2018 taxes based on defendant's intentional and knowing
conduct of attempting to collect taxes from taxpayers that they do
not owe by issuing tax bills once again based on the incorrect base
year following the court of appeals ruling."

Glynn County's attorneys responded to Roberts on November 15,
writing that the "motion is wholly without merit, frivolous and
without any support in law or fact," and asked that it be
withdrawn.

The county's attorneys argue that the new motion is without merit
because Roberts already filed a motion and asked the judge on the
case to include residents who paid 2017 and 2018 taxes in the
class.

"Since you have already filed an amended complaint seeking to
include the 2018 taxes in the refund action, the motion . . . is
inconsistent with your own prior pleadings," the county's response
states.

The county's lawyers further state that "It is inconsistent to file
an amended complaint seeking to recover the 2018 taxes on behalf of
the class and to follow that up with a motion .  .. seeking to
enjoin the collection of those same taxes."

Tax Commissioner Jeff Chapman said on November 14 that anyone who
is overcharged on taxes this year will get their refunds, but it
may take time.

"The ruling said that we are to use prior year. Well, there are
17,142 homesteads in Glynn County. That means we have to go into
every homestead and set it to prior year to determine the freeze
(base year) on the homestead. That's going to take a while,"
Chapman said.

Any refunds the residents get will include the 2018 tax year, he
said.

"They're going to be reimbursed for '18 also. Everyone is going to
get what they're owed," Chapman said. ". . . . When they get their
refund, it will include the 2018 year."

Chapman was not serving as tax commissioner when the class-action
lawsuit was filed. He took office in January 2017.

The class-action lawsuit started as three civil cases, the first
filed in 2012. Plaintiffs claimed the county was collecting more
taxes than it should from those with Scarlett Williams homestead
exemptions.

Cobb County Senior Judge G. Grant Brantley ruled on Jan. 6 in Glynn
County Superior Court that the county applied the exemption
correctly. Brantley took the case after judges in the Brunswick
Judicial Circuit recused themselves.

The residents appealed the decision, and the Georgia Court of
Appeals partially granted their appeal.

"In several related enumerations of error, the Colemans contend
that the trial court erred in construing the terms of the
(homestead exemption). We agree," the appeals court's decision
stated.

Appeals court judges overturned the superior court's ruling that
the county had applied the exemption correctly, but did not rule on
the residents' request to seek refunds outside the three-year
limitation imposed by state law.

Both parties asked the Georgia Supreme Court to hear the case, but
the higher court declined. As such, the appeals court's ruling
stands and damages will be determined in Glynn County Superior
Court, Roberts said.

Brantley is scheduled to hold a hearing on motions made by both
sides on Dec. 17 in the Glynn County Courthouse.[GN]


GOLD STANDARD: Court Denies Motion to Certify Class as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Norman Green, et al., the
Plaintiff, vs. Gold Standard Baking, Inc., et al., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:13-cv-01524 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Sara L. Ellis
denied the motion to certify class as moot in light of a revised
motion.  According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on
November 20, 2018, the Court will rule on the motion for class
certification after Magistrate Judge Kim rules on motions for
sanctions.[CC]

GREAT PLAINS: Qureshi Wants Loans Deemed Void and Unenforceable
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHAHID QURESHI v. GREAT PLAINS LENDING LLC and VICTORY PARK CAPITAL
ADVISORS LLC, Case No. CV 18 907370 (Ohio Com. Pleas, Cuyahoga
Cty., November 25, 2018), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and
the proposed classes seeking actual damages, statutory damages and
a declaration that the loans issued by Great Plains to Ohio
residents are void and unenforceable.

The action is brought on behalf of all residents of Ohio, who have
been victimized by the alleged unlawful and usurious scheme
perpetrated by the Defendants to circumvent state laws designed to
protect Ohioans from illegal interest rates.

Great Plains loans money to Ohio residents via the Internet and
purports to be an entity formed under the laws of the
Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians.  Victory Park conspires with Great
Plains to loan money illegally in Ohio hiding behind the laws
afforded legitimate tribal lending entities, says the
complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James S. Wertheim, Esq.
          JAMES S. WERTHEIM LLC
          24700 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 309
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 902-1719
          E-mail: wertheimjim@gmail.com


GREY DOG CHELSEA: Kitchen Staff Sue to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marcelino Cuenca, Urbano Flores, Omar Gonzalez Hernandez, Raul
Gonzalez, Alfonso Martinez and Martin Romero, individually and on
behalf of other similarly-situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. Grey
Dog Chelsea, Inc., The Grey Dog Mulberry, Inc., The Grey Dog, Inc.,
The Grey Dog’s Coffee Ltd., Grey Dog Carmine, Inc., Moose Goose
Holding, Inc., Peter Adrian Stein and David Ethan, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-10918, (S.D. N.Y., November 21, 2018), is a collective
action in accordance with 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law resulting from deprivation of
right to overtime compensation.  The lawsuit seeks liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants operate a chain of restaurants named "The Grey Dog,"
where Plaintiffs worked as kitchen staff who claim to be denied
overtime pay for hours rendered in excess of 40 per work week.
Defendants have also failed to pay them an additional hour or
"spread of hours" pay at the minimum wage rate when they worked
more than 10 hours in a workday, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hope Pordy, Esq.
      Elizabeth Sprotzer, Esq.
      SPIVAK LIPTON LLP
      1700 Broadway, Suite 2100
      New York, NY 10019
      Phone: (212) 765-2100
      Fax: (212) 765-8954
      Email: hpordy@spivaklipton.com
             esportzer@spivaklipton.com



GURU TEG HOLDING: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Campos Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL ISAIAS CAMPOS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GURU TEG HOLDING INC. d/b/a
MAHARAJA FARMERS MARKET; AKSHAR HOLDINGS INC. d/b/a MAHARAJA
FARMERS MARKET; KRISHNA HOLDING INC. d/b/a/ MAHARAJA FARMERS
MARKET; AMANDEEP SINGH a/k/a "TONY" SINGH; and SUNIL PATEL,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06346 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2018) is an
action against the Defendants to recover overtime compensation and
minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Campos was employed by the Defendants as workers
assigned in the meat department from September 2015 to July 23,
2018.

Guru Teg Holding inc. d/b/a Maharaja Farmers Market is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
New York. The Company is a grocery store chains in New York area
offering authentic Indian groceries like Basmati Rice, Dry Fruits,
Premium Spices, Masala Curry Paste, Snacks, Sweets, and Teas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dong Phuong V. Nguyen, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 248-5550
          Facsimile: (516) 248-6027


H&H FRANCHISING: Court Certifies Class of Glenkat Franchise Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROSEANN GEIGER and SHERRI HOLLEY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. H.H.
FRANCHISING SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a HOME HELPERS, a foreign
corporation; GLENKAT, INC.; KATHLEEN HOLDEN, an individual; and
GLENN HOLDEN, an individual, Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-00738-FDW-DSC (W.D. N.C.), Judge Frank D. Whitney of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
Charlotte Division, (i) granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' Revised Motion to Conditionally Certify a Collective
Action and Facilitate Notice under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b); and
(ii) denied as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional
Certification and Judicial Notice under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' original Motion
for Conditional Certification, as well as their Revised Motion
filed to clarify the identity of the moving party after the matter
was stayed against Roseann Geiger, one of the Plaintiffs.  In light
of the Revised Motion, Judge Whitney denied as moot the original
motion.

In addition to seeking the Court's approval of the proposed Notice
of Collective Action Lawsuit and the corresponding Consent to
Become Party Plaintiff form, Plaintiff Holley also seeks
conditional certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") of a collective class defined as: all current and former
in-home caregiver employees who regularly worked 24-hour shifts
and/or who worked more than 40 hours per week, are/were employed by
H.H. Franchising Systems, Inc., doing business as Home Helpers;
and/or Glenkat, Inc.; Kathleen Holden and Glenn Holden in North
Carolina from Dec. 24, 2014, to the present.

The Defendants object to Plaintiff's Motion.

Judge Whitney, in the exercise of his discretion, concludes that
Court approval of a notice is appropriate on the record when
limited to individuals who worked for the Glenkat franchise and not
all North Carolina franchises.   Thus, to the extent requested, he
denied the Plaintiff's request to send notice to "all in-home care
caregiver employeesemployed by H.H. Franchising Systems, Inc.,
doing business as Home Helpers; and/or Glenkat, Inc.; Kathleen
Holden and Glenn Holden in North Carolina.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiff has plead, attested to facts,
and filed documentation supporting a plausible FLSA claim on behalf
of similarly situated Plaintiffs who worked for the Glenkat
franchise.  The Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing of a common
policy or practice by the Glenkat franchise.  However, statewide
notice to all employees of Home Helpers, including those who worked
for franchises other than Glenkat, is not appropriate --
particularly where other franchisees are not the named Defendants.
Both the Court's ability to orderly oversee the joining of parties
and the parties' ability to timely complete discovery would be
hindered if such broad notice were allowed.

He also declined to grant the Plaintiff's request to conditionally
certify the collective action. Conditional certification of a
collection action is not required by the FSLA.  Therefore, he
concludes some modifications to the Plaintiff's Proposed Notice are
necessary.  

In addition to the modification to the proposed class, Judge
Whitney ordered the following modifications to the Proposed Notice
of Collective Action Lawsuit:

     1. Modify the Notice to be sent to: All current and former
in-home caregiver employees who regularly worked 24-hour shifts
and/or who worked more than 40 hours per week, are/were employed by
H.H. Franchising Systems, Inc., doing business as Home Helpers;
and/or Glenkat, Inc.; Kathleen Holden and Glenn Holden in North
Carolina from Dec. 24, 2014, to the present.

     2. Modify the "Who Can Join This Lawsuit" section of the
proposed Notice to be limited in accordance with the above ruling
regarding employees who worked for Home Helpers franchisees other
than Glenkat.

     3. Add to the "Description of the Lawsuit" - "Glenkat, Inc.
and Home Helpers deny that any employee was not properly paid
minimum and overtime wages.  All employees were properly paid under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, and in particular were properly paid
according to Department of Labor standards and guidelines regarding
payment for work during sleep periods.  Glenkat, Inc. and Home
Helpers acted in good faith and contest any liability as alleged by
the Plaintiff.

The Judge also declined to grant the Plaintiff's request to send
additional notices or subsequent notices.  He finds that given the
timing of the Notice, he believes repetitive unsolicited contact
with potential party Plaintiffs after the initial Notice by First
Class Mail may create the appearance of undue Court involvement in
the solicitation of claims.  To the extent the Plaintiff seeks
email addresses for purposes of sending duplicative notice, he
finds duplicative notice by email inappropriate.

No later than Dec. 4, 2018, the Defendants will produce a
computer-readable data file containing the names and addresses or
all the Potential Plaintiffs.  The Judge approved a 60-day "opt-in
period," to begin Dec. 11, 2018.

In light of these deadlines, the Judge sua sponte modified only the
following deadlines:

     a. Discovery Completion - March 27, 2019

     b. ADR - April 13, 2019

     c. Dispositive Motions (filed) - April 27, 2019

Therefore, consistent with the Order, Judge Whitney granted in part
and denied in part the Revised Motion, and denied as moot the
original Motion.  He approved the issuance of a notice consistent
with the Order and set the deadline for opting into the action as
Feb. 9, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/LI8pj4 from Leagle.com.

Roseann Geiger & Sherri Holley, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by  L. Michelle
Gessner, The Law Offices of Michelle Gessner, PLLC.

Glenkat, Inc., Kathleen Holden & Glen Holden, Defendants,
represented by Kimberly Sullivan -- ksullivan@horacktalley.com --
Horack Talley.

H.H. Franchising Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by Fredric
A. Cohen -- fredric.cohen@chengcohen.com -- Cheng Cohen LLC, pro
hac vice, Marlen Cortez Morris, Cheng Cohen LLC, pro hac vice &
William Sutton Cherry, III -- cherry@manningfulton.com -- Manning,
Fulton & Skinner, P.A..


H&R BLOCK: Faces Ramsey Antitrust Suit Over No-Poach Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA RAMSEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. H&R BLOCK, INC., and H&R BLOCK TAX SERVICES LLC, Case
No. 4:18-cv-00933-ODS (W.D. Mo., November 23, 2018), accuses the
Defendants of violating the Sherman Act relating to No-Poach Clause
in franchise agreements.

The lawsuit is an antitrust class action brought by and on behalf
of individuals, who work or have worked for H&R Block, a tax
preparation services company and franchisor, for unlawfully
conspiring to suppress the wages of its employees through
agreements with its franchisees not to compete for workers in
violation of the Sherman Act.  H&R Block orchestrated and enforced
this conspiracy at least in part through an explicit contractual
prohibition ("No-Poach Clause") contained in standard H&R Block
franchise agreements that severely limited the Plaintiff's and
Class members' job mobility and served to significantly suppress
their compensation, the Plaintiff asserts.

H&R Block, Inc., is a Missouri corporation with headquarters in
Kansas City, Missouri.  H&R Block Tax Services LLC is a Missouri
limited liability company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of H&R
Block, Inc.

H&R Block touts itself as the "world's largest consumer tax
services provider" and provides tax preparation and assistance
services through a variety of avenues.  Individuals can make an
appointment with a tax preparer at a physical office, can access
the assistance of a "tax pro" remotely, and can download tax filing
software via desktop and mobile applications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard M. Paul, III, Esq.
          Ashlea Schwarz, Esq.
          Sean Cooper, Esq.
          PAUL LLP
          601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 984-8100
          E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com
                  Ashlea@PaulLLP.com
                  Sean@PaulLLP.com

               - and -

          Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
          HARTLEY LLP
          500 West C Street, Suite 1750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400-5822
          E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com


HELIOS AND MATHESON: Consolidation of Chang & Braxton Cases Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 15,
2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that
motions are pending regarding the consolidation of the cases filed
by Jeffrey Chang and by Jeffrey Braxton.

On August 2, 2018, Jeffrey Chang, acting on behalf of himself and a
putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common stock between August 15, 2017, and July 26, 2018,
filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company and two of its
executive officers, Theodore Farnsworth and Stuart Benson (the
"August 2, 2018 Complaint").  Jeffrey Chang v. Helios and Matheson
Analytics Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-6965.  The August 2, 2018
Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's
statements to the market were materially false or misleading.  The
plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.

On August 13, 2018, Jeffrey Braxton, acting on behalf of himself
and a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's common stock between August 15, 2017, and July 26,
2018, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against the Company and two of
its executive officers, Theodore Farnsworth and Stuart Benson (the
"August 13, 2018 Complaint").  Jeffrey Braxton v. Helios and
Matheson Analytics, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-07242-UA.  The
August 13, 2018 Complaint makes substantially identical allegations
as the August 2, 2018 Complaint.

Motions have been filed to consolidate the cases and for the
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead plaintiffs' counsel.  The
motions were scheduled to be argued November 16, 2018.

Helios and Matheson said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend
these matters and believes that they are without merit.  Given the
preliminary status of the litigation, it is difficult to predict
the likelihood of an adverse outcome or estimate the amount or
range of any reasonably possible losses, if any."

Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. provides a range of information
technology (IT) solutions to Fortune 1000 companies and other
organizations in the United States.  The Company was formerly known
as Helios and Matheson Information Technology Inc. and changed its
name to Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. in May 2013.  Helios and
Matheson Analytics Inc. was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in
New York, New York.


HIBERNIA CONSTRUCTION: Cedeno et al. Seek Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
JOSE CEDENO and KELVIN DE LOS SANTOS, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situate, the Plaintiffs, vs. HIBERNIA
CONSTRUCTION, INC.; MARK RUSSELL; and any other related entities,
the Defendants, Case No. 605947/2017(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 21, 2018),
seeks to recover overtime compensation under the New York Labor
Law.

According to the complaint, beginning in June 2011 and continuing
through the present, the Defendants have engaged in a policy and
practice of requiring their employees to regularly work in excess
of 40 hours per week, without providing proper overtime
compensation as required by applicable state law. Under the
direction of Mr. Russell, the Defendants instituted this practice
of depriving their employees of overtime compensation at one and
one-half times the regular hourly rate for work performed in excess
of 40 hours per week, as required by applicable state law, the
lawsuit says.

Hibernia offers general contraction, home building, bathroom
remodeling, and kitchen construction services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs & Putative Class:

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

Attorneys for Defendant:

          RIVELLA & FORTE, LLP
          Telephone: (914) 949-9075

HIGHGATE HOTELS: Sayodi et al Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Naim Sayodi, Ray Sanchez, and Abu
Omar, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. Highgate Hotels, L.P. and Knickerbocker Hotel,
the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00392, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square) on Nov. 20, 2018. The Southern District of New York Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-10989 to the proceeding. The suit
alleges Fair Labor Standards Act violation.

Highgate Hotels, L.P. invests in, operates, and manages hospitality
properties. The company was founded in 1988 and is based in Irving,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Nicholas Paul Melito, Esq.
          MELTZER, LIPPE, GOLDSTEIN & BREITSTONE, LLP
          190 Willis Avenue
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 747-0300
          Facsimile: (516) 237-2893
          E-mail: nmelito@meltzerlippe.com

HP INC: Reaches Settlement with Opt-In Plaintiffs in Forsyth Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the purported class and collective action styled Forsyth, et al.
v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, a settlement agreement
has been signed with regards to 16 named and opt-in plaintiffs who
were compelled to arbitrate, according to Perspecta Inc.'s Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.  The case will
continue to proceed in Court, however, with respect to other
putative class members.

The Forsyth action was filed on August 18, 2016 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, against HP
Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company ("HPE") alleging
violations of the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act
("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,
California public policy and the California Business and
Professions Code.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
December 19, 2016.

Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class action under the ADEA
comprised of all U.S. residents employed by defendants who had
their employment terminated pursuant to a work force reduction
("WFR") plan on or after December 9, 2014 (deferral states) and
April 8, 2015 (non-deferral states), and who were 40 years of age
or older at the time of termination.  Plaintiffs also seek to
represent a Rule 23 class under California law comprised of all
persons 40 years or older employed by defendants in the state of
California and terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or after August
18, 2012.

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

The Company subsequently sought and obtained leave of Court to file
a motion for reconsideration arguing that joint arbitration is not
permitted under the relevant employee agreements.  The Court denied
the motion on April 17, 2018, ruling that interpretation of the
employee agreements is an issue delegated to the arbitrator.

The American Arbitration Association, which was designated to
manage the arbitration process, has selected a single arbitrator to
conduct the proceedings.  An initial case management conference
before the arbitrator was held on June 29, 2018.  Pursuant to the
release agreements, however, mediation is a precondition to
arbitration.

A mediation was held on October 4-5, 2018, and a settlement was
reached with all 16 named and opt-in plaintiffs who were compelled
to arbitrate.  A settlement agreement has been signed.  The case
will continue to proceed in Court, however, with respect to other
putative class members.  Former business units of HPE now owned by
the Company will be proportionately liable for any recovery by
plaintiffs in this matter.

HP Inc. provides products, technologies, software, solutions, and
services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized
businesses, and large enterprises, including customers in the
government, health, and education sectors worldwide. It operates
through Personal Systems and Printing segments. HP Inc. was founded
in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California.

Perspecta is an IT service management company based in Chantilly,
Virginia.


INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Students' Attorneys Seek Restraining Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Haggerty, writing for Indian Public Media, reports that
attorneys representing Indiana University students are asking for a
temporary restraining order against the university after finding
mold in hundreds of dorm rooms earlier this year. The plaintiffs
made their case at a court hearing in Indianapolis on Nov. 19.

The class-action lawsuit alleges the university has been misleading
in its communications regarding the mold, telling students to look
at a measurement called a "mold score" to determine if their dorm
is safe. The attorneys say mold scores are the result of an air
sample test, but it won't show whether mold is growing. They argue
the scores are inconsistent and could vary over time.

They also say air filters installed in the affected residence halls
may help air quality, but they don't solve the mold problem.

The restraining order would prevent IU from discussing the mold
score with students moving forward. The plaintiffs are also asking
that the university be restrained from destroying evidence, and to
preserve that evidence using tape lift samples and photographs.

They argue that the university has not been transparent about the
procedures it has followed, and students who have hired an attorney
are treated differently.

But attorneys from the university that attended the hearing
insisted that there is no health emergency. They say the air
quality inside the dorms is at acceptable levels. And they argue
the university is working to address the mold issue in 1,200 rooms,
and a majority of the cleaning has been completed.

They argue students can check the status of individual rooms on the
university website, and documentation will be provided to affected
students when it is available. [GN]


INMATE SERVICES: Court Denies Bid to Amend Hastings Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID HASTINGS, Plaintiff, v. INMATE SERVICES
CORPORATION, JOHN DOES, 1 to 100, and JANE DOES, 1 to 100,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-145-FtM-99CM (M.D. Fla.), Judge John
W. Steele of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Fort Myers Division, denied the Plaintiff's Objection to
Motion to Strike and/or Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
construed as a motion to amend the complaint.

The matter is before the Court on consideration of the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation, filed Oct. 31, 2018,
recommending that the Plaintiff's Objection to Motion, construed as
a request to amend the complaint, be denied.  No objections have
been filed and the time to do so has expired.

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Plaintiff has not shown
good cause to extend the deadline for motions to amend pleadings.
The deadline expired on March 15, 2018, and the Plaintiff did not
seek leave to amend until April 27, 2018, and significantly that he
first expressed the desire for a class action suit back in July
2017, but took no action for months.  The Magistrate Judge further
recommends that the proposed amendment would be futile because it
would be subject to dismissal based on the Plaintiff's inability to
represent a class pro se, and previous denials for the appointment
of the counsel.  Lastly, to the extent the Plaintiff is seeking a
certification of the class, the Magistrate Judge recommends that
the request is premature.

After conducting an independent examination of the file and upon
due consideration of the Report and Recommendation, Judge Steele
accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to
the extent that the request is untimely, and premature since it
also seeks leave of Court to obtain class counsel.

Accordingly, Judge Steele adopted the Report and Recommendation,
and denied the Plaintiff's Objection to Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/jTl5Oj from Leagle.com.

David Hastings, Plaintiff, pro se.

Inmate Services Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bruce
Michael Trybus -- btrybus@ctkplaw.com -- Cooney Trybus Kwavnick
Peets, PLC, Caroline Anne Lewis -- clewis@ctkplaw.com -- Cooney
Trybus Kwavnick Peets, PLC & Warren B. Kwavnick --
wkwavnick@ctkplaw.com -- Cooney Trybus Kwavnick Peets, PLC.


IQVIA INC: Reed Smith Attorney Discusses TCPA Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
James M. Beck, Esq. -- jmbeck@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith LLP,
in an article for Lexology, reports that speaking of another one
biting the dust, the recent decision in Mussat v. IQVIA Inc., 2018
WL 5311903 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 26, 2018), makes mincemeat of a
purported nationwide class action against a non-resident defendant
under Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773
(2017) ("BMS"). It does so not in the context of a tort claim, but
against a suit brought under a federal statute -- something called
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Since the TCPA has
no provision permitting nationwide service of process, "this Court
looks to Illinois law and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment for the applicable limits on its exercise of personal
jurisdiction." Mussat, 2018 WL 5311903, at *4.

First, the plaintiffs tried to avoid the issue with a waiver
argument. But as we discussed in our post on waiver and personal
jurisdiction, one can't waive an unknown defense. Here, until the
aftermath of BMS, class action plaintiffs got away with nationwide
class actions against non-resident defendants. Thus, no waiver
occurred:

[Defendant's] personal jurisdiction defense was not available to it
when it moved to dismiss. . . . [N]o court applied the Supreme
Court's [BMS] holding or reasoning to a class action under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act until two days before [defendant]
filed its motion to dismiss on other grounds. . . . Following that
decision, [defendant\ timely amended its first responsive pleading.
. . . [Plaintiff] could not seriously expect [defendant] to know
this defense was available to it at the time it could have first
raised it.

Id. at *2 (citations omitted). Dynamite with a laser beam.
Guaranteed to blow your mind. Anytime!

On the merits, the court in Mussat saw no reasons to distinguish
between class actions and mass torts -- or between federal and
state law -- under post-BMS Due Process analysis. "Taking heed of
the Supreme Court's admonition that the primary concern of the
analysis is the burden on the defendant, other district courts
applied these principles of specific jurisdiction to federal class
actions. It appears that those courts agree that [BMS] generally
applies to bar nationwide class actions in federal court where the
defendant allegedly injured the named plaintiff outside the forum."
Id. at *4. But Mussat involved a harder case; the plaintiff was
injured in the forum. The issue was whether an in-state plaintiff
seeking to be a class representative could "represent the absent
claims of the nonresident and unnamed putative class members who
the defendant injured outside the forum." Id. (citations omitted).

The answer was a resounding "no."

"[T]he mere fact" that [plaintiff] received two faxes in Illinois
"does not allow" for an exercise of "specific jurisdiction over the
nonresidents' claims" with respect to faxes received outside of
Illinois because those absent class members' claims do not relate
to [defendant's] contacts with Illinois. It follows, then, that
exercising specific jurisdiction over [defendant] with respect to
the nonresidents' claims would violate [defendant's] due process
rights. Therefore, the Court must strike the class definition to
the extent it asserts claims of nonresidents.

Id. at *5 (citations to BMS omitted).

Mussat then distinguished a couple of Supreme Court cases: Califano
v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682 (1979), which assumed personal
jurisdiction rather than deciding it, and Phillips Petroleum v.
Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985), on the same grounds that the Supreme
Court had distinguished Shutts in BMS. 2018 WL 5311903, at *5. Read
Mussat if you require any more detail about that.

Then we get to the central holdings. First, to put it bluntly, BMS
prohibits nationwide class actions against non-resident
corporations.

Following the Supreme Court's lead in [BMS] and applying its core
reasoning here, due process, as an "instrument of interstate
federalism," requires a connection between the forum and the
specific claims at issue. This recognition bars nationwide class
actions in fora where the defendant is not subject to general
jurisdiction. Whether it be an individual, mass, or class action,
the defendant's rights should remain constant.

Id. at *5 (BMS citation omitted) (emphasis added). Second, filing
suit as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 cannot change the
scope of personal jurisdiction. That would put Rule 23 outside the
scope of the Rules Enabling Act:

[T]he Constitution and state law guide the personal jurisdiction
analysis, which affects only the forum where this suit may be
brought. That consequence does not run afoul of the Rules Enabling
Act. Conversely, faithfully interpreting the Act here ensures the
consistent and uniform application of defendants' due process
rights in class actions under Rule 23, as compared to the
maintenance of individual or mass actions. This construction
ensures that Rule 23 -- a rule of procedure subject to the Act's
limitations -- does not violate the Act by extending the personal
jurisdiction of the federal courts to "abridge, enlarge or modify"
a "substantive right."

Id. at *6 (quoting 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2072(b)) (emphasis added). [GN]


IZEA WORLDWIDE: Still Defends Perez Securities Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
IZEA Worldwide, Inc., formerly known as IZEA, Inc., continues to
defend itself against a securities class action lawsuit initiated
by Julian Perez, 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 lawsuit styled, Julian Perez, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. IZEA, Inc., et al., case number
2:18-cv-02784-SVW-GJS, was instituted April 4, 2018 in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California against the
Company and certain of its executive officers on behalf of certain
purchasers of our common stock.  The plaintiffs seek to recover
damages for investors under federal securities laws.

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

IZEA Worldwide, Inc. creates and operates online marketplaces that
connect marketers and content creators.  The company was formerly
known as IZEA, Inc. and changed its name to IZEA Worldwide, Inc. in
August 2018.  IZEA Worldwide, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is
headquartered in Winter Park, Florida.


JETPAY CORPORATION: Faces Franchi Suit Over NCR Merger
------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Franchi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JetPay Corporation, Laurence L. Stone, Diane Faro,
Donald J. Edwards, Robert Frankfurt, Steven M. Michienzi, Robert
Metzger, NCR Corporation and Orwell Acquisition Corporation, Case
No. 1:18-cv-01791 (D. Del., November 13, 2018), is brought against
the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on October
22, 2018, pursuant to which JetPay Corporation will be acquired by
NCR Corporation and Orwell Acquisition Corporation.

On October 19, 2018, JetPay's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with NCR.  Pursuant
to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender
offer to acquire all of JetPay's outstanding common stock for $5.05
per share in cash.  The Tender Offer was set to expire on December
4, 2018.

On November 2, 2018, the Defendants filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Solicitation Statement
omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and
misleading.

The Plaintiff is an owner of JetPay common stock.

The Defendant JetPay is a leading provider of vertically integrated
solutions for businesses including card acceptance, processing,
payroll, payroll tax filing, human capital management services, and
other financial transactions. JetPay is a Delaware corporation and
maintains its principal executive offices at 7450 Tilghman Street,
Allentown, Pennsylvania 18106.  JetPay’s common stock is traded
on the NasdaqCM under the ticker symbol "JTPY."

The Individual Defendants are board of directors of JetPay. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 295-5310
      Fax: (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
      Tel: (484) 324-6800
      Fax: (484) 631-1305
      E-mail: rm@maniskas.com


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Bid to Dismiss Gumm Class Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International plc 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
motion to dismis filed in Gumm v. Molinaroli, et al., is still
pending.

On August 16, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, Gumm v.
Molinaroli, et al., Case No. 16-cv-1093, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, naming
Johnson Controls, Inc., the individual members of its board of
directors at the time of the merger with the Company's merger
subsidiary and certain of its officers, the Company and the
Company's merger subsidiary as defendants.

The complaint asserted various causes of action under the federal
securities laws, state law and the Taxpayer Bill of Rights,
including that the individual defendants allegedly breached their
fiduciary duties and unjustly enriched themselves by structuring
the merger among the Company, Tyco and the merger subsidiary in a
manner that would result in a United States federal income tax
realization event for the putative class of certain Johnson
Controls, Inc. shareholders and allegedly result in certain
benefits to the defendants, as well as related claims regarding
alleged misstatements in the proxy statement/prospectus distributed
to the Johnson Controls, Inc. shareholders, conversion and breach
of contract.

The complaint also asserted that Johnson Controls, Inc., the
Company and the Company's merger subsidiary aided and abetted the
individual defendants in their breach of fiduciary duties and
unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks, among other things,
disgorgement of profits and damages.

On September 30, 2016, approximately one month after the closing of
the merger, plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion
seeking, among other items, to compel Johnson Controls, Inc. to
make certain intercompany payments that plaintiffs contend will
impact the United States federal income tax consequences of the
merger to the putative class of certain Johnson Controls, Inc.
shareholders and to enjoin Johnson Controls, Inc. from reporting to
the Internal Revenue Service the capital gains taxes payable by
this putative class as a result of the closing of the merger.

The court held a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion on
January 4, 2017, and on January 25, 2017, the judge denied the
plaintiffs' motion. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
February 15, 2017, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss on
April 3, 2017.

Johnson Controls said, "Although the Company believes it has
substantial defenses to plaintiffs' claims, it is not able to
predict the outcome of this action."

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

Johnson Controls International plc operates as a diversified
technology and multi industrial company worldwide. The company
operates through Building Technologies & Solutions and Power
Solutions segments. The company was formerly known as Johnson
Controls, Inc. and changed its name to Johnson Controls
International plc in September 2016. Johnson Controls International
plc was founded in 1885 and is headquartered in Cork, Ireland.


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Court Approves Settlement in Laufer Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International plc 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
settlement in Laufer v. Johnson Controls, Inc., et al., has been
approved.

On May 20, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, Laufer v. Johnson
Controls, Inc., et al., Docket No. 2016CV003859, was filed in the
Circuit Court of Wisconsin, Milwaukee County, naming Johnson
Controls, Inc., the individual members of its board of directors,
the Company and the Company's merger subsidiary as defendants.

The complaint alleged that Johnson Controls Inc.'s directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger
between Johnson Controls Inc. and the Company's merger subsidiary
by, among other things, failing to take steps to maximize
shareholder value, seeking to benefit themselves improperly and
failing to disclose material information in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus relating to the merger.

The complaint further alleged that the Company aided and abetted
Johnson Controls Inc.'s directors in the breach of their fiduciary
duties. The complaint sought, among other things, to enjoin the
merger.

On August 8, 2016, the plaintiffs agreed to settle the action and
release all claims that were or could have been brought by
plaintiffs or any member of the putative class of Johnson Controls
Inc.'s shareholders. The settlement was approved by the court on
August 13, 2018.

Johnson Controls International plc operates as a diversified
technology and multi industrial company worldwide. The company
operates through Building Technologies & Solutions and Power
Solutions segments. The company was formerly known as Johnson
Controls, Inc. and changed its name to Johnson Controls
International plc in September 2016. Johnson Controls International
plc was founded in 1885 and is headquartered in Cork, Ireland.


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Suits over Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International plc 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
company and its subsidiaries continue to defend themselves from the
Aqueous Film-Forming Foam ("AFFF") Litigation.

Two of the company's subsidiaries, Chemguard, Inc. ("Chemguard")
and Tyco Fire Products L.P. ("Tyco Fire Products"), have been
named, along with other defendant manufacturers, in a number of
class action and other lawsuits relating to the use of
fire-fighting foam products by the U.S. Department of Defense (the
"DOD") and others for fire suppression purposes and related
training exercises.

Plaintiffs generally allege that the firefighting foam products
manufactured by defendants contain or break down into the chemicals
perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS") and perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and/or other per- and poly fluorinated ("PFAS") compounds
and that the use of these products by others at various airbases,
airports and other sites resulted in the release of these chemicals
into the environment and ultimately into communities' drinking
water supplies neighboring those airports, airbases and other
sites. PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS compounds are being studied by
the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and other
environmental and health agencies and researchers.

The EPA has not issued regulatory limits, however; while those
studies continue, the EPA has issued a health advisory level for
PFOA and PFOS in drinking water. Both PFOA and PFOS are types of
synthetic chemical compounds that have been present in firefighting
foam. However, both are also present in many existing consumer
products. According to EPA, PFOA and PFOS have been used to make
carpets, clothing, fabrics for furniture, paper packaging for food
and other materials (e.g., cookware) that are resistant to water,
grease or stains.

Plaintiffs generally seek compensatory damages, including damages
for alleged personal injuries, medical monitoring, and alleged
diminution in property values, and also seek punitive damages and
injunctive relief to address remediation of the alleged
contamination. The Company is named in 19 putative class actions in
federal and state courts in six states as set forth below:
    
Colorado

     * District of Colorado - Bell et al. v. The 3M Company et al.,
filed September 18, 2016.

     * District of Colorado - Bell et al. v. The 3M Company et al.,
filed September 18, 2016.

     * District of Colorado - Davis et al. v. The 3M Company et
al., filed September 22, 2016.

The above cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado, and a hearing on the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification is expected in 2018 with a trial
date schedule for April 2019.

Delaware

     * District of Delaware - Anderson v. The 3M Company et al.,
filed May 18, 2018 in the United States District Court District of
Delaware.

     * District of Delaware - Grubb v. The 3M Company et al., filed
October 30, 2018 in the United States District Court District of
Delaware.

Massachusetts

     * District of Massachusetts - Civitarese et al. v. The 3M
Company et al., filed April 18, 2018 in the United States District
Court of Massachusetts.

Washington

     * Eastern District of Washington - Ackerman et al. v. The 3M
Company et al., filed April 5, 2018 in the United States District
Court, Eastern District of Washington.

New York

     * Eastern District of New York - Green et al. v. The 3M
Company et al., filed March 27, 2017 in Supreme Court of the State
of New York, Suffolk County, prior to removal to federal court.

     * Southern District of New York - Adamo et al. v. The Port
Authority of NY and NJ et al., filed August 11, 2017 in Supreme
Court of the State of New York, Orange County, prior to removal to
federal court.

     * Southern District of New York - Fogarty et al. v. The Port
Authority of NY and NJ et al., filed August 11, 2017 in Supreme
Court of the State of New York, Orange County, prior to removal to
federal court.

     * Southern District of New York - Miller et al. v. The Port
Authority of NY and NJ et al., filed August 11, 2017 in Supreme
Court of the State of New York, Orange County, prior to removal to
federal court.

     * Eastern District of New York - Singer et al. v. The 3M
Company et al., filed October 10, 2017, in Supreme Court of the
State of New York, Suffolk County, prior to removal to federal
court.

     * Eastern District of New York - Shipman et al. v. The 3M
Company et al., filed March 21, 2018, in Supreme Court of the State
of New York, Suffolk County, prior to removal to federal court.

     * Eastern District of New York - Py et al. v. The 3M Company
et al., filed April 26, 2018, in Supreme Court of the State of New
York, Suffolk County, prior to removal to federal court.

     * Supreme Court of the State of New York, Dutchess County -
County of Dutchess v. 3M Company et al. - filed October 12, 2018.

Pennsylvania

     * Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Bates et al. v. The 3M
Company et al., filed September 15, 2016.

     * Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Grande et al. v. The 3M
Company et al., filed October 13, 2016.

     * Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Yockey et al. v. The 3M
Company et al., filed October 24, 2016.

     * Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Fearnley et al. v. The 3M
Company et al., filed December 9, 2016.

The above cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint in the consolidated proceeding was denied
without prejudice and the cases are currently stayed pending the
appeal of an action in which the Company is not a party.

In September of 2018, the Company filed a Petition for
Multidistrict Litigation with the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation seeking to consolidate all existing and
future federal cases into one jurisdiction. A hearing on this
petition is set for November 29, 2018.

Johnson Controls International plc operates as a diversified
technology and multi industrial company worldwide. The company
operates through Building Technologies & Solutions and Power
Solutions segments. The company was formerly known as Johnson
Controls, Inc. and changed its name to Johnson Controls
International plc in September 2016. Johnson Controls International
plc was founded in 1885 and is headquartered in Cork, Ireland.


JONES FINANCIAL: Bland Class Suit Remains Pending in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 Bland, et. al.
v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P, et. al.

On March 13, 2018, JFC and Edward Jones were named as defendants in
a purported collective and class action lawsuit (Bland, et. al. v.
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P, et. al.) filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois by four former
financial advisors.  

The lawsuit was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act as well
as Missouri and Illinois law and alleges that the defendants
unlawfully attempted to recoup training costs from departing
financial advisors and failed to pay all overtime owed to financial
advisor trainees among other claims.  

The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory
and liquidated damages.  

The Jones Financial said, "JFC and Edward Jones intend to
vigorously defend against the allegations in 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: Bland Discrimination Class Suit 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 an amended complaint was filed in Bland v. Edward D.
Jones & Co., L.P., et al., under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, alleging
that the defendants discriminated against the former financial
advisor and financial advisor trainees on the basis of race.

On May 24, 2018, Edward Jones and JFC were named as defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit (Bland v. Edward D. Jones & Co.,
L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois by a former financial advisor.

An amended complaint was filed on September 24, 2018, under 42
U.S.C. Section 1981, alleging that the defendants discriminated
against the former financial advisor and financial advisor trainees
on the basis of race.  

The lawsuit seeks equitable and injunctive relief, as well as
compensatory and punitive damages.  Edward Jones and JFC deny the
allegations and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

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.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Manipulated Share Prices, Cognata Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINICK COGNATA individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.; JOHN EDMONDS; and JOHN
DOE Nos. 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10356 (S.D.N.Y., Nov.
7, 2018) is an action against the Defendants alleging unlawful and
intentional manipulation of gold, silver, platinum, and palladium
futures contracts and options on such contracts traded on the New
York Mercantile Exchange and the Commodity Exchange, Inc., from
January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2015, in violation of the
Commodity Exchange Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants
manipulated the prices of NYMEX and COMEX precious metals futures
and options contracts during the Class Period using a technique
called "spoofing" whereby the Defendants routinely placed
electronic orders to buy and sell such futures contracts with the
intent to cancel those orders before execution ("spoof orders").
Such spoof orders injected materially false and illegitimate
signals of supply and demand into the market and were intended to
induce other market participants to trade against the Defendants'
genuine orders (i.e., orders that the Defendants did want to
execute) on the opposite side of the market from the spoof orders
at prices, quantities, and times at which the Plaintiff and the
other market participants otherwise would not have traded.

The spoof orders were designed to, and did, artificially move the
prices of NYMEX and COMEX precious metals futures and options
contracts during the Class Period in a direction that was favorable
to the Defendants but unfavorable to the Plaintiff.

PMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company
worldwide. JPMorgan Chase & Co. was founded in 1799 and is
headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          Christian P. Levis, Esq.
          Amanda Miller, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
                  clevis@lowey.com
                  amiller@lowey.com


JUUL LABS: Faces Yannucci Suit over Sale of e-Cigarettes
--------------------------------------------------------
J.Y., a minor, by and with his mother and Natural Guardian BARBARA
YANNUCCI, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-06776-JCS
(S.D. Fla., Nov. 10, 2018) is an action against the Defendant's
false and deceptive sale, marketing, labeling and advertising of
JUUL e-cigarette devices and JUUL pods which came into the market
in 2015.

The Plaintiffs alleges in the complaint that the Defendant knew
that JUUL e-cigarettes were not safe under any circumstances for
non-smokers and posed a risk of aggravating nicotine addiction in
those already addicted to nicotine. The Defendant also knew that
JUUL's nicotine solution could deliver more nicotine into the
bloodstream than a cigarette, and did so more quickly than a
cigarette. The Defendant was under a duty to disclose these
material facts, but never did so.

JUUL Labs, Inc. manufactures and markets e-cigarettes. The company
offers a temperature regulation system to heat nicotine-based
liquid to an ideal level, which is designed to avoid burning. Its
products include device kits, JUULpods, and accessories in
different flavors. The company retails its products online, through
its e-commerce platform. JUUL Labs, Inc. was incorporated in 2007
and is based in San Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
          Barbara A. Podell, Esq.
          Russell D. Paul, Esq.
          Jonathan Z. DeSantis, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: ssavett@bm.net
                  bpodell@bm.net
                  rpaul@bm.net
                  jdesantis@bm.net

               - and -

          Aaron J. Freiwald, Esq.
          FREIWALD LAW
          1500 Walnut Street, 18th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 875-8000
          E-mail: ajf@freiwaldlaw.com


KANSAS: Addresses Foster Care System Issue Amid Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Phagan-Hansel, writing for The Chronicle of Social Change,
reports that Kansas Development of Children and Families (DCF) has
been hit with a class-action lawsuit that accuses the agency of
inappropriate practices when it comes to frequency of placements in
foster care.

The lawsuit -- brought on behalf of 10 specific foster youth by the
National Center for Youth Law, Children's Rights and Kansas
Appleseed -- is the latest challenge for a state that has been
plagued by issues in the last few years that ultimately led to the
resignation of DCF Secretary Phyllis Gilmore, who was replaced by
Gina Meier-Hummel less than a year ago.

In the last year, Meier-Hummel has worked with Gov. Jeff Colyer (R)
who will leave office in January, to address the issue of missing
foster youth, homeless youth, and children sleeping in county
offices. The lawsuit contends that these issues persist, children
running away from foster homes for being treated poorly, sexual
abuse in adoptive homes, multiple moves for children in care and
even a 13-year-old girl who was raped in May at an Olathe child
welfare office.

The suit names Mr. Colyer and officials responsible for the Kansas
Department for Children and Families, the Kansas Department of
Health and Environment (KDHE) and the Kansas Department for Aging
and Disability Services (KDADS) as defendants in the suit.

"As Kansans, we should be ashamed and outraged that our own state
government is harming our most vulnerable children this way," said
Benet Magnuson, executive director at Kansas Appleseed in a press
release about the suit. "The problems have become too dangerous and
too entrenched that we believe this lawsuit is necessary to protect
our children."

Since taking over DCF, Meier-Hummel has implemented a number of
changes, including increasing social worker recruitment efforts,
introducing an online dashboard to monitor the child welfare reform
process, and gathering public input on child welfare contracts.

But the lawsuit contends that many DCF children are experiencing a
high rate of placements once they enter foster care.  According to
reporting by Kansas City radio station KCUR, "Kansas moved kids an
average of 8.6 times per 1,000 days, more than double the federal
standard, and 30 percent more times than its 2016 average of 6.6
moves."

The state's contracts with private operators are drawing additional
heat. One of DCF's choices for a new contract for family
preservation services -- Eckerd Connects, a Florida-based
nonprofit, has had its own slew of issues. In recent months,
Florida has threatened to revoke Eckerd's contract because of
similar issues with youth safety.

"Oh, brother," said House Majority Leader Don Hineman, (R), in a
Kansas City Star article about the concerns about the contracts.
"I'm disappointed to hear that. Full vetting and due diligence
should be done before any private contractor is awarded a grant. I
know that can be time-consuming and inefficient, but it's of
paramount importance, in my opinion."

Earlier in November, citing a growing number of homeless youth in
the state, DCF announced plans to replicate a program that has
shown promise in the Kansas City area.

Typically, homeless youth are identified by their public school.
The federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act requires school
districts to support homeless youth so they can remain in school.

DCF has been working to support homeless families so children can
have more stability, Forrest said. The state launched Vital Impact,
a program to bring together community supports and agencies to help
families in the Kansas City area a few years ago.

"These families intersect with the child welfare community because
they are at-risk, often living relatively unstable lives, bouncing
from place-to-place each night," said Taylor Forrest, director of
communications at DCF, in an email to The Chronicle of Social
Change. "In the past four years, Vital Impact has significantly
decreased the number of homeless youth. DCF hopes to replicate this
collaborative network approach to services across the state."

DCF hosted a call to action meeting in early November to address
the issue, at which it announced the expansion of that program to
other counties in the state, including in the state's more populous
communities for Wichita and Topeka, with the hopes of remedying the
youth homelessness problem in those areas. Shawnee County, where
Topeka is, currently has a youth homeless population of 554.

"In Wyandotte County, Kansas City, they began to approach this a
number of years ago through what's called collective impact . . .
what they were able to do in about four years was to reduce the
number of children who are homeless by 50 percent," said
Barry Feaker, executive director of the Topeka Rescue Mission
that's partnering with DCF in the program's expansion.

A new report on the Kansas child welfare system is due to the
legislature early next year. The responsibility for cleaning up the
problems will land on the new Kansas-governor Laura Kelly (D), who
was elected to the position by beating current Secretary of State
Kris Kobach who had ousted Colyer in the primary election. Kelly
will have the right to appoint a new DCF secretary when she moves
into the position. [GN]


KELLOGG'S DINER: Romero Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages & Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
ESGAR ROMERO, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by SID BOYS CORP d/b/a
KELLOGG'S DINER, and CHRISTOS SIDERAKIS and IRENE SIDERAKIS,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06583 (E.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 19, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
compensation and damages arising out of Defendants' failure to
provide weekly wage notices, plus interest, damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, beginning in approximately November
2012 continuing through the present, the Defendants have engaged in
a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and the putative class
to regularly work in excess of 40 hours per week, without providing
all minimum wages owed and/or overtime compensation, as required by
applicable Federal and New York State law.

Beginning in November 2012, the Defendants have engaged in a policy
and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and the putative class to
regularly work in excess of 10 hours per week, without providing an
additional hour's wage, as required by applicable New York State
law. The Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of
failing to provide their Plaintiff and the putative class with wage
notices and wage statements in Plaintiffs' primary language, as
required by applicable New York State law, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Putative Class:

          LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
          Leonor Coyle, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com
                  lcoyle@vandallp.com
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082

               - and -

          S. Tito Sinha, Esq.
          Community Development Project
          123 William Street, Sixteenth Floor
          New York, NY 10038
          Email: tsinha@urbanjustice.org
          Telephone: (646) 459-3032
          Facsimile: (212) 533-4598

KROLL FACTUAL: Butt Sues Over Erroneous Credit Report
-----------------------------------------------------
Muhammad M. Butt, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Kroll Factual Data, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-13641 (E.D. Mich., November 21, 2018), seeks damages
resulting from violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Kroll is a consumer reporting agency that attempted to collect a
debt incurred by Butt to Mayflower Auto, Inc. despite receiving a
bankruptcy discharge of this and other alleged debts. Butt applied
for mortgage loan through Hall Financial Group to purchase a
residential home. As part of the loan application process, Hall
Financial Group purchased a consumer report from Kroll that
reflected an outstanding balance of $706.00 thereby disapproving
his loan application. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nemer N. Hadous, Esq.
      HADOUS CO. PLLC
      1 Parklane Blvd., Suite 729 East
      Dearborn, MI 48126
      Tel: (313) 415-5559
      Fax: (888) 450-0687
      Email: nhadous@hadousco.com


L'OREAL USA: Website not Accessible to Blind, Diaz Says
-------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN DIAZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. L'OREAL USA, INC. d/b/a REDKEN, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-10922 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018), alleges that
Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Defendant's
denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore
denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA").

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

L'Oreal USA, Inc. manufactures and markets cosmetics for consumer
and professional markets. It provides skincare, haircare, and
makeup.[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


LOS ANGELES, CA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Pimentel Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jesus Pimentel, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Jesus Pimentel, et al. v. City of Los
Angeles, Case No. 2:14-cv-01371-FMO-E, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that a $63 fine Los Angeles imposes for an expired parking
meter, and its doubling if not paid in two weeks -- not to mention
the $28 "delinquent" fee and the $21 "collection fee" -- are so
excessive they are unconstitutional.

Lead Plaintiff Jesus Pimentel claims that the $175 he had to pay
was an unconstitutional "excessive fine," and that the DMV's threat
to withhold registration of his car and/or boot or seize it if he
didn't pay the $175 -- accompanied by the threat of civil
litigation, reporting him to a credit bureau and garnishing of his
state tax refund -- violated the Due Process clause.

The appellate case is captioned as Jesus Pimentel, et al. v. City
of Los Angeles, Case No. 18-56553, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellants Jacklyn Baird, Rafael Buelna, Wendy Cooper,
      Edward Lee, Jeffrey O'Connell, Jesus Pimentel, Anthony
      Rodriguez and David R. Welch's opening brief is due on
      January 18, 2019;

   -- Appellee City of Los Angeles' answering brief is due on
      February 19, 2019; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants JESUS PIMENTEL, DAVID R. WELCH, JEFFREY
O'CONNELL, EDWARD LEE, WENDY COOPER, JACKLYN BAIRD, ANTHONY
RODRIGUEZ and RAFAEL BUELNA, and all persons similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Theo Giovanni Arbucci, Esq.
          Maxwell Michael Blecher, Esq.
          Donald R. Pepperman, Esq.
          BLECHER COLLINS PEPPERMAN & JOYE, P.C.
          515 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 622-4222
          Facsimile: (213) 622-1656
          E-mail: jarbucci@blechercollins.com
                  mblecher@blechercollins.com
                  dpepperman@blechercollins.com

Defendant-Appellee CITY OF LOS ANGELES is represented by:

          Gabriel Dermer, Esq.
          Michael Nelson Feuer, Esq.
          Arlene Nancy Hoang, Esq.
          Gerald Masahiro Sato, Esq.
          Ronald S. Whitaker, Esq.
          LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          200 North Main Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 978-7558
          E-mail: gabriel.dermer@lacity.org
                  mike.feuer@lacity.org
                  arlene.hoang@lacity.org
                  kurt.sato@lacity.org
                  ronald.whitaker@lacity.org


LYFT INC: Class Action Over Applicant Background Checks Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Lyft Inc.
convinced a federal court Nov. 19 to dismiss a class action over
applicant background checks and send it to arbitration.

The arbitration agreement delegates questions of arbitrability --
such as whether this claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
falls within the scope of the arbitration provision—to the
arbitrator, Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler wrote for the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Lyft's assertion of arbitrability isn't "wholly groundless," the
court said. [GN]


MAGAZINES.COM: Parde et al Sue over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA PARDE, RACHEL DELAGUILA, and JEROME WILLIAMS, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. MAGAZINES.COM, LLC, the Defendant, Case
3:18-cv-01307 (M.D. Tenn., Nov. 21, 2018), seeks to stop
Defendant's practice of making unsolicited telemarketing calls to
the telephones of consumers nationwide and to obtain redress for
all persons injured by their conduct.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is a magazines sales
company. In an effort to solicit potential customers,
MAGAZINES.COM, LLC recruited, or employed call centers, to place
telephone calls, en masse, to consumers across the country. On
information and belief, Defendant and or its agents purchase phone
number databases of consumers' contact information and creates an
electronic database from which Defendant makes automated calls. The
Defendant conducted wide scale telemarketing campaigns and
repeatedly made unsolicited calls to consumers' telephones -- whose
numbers appear on the National Do Not Call Registry -- without
consent, all in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

By making the telephone calls at issue in this Complaint, Defendant
caused Plaintiffs and the members of a putative Class of consumers
actual harm, including the aggravation, nuisance, and invasion of
privacy that necessarily accompanies the receipt of
unsolicited and harassing telephone calls, as well as the monies
paid to their carriers for the receipt of such telephone calls.

Magazines.com LLC is a privately held American e-commerce company
based in Franklin, a suburb of Nashville, Tennessee. Magazines.com
retains authorizations to sell magazine subscriptions by
publishers. Time Inc. is a major investor.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          John J. Griffin, Jr., Esq.
          Michael A. Johnson, Esq.
          KAY GRIFFIN, PLLC
          222 Second Ave. North, Suite 340-M
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 742-4800
          Facsimile: (615) 742-4801
          E-mail: john.griffin@kaygriffin.com
                  michael.johnson@kaygriffin.com

               - and -

          W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120
          Galleria Tower I
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 554-2377
          Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
          E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com
                  jarrett@hughesellzey.com

MARQUETTE MANAGEMENT: Underpays Leasing Consultants, Jones Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEMARRET JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARQUETTE MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-07426 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 8, 2018) is an action against
the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Jones was employed by the Defendant as leasing
consultant.

Marquette Management, Inc. operates as a real estate management
company. It owns, operates, and rents boutique apartments in
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Texas. The company was
founded in 1983 and is based in Romeoville, Illinois. Marquette
Management, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Marquette Company.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          Ching-Yuan Teng, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          500 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
                  tonyteng@jtblawgroup.com

               - and -

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


MAYFLOWER INTERNATIONAL: Xing Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
LIYOU XING, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated Plaintiff, vs. MAYFLOWER INTERNATIONAL HOTEL GROUP INC
d/b/a Mayflower Hotel and d/b/a Wyndham Garden; MAYFLOWER BUSINESS
GROUP, LLC d/b/a Mayflower Hotel and d/b/a Wyndham Garden;
MAYFLOWER INN CORPORATION d/b/a Mayflower Hotel and d/b/a Wyndham
Garden; MAYFLOWER WENYU LLC d/b/a Mayflower Hotel and d/b/a Wyndham
Garden; YAN ZHI HOTEL MANAGEMENT INC. d/b/a Mayflower Hotel and
d/b/a Wyndham Garden; MAYFLOWER 1-1 LLC d/b/a Mayflower Hotel and
d/b/a Wyndham Garden; YUEHUA HU, WEI HONG HU a/k/a Weihong Hu, and
XIAOZHUANG GE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06616 (E.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgement interest;
and or attorney's fees and cost under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL
by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay its
employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked
and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek, the lawsuit says.

Mayflower International Hotel Group Inc is in the hotels
business.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff, proposed FLSA Collective and potential
Rule 23 Class:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324

MCHENRY SCHOOL: Underpays School Bus Drivers, Klatt & Zenner Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------
SYLVIA KLATT, and ANDREA ZENNER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. McHENRY SCHOOL DISTRICT
15; and McHENRY SCHOOL DISTRICT 156, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-07414 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 8, 2018) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, minimum wages, interest,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as school bus
drivers.

McHenry School District 15 is a school district serving parts of
McHenry County, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jac A. Cotiguala, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAC A. COTIGUALA
          431 South Dearborn Street, Suite 606
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (312) 939-2100
          E-mail: jac@wageandhour.com

               - and -

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Anna M. Ceragioli, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  aceragioli@stephanzouras.com


MCKESSON CORP: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against McKesson
Corporation (McKesson or the Company) (NYSE: MCK) for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between October 24,
2013 and January 25, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before December 26, 2018.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall, or Sherin Mahdavian,
of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of
charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at
www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. McKesson colluded with other companies in
the market to fix the price of generic drugs. This collusion
violated federal antitrust laws. McKessons revenues throughout the
class period were in part the result of illegal activities and were
therefore unsustainable. The Company also failed to maintain
effective controls on financial reporting. Based on these facts,
the Companys public statements were false and materially misleading
throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth
about McKesson, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         Sherin Mahdavian, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: 310-301-3335
                    424-303-1964
         Email:   info@schallfirm.com
                  brian@schallfirm.com.
                  sherin@schallfirm.com[GN]


MCLANE CO: Viramontes Stayed Pending Ruling in Sampson
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronald B. Leighton of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Tacoma, satyed the case, RAUL VIRAMONTES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. McLANE COMPANY, INC. DBA McLANE NORTHWEST, a Texas
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-05909-RBL (W.D. Wash.),
pending the Washington Supreme Court's decision on the certified
question in Sampson v. Knight Transportation, Inc.

On Oct. 5, 2018, Plaintiff Viramontes filed a putative Class Action
Complaint in the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and
for Pierce County.  On Nov. 7, 2018, the Defendant removed the
action to the Court invoking the subject matter jurisdiction of the
Court under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").

In conjunction with its Notice of Removal of Civil Action, and
pursuant to LCR 3(g), the Defendant filed a Notice of Related Case,
identifying Eilerman v. McLane Company, Inc. dba McLane/Northwest,
W.D. Wash. Case. No. 3:16-cv-05303-BHS, as a related case
previously pending in the District and detailing the class action
settlement to which the parties agreed and the Court approved in
resolving that action.

The Plaintiff was a settlement class member who participated in the
Eilerman Action settlement, and, in order to avoid protracted
litigation of res judicata issues related to the release and
settlement class period agreed upon in that approved settlement, he
irrevocably agrees that the putative class and limitations periods
applicable to his individual and putative class action claims that
are or may be asserted in the instant action, for all purposes
including discovery and should class certification be sought, will
commence no earlier than on Jan. 1, 2017, immediately after the end
of the release period applicable to the Eilerman Action settlement,
rather than on Oct. 5, 2015 as alleged in the Plaintiff's
Complaint.

In his Complaint, the Plaintiff also alleges that in Carranza v.
Dovex Fruit Co., the Washington Supreme Court held that employers
who pay agricultural workers on a piece-rate basis must compensate
the workers on a separate hourly basis for time spent performing
activities that are outside the scope of the piece rate picking
work and that the Defendant's piece-rate compensation system is
virtually indistinguishable from the piece rate scheme in
Carranza.

Based upon the Plaintiff's interpretation of Carranza, the
Complaint asserts two causes of action for (1) Violations of RCW
49.46.020, 090 for Failure to Pay Minimum Wage for All Hours
Worked, and (2) Double Damages for Willful and Intentional
Withholding of Wages Pursuant to RCW 49.52.050, 070 Flowing from
Cause of Action One.

In support of his First Cause of Action, the Plaintiff alleges that
the Defendant paid its truck drivers on a piece-rate scheme under
which it did not compensate truck drivers for non-driving tasks as
required under Washington law, including, but not limited to,
pre-and post-trip inspections, detention time, and fueling, and
asserts that the Plaintiff seeks relief on a class-wide basis for
unpaid wages for non-driving tasks.

In Sampson, currently pending in the District, the plaintiffs
similarly contend that the Defendant's piece-rate compensation
scheme violates Washington's Minimum Wage Act ("MWA") because
drivers are not paid minimum wage for the time they spend
conducting pre-trip inspections, completing paperwork, loading and
unloading the truck, and refueling.  In Sampson, the Court
recognized that courts in the district have previously held that
the Plaintiffs' on-duty, not driving claim are not cognizable under
Washington law, but it reasoned that these prior holdings are
called into question by the Washington Supreme Court's recent
ruling in Carranza], on the grounds that the Washington Supreme
Court's interpretation of the MWA would seem to apply to all
employers, not just agricultural workers.

The district court in Sampson concluded that the law underlying the
Plaintiffs' on duty, not driving claim is not clearly determined,
and that the Washington Supreme Court is in a better position than
the Court to answer the question, and therefore certified the
following question to the Washington Supreme Court on whether the
Washington Minimum Wage Act requires non-agricultural employers to
pay their piece-rate employees per hour for time spent performing
activities outside of piece-rate work.

The parties agree that the Washington Supreme Court's resolution of
the question certified in Sampson could directly impact the
disposition of the Plaintiff's claims asserted in the action, which
assert an on-duty, not driving time unpaid wages claim similar to
that asserted by the plaintiffs in Sampson.

The parties' agree that a stay of the case pending the Washington
Supreme Court's resolution of the certified question in Sampson,
which could bear directly upon the Plaintiff's putative "on-duty,
not driving" time unpaid wages claims in the action, would be
prudent and efficient for both the Court and the parties.

Therfore, the parties stipulated and agreed, and Judge Leighton
approved, that the putative class and limitations periods
applicable to the Plaintiff's individual and putative class action
claims that are or may be asserted in the action, for all purposes
including discovery and should class certification be sought, will
commence no earlier than on Jan. 1, 2017, immediately after the end
of the release period applicable to the Eilerman Action settlement,
rather than on Oct. 5, 2015 as alleged in the Plaintiff's
Complaint.

The dates set forth in the Court's Order Regarding Initial
Disclosures, Joint Status Report, and Early Settlement and all
other deadlines currently set in the action will be and are
vacated, including without limitation the Plaintiff's deadline to
move for class certification under LCR 23(i)(3).

The action will be and is stayed, in its entirety and for all
purposes, pending the Washington Supreme Court's decision on the
certified question in Sampson.  Within 14 days of the Washington
Supreme Court's decision in Sampson, the parties will file a joint
status report with the Court that (1) informs the Court regarding
the Washington Supreme Court's Decision; and (2) provides the Court
with agreed-upon and/or proposed deadlines for a Plaintiff's
deadline to move for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
and the dates for initial disclosures and submission of the
parties' Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan.

Unless otherwise ordered by the Court in response to the parties'
joint status report as referenced, the Plaintiff's presumptive
deadline under LCR 23(i)(3) to move for class certification will
commence running upon the Court lifting the stay of the action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Zknd7H from Leagle.com.

Raul Viramontes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Walter Denlinger,
ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C., Craig Ackermann, ACKERMANN AND TILAJEF
PC, India Lin Bodien & Julian Hammond, HAMMOND LAW, P.C.

McLane Company, Inc, a Texas corporation, Defendant, represented by
Kasey D. Huebner, MILLS MEYERS SWARTLING.


MDL 2741: Bindon Suit vs. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled ANNETTE A. BINDON, the Plaintiffs,
v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01854, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) on Nov. 20, 2018. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-07069-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Bindon case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359

MDL 2741: Brunson Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled SARAH C. BRUNSON, the Plaintiffs,
v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01843, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) on Nov. 20, 2018. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-07064-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Brunson case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359

MDL 2741: Hill Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled KATHRYN L. HILL, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01852, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) on Nov. 20, 2018. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-07068-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Hill case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359

MDL 2741: Jarrett Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled WILLIAM E. JARRETT, the Plaintiffs,
v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01823, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) on Nov. 20, 2018. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-07061-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Jarrett case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359

MDL 2741: Mabus Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JULIE MABUS, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01845, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) on Nov. 20, 2018. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-07066-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Mabus case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359

MDL 2741: Musso Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled DONNA W. MUSSO, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01856, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) on Nov. 20, 2018. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-07070-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Musso case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359

MDL 2741: Newton Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JERRY D. NEWTON, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.  4:18-cv-01842, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) on Nov. 20, 2018. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-07063-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Newton case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359

MDL 2741: Purdy Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled GARY E. PURDY, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00392, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) on Nov. 20, 2018. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-07147-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Purdy case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Kori Westbrook, Esq.
          JOHNSON LAW GROUP
          2925 Richmond Ave., Suite 1700
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713)626-9336
          Facsimile: (713) 583-9460
          E-mail: kwestbrook@johnsonlawgroup.com

MEDLEY LLC: Still Faces Consolidated Class Action Suit in Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------------
Medley LLC continues to defend itself against a consolidated class
action currently pending in Virginia, 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.

Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Opportunity Fund II
LP, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and
Seth Taube were named as defendants, along with other various
parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned as Royce
Solomon, Jodi Belleci, Michael Littlejohn, and Giulianna Lomaglio
v. American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Mark Curry, MacFarlane
Group, Inc., Sol Partners, Medley Opportunity Fund, II, LP, Medley
LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley
Group, LLC, Brook Taube, Seth Taube, DHI Computing Service, Inc.,
Middlemarch Partners, and John Does 1-100, filed on December 15,
2017 and amended on March 9, 2018, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division,
as Case No. 4:17-cv-145 (hereinafter, "Class Action 1").

Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation were
also named as defendants, along with various other parties, in a
putative class action lawsuit captioned George Hengle and Lula
Williams v. Mark Curry, American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red
Stone, Inc., Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital
Corporation, filed February 13, 2018, in the United States District
Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, as Case No.
3:18-cv-100 ("Class Action 2").

Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation were
also named as defendants, along with various other parties, in a
putative class action lawsuit captioned John Glatt, Sonji Grandy,
Heather Ball, Dashawn Hunter, and Michael Corona v. Mark Curry,
American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red Stone, Inc., Medley
Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital Corporation, filed
August 9, 2018 in the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Virginia, Newport News Division, as Case No.
4:18-cv-101 ("Class Action 3") (together with Class Action 1 and
Class Action 2, the "Virginia Class Actions").

Medley Opportunity Fund II LP was also named as a defendant, along
with various other parties, in a putative class action lawsuit
captioned Christina Williams and Michael Stermel v. Red Stone, Inc.
(as successor in interest to MacFarlane Group, Inc.), Medley
Opportunity Fund II LP, Mark Curry, Brian McGowan, Vincent Ney, and
John Doe entities and individuals, filed June 29, 2018 and amended
July 26, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, as Case No. 2:18-cv-2747 (the
"Pennsylvania Class Action") (together with the Virginia Class
Actions, the "Class Action Complaints").

The plaintiffs in the Class Action Complaints filed their putative
class actions alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, and various other claims arising out of
the alleged payday lending activities of American Web Loan.

The claims against Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC,
Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group,
LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube (in Class Action 1, as amended);
Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation (in
Class Action 2 and Class Action 3); and Medley Opportunity Fund II
LP (in the Pennsylvania Class Action), allege that those defendants
in each respective action exercised control over, or improperly
derived income from, and/or obtained an improper interest in,
American Web Loan's payday lending activities as a result of a loan
to American Web Loan.  The loan was made by Medley Opportunity Fund
II LP in 2011.  American Web Loan repaid the loan from Medley
Opportunity Fund II LP in full in February of 2015, more than 1
year and 10 months prior to any of the loans allegedly made by
American Web Loan to the alleged class plaintiff representatives in
Class Action 1.

In Class Action 2, the alleged class plaintiff representatives have
not alleged when they received any loans from American Web Loan.
In Class Action 3, the alleged class plaintiff representatives
claim to have received loans from American Web Loan at various
times from February 2015 through April 2018.

In the Pennsylvania Class Action, the alleged class plaintiff
representatives claim to have received loans from American Web Loan
in 2017.

By orders dated August 7, 2018 and September 17, 2018, the Court
presiding over the Virginia Class Actions consolidated those cases
for all purposes.

On October 12, 2018, Plaintiffs in Class Action 3 filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal of their claims, without prejudice, against
Medley Opportunity Fund II, LP and Medley Capital Corporation.

On October 22, 2018, the parties to Class Action 2 settled.  On
October 29, 2018, the plaintiffs in Class Action 2 stipulated to
the dismissal of their claims against all defendants in Class
Action 2 (including Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley
Capital Corporation), with prejudice.

Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc.,
Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube never made any loans
or provided financing to, or had any other relationship with,
American Web Loan.

Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital
Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook
Taube, Seth Taube are seeking indemnification from American Web
Loan, various affiliates, and other parties with respect to the
claims in the Class Action Complaints.

Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital
Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook
Taube, and Seth Taube believe the alleged claims in the Class
Action Complaints are without merit and they intend to defend these
lawsuits vigorously.

Medley LLC is an alternative asset management firm offering yield
solutions to retail and institutional investors. The company
focuses on credit-related investment strategies, primarily
originating senior secured loans to private middle market companies
in the United States that have revenues between $50 million and $1
billion.


MEDTRONIC INC: Settles HeartWare Investors' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Joe Carlson, writing for Star Tribune, reports that Medtronic has
agreed to pay a $54.5 million class-action settlement to investors
to resolve allegations that a heart-pump company it acquired in
2016, HeartWare, repeatedly misled investors about the safety of an
important new medical device under clinical testing.

The class-action investors, including the St. Paul Teachers'
Retirement Fund Association, the lead plaintiff, allege HeartWare
and its former CEO Douglas Godshall, lied repeatedly to investors
about the fate of a product that was supposed to become HeartWare's
major growth driver for years to come.

Medtronic would not be admitting any wrongdoing as part of the
proposed settlement, which still requires judge approvals and
advertising to the class members. But the investors said in court
filings that they were satisfied with a hard-fought settlement,
which represented a large share of what they could have won at
trial, estimated between $82 million and $218 million. Attorneys
fees would comprise 24 percent of the settlement.

"Lead plaintiff believes that the proposed settlement represents a
very favorable result for the class because it provides a
significant recovery, particularly when compared to the risks that
continued litigation might result in a smaller recovery, or no
recovery at all," the St. Paul teachers fund said in a legal filing
on Nov. 16 in the federal Southern District of New York.

HeartWare was one of a handful of companies worldwide to make a
sophisticated class of implantable devices known as heart pumps,
more formally known as left-ventricular assist devices (LVADs),
that treat advanced cases of heart failure. LVADs make up an $800
million global market.

The devices use a propeller-like system to push a person's blood
when the heart's main pumping chamber is too weak to do the work on
its own. Past studies have shown that such pumps get gummed up with
blood clots as often as 4 percent of the time, and HeartWare told
investors that its new MVAD, or miniaturized ventricular-assist
device, could essentially eliminate the problem, the lawsuit says.

In reality, three of the first 11 patients in Europe who received
the device in a clinical trial experienced the problem. Overall,
nearly half of all the patients in the European trial had the
problem, causing the company to close down the trial in 2016. The
MVAD has never been brought to market in any country. HeartWare
stock crashed from $81.81 in September 2015 to $26.50 in January
2016.

Medtronic announced its intentions to buy HeartWare on June 27,
2016, two days before the St. Paul teachers' fund filed its amended
complaint. The deal closed on Aug. 23 for $1.1 billion, valuing
HeartWare at $58 per share.

Although the plaintiffs scored pretrial legal victories and had
450,000 pages of evidence, the attorneys said they still faced
significant challenges at trial, including proving that HeartWare
executives' statements were knowingly false or reckless.
"Defendants would have pointed to the lack of any action by the SEC
or FDA in support of their argument that they did not act with
fraudulent intent," the settlement proposal says. [GN]


MEDTRONIC PLC: Accord Reached in Teachers' Retirement Fund Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 29, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended October 26, 2018, that the parties
in the St. Paul Teachers' Retirement Fund Association putative
class action have reached an agreement to settle the suit.

On January 22, 2016, the St. Paul Teachers' Retirement Fund
Association filed a putative class action complaint (the
"Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against HeartWare on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of HeartWare
from June 10, 2014 through January 11, 2016 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint was amended on June 29, 2016 and claims HeartWare and
one of its executives violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading
statements about, among other things, HeartWare's response to a
June 2014 U.S. FDA warning letter, the development of the
Miniaturized Ventricular Assist Device (MVAD) System and the
proposed acquisition of Valtech Cardio Ltd.

The Complaint seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
or acquirers of HeartWare's stock during the Class Period. In
August of 2016, the Company acquired HeartWare. In October of 2018,
the parties reached an agreement to settle this matter.

Medtronic plc develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells
device-based medical therapies to hospitals, physicians,
clinicians, and patients worldwide. It operates through four
segments: Cardiac and Vascular Group, Minimally Invasive Therapies
Group, Restorative Therapies Group, and Diabetes Group. The company
was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


MEDTRONIC PLC: Settlement Paid in INFUSE Bone Graft Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 29, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended October 26, 2018, that the Company
has paid the settlement amount in the lawsuit over its INFUSE Bone
Graft product into a qualified settlement fund to be distributed
following final court approval.

West Virginia Pipe Trades and Phil Pace, on June 27, 2013 and July
3, 2013, respectively, filed putative class action complaints
against Medtronic, Inc. and certain of its officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that the
defendants made false and misleading public statements and engaged
in a scheme to defraud regarding the INFUSE Bone Graft product
during the period of December 8, 2010 through August 3, 2011.

The matters were consolidated in September 2013, and in the
consolidated complaint plaintiffs alleged a class period of
September 28, 2010 through August 3, 2011. On September 30, 2015,
the District Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment
in the consolidated matters.

Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit, and in December of 2016 the Eighth Circuit
Court reversed and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings. On January 30, 2018, the District Court issued
an order certifying a class for the period of September 8, 2010
through June 28, 2011.

In July of 2018, the parties reached an agreement to settle this
matter, and in September of 2018, the Company paid the settlement
amount into a qualified settlement fund to be distributed following
final court approval.

Medtronic plc develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells
device-based medical therapies to hospitals, physicians,
clinicians, and patients worldwide. It operates through four
segments: Cardiac and Vascular Group, Minimally Invasive Therapies
Group, Restorative Therapies Group, and Diabetes Group. The company
was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


MEDTRONIC PLC: Suit over Covidien Acquisition Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 29, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended October 26, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself in a consolidated class action suit
involving the acquisition of Covidien PLC.

On July 2, 2014, Lewis Merenstein filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court seeking
to enjoin the then-potential acquisition of Covidien.

The lawsuit named Medtronic, Inc., Covidien, and each member of the
Medtronic, Inc. Board of Directors at the time as defendants, and
alleged that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to
shareholders with regard to the then-potential acquisition.

On August 21, 2014, Kenneth Steiner filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court, also
seeking an injunction to prevent the potential Covidien
acquisition. In September 2014, the Merenstein and Steiner matters
were consolidated and in December 2014, the plaintiffs filed a
preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the Covidien
transaction.

On March 20, 2015, the District Court issued an order and opinion
granting Medtronic's motion to dismiss the case. In May of 2015,
the plaintiffs filed an appeal, and, in January of 2016, the
Minnesota State Court of Appeals affirmed in part, and reversed in
part. On April 19, 2016 the Minnesota Supreme Court granted the
Company's petition to review the issue of whether most of the
original claims are properly characterized as direct or derivative
under Minnesota law.

In August of 2017, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the
decision of the Minnesota State Court of Appeals, sending the
matter back to the trial court for further proceedings, which are
ongoing.

Medtronic said, "The Company has not recognized an expense related
to damages in connection with this matter, because any potential
loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S.
GAAP. Additionally, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate
the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters."

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

Medtronic plc develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells
device-based medical therapies to hospitals, physicians,
clinicians, and patients worldwide. It operates through four
segments: Cardiac and Vascular Group, Minimally Invasive Therapies
Group, Restorative Therapies Group, and Diabetes Group. The company
was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


MERIDIAN DREAMS: Sandoval Seeks Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------
JHONNY SANDOVAL, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MERIDIAN DREAMS, INC., a Florida
Corporation, and PABLO GOMEZ, individually, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:18-cv-00777 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 19, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and the costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants owned and operated pool
construction business based in Cape Coral, that has built pools
throughout Florida. The Defendants have regularly handled and
worked with commercial pool construction supplies, tools, and
materials including but not limited to trucks, diggers, shovels,
rakes, nail guns, twisters to tie steel, wood-lumber, pipes,
concrete, bolt cutters, electric saws, concrete saws, concrete, and
gunnite/shotcrete, all of which were all goods and/or materials
moved in or produced for commerce; and (b) handled, worked with,
and sold pools which were goods and/or materials moved in or
produced for commerce, the lawsuit says.

Meridian Dreams is in the business activities at non-commercial
site business.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Keith M. Stern, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
          One Flagler
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 901-1379
          Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
          E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com

METEOR SEALING: Riley Seeks Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------
MATTHEW RILEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. METEOR SEALING SYSTEMS, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-02714 (N.D. Ohio, Nov. 21, 2018), seeks
unpaid wages, including overtime wages, and all other available
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and those similarly
situated to him are current or former hourly employees of
Defendant. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated to him
frequently worked more than 40 hours in a single workweek,
entitling them to overtime compensation under the FLSA.

The Plaintiff and those similarly situated to him were not paid all
of the overtime compensation they earned. The Defendant required
its hourly employees to perform unpaid pre-shift work. The
Plaintiff and those similarly situated to him regularly began work
for the day up to 15 minutes before their scheduled start time but,
pursuant to Defendant's uniform companywide policy, did not start
getting paid until their scheduled start time. Specifically,
pursuant to a uniform company-wide policy, hourly employees were
required to report to their station up to 15 minutes before their
scheduled shift to perform shift transition and preparatory work,
the lawsuit says.

Meteor Sealing Systems, LLC designs, develops, and manufactures
sealing systems for automobile manufacturers.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

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

MI NUMERO: Steven Nod Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN NOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MI NUMERO LOCAL, LLC, a Florida
Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No.:
1:18-cv-24888-CMA (S.D. Fla., Nov. 21, 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, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is a provider of cellular
phones and services for clients who make international calls
primarily to Cuba. To promote its services, Defendant engages in
unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the
process. On or about September 22, 2018, September 27, 2018,
October 10, 2018, October 17, 2018, October 19, 2018, and October
22, 2018, Defendant sent telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff's
cellular telephone number ending in 3759.

Defendant's text messages were transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular
telephone, and within the time frame relevant to this action.
Defendant's text messages constitute telemarketing because they
encouraged the future purchase or investment in property, goods, or
services, i.e., selling Plaintiff telephone service and products.
The information contained in the text message advertises
Defendant's various promotions which Defendant sends to promote its
business. At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with
his express written consent to be contacted using an ATDS, the
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

MICHIGAN: Black Applicants' Discrimination Class Action Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Egan, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that a Wayne
County judge has certified a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf
of more than 600 black applicants who wanted to work as state
police or conservation officers but failed the required Michigan
civil service exam.

The lawsuit alleges that two different civil service exams the
state has used since 2014 -- one of which remains in use today --
violate the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and discriminate
against black applicants, who have a higher failure rate than white
applicants do.

"The Michigan Civil Service Commission engaged in a pattern and
practice of race discrimination in its hiring process through
testing that had a disparate adverse impact on African-Americans,"
the suit alleges. "This illegal policy . . . was furthered by
command officers'/officials' failure to monitor the adverse impacts
of the employment policies in place."

The suit doesn't allege the state intentionally discriminated -
just that the exam produced racially disparate results in ways that
weren't necessary to determine which test writers could best do the
job. The suit alleges there are alternative tests that could screen
applicants just as effectively without producing discriminatory
results.

The commission -- a bipartisan panel whose four members are
appointed by the governor to oversee state hiring and employment
issues -- denied the allegations in a court filing.

Michigan State Police were under a federal consent order to
increase minority hiring from 1977 through 1992, but a 2015 Detroit
Free Press investigation showed that hiring of black troopers
plummeted once the consent order was lifted in 1993, and the
percentage of black troopers gradually dropped from close to 13
percent to about 5 percent. Black residents make up about 14
percent of Michigan's population, according to census numbers, and
that percentage is much higher in major cities such as Detroit.

Police departments that lack diversity or don't reflect the racial
makeup of the communities they police are seen as an aggravating
factor in ongoing tensions between police agencies and urban
communities around the United States.

Judge David Groner's Nov. 7 certification of the class-action suit
can still be appealed. The certification is not a ruling on the
merits of the case, but is based partly on evidence the Michigan
Civil Service Commission failed to monitor whether the exam it
administers on behalf of state agencies was producing
discriminatory results, as the suit alleges it was required to do.

For the exam used between Feb. 15, 2014, and Nov. 24, 2014, blacks
had a fail rate of 77 percent, while whites had a fail rate of 51
percent, the suit alleges. That exam, which included an essay
question portion, was replaced late in 2014 with a new exam, which
is all multiple choice. For that exam, which remains in use today,
blacks had a fail rate of between 4 and 5 percent, compared with a
1-percent fail rate for white test writers, the suit alleges.

The state Attorney General's Office, representing the Civil Service
Commission, opposed the certification, arguing the exam is only a
screening tool, passing it is not equivalent to a job offer, the
commission doesn't require anyone to write it, and each state
agency does its own hiring.

The suit doesn't specify which parts of the exams -- designed by
Washington-based Ergometrics & Applied Personnel Research, Inc.
-- are unfair to black applicants. The exams include sections
related to human interaction, reading, and writing.

Leonard Mungo, the Detroit attorney representing the plaintiffs,
said cultural differences can make certain questions more difficult
for blacks to answer correctly. The test itself is subject to a
protective order, since the state doesn't want applicants to be
able to study it before they sit down to write it.

The lead plaintiff in the case, Carlos Bell, 46, a St. Clair Shores
resident who grew up in Detroit and graduated from Henry Ford High
School, said he failed the older state exam once and the newer exam
twice, though he easily passed the equivalent screening exam for
the Detroit Police Department.

Mr. Bell, a married father of two, said he was extremely
disheartened by the results and it didn't immediately occur to him
that the problem could have been the test itself.

"I may not have a lot of book smarts, but my common sense is pretty
good," Bell told the Free Press. "I feel like I could have been the
guy coming up to your car (on the freeway), and I wasn't given a
chance."

Though he passed the State Police physical test a few years ago,
Bell said he thinks his hopes of becoming a state trooper have
died, as his knees have worsened since then. He now drives a cement
truck.

Shanon Banner, a spokeswoman for the Michigan State Police, said
the agency "is confident that neither the civil service exam nor
our hiring practices favor or discriminate" against anyone.

"Our current trooper recruit school, which today consists of 110
total recruits, includes 20 recruits who identify as nonwhite,
including 11 black recruits," Banner said in a Nov. 19 email to the
Free Press. "This school also includes 17 females, making it our
most diverse recruit school in 20 years."

Mr. Mungo said that lack of police diversity and related tensions
with those who come into contact with police has become a national
security issue, and it's essential to "conduct these tests in a way
that is not likely to screen people out because of their cultural
backgrounds."

Assistant Attorney General Christopher argued on behalf of the
commission the proposed class of plaintiffs includes black exam
writers who suffered no injury as a result of receiving a failing
grade, That's because far more people wrote and passed the exam
than could have been hired as Michigan State Police troopers, motor
carrier officers and state property security officers, or as
Department of Natural Resources conservation officers, Christopher
wrote in a court filing.

But based on the number of successful exam writers who were hired,
Kyle Brink of Western Michigan University, an organizational
psychologist retained by Mr. Mungo, calculates that 13 more black
applicants would have received jobs between 2014 and 2017 if the
pass rate for black and white exam writers had been equal.

Based on lost pay and pension income for those 13 applicants, Mr.
Mungo pegs economic damages at about $6.5 million, which would be
distributed among all the black applicants who failed the exam. The
suit seeks unspecified noneconomic damages in addition to that
amount.

James Fett, a Pinckney attorney who has represented white
plaintiffs in lawsuits related to Michigan State Police promotion
and hiring practices, said more data needs to be analyzed before
concluding the state exam is discriminating on the basis of race.

"There may be nondiscriminatory factors that explain the
difference" in test performance between blacks and whites, Mr. Fett
said.

For example, if most of the whites who wrote the exam had college
degrees, while most of the blacks who wrote it had only completed
high school, that would skew the results, he said. The education
levels of all the test writers should be included in the analysis,
he said.

Mr. Mungo said on Nov. 19 that data about the educational level of
the test writers -- if it exists -- has not yet been made available
to the plaintiffs. [GN]


MILBERG LLP: Bobbitt Appeals D. Arizona Ruling to Ninth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Philip Bobbitt and Intervenor-Plaintiff Lance Laber filed
an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Philip Bobbitt,
et al. v. Milberg LLP, et al., Case No. 4:09-cv-00629-FRZ, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Tucson.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter,
Intervenor-Plaintiff Lance Laber filed petitions for a writ of
certiorari in the lawsuit titled Lance Laber, Petitioner v. Milberg
LLP, et al., Case No. 18-169, in the Supreme Court of United
States.

In 2001, Milberg, a national law firm specializing in class
actions, filed a lawsuit in Arizona district court against Variable
Annuity Life Insurance Company, Inc. (VALIC), for alleged
securities law violations.  In January 2004, the District Court
certified a class of plaintiffs, a significant accomplishment in
any class action litigation.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants sued Milberg for malpractice for
allegedly failing to meet the discovery requirements in the VALIC
class action.  The Plaintiffs named as defendants four law firms,
as well as various lawyers, who worked for them.

The appellate case is captioned as Philip Bobbitt, et al. v.
Milberg LLP, et al., Case No. 18-17250, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellants Philip Bobbitt and Lance Laber's opening brief
      is due on January 18, 2019;

   -- Appellees Lustigman Firm, John Gabroy, Gabroy Rollman &
      Bosse PC, Brian C. Ker, Ronald M. Lehman, Andre B.
      Lustigman, Sheldon S. Lustigman, Milberg LLP, Janine Lee
      Pollack, Michael C. Spencer, Ronald A. Uitz, Uitz &
      Associates, Lee A. Weiss and Melvyn I. Weiss' answering
      brief is due on February 19, 2019; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant PHILIP BOBBITT, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; and Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellant
LANCE LABER is represented by:

          Roger James George, Jr., Esq.
          Gary Lewis, Esq.
          GEORGE BROTHERS KINCAID & HORTON LLP
          110 Norwood Tower
          114 W. 7th St.
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 494-1400
          E-mail: rjgeorge@gbkh.com
                  glewis@gbkh.com

               - and -

          Guy Michael Hohmann, Esq.
          THE HOHMANN LAW FIRM
          114 W. 7th Street, Suite 1100
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 495-1438
          E-mail: info@hohmannlaw.com

               - and -

          Lawrence Kasten, Esq.
          Robert H. McKirgan, Esq.
          LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
          201 E. Washington Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-2595
          Telephone: (602) 262-0228
          E-mail: lkasten@lrrc.com
                  rmckirgan@lrrc.com

               - and -

          Ryan Trent Shelton, Esq.
          HOHMANN, BROPHY & SHELTON, PLLC
          210 Barton Springs Rd.
          Austin, TX 78704
          Telephone: (512) 596-3622
          E-mail: ryans@beswlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees MILBERG LLP, MELVYN I. WEISS, MICHAEL C.
SPENCER, JANINE LEE POLLACK, LEE A. WEISS and BRIAN C. KER are
represented by:

          Gregory P.N. Joseph, Esq.
          Jeffrey Harrison Zaiger, Esq.
          JOSEPH HAGE AARONSON LLC
          485 Lexington Avenue, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 407-1210
          E-mail: gjoseph@jha.com
                  jzaiger@jha.com

               - and -

          Douglas J. Pepe, Esq.
          GREGORY P. JOSEPH LAW OFFICES, LLC
          485 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 407-1230
          E-mail: dpepe@jhany.com

               - and -

          Michele Guy Thompson, Esq.
          UDALL LAW FIRM LLP
          4801 E. Broadway, Suite 400
          Tucson, AZ 85711-3638
          Telephone: (520) 623-4353
          E-mail: mthompson@udalllaw.com

Defendants-Appellees UITZ & ASSOCIATES and RONALD A. UITZ are
represented by:

          Kathleen Marie Rogers, Esq.
          SLUTES, SAKRISON & ROGERS, P.C.
          4801 E. Broadway Blvd.
          Tucson, AZ 85711
          Telephone: (520) 289-8411
          E-mail: krogers@sluteslaw.com

               - and -

          Michele Guy Thompson, Esq.
          UDALL LAW FIRM LLP
          4801 E. Broadway, Suite 400
          Tucson, AZ 85711-3638
          Telephone: (520) 623-4353
          E-mail: mthompson@udalllaw.com

Defendants-Appellees LUSTIGMAN FIRM, SHELDON S. LUSTIGMAN and ANDRE
B. LUSTIGMAN are represented by:

          Steven Leach, Esq.
          Donald L. Myles, Jr., Esq.
          JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.
          40 N. Central Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 263-7350
          E-mail: sleach@jshfirm.com
                  dmyles@jshfirm.com

Defendants-Appellees GABROY ROLLMAN & BOSSE PC, JOHN GABROY and
RONALD M. LEHMAN are represented by:

          Noel Christian Capps, Esq.
          John Anthony Klecan, Esq.
          Steven G. Mesaros, Esq.
          RENAUD COOK DRURY MESAROS, PA
          One North Central Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 307-9900
          E-mail: ncapps@rcdmlaw.com
                  jklecan@rcdmlaw.com
                  smesaros@rcdmlaw.com

               - and -

          Ronald M. Lehman, Esq.
          GABROY ROLLMAN & BOSSE PC
          3507 North Campbell Avenue
          Tucson, AZ 85719
          Telephone: (520) 320-1300
          E-mail: lehman@bosserollman.com


MONEYGRAM INT'L: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notified investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against MoneyGram International, Inc.
("MoneyGram" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MGI) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired MoneyGram shares between February 11, 2014 and November 8,
2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
bgandg.com/mgi.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) MoneyGram was aware for years of high levels of
fraud involving its money transfer system; (2) MoneyGram failed to
implement appropriate anti-fraud countermeasures, in part, because
doing so would adversely impact its revenue; (3) this misconduct
would draw scrutiny from the FTC, which had an agreed-upon order
requiring MoneyGram to implement a comprehensive anti-fraud
program; (4) this misconduct would draw scrutiny from the
Department of Justice, which entered into a Deferred Prosecution
Agreement concerning MoneyGram's anti-fraud and anti-money
laundering programs; and (5) consequently, defendants' statements
about MoneyGram's business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
bgandg.com/mgi or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in MoneyGram
you have until January 14, 2019 to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Telephone: 212-697-6484
         Email:  peretz@bgandg.com[GN]


MONEYGRAM INT'L: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP disclosed that it has
filed a federal securities class action in the United States
District Court for the  Northern District of Illinois on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of MoneyGram International, Inc. from
February 11, 2014 through November 8, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Investors who have incurred losses in the shares of MoneyGram
International, Inc. are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action on our website,
www.whafh.com.

If  you have incurred losses in the shares of MoneyGram
International, Inc.,  you may, no later than January 14, 2019,
request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed
class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your
rights as an investor in MoneyGram International, Inc.  

According to filed complaint, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:

   -- MoneyGram was aware for years of high levels of fraud
involving its money transfer system;

   -- MoneyGram failed to implement appropriate anti-fraud
countermeasures, in part, because doing so would adversely impact
its revenue;

   -- this misconduct would draw scrutiny from the FTC, which had
an agreed-upon order requiring MoneyGram to implement a
comprehensive anti-fraud program;

   -- this misconduct would draw scrutiny from the Department of
Justice, which entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement
concerning MoneyGram's anti-fraud and anti-money laundering
programs; and

   -- as a result, defendants' statements about MoneyGram's
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On November 8, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") announced
that MoneyGram agreed to pay $125 million to settle allegations
that the company "failed to take steps required under a 2009 [FTC]
order to crack down on fraudulent money transfers" and allegations
that the company violated a 2012 deferred prosecution agreement
with the Department of Justice.

Then, on November 9, 2018, MoneyGram reported a decrease in money
transfer revenue due to the "impact of higher compliance standards
and newly implemented corridor specific controls."

On this news, MoneyGram's share price fell $2.20 per share, or over
49%, to close at $2.27 per share on November 9, 2018, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case please; immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.

   Kevin Cooper, Esq.
   Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
   Gregory Stone
   Director of Case and Financial Analysis
   Telephone: (800) 575-0735
              (212) 545-4774
   Email: Gstone@whafh.com
          kcooper@whafh.com
          classmember@whafh.com [GN]


MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Court Allows Filing of 2nd Amended Brinkley
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIFFANY BRINKLEY, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MONTEREY FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-1103-WQH-WVG (S.D. Cal.), Judge William
Q. Hayes of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend and to
File a Second Amended Class Action Complaint.

On Oct. 15, 2013, Brinkley initiated the action by filing a
Complaint against Monterey Financial Services, Inc. and Doe
Defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California in and
for the County of San Diego.  On April 1, 2016, Brinkley amended
the Complaint to add Monterey Financial Services, LLC as a
Defendant.

On May 17, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint.  On May 31, 2018, the Defendant filed a Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.

On June 30, 2018, Monterey Financial Services, Inc. was terminated
from the case.  On Sept. 13, 2018, the Court granted in part and
denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint.

On Oct. 22, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend
and to File a Second Amended Class Action Complaint.  On Nov. 2,
2018, the Defendant filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to the
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend and to File a Second Amended
Class Action Complaint.

Judge Hayes finds that Defendant Monterey does not oppose the
Motion.  He finds that there has been no showing that any of the
remaining Foman factors warrants deviating from the presumption
under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.  Therefore,
he granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend and to File a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint.  The Plaintiff may file the
proposed Second Amended Class Action Complaint by Dec. 10, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/2ln0eu from Leagle.com.

Tiffany Brinkley, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christina E. Wickman,
Esq. -- Christina@wickmanlaw.com -- and -- Steven Allen Wickman,
Esq. -- Steve@wickmanlaw.com -- WICKMAN AND WICKMAN -- Patrick N.
Keegan, Esq. -- pkeegan@keeganbaker.com -- KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP.

Monterey Financial Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew
Orr, Esq. -- morr@calljensen.com -- and William Paul Cole, Esq. --
wcole@calljensen.com -- CALL & JENSEN APC.


MOUNT IDA COLLEGE: Squeri et al. Sue over Sudden Closure
--------------------------------------------------------
TRISTAN SQUERI, MADELINE McCLAIN, and GEORGE O'DEA, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
MOUNT IDA COLLEGE, THE MOUNT IDA COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUTEES, BARRY
BROWN, individually and as a representative of Mount Ida College,
CARMIN C. REISS, individually and as a representative of the Mount
Ida College Board of Trustees, JASON POTTS, individually and as a
representative of Mount Ida College, JEFF CUTTING individually and
as a representative of Mount Ida College, and RON AKIE,
Individually and as a representative of Mount Ida College, the
DefendantsCase 1:18-cv-12438 (D. Mass., Nov. 26, 2018), seeks to
recover damages arising out of the deceptive and fraudulent
practices and actions of Mount Ida College, the Mount Ida College
Board of Trustees, Mount Ida's President and other academic
officers relating to Mount Ida's sudden closure and the resulting
harm suffered by its students.

Without notice to its student population and their families,
Defendant Mount Ida College abruptly closed its doors in May 2018.
The fallout was catastrophic. Among numerous consequences, students
were faced with finding an alternative institution to meet their
educational goals to which to transfer – a daunting task given
that transfer deadlines for most institutions had passed or were
imminent; many students were left with degree programs that were
discontinued or credits that could not be transferred; and many
students lost their scholarships and other forms of financial aid.
This could have been avoided. Yet, by closing abruptly, Mount Ida
denied its students the opportunity to continue with their
bargained for education, and their actions prevented some students
from enrolling in other institutions of higher education or
pursuing their intended degrees altogether.

According to the complaint, one of the Defendants, Carmin C. Reiss,
the Chairwoman of Mount Ida's Board of Trustees, testified under
oath that she was aware as early as 2014 that Mount Ida was facing
financial difficulties that ultimately led to its closure. Despite
this knowledge, none of the Defendants disclosed Mount Ida's
financial status to its students. As stated by Reiss: "did we go
out and announce: 'hello interested students we're teetering on the
brink of insolvency, but come on in?' No, we did not do that."
According to Reiss, this omission was intentional, as it was the
Defendants' understanding that "the public disclosure by a college
that it is facing financial difficulties is a self-fulling prophecy
of its demise." In other words, the Defendants intentionally
concealed the truth from its students because they knew their
students would seize this information and ultimately make an
informed decision to enroll elsewhere, seek a transfer, or take
some other action to avoid being harmed by the school's inevitable
closure.

As stated by the Office of Attorney General Maura Healy, "[Mount
Ida's] closure has caused real harm to students and families. The
Defendants had several opportunities to disclose the severity of
Mount Ida's impending insolvency to its students. Most notably,
Mount Ida had the opportunity to fully explain the situation when
it believed it reached a merger deal with nearby Lasell College.
Instead of disclosing the reason for merger at that time (i.e.,
that Mount Ida was on the brink of bankruptcy), Mount Ida instead
made numerous false representations, including without limitation,
that the merger was to strengthen and consolidate both its and
Lasell's positions as institutions. The deal with Lasell ultimately
failed. Instead, Mount Ida entered into an agreement to sell its
land to UMass and close the college. As part of this deal, Mount
Ida funneled its students to UMass Dartmouth, illegally providing
UMass with sensitive student financial and academic information,
which was inexplicably provided as part of a land acquisition.

The sudden closure of Mount Ida deprived enrolled and prospective
students of their ability to meaningfully consider alternate
schools, and Mount Ida knew this. It was exactly when the students
were most vulnerable when Mount Ida released its students' private
information to UMass Dartmouth, allowing UMass Dartmouth to
approach each individual student armed with knowledge of their
specific finances, grades, awards, and majors. In effect, Mount Ida
sold its students, at a discount, to UMass Dartmouth, as an
incentive in the land transaction, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class:

          Andra J. Hutchins, Esq.
          Michael Tauer, Esq.
          KERSTEIN, COREN & LICHTENSTEIN , LLP
          60 Walnut Street, 4 th Floor
          Wellesley, Massachusetts 02481
          Telephone: (781) 997-1600
          E-mail: ahutchins@kcl-law.com
                  mtauer@kcl-law.com

               - and -

          Joshua N. Garick, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA N. GARICK , P.C.
          34 Salem Street Suite 202
          Reading, MA 01867
          Telephone: (617) 600-7520
          E-mail: joshua@garicklaw.com

MUSCLEPHARM CORP: Durnford Class Suit Remanded to N.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on October 12,
2018, issued its opinion reversing the dismissal and remanding the
"Durnford" case to the Northern District of California, according
to MusclePharm Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018.

On July 28, 2015, Plaintiff, Tucker Durnford, filed a First Amended
Class Action Complaint which alleged that MusclePharm's Arnold Iron
Mass product violates consumer protection laws by misleading
consumers about the amount and sources of protein in the product.
The product has been discontinued.  The last shipments were in
March of 2016.

Plaintiff's counsel alleged that results of laboratory testing
demonstrate the actual total protein content per serving to be
approximately 19.4 grams, once the free-form amino acids are
excluded from the calculation.  Plaintiff's counsel attached to the
First Amended Class Action Complaint what purport to be test
results supporting that allegation.

The Company moved to dismiss the First Amended Class Action
Complaint, arguing that plaintiff's claims are preempted by the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and its implementing
regulations.  The Court granted MusclePharm's motion to dismiss the
case on December 18, 2015.  Plaintiff was given leave to file an
amended complaint, but instead chose to appeal the order granting
MusclePharm's motion to dismiss.  On December 31, 2015, plaintiff's
counsel made a settlement demand, in an amount of US$100,000, which
demand was rejected.  On February 10, 2016, the court entered
judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice.  Plaintiff appealed
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard arguments on
November 15, 2017.

On October 12, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion reversing
the dismissal and remanding the case to the Northern District of
California.  The Ninth Circuit found that plaintiff's misbranding
theory premised on alleged "nitogen-spiking" or "protein-spiking"
was preempted by federal law, but that plaintiff could attempt to
prove his allegation that the protein in the product does not come
entirely from hydrolyzed beef and lacoterferrin, and his allegation
that the label misleads consumers into believing that that protein
does come entirely from hydrolyzed beef and lacoterferrin.  The
Company intends to vigorously defend this action and is awaiting
next steps from the District court.

MusclePharm Corporation (OTCQB: MSLP) develops, manufactures,
markets, and distributes branded nutritional supplements in the
United States and internationally.  The company was founded in 2008
and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


NCAA: Patterson Sues over College Football Revenues
---------------------------------------------------
MYCHAL PATTERSON, the Plaintiff, vs. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, AND THE SUN BELT CONFERENCE, the Defendants,
Case 1:18-cv-03674-JMS-TAB (S.D. Ind., Nov. 21, 2018), seeks
restitution and/or disgorgement of all monies Defendants have
unjustly received.

According to the complaint, the Defendants receive significant
revenues from the collegiate football played by student-athletes.
These revenues include, but are not limited to, contractual
revenues from broadcasting, merchandising agreements, and ticket
sales. Under principles of equity and good conscience, Defendants
should not be permitted to retain the profits they receive at the
expense of Plaintiff and the Class while refusing to pay for
medical expenses incurred as a result of their unlawful actions or
otherwise failing to prevent such injuries.

No matter the popularity and profitability of any college sport,
player safety must come first. This is especially true of "amateur"
college football, which has over the past few decades rivaled the
NFL and other professional sports in popularity, and profitability.
Yet Defendants sacrificed player safety -- including the
Plaintiff's and the Class' long-term health and well-being -- in
favor of profits and self-promotion.

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

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,281
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

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

NISSAN MOTOR: RM Law Investigates Possible Securities Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C. on Nov. 20 announced an investigation on behalf of
Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (OTC:NSANY) ("Nissan" or the "Company")
investors concerning the Company and its officers' possible
violations of federal securities laws.

If you purchased shares of Nissan and would like to learn more
about these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to sign
up online, click here.

The investigation concerns whether Nissan and certain of its
officers and/or directors have violated federal securities laws.

On November 19, 2018, media outlets reported that the Company's
Chairman Carlos Ghosn had been arrested by Japanese authorities for
violations of Japanese financial law. In a press release, Nissan
stated that the Company "has been conducting an internal
investigation over the past several months regarding misconduct
involving the company's Representative Director and Chairman Carlos
Ghosn and Representative Director Greg Kelly", which revealed "that
over many years both Ghosn and Kelly have been reporting
compensation amounts in the Tokyo Stock Exchange securities report
that were less than the actual amount, in order to reduce the
disclosed amount of Carlos Ghosn's compensation." The Company
further stated that "in regards to Ghosn, numerous other
significant acts of misconduct have been uncovered, such as
personal use of company assets, and Kelly's deep involvement has
also been confirmed." Following this news, Nissan's American
depositary receipt price fell sharply during intraday trading on
November 19, 2018.

For more information regarding this, please contact RM LAW, P.C.
(Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or by
email at rm@maniskas.com.   For more information about class action
cases in general or to learn more about RM LAW, P.C. please visit
our website by clicking here.

RM LAW, P.C. is a national shareholder litigation firm.  RM LAW,
P.C. is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and
institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal
courts nationwide. [GN]


NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Court to Take Up Jurisdictional Rules Issue
---------------------------------------------------------------
Howard M. Wasserman, writing for SCOTUSblog, reports that in a
series of decisions in the past decade, most recently 2017's Hamer
v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, the Supreme Court has
distinguished jurisdictional rules from non-jurisdictional
claim-processing rules. The distinction has been framed in
consequential terms -- a jurisdictional rule is mandatory and does
not admit of equitable exception, suspending or extending the
deadline based on concerns for fairness and justice. But the court
has allowed that non-jurisdictional claim-processing rules could be
mandatory if the rulemaker (whether Congress or the Supreme Court)
so chooses, while reserving whether such rules could be subject to
equitable exception.

That possibility is the focus of Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, to
be argued November 27.

This case concerns Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which
provides that a "court of appeals may permit an appeal from an
order granting or denying class-action certification under this
rule if a petition for permission to appeal is filed with the
circuit clerk within 14 days after the order is entered." This
ensures that class litigation does not continue when a class is
improper and that a case is not prohibited from moving forward as a
class when it should.

Troy Lambert filed a putative class action, alleging violations of
California's false advertising, consumer fraud and unfair
competition laws, arising from Nutraceutical's sale and marketing
of purported aphrodisiac supplements. The district court certified
the class in 2014, then decertified it on February 20, 2015. At a
March 2, 2015, status conference, Lambert requested that the court
recertify the class; the court notified Lambert he could file a
motion for reconsideration of the decertification order within 10
days of the conference, which Lambert did on March 12, 2015 (the
10th day). The district court denied the motion for reconsideration
on June 24, 2015. Lambert filed his Rule 23(f) petition with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on July 8, 2015.

The 9th Circuit held that the appeal was timely. As a
non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule, Rule 23(f) is subject to
equitable exception to "avoid or soften" the time limitations. One
such exception is that filing a motion for reconsideration of the
decertification order within the rule's 14-day window would have
tolled, or suspended, the period, although that exception did not
apply here because Lambert did not file his petition within 14
days. But other equitable factors supported tolling in this case,
including Lambert's notifying the district court of his intention
to seek recertification, filing his motion for reconsideration
within the 10 days ordered by the court, and otherwise acting
diligently in asserting his procedural rights. The court recognized
that other circuits take a narrower approach to equitable tolling
and would not allow tolling in this case.

Nutraceutical's arguments

Nutraceutical argues that Lambert's 23(f) petition should have been
filed on or before March 6, 14 days after the court decertified the
class. Failure to do so rendered the petition for review
inexcusably and irrevocably untimely and not saved by equitable
exceptions to the rule's time limits.

Because the 14-day filing deadline appears in a judicially enacted
federal rule rather than a statute, it is a claim-processing rule,
not a jurisdictional limitation. But a claim-processing rule may
enjoy some attributes of a jurisdictional rule, including its
mandatory nature. The purpose of a claim-processing rule is to
promote the orderly progress of litigation, a purpose served when
the rule is applied consistently and strictly in accordance with
its text. When a party properly raises a claim-processing rule, it
is unalterable and mandatory, the better to promote efficiency.

Although Hamer reserved whether claim-processing rules can be
subject to equitable exceptions, Nutraceutical argues that a rule
written in the emphatic language of Rule 23(f) precludes such
exceptions. Under the rules, the court of appeals may permit appeal
only if a prerequisite is met -- the filing of a petition within
the stated period. This mandatory reading ensures consistency with
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 5, which reinforces that
petitions for permission to appeal must be filed within the time
specified in the rule authorizing the appeal. And the reading
receives further support from Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
26(b)(1), which allows courts to extend time limits for good cause,
except for petitions for permission to appeal.

Rule 23(f)'s purpose also supports the "strict and mandatory"
reading. Deadlines for filing appeals generally should be strictly
enforced. That need is especially pronounced with respect to
deadlines for interlocutory appeals, which create exceptions to the
final judgment rule, disrupt the normal flow of litigation,
lengthen litigation, waste resources and create uncertainty around
whether the appeal of one interlocutory issue stays the rest of the
litigation in the district court. A strict reading of Rule 23(f)
also does not produce the harsh consequences or traps for unwary or
unsophisticated plaintiffs that may justify equitable exceptions in
other contexts. Potential class members are typically represented
by competent counsel familiar with relevant deadlines. And class
members do not lose all opportunity to seek review if they miss the
mandatory Rule 23(f) deadline, because they can appeal the
decertification decision on appeal from final judgment.

Even if equitable tolling were permissible under Rule 23(f),
tolling is inappropriate in this case. No extraordinary
circumstances prevented the plaintiff from seeking review within 14
days and the plaintiff's tardiness did not result from reliance on
"specific assurances" from the court that he could file a late
petition. The larger problem is that the 9th Circuit adopted and
applied broad equitable exceptions; the court considered whether
Lambert was diligent in pursuing his rights and whether he took
some action to reflect an intention to preserve his right to appeal
immediately. But these considerations are different from the usual
facts allowing equitable tolling, which are both extraordinary and
beyond a party's control.

Lambert's arguments

Lambert begins from the premise that the Supreme Court need not
resolve whether Rule 23(f) can be equitably tolled, because the
appeal was timely under the rule. The request for recertification
of the class at the March 2 conference constituted an oral motion
for reconsideration, which all parties and courts agree stopped the
14-day appeals clock until after resolution of the motion.
Alternatively, Lambert's March 12 written motion was a timely
motion to alter or amend a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e), filed within 28 days of the original judgment. A
potentially appealable interlocutory order is considered a
"judgment" for Rule 59(e) purposes. Whether the court focuses on
the oral or written motion, either presented the district court
with a motion to reconsider its decertification order, stopping
Rule 23(f)'s 14-day clock until that motion was resolved. The
district court denied reconsideration on June 24, while also
altering that judgment to provide notice to class members of
decertification (an element missing from the original
decertification order). Lambert then had 14 days to file the
petition for permission to appeal. The petition, filed on July 8
(the 14th day following denial of reconsideration), therefore was
timely.

In any event, the 9th Circuit correctly recognized that Rule 23(f)
is subject to equitable exception. Lambert's argument hinges on the
history and nature of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which
merged law and equity and resembled the old equity rules in their
flexibility and vesting of broad judicial discretion. "Given this
close kinship between the Federal Rules and chancery practice, time
prescriptions in the Rules … should be entitled to a presumption
in favor of equitable tolling." Lambert also points to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 1, which provides that the rules should be
construed to "secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action and proceeding." Those policy goals
suggest that courts should apply time limits flexibly and with an
eye towards equity, rather than in the "unyielding manner" that
would prohibit any tolling.

Lambert argues that the text and purpose of Rule 23(f) confirm the
appropriateness of the equitable exceptions the 9th Circuit
employed. Because the rule gives courts of appeals unfettered
discretion whether to permit appeal of a certification order, "it
only makes sense that the courts of appeals are permitted to take
equitable considerations such as tolling into account when deciding
whether to permit an appeal." Lambert rebuts Nutraceutical's
argument about Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(b); that rule
prohibits courts from extending the time to file petitions under a
good-cause standard, but does not prohibit the application of
tolling to an already expired deadline. Lambert emphasizes a
fundamental distinction between extending a deadline and halting
the running of the clock that leads to the deadline. Many rules,
including 26(b), prohibit the former. But tolling achieves the
latter and is permissible absent contrary language in a rule.
Finally, Lambert argues that Rule 23(f) cannot be as unyielding as
Nutraceutical urges, because Nutraceutical concedes that the period
is tolled by a motion for reconsideration filed within 14 days. If
the time period can be tolled by that motion, there is no textual
or principled basis for allowing that equitable exception to Rule
23(f) but no others. [GN]


OCWEN LOAN: Court Denies Bid to File Under Seal in Gonzalez Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILFREDO GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING,
LLC Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-340-Oc-30PRL (M.D. Fla.),
Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens of the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, denied the
Defendant's motion to file documents under seal.

Upon preliminary review, the Magistrate observes that the motion
lacks the certification required by Local Rule 3.01(g).  The
purpose of Local Rule 3.01(g) is to require the parties to
communicate and resolve certain types of disputes without court
intervention.  He expects the counsel to comply with both the
letter and spirt of Local Rule 3.01(g).

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/lYWTDz from Leagle.com.

Wilfredo Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by John Christopher
Distasio, Morgan & Morgan, PA.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Aliza
Pescovitz Malouf -- amalouf@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth
LLP & Edrei G. Swanson -- eswanson@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews
Kurth LLP.


OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Kane et al Suit Transferred to M.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH KANE, CANDI AMUSO, and KEISHA EDWARDS, Individually and on
Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
OLLIE'S BARGAIN OUTLET HOLDINGS, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-03475, was transferred from the the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 26, 2018. The Middle
District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:18-cv-02261-UN1 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege on behalf of themselves and other current and
former Co-Team Leaders and similarly situated current and former
employees holding comparable positions but different titles
employed by Defendant in the United States, who elect to opt into
this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, that they are
entitled to, inter alia: (i) unpaid overtime wages for hours worked
above 40 in a workweek, as required by law, and (ii) liquidated
damages pursuant to the FLSA, the lawsuit says.

Ollie's Bargain is an American chain of retail stores founded in
1982 by the late Morton Bernstein. The first store was opened in
Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, just outside Harrisburg. As of
November 2018, the chain now has 303 locations in 22 states-
including Texas. The president and CEO is Mark Butler.[BN]

Attorneys Plaintiffs:

          Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
          David A. Roth, Esq.
          Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
          HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
          192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-1199
          Facsimile: (212) 532-3801
          E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com
                  cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
                  droth@hgrlawyers.com
                  Rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Kathleen Mcleod Caminiti, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP
          430 Mountain Avenue
          Murray Hill, NJ 07974
          Telephone: (908) 516-1050
          Facsimile: (908) 516-1051
          E-mail: kcaminiti@fisherphillips.com

OVASCIENCE INC: Kim Securities Suit Challenges Millendo Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA KIM, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. OVASCIENCE, INC., CHRISTOPHER KROEGER, RICHARD ALDRICH,
JEFFREY CAPELLO, MARY FISHER, JONATHAN HOWE, MARC KOZIN, and JOHN
SEXTON, Case No. 1:18-cv-10939 (S.D.N.Y., November 21, 2018),
accuses the Defendants of violating the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the acquisition of OvaScience by Millendo
Therapeutics, Inc.

On August 8, 2018, OvaScience, Millendo, and Orion Merger Sub,
Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of
OvaScience, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and
Reorganization, pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and
into Millendo, with Millendo surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary
of OvaScience.

Pursuant to the exchange ratio formula of the Merger Agreement, on
a pro forma basis and based upon the number of shares of OvaScience
common stock to be issued in the Proposed Transaction, current
OvaScience stockholders will own approximately 20% of the combined
company and current Millendo investors will own approximately 80%
of the combined company (the "Merger Consideration").

The Plaintiff contends that the Proxy Statement issued relating to
the Proposed Transaction contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning: (i) the valuation analyses
prepared by the Company's financial advisor, Ladenburg Thalmann &
Co. Inc. ("Ladenburg Thalmann"), in support of their fairness
opinion and (ii) the potential conflicts of interest faced by the
Board during the sales process leading up to the Proposed
Transaction.

OvaScience is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Waltham, Massachusetts.  OvaScience is a company
focused on the discovery and development of new treatment options
for women and families struggling with infertility.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of OvaScience.

Millendo is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on
developing novel treatments for orphan endocrine diseases.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
          Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
          GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
          440 Park Avenue South
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 983-1300
          Facsimile: (212) 983-0380
          E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                  gegleston@gme-law.com


PACIFIC BELL: Court Grants Bid for Writ of Mandate in Leggins Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; STEVEN LEGGINS et
al., Real Parties in Interest, Case No. B287439 (Cal. App.), Judge
Frances Rothschild of the Court of Appeals of California for the
Second District, Division One, granted Pacific Bell's petition for
writ of mandate.

Petitioner Pacific Bell petitions for a writ of mandate directing
the superior court to vacate its Nov. 22, 2017 order denying its
motion to strike the first amended complaint in its entirety or, in
the alternative, its allegations invoking the relation-back
doctrine, and to issue an order granting the motion.

In July 2015, real party in interest Steven Leggins filed a Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") class action against Pacific Bell
alleging that it failed to provide a day of rest in each seven-day
period in violation of Labor Code sections 551 and 552.  In
December 2015, while Pacific Bell's demurrer was pending, the
parties submitted to the superior court a stipulation to stay the
action because the California Supreme Court had accepted a
certified question from the Ninth Circuit concerning the Labor Code
sections at issue.  On Jan. 5, 2016, the superior court stayed the
case pending the high court's answer to the certified question
presented in Mendoza v. Nordstrom (9th Cir. 2015).

On May 8, 2017, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in
Mendoza.  It concluded that sections 551 and 552, fairly read in
light of all the available evidence, are most naturally read to
ensure employees at least one day of rest during each week, rather
than one day in every seven on a rolling basis.  The Legislature
intended to ensure employees, as conducive to their health and
well-being, a day of rest each week, not to prevent them from ever
working more than six consecutive days at any one time.

The superior court lifted the stay in the case on July 24, 2017.
On July 28, 2017, Leggins filed a first amended complaint that
revised his day of rest claim, added seven additional unrelated
alleged Labor Code violations to his PAGA claim, added real party
in interest Fernando Lopez as an additional Plaintiff, and asserted
a new cause of action for unfair business practices.  The first
amended complaint seeks to relate the new claims back to the date
Leggins filed the initial complaint in July 2015 by alleging a
"Class Period" commencing on the date that is within four years
prior to the filing of the initial complaint and through the
present date, and a "PAGA Period" commencing on the date that is
within one year prior to the filing of the initial complaint and
through the present date.

Pacific Bell filed a motion to strike the amended complaint in its
entirety, contending that it was effectively a new case, resting on
different facts and theories, including claims by a new Plaintiff.
In the alternative, it moved to strike real parties' allegation
that they worked seven days "in a workweek" and their allegations
that the new claims relate back to the filing of the initial
complaint.

On Nov. 22, 2017, the superior court issued an order denying
Pacific Bell's motion to strike the first amended complaint in its
entirety.  The court granted the motion to strike from the amended
complaint references to "in a workweek" because the allegation
contradicted the original complaint and ran afoul of the sham
pleading doctrine.  It denied Pacific Bell's motion to strike the
relation-back allegations.

Pacific Bell filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Court,
contending the superior court erred by denying its motion to strike
Leggins' and Lopez's ("real parties") amended complaint because it
is "an entirely new class action" complaint, which the real parties
should have brought in a separate action.  In the alternative,
Pacific Bell contends the superior court erred by refusing to
strike the relation-back allegations because the original complaint
failed to provide adequate notice of the new claims, which are
based on new and different facts and a new Plaintiff.

The Court requested opposition, and then issued an alternative writ
directing the superior court to vacate that part of its Nov. 22,
2017 order, denying Pacific Bell's motion to strike the
relation-back allegations in the first amended complaint or, in the
alternative, show cause before the court why a peremptory writ
ordering it to do so should not issue.  Because the superior court
did not respond to the alternative writ, the Court issued an order
to show cause.

In their return, the real parties contend they alerted Pacific Bell
to the new claims on May 3, 2017, when they served upon Pacific
Bell an amended PAGA notice alleging the new Labor Code violations.
They also contend the first amended complaint merely expands upon
the original complaint by alleging that Pacific Bell's scheduling
and timekeeping procedures result in the miscalculation and
non-payment of wages owed to its employees.  Thus, the real parties
assert, the first amended complaint is sufficiently grounded on the
same general set of facts that arise from the same or substantially
similar employer-employee relationship.  They also claim that
Pacific Bell's counsel agreed in an email to stipulate to the
proposed amendments. Lastly, real parties assert that they were
unable to amend the complaint any earlier because the case was
stayed.

In its traverse, Pacific Bell contends real parties failed to
identify any factual similarities between their new claims and the
original day of rest claim, and the new claims are based on
different evidence, different data, and different witnesses.  It
also contends that, contrary to real parties' assertion, the day of
rest claim sought only penalties and has nothing to do with the
calculation and payment of wages.

Pacific Bell also asserts that real parties could have filed a
separate action, or sought to lift the stay -- either by
stipulation or order of the court -- to permit them to amend their
complaint earlier.  It contends real parties' amended PAGA notice
failed to provide adequate notice of the new claims because it was
served just two months before real parties filed their amended
complaint, and years after the original complaint.  Lastly, Pacific
Bell disputes real parties' contention that Pacific Bell's counsel
agreed to stipulate to the filing of an amended complaint.

Judge Rothschild finds that rather than move to strike only the new
claims and allegations, Pacific Bell moved to strike the entire
amended complaint.  She holds that this goes too far, because the
amended complaint is not entirely new.  Rather, it retains and
restates the day of rest Labor Code violation, asserted as a PAGA
claim by real party Leggins, the original Plaintiff.  Accordingly,
the superior court did not abuse its discretion by denying the
motion to strike the entire amended complaint.

With respect to Pacific Bell's motion to strike relation-back
allegations, the Judge finds that none of the new allegations in
real parties' first amended complaint has anything to do with
Pacific Bell's alleged failure, once every few months, to provide
one day off per week.  The lack of any connection between the many
new facts and claims in the amended complaint and the narrow facts
and single day of rest claim in the original complaint amply
supports Pacific Bell's contention that it was surprised by the
amplification of the allegations of the original complaint in the
amended one.  Accordingly, because the real parties' new claims do
not relate back to the original complaint, the respondent court
abused its discretion by denying Pacific Bell's motion to strike
the relation-back allegations.

For these reasons, Judge Rothschild granted Pacific Bell's petition
for writ of mandate.  Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue,
directing the trial court to vacate that part of its Nov. 22, 2017
order denying the Petitioner's motion to strike the relation-back
allegations in the first amended complaint and to issue a new and
different order granting same.  The parties will bear their own
costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/Zm0MXf from Leagle.com.

Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton, Michael C. Sullivan --
msullivan@paulplevin.com -- Aaron A. Buckley --
abuckley@paulplevin.com -- and Jeffrey P. Michalowski --
jmichalowski@paulplevin.com -- for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Clark Law Group, R. Craig Clark, and Monique R. Rodriguez --
mrodriguez@clarklawyers.com -- for Real Parties in Interest.


PACIFIC GAS: Faces Class Action Over Camp Fire
----------------------------------------------
KKTV 11 News reports that The Law Offices of Frank D. Azar, and
several other attorneys filed a lawsuit against Pacific Gas and
Electric for allegedly starting the Camp fire, the deadliest fire
in California history.

A news release sent out by Azar's law firm said: A class action
lawsuit filed on behalf of victims of the Camp Fire claims that
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. is responsible for sparking the
deadliest wildfire in California history.

Since it first erupted in Butte County on November 8, the Camp Fire
has resulted in at least 77 deaths, burned more than 150,000 acres
and destroyed more than 10,000 homes. Officials say the cause of
the blaze is still under investigation, but the lawsuit cites
multiple reports of problems with a high-voltage power line
operated by PG&E 14 minutes before the fire began and a vegetation
fire under the utility's power lines at the point of ignition.

This is not the first time PG&E's equipment has been linked to
wildfires in Butte County. PG&E agreed to pay more than $24 million
in damages to Butte County residents in the 2015 Butte Fire, and
the troubled utility is also facing billions in potential liability
over 2017 wildfires in Northern California. The lawsuit complaint
contends that the circumstances that produced the Camp Fire were
foreseeable and preventable, but that "PG&E has a long history of
disregarding safety regulations in order to maximize its own
corporate profits" -- by, for example, failing to trim trees near
power lines or initiate power shutoffs in particularly hazardous
fire conditions.

Two days before the Camp Fire started, PG&E announced on Twitter a
possible Public Safety Power Shutoff planned for November 8, as a
result of high winds, low humidity and dry vegetation. Yet the
shutoff never occurred.

The lawsuit was filed in Superior Court in Butte County by the law
firm of Garner & Associates, of Willows, California, and Franklin
D. Azar & Associates of Aurora, Colorado, on behalf of several
residents who lost homes and other property in the Camp Fire and
others similarly situated. "We encourage people affected by the
Camp Fire to not respond to robocallers, but to contact the Butte
County Bar Association or your local attorney first," said Ivy Ngo,
one of the plaintiffs' attorneys.

These two plaintiff law firms worked closely together protecting
the interests of Butte County residents after last year's October
8th fires. There is significant concern right now regarding
lawsuits relating to the Camp Fire being filed by Bay Area firms in
San Francisco County. "For us, these fires have devastated family
and friends," said John Garner -- jrg@erglaw.net -- of Garner &
Associates. "Nothing substantial about this fire occurred in San
Francisco County. When the time is right for litigation, a Butte
County judge should protect the victims of this fire." [GN]


PARKSIDE CHEMISTS: Manigo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Ngenyama Manigo, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Parkside Chemists and Alexandros
Argryis, the Defendants, Case No.: 523722/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov.
26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the New
York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Parkside Chemists is a pharmacy in
Brooklyn, NY, doing business under the name Parkside Chemists
Specialty Pharmacy and located at 1274 Nostrand Ave, Brooklyn, NY
11226. The pharmacy is owned and operated by Alexandros Argryis. In
or about October 2014, the Defendant hired Plaintiff to do
deliveries within New York City, dropping off medications and
medical devices and other medical products to Parkside's customers.
The Plaintiff used his personal car for the deliveries and paid out
of his pocket for all gas, maintenance, and other expenses incurred
in the course of using his personal car to perform the work
required by the Employer.

Among the expenses Plaintiff incurred were charges to his personal
EZ Pass when used to pay for tolls incurred in the course of
perform his job duties as required by Parkside; the EZ Pass charges
were incurred during the final 2 months of the period of
employment. New York law requires employers to pay employees wages
equivalent to minimum wage plus an amount sufficient to reimburse
Plaintiff for all costs incurred in the performance of his job
duties.

Mr. Manigo was a loyal and dedicated employee. He worked long
hours, specifically, and to the best of his recollection, he worked
five days a week, occasionally, six days a week. He worked in
excess of 40 hours per week for Defendants during the employment
period. Mr. Manigo worked in excess of ten hours per day for
Defendants during the employment period. During the last six months
of the employment period, Defendants would cut 10 to 13 hours of
compensable time from Plaintiff weekly hours. The Defendants never
paid an overtime premium, and instead paid straight time rates for
overtime hours, the lawsuit says.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
          675 3rd Avenue Suite 1810
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (718) 669-0714
          E-mail: mgangat@gangatpllc.com

PDC ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Dufresne Complaint Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockies Region 2007 Limited Partnership disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a motion to dismiss
the case styled Dufresne, et al. v. PDC Energy, et al., is still
pending.

In December 2017, PDC Energy, Inc. (PDC) 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
original complaint was brought by a number of limited partner
investors seeking to assert derivative claims on behalf of this
Partnership against PDC and alleging claims for breach of fiduciary
duty and breach of contract.  The plaintiffs also included claims
against two of PDC's senior officers for alleged breach of
fiduciary duty.  The lawsuit accuses PDC, as the managing general
partner of this Partnership, of, among other things, failing to
maximize the productivity of this Partnership's crude oil and
natural gas wells.

PDC 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 alleged 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
added three new individual defendants, all of which are currently
independent members of PDC's Board of Directors.  PDC filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint and, in response, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on July 10, 2018.  PDC
filed a motion to dismiss this second amended complaint and the
claims against the individuals named as defendants on July 31,
2018, and is awaiting a ruling at this time.

The Company said, "This motion has not yet been decided by the
court.  Potential damages as a result of this lawsuit, if any,
would be paid by PDC and not affect this Partnership."

PDC Energy, Inc.  ("PDC") is the Managing General Partner of
Rockies Region 2007 Limited Partnership.  The Partnership was
organized in 2007 as a limited partnership, in accordance with the
laws of the State of West Virginia, for the purpose of engaging in
the exploration and development of crude oil and natural gas
properties.  Business operations commenced upon closing of an
offering for the private placement of Partnership units.  Upon
funding, this Partnership entered into a Drilling and Operating
Agreement with the Managing General Partner which authorizes PDC to
conduct and manage this Partnership's business.  In accordance with
the terms of the Limited Partnership Agreement, the Managing
General Partner is authorized to manage all activities of this
Partnership and initiates and completes substantially all
Partnership transactions.


PEOPLE 2.0: Duran Stayed Pending Final Approval of Grady Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California stayed the case, DESIREE DURAN, an
individual, Plaintiff, v. PEOPLE 2.0 NORTH AMERICA LLC; and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02546-JAM-EFB (E.D.
Cal.), pending completion of settlement negotiations and the
Court's final approval of a class action settlement agreement in
the case of Jesse Grady, et al. v. People 2.0 dba The Hire Source,
et al., San Joaquin Superior Court Case No. STK-CV-2017-13867.

The Parties will file an updated joint status report with the Court
by April 26, 2019, regarding the status of litigation in the Grady
Action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/tpP9Yf from Leagle.com.

Desiree Duran, Plaintiff, represented by John Paul Briscoe --
jbriscoe@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, PC, Nicholas John Scardigli
-- nscardigli@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, PC, Robert Joshua
Wasserman -- rwasserman@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, PC & William
J. Gorham, III -- wgorham@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, PC.

People 2.0 North America, LLC, Defendant, represented by Laura E.
Hayward -- lhayward@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & R. Brian
Dixon -- bdixon@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson.


PLAYBOY.COM INC: Faces Nixon ADA Class Action in NY
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Playboy.com, Inc. The
case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Playboy.com, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-06769 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 28, 2018).

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

Playboy.com, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Playboy
Enterprises, Inc., operates as the Internet company dedicated to
the adult entertainment interests of young men around the world, as
of December 31, 1999. The company was incorporated in 1998 and is
based in New York, the United States.[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


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Gomes Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned LEONARDO GOMES, the
Plaintiff, vs. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, the Defendant,
Case 1:18-cv-21872-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff moves the Court
for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all individuals located in the State of Florida to whom
      PRA, between May 10, 2016 through the date of class
      certification, sent a letter based on the template used to
      create the May 16, 2017 letter that PRA sent to Mr. Gomes,
      regarding a Capital One credit card debt where the charge
      off date reported by Capital One
      preceded the date of the letter by more than five years";

   2. certifying Mr. Gomes as the class representative; and

   3. appointing Alex D. Weisberg of the Weisberg Consumer Law
      Group, PA and David N. McDevitt of the Thompson Consumer Law

      Group, PLLC as class counsel.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Alex D. Weisberg, Esq.
          WEISBERG CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PA
          5846 S. Flamingo Rd, Ste. 290
          Cooper City, FL 33330
          Telephone: (954) 212-2184
          Facsimile: (866) 577-0963
          E-mail: aweisberg@afclaw.com

               - and -

          David N. McDevitt, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
          5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: 602 845-5969
          Facsimile: 866 317-2674
          E-mail: dmcdevitt@consumerlawinfo.com

POST HOLDINGS: Opt-Out Plaintiffs' Antitrust Suit v. Unit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Post Holdings, 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 wholly-owned subsidiary Michael Foods,
Inc. remains a defendant only with respect to claims that seek
damages based on purchases of egg products by opt-out plaintiffs.


In late 2008 and early 2009, some 22 class action lawsuits were
filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods, Inc.
("MFI"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, and some 20
other defendants (producers of shell eggs and egg products, and egg
industry organizations), alleging violations of federal and state
antitrust laws in connection with the production and sale of shell
eggs and egg products, and seeking unspecified damages.  All cases
were transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for
coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The case involved three plaintiff groups: (1) a nationwide class of
direct purchasers of shell eggs ("direct purchaser class"); (2)
individual companies (primarily large grocery chains and food
companies that purchase considerable quantities of eggs) that opted
out of various settlements and filed their own complaints related
to their purchases of shell eggs and egg products ("opt-out
plaintiffs"); and (3) indirect purchasers of shell eggs ("indirect
purchaser plaintiffs").

In December 2016, MFI settled all claims asserted against it by the
direct purchaser class for a payment of US$75.0 million, which was
approved by the district court in December 2017.

MFI settled all claims asserted against it by opt-out plaintiffs
related to shell egg purchases on confidential terms in January
2017.

In June 2018, MFI settled all claims asserted against it by
indirect purchaser plaintiffs on confidential terms.  MFI has at
all times denied liability in this matter, and no settlement
contains any admission of liability by MFI.

MFI remains a defendant only with respect to claims that seek
damages based on purchases of egg products by opt-out plaintiffs.
The district court had granted summary judgment precluding any
claims for egg products purchases by opt-out plaintiffs, but the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded these claims
for further pre-trial proceedings.  Defendants have filed a second
motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the claims, and
that motion is currently pending.

The Company said, "Although the likelihood of a material adverse
outcome in the egg antitrust litigation has been significantly
reduced as a result of the MFI settlements, the remaining portion
of the case could still result in a material adverse outcome."

Post Holdings, Inc. operates as a consumer packaged goods holding
company in the United States and internationally.  It was founded
in 1895 and is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.


PREMIUM RECEIVABLES: Rittle FDCA Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DENNIS RITTLE on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PREMIUM RECEIVABLES, LLC d/b/a
Premium Asset Services, Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:15-CV-0166
(M.D. Pa.), Judge Sylvia H. Rambo of the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted the parties' motion for
final approval of the proposed Class Settlement Agreement.

Judge Rambo has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Arbuckle filed with the Court on Oct. 15, 2018.
No objections have been filed with the Court.  She adopted the
findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.

The Judge certified the Settlement Class defined as all consumers
with addresses in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to whom Premium
mailed an initial written communication, which failed to inform
consumers they must (i) dispute the debt in writing to obtain
verification, and/or (ii) make a request in writing to obtain
information regarding the name and address of the original
creditor, during the period beginning Jan. 23, 2014, and ending
Feb. 13, 2015.

The Plaintiff is an appropriate and adequate representative for the
Class and his attorneys, Andrew T. Thomasson, Philip D. Stern, and
Craig Thor Kimmel, were previously appointed as the Class Counsel.

The Judge approved a form of notice for mailing to the Settlement
Class.  The actual notice was sent to 80 Class Members by Heffler
Claims Group, the third-party settlement administrator.   A total
of four envelopes were returned by the United States Postal Service
as undeliverable.  None of the Class Members requested exclusion
from, or objected to, the Settlement.

On Nov. 28, 2016, the Court held a fairness hearing.  Judge Rambo
finds that finds the provisions for notice to the Settlement Class
satisfy the requirements of due process pursuant to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure; and that the Settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate.  She approved the Agreement submitted by
the Parties, including the Release and payments by Premium.

In accordance with the terms of the Agreement, Premium will make
the following payments: Premium will remit the class settlement
fund of $1,000 to the Settlement Administrator who will distribute
it pro rata among those 76 Class Members who received the notice
and did not exclude themselves from the Settlement.  The Claimants
will receive a pro rata share of the Class Recovery by check.
Checks issued to Claimants will be void 60 days from the date of
issuance.  Any checks that have not been cashed by the void date,
along with any unclaimed funds remaining in the Class Recovery,
will be donated as a cy pres award to: MidPenn Legal Services,
213-A North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101.

Premium will pay Class Representative Plaintiff, Dennis Rittle,
$1,000, the Class Counsel $18,000 for their attorneys' fees and
costs, including costs to the Settlement Administrator incurred in
the action.  The Class Counsel will not request additional fees or
costs from Premium or the Class Members.

The terms of the Agreement are incorporated into the Order and the
Order will operate as a final judgment and dismissal with prejudice
of the claims in the action.  The Judge finds, in accordance with
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), that there is no just reason for delay of
enforcement of, or appeal from, the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/V6MZiu from Leagle.com.

Dennis Rittle, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew T. Thomasson, Stern
Thomasson LLP, Craig Thor Kimmel -- kimmel@creditlaw.com -- Kimmel
& Silverman & Philip D. Stern, Stern Thomasson LLP.

Premium Receivables, LLC, d/b/a Premium Asset Services, Defendant,
represented by Robert J. Foster -- rfoster@regerlaw.com -- Reger &
Rizzo, LLP.


PROTECTIVE LIFE: Still Faces Advance Trust Class Action Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Protective Life Insurance Company 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
putative class action styled Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services,
LTA, as Securities Intermediary of Life Partners Position Holder
Trust v. Protective Life Insurance Company, Case No.
2:18-CV-01290.

The putative class action was filed on August 13, 2018 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Plaintiff alleges that the Company required policyholders to pay
unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges.  Plaintiff seeks
to represent all owners of universal life and variable universal
life policies issued or administered by the Company or its
predecessors that provide that cost of insurance rates are to be
determined based on expectations of future mortality experience.

The plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory damages,
pre-judgment and post judgment interest, costs, and other
unspecified relief.

The Company is vigorously defending this matter and cannot predict
the outcome of or reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
loss that might result from this litigation.


PURDUE PHARMA: Reynolds RICO Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jason Reynolds individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Purdue Pharma LP, Purdue
Pharma Inc., The Purdue Frederick Company Inc., Insys Therapeutic
Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA
Inc., Cephalon Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals
Inc., Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
Actavis PLC, Actavis Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc., Watson
Laboratories Inc., McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health Inc.,
Amerisourcebergen Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01911
was transferred from the District of Oregon to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio on November 28, 2018, and
assigned Case No. 1:18-op-46271-DAP.

The case was filed under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

Purdue Pharma L.P. is a privately held pharmaceutical company owned
principally by parties and descendants of Mortimer and Raymond
Sackler. The company's branches include Purdue Pharma Inc., The
Purdue Frederick Company, Purdue Pharmaceutical Products L.P., and
Purdue Products L.P.

The Frederick Purdue Company provides research, development,
production, marketing, sales, and licensing of prescription and
non-prescription medicines and healthcare products. The Company
specializes in pain medication research, as well as other
therapeutic areas, including sleep and gastrointestinal disorders.
The Frederick Purdue operates in the United States.

Insys Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
develops and commercializes supportive care products. The company
markets SUBSYS, a sublingual fentanyl spray for breakthrough cancer
pain in opioid-tolerant adult patients; and SYNDROS, an orally
administered liquid formulation of dronabinol for the treatment of
chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and anorexia associated
with weight loss in patients with AIDS.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
The Generic Medicines segment offers sterile products, hormones,
narcotics, high-potency drugs, and cytotoxic substances in various
dosage forms, including tablets, capsules, injectables, inhalants,
liquids, ointments, and creams. This segment also develops,
manufactures, and sells active pharmaceutical ingredients.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. manufactures and markets generic
drugs in the United States. It offers generic products for various
therapeutic options, such as cardiovascular, anti-infective,
central nervous system, anti-inflammatory, oncolytic,
anti-diabetic, analgesic, dermatologic, respiratory, and women's
health. The company offers its products in various dosage forms,
such as tablets, capsules, injectables, creams, ointments,
inhalants, solutions, and suspensions. It serves patients through
distributors. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. was formerly known as
Lemmon Pharmacal Company and changed its name to Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. in 1996.

Cephalon, Inc. engages in the discovery and development of
medicines for central nervous system disorders, pain, and cancer.
It offers NUVIGIL (armodafinil) tablets for improving wakefulness
in patients with excessive sleepiness associated with treated
obstructive sleep apnea and shift work disorder, also known as
shift work disorder and narcolepsy; TREANDA (bendamustine HCl) for
injection for the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic
leukemia; and AMRIX (Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride extended-release
capsules), which is indicated as an adjunct to rest and physical
therapy for relief of muscle spasm associated with acute and
painful musculoskeletal conditions.

Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational medical devices,
pharmaceutical and consumer packaged goods manufacturing company
founded in 1886. Its common stock is a component of the Dow Jones
Industrial Average and the company is listed among the Fortune
500.

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. manufactures and markets prescription
pharmaceutical products. It provides medicines for health concerns
in various therapeutic areas, including attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder, pain management, acid reflux and infectious
diseases, women's health, and mental health (bipolar I disorder and
schizophrenia); neurologics, including Alzheimer's disease,
epilepsy, and migraine prevention and treatment; and SYMTUZATM, a
darunavir-based single-tablet regimen for the treatment of human
immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) in treatment-naive and
certain virologically suppressed adults.

Endo Health Solutions Inc. provides specialty healthcare solutions
in the United States and internationally. The company's Endo
Pharmaceuticals segment offers branded prescription products,
including Lidoderm, Opana ER, Percocet, Voltaren Gel, Frova,
Supprelin LA, Vantas, Valstar, and Fortesta Gel for pain, urology,
endocrinology, and oncology. Its Qualitest segment provides
non-branded generic products in the pain management, urology,
central nervous system disorders, immunosuppression, oncology,
women's health, and hypertension markets.

Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. engages in the research and development,
production, sale, and marketing of branded and generic
pharmaceutical products primarily in the United States. It offers
injections, sustained release capsules, gels, tablets, oral
suspensions, nasal sprays, extended-release tablets, capsules,
mucoadhesive for buccal administration, subcutaneous implants, and
sterile solutions for intravesical instillation; and clinical
research services.

Actavis Generics is a global pharmaceutical company focused on
developing, manufacturing and commercializing branded
pharmaceuticals, generic and over-the-counter medicines, and
biologic products. Actavis has a commercial presence across
approximately 100 countries.

Watson Laboratories, Inc. manufactures pharmaceutical drugs. The
company was incorporated in 1992 and is based in Corona,
California. Watson Laboratories, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
ATeva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited.

McKesson Corporation provides pharmaceuticals and medical supplies
in the United States and internationally. It operates in three
segments: U.S. Pharmaceutical and Specialty Solutions, European
Pharmaceutical Solutions, and Medical-Surgical Solutions. The
company distributes branded, generic, specialty, biosimilar, and
over-the-counter pharmaceutical drugs, as well as other
healthcare-related products; and offers practice management,
technology, clinical support, and business solutions to
community-based oncology and other specialty practices.

Cardinal Health, Inc. operates as an integrated healthcare services
and products company in the United States and internationally. It
provides medical products and pharmaceuticals, and solutions that
enhance supply chain efficiency for hospitals, healthcare systems,
pharmacies, ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories, and
physician offices.

AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation distributes pharmaceuticals
products, equipment, and systems. The company provides global
product sourcing, generic purchasing programs, technology
solutions, pharmacy network and programs, and pharmaceutical
packaging solutions. The company serves healthcare providers,
independent retailers, and pharmacies. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation was formerly known as AmeriSource Corporation and
changed its name to AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation in January
1995.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steve D. Larson, Esq.
     Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter P.C.
     209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
     Portland, OR 97204
     Phone: (503) 227-1600
     Fax: (503) 227-6840
     Email: slarson@stollberne.com


PURDUE PHARMA: W.E. Files Suit for Personal Injury
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit asserting Personal Injury has been filed
against Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. The case is styled as W.E. by
and through her guardian and next friend, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated Next Friend Pamela Osborne, Plaintiff
v. Purdue Pharma LP, Purdue Pharma Inc., Purdue Frederick Company
Inc., Allergan PLC formerly known as: Actavis PLC, Watson
Pharmaceuticals Inc. now known as Actavis, Inc., Watson
Laboratories Inc., Actavis LLC, Actavis Pharma Inc. formerly known
as: Watson Pharma, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Cephalon Inc., Endo Health Solutions
Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Janssen
Pharmaceutica Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Jannsen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. now
known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Noramco,
Inc., Mallinckrodt, PLC, Mallinckrodt, LLC, Amerisourcebergen Drug
Corporation, Cardinal Health Inc., McKesson Corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-00629-GFVT (E.D. Ky., Nov. 28, 2018).

Purdue Pharma L.P. is a privately held pharmaceutical company owned
principally by parties and descendants of Mortimer and Raymond
Sackler. The company's branches include Purdue Pharma Inc., The
Purdue Frederick Company, Purdue Pharmaceutical Products L.P., and
Purdue Products L.P.

The Frederick Purdue Company provides research, development,
production, marketing, sales, and licensing of prescription and
non-prescription medicines and healthcare products. The Company
offers specializes in pain medication research, as well as other
therapeutic areas, including sleep and gastrointestinal disorders.
The Frederick Purdue operates in the United States.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
The Generic Medicines segment offers sterile products, hormones,
narcotics, high-potency drugs, and cytotoxic substances in various
dosage forms, including tablets, capsules, injectables, inhalants,
liquids, ointments, and creams. This segment also develops,
manufactures, and sells active pharmaceutical ingredients.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. manufactures and markets generic
drugs in the United States. It offers generic products for various
therapeutic options, such as cardiovascular, anti-infective,
central nervous system, anti-inflammatory, oncolytic,
anti-diabetic, analgesic, dermatologic, respiratory, and women's
health. The company offers its products in various dosage forms,
such as tablets, capsules, injectables, creams, ointments,
inhalants, solutions, and suspensions. It serves patients through
distributors. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. was formerly known as
Lemmon Pharmacal Company and changed its name to Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. in 1996.

Cephalon, Inc. engages in the discovery and development of
medicines for central nervous system disorders, pain, and cancer.
It offers NUVIGIL (armodafinil) tablets for improving wakefulness
in patients with excessive sleepiness associated with treated
obstructive sleep apnea and shift work disorder, also known as
shift work disorder and narcolepsy; TREANDA (bendamustine HCl) for
injection for the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic
leukemia; and AMRIX (Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride extended-release
capsules), which is indicated as an adjunct to rest and physical
therapy for relief of muscle spasm associated with acute and
painful musculoskeletal conditions.

Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational medical devices,
pharmaceutical and consumer packaged goods manufacturing company
founded in 1886. Its common stock is a component of the Dow Jones
Industrial Average and the company is listed among the Fortune
500.

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. manufactures and markets prescription
pharmaceutical products. It provides medicines for health concerns
in various therapeutic areas, including attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder, pain management, acid reflux and infectious
diseases, women's health, and mental health (bipolar I disorder and
schizophrenia); neurologics, including Alzheimer's disease,
epilepsy, and migraine prevention and treatment; and SYMTUZATM, a
darunavir-based single-tablet regimen for the treatment of human
immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) in treatment-naïve and
certain virologically suppressed adults.

Endo Health Solutions Inc. provides specialty healthcare solutions
in the United States and internationally. The company's Endo
Pharmaceuticals segment offers branded prescription products,
including Lidoderm, Opana ER, Percocet, Voltaren Gel, Frova,
Supprelin LA, Vantas, Valstar, and Fortesta Gel for pain, urology,
endocrinology, and oncology. Its Qualitest segment provides
non-branded generic products in the pain management, urology,
central nervous system disorders, immunosuppression, oncology,
women's health, and hypertension markets.

Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. engages in the research and development,
production, sale, and marketing of branded and generic
pharmaceutical products primarily in the United States. It offers
injections, sustained release capsules, gels, tablets, oral
suspensions, nasal sprays, extended-release tablets, capsules,
mucoadhesive for buccal administration, subcutaneous implants, and
sterile solutions for intravesical instillation; and clinical
research services.

Actavis Generics is a global pharmaceutical company focused on
developing, manufacturing and commercializing branded
pharmaceuticals, generic and over-the-counter medicines, and
biologic products. Actavis has a commercial presence across
approximately 100 countries.

Watson Laboratories, Inc. manufactures pharmaceutical drugs. The
company was incorporated in 1992 and is based in Corona,
California. Watson Laboratories, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
ATeva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited.

McKesson Corporation provides pharmaceuticals and medical supplies
in the United States and internationally. It operates in three
segments: U.S. Pharmaceutical and Specialty Solutions, European
Pharmaceutical Solutions, and Medical-Surgical Solutions. The
company distributes branded, generic, specialty, biosimilar, and
over-the-counter pharmaceutical drugs, as well as other
healthcare-related products; and offers practice management,
technology, clinical support, and business solutions to
community-based oncology and other specialty practices.

Cardinal Health, Inc. operates as an integrated healthcare services
and products company in the United States and internationally. It
provides medical products and pharmaceuticals, and solutions that
enhance supply chain efficiency for hospitals, healthcare systems,
pharmacies, ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories, and
physician offices.

AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation distributes pharmaceuticals
products, equipment, and systems. The company provides global
product sourcing, generic purchasing programs, technology
solutions, pharmacy network and programs, and pharmaceutical
packaging solutions. The company serves healthcare providers,
independent retailers, and pharmacies. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation was formerly known as AmeriSource Corporation and
changed its name to AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation in January
1995.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew Sacks, Esq.

          - and -

     Ashley M. Liuzza, Esq.
     Stag Liuzza, L.L.C.
     365 Canal Street
     One Canal Place, Suite 2850
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: (504) 593-9600
     Fax: (504) 593-9601

          - and -

     John Weston, Esq.

          - and -

     Kelly Cox Bilek, Esq.

          - and -

     Matthew D. Rogenes, Esq.
     Stag Liuzza, L.L.C.
     365 Canal Street
     One Canal Place, Suite 2850
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: (504) 593-9600
     Fax: (504) 593-9601

          - and -

     Michael G. Stag, Esq.
     Smith Stag, LLC
     365 Canal Street, Suite 2850
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: (504) 593-9600
     Fax: (504) 593-9601

          - and -

     Rodney Garrett Davis, Esq.
     Davis Law, PSC - Irvine
     133 Main Street
     P.O. Box 150
     Irvine, CA 40336
     Phone: (606) 726-9991
     Fax: (606) 726-9772
     Email: rgd@davislawky.com

          - and -

     Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.


RESHAPE LIFESCIENCES: Dec. 17 Hearing Set for Du Case Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action complaint filed by Vinh Du, the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware has scheduled a hearing for
December 17, 2018 to decide on the approval of a proposed
settlement of the case, according to ReShape Lifesciences Inc.'s
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

On February 28, 2017, the Company received a class action and
derivative complaint filed on February 24, 2017 in U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware by Vinh Du, one of the Company's
shareholders.  The complaint named as defendants ReShape
Lifesciences, the board of directors and four members of the
Company's senior management, namely, Scott Youngstrom, Nick Ansari,
Peter DeLange and Paul Hickey, and contained a purported class
action claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the board of
directors and derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty
against the board of directors and unjust enrichment against the
Company's senior management.

The allegations in the complaint related to the increase in the
number of shares authorized for grant under the Company's Second
Amended and Restated 2003 Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan"), which
was approved by the Company's shareholders at the Special Meeting
of Shareholders held on December 12, 2016 (the "Special Meeting"),
and to its subsequent grant of stock options on February 8, 2017,
to the Company's Directors and senior management to purchase an
aggregate of 521 shares of its common stock (the "Option Grants").

In the complaint, the plaintiff contended that (i) the number of
shares authorized for grant under the Plan, as adjusted by the
board of directors after the Special Meeting for the subsequent
recapitalization of the Company, resulted from an alleged breach of
fiduciary duties by the board of directors, and (ii) the Company's
senior management was allegedly unjustly enriched by the subsequent
Option Grants.  The plaintiff sought relief in the form of an order
rescinding the Plan as approved by the shareholders at the Special
Meeting, an order cancelling the Option Grants, and an award to
plaintiff for his costs, including fees and disbursements of
attorneys, experts and accountants.

The parties have reached an agreement-in-principle concerning the
proposed settlement of this matter, which was filed with the court
on August 13, 2018.  The court has scheduled a hearing for December
17, 2018 to decide if the settlement will be approved.

The terms of the settlement require the Company to (i) rescind and
cancel the Option Grants, with the exception of options that were
already rescinded when certain individuals left the company in the
last fiscal quarter of 2017, (ii) amend the Plan to add a provision
establishing the maximum total annual equity compensation for
non-employee directors and to seek stockholder approval of this
amendment at the Company's next annual meeting of stockholders, and
(iii) proportionally adjust all share reserves and limitations in
the Plan (and any other equity compensation plan for the company)
in connection with any future split of the company's stock during
the next five years unless otherwise brought to and approved by
stockholder vote.

The Company said, "During the quarter ended June 30, 2018, the
Company recorded an accrued liability and legal expense for
US$190,000 representing a probable and currently estimable
settlement amount for this matter."

ReShape Lifesciences Inc., a medical device company, focuses on the
design and development of devices that use neuroblocking technology
to treat obesity, metabolic diseases, and other gastrointestinal
disorders. ReShape Lifesciences Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in San Clemente, California.


REVLON INC: Website not Accessible to Blind, Diaz Says
------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN DIAZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. REVLON, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10915 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018), alleges that Defendant
failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people. Defendant's denial of full
and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods
and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

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

Revlon, Inc. is an American multinational cosmetics, skin care,
fragrance, and personal care company founded in 1932 and based in
New York City.[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


ROYAL OAK, MI: Court Denies Gale's Prelim Injunction Bid v. Police
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH GALE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORRIGAN
O'DONOHUE, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-1149 (6th
Cir.), Judge Helene n. White of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Gale's motion
to preliminarily enjoin practices and policies of the Royal Oak
Police Department that he alleges are unconstitutional.

On Oct. 5, 2016, Gale filed a Citizen's Complaint with the City of
Royal Oak Police Department.  The department initiated an
investigation that included a review of footage from the responding
officers' vehicles, and Lt. David Van Ness met with Gale on Oct.
17, 2016.  Van Ness and Gale agreed to record the audio of their
meeting.

Van Ness and Gale discussed Gale's complaint over the course of
more than two hours.  Van Ness explained the department's policy
for responding to and investigating 911 calls and told Gale that
the officers were justified in stopping and questioning him.  Van
Ness explained that there had recently been several nighttime home
invasions in the area and that the police often encountered
intoxicated civilians in the area, and that, as a result, the
officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and investigate Gale
based on a combination of (a) the 911 call, (b) the officers'
observation that Gale matched the 911 caller's description and was
walking alone on a nearby street, and (c) the fact that Gale did
not provide a coherent explanation for his presence.  Van Ness
further explained that the officers were also motivated by concern
for the safety of civilians who might be lost or intoxicated.  In
short, Van Ness told Gale that the officers had acted in accordance
with police procedure and stood by the officers' conduct.

On July 5, 2017, Gale filed a "Verified Class Action Complaint"
naming Klinge, Paramo, and Heppner in their individual capacities
and Royal Oak Police Chief Corrigan O'Donohue in both his
individual and official capacities.  Gale filed an amended
complaint on July 31, 2017, advancing nine separate claims: (1)
search and seizure in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against
all the individual Defendants, (2) deprivation of property in
violation of Section 1983 against all the individual Defendants,
(3) abuse of process and conspiracy in violation of Section 1983
against all the individual Defendants; (4) Monell liability under
Section 1983 against O'Donohue in his official capacity; (5) false
imprisonment or false arrest against all the individual Defendants;
(6) conspiracy to commit false imprisonment or false arrest against
Paramo and Heppner; (7) assault and battery against all the
individual Defendants; (8) common law trespass against all the
individual Defendants; and (9) violation of Michigan's Freedom of
Information Act against O'Donohue in his official capacity.

Gale moved for a temporary restraining order against O'Donohue in
his official capacity on July 10, 2017.  Gale asked the court to
restrain the Defendant's policy to stop or frisk individuals within
the City of Royal Oak for their identification, in order to run
warrant checks, without any reasonable suspicion of criminal
activity being afoot, until such time as the Court can further
consider the merits.  The court denied the motion, finding that
Gale has not shown that he will suffer immediate and irreparable
harm before the Defendants can be heard and has failed to certify
whether any efforts have been made to give notice to the
Defendants.

On Aug. 2, 2017, Gale moved for a preliminary injunction.  In
particular, Gale sought an order (a) enjoining the Royal Oak police
department from continuing its alleged policy, practice, or custom
of conducting suspicionless stops; (b) requiring the Defendants to
maintain a database of information concerning all stops conducted
by Royal Oak police officers; and (c) requiring them to monitor the
police department's stop-and-frisk practice on an ongoing basis.

The district court denied Gale's motion.  The district court first
noted that Gale's municipal liability claim was his only claim that
plausibly seeks prospective relief and therefore considered only
whether Gale had met the requirements for a preliminary injunction
with respect to that claim.  The district court ultimately found
that Gale had failed to demonstrate either a likelihood of success
on the merits or a danger of irreparable harm.  The district court
therefore denied Gale's motion for a preliminary injunction.  It
also found that the Plaintiff's request for expedited discovery in
support of his claim for injunctive relief was moot.  Gale appeals

Judge White holds that the district court did not err in finding
that Gale failed to demonstrate either a likelihood of success on
the merits of his claim for municipal liability or a danger of
irreparable harm absent the injunction.

The Judge finds that Gale failed to demonstrate that the Defendants
provided inadequate training, that they were deliberately
indifferent to civilians' constitutional rights, or that there was
a causal connection between any training and his alleged injury.
Gale therefore has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the
merits of his claim against the municipal Defendant, and the Court
would be justified in affirming the district court's order on this
ground alone.

She also finds that Gale has not demonstrated that any
unconstitutional policy caused his alleged injury and provides no
evidence suggesting that he will be subject to the allegedly
unconstitutional conduct again.  He has therefore failed to
demonstrate a danger of irreparable harm absent the injunction.

Finally, the Judge finds that even assuming that Gale's requested
injunction is practicable, the imposition of such an injunction
would dramatically disrupt -- rather than preserve -- the status
quo by hampering the Defendants' ability to respond to and
investigate complaints, resulting in tremendous hardship to the
Defendants and, in all likelihood, endangering civilians.  Without
evidence of an unconstitutional policy, she must find that the
equities counsel against Gale's requested injunction.

Because Gale has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the
merits and the district court did not abuse its discretion in
weighing the preliminary injunction factors, Judge White affirmed
the district court's denial of Gale's requested preliminary
injunction.

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


RYB EDUCATION: Zhang Sues over Plunge in ADS Trading Price
----------------------------------------------------------
YIQING ZHANG, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RYB EDUCATION, INC., CHIMIN CAO,
YANLAI SHI, PING WEI, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA), MORGAN
STANELY & CO. INTERNATIONAL PLC, CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL
CORPORATION HONG KONG SECURITIES LIMITED, and BNP PARIBAS
SECURITIES CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 717923/2018 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Nov. 21, 2018), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of federal securities laws and pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the case is a securities class action
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other
than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly
traded securities of RYB pursuant and traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the
Company's initial public offering completed on or about September
27, 2017.  On or about August 30, 2017, RYB filed with the SEC its
initial Registration Statement on Form F-1 with the SEC. Following
amendments filed with the SEC on September 13, 2017 and September
22, 2017, the SEC declared the Registration Statement effective on
September 26, 2017. The next day, on September 27, 2017, RYB filed
its Prospectus in connection with the IPO. The initial Form F-1 and
subsequent amendments are referred to collectively as the
"Registration Statement."

On or about September 27, 2017, RYB offered 5,500,000 American
Depositary Shares. RYB engaged defendants Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc, China
International Capital Corporation Hong Kong Securities Limited, and
BNP Paribas Securities Corp. to serve as underwriters for the IPO,
setting the per-ADS offering price of $18.50. RYB stated that it
expected to receive net proceeds of approximately $90.2 million
from the IPO and that the Company intended to use such net proceeds
for "general corporate purposes and working capital and potential
acquisitions." Ultimately, RYB reported that it had received net
proceeds of $90.1 million from the closing of the IPO.

In the Registration Statement and Prospectus, RYB states that it is
a provider of early childhood education in the People's Republic of
China for children from age 0 to 6 years old and describes itself
as "the largest early childhood education service provider in
China, as measured by annual total revenues in 2016." Just prior to
the IPO, RYB stated that it now operates a total of 853 "play and
learn" centers in its network after having begun operations almost
two decades ago. The Registration Statement and Prospectus
attribute RYB's commercial success to its "established and highly
standardized operations system,” which is intended to "ensure
service quality," and to its "best-in-class teaching staff
specialized in early childhood education," among other things. The
Company touts its maintenance of "high standards in selecting,
certifying and training" its teaching staff and the "stringent"
vetting process that each teaching candidate must complete prior to
becoming an RYB certified teacher. In addition to the claims about
the quality of its teachers, RYB represented to investors that it
had "established and strictly implemented security and safety
protocols" to protect its young and vulnerable students while on
campus, and that such standards were "strictly enforce[d]" across
its network of learning centers.

Unbeknownst to the market, however, RYB's statements in the
Registration Statement and Prospectus about its teaching staff,
teacher training, and safety and security protocols were false and
misleading. Teachers received inadequate training from RYB in terms
of disciplining and administering punishment to students. The
Company also employed teachers who were not certified to teach in
its learning centers. RYB's safety and security protocols were also
deficient because it relied heavily on surveillance technology that
was not adequately staffed or monitored and was not upgraded,
uniformly implemented, or even implemented at all in some of its
learning centers. The inadequacies of RYB's teaching staff, teacher
training, and safety and security protocols began to reveal
themselves to the market on or about November 24, 2017, when
Reuters reported that Chinese police were investigating claims of
sexual molestation and needlemarks on children at an RYB
kindergarten in Beijing. In the days that followed, further details
of the incident emerged and additional corrective disclosures were
made to the market. Such news caused RYB shares to plummet, and RYB
ADSs currently trade over 56% below the IPO price.

RYB Education is a publicly listed company for preschool education
in the People's Republic of China. As measured by annual total
revenues in 2016, the company is the largest provider of early
childhood education service in China.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com


SANOFI PASTEUR: Summary Judgment in Weitzner TCPA Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ARI WEITZNER; ARI WEITZNER MD PC, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. SANOFI
PASTEUR INC, formerly known as Aventis Pasteur Inc.; VAXSERVE INC,
formerly known as Vaccess America, Inc., Case No. 17-3188 (3d
Cir.), Judge D. Brooks Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's grant of summary
judgment.

Dr. Ari Weitzner is a physician who maintains a practice in New
York. Dr. Weitzner is, and has always been, the sole shareholder of
co-plaintiff Weitzner P.C.  During the events at issue in the case,
Dr. Weitzner practiced through the P.C.  At the present time, the
P.C. has neither assets nor any ongoing business, yet remains
legally active under New York law.

On April 21, 2004 and March 22, 2005, Sanofi Pasteur, the vaccines
division of the pharmaceutical company Sanofi, and VaxServe, Inc.,
a healthcare supplier, sent two unsolicited faxes to a fax machine
located in Dr. Weitzner's office.  Based on the receipt of these
two faxes, Dr. Weitzner filed a putative class action against
Sanofi Pasteur and VaxServe in the Court of Common Pleas of
Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania.

In the state court action, Dr. Weitzner alleged that the Defendants
transmitted thousands of faxes in violation of the TCPA, including
at least one fax sent to Dr. Weitzner.  The proposed class included
all individuals who received an unsolicited facsimile advertisement
from the Defendants between Jan. 2, 2001[,] and the date of the
resolution of the lawsuit.

On June 27, 2008, the Court of Common Pleas denied class
certification, after which the case proceeded as an individual
action by Dr. Weitzner against the Defendants.  There has yet to be
a final judgment in the state court case.  It is undisputed that
the Defendants stopped sending unsolicited faxes in April 2005.

More than three years after denial of class certification in the
state action, and over six years after the Defendants sent any
unsolicited faxes, the Plaintiffs filed the case in the Middle
District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 26, 2011.  The Plaintiffs brought
individual claims based on the same two faxes sent on April 21,
2004, and March 22, 2005, along with class claims substantially
similar to those alleged in the state court action.

The District Court concluded that the four-year federal default
statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. Section 1658 applies to
claims under the TCPA.  On appeal, the parties do not dispute the
application of the four-year statute of limitations.  The statute
of limitations for claims arising from the two faxes actually sent
to the Plaintiffs therefore ran in 2008 and 2009, respectively, and
the statute of limitations for any class claims had similarly
elapsed by April 2009.  Accordingly, there is no dispute that all
of these claims are untimely absent tolling.

The Plaintiffs rely on Dr. Weitzner's 2005 state court action -- in
which Dr. Weitzner initiated suit as the named plaintiff in a
putative class action and which he continues to pursue on an
individual basis -- as the means for tolling the statute of
limitations as Dr. Weitzner and his P.C. attempt to bring the same
claims in the District Court.

The Defendants moved for summary judgment on statute of limitations
grounds and filed an accompanying statement of material facts
pursuant to Local Rule 56.1.  The Plaintiffs filed their opposition
to the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and their answer to
their statement of material facts.  The Defendants moved to strike
the Plaintiffs' answer to the statement of facts for noncompliance
with Local Rule 56.1.  The Defendants argued, in part, that
portions of the answer were argumentative in violation of Local
Rule 56.1.

The District Court granted the Defendants' motion to strike the
Plaintiffs' answer to the statement of facts in part, striking 19
responses from the answer for noncompliance with Local Rule 56.1
because they were not concise and were argumentative.  In the same
order, the District Court granted the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment, concluding that American Pipe tolling did not
apply to the Dlaintiffs' class or individual claims and that the
Plaintiffs' claims were therefore untimely.

The Plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal.  Dr. Weitzner and
his professional corporation challenge the District Court's
conclusion on summary judgment that their claims under the TCPA
were untimely.  There is no dispute that the Plaintiffs' TCPA
claims -- brought individually and on behalf of a proposed class --
are untimely unless tolling applies.  As a result, the primary
question before the Court is whether tolling is available under
American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah.

American Pipe provides that the timely filing of a class action
tolls the applicable statute of limitations for putative class
members until the propriety of maintaining the class is determined.
This tolling is an equitable remedy that promotes both the
efficiency and economy goals of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
by encouraging class members to rely on the named Plaintiff's
filings and protects unnamed class members who may have been
unaware of the class action.

The Plaintiffs argue that a previous state court putative class
action brought by Dr. Weitzner, involving the very same claims
raised in this case, tolled the statute of limitations such that
Dr. Weitzner and his P.C. should be allowed to pursue their claims
anew in federal court.  Specifically, they raise three categories
of claims, each of which they assert is timely under American Pipe:
(1) purported class claims; (2) Dr. Weitzner's individual claims;
and (3) Weitzner P.C.'s individual claims.

Judge Smith concludes that American Pipe created a generous tolling
rule that applies broadly to protect putative class members in
pending class actions.  Yet the rule is not without limits.  As the
Supreme Court clarified in China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, tolling
does not apply to successive class actions under any circumstances.
He now holds that American Pipe tolling does not allow individuals
who were the named plaintiffs in an initial class action to toll
their own statute of limitations.  

The Judge emphasizes that American Pipe tolling has long been
recognized as an equitable remedy that applies only where necessary
to prevent injustice.  Courts should not permit tolling where doing
so would result in an abuse of American Pipe.  As a result,
American Pipe does not apply to preserve any of the Plaintiffs'
untimely claims.  Finally, he concludes that the District Court's
application of Local Rule 56.1 was not an abuse of discretion and,
in any event, had no effect on its appropriate grant of summary
judgment.  Therefore, he affirmed the District Court's grant of
summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/u2YdkG from Leagle.com.

Todd C. Bank -- tbank@toddbanklaw.com -- [ARGUED], Fourth Floor,
119-40 Union Turnpike, Kew Gardens, NY 11415. Paul T. Kelly, Needle
Law, 240 Penn Avenue, Suite 202, Scranton, PA 18503. Daniel A.
Osborn -- dosborn@osbornlawpc.com -- Suite 131, 43 West 43rd
Street, New York, NY 10036, Counsel for Appellants.

Carl J. Greco -- cjgreco@cjgrecolaw.com -- [ARGUED], 4th Floor, 327
North Washington Avenue, Professional Arts Building, Scranton, PA
18503, Counsel for Appellees.


SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: EZ Seed Final Approval Hearing Set for Dec. 19
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company  said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 29,
2018, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, that the date
of the final settlement approval hearing in In re Scotts EZ Seed
Litigation, Case No. 12-cv-4727 (VB), is December 19, 2018.

The Company has been named as a defendant in In re Scotts EZ Seed
Litigation, Case No. 12-cv-4727 (VB), a New York and California
class action lawsuit filed August 9, 2012 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York that asserts
claims under false advertising and other legal theories based on a
marketing statement on the Company's EZ Seed grass seed product
from 2009 to 2012.

The plaintiffs seek, on behalf of themselves and purported class
members, various forms of monetary and non-monetary relief,
including statutory damages that they contend could amount to
hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Company has defended the action vigorously, and disputes the
plaintiffs’ claims and theories, including the recoverability of
statutory damages.

In 2017, the Court eliminated certain claims, narrowed the case in
certain respects, and permitted the case to continue proceeding as
a class action. On August 7, 2017, the Court requested briefs on
the Company's request for interlocutory review of issues relating
to the recoverability of statutory damages in a class action by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and, on
August 31, 2017, approved that request. On January 8, 2018,
however, the Second Circuit denied the interlocutory appeal
request.

The parties engaged in mediation on April 9, 2018 and agreed in
principle to a preliminary settlement of the outstanding claims on
April 10, 2018. The preliminary settlement would require the
Company to pay certain attorneys' and administrative fees and
provide certain payments to the class members. The preliminary
settlement will not be finalized until after the court approves the
settlement and a claims process determines the payments to be
provided to the class members.

The date of the final settlement approval hearing with the court is
December 19, 2018.

The Scotts  said, "During fiscal 2018, the Company recognized a
charge of $11.7 million for a probable loss related to this matter
within the "Impairment, restructuring and other" line in the
Consolidated Statements of Operations. The resolution of the claims
process may result in additional losses in excess of the amount
accrued, however, the Company does not believe a reasonably
possible loss in excess of the amount accrued would be material to,
nor have a material adverse effect on, the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows."

                    Deal Reached in Calif. Suit

Lauren Berg, writing for Law360, reports that Scotts Miracle-Gro
Co. has reached a deal in California federal court with a class of
consumers who accused the lawn company of knowingly selling bird
food laced with toxic pesticides.

The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company manufactures, markets, and sells
consumer lawn and garden products in the United States and
internatonally. The company operates through three segments: U.S.
Consumer, Hawthorne, and Other. The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company was
founded in 1868 and is headquartered in Marysville, Ohio.


SELLAS LIFE: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Complaint in "Abstral"
------------------------------------------------------------
SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc. seeks the Court's ruling to
dismiss the amended complaint filed in the putative shareholder
securities class action regarding Galena Biopharma, Inc.'s
promotional practices for Abstral(R), 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 December 29, 2017, Galena completed the Merger with SELLAS Life
Sciences Group, Ltd., a privately held Bermuda exempted company
("Private SELLAS"), in accordance with the terms of the Agreement
and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, dated as of August 7, 2017
and amended November 5, 2017.  The Company's predecessor company,
Galena, was involved in multiple legal proceedings and
administrative actions, including stockholder class actions, both
state and federal, some of which are ongoing and to which the
Company are now subject as a result of the Merger.

On February 13, 2017, putative shareholder securities class action
complaints were filed in federal court alleging, among other
things, that the Company and certain of the Company's former
officers and directors failed to disclose that Galena's promotional
practices for Abstral(R) (fentanyl sublingual tablets) were
allegedly improper and that Galena may be subject to civil and
criminal liability, and that these alleged failures rendered
Galena's statements about its business misleading.

The actions were consolidated, lead plaintiffs were named by the
Court and a consolidated complaint was filed.  The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  On August 21, 2018,
the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was
granted without prejudice to file an amended complaint.

On September 20, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
On October 22, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc., a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development of novel
cancer immunotherapies for various cancer indications. SELLAS Life
Sciences Group, Inc. is headquartered in New York, New York.


SETERUS INC: Baxas Ask Court for Hearing on Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN BAXA AND LINDA BAXA, the PLAINTIFFS, vs. SETERUS, INC., the
DEFENDANT, Case 2:17-cv-05434-JTM-MBN (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs
move the Court for a hearing on class certification under Local
Rule 23.1 (B).[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          David S. Moyer, Esq.
          DAVID S. MOYER, LLC
          13551 RIVER ROAD LA Hwy 18
          Luling, LA 70070-4261
          Telephone: 985 308-1509
          Facsimile: 985 308-1521
          E-mail: davidmoyerlaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Charles M. Raymond, Esq.
          CHARLES M RAYMOND, L.L.C.
          13551 RIVER ROAD LA Hwy 18
          Luling, LA 70070-4261
          Telephone: 985 308-1509
          Facsimile: 985 308-1521
          Cell: 504 400-0170
          E-mail: charles@raymondlaw.us

SHIFTPIXY INC: Unit Defending Against Ramirez Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
ShiftPixy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 29, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended August 31, 2018, that the company's subsidiary
continues to defend against a class action lawsuit by Maribel
Ramirez.

On May 1, 2018, Ramirez filed a class action lawsuit, naming the
company's subsidiary, Shift Human Capital Management Inc., and its
client as defendants, claiming that she was forced to work hours
for which she was not paid and denied lunch breaks, and rest
periods, etc., to which she was entitled, and also claiming in
separate government complaints that she was discriminated against
and wrongfully terminated.  

ShiftPixy said, "This lawsuit is in the initial stages; the
financial impact to the Company, if any, cannot be estimated. No
liability has been recorded for this matter at this time. In the
event of an unfavorable outcome the Company's client is obligated
contractually obligated to indemnify the Company for misreported
hours and portions of the claim would be covered under the
Company's employment practices liability insurance."

ShiftPixy, Inc. provides employment services for businesses; and
workers in shift or other part-time/temporary positions in the
United States. The company also operates as a payroll processor,
human resources consultant, and administrator of workers'
compensation coverages and claims. It primarily serves restaurant,
hospitality, and maintenance service industries. The company was
founded in 2015 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


SINEMIA: Class Action Over Movie Subscription Services Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan McAlone, writing for Business Insider, reports that
movie-ticket subscription services have been the hottest topic in
the movie-theater business this year, as MoviePass has sparked a
surge in customer interest.

But both leaders among the services that aren't tied to specific
chains, MoviePass and Sinemia, have "F" ratings from the Better
Business Bureau.

They have also both been hit with class-action lawsuits that are
ongoing.

Since Business Insider's McAlone began to report on the
subscription services, he has received hundreds of angry complaints
from customers, especially in recent months.

Over the last year, the rise of MoviePass has helped stoke
widespread interest in movie-ticketing subscription services. But
the Better Business Bureau has a message for potential customers:
buyer beware.

In general, there are two main types of subscription services on
the market in the US: those tied to a specific theater chain like
AMC Stubs A-List (AMC Theatres), and those that can be more widely
used (like MoviePass and Sinemia).

The services that offer theater flexibility can feel like the more
attractive option for many consumers. But the two main competitors
in movie-ticket subscription services, MoviePass and Sinemia, both
sport an "F" rating from the Better Business Bureau.

MoviePass has had a whopping 2,461 complaints filed against it,
while smaller Sinemia has had 169.

Both also have had class-action lawsuits filed against them that
are still ongoing.

MoviePass' parent company, Helios and Matheson Analytics, had two
class-action suits filed by shareholders in August, one of which
alleged that some of Helios' "statements to the market were
materially false or misleading." It had a further lawsuit filed
against it by a shareholder in September, alleging "breach of
fiduciary duty" and "unjust enrichment" by some officers of the
company.

Sinemia was hit with a class-action lawsuit in November from
customers, primarily over the introduction of a new $1.80
processing fee. The lawsuit claims Sinemia "lures consumers in by
convincing them to purchase a purportedly cheaper movie
subscription, and then adds undisclosed fees that make such
purchases no bargain at all."

This year, throughout the course of reporting on both companies,
Mr. McAlone received hundreds of complaints from angry customers,
and, in the case of MoviePass, angry investors as well.

The common gripes about both services have been a lack of customer
service and technical glitches that prevent them from seeing
movies.

Specifically for MoviePass, some customers have also felt cheated
by the severe restrictions on movies and showtimes, which some said
makes the app effectively unusable.

For Sinemia, dozens complained of hidden fees, and multiple
customers said they'd had trouble getting partial refunds for
yearlong prepaid accounts after they attempted to cancel because of
major service changes (the new processing fee, for example, which
is the subject of the lawsuit).

Since the summer, when MoviePass introduced unpopular restrictions
and Sinemia saw a surge in new subscribers, the vast majority of
people who have contacted me have had very negative experiences
with both apps. Those sentiments are reflected in MoviePass and
Sinemia's abysmal ratings from the Better Business Bureau.

The takeaway Mr. McAlone had, as both a reporter and as a
subscriber to both services, is that when the deal sounds too good
to be true, it usually is.

MoviePass and Sinemia did not immediately respond to a request for
comment from Business Insider. [GN]


SITO MOBILE: Bid to Dismiss Roper Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------
SITO Mobile, Ltd. 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 motion to dismiss the securities class
action lawsuit styled Roper v. SITO Mobile, Ltd., remains pending.


On February 17, 2017, plaintiff Sandi Roper commenced a purported
securities class action against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned Roper v.
SITO Mobile, Ltd., Case No. 17-cv-1106-ES-MAH (D.N.J. filed Feb.
17, 2017).

On May 8, 2017, Red Oak Fund, LP, Red Oak Long Fund LP, Red Oak
Institutional Founders Long Fund, and Pinnacle Opportunities Fund,
LP (collectively, "Red Oak") were appointed lead plaintiffs.  On
June 22, 2017, Red Oak filed an amended complaint, purporting to
represent a class of stockholders who purchased the Company's
common stock between August 15, 2016 and January 2, 2017 ("Class
Period").  The amended complaint names as defendants the Company's
directors and certain of its officers during the Class Period.  It
alleges that the defendants violated section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), in connection with
the September 16, 2016 offering of the Company's stock, by
allegedly omitting material information from the registration
statement and prospectus, and that the individual defendants are
liable as controlling persons under section 15 of the Securities
Act.

The amended complaint also alleges that the defendants violated
section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
allegedly making materially false or misleading statements
regarding its media placement revenues, and that the individual
defendants are liable as controlling persons under section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.  The amended complaint seeks unspecified
damages.

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on September
1, 2017.  That motion is pending.  Discovery has not commenced, and
no trial date has been set for this action.

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

SITO Mobile, Ltd. provides advertisement delivery, measurement and
attribution, and consumer insights using its proprietary
location-based marketing intelligence platform in the United States
and Canada. The company was formerly known as Single Touch Systems,
Inc. and changed its name to SITO Mobile, Ltd. in September 2014.
SITO Mobile, Ltd. was incorporated in 2000 and is based in Jersey
City, New Jersey.


SKECHERS USA: Fishman Sues Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------
Steven S. Fishman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Skechers USA, Inc., Robert
Greenberg, John Vandemore and David Weinberg, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-09510, (S.D.N.Y., October 17, 2018) seeks to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Skechers designs and markets branded footwear for men, women, and
children. In recent years, Skechers has experienced rapid sales
growth, particularly in the Company's international markets driven
largely by unsustainable increases in its selling, general and
administrative expenses despite lacking the operational
infrastructure to meet the demand for its products in China and
other international markets, notes the complaint. Skechers was
relying on expensive, third-party operational solutions to drive
its sales growth. On this news, Skechers stock dropped $6.98, or
20.1%, from a closing price of $33.25 per share on July 19, 2018,
to $26.27 per share the next trading day, wiping out an additional
$947 million in market cap.

Fishman purchased Skechers common stock and lost substantially.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


SNAP INC: Ghosh Suit Alleges Securities Exchange Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sharmilli Ghosh, Irland James Stewart, and Howard Weisman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Snap
Inc., Evan Spiegel, Robert Murphy, Andrew Vollero, and Imran Khan,
Case No. 2:18-cv-09587 (C.D. Calif., November 13, 2018), is brought
against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Act of 1933
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiffs bring this securities class action on behalf of
Plaintiffs and all purchasers of Snap common stock between March 2,
2017 and August 10, 2017, inclusive, including those who purchased
Snap common stock traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus incorporated therein, issued in connection with the
Company’s March 3, 2017 IPO Registration Statement.

The Plaintiffs allege that the registration statement issued by the
Defendants falsely touts Snapchat's rapid growth and conceals the
known impact Instagram's stories had on Snap's user growth and
engagement. The Plaintiffs also alleged that the registration
statement conceals credible allegations that Snap's user metrics
were unreliable.

The Plaintiff Sharmilli Ghosh is an individual investor who
purchased Snap common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the March
2, 2017 IPO.

The Plaintiff Howard Weisman is an individual investor who
purchased Snap common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the March
2, 2017 IPO.

The Plaintiff Irland James Stewart is an individual investor who
purchased Snap common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the March
2, 2017 IPO.

The Defendant Snap, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Venice,
California, is a self described "camera company" whose primary
product is a free mobile chatting application, Snapchat.  Snap,
trades on the New York Stock Exchange as "SNAP," generates revenue
by growing user engagement of Snapchat and delivering
advertisements to Snapchat users.  In 2012, the parent company of
Snapchat incorporated as Snapchat, Inc.  In 2016, Snapchat, Inc.
changed its name to Snap, Inc.

The Defendant Evan Spiegel is one of the co-founders of Snap and
has been a director and the Company's CEO since its founding.

The Defendant Robert Murphy is one of the founders of Snap and has
been a director and the Company's Chief Technology Officer since
its founding.

The Defendant Andrew Vollero has been Snap's Chief Financial
Officer since 2016.

The Defendant Imran Khan has been Snap's Chief Strategy Officer
since January 2015. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Adam M. Apton, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (213) 985-7290
      E-mail: aapton@zlk.com  
  
          - and -

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


SOAPIN INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Gross Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
KYLIE GROSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOAPIN, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-24689-KMW (S.D. Fla., Nov. 8, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Soapin, Inc. is a Florida corporation that specializes in laundry,
alterations, and dry-cleaning services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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 #607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com


SOLID BIOSCIENCES: Lowinger Class Action Stayed
-----------------------------------------------
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 the class action
suit filed by Robert Lowinger remains stayed.

On March 28, 2018, Robert Lowinger, a purported stockholder of the
company, filed a putative class action complaint alleging
violations of the federal securities laws, in the Business
Litigation Section of the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts (Civil Action No. 1884-00984), against the compay,
Ilan Ganot, Jennifer Ziolkowski, its directors and certain of the
underwriters in the company's initial public offering.

The plaintiff in this suit claims to represent purchasers of the
company's common stock in or traceable to the company's January 25,
2018 initial public offering and seeks unspecified damages arising
out of the alleged failure to disclose risks associated with
toxicity and potential for adverse events related to our lead
product candidate.  

On April 30, 2018, all defendants including the company moved to
stay the proceedings in favor of the prior-filed federal court
securities class action. The plaintiff filed his opposition to this
motion on May 14, 2018, and defendants filed a reply in support of
their motion on May 24, 2018. After oral argument on June 13, 2018,
the court issued an order on June 22, 2018 allowing the motion to
stay and directing the parties to advise the court of the status of
the federal court action every six months.

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

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.


SPRITE ENTERTAINMENT: Sued over Unwanted Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
JOHN KRISTENSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs  SPRITE ENTERTAINMENT, INC. DBA
ANIMATION SHARKS; DOES 1-10 Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-09811 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 21, 2018), seeks damages and any
other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
illegal actions of the Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or
willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby
invading Plaintiff's privacy and causing him to incur unnecessary
and unwanted expenses.

According to the complaint, on or about September of 2017, the
Plaintiff received a text message from Defendant on his cellular
telephone, number ending in -9711. During this time, the Defendant
began to use Plaintiff's cellular telephone for the purpose of
sending Plaintiff spam advertisements and/or promotional offers,
via text messages, including a text message sent to and received by
Plaintiff on or about September of 2017. On or about September of
2017, the Plaintiff received a text message from Defendant. These
text messages placed to Plaintiff's cellular telephone were placed
via an "automatic telephone dialing system," (ATDS) as defined by
47 24 U.S.C. section 227 (a)(1) as prohibited by 47 U.S.C. section
227 (b)(1)(A). The telephone number that Defendant, or their agent
texted was assigned to a cellular telephone service for which
Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming texts pursuant to 47 U.S.C.
section 227 (b)(1). These text messages constituted texts that were
not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227
(b)(1)(A)(i). The Plaintiff was never a customer of Defendant and
never provided his cellular telephone number Defendant for any
reason whatsoever. Accordingly, the Defendant and their agents
never received Plaintiffs prior express consent to receive
unsolicited text messages, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227
(b)(1)(A), the lawsuit says.

Sprite Entertainment, Inc. (trade name Sprite Animation Studios) is
in the Entertainers business.[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

STARBUCKS CORP: Wants Class Action to Remain in Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Steingart, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that Starbucks
Corp. asked a federal judge not to send a lawsuit alleging it
failed to provide employees with overtime or rest and meal breaks
required by California law back to state court.

There could be more than 116,000 employees eligible to join the
class, Starbucks said. The company's "ultra-conservative
calculations" place the potential damages at more than $22
million.

Starbucks in September removed the case from California state court
where it was filed. Under the Class Action Fairness Act, the
company transferred it to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

CAFA lets a defendant in a large class action that's sued in state
court switch to federal. Defendants often prefer to litigate class
actions in federal court to avoid inconsistent state-court rulings;
plaintiffs may view state courts as better-positioned to enforce
state law protections.

The company's estimate of the potential damages shows that it's
"precisely the type of case" that CAFA authorizes federal courts to
hear, Starbucks said in a Nov. 16 opposition to remanding the case
to state court.

Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP represents the proposed
class. Littler Mendelson P.C. represents Starbucks.

The case is Amster v. Starbucks Corp., C.D. Cal., No.
2:18-cv-08327, opposition to remand 11/16/18. [GN]


STARHOTELS INT'L: Olsen Sues Over Blind-inaccessible Web Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS J. OLSEN, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. STARHOTELS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, d/b/a
The Michelangelo Hotel, Case No. 1:18-cv-10972 (S.D.N.Y., November
24, 2018), is a civil rights class action against Starhotels for
its alleged failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
Web site, http://www.michelangelohotel.com/,to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

Starhotels is a domestic business corporation that is organized
under New York law, and authorized to do business in the state of
New York.  Starhotels owns and operates hotels throughout the
world, including The Michelangelo Hotel, located at 152 West 51st
Street, in New York City.

Michelangelo Hotel is a luxury hotel that offers studio and one
bedroom suites, a lobby lounge, fitness center, concierge services
and in-room beauty services.

The Website is heavily integrated with this hotel, serving as its
gateway.  Through the Web site, Starhotels' customers are, inter
alia, able to: learn information about the hotel's location; learn
about the types of rooms available; learn about the services
offered at the hotel; learn about special packages available; view
images of the hotel; purchase an e-gift; and book a
reservation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Lowe, Esq.
          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Telephone: (212) 392-4772
          E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com
                  doug@lipskylowe.com


STINE SEED: Black Farmers Get OK to Move Ahead With Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Jackson, writing for Memphis Commercial Appeal, reports
that a group of black farmers based in Memphis said they were
"encouraged" when a judge decided to move forward with their
class-action lawsuit after the group claimed targeted
discrimination and allegedly being sold defective seeds by Stine
Seed Co., the nation's largest independent seed producer.

The Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association had a status
hearing on the issue on November 14. The case stems from claims
made by the group in April of this year.

Thomas Burrell, president and founder of the farmers group said the
next hearing is scheduled on Jan. 3 at 9:30 a.m. to present more
evidence on the claim. Burrell said farmers in other surrounding
states such as Mississippi and Arkansas, also received defective
soybean seeds.

Burrell said Mississippi State University's agricultural department
verified the seeds ability to reproduce was 0 percent.

"They swapped seeds and they sold the farmers fake seeds, but
billed them for certified seeds," Burrell said.

Stine Seeds claims suit 'without merit'
Stine President Myron Stine in July said the farmers' lawsuit
against the seed company is "without merit and factually
unsupportable."

Bishop David Allen Hall, chairman of the Ecumenical Action
Committee for the group, said he purchased $100,000 worth of
soybean seeds from the Iowa based company that turned out to be
defective.

A letter was sent from the Department of Justice to U.S. Rep. Steve
Cohen on November 13, in response to a letter Cohen sent to the DOJ
on behalf of the farmers' group back in July.

The DOJ said they will take action on the matter "if warranted."

Cohen's communications team told The Commercial Appeal on November
15 his staff has sided with black farmers on this matter and "other
issues for years."

Burrell said the letter from the DOJ shows the department "may be
preparing to entertain the criminal side" of the allegations.

Hall described the allegedly defective seeds purchased by many
farmers as "major setbacks" for people who work in the farming
industry.

"We did not get what we contracted for," Hall said.

"It was a lesser species of seeds we received that we put in the
ground," he added.[GN]


SWITCH INC: Stockholders Class Suits over IPO Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Switch, Inc. is defending itself against lawsuits brought by
purported stockholders of the Company seeking to represent a class
of stockholders who purchased Class A common stock in or traceable
to its initial public offering (IPO), 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.

Four substantially similar putative class action complaints,
captioned Martz v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 20, 2018);
Palkon v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 30, 2018); Chun v.
Switch, Inc. et al. (filed May 11, 2018); and Silverberg v. Switch,
Inc. et al. (filed June 6, 2018), were filed in the Eighth Judicial
District of Nevada, and subsequently consolidated into a single
case (the "State Court Securities Action").  Additionally, on June
11, 2018, one putative class action complaint captioned Cai v.
Switch, Inc. et al. was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey (the "Federal Court Securities
Action") and subsequently transferred to the Eighth Judicial
District of Nevada in August 2018 and the federal court appointed
Oscar Farach lead plaintiff.

These lawsuits were filed against Switch, Inc., certain current and
former officers and directors and certain underwriters of Switch,
Inc.'s IPO alleging federal securities law violations in connection
with the IPO.  These lawsuits were brought by purported
stockholders of Switch, Inc. seeking to represent a class of
stockholders who purchased Class A common stock in or traceable to
the IPO, and seek unspecified damages and other relief.

The Company said, "Switch, Inc. believes that these lawsuits are
without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend against
them."

Switch, Inc., through its subsidiary, Switch, Ltd., provides
colocation space and related services to technology and digital
media companies, cloud and managed service providers, financial
institutions, and telecommunications providers that conduct
critical business on the Internet.  The Company develops and
operates data centers in Nevada, Michigan, and Georgia.  Switch,
Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Las Vegas,
Nevada.


SYMANTEC CORP: Securities Class Action Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Symantec Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 28, 2018, that the Company is subject to pending
securities class action and stockholder derivative legal
proceedings that may adversely affect its business.

The Company said, "Several securities class action and derivative
lawsuits were filed against us following our announcement on May
10, 2018 of the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors' (the
"Audit Committee") internal investigation (the "Audit Committee
Investigation"), including an action brought derivatively on behalf
of Symantec's 2008 Employee Stock Purchase Plan.  In addition, we
have received certain demands from purported stockholders to
inspect corporate books and records under Delaware law.  No
specific amounts of damages have been alleged in these lawsuits.
We will continue to incur legal fees in connection with these
pending cases, including expenses for the reimbursement of legal
fees of present and former officers and directors under
indemnification obligations.  The expense of continuing to defend
such litigation may be significant.  We intend to defend these
lawsuits vigorously, but there can be no assurance that we will be
successful in any defense.  If any of the lawsuits related to our
Audit Committee Investigation are decided adversely, we may be
liable for significant damages directly or under our
indemnification obligations, which could adversely affect our
business, results of operations and cash flows.  At this stage, we
are unable to assess whether any material loss or adverse effect is
reasonably possible as a result of these lawsuits or estimate the
range of any potential loss."

Symantec Corporation provides cybersecurity products, services, and
solutions worldwide.  The Company operates through two segments,
Enterprise Security and Consumer Digital Safety.  It was founded in
1982 and is headquartered in Mountain View, California.


TAHOE RESOURCES: Faces Securities Class Action in Ontario
---------------------------------------------------------
Siskinds LLP on Nov. 19 announced the filing of a proposed
securities class action against Tahoe Resources Inc. (Tahoe) and
its former CEO and director, Ronald W. Clayton, in Toronto, Ontario
(Action). The Action was commenced on October 4, 2018.

The Action alleges that a press release issued by Tahoe on May 24,
2017 contained misrepresentations. The press release concerned the
commencement of an action against the Guatemalan Ministry of Energy
and Mines (MEM) by Centro de Accion Legal Ambiental y Social de
Guatemala (CALAS), in the Supreme Court of Guatemala. It is alleged
that the May 24, 2017 press release did not provide adequate
disclosure about the CALAS proceeding. Specifically, the Action
alleges among other things that:

   -- Tahoe's Guatemalan operating subsidiary, Minera San Rafael
S.A., had been named as an interested third party in the proceeding
commenced by CALAS;

   -- CALAS was seeking to suspend the Escobal mining license
provisionally and until MEM met its consultation obligations to the
Xinka indigenous people of Guatemala;

   -- there was a material risk that the Escobal mining license
would be provisionally suspended, as in fact occurred; and

   -- there was a material risk that the Escobal mining license
would be suspended beyond the period of the provisional suspension,
as also in fact occurred.

It is alleged that Tahoe was required to disclose those facts in
its May 24, 2017 press release but failed to do so.

The action alleges that Tahoe shareholders who acquired its
securities from and including May 24, 2017 to and including July 5,
2017 (Class Period) suffered damage as a result of the alleged
misrepresentations. Subject to certain exclusions, the proposed
class includes all persons and entities, wherever domiciled, who
acquired Tahoe securities during the Class Period.

The claims being pursued in the Action are claims for damages for
losses allegedly suffered as a result of Tahoe's alleged misleading
disclosure. The plaintiff claims Tahoe and Mr. Clayton have
liability for those losses.

Class Member Contacts:

If you hold or previously held securities of Tahoe acquired during
the Class Period, we encourage you to complete the information form
on the website of Siskinds LLP at https://www.siskinds.com/tahoe by
clicking on the "Receive Updates on this Case" link.

For inquiries, please click on the "Ask a Question" link on the
Siskinds website above or email tahoe@siskinds.com. For telephone
inquiries, please call 1-800-461-6166 x 2206.

Institutional investors with specific inquiries should contact:

         Nicholas Baker
         Tel: +1 519-660-7868
         Toll Free: +1-800-461-6166 x7868
         nicholas.baker@siskinds.com [GN]


TD AMERITRADE: Defendants Appeal from Ford Class Cert. Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action styled Roderick Ford (replacing Gerald
Klein) v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al., the
defendants' petition requesting that the U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th
Circuit, grant an immediate appeal of the District Court's
September 14 class certification decision remains pending,
according to TD Ameritrade's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2018.

In 2014, five putative class action complaints were filed regarding
TD Ameritrade, Inc.'s routing of client orders and one putative
class action was filed regarding Scottrade, Inc.'s routing of
client orders.  Five of the six cases were dismissed and the United
States Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, affirmed the dismissals in
those cases that were appealed.

The one remaining case is Roderick Ford (replacing Gerald Klein) v.
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:14CV396 (U.S.
District Court, District of Nebraska).  Plaintiff alleges that,
when routing client orders to various market centers, defendants
did not seek best execution, and instead routed clients' orders to
market venues that pay TD Ameritrade, Inc. the most money for order
flow.  Plaintiff alleges that defendants made misrepresentations
and omissions regarding the Company's order routing practices.

The complaint asserts claims of violations of Section 10(b) and 20
of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.  The complaint seeks
damages, injunctive relief, and other relief.  Plaintiff filed a
motion for class certification, which defendants opposed.

On July 12, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and a
recommendation that plaintiffs' motion for class certification be
denied.  Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's
findings and recommendation, which defendants opposed.

On September 14, 2018, the District Judge sustained plaintiff's
objections, rejected the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and
granted plaintiff's motion for class certification.

On September 28, 2018, defendants filed a petition requesting that
the U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, grant an immediate appeal
of the District Court's class certification decision.  The
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce filed amicus curiae briefs in support of the
petition together with motions for permission to file the briefs.
On October 9, 2018, plaintiff filed an opposition to the petition.

TD Ameritrade said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend
against this lawsuit and is unable to predict the outcome or the
timing of the ultimate resolution of the lawsuit, or the potential
loss, if any, that may result."

TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation provides securities brokerage and
related technology-based financial services to retail investors,
traders, and independent registered investment advisors (RIAs) in
the United States. The company is based in Omaha, Nebraska.


TD AMERITRADE: Still Faces Aequitas Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation continues to defend itself
against the Aequitas Securities Litigation, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018.

An amended putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon in Lawrence Ciuffitelli
et al. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, EisnerAmper LLP, Sidley Austin
LLP, Tonkon Torp LLP, TD Ameritrade, Inc., and Integrity Bank &
Trust, Case No. 3:16CV580, on May 19, 2016.  A second amended
putative class action complaint was filed on September 8, 2017, in
which Duff & Phelps was added as a defendant.  The putative class
includes all persons who purchased securities of Aequitas
Commercial Finance, LLC and its affiliates on or after June 9,
2010.  Other groups of plaintiffs have filed five non-class action
lawsuits in Oregon Circuit Court, Multnomah County, against these
and other defendants: Walter Wurster, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche
et al., Case No. 16CV25920 (filed Aug. 11, 2016), Kenneth Pommier,
et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case No. 16CV36439 (filed Nov.
3, 2016), Charles Ramsdell, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al.,
Case No. 16CV40659 (filed Dec. 2, 2016), Charles Layton, et al. v.
Deloitte & Touche et al., Case No. 17CV42915 (filed October 2,
2017) and John Cavanagh, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case
No. 18CV09052 (filed March 7, 2018).

FINRA arbitrations have also been filed against TD Ameritrade, Inc.
The claims in these actions include allegations that the sales of
Aequitas securities were unlawful, the defendants participated and
materially aided in such sales in violation of the Oregon
securities laws, and material misstatements and omissions were
made.  While the factual allegations differ in various respects
among the cases, plaintiffs' allegations include assertions that:
TD Ameritrade customers purchased more than US$140 million of
Aequitas securities; TD Ameritrade served as custodian for Aequitas
securities; recommended and referred investors to financial
advisors as part of its advisor referral program for the purpose of
purchasing Aequitas securities; participated in marketing the
securities; recommended the securities; provided assurances to
investors about the safety of the securities; and developed a
market for the securities.

In the Ciuffitelli putative class action, plaintiffs allege that
more than 1,500 investors were owed more than US$600 million on the
Aequitas securities they purchased.  On August 1, 2018, the
Magistrate Judge in that case issued findings and a recommendation
that defendants' motions to dismiss the pending complaint be denied
with limited exceptions not applicable to the Company.  TD
Ameritrade and other defendants filed objections to the Magistrate
Judge's findings and recommendation, which plaintiffs opposed.  On
September 24, 2018, the District Judge issued an opinion and order
adopting the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation.
Discovery has commenced.

In the five non-class action lawsuits, approximately 200 named
plaintiffs collectively allege a total of approximately US$125
million in losses plus other damages.

In the Wurster and Pommier cases, the Court, on TD Ameritrade's
motion, dismissed the claims by those plaintiffs who were TD
Ameritrade customers, in favor of arbitration.  Discovery is
ongoing.

The Court in the Wurster and Pommier cases denied TD Ameritrade's
motion to dismiss the claims by the plaintiffs who were not TD
Ameritrade customers.

Plaintiffs in the Ramsdell case have filed a second amended
complaint in which TD Ameritrade is not named as a defendant.

On September 24, 2018, plaintiffs in the Cavanagh case dismissed
their claims against TD Ameritrade.

On July 17, 2018, plaintiffs in the Ciuffitelli case filed a motion
for preliminary approval of an US$18.5 million settlement with the
defendant Tonkon Torp law firm of the claims against it in all the
pending cases.

On September 24, 2018, defendants filed a response requesting the
Court to defer considering the plaintiffs' motion or to deny it as
presented.  The Company intends to vigorously defend against this
litigation.  The Company is unable to predict the outcome or the
timing of the ultimate resolution of this litigation, or the
potential losses, if any, that may result.

TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation provides securities brokerage and
related technology-based financial services to retail investors,
traders, and independent registered investment advisors (RIAs) in
the United States. The company is based in Omaha, Nebraska.


TEAM ENTERPRISES: Denied Workers Overtime Pay, Cipolla Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Felicia Cipolla and Alexis Wood, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Team Enterprises, LLC, New Team LLC
dba Team Enterprises, Case No. 3:18-cv-06867 (N.D. Calif., November
13, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and California Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs allege that they and other non-exempt employees were
denied overtime compensation and other wages.

The Plaintiff Felicia Cipolla is an individual residing in El
Sobrante, California.  She was employed by the Defendants from
approximately 2013 to December 2017.  She worked as a Promotional
Specialist for the Defendants within this judicial district.
  
The Plaintiff Alexis Wood is an individual residing in Sacramento,
California.  She was employed by the Defendants from approximately
2013 to October 2017.  She worked as a Promotional Specialist for
the Defendants within this judicial district.

The Defendants are in the business of marketing and promoting
specific brands of products on behalf of clients who own or sell
those products.  [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Edward J. Wynne, Esq.
      George Nemiroff, Esq.
      WYNNE LAW FIRM
      80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Ste. 3G
      Larkspur, CA 94939
      Tel: (415) 461-6400
      Fax: (415) 461-3900
      E-mail: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com
              gnemiroff@wynnelawfirm.com

          - and -

      Bryan J. McCormack, Esq.
      MCCORMACK & ERLICH, LLP
      150 Post Street, Suite 742
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Tel: (415) 296-8420
      Fax: (415) 296-8552
      E-mail: bryan@mcelawfirm.com


TEKFOR INC: Graybill Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Beverley Graybill, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated v. Tekfor, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-02618 (N.D. Ohio,
November 13, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Ohio Minimum Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that during her employment with the
Defendant, she was not fully and properly paid in accordance with
the minimum requirements of the FLSA and Ohio Wage Act.

The Plaintiff worked as an hourly, non-exempt "employee" of the
Defendant in the packaging department beginning in or around April
of 2012 and is still presently employed as of the filing of this
Complaint.

The Defendant manufactures precision machine parts. The Defendant
is a foreign corporation formed under the laws of the State of
Delaware. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

      Peter Contreras, Esq.
      CONTRERAS LAW, LLC
      P.O. Box 215
      Amlin, OH 43002
      Tel: (614) 787-4878
      Fax: (614) 923-7369
      E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com


TESLA INC: Largely Settles Class-Action Suit
--------------------------------------------
Fender Bender.com, reports that Tesla has resolved most of a
purported class-action lawsuit by customers who alleged that their
Model S and Model X vehicles would suddenly accelerate, which in
some cases resulted in accidents, reported Insurance Journal.

The six plaintiffs will drop their claims and the remaining
plaintiff and his son will only pursue individual claims, according
to the report.

The narrowing of the case to only a California plaintiff means that
Tesla can't be held liable for any alleged defects under the laws
of other states, including Florida and New Jersey, that were part
of the class-action complaint.[GN]


TIGER NATURAL: Court Certifies Customer Class in Fishman Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMILY FISHMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
SUSAN FARIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. TIGER NATURAL GAS, INC., an Oklahoma
corporation, COMMUNITY GAS CENTER, INC., a Colorado corporation,
JOHN DYET, an individual, and DOES 2–100, the Defendants, Case
3:17-cv-05351-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered
an order on Nov. 20, 2018:

   1. certifying a 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.

   2. appointing Emily Fishman and Susan Faria as class
      representatives;

   3. appointing counsel Kimberly A. Kralowec, Kathleen Styles
      Rogers, Daniel Balsam, and Jacob Harker as class counsel;
      and

   4 directing parties to jointly submit a proposal for class
     notification with a plan to distribute notice.[CC]

TIME WARNER: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Sims FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARKIA SIMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TIME WARNER CABLE,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-CV-631 (S.D. Ohio), Judge
Algenon L. Marbley of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denied the Defendants' Renewed
Motion to Dismiss and for Sanctions.

The Plaintiffs bring claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and Ohio law for failure to compensate Sims and others
similarly situated, for time spent logging into the Defendants'
systems before their shifts began and for failure to pay overtime.
Sims, proceeding as an individual Plaintiff, filed an initial
complaint in the Northern District of Ohio on May 4, 2017.  She
filed a First Amended Complaint on May 5, 2017, to bring a
collective action suit under the FLSA and a class action under Ohio
law.

Roughly six months before, Daylon Howard and Tracy Dewald filed a
virtually identical lawsuit in the Southern District of Ohio.  Sims
and all but one of the Plaintiffs who have opted in to the instant
case also initially opted in to the Howard litigation.
The Howard litigation alleges the same basis for relief as the
Plaintiffs allege in the instant case.  The Defendants in Howard,
however, filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and
compel arbitration, arguing that Howard signed an arbitration
agreement that governed his claims for relief.  The magistrate
judge stayed discovery in Howard pending the Motion to Dismiss.

The Plaintiffs in Howard filed a motion to lift the stay, which the
magistrate denied.  The Defendants later filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment, arguing that Tracy Dewald was exempt from the FLSA and
similar provisions of Ohio law.

While the Court's stay was in place, Sims filed the suit in the
Northern District of Ohio, and she and other Plaintiffs involved in
the suit opted out of the class in Howard.  The Northern District
of Ohio transferred the case to the Court since Howard was pending
there.

On Feb. 21, 2018, the Court administratively closed Sims' case
pending the Supreme Court's decision in Ernst & Young LLP et al. v
Morris, 138 S.Ct. 1612 (2018).  On May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court
decided Morris, and on May 30, 2018, the Court reopened Sims.

The Defendants filed a Renewed Motion to Dismiss, to which the
Plaintiffs responded.  The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs'
suit should be dismissed under the first-to-file rule.  The
Defendants have also moved the Court to grant sanctions requiring
the Plaintiffs to reimburse them for unnecessary attorneys' fees
and costs under 28 U.S.C. Section 1927 or under its inherent
powers.  

Judge Marbley finds that the Sims Plaintiffs could face
difficulties in having their claims heard with the Plaintiffs in
Howard.  The parties do not argue that the class in Howard is
"impossible."  But if Sims is dismissed and Howard's arbitration
agreement is found to control, the Sims Plaintiffs will face
difficulty in having their claims heard.  The Defendants allege
that Howard has an arbitration agreement that requires not only
binding arbitration but requires such arbitration, on an individual
rather than class or representative basis.  Thus, dismissing the
Sims' complaint would prejudice the Plaintiffs who do not have such
arbitration agreements.  If Dewald is found to be exempt, that
could mean the end of his claims, leaving the Sims Plaintiffs
without a lawsuit to join.  The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is
denied.

As to the Motion for Sanctions, the Judge finds that the conduct of
the Plaintiffs' counsel is not so egregious as the Defendants would
make it out to be.  The Plaintiffs discovered differences between
themselves and the Plaintiffs in Howard and took action to assert
their claims in a forum they believed would be appropriate.  While
this could under some circumstances appear to be forum-shopping, it
could just as equally be seen as an attempt of the Plaintiffs'
counsel to protect their clients' interests.  As such, the conduct
was not unreasonable, vexatious, or in bad faith.  The Defendants'
Motion for Sanctions is also denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/r4YnqB from Leagle.com.

Markia Sims, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. Lazzaro ,
Chastity Lynn Christy & Lori M. Griffin, Lazzaro Law Firm, LLC.

Time Warner Cable Inc., Charter Communications, LLC & TWC
Administration LLC, Defendants, represented by James Edward
Davidson -- james.davidson@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP,
Catherine L. Strauss -- catherine.strauss@icemiller.com -- Ice
Miller LLP, Laura M. Jordan -- LJordan@ThompsonCoburn.com --
Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac vice, R. Nelson Williams --
rwilliams@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac vice &
Stephen Cody Reinberg, Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac vice.


UBER: Steers TCPA Class Action Into Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------
Uber drove a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action
out of the courthouse, successfully convincing an Illinois federal
court judge that the ride-hailing app's terms included a "clear and
conspicuous" statement that arbitration was the forum for any
disputes.

In 2013, Charles Johnson downloaded the Uber app to his smartphone
and completed each of the steps required to create an account.
Johnson provided his email address, first and last name, and mobile
phone number; created a password; and linked his debit card to the
account.

During the process, Johnson was informed that "[b]y creating an
Uber account, you agree to the Terms of Service & Privacy Policy"
and given a hyperlink that brought users to a screen displaying the
terms of service in effect at the time. The first paragraph of the
terms stated: "In order to use the Service . . . and the associated
application . . . you must agree to the terms and conditions that
are set out below."

The terms of service also included a "Dispute Resolution" section.
The first paragraph of the section read: "You and Company agree
that any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating
to this Agreement or the breach, termination, enforcement,
interpretation or validity thereof or the use of the Service or
Application (collectively, 'Disputes') will be settled by binding
arbitration . . . You acknowledge and agree that you and Company
are each waiving the right to a trial by jury or to participate as
a plaintiff or class User in any purported class action or
representative proceeding."

Johnson admitted that he may have seen, clicked on, read and
indicated that he accepted Uber's terms of service and privacy
policy when he created his account, but he did not recall doing so.
Although Johnson later opened the app to see how it worked, he
never requested a ride using the Uber app.

In his putative TCPA class action, Johnson alleged that Uber sent a
single unsolicited text message to his mobile phone number asking
him whether he wanted to sign up to be an Uber driver.

Pursuant to the terms of service that Johnson agreed to when he
downloaded the app, Uber moved to compel arbitration. Applying
Illinois law, U.S. District Judge John Z. Lee granted the motion.

A consumer must be provided reasonable notice of all the terms and
conditions of an agreement as well as reasonable notice that, by
clicking a button, the consumer is assenting to the agreement,
Judge Lee explained. He also considered whether a reasonable person
would have been misled, confused, misdirected or distracted by the
manner in which Uber presented the terms and conditions.

Reviewing the process of creating an Uber account, the court found
the defendant put users on notice that "[b]y creating an Uber
account, you agree to the Terms of Service & Privacy Policy," using
an easy-to-read font on an uncluttered screen that required no
scrolling to view. The words "Terms of Service" also served as a
hyperlink, the court noted, which brought users to a screen
displaying the full terms.

"[T]he Court holds that the manner in which this statement and the
Terms of Service were presented placed a reasonable person on
notice that there were terms incorporated with creating an Uber
account and that, by creating an account, he or she was agreeing to
those terms," Judge Lee wrote.

Uber's "clear and conspicuous" statement that users were agreeing
to its terms was easily distinguishable from other cases where a
website actively misled a customer or lacked a clear statement that
a purchase was subject to any terms and conditions. Further, "a
reasonable user would know that, by entering his debit or credit
card information … he was creating an Uber account," the court
added.

The fact that Johnson elected not to read the actual terms of
service, when he was given an opportunity to do so, "has no
probative force," Judge Lee said.

Although the court found Johnson failed to raise a genuine dispute
as to whether he entered into an enforceable agreement to
arbitrate, the plaintiff tried a fallback argument that even if the
arbitration agreement was binding, his TCPA claim did not fall
within its scope.

The court was not persuaded, as the terms of service specifically
permitted Uber to text promotional offers to its customers.
"Because Johnson's TCPA claim may arguably fall within the
parameters of this provision, the claim must be arbitrated," the
court said.

Judge Lee granted Uber's motion for summary judgment, staying the
case pending the resolution of arbitration proceedings.

Why it matters: This case highlights the importance of having a
solid arbitration provision and of having the customer agree to
terms and conditions which are truly clear and conspicuous. The
Illinois federal court determined that Uber provided reasonable
notice of all the terms and conditions of its arbitration agreement
with a "clear and conspicuous statement" and that, by clicking a
button, the plaintiff assented to that agreement. Further, the
manner in which the terms were presented in an easy-to-read font on
an uncluttered screen, with no scrolling required—supported the
conclusion that the plaintiff was not misled, confused or
misdirected by the terms and conditions, and was thus bound by the
arbitration provision. [GN]


UGI CORP: Suits over Underfilled Portable Propane Cylinders Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
UGI Corporation 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 company continues to
defend itself against class action suits related to the alleged
collusion in reducing the fill level of portable propane
cylinders.

Between May and October of 2014, purported class action lawsuits
were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the Partnership/UGI
Corporation and a competitor by certain of their direct and
indirect customers.

The class action lawsuits allege, among other things, that the
Partnership and its competitor colluded, beginning in 2008, to
reduce the fill level of portable propane cylinders from 17 pounds
to 15 pounds and combined to persuade their common customer,
Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that fill reduction, resulting in
increased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in
violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws.  

The claims seek treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees
and costs on behalf of the putative classes.

On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class
action cases to the Western Division of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri ("District Court").  

As of June 2018, as the result of rulings on a series of procedural
filings, including petitions filed with the Eighth Circuit and the
U.S. Supreme Court, both the federal and state law claims of the
direct customer plaintiffs and the state law claims of the indirect
customer plaintiffs have been remanded to the District Court.  

The decision of the District Court to dismiss the federal antitrust
claims of the indirect customer plaintiffs was upheld by the Eighth
Circuit. Motions are pending before the District Court regarding
the indirect purchasers' state law claims.

UGI said, "We are unable to reasonably estimate the impact, if any,
arising from such litigation. We believe we have strong defenses to
the claims and intend to vigorously defend against them."

UGI Corporation distributes, stores, transports, and markets energy
products and related services in the United States and
internationally. The company operates through four segments:
AmeriGas Propane, UGI International, Midstream & Marketing, and UGI
Utilities. UGI Corporation was founded in 1882 and is based in King
of Prussia, Pennsylvania.


UNITED DEVELOPMENT: Scharlene Brooks Files Class Suit in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scharlene Brooks, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. United Development Funding III,
UMT Services, Inc., UMTH General Services, L.P., UMTH Land
Development, L.P., UMT Holdings, L.P., Hollis M. Greenlaw, Todd
Etter, Cara D. Obert, Ben L. Wissink and Whitley Penn LLP
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-03097 (N.D. Tex., November 21, 2018),
seeks rescission and/or rescissory damages including interest,
compensatory, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs and such other and further relief pursuant to the Texas
Securities Act and common law.

The complaint relates that United Development Funding loans money
to developers of residential real estate, with rates above those
offered by commercial lenders. The third in a series of investment
offerings by United Development Funds (UDF) have essentially
failed. UDF was receiving funds from subsequent UDF investment
vehicles to pay its distributions. Brooks was misled in foregoing
the receipt of his cash distributions from UDF and used those
distributions to purchase subsequent UDF units in the Dividend
Reinvestment Plan. It used money from investors to prop up UMT
Services, Inc., UMTH General Services, L.P., UMTH Land Development,
L.P. and UMT Holdings, L.P. without disclosure thereby creating the
appearance that UDF was a successful, productive investment. The
scheme allowed UDF to funnel cash to the UDF Entity while giving
overvalued units in lieu of cash dividends, the complaint alleges.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joe Kendall, Esq.
      Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
      KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
      McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
      Dallas, TX 75204
      Tel: (214) 744-3000
      Fax: (214) 744-3015 (fax)
      Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
             jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com

             - and -

      Lee Squitieri, Esq.
      SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
      32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 421-6492
      Fax: (212) 421-6553
      Email: lee@sfclasslaw.com


UPS EXPEDITED: Sued over Collection of Insurance Premium Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
PAULA HINOJOSA, the Plaintiff, vs. VIANEV lNC. DBA THE UPS STORE
No. 0015; UPS EXPEDITED MAIL SERVICES, INC. AND DOES 1-10, the
Defendants, Case No. 30-2018-01033802-CU-BT-CJC (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Nov. 26, 2018), seeks to permanently enjoin Defendants from
collecting insurance premium fees; impose constructive trusts on
all amounts by which Defendants were unjustly enriched as a result
of collecting the Insurance Premium Fees; recover as damages and/or
restitution all Insurance Premium Fees heretofore paid by UPS
customers; and obtain all such other relief to which they may be
entitled pursuant to the UCL, the CLRA or any other applicable
provision of California law, including, without limitation,
disgorgement, actual damages and restitution.

According to the complaint, the terms of UPS's California Insurance
Agreements, provided through UPS and its partners, provide for
insurance for goods sent through its service and a premium is
charged for this service. However, Ms. Hinojosa purchased this
insurance and sent a birthday gift through UPS to her sister in San
Francisco. She showed the contents of the box to the UPS operative
at the UPS store in Huntington Beach and filmed him both examining
the contents (a new "Beatz" brand headphones set valued at over
$300) and him personally closing and sealing the container. He
insisted she purchase insurance "just in case". She did. UPS then
lost the package. She complaint and it took over 6 weeks before UPS
acknowledged it was lost. However, UPS and its
insurance partner refused to pay the value of the headphones. The
imposition of fees for a worthless "Insurance Agreement" is an
unfair and unlawful business practice. The Insurance Premium Fees
have generated substantial revenues and profits for UPS and its
parents and affiliates, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Anthony G. Graham, Esq.
          GRAHAM & MARTJN, LLP
          2901 West Coast Highway, Suite 200
          Newport Beach, CA 92663
          Telephone: (949) 270-2792
          E-mail: anthonyggraham@msn.com

VISA INC: Bid for Class Status Pending in Suit over EMV Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In a class action complaint on EMV Chip Liability Shift, the
Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification remains pending,
according to Visa Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30,
2018.

Following their initial complaint filed on March 8, 2016, B&R
Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, and Grove Liquors LLC
filed an amended class action complaint on July 15, 2016, against
Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., MasterCard, Discover, American Express,
EMVCo and certain financial institutions in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.  The amended complaint
asserts that defendants, through EMVCo, conspired to shift
liability for fraudulent, faulty or otherwise rejected payment card
transactions from defendants to the purported class of merchants,
defined as those merchants throughout the United States who have
been subjected to the "Liability Shift" since October 2015.
Plaintiffs claim that the so-called "Liability Shift" violates
Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act and certain state laws, and
seek treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

EMVCo and the financial institution defendants were dismissed, and
the matter was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, which has clarified that this
case is not part of MDL 1720.

Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification on July
16, 2018, following an earlier denial of the motion without
prejudice.

Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The
company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc.
was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.



VISA INC: Consumer Class Suit over ATM Access Fees Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consumer class actions against Visa Inc. and MasterCard
regarding U.S. ATM access fee matters are still ongoing, according
to Visa's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018.

In October 2011, a purported consumer class action was filed
against Visa and MasterCard in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.  Two other purported consumer class actions
challenging the rules, later combined, were also filed in October
2011 in the same federal court naming Visa, MasterCard and three
financial institutions as defendants.  Plaintiffs seek treble
damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees where
available under federal and state law, including under Section 1 of
the Sherman Act and consumer protection statutes.  These cases are
proceeding in the district court.

Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The
company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc.
was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.


VISA INC: National ATM Council Class Action Ongoing in Columbia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Visa 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 the National ATM Council Class Action
regarding U.S. ATM access fee matters is proceeding in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.

In October 2011, the National ATM Council and thirteen non-bank ATM
operators filed a purported class action lawsuit against Visa (Visa
Inc., Visa International, Visa U.S.A. and Plus System, Inc.) and
MasterCard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The complaint challenges Visa's rule (and a similar MasterCard
rule) that if an ATM operator chooses to charge consumers an access
fee for a Visa or Plus transaction, that fee cannot be greater than
the access fee charged for transactions on other networks.
Plaintiffs claim that the rule violates Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, and seek treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees.

Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The
company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc.
was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.


VISA INC: Settlement Talks with Injunctive Relief Class Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Visa 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 settlement discussions with plaintiffs
purporting to act on behalf of the putative Injunctive Relief Class
in the Interchange Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) are ongoing.

Beginning in May 2005, a series of complaints (the majority of
which were styled as class actions) were filed in U.S. federal
district courts by merchants against Visa U.S.A., Visa
International and/or MasterCard, and in some cases, certain U.S.
financial institutions.  The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation issued an order transferring the cases to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York for
coordination of pre-trial proceedings in MDL 1720.  A group of
purported class plaintiffs subsequently filed amended and
supplemental class complaints.  The individual and class complaints
generally challenged, among other things, Visa's and MasterCard's
purported setting of interchange reimbursement fees, their "no
surcharge" and honor-all-cards rules, alleged tying and bundling of
transaction fees, and Visa's reorganization and IPO, under the
federal antitrust laws and, in some cases, certain state unfair
competition laws.  The complaints sought money damages, declaratory
and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and, in one instance, an
order that the IPO be unwound.

Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., Visa International, MasterCard
Incorporated, MasterCard International Incorporated, various U.S.
financial institution defendants, and the class plaintiffs signed a
settlement agreement (the "2012 Settlement Agreement") to resolve
the class plaintiffs' claims.  Pursuant to the 2012 Settlement
Agreement, the Company deposited approximately US$4.0 billion from
the U.S. litigation escrow account and approximately US$500 million
attributable to interchange reductions for an eight-month period
into settlement accounts established under the 2012 Settlement
Agreement.

Subsequently, Visa received from the Court and deposited into the
Company's U.S. litigation escrow account "takedown payments" of
approximately US$1.1 billion.  On June 30, 2016, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the lower court's
certification of the merchant class and reversed the approval of
the settlement.  The Second Circuit determined that the class
plaintiffs were inadequately represented, and remanded the case to
the lower court for further proceedings.

On remand, the district court entered an order appointing interim
counsel for two putative classes of plaintiffs, a "Damages Class"
and an "Injunctive Relief Class." Thereafter, a new group of
purported class plaintiffs, acting on behalf of the putative
Injunctive Relief Class, filed a class action complaint seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees.
That complaint seeks, among other things, an injunction against:
the setting of default interchange rates; certain Visa operating
rules relating to merchants, including the honor-all-cards rule;
and various transaction fees, including the fixed acquirer network
fee.  The complaint names as defendants Visa Inc., MasterCard
Incorporated and MasterCard International Incorporated, and certain
U.S. financial institutions.  In addition, the plaintiffs
purporting to act on behalf of the putative Damages Class filed a
Third Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, seeking money
damages and attorneys' fees, among other relief.

On September 17, 2018, Visa, MasterCard, and certain U.S. financial
institutions reached an agreement with plaintiffs purporting to act
on behalf of the putative Damages Class to resolve all Damages
Class claims (the "Amended Settlement Agreement"), subject to court
approval.  The Amended Settlement Agreement supersedes the 2012
Settlement Agreement and includes, among other terms, a release
from participating class members for liability arising out of
conduct alleged by the Damages Class in the litigation, including
claims that accrue no later than five years after the Amended
Settlement Agreement becomes final.  Participating class members
will not release injunctive relief claims as a named representative
or non-representative class member in the putative Injunctive
Relief Class.  The Amended Settlement Agreement also requires an
additional settlement payment from all defendants totaling US$900
million, with the Company's share of US$600 million to be paid from
the Company's litigation escrow account established pursuant to the
Company's retrospective responsibility plan.

The additional settlement payment will be added to the
approximately US$5.3 billion previously deposited into settlement
accounts by the defendants pursuant to the 2012 Settlement
Agreement.  If more than 15% of class members (by payment volume)
opt out of the class, up to US$700 million may be returned to
defendants (with up to US$467 million to the Company) based on the
total merchant opt-out percentage.  Defendants may terminate the
Amended Settlement Agreement if more than 25% of class members (by
payment volume) opt out of the class.

Settlement discussions with plaintiffs purporting to act on behalf
of the putative Injunctive Relief Class are ongoing.

Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The
company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc.
was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.


VISA INC: Walmart, Home Depot Appeal Settlement Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
Visa 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 in the Canadian Merchant Litigation,
Wal-Mart Canada and/or Home Depot of Canada Inc. have filed notices
of appeal of the British Columbia, Ontario, Saskatchewan and
Alberta decisions approving the settlements.

Beginning in December 2010, a number of class action lawsuits were
filed in Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario, Saskatchewan and
Alberta against Visa Canada, MasterCard and ten financial
institutions on behalf of merchants that accept payment by Visa
and/or MasterCard credit cards.  The actions allege a violation of
Canada's price-fixing law and various common law claims based on
separate Visa and MasterCard conspiracies in respect of default
interchange and certain of the networks' rules.

In 2015 and 2016, four financial institutions settled with the
plaintiffs.  In June 2017, Visa, MasterCard and a fifth financial
institution also reached settlements with the plaintiffs.

Settlement approval hearings were held in 2018 and courts in each
of the five provinces approved the settlements.

Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The
company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc.
was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.


VOYA RETIREMENT: Appeal in Dezelan Class Action Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action styled Dezelan v. Voya Retirement
Insurance and Annuity Company, the Plaintiff's notice of appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the district
court's August 17 denial of the amended complaint with prejudice
remains pending, according to Voya Retirement's Form 10-Q filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14,
2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

Dezelan v. Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company (USDC
District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-1251)(filed July 26, 2016) is
a putative class action in which plaintiff, a participant in a
403(b) Plan, seeks to represent a class of plans whose assets are
invested in Voya Retirement and Annuity Company ("VRIAC") "Group
Annuity Contract Stable Value Funds."

Plaintiff alleges that VRIAC has violated the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") by charging unreasonable fees
and setting its own compensation in connection with stable value
products.  Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
disgorgement of profits, damages and attorney's fees.  The Company
denies the allegations, which it believes are without merit, and
intends to defend the case vigorously.

On July 19, 2017, the district court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss, but permitted the plaintiff to file an amended
complaint.  Plaintiff subsequently filed a first amended complaint,
and the district court denied the amended complaint with prejudice
on August 17, 2018.

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit on September 13, 2018.

Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, together with its
subsidiaries, operates as a stock life insurance company in the
United States. The company is based in Windsor, Connecticut. Voya
Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company is a subsidiary of Voya
Holdings Inc.


VOYA RETIREMENT: Motion to Drop Goetz Class Action Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company's motion to dismiss
the case entitled, Goetz v. Voya Financial and Voya Retirement
Insurance and Annuity Company, remains pending, 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.

Goetz v. Voya Financial and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity
Company (USDC District of Delaware, No. 1:17-cv-1289) (filed
September 8, 2017) is a putative class action in which plaintiff, a
participant in a 401(k) plan, seeks to represent other participants
in the plan as well as a class of similarly situated plans that
"contract with [Voya] for recordkeeping and other services."

Plaintiff alleges that "Voya" breached its fiduciary duty to the
plan and other plan participants by charging unreasonable and
excessive recordkeeping fees, and that "Voya" distributed
materially false and misleading 404a-5 administrative and fund fee
disclosures to conceal its excessive fees.  The Company denies the
allegations, which it believes are without merit, and intends to
defend the case vigorously.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 4, 2018, and the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint of February
8, 2018.

Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, together with its
subsidiaries, operates as a stock life insurance company in the
United States. The company is based in Windsor, Connecticut. Voya
Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company is a subsidiary of Voya
Holdings Inc.


WEYERHAEUSER NR: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in Waleski Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Matt Waleski filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Waleski v. Weyerhaeuser NR Company, Case No.
1:17-CV-01940-RBJ, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado - Denver.

The nature of suit is stated as property damage - product
liability.

The appellate case is captioned as Waleski v. Weyerhaeuser NR
Company, Case No. 18-1457, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit.

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

   -- Docketing statement is due on December 7, 2018, for
      Weyerhaeuser NR Company;

   -- Transcript order form is due on December 7, 2018, for
      Weyerhaeuser NR Company; and

   -- Notice of appearance is due on December 7, 2018, for Matt
      Waleski and Weyerhaeuser NR Company.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee MATT WALESKI, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Franklin D. Azar, Esq.
          Hugh Zachary Balkin, Esq.
          Keith R. Scranton, Esq.
          FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          14426 East Evans Avenue
          Aurora, CO 80014-0000
          Telephone: (303) 757-3300
          E-mail: azarf@fdazar.com
                  balkinz@fdazar.com
                  scrantonk@fdazar.com

               - and -

          Shanon Jude Carson, Esq.
          Lawrence Deutsch, Esq.
          Jacob M. Polakoff, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (800) 424-6690
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  ldeutsch@bm.net
                  jpolakoff@bm.net

               - and -

          Eleanor Michelle Drake, Esq.
          Joe Christopherson Hashmall, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, PC
          43 South East Main Street, Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: (612) 594-5999
          E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
                  jhashmall@bm.net

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

Defendant-Appellant WEYERHAEUSER NR COMPANY is represented by:

          Mary Rose Alexander, Esq.
          Robert Collins, III, Esq.
          Mark S. Mester, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 876-7700
          E-mail: mary.rose.alexander@lw.com
                  robert.collins@lw.com
                  mark.mester@lw.com

               - and -

          Craig Martin Johnson Allely, Esq.
          HOLLAND & HART LLP
          555 17th Street, Suite 3200
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 295-8000
          E-mail: callely@hollandhart.com

               - and -

          Daniel Albert Nicholas Graham, Esq.
          Michael A. Sink, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1900 Sixteenth Street, Suite 1400
          Denver, CO 80202-5255
          Telephone: (303) 291-2300
          E-mail: DGraham@perkinscoie.com
                  MSink@perkinscoie.com


ZOCDOC INC: 2nd Cir. Vacates Judgment in Geismann TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RADHA GEISMANN, M.D., P.C., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ZOCDOC,
INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee, JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants,
Docket No. 17-2692 (2d Cir.), Judge Robert D. Sack of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (i) vacated the judgment of
the district court, and (ii) remanded for further proceedings.

In 2014, Geismann filed a class action complaint against ZocDoc in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
alleging that it received unsolicited telecopies from ZocDoc in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").
Geismann, a Missouri professional corporation, alleges that it
received from ZocDoc, a Delaware corporation, two unsolicited faxes
advertising a "patient matching service" for doctors.  Geismann
sought between $500 and $1,500 in statutory damages for each
alleged TCPA violation, an injunction prohibiting ZocDoc from
sending similar faxes in the future, and costs.

On the same day that it filed its complaint in state court,
Geismann filed a separate motion for class certification pursuant
to Missouri law.  It defined the proposed class as all persons who
on or after four years prior to the filing of the action, were sent
telephone facsimile messages of material advertising a patient
matching service for doctors by or on behalf of the Defendant.

On March 13, 2014, ZocDoc removed the action to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.  Two weeks later,
ZocDoc made an offer of judgment to Geismann pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 683 for: (i) $6,000, plus reasonable
attorney's fees, in satisfaction of Geismann's individual claims,
and (ii) an injunction prohibiting ZocDoc from engaging in the
alleged statutory violations in the future.

Geismann rejected ZocDoc's offer because it provided no relief to
the other members of the class.  ZocDoc subsequently moved to
transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The district court granted ZocDoc's motion
on Aug. 26, 2014.

The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, Radha Geismann, M.D., P.C. v. ZocDoc, Inc.,
("Geismann I"), reasoning that the rejected offer rendered the
entire action moot.  It therefore entered judgment in favor of
Geismann.

Geismann appealed.  Relying in large part on the Supreme Court's
decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, the Court vacated the
judgment and remanded the matter to the district court for further
proceedings.

On remand, ZocDoc attempted to use another procedural rule to
settle Geismann's individual claims: ZocDoc requested and obtained
leave from the district court to deposit funds in the court's
registry pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 67.  The funds
that ZocDoc deposited with the court represented what ZocDoc
regarded as the maximum possible damages Geismann could receive for
its individual TCPA claims.

The district court agreed with ZocDoc that its deposit mooted
Geismann's individual claim, and accordingly entered judgment in
favor of Geismann and dismissed what remained of the action.

Judge Sack holds that it was error and returned the case to the
district court again for further proceedings.  He finds that the
Rule 67 procedure is nothing like a bank account in the Plaintiff's
name -- that is, an account in which the Plaintiff has a right at
any time to withdraw funds.  By itself, then, ZocDoc's deposit of
funds cannot be considered to have rendered Geismann's individual
claims moot.

The Judge also doubt that mootness is the correct legal concept to
employ in analyzing the effect of ZocDoc's Rule 67 deposit.
Geismann's individual claims could not have been "mooted" prior to
that time by the Rule 67 deposit.  While Rule 67 itself does not
affect the vitality of a plaintiff's claims, those claims may of
course become moot in other ways.

Judge Sack concludes that the district court must resolve the
pending motion for class certification before entering judgment and
declaring an action moot based solely on relief provided to a
plaintiff on an individual basis.  If the motion is granted, the
class action may proceed.  A conclusion otherwise would risk
placing the Defendant in control of a putative class action,
effectively allowing the use of tactical procedural maneuvers to
thwart class litigation at will.

For these reasons, the Judge concludes that ZocDoc's Rule 67
deposit did not provide Geismann with an entitlement to complete
relief and therefore did not render its TCPA claim moot.  The
district court should not have entered judgment based on ZocDoc's
deposit, nor should it have dismissed Geismann's action.  The fact
that Geismann's claim is not moot means both that its own claim is
still viable, and that the door remains open for possible class
certification.

The Judge considered the parties' remaining arguments on appeal and
finds them to be without merit.  For the foregoing reasons, he
vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded for further
proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/x8LGKu from Leagle.com.

GLENN L. HARA -- -- GHara@andersonwanca.com -- (David M. Oppenheim,
on the brief), Anderson + Wanca, Rolling Meadows, Illinois, for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

BLAINE C. KIMREY -- bkimrey@vedderprice.com (Charles J. Nerko --
cnerko@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price P.C., New York, New York,
Bryan K. Clark, on the brief), Vedder Price P.C., Chicago,
Illinois, for Defendant-Appellee.

Adina H. Rosenbaum -- litigation@citizen.org -- Scott L. Nelson,
Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, D.C., for Amicus
Curiae Public Citizen, Inc., in support of Plaintiff-Appellant.

Brian Melendez -- brian.melendez@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg
LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Amicus Curiae ACA International,
in support of Defendant-Appellee.



                            *********

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 ***