---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Thursday, June 28, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 129



                            Headlines


3M CO: Bair Hugger-Related Suit in Canada Still Ongoing
3M CO: Bair Hugger Suits by 4,370 Plaintiffs Pending at March 31
3M CO: Faces 3M Scotchgard-Related Suit
3M CO: Faces 17 Suits Related to Aqueous Film Forming Foam
AIR METHODS: Class Action Over High Air Ambulance Charges Pending

ALLEN, TX: Appeals Clerk Seeks Docketing Statement in "Watson"
AMERICAN PROFIT: "Cohn" Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
AMERICAN VANGUARD: "Abad Castillo" and "Marquinez" Suits Ongoing
APPLE INC: "Brody" Product Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
APPLE INC: "LaNasa" Product Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.

APPLE INC: "Mallh" Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
ARKEMA INC: To Appeal Class Cert. Order in "Carter" to 6th Cir.
ATLANTA, GA: Faces Class Action Over Poor Sidewalk Condition
AUSTRALIA: Class Action Against Wodonga Council Won't Go Ahead
B-STOCK SOLUTIONS: "Doerr" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

BABYLON BEAUTY: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Winfield" Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: 4th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in "Dwoskin"
BATON ROUGE, LA: Faces Class Action Over Public Defense System
BBX CAPITAL: Class Certification Bid Wins Preliminary Approval
BISHOP REHABILITATION: Implements Changes as Part of Settlement

CALIFORNIA: Fails to Provide Nursing Care for Disabled Children
CALIFORNIA STATE: Summary Judgment in Univ. Fees Suit Affirmed
CANADA: Non-Unionized Federal Employees' Class Action Underway
CERTAINTEED CORP: Court Limits Scope of Discovery in "Wetzel"
CHAMPION PETFOODS: Faces Class Action Over Misrepresented Product

CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces "Jorge" Suit in S.D. New York
CHINA AGRITECH: Foley & Lardner Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling
CHINA AGRITECH: Holland & Knight Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling
CHINA AGRITECH: Ogletree Deakins Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling
CHINA AGRITECH: Ropes & Gray Discusses Supreme Court Ruling

CHINA AGRITECH: Troutman Sanders Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling
COMMERCEHUB INC: Hearing on Preliminary Injunction Bid Dropped
DALLAS COWBOYS: Cheerleader Files FLSA Class Action in Texas
DENVER, CO: March 2019 Trial Set in Homeless Sweeps Class Action
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Asks Court to Reconsider Ruling

DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
EAGLEVILLE HOSPITAL: Court OKs Final Approval of $520K FLSA Deal
ED'S LANDSCAPES: Landscaper Action to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Unit Faces Suit over Sales of Zetia(R) Drug
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Bid for Relief from Dismissal Order Denied

ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Underway in Mississippi PERS Suit
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: "Makris" Suit Remains Pending in Canada
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss "Bier" Suit Underway
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: "Pelletier" Suit Still Ongoing
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: AMS Facing Mesh Suit in Australia

EPIC SYSTEMS: Supreme Court Ruling to Impact Employee Contracts
ETRADE FINANCIAL: Faces "Jorge" Suit in S.D. New York
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: 9th Cir. Rejects FCRA Putative Class Action
FAMOUS DAVE'S RIBS: "Broad" to Recover Illegally-Withheld Tips
FEDERAL SIGNAL: Hearing Loss Litigation Underway

FORTERRA INC: IPO Securities Suit Gets New Judge
FOX NEWS: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
GIRARD, OH: Seeks Dismissal of Speed Camera Ticket Class Action
GOOGLE LLC: Bid to Enjoin Suspension of AdWords Accounts Denied
GREGORYS COFFEE: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York

HOME OWNERS: Denial of Class Arbitration in "Robinson" Affirmed
I-FORTUNE COOKIE: "Chauca" Suit Seeks Retained Tips, Overtime Pay
ICOT HEARING: Consumers File TCPA Class Action in Pennsylvania
IQOR: Averts Call Center Employees' Wage-and-Hour Class Action
ISRAEL: Police Ordered to Freeze Speed Camera Ticket Issuance

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Talcum Powder Class Action
JUUL LABS INC: "Colgate" Disputes Vape Products Safety
KIA MOTORS: Recalls 507,000 Vehicles in U.S. Over Air Bag Issues
LANNETT CO: Bid to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Underway
MARYLAND: Faces Class Action Over Ban on Bump Stocks

MDL 2084: Bid to Certify AndroGel(R) Suit Pending
MDL 2521: $100 Million Accord Awaits Final Court Okay
MDL 2545: 1,300 Testosterone Cases vs. Units Pending as of May 1
MDL 2580: Discovery Underway in OPANA(R) Purchasers' Cases
MDL 2724: Bid to Stay Generic Pricing Suit Denied

MDL 2084: Cass County Mulls Joining Opioid Crisis Litigation
MDL 2804: March 2019 Trial Set for 3 Opioid Cases
MISSISSIPPI FARM: "Cook" Seeks Back Pay, Benefits, Tax Refunds
MICROSOFT CORP: Continues to Defend Women Workers' Bias Suit
MIDDLE COUNTRY: Faces "Babcock" Suit in E.D. New York

MIDLAND FUNDING: Faces "Wojcik" Suit in E.D. New York
MORGAN'S HOTEL: NY App. Div. Affirms Summary Judgment in "Ahmed"
MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Faces Class Action Over Wastewater Violations
NATURAL IMMUNOGENICS: Malpractice Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
NORTH DAKOTA: Ex-Women Hockey Players File Discrimination Suit

OUR LADY OF LOURDES: Denial of Nurse Class Certification Flipped
PEPSICO INC: Faces "Toribio" Suit in E.D. New York
PERRIGO COMPANY: Roofers' Pension Fund Suit Underway
PLAZA SERVICES: Faces "Allen" Suit in N.D. Georgia
QDOBA RESTAURANT: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York

REV GROUP: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey
RICK BUTLER: Faces Sexual Abuse Class Action, Denies Allegations
RIPPLE LABS: Faces Another Class Action Over XRP Token
RIPPLE LABS: Taps Ex-SEC Chair to Represent Firm in Class Action
SAFEMARK SYSTEMS: Gorss Motels Appeals Ruling to Eleventh Circuit

SNAP: Court Allows Shareholders' Lawsuit Over IPO to Proceed
STAFFMARK HOLDINGS: Judge Approves Wage Class Action Settlement
SPRINT CORP: Settles Sales Employees' Class Action for $3.65MM
STUBHUB: Court Allows Class Action Over Ticket Fees to Proceed
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Oct. 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

TESLA MOTORS: Opposes New State Labor Rule Amid Class Action
TESLA MOTORS: Shareholder Sues Over Elon Musk's Payment Package
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court OKs Modification to FCRA Suit Settlement
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Medicaid Expansion
UNITED STATES: Bid to Dismiss Ruling Flood-Control Suit Deferred

UNITED STATES: Suit Seeks Mandatory Use of Soccer Head Gear
VECTRUS INC: Continues to Defend Employment Class Suit in Wash.
VIVINT SOLAR: Arbitration in Calif. Suit Administered by JAMS
VIVINT SOLAR: Settlement Reached in Alameda County Class Suit
WESTAR ENERGY: Parties to Merger-Related Suits Agree to Dismiss

WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Faces "Rushing" Suit in E.D. Kentucky
YNAP CORP: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York
ZILLOW GROUP: Bid to Drop Consolidated Amended Complaint Underway

* SAN Calls for Inclusion of Class Action Protocol in Court Rules





                            *********


3M CO: Bair Hugger-Related Suit in Canada Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018, that the company continues to defend itself in a putative
class action suit filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
in connection to Bair Hugger(TM).

In June 2016, the Company was served with a putative class action
filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for all Canadian
residents who underwent various joint arthroplasty,
cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later developed surgical
site infections due to the use of the Bair Hugger(TM) patient
warming system. The representative plaintiff seeks relief
(including punitive damages) under Canadian law based on theories
similar to those asserted in the MDL.

No liability has been recorded for the Bair Hugger(TM) litigation
because the Company believes that any such liability is not
probable and estimable at this time.

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

3M is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and
marketer of a wide variety of products and services. The company
is based in St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M CO: Bair Hugger Suits by 4,370 Plaintiffs Pending at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018, that the Company is a named defendant in lawsuits involving
approximately 4,370 plaintiffs (compared to approximately 4,270
plaintiffs at December 31, 2017) as of the end of March 2018.

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

The complaints seek damages and other relief based on theories of
strict liability, negligence, breach of express and implied
warranties, failure to warn, design and manufacturing defect,
fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation/concealment, unjust
enrichment, and violations of various state consumer fraud,
deceptive or unlawful trade practices and/or false advertising
acts. One case, from the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee is a putative nationwide class action.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) granted
the plaintiffs' motion to transfer and consolidate all cases
pending in federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota to be managed in a multi-district
proceeding during the pre-trial phase of the litigation. In 2017,
the U.S. District Court and the Minnesota state courts denied the
plaintiffs' motions to amend their complaints to add claims for
punitive damages.

At a joint hearing before the U.S. District Court and the
Minnesota State court, on the parties' motion to exclude each
other's experts, and 3M's motion for summary judgment with
respect to general causation, the federal court did not exclude
the plaintiffs' experts and denied 3M's motion for summary
judgment on general causation.

In January 2018, the state court, in hearing the same arguments,
excluded plaintiffs' experts and granted 3M's motion for summary
judgment on general causation, dismissing all 61 cases pending
before the state court in Minnesota.

Plaintiffs have appealed that ruling and the state court's
punitive damages ruling. In April 2018, the federal court
partially granted 3M's motion for summary judgment in the first
bellwether case, leaving for trial a claim for strict liability
based upon design defect. The court dismissed the plaintiff's
claims for negligence, failure to warn, and common law and
statutory fraud. The trial in the first bellwether case is
scheduled to begin in May 2018.

3M is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and
marketer of a wide variety of products and services. The company
is based in St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M CO: Faces 3M Scotchgard-Related Suit
---------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018, that the company is facing a 12-count class action suit
related to the use of 3M Scotchgard.

In December 2017, eight plaintiffs filed a 12-count class action
against 3M, Wolverine World Wide and Waste Management, Inc.,
alleging negligence, trespass, intentional and negligent
infliction of emotional distress, battery, products liability,
public and private nuisance, fraudulent concealment, and unjust
enrichment. Each count was filed against each defendant.

The action arises from Wolverine's allegedly improper disposal of
materials and wastes related to their shoe manufacturing
operations. Plaintiffs allege Wolverine used 3M Scotchgard in its
manufacturing process and that chemicals from 3M's product have
contaminated the environment after being disposed of near
drinking water sources.

3M is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and
marketer of a wide variety of products and services. The company
is based in St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M CO: Faces 17 Suits Related to Aqueous Film Forming Foam
----------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018, that the company is defending against 17 putative class
action and other lawsuits in connection to Aqueous Film Forming
Foam.

3M manufactured and marketed Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) for
use in firefighting at airports and military bases from
approximately 1963 to 2000. As of March 31, 2018, 17 putative
class action and other lawsuits have been filed against 3M and
other defendants in various state and federal courts in Colorado,
Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania where current or former
airports or military bases are or were located.

In these cases, plaintiffs typically allege that certain PFCs
used in AFFF contaminated the soil and groundwater where AFFF was
used and seek damages for loss of use and enjoyment of
properties, diminished property values, investigation costs,
remediation costs, and in some cases, funds for medical
monitoring. Several companies have been sued along with 3M,
including Ansul Co. (acquired by Tyco, Inc.), Angus Fire, Buckeye
Fire Protection Co., Chemguard, National Foam, Inc., United
Technologies Corp.

3M is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and
marketer of a wide variety of products and services. The company
is based in St. Paul, Minnesota.


AIR METHODS: Class Action Over High Air Ambulance Charges Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Tozzi, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that when
three-year-old West Cox's fever hit 107 degrees, doctors called a
helicopter.

Hours earlier, the toddler, who'd been prescribed an antibiotic
for a suspected ear infection, was at home in Princeton, West
Virginia, watching cartoons and eating chips and salsa.  Then,
during a nap, he started to have convulsions, and his mother,
Tabitha Cox, a physician's assistant, drove him to the emergency
room, stripped to his shorts to cool.

Tabitha remembers the triage nurse's eyes widening when she took
West's temperature at Princeton Community Hospital, the only
medical center in the small town on the southern edge of the
state.  Nurses covered him in ice packs to try to keep his
temperature down.

Patients running a fever that high can suffer permanent brain
damage.  Within an hour of his arrival at the emergency room, an
air ambulance was on the way to take West to the CAMC Women and
Children's Hospital in Charleston.  Flying would cut a 90-minute
drive in half.

During four nights in the pediatric intensive-care unit, West
recovered from apparent encephalitis.  Three years later, his
parents are still reckoning with the aftermath of his 76-mile
flight: a bill for $45,930 from for-profit helicopter operator
Air Methods.

At the heart of the dispute is a gap between what insurance will
pay for the flight and what Air Methods says it must charge to
keep flying. Michael Cox, West's father and a track coach at
Concord University, had health coverage through a plan for public
employees.  It paid $6,704 -- the amount, it says, Medicare would
have paid for the trip.

Air Methods billed the family for the rest.

The U.S. air-ambulance fleet has doubled in size in the past 15
years to nearly 900 helicopters making 300,000 flights annually,
according to data compiled by Ira Blumen, a professor of
emergency medicine and director of University of Chicago
Aeromedical Network.

That rapid growth has made stories such as the Cox family's more
common.  The air-ambulance industry says reimbursements from U.S.
government health programs, including Medicare and Medicaid,
don't cover their expenses. Operators say they thus must ask
others to pay more -- and when health plans balk, patients get
stuck with the tab.

"I was angry and I felt like we were being taken advantage of,"
said Tabitha Cox. T he family sued Air Methods in August 2017,
seeking certification for a class-action lawsuit against the
company on behalf of other patients in West Virginia who received
similar bills.

Air Methods has defended its billing and disputed other
allegations in the complaint in court filings. The case is
pending.

"The fundamental problem is that the current reimbursement rates
by Medicare, Medicaid, and some of the private insurance
companies fall well short of what it actually costs to provide
this lifesaving service," Air Methods Executive Vice President
JaeLynn Williams said in an interview.  She declined to comment
on specific patients' cases.

Favorable treatment under federal law means air-ambulance
companies, unlike their counterparts on the ground, have few
restrictions on what they can charge for their services.  Through
a quirk of the 1978 Airline Deregulation Act, air-ambulance
operators are considered air carriers -- similar to Delta Air
Lines or American Airlines -- and states have no power to put in
place their own curbs.

Prices for emergency medical flights have increased dramatically,
as air-ambulance operators expanded their networks and responded
to a wider set of emergencies, including traumas, strokes and
heart attacks.

The median charge to Medicare for a medical helicopter flight
more than doubled to almost $30,000 in 2014, from $14,000 in
2010, according to a report last year by the U.S. Government
Accountability Office.  Air Methods' average charge ballooned,
from $13,000 in 2007 to $49,800 in 2016, the GAO said. Medicare,
the federal health program for people 65 and older, pays only a
fraction of billed charges; Medicaid, the state-federal program
for the poor, pays even less.

Air-ambulance operators' special legal status has helped them
thwart efforts to control their rates.  West Virginia's
legislature passed a law in 2016 capping what its employee-health
plan -- which covered West Cox -- and its worker-compensation
program would pay for air ambulances.  Another company, Air Evac
EMS, successfully challenged the caps in federal court.  A judge
ruled that the caps were pre-empted by the federal deregulation
law and blocked the state from enforcing them. West Virginia has
appealed the ruling.

The industry has used similar arguments to fight regulation in
other states, winning cases in North Carolina, North Dakota,
Texas and Wyoming.  A lawsuit recently filed in New Mexico
challenges the state's prohibition on balance billing on the same
grounds.

Wealthy investors lured by the industry's rapid growth have
acquired many of the biggest air-ambulance operators, leaving
control of the business in the hands of private-equity groups.
American Securities LLC bought Air Methods for $2.5 billion in
March 2017.  Rival Air Medical Group Holdings, which includes Air
Evac and several other brands, has been owned by New York
private-equity firm KKR & Co. LP since 2015.  Two-thirds of
medical helicopters operating in 2015 belonged to three for-
profit providers, the GAO said in its report.

Amy Harsch, a managing director at American Securities, declined
to comment. Kristi Huller, a spokeswoman for KKR, declined to
comment.

Seth Myers, president of Air Evac, said that his company loses
money on patients covered by Medicaid and Medicare, as well as
those with no insurance.  That's about 75 percent of the people
it flies.

"I fly people based on need, when a physician calls or when an
ambulance calls," he said.  "We don't know for days whether a
person has the ability to pay."

According to a 2017 report commissioned by the Association of Air
Medical Services, an industry trade group, the typical cost per
flight was $10,199 in 2015, and Medicare paid only 59 percent
that.  Air-medical operators back U.S. legislation proposed by
Senator Dean Heller of Nevada and Representative Jackie Walorski
of Indiana, both Republicans, that would boost reimbursements by
as much as 20 percent over three years.  The bill would also have
Medicare collect cost data from air-ambulance companies and use
it to update rates to reflect "the actual costs of providing air
ambulance services."  Both versions have co-sponsors from both
parties.

For people with private insurance, short flights in an air
ambulance are often followed by long battles over the bill.

In 2015, Erin Roth's father, Michael, was flown 18 miles by
helicopter from Good Samaritan Hospital in Suffern, New York, to
Westchester Medical Center in White Plains, after he collapsed on
a work site and hit his head.

Roth, who was 55, died from his injury.  After workers-
compensation insurance refused to cover the flight, his Aetna
Inc. medical plan paid $4,370, and Air Methods' subsidiary, Rocky
Mountain Holdings LLC, sent the family a bill for $34,495. The
air-ambulance company put a lien on Roth's estate, preventing
Erin from selling her father's house. The dispute dragged on for
two years, until a TV reporter Roth contacted looked into it, and
Aetna paid the rest of the claim.

"It was just kind of like a black cloud that was over my head the
whole time," she said.

Air Methods and Aetna declined to comment on Roth's situation.

Williams, Air Methods' executive vice president, said the company
has hired "nearly 25" patient advocates since 2016 to "help them
navigate the very complex process with their insurers, and we
help them get the payments for these lifesaving critical
emergency services that they're entitled to."

The industry says insurers put patients in the middle. "We need
to hold the insurers' feet to the fire to say we need a
reasonable rate," said Myers, the Air Evac executive. He said
health plans often won't agree to network contracts that could
lower costs. He declined to say how large in-network discounts
are, citing nondisclosure agreements.

Maximize Revenue
Consumer groups and insurers counter that air-ambulance companies
strategically stay out of health-plan networks to maximize
revenue.

In response to a complaint filed with the state insurance
commissioner by a West Virginia consumer last year, insurer
Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield wrote that it tried to negotiate
a contract with Air Methods, but the company "refuses to discount
its services by more than 3% of its total charge."  The consumer
was appealing a $51,209 bill for his daughter's medical flight,
of which Highmark paid $10,571.

Williams, the Air Methods executive, declined to comment on what
discounts the company offers insurers, but she said it is in
"active negotiation" with about a dozen insurers nationally.

"Air Methods is 100 percent committed to going in-network," she
said.

Air-ambulance providers are "using consumers as leverage with the
insurance companies," said Betsy Imholz, director of special
projects at Consumers Union, who helped write a report critical
of the industry. Patients are "terrified" when they receive a
five-figure bill for an air ambulance and press insurers to pay
more, she said.

"I think there is, frankly, in many cases, price gouging going
on," Imholz said.

When air travel was deregulated, the air-ambulance business was
in its infancy.  A few dozen medical helicopters, mostly operated
by hospitals, were in use in the early 1980s, according to data
compiled by Blumen, the University of Chicago emergency-medicine
professor.

Then, in 2002, a new Medicare payment formula "effectively raised
the payment amounts for air ambulance service," according to the
GAO.  At the same time, new treatments for strokes and heart
attacks expanded the number of patients who could survive such
episodes if medics got to them sooner.  As rural hospitals
closed, air ambulances became lifelines for remote communities.

The number of aircraft grew faster than the number of patients
flown.  In the 1990s, each helicopter flew about 600 patients a
year, on average, according to Blumen's data.  That's fallen to
about 350 in the current decade, spreading the expense of keeping
each helicopter at the ready among a smaller pool of patients.

While adding helicopters has expanded the reach of emergency
care, "there are fewer and fewer patients that are having to pay
higher and higher charges in order to facilitate this increase in
access," Aaron D. Todd, chief executive officer of Air Methods,
said on an earnings call in May of 2015, before the company was
taken private.  "If you ask me personally, do we need 900 air
medical helicopters to serve this country, I'd say probably not,"
he said.

Despite the apparent glut, air-ambulance operators are
profitable.  Air Methods had an average annual profit margin of
9.1 percent from 2012 to 2016.  Over the same period, companies
in the S&P 500 Health Care Providers & Services index had margins
of 7.9 percent, on average.  PHI, a helicopter company that
operates both medical flights and transports for oil and gas
drillers, reported average operating margins of 15.7 percent from
2014 to 2017 in its medical segment, compared to 10.4 percent for
the benchmark index in the same period.

Air Methods declined to comment on its current profitability or
to share financial details as a private company.

If there are too many helicopters for the number of patients who
need them, market forces should force less-efficient operators
out of business, said Hank Perritt, a professor at the Chicago-
Kent College of Law who has studied the industry.

Montana Senator Jon Tester, a Democrat, has introduced
legislation that would roll back the special status of air-
ambulance companies.  A Federal Aviation Administration
reauthorization bill passed by the House in April would make
medical services provided by air ambulances subject to state
regulation.

In West Virginia, the Cox family went through two appeals with
their health plan.  After they retained a lawyer, Air Methods
offered to reduce their balance to $10,000 on reviewing their tax
returns, bank statements, pay stubs, and a list of assets. The
family decided to sue instead.

"I felt like they were screening us to see just how much money
they could get out of us," Tabitha Cox said.  "I think about
people that really struggle -- single moms, people that don't
have the financial blessings that we have.  Bottom line, it's
just not fair." [GN]


ALLEN, TX: Appeals Clerk Seeks Docketing Statement in "Watson"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Spisak, clerk of the Court of Appeals, Second District of
Texas, notified the parties that the Appellate Court has not
received a docketing statement in the appellate case captioned
James H. Watson and Others Similarly Situated v. City of Allen,
City of Amarillo, City of Arlington, City of Austin, City of
Balch Springs, City of Balcones Heights, City of Bastrop, City of
Baytown, City of Bedford, City of Burleson, City of Cedar Hill,
City of Conroe, City of Coppell, City of Corpus Christi, City of
Dallas, City of Denton, City of Duncanville, City of El Paso,
City of Elgin, City of Farmers Branch, City of Fort Worth, City
of Frisco, City of Garland, City of Grand Prairie, City of Haltom
City, City of Humble, City of Hurst, et al., Case No. 02-18-
00151-CV, in the Court of Appeals, Second District of Texas,

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the putative
class action challenges the use of red light cameras within Texas
and, more specifically, Chapter 707 of the Texas Transportation
Code, which is the legislation authorizing such cameras.

The lower court case is styled James H. Watson and Others
Similarly Situated v. City of Allen, City of Amarillo, City of
Arlington, City of Austin, City of Balch Springs, City of
Balcones Heights, City of Bastrop, City of Baytown, City of
Bedford, City of Burleson, City of Cedar Hill, City of Conroe,
City of Coppell, City of Corpus Christi, City of Dallas, City of
Denton, City of Duncanville, City of El Paso, City of Elgin, City
of Farmers Branch, City of Fort Worth, City of Frisco, City of
Garland, City of Grand Prairie, City of Haltom City, City of
Humble, City of Hurst, et al., Case No. 153-298996-18.

Therefore, the Clerk noted, the Appellant was directed to file a
docketing statement no later than, May 14, 2018, or as soon as
practicable thereafter.  If the Appellant cannot file a complete
docketing statement at that time for good cause, the Appellant is
directed to send a letter to the Clerk explaining the reasons for
not timely filing the statement and when the Appellant expects to
file the statement.

At or before the time for perfecting the appeal, the Appellant
must request in writing that the official reporter prepare the
reporter's record, according to the Notice.  The request must
designate the exhibits to be included.  A request to the court
reporter must also designate the portions of the proceedings to
be included.  The Appellant must also file a copy of this request
with the trial court clerk.[BN]

Plaintiff James H. Watson is represented by:

          Russell J. Bowman, Esq.
          BOWMAN & STELLA, P.C.
          800 West Airport Frwy., Suite 860
          Irving, TX 75062
          Telephone: (214) 922-0220
          E-mail: russelljbowman@sbcglobal.net

Defendant City of Allen, Texas, is represented by:

          Victoria W. Thomas, Esq.
          NICHOLS, JACKSON, DILLARD, HAGER & SMITH LLP
          500 N Akard St.
          Dallas, TX 75201-3302
          Telephone: (214) 965-9900
          E-mail: vthomas@njdhs.com

Defendant City of Bedford, Texas, is represented by:

          Matthew Butler, Esq.
          BOYLE & LOWRY, L.L.P.
          4201 Wingren, Suite 108
          Irving, TX 75062
          Telephone: (972) 650-7100
          E-mail: mbutler@boyle-lowry.com

Defendant City of Austin, Texas, is represented by:

          Lynn E. Carter, Esq.
          Brandon W. Carr, Esq.
          CITY OF AUSTIN LAW DEPARTMENT
          PO Box 1546
          Austin, TX 78767-1546
          Telephone: (512) 974-2268
          E-mail: Lynn.carter@austintexas.gov
                  Brandon.carr@austintexas.gov

Defendant City of Plano, Texas, is represented by:

          Timothy A. Dunn, Esq.
          ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
          P.O. Box 860358
          Plano, TX 75086-0358
          Telephone: (972) 941-7125
          E-mail: timothyd@plano.gov

Defendant City of Little Elm, Texas, and City of Roanoke, Texas,
are represented by:

          Edwin P. Voss, Jr., Esq.
          BROWN & HOFMEISTER, L.L.P.
          740 E. Campbell Rd., Suite 800
          Richardson, TX 75081
          Telephone: (214) 747-6100
          E-mail: evoss@bhlaw.net

Defendant City of Frisco, Texas, is represented by:

          Charles J. Crawford, Esq.
          Richard Abernathy, Esq.
          ABERNATHY, ROEDER, BOYD & HULLETT, P.C.
          1700 Redbud Blvd., Suite 300
          McKinney, TX 75069
          Telephone: (214) 544-4000
          E-mail: ccrawford@abernathy-law.com
                  rabernathy@abemathy-law.com


Defendant City of Arlington, Texas, is represented by:

          Robert H. Fugate, Esq.
          CITY OF ARLINGTON, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          P.O. Box 90231
          Arlington, TX 76004-3231
          Telephone: (817) 459-6878

Defendant City of League City, Texas, is represented by:

          Andrew M. Edison, Esq.
          EDISON MCDOWELL & HETHERINGTON LLP
          1001 Fannin St., Suite 2700
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 337-5581
          E-mail: andrew.edison@emhllp.com

Defendant City of Garland, Texas, is represented by:

          Kurt Compton Banowsky, Esq.
          CITY OF GARLAND
          200 N 5th St., 4th Floor
          Garland, TX 75040-6314
          Telephone: (972) 205-2380

Defendant City of Corpus Christi, Texas, is represented by:

          M. Michael Meyer, Esq.
          CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
          P.O. Box 9277
          Corpus Christi, TX 78469-9277
          Telephone: (281) 635-5551

Defendant City of Fort Worth, Texas, is represented by:

          Laetitia Coleman Brown, Esq.
          ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
          1000 Throckmorton Street
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 392-6639
          E-mail: laetitia.brown@fortworthtexas.gov

Defendant City of Southlake, Texas, is represented by:

          George A. Staples, Jr., Esq.
          TAYLOR OLSON ADKINS SRALLA & ELAM LLP
          6000 Western Pl., Suite 200
          Fort Worth, TX 76107-4684
          Telephone: (817) 332-2580
          E-mail: gstaples@toase.com

Defendant Texas is represented by:

          Anne Marie Mackin, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          PO Box 12548
          Austin, TX 78711-2548
          Telephone: (512) 475-4074
          E-mail: anna.mackin@oag.texas.gov

Defendant City of Dallas, Texas, is represented by:

          Stacy Jordan Rodriguez, Esq.
          DALLAS CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          1500 Marilla Street, 7DN
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 670-3476


AMERICAN PROFIT: "Cohn" Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------
Jodi Cohn, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. American Profit Recovery, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02457, (E.D. N.Y., April 26, 2018),
seeks damages, attorneys' fees, costs together with other relief
for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Cohn incurred a debt with Grady Animal Hospital for $341.10 where
she fell behind on payments. Said debt was assigned to American
Profit Recovery for collection. Cohn already filed a Chapter 7
Voluntary Petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court and was
granted a complete discharge of the subject debt. Despite this,
Defendant continued to attempt to collect the debt. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
      BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel: (516) 203-7600
      Fax: (516) 706-5055
      Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


AMERICAN VANGUARD: "Abad Castillo" and "Marquinez" Suits Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Vanguard Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend
itself in the lawsuits by Abad Castillo and Marquinez.

On or about May 31, 2012, two cases (captioned Abad Castillo and
Marquinez) were filed with the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware (USDC DE No. 1:12-CV-00695-LPS)
involving claims for physical injury arising from alleged
exposure to DBCP over the course of the late 1960's through the
mid-1980's on behalf of 2,700 banana plantation workers from
Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, and Panama.

Defendant Dole brought a motion to dismiss 22 plaintiffs from
Abad Castillo on the ground that they were parties in cases that
had been filed by HendlerLaw, P.C. in Louisiana. On September 19,
2013, the appeals court held that 14 of the 22 plaintiffs should
be dismissed. On May 27, 2014, the district court granted Dole's
motion to dismiss the matter without prejudice on the ground that
the applicable statute of limitations had expired in 1995.

Then, on August 5, 2014, the parties stipulated to summary
judgment in favor of defendants (on the same ground as the
earlier motion) and the court entered judgment in the matter.
Plaintiffs were given an opportunity to appeal; however, only 57
of the 2,700 actually entered an appeal. Thus, only 57 plaintiffs
remain in the action. On or about June 18, 2017, the Third
Circuit Court submitted a certified question of law to the
Delaware Supreme Court on the question of when the tolling period
ended.

The Delaware Supreme Court heard oral argument on January 17,
2018 and, on March 15, 2018 ruled on the matter, finding that
federal court dismissal in 1995 on the grounds of forum non
conveniens did not end class action tolling, and that such
tolling ended when class action certification was denied in Texas
state court in June 2010. This ruling has been transmitted to the
Third Circuit Court.

American Vanguard said, "Presumably, then, the litigation will
proceed at the district court. The Company believes that a loss
is neither probable nor reasonably estimable in these matters and
has not recorded a loss contingency."

American Vanguard Corporation, through its subsidiaries,
develops, manufactures, and markets specialty chemicals for
agricultural, commercial, and consumer uses in the United States
and internationally. The company is based in Newport Beach,
California.


APPLE INC: "Brody" Product Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Ysroel Brody, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-00080, (E.D. N.Y., January 5, 2018), was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on April 25, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-02461.

Plaintiffs seeks injunctive relief and damages arising from
Defendant's unlawful failure to inform consumers that updating
their iPhone 6, 6S, SE or 7 to iOS 10.2.1 (and/or later to iOS
11.2) would dramatically and artificially reduce the performance
of these devices, restitution of illegally acquired money,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, as well as prejudgment and
post-judgment interest and such other and further relief
resulting from negligent misrepresentation and/or fraudulent
omission.

Apple also failed to inform consumers that phone performance
would be restored by simply replacing the phone's lithium-ion
battery, a much cheaper solution than buying a new phone.

Brody owns an iPhone 6, which, after upgrading updates issued and
downloaded onto his phone, resulted in delayed response in
launching applications, severe delays in typing functions and
other delays and malfunctions.

Defendant is a manufacturer of smartphones under the trade name
"iPhone." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
      Jay I. Brody, Esq.
      KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
      747 Chestnut Ridge Road
      Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
      Tel: (845) 356-2570
      Email: jbrody@kgglaw.com
             ggraifman@kgglaw.com


APPLE INC: "LaNasa" Product Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Alfred LaNasa, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-17878, (E.D. La., December 28, 2017), was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on April 25, 2018 under Case No. 18-cv-02468.

LaNasa seeks injunctive relief and damages arising from
Defendant's unlawful failure to inform consumers that updating
their iPhone 6, 6S, SE or 7 to iOS 10.2.1 (and/or later to iOS
11.2) would dramatically and artificially reduce the performance
of these devices, restitution of illegally acquired money,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, as well as prejudgment and
post-judgment interest and such other and further relief
resulting from negligent misrepresentation and/or fraudulent
omission.

Apple also failed to inform consumers that phone performance
would be restored by simply replacing the phone's lithium-ion
battery, a much cheaper solution than buying a new phone.

Defendant is a manufacturer of smartphones under the trade name
"iPhone." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      L. Kirstine Rogers, Esq.
      Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
      STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN
      12720 Hillcrest Road - Suite 1045
      Dallas, TX 75230
      Telephone: (972) 387-4040
      Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
      Email: krogers@stecklerlaw.com
             bruce@stecklerlaw.com

Apple Inc. is represented by:

      Quentin F. Urquhart, Jr.
      Matthew J. Averill, Esq.
      IRWIN FRITCHIE URQUHART & MOORE LLC
      400 Poydras Street, Suite 2700
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Tel: (504) 310-2100
      Fax: (504) 310-2101
      Email: qurquhart@irwinllc.com
             maverill@irwinllc.com


APPLE INC: "Mallh" Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Victor Mallh, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-00051, (E.D. N.Y., January 4, 2018), was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on April 25, 2018 under Case No. 18-cv-02462.

Mallh seeks redress for Apple's failure to warn iPhone SE, iPhone
6, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, iPhone 7, and iPhone 7 Plus users
that certain iOS updates could negatively and significantly
impact iPhone performance. Apple falsely represented to consumers
that such updates would increase iPhone performance.

Defendant is a manufacturer of smartphones under the trade name
"iPhone." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory Joseph Allen, Esq.
      120 W Wilson Ave #1135
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Tel: (203) 535-4636
      Fax: (301) 490-7913
      Email: greg@gjallenlaw.com

             - and -

      John W. Hermina, Esq.
      HERMINA LAW GROUP
      8327 Cherry Lane
      Laurel, MD 20707
      Tel: (301) 206-3166
      Fax: (301) 490-7913
      Email: law@herminalaw.com

Apple Inc. is represented by:

      Jillian Nicole London, Esq.
      GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP (Los Angeles)
      333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4600
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (213) 229-7671
      Fax: (213) 229-6671
      Email: jlondon@gibsondunn.com


ARKEMA INC: To Appeal Class Cert. Order in "Carter" to 6th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Arkema, Inc., and Arkema Inc. Retirement Benefits Plan
petition the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
for permission to appeal an April 3, 2018 Order entered by the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky in the
lawsuit titled ROGER D. CARTER, EDDIE DEAN HEWITT, DAVID WAYNE
WARREN, RICKY LYNN WOODS, AND A CLASS OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. ARKEMA, INC. AND ARKEMA INC. RETIREMENT BENEFITS
PLAN, Case No. 3:13-cv-01241.

The Defendants-Petitioners contend that they should be permitted
to appeal because the definition of the subclasses certified by
the District Court are overbroad and include as class members
participants in a different pension plan than the Named
Plaintiffs.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon.
Judge Joseph H. McKinley entered an order granting certification
of two subclasses:

   "[1] all participants in the Arkema, Inc. Retirement Benefits
   Plan, at any time from January 1, 1988 to the present, who
   were employed by Arkema, Inc. or its predecessors at Arkema's
   Carrollton, Kentucky plant, and whose initial service dates
   were "adjusted" to the first day of the month next following
   their attainment of 25 years of age"; and

   "[2] all participants in the Arkema, Inc. Retirement Benefits
   Plan, at any time from January 1, 1988 to the present, who
   were employed by Arkema, Inc. or its predecessors at Arkema's
   Carrollton, Kentucky plant, and who are eligible (or may
   become eligible) for the Rule of 85 due to termination of
   employment after reaching the age of 55 and 30 years of
   service".

The Court said, "Subclass 1 is certified as to Count I of the
amended complaint, and Subclass 2 is certified as to Count II of
the amended complaint. Rule 23(c)(2)(A) states that the Court may
direct appropriate notice to a class but is not required to do
so. Neither party has asked the Court to direct notice to the
subclass members. Therefore, the Court will not direct notice to
the subclasses at this time. Rule 23(g)(1) requires the Court to
appoint class counsel. The Court must consider the work counsel
has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the
action, counsel's experience in handling class actions, counsel's
knowledge of the applicable law, and the resources counsel will
commit to representing the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A).
The Court may also consider counsel's ability to fairly and
adequately represent the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(g)(1)(B). David Leightty, counsel for the plaintiffs has
provided his resume to the Court, and the Court is satisfied that
he, along with Alison Messex, meet the requirements of Rule
23(g)(1). Therefore, the Court appoints them as counsel for the
class."

The purported class action asserts claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

The case involves the pension rights of former employees, who
worked at M&T Chemical Inc.'s facility in Carrolton, Kentucky.
Plaintiffs Roger Carter, Eddie Hewitt, David Warren, and Ricky
Woods are all former hourly employees of M&T, who began their
employment at M&T between 1976 and 1979 and participated in the
M&T Chemicals, Inc. General Pension Plan for Hourly
Employees.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Respondents are represented by:

          David Leightty, Esq.
          Alison Messex, Esq.
          PRIDDY, CUTLER, NAAKE & MEADE, PLLC
          2303 River Road, Suite 300
          Louisville, KY 40206
          Telephone: (502) 632-5292
          Facsimile: (502) 632-5293
          E-mail: dleightty@earthlink.net
                  amessex@pcnmlaw.com

The Defendants-Petitioners are represented by:

          Bart L. Greenwald, Esq.
          DUNCAN GALLOWAY EGAN GREENWALD PLLC
          9750 Ormsby Station Road, Suite 210
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 614-6974
          E-mail: bgreenwald@dgeglaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew V. DelDuca, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
          301 Carnegie Center, Suite 400
          Princeton, NJ 08543-5276
          Telephone: (609) 452-0808
          Facsimile: (609) 452-1147
          E-mail: delducam@pepperlaw.com


ATLANTA, GA: Faces Class Action Over Poor Sidewalk Condition
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that three wheelchair users are
suing the city of Atlanta, saying the poor condition of sidewalks
and crosswalks can make it difficult or impossible to get around
in the city.

The lawsuit seeks class action status, saying Atlanta is
violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.  It accuses the
city of a "systemic failure to maintain sidewalks that are
equally accessible to persons with mobility impairments." [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Class Action Against Wodonga Council Won't Go Ahead
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sophie Boyd, writing for Border Mail, reports that a proposed
class action against Wodonga Council has been abandoned after six
weeks of talks, as lawyers discovered there was no legal avenue
to pursue the claim.

Shine Lawyers first floated the idea of a class action in April
after it was revealed Wodonga Council had overcharged ratepayers
by $18 million.

But on June 11 senior solicitor Tristan Gaven said while 300
people expressed interest, the action could not go ahead.

"In this past week we received advice that the legal avenues
available in Victoria for this matter were unavailable in this
case," he said.

"The action is not proceeding purely based on the lack of viable
legal avenues available to the residents of Wodonga."

Wangaratta's John Suta, who was set to conduct the class action
in conjunction with Shine lawyers, could not be contacted for
comment.

When asked why it took six weeks to determine there was no legal
avenue for the claim, Mr Gaven said the "law is complex, and it
quite often takes considerable time to exhaust every possible
legal recourse".

"Legal avenues were being explored prior to the town hall
meeting, however further evidence and advice only became
available after the meeting, which is why we've unfortunately had
to make this decision," he said.

Mr Gaven said they were still looking for a way to "hold council
to account".

"However based on current advice, we thought it prudent to notify
the residents of Wodonga that despite the Ombudsman's report, we
are yet to find a viable legal avenue," he said.

Ahead of the town hall meeting in Albury in May, national special
council with Shine Lawyers Jan Saddler said Wodonga Council had
'a case to answer'.

"These are not complicated issues, in the sense that it's a very
simple straightforward interpretation of the legislation and we
have the benefit of the Ombudsman's report," she said ahead of
the town hall meeting.

Wodonga mayor Anna Speedie said it was "great" to hear.  She said
council was continuing to work with the community, through the
budget process and to implement the Ombudsman's recommendations.

Council chief executive Patience Harrington echoed that council
was working with the community to address the levy. [GN]


B-STOCK SOLUTIONS: "Doerr" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Matthias Doerr, and all others similarly situated, v. B-
Stock Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-80544 (S.D.
Fla., April 26, 2018), seeks to recover monetary damages,
liquidated damages or interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, for
willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant employed Doerr as a customer service representative and
misclassified him as an independent contractor. He worked in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime.
Defendants allegedly failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
his hours worked. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth L. Minerley, Esq.
      Jennifer M. Murillo, Esq.
      MINERLEY FEIN, P.A.
      1200 N. Federal Highway, Suite 420
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Phone: (561) 362-6699
      Fax: (561) 447-9884
      Email: Ken@minerleyfein.com
             Jennifer@minerleyfein.com
             Fileclerk@minerleyfein.com


BABYLON BEAUTY: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Winfield" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Dannine Winfield filed an appeal from the District
Court's memorandum decision and order dated March 14, 2018, and
judgment dated March 15, 2018, in the lawsuit entitled DANNINE
WINFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, ALEXANDRA ALLEN, and ERALDA CARCANI v. BABYLON BEAUTY
SCHOOL OF SMITHTOWN INC., doing business as Long Island Beauty
School and Hair Design Institute, LONG ISLAND BEAUTY SCHOOL,
INC., ANTHONY CIVITANO, SALVATORE D. PAPPACODA, and JOHN DOE
ENTITIES, Fictitious name and number unknown, all conducting
business as Long Island Beauty School and/or Hair Design
Institute, Case No. 13-CV-6289, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.  They brought the
lawsuit on behalf of individuals, who from 2011 to 2014 were
"uncompensated employees of the Defendants in their profit making
personal service businesses."

The appellate case is captioned as Winfield v. Civitano, et al.,
Case No. 18-1132, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Dannine Winfield, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Robert Wisniewski, Esq.
          ROBERT WISNIEWSKI P.C.
          225 Broadway
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 267-2101
          Facsimile: (212) 267-8115
          E-mail: rw@rwapc.com

Defendants-Appellees Anthony Civitano, Babylon Beauty School of
Smithtown Inc., DBA Long Island Beauty School and Hair Design
Institute, Long Island Beauty School, Inc., and Salvatore D.
Pappacoda are represented by:

          William Patrick McLane, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          1 Newark Center
          1085 Raymond Boulevard
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 848-4700
          E-mail: wmclane@littler.com


BANK OF AMERICA: 4th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in "Dwoskin"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, affirmed the
judgment of the District Court granting Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment in the appeals case captioned MATTHEW DWOSKIN;
RANDI DWOSKIN; JENNIFER DECKER; TERESA BUTLER; LINDA CAMPBELL;
LINDA CUADRA; ALFRED FIGLEY; KELLY DILLS; STEFANI DILLS; MICHAEL
WALSH; JENNIFER WALSH; PHILLIP WERTHEIMER; JOANN WOODS; SHAWN
WOODS; KERRIE ZIPPRICH, Plaintiffs-Appellants, SEAN DECKER,
Intervenor/Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Defendant-Appellee, No. 17-1356 (4th Cir.).

The plaintiffs appeal on the grounds that the district court
erred in its application of the Homeowners Protection Act of 1998
(HPA), abused its discretion in managing discovery, and wrongly
granted summary judgment on the state law claims.

The Plaintiffs brought suit against defendant Bank of America
under the Homeowners Protection Act.  They claimed that the bank
failed to make certain required disclosures in connection with
their residential mortgage loans.

The HPA provides, in part, that not later than the date on which
a loan commitment is made for a residential mortgage transaction,
the prospective mortgagee shall provide to the prospective
mortgagor a written notice of certain information regarding
mortgage insurance.

If the Court were to read the HPA that broadly, a bank might
rationally conclude that the safest option is to provide mortgage
insurance disclosures to every potential borrower. Such blanket
disclosures would protect the bank's ability to obtain lender-
paid mortgage insurance (LPMI) and would be unlikely to turn away
potential borrowers if accurately framed as boilerplate with no
implications for the borrowers' loan terms. Yet, as noted above,
the HPA was clearly not intended to create a scheme of LPMI
disclosures with every loan.

In sum, the language and design of 12 U.S.C. Section 4905(c)
reveal a single plausible meaning: banks must provide LPMI
disclosures only when LPMI is a condition of a loan at closing.
Plaintiffs are not entitled to endless discovery to search for
evidence for their claims. In this case, even after extensive and
wide-ranging discovery, extending over fourteen months and
resulting in production of over 88,000 Bank of America documents,
the plaintiffs were unable to refer to record evidence to suggest
that their claim was meritorious or that additional discovery was
likely to provide the evidence they needed.

Instead, the plaintiffs repeatedly point to an e-mail and
declaration from a former Bank of America employee questioning
the No Fee Mortgage Plus loans' advertising based on his
speculation that the interest rates might incorporate the cost of
the waived fees. But a former bank employee with no personal
knowledge of how the rates were set cannot overcome extensive
evidence of how those rates were actually set. Moreover, the
plaintiffs did not identify additional persons for deposition
until the defendant's motion for summary judgment was pending and
the most relevant witnesses had already been deposed.

In light of the speculative nature of the plaintiffs' claims, the
district court was well within its discretion to end the already
protracted discovery process and grant summary judgment to the
defendant.

A full-text copy of the Fourth Circuit's April 19, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9ozxxpn from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: James C. White -- jwhite@ptwfirm.com -- PARRY TYNDALL
WHITE, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellants.

Bradley R. Kutrow -- bkutrow@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS
LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Dhamian Blue -- DAB@BLUELLP.COM -- BLUE LLP, Raleigh,
North Carolina; Richard D. Heideman, Noel J. Nudelman, Tracy
Reichman Kalik, HEIDEMAN NUDELMAN & KALIK P.C., 1146 19th Street,
N.W.,. 5th Floor. Washington, DC 20036, Richard S. Wayne --
Rswayne@strauss-Troy.com -- STRAUSS & TROY, LPA, Cincinnati,
Ohio; Leonard B. Simon -- lsimon@rgrdlaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF
LEONARD B. SIMON, P.C., San Diego, California, for Appellants.

Brian P. Troutman, Wm. Grayson Lambert, Charlotte, North
Carolina, Brian D. Schmalzbach -- bschmalzbach@mcguirewoods.com -
- MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


BATON ROUGE, LA: Faces Class Action Over Public Defense System
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Gyan Jr., writing for The Advocate, reports that a lawsuit
challenging Louisiana's public defense system should be deemed a
class action because tens of thousands of poor people accused of
crimes are at risk in the troubled system that lacks money and
oversight, a Baton Rouge state judge was told on June 12.

Mark Cunningham, who represents the five individual plaintiffs in
the suit, argued to District Judge Todd Hernandez during a class
certification hearing that the risk for people lacking access to
adequate legal counsel is jail time.

"The liberty at stake in this case is the greatest liberty we all
have -- our freedom," Mr. Cunningham said.

"The system is broken.  We know they are at risk," he added of
the state's current and future indigent defendants.

Remy Starns, who represents the named defendants in the suit,
asked Judge Hernandez to deny the class certification motion.
The defendants named in the suit are Gov. John Bel Edwards,
members of the Louisiana Public Defender Board and chief state
Public Defender James Dixon.

Mr. Starns argued, among other things, that the proposed class is
"shockingly broad" and said only the Legislature can address the
funding issue.  Mr. Starns also said the named plaintiffs have
suffered no actual injury but instead complain they are at risk.

Mr. Cunningham replied that such a risk "should not have to be
endured."  The risk, he said, is being assigned an attorney
saddled with an excessive caseload and no money to hire an
investigator or experts.

"They care about their clients but there are not enough hours in
the day," Mr. Cunningham said of public defenders.

Judge Hernandez took the arguments under advisement.

The lawsuit, filed in February 2017 in East Baton Rouge Parish by
a group of nonprofit and private law firms, seeks a court-
appointed monitor to oversee the state's public defense system.

That system relies heavily on criminal fines and fees -- mostly
from traffic tickets -- for its survival.  Funding varies widely
from parish to parish and is subject to the fluctuating number of
tickets issued.

A 1963 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright requires
states to provide lawyers for defendants unable to hire their
own.

Mr. Cunningham argued on June 12 that Louisiana's overburdened
public defenders are essentially "triage" lawyers.

"That's not Gideon's promise," he told Judge Hernandez.  "We're
asking this court to fulfill Gideon's promise."

Mr. Cunningham also argued that "not having money is not an
excuse for a constitutional violation."  He said the Edwards
administration must do a better job of prioritizing its financial
resources.

Mr. Starns pointed out that the governor recently signed into law
a criminal justice reform package called the Justice Reinvestment
Act.

"I take great exception to the suggestion that Gov. Edwards has
done anything wrong here," Mr. Starns told the judge.

Mr. Starns also called Dixon, the state public defender, a
"fantastic public defender."

About $30 million in annual state funding meant to supplement the
revenue from fines and fees has done little to ease bloated
caseloads that stand well above state standards in nearly every
district defender's office, the suit claims.

On average, public defenders in Louisiana handle caseloads that
are double the maximum recommended under state Public Defender
Board standards, the suit says. [GN]


BBX CAPITAL: Class Certification Bid Wins Preliminary Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
BBX Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that the judge has granted preliminary
class certification of a lawsuit against Bluegreen Vacations
Unlimited, Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

BBX Capital Corporation is an investment holding company
investing through its subsidiaries BBX Capital Partners, LLC and
BBX Capital Real Estate Corp. Through its subsidiaries the firm
seeks to make investment in, acquisition, ownership, financing,
development, and management of real estate and real estate
related assets. The company is based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.


BISHOP REHABILITATION: Implements Changes as Part of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
James T. Mulder, writing for Syracuse.com, reports that the owner
of Bishop Rehabilitation & Nursing Center in Syracuse has agreed
to increase staff, reduce the number of residents with bedsores
and make other quality improvements as part of a proposed
settlement of a class action lawsuit.

Details of the settlement were disclosed in papers filed in
Onondaga County State Supreme Court.  A hearing was scheduled for
10:00 a.m. on June 13 before Judge Anthony Paris on a motion to
certify the class, or group of people alleging they were harmed
in the nursing home.  The lawsuit cannot go forward without that
certification.

A class action suit is one in which a group of people who have
suffered similar harm sue as a group and potentially share in any
settlement.

The lawsuit claims the nursing home left residents lying in their
own urine and feces for hours because it did not have enough
staff to care for them.

Clinton Square Operations LLC bought the nursing home at 918
James St. formerly known as James Square in December.  As part of
the settlement, it also agreed to pay $495,000.  If the
settlement is approved, more than $300,000 of that money will go
to class members and the rest will pay for legal and
administrative fees.

The nursing home's previous owners, River Meadows LLC, James
Square Nursing Home Inc. and 918 James Receiver LLC, also named
as defendants in the lawsuit, have not settled and are asking the
court to deny certification.  They have argued certification
should be denied because several individuals have sued the
nursing home and multiple defendants have owned the facility.

Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, a lawyer who filed the class action
lawsuit on behalf of a resident and former resident, said Clinton
Square Operations has been increasing staffing at the nursing
home since taking over in January.  "They inherited a disaster,"
he said.  "The owner wants to make it a safe and good place."

Edward Farbenblum, of Long Island, and his wife, Orly, are the
principals of Clinton Square Operations. They bought the nursing
home for $45 million.  Mr. Farbenblum owns 10 other nursing homes
in the state and has a reputation for turning around troubled
nursing homes.

In a prepared statement, Bishop said it has hired 250 new
employees and has received approval to begin a multi-million
dollar renovation of the facility.

The state Attorney General's Medicaid fraud unit has been
investigating the nursing home for more than a year over patient
care issues.  The AG's office raided the 440-bed facility last
June and seized records as part of the investigation. [GN]


CALIFORNIA: Fails to Provide Nursing Care for Disabled Children
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Coble, Esq., writing for Findlaw.com, reports that
California has approved over 4,000 low-income, medically-fragile
children for in-home nursing care, all paid for by the state's
Medicaid program, Medi-Cal.  But a new lawsuit claims those
children aren't getting the around-the-clock nursing care they
require and are supposed to receive by law.

"The state's failure to arrange for in-home nursing also creates
an enormous strain on families, which in turn can lead to job
loss, broken relationships, and caregiver burnout," according to
plaintiffs' attorney William Leiner.  "Some parents are forced to
face the unfathomable possibility that their children may need to
leave the family home to obtain needed nursing care."

A Dearth of Nurses

According to NBC Bay Area, California's Department of Health Care
Services (DHCS) recently found that home health nurses could only
provide 71 percent of the hours needed to care for sick children
statewide.  Home health care agencies blamed the in-home nursing
shortage on higher pay provided by hospitals.  And the shortage
has had a significant impact on families:

The NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit first exposed in 2016 that
the nursing shortage is taking a toll.  We've spoken to families
who have had to move out of the Bay Area to find nurses, parents
who have had to quit their jobs to stay home full time with their
kids, and children who have been on nursing agency waiting lists
for years.

Around-the-Clock Needs but N Around-the-Clock Care

The lawsuit, which names DHCS and its director Jennifer Kent as
defendants, was filed by the parents of a 7-year-old girl and
5-year-old boy and seeks class action status to represent the
thousands of other children not receiving the nursing care
ordered by their doctors and approved by the agency.  The
children "cannot move, turn, feed, dress, bathe or otherwise take
care of themselves" and require round-the-clock care, according
to the lawsuit. Yet California has "systemically failed to
arrange for these nursing services as mandated by federal law" by
providing only a fraction of the nursing hours promised by the
state and parents are left to "navigate a complex system with
little to no support in obtaining necessary services for their
children."

The plaintiffs are asking a federal judge to order California to
arrange care for the affected children.


CALIFORNIA STATE: Summary Judgment in Univ. Fees Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Two,
affirmed the trial court's judgment granting Defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment in the cases captioned HONORA KELLER, et
al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant and Appellant, Nos.
A147029, A147941 (Cal. App.).

The Plaintiffs appeal the judgment on their breach of contract
claim, contending the court erred in granting summary
adjudication for the defendant and in denying the plaintiffs
summary adjudication on this cause of action.

The Plaintiffs, current and former students at various campuses
within the California State University (CSU) system, filed a
class action lawsuit against defendant the Board of Trustees of
CSU (defendant or Board) alleging that the defendant breached its
contract with students and violated the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing implied in that contract when, having required
the plaintiffs to pay a mandatory State University Fee (fee) or
non-resident tuition for the Fall 2009 academic term at specific
lower amounts, it then increased the amount twice a 10 percent
increase in May 2009 and an additional 20 percent increase in
July 2009.

The trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary
adjudication on the breach of contract claim and granted summary
adjudication for CSU on that cause of action, finding no breach
of the implied contracts between CSU and its students.

In Kashmiri v. Regents of University of California (2007) 156
Cal.App.4th 809, 823-824, the Cal. App. affirmed summary judgment
in favor of students challenging the University of California's
(UC or university) fee increases in 2003. In doing so, the Cal.
App. held that implied-in-fact contracts were created between
students and the university when students accepted the
university's offer of admission, and that contract law applied to
students' claims against the increase in various student fees.
The Court held that UC breached its contracts with students
attending the spring and summer session in 2003 by raising the
educational fees for these terms after the students had received
bills specifying the exact amount to be paid.

The Court reasoned: "Under contract law, the relationship between
the students and University is to be interpreted to protect the
reasonable expectations of the parties at the time the contract
is formed.  Such intent is to be inferred, if possible, solely
from the written provisions of the contract. Language in a
contract must be interpreted as a whole, and in the circumstances
of the case, and cannot be found to be ambiguous in the abstract.
Courts will not strain to create an ambiguity where none exists."

State statutes and regulations govern the operation of CSU and
are incorporated as terms of the implied-in-fact contracts
between CSU and its students. These include the following: The
trustees may by rule require all persons to pay fees for
services, facilities or materials provided by the trustees to
such persons. The trustees may, by rule, provide for the method
of collecting such fees. Defendant has exercised that authority
by enacting regulations governing payment of student fees.

The Plaintiffs rely upon Kashmiri, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th 809, to
assert that an ambiguity on the price issue was created in their
implied contracts when defendant posted and charged a fixed
dollar amount on their online student accounts for Fall 2009,
without including any language explaining that fees for the Fall
2009 term could still change.

Unlike this case, Kashmiri, did not involve any statutes or
regulations governing the amount and timing of fees incorporated
into the terms of the implied contracts.  UC had waived any
arguments concerning its unique status based on its
constitutionally-derived powers and there was no discussion of
statutes or regulations incorporated as contract terms. In
contrast, here Education Code section 89700, subdivision (a)
vests the Board with the power and responsibility to require
students to pay fees and for the method of collecting fees.

The Court concludes that when the terms of the contracts between
the parties are considered as a whole and in the circumstances
presented by this case, no ambiguity resulted from the online
posting of fees by individual campuses.

The Court rejects the plaintiffs' contention that the trial
court, in considering the motions for summary adjudication, was
bound to interpret any ambiguity in the contract as to price
against defendant and in favor of plaintiffs in these
circumstances.  Juries are not prohibited from interpreting
contracts.  Interpretation of a written instrument becomes solely
a judicial function only when it is based on the words of the
instrument alone, when there is no conflict in the extrinsic
evidence, or when a determination was made based on incompetent
evidence.

But when, as here, ascertaining the intent of the parties at the
time the contract was executed depends on the credibility of
extrinsic evidence, that credibility determination and the
interpretation of the contract are questions of fact that may
properly be resolved by the jury.

Furthermore, a party's conduct occurring between execution of the
contract and a dispute about the meaning of the contract's terms
may reveal what the parties understood and intended those terms
to mean. For this reason, evidence of such conduct is admissible
to resolve ambiguities in the contract's language.

The judgment is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Cal. App.'s April 19, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybffv6d8 from Leagle.com.


CANADA: Non-Unionized Federal Employees' Class Action Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn May, writing for iPolitics, reports that Prime Minister
Justin Trudeau says Canada's public servants show "unwavering
professionalism" in doing their jobs after more than two years of
botched pay cheques by the malfunctioning Phoenix pay system.

Mr. Trudeau kicked off National Public Service Week thanking
public servants for their "hard work and dedication" that "makes
a difference each day in the lives of Canadians," while promising
to resolve outstanding pay problems as quickly as possible.

National Public Service Week, which began in 1992 to honour the
work of Canada's 300,000 public servants, runs from June 10 to
16.

"Public servants continue to show unwavering professionalism as
they face unacceptable hardships caused by the implementation of
the Phoenix pay system.  The government will continue to work
diligently to make sure every employee gets the pay they are
owed," Trudeau said in a statement.

It's the third year, the Phoenix pay fiasco hangs over public
service week, but it looms large this year, coming on the heels
of Auditor General Michael Ferguson's devastating report calling
Phoenix an "incomprehensible failure" that will happen again if
public service culture isn't changed.

Phoenix and its impact will be in the spotlight when Privy
Council Clerk Michael Wernick, Canada's top bureaucrat and head
of the public service, will be testifying at committees on Mr.
Ferguson's report, particularly to address concerns about the
'broken' culture of the public service that led to the pay
system's calamitous mismanagement.

Mr. Trudeau's message didn't address the unions growing demands
for damages to compensate public servants for the stress,
frustration and financial losses of Phoenix foul-ups.  In May,
the largest union, the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC)
appealed to Trudeau to intervene and kick start stalled
negotiations for a possible settlement.

Discussions between the government and union on damages have
quietly unfolded for months.  Unions felt confident several
months ago that a settlement was within sight, but they say talks
fizzled when federal negotiators said they didn't have a mandate
from the government.  At the same time, a class action suit for
non-unionized federal employees is also underway for damages.

In his message, Trudeau said the government is working with
unions, "our public service partners," to resolve outstanding
issues as quickly as possible.  He cited the additional $431
million earmarked in the budget to stabilize Phoenix, hire more
staff, improve support for employees in departments and work on a
new system to replace Phoenix.

PSAC is encouraging its members to use National Public Service
Week as an opportunity to crank up the pressure for damages and
other Phoenix demands.  It is distributing new "Burnt By Phoenix"
stickers for members to wear during the week.  In previous years,
PSAC has boycotted the event.

At its May convention, PSAC passed a sweeping resolution calling
for 'escalating action' on Phoenix, which included damages and a
call for a public inquiry to ensure a fiasco like Phoenix never
happens again.

Many have argued Mr. Ferguson's report could strengthen unions'
hand for damages and at collective bargaining, which is also
gearing up for a new round.

Mr. Trudeau patted public servants on the back for their
"leadership, passion and commitment" whether handling spring
flooding, the tense G7 summit or supporting Canadians abroad.  He
said the public service has "worldwide recognition" -- it was
picked last year the most effective in public service in the
world.

"From bringing new initiatives to life, to carrying out ongoing
services, federal public servants continue to set an example for
service excellence around the world," he said.  "In communities
across Canada, public servants are finding innovative solutions
to the challenges we face, and tackling the issues that matter
most to Canadians -- from promoting diversity and inclusion, to
growing economies that work for everyone." [GN]


CERTAINTEED CORP: Court Limits Scope of Discovery in "Wetzel"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, granted in part and denied in part Defendant
CertainTeed Corporation's Second Motion for Protective Order Re
Plaintiffs' Discovery Requests in the case captioned PAULA WETZEL
and JOEL WETZEL, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. CERTAINTEED CORPORATION,
Defendant, No. 2:16-cv-01160-RAJ (W.D. Wash.).

The Plaintiffs are conducting pre-class certification discovery
for a lawsuit arising from the Defendant's allegedly defective
shingles.

The Court has discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(c) to for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or
person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden
or expense.

The Defendant moves for a protective order because it claims that
the Plaintiffs' discovery is targeted at the merits rather than
at the appropriate pre-class certification discovery.

The Plaintiffs seek discovery regarding the manufacturing
process, research and development, and testing to prove Rule
23(a)(2)'s commonality element and Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance
element.

Discovery regarding manufacturing and testing is necessary for
the Plaintiffs to attempt to prove these elements. However, at
this stage, the Court finds that discovery regarding research and
development goes more toward the strength or weakness of the
Plaintiffs' claims rather than toward the requirements of Rule
23.

Accordingly, the Court grants in part the Defendant's motion with
regard to pre-class certification discovery into research and
development.

The Plaintiffs seek discovery regarding the warranty and warranty
claims process to prove Rule 23(a)(3)'s typicality element and to
identify potential class members.

The Defendant argues that it already produced warranty claim
files as well as a performance manual.  However, discovery
regarding the number of warranty claims paid related to the
shingles at issue and any complaints made to state regulatory or
administrative entities regarding the shingles at issue is
relevant to developing a class list and establishing typicality
of claims.

Therefore, the Court grants in part the Defendant's motion to the
extent that discovery regarding the claim process is not relevant
to pre-class certification discovery.

The Plaintiffs seek discovery regarding the Defendant's retention
policy.  The Court finds those policies relevant to pre-class
certification discovery and therefore Defendant must produce such
documents.  Therefore, the Court grants in part the Defendant's
motion for protective order.

The Plaintiffs request documents regarding the Defendant's
corporate structure.  The Plaintiffs argue that these
organizational documents will help in identifying potential
deposition witnesses.  The Court finds that an organizational
chart limited to those departments engaged in manufacturing,
testing, sales and marketing, and warranty claims is relevant to
pre-class certification. This enables the Plaintiffs to target
specific corporate witnesses for deposition purposes.  Therefore,
the Court denies the Defendant's motion with regard to this
request.

A full-text copy of the District of Court's April 19, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9fsa64r from Leagle.com.

Paula Wetzel & Joel Wetzel, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, represented by Catherine
Jura Fleming catherine@stritmatter.com, STRITMATTER KESSLER
WHELAN KOEHLER MOORE KAHLER, Adrienne McEntee --
amcentee@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC,
Benjamin Drachler -- bdrachler@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL
MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, Beth E. Terrell --
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC &
Eric Riley Nusser -- eric@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL
LAW GROUP PLLC.

CertainTeed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Elaine Fresch
-- efresch@selmanlaw.com -- SELMAN BREITMAN LLP, pro hac vice,
Eileen I. McKillop -- emckillop@selmanlaw.com -- SELMAN BRIETMAN
LLP, Michael J. Madderra -- mmadderra@selmanlaw.com -- SELMAN
BRIETMAN LLP & Richard D. Ross -- rross@selmanlaw.com -- SELMAN
BRIETMAN LLP.


CHAMPION PETFOODS: Faces Class Action Over Misrepresented Product
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Gonzales, writing for Pennsylvania, reports that a group
of consumers filed a class-action lawsuit against dog food
distributors Champion Petfoods USA Inc. and Champion Petfoods LP,
citing alleged breach of express and implied warranties.

Lead plaintiffs Anthony Cesare, Elizabeth Donatucci and Taylor
Kennedy filed a complaint June 5 in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the
defendants violated the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs purchased the
defendants' dry dog food products form Chewy.com.  As a result of
the defendants alleged misrepresentations, the plaintiffs claim
they paid a premium price for product that contains excessively
high levels of toxic heavy metals.

The plaintiffs said the Champion Petfoods entities prominently
represented that their products are "biologically appropriate"
and contain "fresh, regional ingredients."

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek an order
certifying the class action and appointing the plaintiffs and
their counsel as representatives.  They also seek an award for
all damages, interest, legal fees, costs and expenses and other
just and appropriate relief.  They are represented by Charles E.
Schaffer and Daniel C. Levin of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP in
Philadelphia and Aaron Rihn of Robert Pierce & Associates PC in
Pittsburgh.

A spokesperson for Champion Petfoods reached out with a statement
indicating the company plans on "vigorously" defending the
lawsuit.

"Champion plans to vigorously defend itself regarding the
Anthony Cesare, Elizabeth Donatucci and Taylor Kennedy complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, and related litigation, while moving to dismiss all
baseless plaintiff's complaints," the statement reads.  "Champion
will not be deterred from our mission to make safe and healthful
foods."

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case
number 2:18-cv-00744-CB [GN]


CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces "Jorge" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Charles Schwab &
Co., Inc. The case is styled as Carlos Jorge, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Charles
Schwab & Co., Inc, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05684 (S.D. N.Y.,
June 22, 2018).

Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. is an investment banking and
securities brokerage firm. The firm's services include investment
advisory and trading, equity research, and online financial
services. It also provides advisory services on estate planning,
life insurance, and annuities. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. was
founded in 1971 and is based in San Francisco, California.
Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Schwab
Holdings, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHINA AGRITECH: Foley & Lardner Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jay N. Varon, Esq. -- jvaron@foley.com -- Jennifer M. Keas, Esq.
-- jkeas@foley.com -- and Kendall E. Waters, Esq. --
kwaters@foley.com -- of Foley & Lardner LLP, in an article for
The National Law Review, wrote that in the closely watched case
of China Agritech v. Resh, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an
important class action ruling, holding that the tolling
principles announced in its earlier American Pipe decision do not
allow absent class members to file follow-on class action
lawsuits where the statute of limitations has otherwise expired
on their claims.

"As we have previously noted, the question of whether American
Pipe tolling applies to subsequent class action filings, not just
subsequent individual actions, is important because the answer
dictates whether American Pipe tolling principles enable the
filing of successive (stacked) class actions in a seemingly
endless effort to finally achieve certification under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

"Although some federal courts of appeal had previously held that
American Pipe tolling is available for subsequent Rule 23
actions, the Supreme Court in China Agritech has now ruled
unanimously that such cases were wrongly denied.  "We hold that
American Pipedoes not permit a plaintiff who waits out the
statute of limitations to piggyback on an earlier timely filed
class action."

Key Aspects of the Supreme Court's Reasoning and Holding

"In our earlier report on oral argument in the case, we
identified three critical issues on which the Supreme Court's
decision would likely turn:  (1) whether absent class members who
waited until after certification was denied to seek to file their
own class action would be viewed as acting diligently; (2)
whether a decision on class action stacking could lead to
anomalous results; and (3) whether the availability of American
Pipe tolling should depend on the reason for a class
certification denial.  Indeed, the answers to these questions
proved to be outcome determinative in China Agritech.

   1.  Plaintiffs Who Engage in Class Action Stacking Have Not
Been Diligent.

"The Supreme Court noted that while its 1974 American Pipe
decision did not formally analyze the equitable tolling doctrine
-- which requires a plaintiff to show that some "extraordinary
circumstance" prevented her from discovering her claim until
after the expiration of the limitations period despite "diligent"
pursuit of her rights  -- an absent class member who promptly
intervenes in a timely filed class action to assert his
individual claims has been  sufficiently diligent.6  By contrast,
however, a would-be class representative who commences a new and
untimely class action case "can hardly qualify as diligent in
asserting claims and pursuing relief."  This is especially true
because Rule 23(c) encourages district courts to make class
certification decisions at an early practicable time, and
expressly permits them to take account of multiple class
representative filings.

   2.  Permitting Class Action Stacking Would Lead to Anomalous
Results.

"The notion of interpreting American Pipe to permit class action
stacking troubled the Supreme Court.  "Respondents' proposed
reading would allow the statute of limitations to be extended
time and again" and would permit "lawyers seeking to represent a
plaintiff class [to] extend the statute of limitations almost
indefinitely until they find a district judge who is willing to
certify the class."  Thus, the Supreme Court held that "endless
tolling of a statute of limitations is not a result envisioned by
American Pipe."

"On the other hand, however, the court was not persuaded by
respondents' argument that a multiplicity of needless protective
class action filings would occur without the availability of
American Pipe tolling for class cases.  Indeed, the court noted
that in those circuits that have declined to extend American Pipe
to class actions, there is no indication of a rash of protective
class action filing as a result.  The court also was unconcerned
by the prospect of multiple class filings because they could aid
a district court in making an early determination as to the
appropriateness of class treatment, as well as which class
representative was best.  It noted that district courts are
familiar with, and have ample tools at their disposal to manage,
complex cases and multiple filings.

"Finally, the Supreme Court rejected respondents' overly broad
view of its recent decisions in Shady Grove14 and Tyson Foods as
supposedly compelling a reading that American Pipe tolling be
available for subsequent class actions.  Shady Grove held that a
state law barring class actions of a particular type could not
restrict the filing of a class action in federal court that
otherwise satisfies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.  But the
Supreme Court concluded that the China Agritech case presented
the reverse situation.  Instead of a state law that purported to
trump the operation of Federal Rule 23, respondents' class claims
would be untimely unless saved by the American Pipe tolling
exception.  Likewise, unlike the attempted recourse to Rule 23 to
abridge a substantive right that was suggested in Tyson Foods,
respondents had no substantive right to bring claims outside the
statute of limitations.

   3.  The Availability of American Pipe Tolling in a Subsequent
Class Action Does Not Depend on the Reason for the Underlying
Class Certification Denial.

"As reflected at oral argument, this issue was the most
contentious.  Despite its divisive nature, however, the majority
decision expressly answered this question in the negative.
Justice Sotomayor's separate concurring opinion -- agreeing with
the result but not with the majority's reasoning or analysis --
expressly argued that this Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act case had different attributes than other class cases,
including a five-year statute of repose and a provision requiring
notification of the commencement of a class action, such that
Justice Sotomayor believed the Court's decision was broader than
necessary.  Likewise, Justice Sotomayor argued that while
American Pipe tolling might not be appropriate if the denial of
class certification was based on the suitability of the claims
for class treatment, tolling should be available if certification
was denied because of deficiencies with the lead plaintiff.
Significantly, however, the majority opinion expressly rejected
each of these arguments, explaining that its holding that
American Pipe tolling does not apply to subsequent class action
filings does not hinge on the reason for the underlying denial of
class certification.

Import of the Ruling

"China Agritech resolves what had been a three-way split in the
federal courts of appeal,19 with the Supreme Court definitively
holding that American Pipe tolling does not apply to putative
class members who bring subsequent, untimely class claims.  In
light of this ruling, pending class cases throughout the country
that have relied on American Pipe tolling will likely be
reexamined.  Class action defendants who secure a class
certification denial should have greater certainty that the class
litigation will not become a multi-headed hydra.

"Going forward, we may see more class cases that are filed with
multiple named representatives, rather than single class
representatives. Moreover, class counsel may be forced to become
more cautious about selecting strongly suited lead plaintiffs,
rather than settling for the first prospective plaintiff who
responds to the attorney solicitation or otherwise demonstrates
willingness to bring a claim.  Finally, given the court's
emphasis on Rule 23(c), we would not be surprised to see some
courts pressing for early class certification determinations as
long as they are practicable." [GN]


CHINA AGRITECH: Holland & Knight Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel C Agius, Esq. -- Rachel.Agius@hklaw.com -- Gemma R.
Galeoto, Esq. -- Gemma.Galeoto@hklaw.com -- and Martin G. Durkin,
Esq. -- martin.durkin@hklaw.com -- of Holland & Knight LLP, in an
article for JDSupra, wrote that citing the need for "efficiency
and economy of litigation," on June 11, 2018, a unanimous U.S.
Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, holding that its previous ruling in American Pipe and
Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) "does not permit
the maintenance of a follow-on class action past expiration of
the statute of limitations." China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, et
al., 584 U.S. ___ (2018). Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered
the opinion of the Court, in which Justices John Roberts, Anthony
Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Elena
Kagan and Neil Gorsuch joined. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a
concurring opinion.

Supreme Court Decision
The question presented to the Court was whether "[u]pon denial of
class certification, may a putative class member, in lieu of
promptly joining an existing suit or promptly filing an
individual action, commence a class action anew beyond the time
allowed by the applicable statute of limitations?" Id. at *2. The
Court answered "no," explaining: "American Pipe tolls the statute
of limitations during the pendency of a putative class action,
allowing unnamed class members to join the action individually or
file individual claims if the class fails.  But American Pipe
does not permit the maintenance of a follow-on class action past
expiration of the statute of limitations." Id.

In China Agritech, the plaintiff, an absent class member of two
previously dismissed class actions, sought to bring a third class
action alleging that China Agritech violated securities fraud
provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The first
class action was not certified due to a lack of predominance
under Rule 23(b)(3).  The second class action failed because the
named plaintiffs were found to be inadequate and atypical class
representatives under Rule 23(a) (3) and (4). The plaintiff, who
had not intervened in the prior class actions, then filed a third
class action complaint.  The complaint was filed outside the two-
year statute of limitations applicable to the Exchange Act.  The
district court dismissed the class action complaint as time-
barred.  The plaintiffs declined to pursue individual claims, and
instead appealed.  In reversing the district court, the Ninth
Circuit held that American Pipe tolls the limitations period for
otherwise untimely class actions. In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit
noted that arguments could be made that its decision could lead
to the "abusive filing of repetitive class actions," but that the
"current legal system is adequate to respond to such a concern."
Resh v. China Agritech, Inc., 857 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2017), cert.
granted, 138 S. Ct. 543, 199 L. Ed. 2d 423 (2017)and rev'd and
remanded, 17-432, 2018 WL 2767565 (U.S. June 11, 2018).

In reversing the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court stated: "We
hold that American Pipe does not permit a plaintiff who waits out
the statute of limitations to piggyback on an earlier, timely
filed class action.  The 'efficiency and economy of litigation'
that support tolling of individual claims, American Pipe, 414 U.
S., at 553, do not support maintenance of untimely successive
class actions; any additional class filings should be made early
on, soon after the commencement of the first action seeking class
certification." Id. at *6, emphasis in original.

The Court continued, "American Pipe tolls the limitation period
for individual claims because economy of litigation favors
delaying those claims until after a class-certification denial. .
. . With class claims, on the other hand, efficiency favors early
assertion of competing class representative claims." China
Agritech, 584 U.S. at *7.  The Court also noted that Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23 "evinces a preference" for the preclusion
of untimely successive class actions by instructing that "class
certifications should be resolved early on." Id.

In so holding, the Court validated the First, Second, Fifth and
Eleventh Circuits, which have consistently interpreted American
Pipe tolling as applying only to individual claims of class
members previously absent from a class action, not to additional
class actions.  The Court invalidated the Ninth Circuit decision
allowing a class member to file a new class action after the
statute of limitations had run, and also invalidates, by
implication, reasoning from the Sixth and Seventh Circuits, which
previously held that class actions after the statute of
limitations had run were permitted by American Pipe.

The Court also noted that this "clarification of American Pipe"
does not violate the Rules Enabling Act because "plaintiffs have
no substantive right to bring their claims outside the statute of
limitations," and can do so only due to a "judicially crafted
tolling rule . . . ." Id. at 12.

While acknowledging that its opinion may lead to a "multiplicity
of class-action filings," the Court noted that this is not
necessarily a problem.  Multiple filings may better enable
district courts to determine whether class treatment is
appropriate, and if so, which plaintiff would be the best class
representative.  As far as managing and coordinating the multiple
class actions, the Supreme Court noted that "district courts have
ample tools at their disposal to manage the suits, including the
ability to stay, consolidate, or transfer proceedings." Id. at
14.

Concurring Opinion
Justice Sotomayor concurred with the Court that in cases governed
by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA),
a plaintiff who seeks to bring a successive class action "may not
rely on the tolling rule established by American Pipe . . ." Id.,
Concurrence, at *1.  Justice Sotomayor, however, did not join the
majority in broadly holding that this rule applies to non-PSLRA
plaintiffs.  Justice Sotomayor noted that there is a specific
statutory process under the PSLRA wherein the named plaintiff
publishes a nationwide notice alerting putative class members to
the filing of the suit and informing them of the timeline to move
to become lead plaintiff.  Justice Sotomayor pointed out that
Rule 23, in contrast to the PSLRA, does not have such a statutory
notice process, and thus the lead plaintiff is often the first to
file, not necessarily the best-situated plaintiff.  Justice
Sotomayor noted that the conclusion of the majority does not
always apply in generic Rule 23 contexts, where absent class
members "are most likely unaware of the existence of a putative
class action." Concurrence, *4.

Conclusion and Takeaways
Going forward, the Supreme Court's clarification of the scope of
the American Pipe rule brings needed certainty to this area. It
now falls to the district courts to evaluate a potentially
greater number of competing class action complaints, class
representatives and class counsel, as well as to manage what can
quickly become complex issues on crowded dockets. [GN]


CHINA AGRITECH: Ogletree Deakins Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew T. Wholey, Esq. -- matthew.wholey@ogletree.com -- and
Hanna B. Raanan, Esq. -- hanna.raanan@ogletree.com -- of Ogletree
Deakins, in an article for Lexology, wrote that on June 11, 2018,
the Supreme Court of the United States issued a landmark decision
in China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, addressing a split in the
federal circuit courts of appeal, arising from differing
applications of the equitable tolling rules articulated in two
prior Supreme Court decisions, American Pipe & Construction Co.
v. Utah (1974) and Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker (1983).  In
China Agritech, the Court examined whether, following denial of
class certification in a putative class action, a would-be class
member may commence a new class action beyond the time allowed by
the applicable statute of limitations, "in lieu of promptly
joining an existing suit," as permitted in American Pipe, or
filing an individual action, as permitted under Crown, Cork.  The
Court answered in the negative: equitable tolling does not apply
to save subsequent class actions from the applicable statute of
limitations.

Background

American Pipe

In American Pipe, the Court held that "the commencement of . . .
[a] class suit tolls the running of the statute [of limitations]
for all purported members of the class who make timely motions to
intervene after the court has found the suit inappropriate for
class action status." The American Pipe plaintiffs had sought to
intervene in an existing putative class action that had been
denied class certification for failure to meet the numerosity
requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1). The
would-be intervenor plaintiffs were denied intervention under
Rule 24 on the grounds that, in the intervening time while the
matter was pending before the district court, the statute of
limitations had run.  The Court seemingly attempted to limit its
ruling to would-be intervenors, explaining that denying them
intervention, based merely on a decision that the class lacked
numerosity, did not further the purposes of efficiency and
economy that Rule 23 is intended to promote.

Crown, Cork

In Crown, Cork, the Court elaborated on American Pipe to explain
that the tolling rule applies not just to would-be intervenors,
but also to individual plaintiffs who bring subsequent,
individual claims following a denial of class certification.

Following American Pipe and Crown, Cork, the federal circuit
courts of appeals were divided as to whether an applicable
statute of limitations is tolled not just as to intervenors in an
existing suit or to individuals who seek to file a new lawsuit,
but also to plaintiffs seeking to pick up the mantle of the
failed class representatives in a subsequent class action.

China Agritech

In China Agritech, the plaintiffs who filed suit were the third
set of plaintiffs to attempt to bring a class action on behalf of
purchasers of China Agritech common stock.  The successive
complaints each alleged similar facts: that China Agritech
engaged in fraud and misleading business practices causing the
company's stock prices to plummet.  Theodore Dean, a China
Agritech shareholder, filed the first case, asserting claims
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which has a two-year
statute of limitations (the so-called Dean case).  Mr. Dean filed
suit in 2011 at the start of the two-year statute of limitations.
In 2012, the district court denied class certification, finding
that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that they could prove
the necessary element of reliance on a class-wide basis. The case
settled in September 2012.

In October 2012, before the statute of limitations had run, the
plaintiff's counsel filed a second class action (the so-called
Smyth case) with a new set of plaintiffs and rectifying the
pleading deficiencies noted by the court in the Dean case.  The
district court denied class certification in the Smyth case as
well, on adequacy and typicality grounds.  The Smyth plaintiffs
settled their individual claims and dismissed their suit.  In
both Smyth and Dean, the plaintiffs provided statutorily required
notice of the pendency of the suit to putative class members, as
required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

In June 2014, one-and-one-half years after the statute of
limitations had expired, Michael Resh filed a class action suit
on the same grounds on which the prior cases were filed.
Mr. Resh had not actively participated in either of the prior
actions and was represented by counsel who had not appeared in
those actions.  The district court dismissed Mr. Resh's complaint
as untimely.  On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed, holding that the equitable tolling principles of
American Pipe and Crown, Cork permitted the tolling of both
individual and class claims during the pendency of a class
action.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's judgment.  In its
opinion, the Court clarified that, under American Pipe and Crown,
Cork, only individual claims, whether brought by intervenors or
in subsequent individual lawsuits, are preserved by equitable
tolling.  The Court explained that tolling applies to individual
claims because it allows for more efficient litigation.  Without
tolling, individuals would be forced to file protective cases
during the pendency of a putative class action, which would be
unnecessary if the class were later certified.  However, the
Court reasoned that new class cases are different in that the
"efficiency and economy of litigation" are not furthered by the
"maintenance of untimely successive class actions."

In the Court's opinion, the efficiency and economy of litigation
are better served if any competing class representative claims
are asserted as early as possible after the commencement of the
first action seeking certification.  In particular, the Court
explained that if all class cases are filed early, if the cases
are certified, then the district court can select the best
plaintiff and class counsel to represent the class.  Conversely,
if a court denies class certification, then that issue is
litigated once for all class claims.  The Court rejected an
alternate reading of American Pipe, stating that applying its
reasoning to class claims would "allow the statute of limitations
to be extended time and again; as each class is denied
certification, a new named plaintiff could file a class complaint
that resuscitates the litigation." Such a result would run afoul
of Rule 23 and American Pipe's emphasis on the need for
efficiency and economy in litigation.

Practical Impact

The China Agritech decision may be welcome news for businesses
facing potential class action lawsuits.  In the employment
context, however, it is uncertain whether it will provide a
respite from successive litigation against employers.  For
example, unlike lawsuits brought under the Securities Exchange
Act, which tend to arise from a single event or a series of
common events that are fixed in time, many (but not all) claims
in employment class actions tend to arise from allegations of
common practices that may reoccur over the applicable statute of
limitations period.  In addition, most Rule 23 class actions,
whether in the employment context or otherwise, do not include
express, statutory notice requirements on putative class
representatives such as those under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.  Indeed, Justice Sotomayor's concurring
opinion notes that the China Agritech case was unique because of
the specific statutes that governed it.

Only time will tell whether and how this decision will apply in
the employment context, but it provides another arrow in the
quiver to defend against the ever-pressing concern of class
action lawsuits. [GN]


CHINA AGRITECH: Ropes & Gray Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ropes & Gray LLP, in an article for Mondaq, wrote that on
June 11, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court handed a victory to class
action defendants in China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, overturning a
Ninth Circuit rule that allowed the filing of successive class
action complaints, even after the limitations period expired.
The Court held that the rule in American Pipe v. Construction
Co., under which the timely filing of a putative class action
tolls the time for filing individual claims (if class
certification is later denied), does not apply to successive
class actions.  Justice Ginsburg's majority opinion, joined by
seven justices, suggests the same rule applies to all manner of
class action litigation.  Only Justice Sotomayor, writing alone
in concurrence, believed that the holding should be limited to
suits, like China Agritech, brought under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA).  The Court's decision will
benefit defendants by preventing plaintiffs from repeatedly
filing class action suits as an end run around statutes of
limitation.  The majority rejected the concerns of the plaintiffs
that limiting tolling to individual claims would incentivize a
"needless multiplicity" of protective class-action filings,
expressing faith in district courts' ability to manage such
challenges. Defendants will need to be mindful to work with
courts to limit the potential ill effects of duplicitous class
actions.

The American Pipe Rule
In American Pipe, the Supreme Court established a tolling rule
under which the timely filing of a class action tolls the
applicable statute of limitations for members of the class.
Should class certification be denied, other individual plaintiffs
would still be able to intervene in the original suit (or, as the
Court later held, file their own separate suits).  American Pipe
left open the question of whether tolling also applied to
successive class actions.  The First, Second, Fifth, and Eleventh
Circuits later held that it did not. In 2015, the Sixth Circuit
ruled the other way, permitting American Pipe tolling for a
successive class action, and the Ninth Circuit followed suit in
2017.

China Agritech v. Resh
In China Agritech, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit
and held that American Pipe does not apply to successive class
actions.  Writing for an eight-member majority, Justice Ginsburg
distinguished the case from American Pipe.  Whereas many of the
beneficial efficiencies of the class action mechanism would be
lost if every possible class member had to file an individual
suit, incentivizing additional plaintiffs seeking to serve as
class representatives to file earlier would enhance court
efficiency, by allowing the courts to choose among potential
class representatives, delineate appropriate sub-classes, or
identify obstacles to proceeding as a class action.  The majority
held that Rule 23 of the civil rules (relating to class actions)
itself supported this conclusion, thereby strongly suggesting
that the rule adopted by the majority applies to all class action
claims, and not just the type of securities claim at issue in
China Agritech.

In her concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayor questioned whether
the majority's holding should apply to all successive class
action suits.  Justice Sotomayor noted that the PSLRA was a
particularly poor statute to receive the benefits of tolling
because it already required plaintiffs to publish a nationwide
notice alerting putative class members of the action in order to
permit selection of the best class representative.  Justice
Sotomayor feared that statutes without similar notice
requirements might foreclose unknowing plaintiffs from
participation as lead plaintiffs in class actions. Instead,
Justice Sotomayor proposed that tolling should only be
unavailable when class certification is denied for a reason that
bears on the suitability of the claims for class treatment.

What does China Agritech mean for class actions defendants?
China Agritech is a significant win for class action defendants,
who will not have to worry about plaintiffs continuously filing
class action suits to extend statutes of limitation indefinitely.
The complaint in China Agritech, for example, was the third
successive class action to be filed asserting the same claims.
The plaintiffs (and Justice Sotomayor in her concurrence)
suggested that the majority's rule could be bad for defendants
because it would lead to an increase in unnecessary, duplicative
class action suits by plaintiffs seeking to preserve their
ability to bring class action claims if the initial class suit
failed. But the majority rejected those concerns, noting that
there was no evidence that the same rule in the Second and Fifth
Circuits had increased "protective" class action filings.  The
majority observed that traditional tools at district courts'
disposal like the ability to stay, consolidate, or transfer
proceedings would be enough to manage these cases. Class action
defendants will need to work closely with their counsel to ensure
that duplicative, but timely, class action filings are handled in
a way that prevents plaintiffs a "second bite at the apple," if
class certification is denied in the lead case. [GN]


CHINA AGRITECH: Troutman Sanders Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
David M. Gettings, Esq. -- dave.gettings@troutman.co --
Amy Pritchard Williams, Esq. -- amy.williams@troutman.com --
Alan D. Wingfield, Esq. -- alan.wingfield@troutman.com -- and
Kathleen M. Knudsen, Esq. -- kathleen.knudsen@troutman.com -- of
Troutman Sanders LLP, in an article for Mondaq, wrote that the
Supreme Court's decision on June 12 in China Agritech Inc. v.
Resh  is a significant victory for defendants in federal class
action lawsuits, as it prevents plaintiffs from bringing
successive class actions after the statute of limitations has
run.  Prior to the Court's decision, there was a split among the
Circuit Courts as to whether a plaintiff who files a subsequent
class action against a defendant can receive the benefit of
statute of limitations tolling from a previous class action
against that same defendant. On June 11, 2018, however, the
United States Supreme Court decisively held in an 8-1 opinion
that American Pipe does not provide tolling for subsequent
("piggyback") class actions in federal question cases. [GN]


COMMERCEHUB INC: Hearing on Preliminary Injunction Bid Dropped
--------------------------------------------------------------
CommerceHub, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that a district court has cancelled a previously
scheduled hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction in a
class action lawsuit.

On April 27, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed by
a purported stockholder of CommerceHub in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of New York: Gordon v.
CommerceHub, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00512-FJS-DJS. The
complaint names as defendants CommerceHub and members of the
CommerceHub board of directors.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder, and alleges that CommerceHub and the
members of the CommerceHub board of directors caused a proxy
statement that allegedly omitted material information to be filed
in connection with the Merger, which allegedly rendered the proxy
statement false and misleading. Among other relief, the complaint
seeks a declaration certifying a class, an injunction to prevent
CommerceHub from holding its May 18, 2018 special meeting of
stockholders to vote on the Merger Agreement and from
consummating the Merger unless and until CommerceHub discloses
the material information allegedly omitted from the proxy
statement, unspecified damages, and unspecified costs, expenses
and attorneys' fees.

CommerceHub denies any liability and believes that it has
substantial defenses and that this lawsuit is without merit.
However, in order to eliminate the burden, expense and
uncertainties resulting from the pending litigation and without
admitting any wrongdoing or that these supplemental disclosures
are material or required to be made, on May 7, 2018, CommerceHub
agreed to supplement the disclosures in the proxy statement with
additional information concerning certain non-disclosure
agreements entered into by various bidders, the prior
relationships between CommerceHub's financial advisor with
respect to the Merger, Evercore Group L.L.C., and GTCR, and
CommerceHub's financial forecasts.

Consequently, plaintiff requested to withdraw the motion for
preliminary injunction stating that the supplemental disclosures
mooted the claims raised in the complaint. The district court
granted the request to withdraw and cancelled a previously
scheduled hearing on the motion.

CommerceHub, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
cloud-based e-commerce fulfillment and marketing solutions for
large retailers, consumer brands, and marketplaces primarily in
the United States and Canada. The company is based in Albany, New
York.


DALLAS COWBOYS: Cheerleader Files FLSA Class Action in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Simpson, writing for Law360, reports that a former Dallas
Cowboys cheerleader filed a putative class action in Texas
federal court on June 12, alleging the NFL team violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Equal Pay Act by failing to pay
proper overtime and for paying her less than "Rowdy," the team
mascot, who is male.

Erica Wilkins, who worked for the team from May 2014 to August
2017, said that Dallas Cowboys Football Club Ltd. paid her and
other cheerleaders $8 per hour while paying "Rowdy" the mascot
about $25 per hour.

The case is styled Wilkins v. Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Ltd.,
Case No. 3:18-cv-01511 (N.D. Tex.).  The case is assigned to
Judge Karen Gren Scholer.  The case was filed June 12, 2018.
[GN]


DENVER, CO: March 2019 Trial Set in Homeless Sweeps Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Walker, writing for Westword, reports that it's a hurry-up-
and-wait situation for the thousands of homeless plaintiffs
represented in a class action lawsuit against Denver concerning
the city's sweeps of homeless encampments.

The long-awaited jury trial in federal district court is
scheduled to begin March 18, 2019, and end ten days later, nearly
two and a half years after the case was filed.

For anyone needing a refresher, Denver is being sued over its
large scale cleanups of homeless encampments.  In August 2016,
civil-rights attorney Jason Flores-Williams sued the city on
behalf of individuals experiencing homelessness who claimed that
their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights (protection against
unlawful searches and seizures and the equal-protection clause,
respectively) were violated as police and other city employees
confiscated -- and in some instances trashed -- their belongings
during a number of well-documented sweeps.

As Westword has chronicled, "Then, in April 2017, the case became
a big deal when U.S. District Court Judge William Martinez took
the rare step of granting class certification, making every
person experiencing homelessness in Denver (over 3,000 people) a
plaintiff in the case against the city.  Flores-Williams called
the ruling 'historic' at the time, and the suit soon gained
additional firepower when civil-rights attorney David Lane jumped
on board as Mr. Flores-Williams's co-counsel."

Both the plaintiffs and the city then filed for summary judgment,
which Judge Martinez subsequently rejected, leading to what
Mr. Flores-Williams has characterized as a "monster trial" in
which a jury will determine whether Denver violated any
constitutional protections during homeless sweeps.

June 12, was the latest hearing in the case, and the court and
lawyers on both sides determined when that jury trial would take
place.  Beyond setting the date, there were a number of "special
issues," as Judge Martinez characterized them, that needed to be
resolved.

Here's a summary of what happened:

1. Individuals who have either lost or don't have government-
issued IDs (usually required to enter a federal courthouse) will
still be able to attend the jury trial next year if Mr. Flores-
Williams's or Lane's law offices vouch for them.  "I'd say,
regularly, six people per day won't have their IDs," Flores-
Williams told the judge when asked for an estimate and why the
provision was necessary.  The lawyer also said that some
individuals experiencing homelessness have had IDs confiscated
during sweeps.

2. The city's lawyers tried, unsuccessfully, to have seven named
witnesses in the case removed, three of whom had not shown up for
scheduled depositions (Flores-Williams argued that he had lost
track of two of them).  Judge Martinez ruled that the witnesses
could still participate in next year's trial as long as Mr.
Flores-Williams's and Lane's office tracked all seven witnesses
down and allowed the city to depose them by September 15 of this
year.

3. There was a lengthy fight over whether Terese Howard, the
firebrand activist with Denver Homeless Out Loud, will have to
produce documents, including over a hundred pages of
communications between her and Mr. Flores-Williams, that the city
requested in the discovery phase of the trial.  The city argues
that it should be able to access the documents if Ms. Howard is
called to testify as a witness, and that since she is not a named
plaintiff, she doesn't have attorney-client privileges protecting
the communications.  Mr. Flores-Williams characterized Ms. Howard
as a special investigator with his office and said the motion was
an attempt by the city to "infiltrate" Denver Homeless Out Loud.
Martinez requested more detailed motions by both the city and the
lawyers suing Denver on behalf of the homeless.  Though the judge
seemed to want to ensure that Howard could testify, he also added
that in his courtroom, he tries to avoid "trial by ambush" and
wants attorneys on both sides to have access to any and all
relevant evidence.

4. Mr. Flores-Williams requested permission from Judge Martinez
to allow a bus from the California nonprofit Lava Mae to park on
or near the Alfred A. Arraj Courthouse campus during the trial.
The bus is outfitted with showers and offers fresh clothes, which
Mr. Flores-Williams said would give homeless attendees dignity
throughout the trial.  Judge Martinez responded that he does not
control parking on city streets, and suggested that Mr. Flores-
Williams check with nearby homeless service providers to see if
the Lava Mae bus could park in their private lots. [GN]


DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Asks Court to Reconsider Ruling
--------------------------------------------------
Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that the company has asked the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to reconsider
its order denying the motion to dismiss a putative class action
suit.

On November 10, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
against Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. and certain officers of the
Company. Following appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel, an amended complaint was filed on April 11, 2017.

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

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
May 24, 2017. The court issued an order denying the Company's
motion to dismiss on January 19, 2018. The Company filed a motion
for reconsideration of its motion to dismiss on February 2, 2018.

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

Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. (is the largest independent provider of
specialty pharmacy services in the United States of America. The
company is based in Flint, Michigan.


DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that
on June 4, 2018, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
dismissed with prejudice a class action alleging that Dynavax
Technologies Corporation ("Dynavax" or the "Company") and its
executives violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 by alleging omitting
information about its hepatitis B vaccine.  In re Dynavax
Securities Litigation, No. 4:16-cv-06690-YGR (N.D. Cal. June 4,
2018).  The Court's decision is another in a long line of
decisions declining to find a securities violation when a
pharmaceutical company is alleged to have concealed adverse
developments in clinical trials. [GN]


EAGLEVILLE HOSPITAL: Court OKs Final Approval of $520K FLSA Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted the Parties Motion for Final Approving Class
Settlement in the case captioned ADRIENNE GALT and NANCY MURPHY,
for themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
EAGLEVILLE HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-6851 (E.D. Pa.).

The parties have reached a settlement in this case brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act (PMWA), and seek final approval of their agreement along
with final certification of the settlement class and collective.

Named Plaintiffs Adrienne Galt and Nancy Murphy are former
registered nurses at Defendant Eagleville Hospital. In December
2015, they filed this class and collective action on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated employees of Eagleville
Hospital, alleging that Defendant violated the FLSA and the PMWA
by requiring them to work during 30-minute unpaid meal breaks and
then automatically deducting that time from their shift totals,
depriving them of compensation, including overtime pay.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant will pay a
total of $520,000.00 to resolve this litigation. This payment
includes the following components:

   -- $180,500.00 in damages to the 361 PMWA Class Members,

   -- $127,000.00 in damages to the 73 FLSA Collective members,

   -- $12,500.00 in enhancement awards to the two Named
Plaintiffs
      and one pre-certification Opt-In Plaintiff ($320,000.00
      total),

   -- $182,000.00 in attorney's fees,

   -- $10,000.00 to reimburse for out-of-pocket costs incurred by
Class Counsel, and

   -- $8,000.00 in settlement administration costs.

Numerosity

In evaluating numerosity, courts assess whether there are enough
prospective class members that joinder of all the members would
be impracticable.  Although there is no minimum class size
required for numerosity, courts have generally found that the
requirement is satisfied when there are over 40 prospective class
members. In this case, there are 361 prospective class members,
and such a number is sufficiently numerous that joinder of all
members would be impracticable.

Commonality

The commonality requirement is satisfied if there is at least one
question of law or fact common to the class.

Here, all prospective class members worked in patient-facing
positions at Eagleville Hospital that required them to work
through meal breaks and were subject to the same timekeeping
policies that prevented them from recording time worked during
their meal breaks. Moreover, they seek similar legal remedies
pursuant to the FLSA and the PMWA.

These shared legal and factual issues are sufficient to satisfy
the commonality requirement.

Typicality

The typicality requirement is satisfied if the claims of the
representative parties are typical of the claims of the class.
Here, the Named Plaintiffs' claims are based on Defendant's
alleged failure to compensate them for time spent working during
meal breaks, and they seek compensation for this unpaid time. The
prospective class members have claims that rely on the same
policies and procedures and entitle them to the same types of
relief.  Thus, the interests of the Named Plaintiffs align with
those of the prospective class members, and the typicality
requirement is satisfied.

Adequacy of Representation

Class members are adequately represented if class counsel is
qualified to represent the class and the interests of the class
representatives are not in conflict with the interests of the
class members.

Here, Class Counsel, including Mr. David Cohen, and other members
of the law firm, Stephan Zouras LLP, are experienced in handling
class and collective actions, including cases arising under the
FLSA and other wage and hour laws, and have represented
Plaintiffs and the prospective class competently throughout the
course of this litigation and during settlement negotiations. In
addition, as discussed above with respect to typicality, the
interests of the Named Plaintiffs are appropriately aligned with
those of the other prospective class members.

Rule 23(b) Requirements

Predominance

The predominance inquiry tests whether proposed classes are
sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation,
and assesses whether a class action would achieve economies of
time, effort, and expense, and promote uniformity of decision as
to persons similarly situated.

Here, the Plaintiffs have alleged that the Defendant engaged in a
common course of conduct that harmed all class members,
specifically, that the Defendant required certain categories of
employees to work during meal breaks without providing a system
for logging such hours, and thus failed to compensate the
employees for that time.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the issues common to the
prospective class members predominate over their individual
issues.

Superiority

To satisfy the superiority test, the Court must balance, in terms
of fairness and efficiency, the merits of a class action against
those of alternative available methods of adjudication.

Here, the record in this case does not indicate a strong interest
among class members in individually controlling the prosecution
of a separate action. None have opted out of, or objected to, the
terms of the parties' settlement. Moreover, the Plaintiffs have
calculated the maximum total compensatory damages for the class
to be approximately $491,666.00, providing an average individual
recovery of less than $1,400.

For these reasons, the superiority requirement is satisfied.

Because the Plaintiffs have satisfied the relevant requirements
of Rule 23 to obtain class certification, the Court will certify
the class for purposes of settlement.

Fairness of the Proposed Settlement

Initial Presumption of Fairness

In this Circuit, a settlement is entitled to an initial
presumption of fairness where it resulted from arm's-length
negotiations between experienced counsel, there was sufficient
discovery, and there were no objectors and only a small
percentage of opt-outs.

Here, the Court finds that the settlement is entitled to an
initial presumption of fairness.

The Settlement Satisfies the Girsh Factors

The Third Circuit in Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153 (3d Cir.
1975), in evaluating whether a proposed settlement is fair,
adequate, and reasonable:

Complexity, Expense and Duration of Litigation

This action involves complex factual issues relating to the
Defendant's policies and practices that, if litigated to trial,
would require substantial additional class-wide merits and
damages discovery, including depositions of Plaintiffs and
significant numbers of the Defendant's employees, as well as
extensive motion practice concerning class certification and
summary judgment.  Considering the likely long duration of such
litigation, a settlement at this stage avoids the significant
costs and risks associated with protracted litigation.

For these reasons, this factor weighs in favor of settlement.

Reaction of Class to Settlement

The second Girsh factor also weighs in favor of settlement. No
potential class members have objected to, or sought exclusion
from, the proposed settlement. These facts indicate consent on
the part of the class to the terms of the settlement.

Accordingly, the reaction of the class in this case strongly
supports the approval of the settlement.

State of the Proceedings and Amount of Discovery Completed

In evaluating the third Girsh factor, the Court assesses the
degree of case development that Class Counsel have accomplished
prior to the settlement, in order to determine whether counsel
had an adequate appreciation of the merits of the case before
negotiating.  Here, the parties have completed sufficient
discovery to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the case
over the course of negotiating a settlement. Accordingly, the
Court finds that the settlement reached here resulted from
informed negotiations between experienced counsel who fully
appreciated the merits and risks of this case, and thus the third
Girsh factor weighs in favor of settlement approval.

Risks of Establishing Liability and Damages

The fourth and fifth Girsh factors require the Court to survey
the possible risks of litigation in order to balance the
likelihood of success and the potential damage award if the case
were taken to trial against the benefits of an immediate
settlement.

Here, the Plaintiffs acknowledge that if they proceed to trial,
the class members face a substantial risk of substantially
reduced recovery or no recovery at all in this action. In
particular, the Defendant contends that a portion of the class
members worked substantially less than 40 hours a week,
undermining their entitlement to any overtime claim under the
FLSA. More importantly, the Defendant may be able to avoid class-
wide relief altogether by successfully defeating class
certification prior to trial.

Because these risks are eliminated by the certainty of immediate
payment through the proposed settlement, the Court finds that the
fourth and fifth Girsh factors weigh in favor of settlement.

Risks of Maintaining the Class Action Through Trial

While the significance of this sixth Girsh factor in the
settlement context has been questioned, the practical and legal
risks of decertification would favor settlement in this case. The
Defendant has stated that it intends to contest certification
should the case proceed, and regardless of whether such a
challenge would succeed, such contested motion practice is likely
to increase both the length and expense of the litigation.

Ability of Defendant to Withstand a Greater Judgment

The seventh Girsh factor examines whether Defendant could
withstand a judgment for an amount significantly greater than the
Settlement.  Here, the parties have not presented evidence
concerning the Defendant's ability to withstand a greater
judgment, and thus this factor is neutral in this case.

The Range of Reasonableness

The eighth and ninth Girsh factors evaluate whether the
settlement represents a good value for a weak case or a poor
value for a strong case.  In weighing these two factors, courts
must decide "whether the settlement is reasonable in light of the
best possible recovery and the risks the parties would face if
the case went to trial.

Based upon the Plaintiffs' testimony that they performed about
eight hours of meal break work per month, the Plaintiffs
calculated the maximum total compensatory damages of the class to
be approximately $491,666. Taking into account the uncertainty of
proving meal break hours worked by each class member and of class
certification in response to a contested motion, the Settlement
Amount represents a significant recovery of the unpaid wages that
could have reasonably been proven at trial.

In light of the risks associated with continued litigation, the
Court finds the final two Girsh factors weigh in favor of
settlement.

Purposes of the FLSA

The Court also finds that in light of the parties' modifications
to the release and confidentiality provisions of the Settlement
Agreement, the agreement as a whole is consistent with, and will
not frustrate, the purposes of the FLSA.

Accordingly, after applying the presumption of fairness to which
the settlement is entitled, and considering the Girsh factors
alongside the purposes of the FLSA, the Court concludes the class
action settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

The Court will grant final approval of the settlement agreement.

A full-text copy of the District of Court's April 19, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y766ob2b from Leagle.com.

ADRIENNE GALT & NANCY MURPHY, FOR THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, represented by ANDREW C. FICZKO -
- aficzko@stephanzouras.com -- STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP, DAVID J. COHEN
-- dcohen@stephanzouras.com --  STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP, JAMES B.
ZOURAS -- rstephan@stephanzouras.com -- STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP & RYAN
F. STEPHAN -- jzouras@stephanzouras.com -- STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP.

EAGLEVILLE HOSPITAL, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER A.
TINARI -- ctinari@margolisedelstein.com -- MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN,
MEGHAN MILLS -- mmills@margolisedelstein.com -- MARGOLIS
EDELSTEIN, MICHAEL RONALD MILLER -- mmiller@margolisedelstein.com
-- MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN & MORGAN BROOKE RAZOR, MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN.


ED'S LANDSCAPES: Landscaper Action to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Amaya and Cesar Fuentes, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ed's Landscapes &
Services, Corp. and Eduardo Carmona, as individuals, Defendant,
Case No. CV18-2473 (E.D. N.Y., April 26, 2018), seeks overtime
wages, compensatory and liquidated damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, costs and all other legal and equitable remedies under the
Fair Labor Standards and Act and New York Labor Law.

Amaya and Fuentes worked for the Defendants' landscaping business
as landscapers and laborers from March 2013 until December 2017.
They worked approximately seventy-two hours per week without
overtime pay for hours worked over forty. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Telephone: (718) 263-9591
      Fax: (718) 263-9598
      Email: HFDalton6912@Gmail.com


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Unit Faces Suit over Sales of Zetia(R) Drug
---------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. is defending
against class action suits related to the delay in the generic
competition and monopolizing the market for Zetia(R) (ezetimibe)
and its generic equivalents.

Beginning in February 2018, several alleged indirect purchasers
filed proposed class actions against the company's subsidiary Par
Pharmaceutical, Inc. (PPI) and others alleging a conspiracy to
delay generic competition and monopolize the market for Zetia(R)
(ezetimibe) and its generic equivalents.

The complaints assert claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act, various state antitrust and consumer protection
statutes and state common law and seek injunctive relief,
damages, treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

Endo International said 'We intend to vigorously defend these
matters and to explore other options as appropriate in our best
interests."

Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company,
manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S.
Branded Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Bid for Relief from Dismissal Order Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that the motion of the lead plaintiffs in
the case Craig Friedman v. Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka
Liyanaarchchie de Silva and Suketu P. Upadhyay, for relief from
judgment dismissing their lawsuit and for leave to file a fourth
amended complaint has been denied.

In May 2016, a putative class action entitled Craig Friedman v.
Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie de Silva
and Suketu P. Upadhyay was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York by an individual shareholder on
behalf of himself and all similarly situated shareholders. In
August 2016, the Steamfitters' Industry Pension Fund and
Steamfitters' Industry Security Benefit Fund were appointed lead
plaintiffs in the action.

In October 2016, a second amended complaint was filed, which
added Paul Campanelli as a defendant, and the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the case. In response, and without resolving
the motion, the Court permitted lead plaintiffs to file a third
amended complaint.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act based on the Company's revision of its 2016 earnings
guidance and certain disclosures about its generics business, the
integration of Par and its subsidiaries, certain other alleged
business issues and the receipt of a CID from the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Southern District of New York regarding contracts
with Pharmacy Benefit Managers concerning FROVA(R). Lead
plaintiffs seek class certification, damages in an unspecified
amount and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint
in December 2016. Briefing on that motion has been completed but
no ruling has been issued, Endo said in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

In its recent quarterly report, Endo said that in January 2018,
the Court granted the company's motion and dismissed the case
with prejudice.  In February 2018, lead plaintiffs filed a motion
for relief from the judgment and leave to file a fourth amended
complaint; the court denied this motion in April 2018. The time
for appeal has not yet run.

Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company,
manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S.
Branded Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Underway in Mississippi PERS Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that discovery is ongoing in Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Endo International
plc

In February 2017, a putative class action entitled Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Endo International
plc was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County,
Pennsylvania by an institutional purchaser of shares in the
Company's June 2, 2015 public offering, on behalf of itself and
all similarly situated purchasers.  The lawsuit alleges
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 against Endo, certain of its current and former directors
and officers, and the underwriters who participated in the
offering, based on certain disclosures about Endo's generics
business.

In March 2017, defendants removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  Endo said in its
Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2017, that in August 2017, the court remanded the case back to
the Chester County Court of Common Pleas. In October 2017,
plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and defendants moved to
partially stay the case pending the resolution of a pending U.S.
Supreme Court case that could impact the state court's
jurisdiction. Defendants' motion for a partial stay was granted
in November 2017.

In its recent quarterly report, Endo disclosed that in December
2017, defendants filed preliminary objections to the amended
complaint. The court denied those preliminary objections in April
2018. The case is currently in discovery.

Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company,
manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S.
Branded Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: "Makris" Suit Remains Pending in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a
putative class action suit entitled, Phaedra A. Makris v. Endo
International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie de Silva and
Suketu P. Upadhyay.

In April 2017, a putative class action entitled Phaedra A. Makris
v. Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie de Silva
and Suketu P. Upadhyay was filed in the Superior Court of Justice
in Ontario, Canada by an individual shareholder on behalf of
herself and similarly-situated Canadian-based investors who
purchased Endo's securities between January 11 and May 5, 2016.

The statement of claim generally seeks class certification,
declaratory relief, damages, interest and costs based on alleged
violations of the Ontario Securities Act. The statement of claim
alleges negligent misrepresentations concerning the Company's
revenues, profit margins and earnings per share; its receipt of a
subpoena from the State of Connecticut regarding doxycycline
hyclate, amitriptyline hydrochloride, doxazosin mesylate,
methotrexate sodium and oxybutynin chloride; and the erosion of
the Company's U.S. generic pharmaceutical business.

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

Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company,
manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S.
Branded Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss "Bier" Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in the case entitled Bier v. Endo International
plc, et al., remains pending.

Endo said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that in August 2017, a putative class action
entitled Bier v. Endo International plc, et al. was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by
an individual shareholder on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated shareholders. The lawsuit alleges violations of Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Endo and four current
and former directors and officers, based on the Company's
decision to remove reformulated OPANA(R) ER from the market.

In its recent quarterly report, Endo disclosed that in December
2017, SEB Investment Management AB was appointed lead plaintiff
in the action. In February 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint, which added claims alleging violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act in connection with the
June 2015 offering. The amended complaint named the Company, EHSI
and twenty current and former directors, officers and employees
of Endo as defendants.  In April 2018, the defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint.

Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company,
manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S.
Branded Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: "Pelletier" Suit Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself
in a putative class action suit entitled, Pelletier v. Endo
International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie De Silva, Suketu
P. Upadhyay, and Paul V. Campanelli.

In November 2017, a putative class action entitled Pelletier v.
Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie De Silva,
Suketu P. Upadhyay, and Paul V. Campanelli was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by an
individual shareholder on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated shareholders.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act in connection with the allegations of
anticompetitive conduct asserted in In re Generic Pharmaceuticals
Pricing Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2724.

In January 2018, the Chief Judge of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania designated Pelletier as related to Bier and
reassigned Pelletier to the judge overseeing Bier. A lead
plaintiff has not yet been selected.

Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company,
manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S.
Branded Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: AMS Facing Mesh Suit in Australia
-----------------------------------------------------
American Medical Systems, LLC, is facing a representative
proceeding (class action) in the Federal Court of Australia, Endo
International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.

Since 2008, the company and certain of its subsidiaries,
including American Medical Systems Holdings, Inc. (subsequently
converted to Astora Women's Health Holding LLC and merged into
Astora Women's Health LLC and referred to herein as AMS) and/or
Astora, have been named as defendants in multiple lawsuits in the
U.S. in various state and federal courts (including a federal MDL
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
West Virginia (MDL No. 2325)), and in Canada and other countries,
alleging personal injury resulting from the use of transvaginal
surgical mesh products designed to treat pelvic organ prolapse
(POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

In January 2018, a representative proceeding (class action) was
filed in the Federal Court of Australia against American Medical
Systems, LLC. In the various class action and individual
complaints, plaintiffs claim a variety of personal injuries,
including chronic pain, incontinence, inability to control bowel
function and permanent deformities, and seek compensatory and
punitive damages, where available.

The company and certain plaintiffs' counsel representing mesh-
related product liability claimants have entered into various
Master Settlement Agreements (MSAs) and other agreements to
resolve up to approximately 71,000 filed and unfiled mesh claims
handled or controlled by the participating counsel. These MSAs
and other agreements were entered into at various times between
June 2013 and the present, were solely by way of compromise and
settlement and were not in any way an admission of liability or
fault by the company or any of its subsidiaries.

Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company,
manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S.
Branded Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals.


EPIC SYSTEMS: Supreme Court Ruling to Impact Employee Contracts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Canfield, writing for Buffalo Law Journal, reports that
a Supreme Court ruling in May allows companies to use arbitration
clauses in employment contracts to keep workers from joining to
bring legal action over workplace issues.

The ruling could prevent workers from taking action against
employers, said Krista Gottlieb of the ADR Center & Law Office in
Buffalo.

"It's always been controversial because it can make it so that
the cases are so small that people won't bring them, which can be
argued by some that it allows bad actors to get away with bad
acts," she said.  "They're all so small that no one can afford to
or is willing to spend the time and money to correct them.  When
you allow people to band together, it prevents bad actors from
getting away with it.

"The flip side of that is that it's not fair because it is all
individual and therefore should be brought independently," she
said.

The court ruled 5-4, which could have an impact on nearly 25
million employment contracts nationwide.

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch pointed to federal
law and the court's precedents in favoring arbitration.

"In the Court's judgment, the virtues Congress originally saw in
arbitration, its speed and simplicity and inexpensiveness, would
be shorn away and arbitration would wind up looking like the
litigation it was meant to displace," he wrote in response to
workers being able to band together to file claims.

The elimination of class actions has forced large arbitration
organizations such as the American Arbitration Association to
deal with many individual filings, said former Magistrate Judge
Carol Heckman, Esq. -- checkman@lippes.com -- a partner at Lippes
Mathias Wexler Friedman LLP in Buffalo.  She specializes in
arbitration.

Under the court's ruling, she said, there will be more individual
cases or multiple group filings.

"For example, I had a case where there were 45 different
claimants," Ms. Heckman said.  "They all had the same lawyer and
they were all suing the same employer in arbitration involving
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act."

The federal law outlines the rules for overtime pay.  Ms. Heckman
said a lot of independent contractors will sue employers,
claiming that they're entitled to overtime and insisting that
they're an employee, not an independent contractor.

"Those cases all get separate arbitrators," she said. "The AAA is
trying to figure out 'How do we handle this deluge of cases in an
efficient way without driving the cost of arbitration up high?'
That's always the goal -- to make it efficient and cost-
favorable."

The AAA is starting to use "special masters" in order to deal
with the number of cases, she added.

"It's a title for people like myself who can be appointed by the
(association) and come in and take all these cases and rule on a
number of common issues, like how long is it going to take to go
through the discovery process?" she said.  "How long is it going
to be before the first hearing? Which case should be first as far
as the hearings? What to do about common discovery issues?
There's no point in having different arbitrators have different
conclusions and working against each other."

Because the process is confidential, arbitrators don't know what
the other arbitrators are doing.  Special masters should clear up
any disparities, Ms. Heckman said.

"It's a new technique to try and deal with the consequences of
the Supreme Court decision and related decisions," she said.
"The clear trend in the courts is to enforce every arbitration
agreement that employers throw out there."

Employers like multiple group filings because they drive up the
cost for filing claims, thus discouraging them, she said.  And
plaintiff lawyers like them because it puts employers "through
their paces" and costs them time and money, she said.

"Very often, the employer pays 100 percent of the cost,"
Ms. Heckman said.  "That's in the arbitration agreement very
often.  That's one of the ways they've been able to force it down
employees' throats is by paying the cost. There's no penalty
attached to the employee for arbitration."

Arbitration is meant to be cost-effective.  However, with
multiple individual cases, the cost can rise quickly, and such
cases can take a long time to resolve.

The Supreme Court case of Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis was held
over to the second term, according to Heckman, in order to ensure
Gorsuch was on the bench to contribute to the ruling.

"He wrote the opinion," she said.  "It was interesting from the
point of view of how he goes about legal issues and how his
opinions lead.  He voted the way people predicted he would."

Locally, the ruling shouldn't change much, because the U.S.
Second Circuit, which covers New York, had already ruled against
employees banding together to bring legal actions against
employers.

"What Epic Systems does for us, is it gives us here in the Second
Circuit greater certainty, to the extent that an employer adopts
an arbitration program -- at least in respect to the class
waiver, it's going to be enforced," said Kevin Mulvehill, Esq. --
kmulvehill@phillipslytle.com -- labor and employment team leader
at Phillips Lytle LLP.

The ruling is good for employers and employees, Mr. Mulvehill
said.

"Probably the group that will have the most unfavorable reaction
to the ruling is the plaintiff's class action bar," he said.
"This could have an effect on their practice."

Arbitration clauses aren't always the best thing for employers,
Mr. Mulvehill said.  It's important for an employer to weigh the
benefits to determine if its right.  Employers may also implement
an internal dispute process.

"For example, the employee may provide notice of the claim to the
employer, and the employer will have ample opportunity to
investigate if the claim is valid or not," he said.  "Often
times, we'll see resolution of the claim at that stage, as
opposed to actually going to arbitration."

Mr. Mulvehill said there will be an increase in employers
adopting internal dispute mechanism procedures, and an increase
in mediation in labor disputes.  The court's ruling could lead to
more arbitrations, as well.

"It's premature," he said.  "The decision is only two weeks old,
and this isn't a major change in respect to the Second Circuit
here in New York.  It's possible it could result in more
individual arbitrations, but we don't know." [GN]


ETRADE FINANCIAL: Faces "Jorge" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ETrade Financial
Corporation. The case is styled as Carlos Jorge, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ETrade
Financial Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05685 (S.D.
N.Y., June 22, 2018).

E-Trade Financial Corporation is a financial services company
organized in Delaware and headquartered in New York City. The
company provides services for individuals and institutions that
are investing online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: 9th Cir. Rejects FCRA Putative Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Tsai, Esq. -- etsai@mauricewutscher.com -- of Maurice
Wutscher LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that in a
putative class action alleging violations of the federal Fair
Credit Reporting Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit recently held that:

   (1) the credit reporting agency's reporting of short sales was
not inaccurate or misleading, even though it knew that a
government sponsored enterprise misinterpreted its short sale
code as a foreclosure, because FCRA does not make credit
reporting agencies liable for the conduct of its subscribers;

   (2) the credit reporting agency's consumer disclosures were
clear and accurate, and 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681g did not require the
credit reporting agency to disclose its proprietary codes that
could confuse unsophisticated consumers; and

   (3) the plaintiffs failed to establish a right to statutory
damages because the credit reporting agency conduct was not
objectively unreasonable.

A copy of the opinion in Shaw v. Experian Information Solutions,
Inc. is available at https://is.gd/BbLKSO

The plaintiffs brought this action against a credit reporting
agency alleging violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting
Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681, et seq., based on the credit reporting
agency's reporting of short sales and its related consumer
disclosures.

The credit reporting agency delivered its credit reports in a
proprietary computer-generated format that displays credit
information "in segments and bits and bytes," but the credit
reporting agency provides technical manuals that enable its
subscribers to read and understand the credit reports they
receive.

As you may recall, a short sale is a derogatory credit event that
furnishers report to the credit reporting agencies.  When the
credit reporting agency receives data reporting a short sale, it
translates the data into its proprietary coding before it can
export the data to subscribers. The credit reporting agency's
technical manual coded short sales as follows:

   (1) Account type: A mortgage-related account, such as a first
mortgage or home equity line of credit.

   (2) "Account condition" and "payment status" code: 68, which
corresponds to a Special Comment of "Account legally paid in full
for less than the full balance." The 68 automatically populates a
9 into the first position on the payment history grid to display
the "Settled" status.

   (3) Payment history grid showing the final status ("Settled")
in the first digit, followed by 24 months of payment history
information.

   (4) Date in 25th month in the payment history grid corresponds
to the date the furnisher reported the "Settled" status to the
credit reporting agency.

In other words, the credit reporting agency reported account
condition code 68 ("Account legally paid in full for less than
the full balance") for short sales, which then automatically
inserted the number 9 into the payment history grid (to display a
"Settled" status).  However, a lead payment history code of 9 can
represent multiple, derogatory, non-foreclosure statuses,
including "Settled, Insurance Claim, Term Default, Government
Claim, Paid by Dealer, BK Chapter 7, 11 or 12 Petitioned, or
Discharged and BK Chapter 7, 11 or 12 Reaffirmation of Debt
Rescinded."

Foreclosures are reported with a lead payment history code of 8
and an account condition and payment status code of 94 ("Creditor
Grantor reclaimed collateral to settle defaulted mortgage").
According to the credit reporting agency's technical manuals, it
was impossible for its credit reports to reflect a foreclosure
with a lead payment history code of 9.

A government sponsored enterprise ("GSE") that purchased mortgage
loans from certain lenders used a proprietary underwriting
software.  Its rules required that a consumer with a prior
foreclosure must wait seven years before obtaining a new
mortgage, but consumers with a prior short sale need wait only
two years.

The GSE's underwriting software analyzed credit report data from
the credit reporting agencies.  In doing so, the software relied
on the GSE's payment code, which corresponded to the credit
reporting agency's lead payment history code. Until 2013, the
software "identified [mortgage accounts] as a foreclosure if
there [was] a current status or [payment history code] of '8'
(foreclosure) or '9' (collection or charge off)."

Thus, the GSE elected to treat code 9 the same as it treated code
8, even though it knew from the instructions of the credit
reporting agency that code 9 did not represent a foreclosure, and
that it was "necessarily capturing accounts that [were] not
actually foreclosures." The GSE's treatment of lead payment
history code 8 and 9 imposed a seven-year waiting period on
consumers with a prior short sale, when the waiting period should
have only been two years.

In 2010, consumers and the credit reporting agency raised this
issue with the GSE, but neither entity changed its coding.

Between 2012 and 2013, the plaintiffs disputed the credit
reporting agency's reporting of their prior short sales.
However, the plaintiffs were able to obtain new loans after their
prior short sales because their lenders either understood that
they had a prior short sale, not a foreclosure, or the lender did
not use the GSE's underwriting software.

In June 2013, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action
against the credit reporting agency asserting claims for: (1) a
reasonable procedures claim pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681e; (2)
a reasonable reinvestigation claim pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1681i; (3) a file disclosure claim pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1681g. The plaintiffs requested damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1681n.

The case was stayed pending the Supreme Court's resolution of
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 135 S. Ct. 1892 (2015).  After the stay
was lifted, the credit reporting agency moved for summary
judgment.  The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of
the credit reporting agency.

This appeal followed.

The Ninth Circuit began its analysis on the plaintiffs'
reasonable procedures and reasonable reinvestigation claims.

As you may recall, FCRA's compliance procedures provide that:
"[w]henever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer
report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum
possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual
about whom the report relates." 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681e(b).

Liability under this reasonable procedure provision "is
predicated on the reasonableness of the credit reporting agency's
procedures in obtaining credit information." Guimond v. Trans
Union Credit Info. Co., 45 F.3d 1329, 1333 (9th Cir. 1995). To
bring a section 1681e claim, the "consumer must present evidence
tending to show that a credit reporting agency prepared a report
containing inaccurate information." Id., 45 F.3d at 1333.

Additionally, a credit reporting agency must conduct a free and
reasonable investigation within 30 days of a consumer informing
the agency of disputed information. 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1681i(a)(1)(A). Consumers must show that "an actual inaccuracy
exists" for a section 1681i claim. Carvalho v. Equifax Info.
Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 890 (9th Cir. 2010).

The plaintiffs argued that the credit reporting agency's short
sales code combination 9-68 was "patently incorrect" because it
caused the GSE to treat short sales as a potential foreclosure.

However, the Ninth Circuit noted that the credit reporting agency
reported short sales with code combination of 9-68. Account
status code 68 automatically inserted 9 into the lead payment
history spot, signifying that the account was "Settled" and
"legally paid in full for less than the full balance." This,
according to the Ninth Circuit, was the very definition of a
short sale.

Further, the Ninth Circuit explained that even if code
combination 9-68 stood for other derogatory events, and thus
could be misleading, that alone did not render the credit
reporting agency's reporting actionable.  The reporting must be
"misleading in such a way and to such an extent that it can be
expected to adversely affect credit decisions." Gorman v. Wolpoff
& Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1163 (9th Cir. 2009).

As the Ninth Circuit explained, the credit report agency reported
foreclosures with code 8-94, which meant "[c]reditor [g]rantor
reclaimed [the] collateral to settle defaulted mortgage." And, as
the Ninth Circuit further explained, a foreclosure did not occur
where a mortgage account is "legally paid in full for less than
the full balance" like a short sale.  Thus, in the Ninth
Circuit's view, the credit reporting agency's code system
accurately distinguished short sales and foreclosures.

The plaintiffs also argued that the credit reporting agency's
reports were misleading because it knew the GSE was misreading
its technical manuals and failed to take remedial action.
However, the Ninth Circuit rejected this argument because FCRA
did not make the credit reporting agency liable for the
misconduct of its subscribers.

Thus, because the Ninth Circuit determined that the plaintiffs
failed to point to any inaccuracies on their credit reports, it
did not have to consider whether the credit reporting agency had
reasonable procedures or conducted reasonable reinvestigations.

Next, the Ninth Circuit turned to the plaintiffs' arguments
regarding the credit reporting agency's consumer disclosures.

As you may recall, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681g(a) provides, in relevant
part, that "[e]very consumer reporting agency shall, upon
request, clearly and accurately disclose to the consumer: [a]ll
information in the consumer's file at the time of the request." A
consumer's file includes "all information on the consumer that is
recorded and retained by a [credit reporting agency] that might
be furnished, or has been furnished, in a consumer report on that
consumer." Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688, 711-12 (3d
Cir. 2010).

First, the plaintiffs argued that the credit reporting agency's
consumer disclosures violated section 1681g(a)(1), because it
placed the designation "CLS" (Closed) in the lead spot on the
payment history grid on each consumer disclosure, instead of one
of the code 9 statuses.  The plaintiffs argued that because the
status category on a consumer disclosure ("Paid in settlement")
was a separate category from the lead digit in the payment
history grid on a credit report, these categories served
different purposes.

The Ninth Circuit disagreed.  It found that the credit reporting
agency complied with section 1681(g) because it provided the
plaintiffs with all information in their files at the time of
their requests in a form that was both clear and accurate.
Specifically, the credit reporting agency's consumer disclosures
conveyed the same information it reported to its subscribers.

Additionally, the Ninth Circuit determined that the credit
reporting agency was not required to report the actual code 9 in
a consumer disclosure. Requiring the credit reporting agency to
provide its proprietary code, in the Ninth Circuit's view, would
contradict section 1681g(a)'s requirement that the disclosure be
"clear." In order for a consumer to understand code 9, the credit
reporting agency would have to report account status code 68 and
release its complicated technical manual, which would further
confuse unsophisticated consumers.

Moreover, the Ninth Circuit was unpersuaded by the plaintiffs'
argument that the credit reporting agency violated section
1681g(a)(1), because "there was a material disconnect between the
information displayed in [their] consumer reports and the
information displayed in [their] consumer disclosures due to the
presence of the catchall code 9."  As the Ninth Circuit
explained, this was in essence the same argument based on an
incomplete interpretation of the credit reporting agency's coding
system.  The credit reporting agency's account status code 68
clarified the account's status and the specific derogatory event
attached to it.

Thus, the Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to
identify what information the credit reporting agency improperly
excluded from its disclosures.

Additionally, the Ninth Circuit found that the plaintiffs failed
to establish a right to statutory damages under 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1681n, which required a showing that the credit reporting
agency willfully failed to comply with FCRA.

The Ninth Circuit stated that even if the credit reporting agency
had violated section 1681g, it did not act in an objectively
unreasonable manner by electing not to list code 9 in its
consumer reports.  Further, the Ninth Circuit noted that the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau investigated the short sale-
foreclosure problem and determined that the underlying issue was
not due to inaccurate reporting by furnishers or credit reporting
agencies.

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's grant
of summary judgment in favor of the credit reporting agency. [GN]


FAMOUS DAVE'S RIBS: "Broad" to Recover Illegally-Withheld Tips
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Stephanie Broad, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Famous Dave's Ribs Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 508082/2018, (N.Y. Sup., April 20, 2018),
seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation and other
damages under the under the New York Labor Law and Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Broad is a "tipped employee" who works as a server at Famous
Dave's restaurant located at 1060 Corporate Drive, Westbury, NY
11590.

Defendant illegally applied a tip credit to her wages resulting
in a rate lower that the minimum wage, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

Defendant is represented by:

      FEATHER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      666 Old Country Road Ste. 605
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel: (516)-745-9000


FEDERAL SIGNAL: Hearing Loss Litigation Underway
------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that the Company continues to defend
itself in the Hearing Loss Litigation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Following this trial, on March 12, 2012 the trial court entered
an order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire
Department firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of
whether the Company's sirens were defective and unreasonably
dangerous.

The Company petitioned the Illinois Appellate Court for
interlocutory appeal of this ruling. On May 17, 2012, the
Illinois Appellate Court accepted the Company's petition. On June
8, 2012, plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeing with
the Company that the trial court had erred in certifying a class
action trial in this matter. Pursuant to plaintiffs' motion, the
Illinois Appellate Court reversed the trial court's certification
order.

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

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

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

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

On April 24, 2015, the cases were transferred to Cook County
chancery court, which will decide all class certification issues.
On March 23, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify as a
class all firefighters from the Chicago Fire Department who have
filed lawsuits in this matter. The Company intends to continue
its objections to any attempt at certification. A further status
hearing on class certification issues was scheduled for May 10,
2018.

Federal Signal Corporation is a global manufacturer and supplier
of vehicles and equipment for maintenance and infrastructure end-
markets, including sewer cleaners, vacuum trucks, street
sweepers, dump truck bodies and trailers; and safety, security
and communication equipment, such as lights, sirens and warning
systems. The company is based in Oak Brook, Illinois.


FORTERRA INC: IPO Securities Suit Gets New Judge
------------------------------------------------
Forterra, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend against
securities lawsuits related to its registration statement on Form
S-1 filed in connection with an initial public offering.

In an order dated June 5, 2018, the case, Disayawathana v.
Forterra, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-04824 (E.D.N.Y., August
16, 2017), was reassigned to Judge Joanna Seybert and Magistrate
Judge Gary R. Brown for all further proceedings. Judge Arthur D.
Spatt and Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields were no longer
assigned to the case.  Chief Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry signed
on the order.

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

On August 14, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed
by Charles Forrester; on August 16, 2017, a putative class action
complaint was filed by Supanin Disayawathana; on August 23, 2017
a putative class action complaint was filed by Matthew Spindler;
and on September 27, 2017, a putative class action complaint was
filed by Nancy Maloney (the four complaints together, the
"Securities Lawsuits").

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

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

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

Forterra said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that on October 13, 2017, three
competing motions were filed for consolidation of the Securities
Lawsuits and for appointment of an individual or group of
individuals as lead plaintiff in the consolidated case under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Responses to
the competing motions were filed on October 27, 2017, at which
time one motion was withdrawn and on November 3, 2017, one of the
moving parties, Wladislaw Maciuga, filed a Notice of Non-
Opposition with the Court, noting that he was unopposed as lead
plaintiff.

In its recent quarterly report, the Company disclosed that the
court has not yet made its lead plaintiff determination. On
February 5, 2018, Nancy Maloney filed a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal of her case without prejudice to refiling at a later
date.

On March 5, 2018, the Company and several individual defendants
filed a letter request with the court in one of the Securities
Lawsuits, in accordance with the local rules of the court,
seeking permission to file a motion to transfer the venue of the
litigation from the Eastern District of New York to the Northern
District of Texas based on the fact that it could have originally
been brought in the Northern District of Texas and that transfer
would be in the interest of justice and the convenience of the
parties an witnesses. On March 12, 2018 Plaintiffs filed a letter
opposing the proposed transfer of venue, but the court has not
yet ruled on the matter.

The Company is defending the Securities Lawsuits vigorously.
Given the stage of the proceedings, the Company cannot reasonably
estimate at this time the possible loss or range of loss, if any,
that may arise from the Securities Lawsuits.

Forterra, Inc. is a manufacturer of pipe and precast products in
the United States and Eastern Canada for a variety of water-
related infrastructure applications, including water
transmission, distribution and drainage. The company is based in
Irving, Texas.


FOX NEWS: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fox News Network,
LLC. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fox News
Network, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05694 (S.D. N.Y., June
22, 2018).

Fox News is an American basic cable and satellite television news
channel owned by the Fox Entertainment Group, a subsidiary of
21st Century Fox. The channel broadcasts primarily from studios
at 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
   30 East 39th Street
   2nd Floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Fax: (212) 465-1181
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


GIRARD, OH: Seeks Dismissal of Speed Camera Ticket Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Gauntner, writing for WFMJ, reports that Girard city
officials have asked a federal judge to throw out a class action
lawsuit challenging speed camera tickets issued along Interstate
80 late last year through early this year.

A Cleveland law firm filed the lawsuit claiming hundreds if not
thousands of people wrongly received tickets for driving faster
than 55 along I-80 in Girard between December 7th, 2017 and
January 7th of 2018.

The suit alleges that the construction zone speed limit of 55 mph
along the stretch of I-80 in Girard should have been restored to
65 mph when the road work was completed after December 7, and
those were ticketed for driving faster than 55 between that date
and January 7 should be reimbursed.

The attorneys for the city filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit
claiming that the city ordinance mandates that drivers must not
exceed the "posted" speed limit, which at the time was still 55
mph according to the signs that remained up after construction
was completed.

The city also says in its motion that those filing the suit
contested the tickets through an administrative hearing outlined
in the ordinance allowing the speed cam enforcement.

The speeding tickets in this case range from $104 to $179.

They are civil violations and do not become part of a person's
driving record.

The lawsuit, which asks for a trial by jury, asks the court to
invalidate the tickets as well as award attorney fees.
unspecified actual and punitive damages. [GN]


GOOGLE LLC: Bid to Enjoin Suspension of AdWords Accounts Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, denied Plaintiffs' Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order in the case captioned ADTRADER, INC.,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-
07082-BLF (N.D. Cal.).

Google offers advertisement services for website publishers and
advertisers.  Website publishers can use Google's DoubleClick Ad
Exchange (AdX) service to sell advertisement space on their
websites.  AdX allows website publishers to display
advertisements in exchange for a share of the advertising revenue
paid to Google by advertisers for each impression, each time a
unique user views the publisher's website displaying the
advertisements.

The Plaintiffs filed the motion seeking to enjoin Google from
suspending or de-activating the accounts of any AdWords
advertisers that decline to accept Google's September 1, 2017
modifications to its Advertising Program Terms.

An injunction is a matter of equitable discretion and is an
extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear
showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief. A
plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he
is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the
balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is
in the public interest.

The Plaintiffs argue that the new agreement's retroactive
arbitration and class waiver terms are unenforceable.

The Plaintiffs' arguments are premised on their belief that they
must decline the September 2017 AdWords Agreement in order to
avoid being subject to the new Dispute Resolution Agreement
provision contained therein. The Court holds that that premise is
incorrect. As the Defendants argue advertisers are free to accept
the new terms in the September 2017 AdWords Agreement but decline
the Dispute Resolution Agreement provision without their accounts
becoming paused. Indeed, Google's email notice and the September
2017 AdWords Agreement make it clear that advertisers can freely
opt out of the Dispute Resolution Agreement provision.

Although advertisers' accounts would be paused after they decline
the September 2017 AdWords Agreement, the advertisers can later
resume using AdWords by accepting the new terms. The advertisers
can still elect to opt out of the Dispute Resolution Agreement at
that time. All of their account data and other tools would remain
intact.

Hence, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated immediate threatened
injury because the advertisers can resume their AdWords accounts
at any time and then opt out of the Dispute Resolution Agreement
even if the accounts became deactivated at one point.

Moreover, Google has committed that it will not seek to compel
arbitration against AdTrader and SCB. In fact, Google states that
it has waived its right to arbitrate against AdTrader and SCB
under the September 2017 AdWords Agreement.

Therefore, the named Plaintiffs do not face any immediate
threatened injury that warrants the requested injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining order and order to
show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue is
denied.

A full-text copy of the District of Court's April 19, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8r24csz from Leagle.com.

AdTrader, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Mark Weylin Poe --
mpoe@gawpoe.com -- Gaw & Poe LLP, Samuel S. Song --
ssong@gawpoe.com -- Gaw & Poe LLP, Victor Meng  --
vmeng@gawpoe.com -- Gaw & Poe LLP & Randolph Gaw --
rgaw@gawpoe.com -- Gaw & Poe LLP.

Specialized Collections Bureau, Inc., Classic and Food EOOD, LML
CONSULT Ltd., Fresh Break Ltd. & Ad Crunch Ltd., Plaintiffs,
represented by Samuel S. Song, Gaw & Poe LLP & Randolph Gaw, Gaw
& Poe LLP.

Google LLC, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Gutkin --
jgutkin@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Michael Graham Rhodes --
rhodesmg@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Audrey Jane Mott-Smith --
amottsmith@cooley.com  -- Cooley LLP & Kyle Christopher Wong --
kwong@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.


GREGORYS COFFEE: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gregorys Coffee
Trade LLC. The case is styled as Steven Matzura, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gregorys
Coffee Trade LLC doing business as: Gregorys Coffee, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-05688 (S.D. N.Y., June 22, 2018).

Gregorys Coffee is a New York-based coffee roaster and
retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


HOME OWNERS: Denial of Class Arbitration in "Robinson" Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth,
affirmed the trial court's judgment denying Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Arbitration in the case captioned NATHAN ROBINSON AND
MISTI ROBINSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF ALL
PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellants, v. HOME OWNERS MANAGEMENT
ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A HOME OF TEXAS AND WARRANTY UNDERWRITERS
INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee, No. 02-16-00380-CV (Cal. App.).

The Court have two issues to address: (1) whether the trial court
correctly determined that the availability of class-action
arbitration under the parties' contract was a gateway substantive
issue for it, not the arbitrator, to decide; and (2) whether the
trial court correctly ruled that the arbitration clause in
question did not authorize class arbitration.

Nathan and Misti Robinson, in only their individual capacities,
sued Home Owners Management Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Home of
Texas (HOME) and Warranty Underwriters Insurance Company (WUIC),
along with others not parties to this appeal, for failure to fix
or repair defects, for poor construction, and for deficiencies in
their new home.

In moving the trial court to deny the Robinsons' demand for class
arbitration and to strike or dismiss their new statement of
claims, HOME argued as an overarching matter that the parties
never agreed to the unusual and impractical dispute resolution
mechanism of class arbitration. After conducting a non-
evidentiary hearing, the trial court found the following:

   1. The question of whether the parties agreed to class
arbitration is a question of arbitrability for this Court.

   2. The Parties did not clearly and unmistakably provide that
the arbitrator is to decide issues of arbitrability; thus, this
Court shall determine the issue of class arbitrability.

   3. The Court determines and finds that the Warranty Agreement
between the Parties does not permit class arbitration.

As a result, the trial court granted HOME's motion in part,
ordering that this matter will not be referred to class
arbitration.

The Robinsons appealed this interlocutory order in accordance
with Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 51.016.

Issue One: If a contract doesn't say, who decides whether class
claims are arbitrable, a court or an arbitrator?

Over the past 15 years the Supreme Court has twice overtly
distanced itself from the Bazzle plurality's idea that class
arbitration involves the kinds of things routinely left to the
arbitrator, such as simple matters of contract interpretation and
arbitration procedures.  Two decisions from the Third Circuit, in
2014 and then in 2016, similarly concluded that the availability
of class-based arbitration is a gateway question of arbitrability
for a court to answer.  The Supreme Court's line of post-Bazzle
opinions, indicates that, because of the fundamental differences
between classwide and bilateral arbitration, and the consequences
of proceeding with one rather than the other, the availability of
classwide arbitrability is a substantive gateway question rather
than a procedural one.

The Court thus joins the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in
holding that the availability of class arbitration is a question
of arbitrability, courts, not arbitrators, must presumptively
decide arbitrability questions unless parties clearly and
unmistakably provide otherwise, and the burden of overcoming the
presumption is onerous.

The Fourth Circuit was the next to adopt this view, later in
2016. Dell Webb Cmtys., Inc. v. Carlson, 817 F.3d 867, 877 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 567 (2016), holding that where the
parties did not unmistakably provide that the arbitrator would
decide whether their agreement authorizes class arbitration, the
question was a substantive one for the court). And just last
year, the Eighth Circuit followed suit in Catamaran Corp. v.
Towncrest Pharmacy, 864 F.3d 966, 969, 971-73 (8th Cir. 2017)
(same).

The Texas Supreme Court has noted that, as a general matter,
stare decisis dictates that once the Supreme Court announces a
proposition of law, the decision is considered binding precedent,
and that it is not the function of a court of appeals to abrogate
or modify established precedent. But the current state of the law
on classwide arbitration leads us to believe that the Supreme
Court, federal or state, has not, in fact, announced a legal
proposition to which we must unhesitatingly assent. Moreover,
stare decisis finds its greatest force in the area of statutory
construction, something not here involved.

Additionally, when applying or interpreting federal law such as
the FAA, the state supreme court recognizes that it is in the
unique role as a court of last resort on all other issues within
our jurisdiction of an intermediate appellate court, anticipating
the manner in which the Unites States Supreme Court would decide
the issue presented. When it comes to a court-versus-arbitrator
prediction in the realm of deciding class-based arbitrability,
the United States Supreme Court has made the eventual answer
inescapable.

The Court thus holds that where a bilateral arbitration agreement
says nothing about delegating the question of class-arbitration
availability to an arbitrator, the judicial system retains its
presumed role as the adjudicator of this substantive gateway
issue. Put differently, an agreement's silence is simply not a
clear and unmistakable delegation of such a fundamental issue.

The Court overrules the Robinsons' first issue.

Issue Two: Did HOME and the Robinsons contract for class-action
arbitration?

Because arbitration agreements are contracts, they are
interpreted using state law, although with the added gloss that
the FAA imposes certain rules of fundamental importance,
including the basic precept that arbitration 'is a matter of
consent, not coercion.'

Unable to cite to any language showing a contractual basis for
concluding that HOME agreed to class arbitration, the Robinsons
posit the inverse, that the agreement draws no distinctions
between bilateral and class arbitration. But because of the
significant differences between the two types, that is no reason
for us to infer that HOME agreed to arbitrate the Robinsons'
class-action claims against it. Doing so would run afoul both of
Stolt-Nielsen and its progeny, and of basic Texas contract law.

The same is true of their argument that the Court should construe
the arbitration provision against HOME, its drafter. The rule of
construing a contract against its drafter does not apply unless
the contract is ambiguous, and only then as a last resort if all
other canons of construction fail to yield a superlatively
defensible interpretation. The Court does not think that the
Limited Warranty's silence about class arbitration creates an
ambiguity in need of contra proferentem or any other
interpretative canon.

Similarly, unavailing is the Robinsons' argument that because
HOME insisted on a broad, sweeping view of the agreement when
moving to compel bilateral arbitration of the Robinsons'
individual claims, HOME is somehow now estopped from denying that
its initial interpretation extended to class-based arbitration as
well, or that it has waived the argument. But HOME could not have
waived or estopped itself from resisting class-wide arbitration
prospectively and in a vacuum: the Robinsons had not pleaded for
such a thing until long after the trial court had sent their
bilateral claims to arbitration. The Court have no doubt that if
the Robinsons had raised both individual and class claims at the
outset, HOME's motion to compel arbitration would have looked
completely different.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by holding that the
Limited Warranty does not permit class arbitration, and we thus
overrule the Robinsons' second issue.

Having overruled the Robinson's two issues, the Court affirms the
trial court's judgment.

A full-text copy of the Tex. App.'s April 19, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybkwar4r from Leagle.com.

Curt Covington -- curt@lrclegal.com -- for Home Owners Management
Enterprises, Inc., Appellee.

Evan Lane Shaw, 2723 Fairmount, Dallas, TX 75201, Mark A. Ticer,
10440 N Central Expy #600, Dallas, TX 75231, for Nathan Robinson
and Misti Robinson, Appellants.


I-FORTUNE COOKIE: "Chauca" Suit Seeks Retained Tips, Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Marco Rigoberto Panza Chauca, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. I-Fortune
Cookie Food Service Inc. and Shu Heung Lee, Defendants, Case No.
706473/2018 (N.Y. Sup., April 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, retained tips, spread-of-hours pay, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New York labor
law.

I-Fortune Cookie is a Chinese restaurant owned by Shu Heung Lee
located at 44-69 21st Street, Long Island City, New York 11101
where Panza was ostensibly employed as a delivery worker, but he
was required to spend several hours each day performing non-
tipped duties. Panza regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per
week without appropriate minimum wage, spread-of-hours or
overtime compensation due to  Defendants' failure to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of his hours worked, says the complaint.
Despite employing Panza as a delivery worker in their payroll,
Panza spent a significant amount of time spent performing the
non-delivery, non-tipped duties but was paid at a rate that was
lower than the required tip-credit rate. Defendants were not
entitled to take a tip credit because Plaintiff's non-tipped
duties exceeded 20% of each workday. Defendants managed to pay
Panza at the lower tip-credited rate by designating him as a
delivery worker instead of a non-tipped employee, notes the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ICOT HEARING: Consumers File TCPA Class Action in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Gonzales, writing PennRecord, reports that a group of
consumers filed a class-action lawsuit against ICOT Hearing
Systems LLC, which does business as ListenClear, and 10 unnamed
individuals, alleging that the defendants invaded their privacy.

Lead plaintiffs John Galloway and Zachary Galloway filed a
complaint June 4 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, citing a violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Galloways were contacted by the
defendants on April 24 in an attempt to get them to purchase
ListenClear's services.  As a result of defendants illegal calls,
the plaintiffs claim they incurred cell phone charges or reduced
telephone time for which they had previously paid.

The plaintiffs said they hold the defendants responsible because
they allegedly made calls using an automatic telephone dialing
system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice and contacted
the plaintiffs without their prior express consent.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek statutory damages
of $500 for each violation, treble damages of $1,500 for each
willful violation and other just and proper relief.  They are
represented by Cynthia Z. Levin of Law Offices of Todd M.
Friedman PC in King of Prussia.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case
number 2:18-cv-02334-GAM [GN]


IQOR: Averts Call Center Employees' Wage-and-Hour Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Business Management Daily reports that a federal court has
refused to certify a wage-and-hour class-action lawsuit.  The
crux of the case: Minnesota's unique rules requiring employees to
be paid for breaks of less than 20 minutes.

Recent case: A group of call center employees in several states
sued, alleging federal and state wage-and-hour violations.  They
argued that the software used to track their time automatically
logged them off for any breaks beyond the two five-minute breaks
their employer allowed as paid.  They could take additional
breaks, but weren't paid for them.

The employer said each group should file their own lawsuit
because it was too difficult to manage one lawsuit across
multiple states, given each state's distinct laws.

The court agreed, noting that Minnesota requires payment for all
breaks of less than 20 minutes while other states don't. (Shoots,
et al., v. iQor, DC MN, 2018) [GN]


ISRAEL: Police Ordered to Freeze Speed Camera Ticket Issuance
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tomer Hadar, writing for CTech, reports that on June 10, Israel's
State Attorney directed Israel Police to temporarily freeze the
issuance of speeding tickets based on stationary speed cameras
due to concerns about their adequacy.  The decision came after it
was revealed that at least 200 active speeding cameras in the
country were never tested for accuracy following their
installation.

More than 200 speed cameras by Dutch and Swedish company Sensys
Gatso have been installed in Israel between the years 2012 and
2014, gradually replacing existing radar-based cameras.

In 2015, a class-action suit put forward by a group of drivers
and submitted to the Traffic Tribunal in Acre by Israeli Lawyer
Tomer Gonen alleged that speeding tickets received based on data
from the speed cameras were unfounded.  In the ensuing legal
proceeding, it was revealed that the cameras were never tested
after they were installed in Israel, and Israeli police admitted
to relying on tests performed by the manufacturing company.

Court-ordered testing by experts from the Technion-Israel
Institute of Technology failed to prove the cameras' accuracy.

In a statement on June 10, Israel Police said that the speed
cameras in question are being reviewed, and that they will
continue to document speeding violations through the cameras
without issuing tickets.  Israel Police also said it will
increase its use of other means of speeding violation detection,
such as laser guns. [GN]


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Talcum Powder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo, writing for St. Louis Record, reports that
consumers and estate representatives have filed a class-action
lawsuit against talcum powder manufacturers over allegations
their products caused ovarian cancer.

Cynthia Gibson, Heidi Amiro, Lois Arnstein, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint
on June 1 in the St. Louis Circuit Court against Johnson &
Johnson Inc., et al. alleging strict liability for failure to
warn and other counts.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that as a
result of using Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to
Shower, the plaintiffs and their decedents wrongfully developed
ovarian cancer because of the talc in the products.

The plaintiffs hold Johnson & Johnson Inc., et al. responsible
because the defendants allegedly failed to warn of and caused
ovarian cancer in consumers because of exposure to talc,
asbestos, heavy metal and other carcinogens allegedly in their
products.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek damages of
$25,000 and all further relief as the court may deem just, proper
and equitable.  They are represented by James G. Onder, W. Wylie
Blair and Stephanie L Rados of The Onder Law Firm in St. Louis
and by others.

St. Louis Circuit Court case number 1822-CC06811 [GN]


JUUL LABS INC: "Colgate" Disputes Vape Products Safety
------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Colgate and Kaytlin Mcknight, on behalf of themselves,
the general public and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
JUUL Labs, Inc. and Pax Labs, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-
02499 (N.D. Cal., April 26, 2018), seeks actual, punitive or
compensatory damages, restitution, injunctive relief pursuant to
the California Business & Professions Code and the California
Civil Code, compensatory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees,
costs of suit incurred and such further relief.

JUUL/Pax Labs is a provider of e-cigarettes and nicotine pods in
the United States and abroad. They are alleged of marketing their
products as safe, candy-like products that are attractive to
minors and nonsmokers, despite the fact they contain more potent
doses of nicotine than cigarettes, making them particularly
addictive, and without disclosing any of the myriad problems that
are likely to occur from the use of the products, including long-
term nicotine addiction, increased risk of heart disease and
stroke, changes in brain functionality that lead to increased
susceptibility to anxiety, depression and other addictions,
decreased functionality of the endocrine system, heightened risk
of cancer and negative effects on fertility.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam J. Gutride, Esq.
      Seth A. Safier, Esq.
      Todd Kennedy, Esq.
      Anthony Patek, Esq.
      GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
      100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 639-9090
      Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
      Email: adam@gutridesafier.com
             seth@gutridesafier.com
             todd@gutridesafier.com
             anthony@gutridesafier.com

             - and -

      Nicholas Migliaccio, Esq.
      Jason Rathod, Esq.
      Esfand Nafisi, Esq.
      MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
      412 H Street NE, Suite 302
      Washington, DC 20002
      Telephone: (202) 470-3520
      Email: enafisi@classlawdc.com


KIA MOTORS: Recalls 507,000 Vehicles in U.S. Over Air Bag Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Shepardson, writing for Reuters, reports that Kia Motors
Corp said on June 8 it was recalling more than 507,000 vehicles
in the United States because an electronic glitch may prevent air
bags from deploying in a crash.

The recall follows an announcement in March by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that it was
investigating why some air bags had failed to deploy in Kia
vehicles and its affiliate Hyundai Motor Corp after crashes in
which four people were killed and another six were injured.

The two Korean automakers have now recalled nearly 1.1 million
U.S. vehicles to address the issue.  NHTSA said in March that it
was aware of six serious crashes in which air bags failed to
deploy in frontal crashes, including four in 2011 model Hyundai
Sonatas and two in 2012 and 2013 Kia Forte vehicles.  The crash
of the 2013 Forte occurred in Canada.

Kia's recall issued on June 8 covers 2010-2013 Kia Fortes, 2011-
2013 Kia Optimas and 2011-2012 Kia Optima Hybrid and Sedona
vehicles.

The company said the air bag control unit may short circuit
because they may be susceptible to electrical overstress,
preventing the frontal air bags and seat belt pretensioners,
which pull the driver and front seat passenger firmly back into
their seats, from deploying.

The company said it does not yet have a fix, but is working with
its supplier on the issue.

Kia spokesman James Bell said the company "is attempting to have
a remedy by the scheduled owner notification date of July 27.  If
Kia does not have a remedy by that date or if any customer feels
unsafe in his/her vehicle, we will provide a rental car until the
repair has been completed."

Hyundai in February issued a recall for 154,000 U.S. Sonatas
after non-deployment reports were linked to electrical overstress
in the air bag control unit.  In April, Hyundai recalled an
additional 425,000 U.S. vehicles to address the same issue.

Hyundai said in March that it was aware of reports of two deaths
in its vehicles, which occurred in head-on collisions at
extremely high rates of speed.

NHTSA said the air bag control module under investigation was
built by ZF Friedrichshafen AG [ZFF.UL], a German auto supplier.

ZF said on June 8 that it has worked with Kia and "continues to
cooperate and support NHTSA and its customers in the
investigation."

The safety agency also said that electrical overstress appeared
to be the root cause in a 2016 recall by Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles NV of 1.4 million U.S. vehicles for air bag non-
deployments in significant frontal crashes.

In March, NHTSA said it was investigating if other automakers
used similar air back control units and if they could pose a
risk.

ZF said on June 8 that each air bag control unit "is designed to
a customer's particular vehicle and platform-specific
specifications."


LANNETT CO: Bid to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company has filed a motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint in a class action lawsuit.

In November 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and two of its officers claiming that the
Company damaged the purported class by including in its
securities filings false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's drug pricing methodologies and internal controls.

A first amended complaint was filed in May 2017, and the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in September
2017.  In December 2017, counsel for the putative class filed a
second amended complaint, and the Court denied as moot the
Company's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint in February 2018.

The Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the suit at
this time.

Lannett Company, Inc. and its subsidiaries develop, manufacture,
package, market and distribute solid oral and extended release
(tablets and capsules), topical, nasal and oral solution finished
dosage forms of drugs, that address a wide range of therapeutic
areas. The company is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


MARYLAND: Faces Class Action Over Ban on Bump Stocks
----------------------------------------------------
Chris Eger, writing for Guns.com, reports that four gun owners
who possess devices termed "rapid fire trigger activators" under
a looming new law in Maryland are taking the state to federal
court.

The class-action lawsuit, filed on June 11 against Gov. Larry
Hogan in his official capacity, argues that the ban he signed
into law in April is illegal when compared against both the U.S.
and state constitutions.  Maryland's law regulating rapid fire
trigger activators -- defined as bump stocks, binary trigger
systems, burst triggers and trigger cranks -- is set to go into
effect in October.  The plaintiffs in the suit -- Paul Mark
Brockman, Robert and Caroline Brunger, and David Orlin -- all own
one or more devices subject to the pending ban.

The challenge is backed by Maryland Shall Issue and takes the
state to task on several legal points.

First, they argue that a mandatory surrender of their devices
without any compensation violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth
Amendment as well as protections offered by the Maryland
Constitution.  Next, the lawsuit attacks that the only promise of
legal ownership, that of federal approval under currently
unwritten regulations on bump stocks and similar devices -- one
that the ATF has already rebuffed Maryland gun owners on -- is a
violation of due process protections.

Finally, the complaint makes the argument that the new law is
badly written and so vague that it can't provide reasonable
protection to those who are unsure if their devices meet the
definition of a rapid-fire trigger activator while simultaneously
failing to give police, prosecutors and the courts enough
guidance to enforce the law without being discriminatory.

A ban on bump stocks in Florida is the subject of a federal
lawsuit on similar grounds.

Violators of Maryland's ban would be subject to felony charges,
facing three years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

The law passed 128-7 in the state House and 35-11 in the Senate
and was opposed by the National Rifle Association at the time who
characterized the move as "broad and overreaching."

The plaintiffs are seeking for the court to declare a class
consisting of all owners of banned devices in Maryland prior to
the law going into effect and a trial to determine relief and
damages to include compensation for their devices at fair market
value plus interest, costs and attorneys' fees. [GN]


MDL 2084: Bid to Certify AndroGel(R) Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia has yet to rule on:

     -- Claims over alleged sham litigation involving sales of
        AndroGel(R);

     -- Par's summary judgment motion on all remaining claims;
        and

     -- the direct purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class
        certification

Beginning in February 2009, the Federal Trade Commission and
certain private plaintiffs, including distributors and retailers,
filed suit against our subsidiary Par and others alleging
violations of antitrust law arising out of Par's settlement of
certain patent litigation concerning the generic version of
AndroGel(R). Generally, the complaints seek damages, treble
damages, equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. The
cases have been consolidated and/or coordinated for pretrial
proceedings in a federal MDL pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia (MDL No. 2084).

In September 2012, the district court granted summary judgment to
defendants on plaintiffs' claims of sham litigation. In May 2016,
plaintiffs representing a putative class of indirect purchasers
voluntarily dismissed their case against Par with prejudice. In
February 2017, the FTC voluntarily dismissed its claims against
Par with prejudice.

Claims by a putative class of direct purchasers and certain
specific alleged direct purchasers or their assignees are still
pending. Par has moved for summary judgment on all remaining
claims, and the direct purchaser plaintiffs have moved for class
certification. The court has not yet ruled on these motions.

"We will continue to vigorously defend these matters and to
explore other options as appropriate in our best interests," Endo
said.


MDL 2521: $100 Million Accord Awaits Final Court Okay
-----------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that a fourth quarter 2017 increase to the
Company's legal reserves includes, among other things, an
estimated loss for certain LIDODERM(R)-related claims.

Endo disclosed that, "Beginning in November 2013, multiple direct
and indirect purchasers of LIDODERM(R) filed a number of cases
against our subsidiary EPI and co-defendants Teikoku Seiyaku Co.,
Ltd. and Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc. (collectively, Teikoku), and
Actavis plc and certain of its subsidiaries (collectively,
Actavis), which was subsequently acquired by Teva Pharmaceuticals
Industries Ltd and its subsidiaries from Allergan plc. Plaintiffs
generally alleged that EPI, Teikoku and Actavis entered into an
anticompetitive conspiracy to restrain trade through the
settlement of patent infringement litigation concerning U.S.
Patent No. 5,827,529 (the '529 patent) and other patents. Some
complaints also alleged that Teikoku wrongfully listed the '529
patent in FDA's Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic
Equivalence Evaluations (Orange Book) as related to LIDODERM(R),
that EPI and Teikoku commenced sham patent litigation against
Actavis and that EPI abused the FDA citizen petition process by
filing a citizen petition and amendments solely to interfere with
generic companies' efforts to obtain FDA approval of their
versions of LIDODERM(R). The complaints asserted claims under
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2),
and/or various state antitrust and consumer protection statutes,
as well as common law claims, and generally sought damages,
treble damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution, injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees."

"The cases were consolidated and/or coordinated in April 2014 in
a federal MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (MDL No. 2521). The MDL court certified
classes of direct and indirect purchasers in February 2017. In
June 2017, defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims,
and plaintiffs also moved for partial summary judgment on certain
elements of their claims. In November 2017, the court granted
defendants' motion in part, ruling in defendants' favor on the
issues of infringement and derivation and also limiting the time
period at issue. Defendants' motions for summary judgment were
denied in all other respects. The court also granted plaintiffs'
motions for summary judgment on the issues of agreement and
relevant market.

"EPI settled with certain opt-out plaintiffs in October 2017. EPI
reached an agreement in principle with the class plaintiffs in
February 2018.

"In connection with the settlements, several indirect purchasers
which previously had opted out were permitted to rejoin the
class. The settlement agreements with the direct and indirect
purchaser classes, which have received preliminary approval but
remain subject to final approval by the court, provide that,
subject to certain conditions, EPI will make aggregate payments
of approximately $100 million, approximately $90 million of which
are classified in the Current portion of the legal settlement
accrual in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at March 31,
2018, with the remainder classified as Long-term legal settlement
accrual, less current portion."

Endo added, "We will continue to vigorously defend any unresolved
claims and to explore other options as appropriate in our best
interests. Similar matters may be brought by others or the
foregoing matters may be expanded. We are unable to predict the
outcome of these matters or to estimate the possible range of any
additional losses that could be incurred."


MDL 2545: 1,300 Testosterone Cases vs. Units Pending as of May 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that as of May 1, 2018, the Company was
aware of approximately 1,300 testosterone cases (some of which
may have been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs) pending
against one or more of Endo's subsidiaries. Many of these cases
have been coordinated in a federal multi-district litigation
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (MDL No. 2545). In addition, there are cases pending
against EPI and/or Auxilium in the Philadelphia Court of Common
Pleas (PCCP) and in certain other state courts.

Various manufacturers of prescription medications containing
testosterone, including our subsidiaries Endo Pharmaceuticals
Inc. (EPI) and Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (subsequently
converted to Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, LLC and hereinafter
referred to as Auxilium), have been named as defendants in
multiple lawsuits alleging personal injury resulting from the use
of such medications, including FORTESTA(R) Gel, DELATESTRYL(R),
TESTIM(R), TESTOPEL(R), AVEED(R) and STRIANT(R). Plaintiffs in
these suits generally allege various personal injuries, including
pulmonary embolism, stroke or other vascular and/or cardiac
injuries, and seek compensatory and/or punitive damages, where
available.

In November 2015, the MDL court entered an order granting
defendants' motion to dismiss claims involving certain
testosterone products that were approved pursuant to Abbreviated
New Drug Applications (ANDAs), including TESTOPEL(R). Plaintiffs
filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification of this
order. In March 2016, the MDL court granted plaintiffs' motion in
part and entered an order permitting certain claims to go forward
to the extent they are based on allegations of fraudulent off-
label marketing.

The first MDL trial against Auxilium involving TESTIM(R) took
place in November 2017 and resulted in a defense verdict. The
first PCCP trial against Auxilium involving TESTIM(R) was
scheduled for January 2018 but resolved prior to trial.

Endo disclosed, "In February 2018, counsel for plaintiffs and
counsel for Auxilium and EPI signed a memorandum of understanding
regarding a potential settlement, subject to certain
contingencies and conditions. The MDL court subsequently entered
case management orders directing that proceedings involving these
parties be temporarily stayed so that the parties may devote
their efforts to finalizing a master settlement agreement.
Similarly, in March 2018, orders were entered in the PCCP
temporarily staying the testosterone-related product liability
proceedings involving these parties. A fourth quarter 2017
increase to the Company's legal reserves included, among other
things, an estimated loss for all testosterone-related product
liability claims filed in MDL No. 2545 and in other courts.
Although the Company believes it has appropriately estimated the
probable total amount of loss associated with testosterone-
related product liability matters as of the date of this report,
it is reasonably possible that further claims may be filed or
asserted and adjustments to our liability accrual may be
required. This could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows."

"The MDL also includes a lawsuit filed in November 2014 in the
U.S. District for the Northern District of Illinois against EPI,
Auxilium and various other manufacturers of testosterone products
on behalf of a proposed class of health insurance companies and
other third party payers that claim to have paid for certain
testosterone products. After a series of motions to dismiss,
plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint in April 2016,
asserting civil claims for alleged violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and for negligent
misrepresentation based on defendants' marketing of certain
testosterone products. The court denied a motion to dismiss this
complaint in August 2016 and the case is currently in discovery.
In November 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to certify a
nationwide class of third party payers. This lawsuit is not part
of the potential settlement described above.

"We will continue to vigorously defend any unresolved claims and
to explore other options as appropriate in our best interests.
Similar matters may be brought by others or the foregoing matters
may be expanded. We are unable to predict the outcome of these
matters or to estimate the possible range of any additional
losses that could be incurred."


MDL 2580: Discovery Underway in OPANA(R) Purchasers' Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that lawsuits by direct and indirect
purchasers of OPANA(R) ER are currently in discovery.

Endo said, "Beginning in June 2014, multiple direct and indirect
purchasers of OPANA(R) ER filed cases against our subsidiaries
EHSI and EPI and other pharmaceutical companies, including Impax
Laboratories Inc. (Impax) and Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co., which
our subsidiary EPI had acquired. Some cases were filed on behalf
of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers, while
others were filed on behalf of individual retailers or health
care benefit plans. All cases have been consolidated and/or
coordinated for pretrial proceedings in a federal MDL pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(MDL No. 2580). Plaintiffs generally allege that an agreement
reached by EPI and Impax to settle patent infringement litigation
concerning multiple patents pertaining to OPANA(R) ER and EPI's
introduction of reformulated OPANA(R) ER violated antitrust laws.
The complaints assert claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act, various state antitrust and consumer protection
statutes and/or state common law. Plaintiffs generally seek
damages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees."

"In February 2016, the MDL court issued orders (i) denying
defendants' motion to dismiss the claims of the direct
purchasers, (ii) denying in part and granting in part defendants'
motion to dismiss the claims of the indirect purchasers, but
giving them permission to file amended complaints and (iii)
granting defendants' motion to dismiss the complaints filed by
certain retailers, but giving them permission to file amended
complaints. In response to the MDL court's orders, the indirect
purchasers filed an amended complaint to which the defendants
filed a renewed motion to dismiss certain claims, and certain
retailers also filed amended complaints. The court has dismissed
the indirect purchaser unjust enrichment claims arising under the
laws of the states of California, Rhode Island and Illinois. The
cases are currently in discovery.

"We will continue to vigorously defend these matters and to
explore other options as appropriate in our best interests."


MDL 2724: Bid to Stay Generic Pricing Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that a court has denied the motion to stay
proceedings in the case entitled, In re Generic Pharmaceuticals
Pricing Antitrust Litigation.

Since April 2017, certain private plaintiff cases alleging price-
fixing and other anticompetitive conduct with respect to at least
18 different generic pharmaceutical products have been
consolidated and/or coordinated for pretrial proceedings in a
federal MDL pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania under the caption In re Generic
Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2724).

The various cases included in the MDL involve different groups of
defendants. The company's subsidiary PPI is named as a defendant
in proposed class actions relating to six of these products:
digoxin, doxycycline hyclate, divalproex ER, propranolol,
baclofen and amitriptyline hydrochloride.

Among the private plaintiff lawsuits now consolidated and/or
coordinated in the MDL, the earliest lawsuits naming the Company
and/or its subsidiaries were filed in November 2016 and related
to digoxin and doxycycline.

The private plaintiffs in the MDL include alleged direct
purchasers, end-payers, and indirect purchaser resellers, and
they purport to represent not only themselves but also all others
similarly situated. At the MDL court's direction, in August 2017,
private plaintiffs filed separate consolidated amended class
action complaints as to each product and each type of purchaser
(direct purchasers, end-payers and indirect purchaser resellers),
except the propranolol direct purchaser plaintiffs are attempting
to proceed on a consolidated amended complaint filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York prior to MDL
transfer (the Southern District of New York had denied a motion
to dismiss this complaint).

Endo International said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the MDL court has divided
the various cases into three separate tranches for certain
administrative and scheduling purposes, including briefing on
motions to dismiss. As to products in the first tranche
(including digoxin, doxycycline hyclate and divalproex ER),
defendants filed motions to dismiss in October 2017. Defendants
also asserted that they are entitled to move the MDL court to
dismiss the propranolol direct purchaser consolidated amended
complaint, and the MDL court has taken this issue under
advisement.  Defendants have moved to stay discovery in all cases
pending rulings on their motions to dismiss, and that motion to
stay remains pending.

In its recent quarterly report, Endo said the defendants' motions
to dismiss remain pending.  Endo also disclosed that in February
2018, the court denied the defendants' motion to stay discovery
with certain exceptions.

Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company,
manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S.
Branded Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals.


MDL 2084: Cass County Mulls Joining Opioid Crisis Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Forks Herald reports that Cass County is considering
joining a growing number of counties, cities and states that have
launched legal action against the manufacturers and distributors
of opioids.

The county has met with two law firms that have contacted them
regarding potential representation in the multidistrict
litigation cases, a single suit that hundreds of opioid-related
lawsuits have been consolidated into.

Cass County's suit would be separate from the lawsuit North
Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem filed in May on behalf of
the state against Purdue Pharma, the nation's leading
manufacturer of prescription opioids such as OxyContin.

Cass County State's Attorney Birch Burdick said he does not
question the attorney general, but in the event the state's
lawsuit reaches a settlement, it's not clear how that money would
benefit Cass County.  The Cass County Commission wants to at
least consider whether it might be worthwhile to pursue a more
specific route, he added.

"I think it's sensible and proactive of our commission to have
that conversation, to discuss if there is another approach they
should take that would be beneficial for the citizens," Burdick
said.

At the commission's June 4 meeting, Parrell Grossman, director of
the Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division, advised
commissioners against pursuing other legal action. He said
separate lawsuits from North Dakota's political subdivisions,
such as Cass County, could hinder a settlement for the state.

"We are convinced and think because the opioid crisis is
statewide that it should be dealt with at the state level,"
Grossman said.

On behalf of Mr. Stenehjem, Mr. Grossman suggested there is no
rush for any county to join an opioid-related lawsuit because
there will only be so much money available and no double
recovery.

If Cass County is carved out of the state's lawsuit, they will
only receive funds won by their suit, Mr. Grossman said.  The
county could spend significant time and resources, he added.

Mr. Stenehjem has reiterated, according to Mr. Grossman, that he
will make sure Cass County is involved in the review or
implementation of a plan to treat opioid abuse on a statewide
basis.

During the same meeting, County Commissioner Chad Peterson said
the only way to do mental health drug rehabilitation is on a
statewide level.

"We don't have enough revenue to do it well," Mr. Peterson said.
"The state Legislature will do the right thing.  The state needs
to create a solution on a statewide basis rather than locally."

Commissioners agreed at the June 4 meeting to visit with another
firm for possible representation in the combined multidistrict
cases, which are currently docketed in a federal court in Ohio.

County Administrator Robert Wilson said Cass County hasn't yet
retained a law firm and does not have a retainer agreement in
place to formally be a part of such litigation.

Mr. Wilson said he doesn't know of any specific amount the county
could gain in a separate lawsuit because an estimate hasn't been
discussed.

The commission is still in the decision-making process and will
continue to gather information and evaluate its options, Wilson
added.

The city of Fargo has also been contacted by a law firm to
possibly sue in a class-action lawsuit, Mayor Tim Mahoney said.

If the lawsuit appears it may be successful, the city could get
involved and using any money that comes for rehab and facilities
in Fargo, he added. When the state controls the lawsuit,
Mr. Mahoney said there's always a question of where the funds
will go.

He said the city will consider its options and will work with the
county, he said.  City Attorney Erik Johnson is looking into it,
and Mahoney said a public discussion will happen sometime soon
regarding possible litigation.

In the ongoing work to combat the opioid crisis from a legal
standpoint, four out of five North Dakota tribal nations have
filed lawsuits against the opioid industry.

On the other side of the river, Clay County Commission Chair
Jenny Mongeau said commissioners haven't yet discussed pursuing
or joining any opioid-related litigation. [GN]


MDL 2804: March 2019 Trial Set for 3 Opioid Cases
-------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that as of May 1, 2018, the Opioid-related
cases of which the Company was aware include, but are not limited
to, approximately 10 cases filed by states; approximately 780
cases filed by counties, cities, Native American tribes and/or
other government-related persons or entities; approximately 50
cases filed by hospitals, health systems, unions, health and
welfare funds or other third-party payers; and approximately 20
cases filed by individuals.

Endo said, "Since 2014, multiple U.S. states, counties, other
governmental persons or entities and private plaintiffs have
filed suit against our subsidiaries Endo Health Solutions Inc.
(EHSI) and EPI, in some instances the Company and/or our
subsidiaries Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (PPI), Vintage
Pharmaceuticals, LLC and/or Generics Bidco I, LLC, and/or various
other manufacturers, distributors and/or others, asserting claims
relating to defendants' alleged sales, marketing and/or
distribution practices with respect to prescription opioid
medications, including certain of our products.

"We will continue to vigorously defend the foregoing matters and
to explore other options as appropriate in our best interests.
Similar matters may be brought by others or the foregoing matters
may be expanded. We are unable to predict the outcome of these
matters or to estimate the possible range of any losses that
could be incurred.

"Many of these cases have been coordinated in a federal MDL
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio (MDL No. 2804). In March 2018, the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ) filed a statement of interest in the case, and in
April 2018 it filed a motion to participate in settlement
discussions and as a friend of the court. In April 2018, the MDL
Court issued a scheduling order permitting motions to dismiss
addressing threshold legal issues in certain cases, setting a
trial date of March 2019 for three cases originally filed in the
Northern District of Ohio, and establishing certain other
deadlines and procedures.

"Other cases remain pending in various state courts. In some
jurisdictions, such as Connecticut, Illinois, New York and
Pennsylvania, certain state court cases have been transferred to
a single court within their respective state court systems for
coordinated pretrial proceedings. Some state courts have allowed
discovery to begin.

"The complaints in the cases assert a variety of claims
including, but not limited to, claims for alleged violations of
public nuisance, consumer protection, unfair trade practices,
racketeering, Medicaid fraud and/or drug dealer liability
statutes and/or common law claims for public nuisance,
fraud/misrepresentation, strict liability, negligence and/or
unjust enrichment. The claims are generally based on alleged
misrepresentations and/or omissions in connection with the sale
and marketing of prescription opioid medications and/or an
alleged failure to take adequate steps to prevent abuse and
diversion. Plaintiffs generally seek declaratory and/or
injunctive relief; compensatory, punitive and/or treble damages;
restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties, abatement, attorneys'
fees, costs and/or other relief. Certain of the cases are brought
as putative class actions.


MISSISSIPPI FARM: "Cook" Seeks Back Pay, Benefits, Tax Refunds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Bishop Cook, Sr., Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance
Company, Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company and Southern
Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 18-cv-00076
(N.D. Miss., April 26, 2017), seeks to recover payment of wages
lost or unpaid back wages, reimbursement of the portions of taxes
they paid which should have been paid by Farm Bureau, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs of prosecution of this
action, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest for violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Federal Insurance
Contributions Act of 1935.

Cook worked as an insurance Agency Manager for Farm Bureau and
claims to be misclassified as an independent contractor when, in
fact, he is a nonexempt employee. Defendants engages in
soliciting, selling and servicing insurance policies under the
Mississippi Farm Bureau aegis. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ray Hill, III, Esq.
      CLAYTON O'DONNELL, PLLC
      P.O. DRAWER 676
      Oxford, MS 38655
      Tel: (662) 234-0900
           (662) 620-7938
      Email: rhill@claytonodonnell.com
             ddearman@claytonodonnell.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Continues to Defend Women Workers' Bias Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Cronin Fisk and Dina Bass, writing for Bloomberg, report
that Microsoft Corp. counts itself as a leader with policies
promoting gender equality and balancing work and life.

But whatever progress the tech giant has made with equal-pay and
family-friendly initiatives, it's still fighting a lawsuit by
women engineers and information technology specialists who claim
they were treated for years like second-class citizens.

The women allege the company paid them less than men, stalled
career advancement and froze them out following maternity leave.
While Microsoft has denied any discrimination, the women assert
that the effects of systemic practices are continuing.

A federal judge in Seattle was set to hear arguments on June 11
on whether the women can band together as a group of more than
8,630 high-level technical specialists to pursue their bias suit.
Class-action status is considered crucial to the success of the
lawsuit, allowing the women to pool resources and giving them
leverage to force a settlement.

Microsoft has made "significant progress" in recent years in
ensuring a diverse and inclusive workplace, the company said in
an emailed statement.  "But even as we work on these broader
issues, it is clear we don't discriminate on pay and promotions."

But the women claim that as job levels -- and pay -- increase,
the number of women in those positions declines. They blame
Microsoft's policies for those discrepancies.

Weighing heavily over the class action argument will be the 2011
decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in a gender-bias case against
Walmart Inc.  The high court said the plaintiffs failed to show
their experiences were similar enough or that the company had a
corporate policy that led to gender discrimination at thousands
of Walmart and Sam's Club stores nationally.

Like nearly all defendants facing class action certification,
Microsoft cites the Walmart decision as a reason to deny it.

"Plaintiffs' claims are simply not the stuff of which class
actions are made," Microsoft lawyers said in court papers,
criticizing what it called the "extraordinary breadth" of the
proposed class.  The plaintiffs can't show intentional
discrimination or any company policy that could meet the
commonality requirements of a class action, Microsoft lawyers
argued.

Engineers, IT
Lawyers for the women counter that their lawsuit isn't like the
broadly defined nationwide class that sued Walmart, which
included more than 1.5 million women.  The Microsoft class covers
only two types of employees, engineers and information technology
specialists, over a limited number of responsibility levels.

The company uses a "uniform calibration process" to determine
pay, performance and promotion prospects "that disadvantages
women to a statistically significant degree and that a core group
of senior managers oversee and approve," the women said in court
filings.  For years, the company used a ranking process that
"systematically undervalued" women, they claim.

Their lawyers cite recent decisions involving Goldman Sachs and
Merrill Lynch, which have allowed narrower, more focused classes
to be certified.

U.S. District Judge James L. Robart isn't expected to rule at the
hearing. [GN]


MIDDLE COUNTRY: Faces "Babcock" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Middle Country
Collection Services, Inc. The case is styled as Jennifer Babcock,
on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. Middle Country Collection Services,
Inc., a New York corporation, The Levinbrook Law Firm, P.C. a New
York professional corporation and Neil S. Levinbrook an
individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03626-JFB-AKT (E.D.
N.Y., June 22, 2018).

Middle Country Collection Services, Inc. is a debt collection
agency that can be found at 100, Motor Pkwy, Hauppauge.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
   Kleinman, LLC
   626 RXR Plaza
   Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
   Tel: (516) 522-2621
   Fax: (888) 522-1692
   Email: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: Faces "Wojcik" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Funding,
LLC. The case is styled as Jaroslaw T. Wojcik, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland
Funding, LLC and Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-03628 (E.D. N.Y., June 22, 2018).

Midland Funding LLC provides debt collection services. The
company was incorporated in 2005 and is based in San Diego,
California. Midland Funding LLC operates as a subsidiary of
Midland Portfolio Services, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


MORGAN'S HOTEL: NY App. Div. Affirms Summary Judgment in "Ahmed"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment granting
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned
JAHANGIR AHMED, ETC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MORGAN'S HOTEL
GROUP MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL., Defendants-Respondents, 6322,
15384/15 (N.Y. App. Div.).

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.),
entered on or about February 28, 2017, which, to the extent
appealed from, granted the defendants' motion for summary
judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied the plaintiff's
motions for summary judgment, class action certification, and
leave to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without
costs.

The Plaintiff, a banquet server's assistant at a hotel, claims
that the defendants wrongly withheld gratuities from him because
they kept administrative charges to which he was entitled.  The
Plaintiff also claims that defendants' notice to him that they
intended to take a credit toward the basic minimum hourly rate if
he received enough tips, did not fully comply with 12 NYCRR 146-
2.2, because it did not state that, in the event plaintiff did
not earn enough tips to meet the minimum, they would be
responsible for paying him the difference.

However, Labor Law Section 198(1-d) provides that it will be an
affirmative defense that, the employer made complete and timely
payment of all wages due pursuant to this article, and the record
demonstrates that the plaintiff was always paid more than minimum
wage.

A full-text copy of the N.Y. App. Div.'s April 19, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ya9ndo3h from Leagle.com.

Leeds Brown Law, P.C., Carle Place ( Brett R. Cohen, One Old
Street, Suite 347,, Carle Place, NY, 11514, of counsel), for
appellant.

Fox Rothschild LLP, New York (Francis V. Cook --
fcook@foxrothschild.com -- of counsel), for respondents.


MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Faces Class Action Over Wastewater Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that nearly 700 people will be part
of a class action lawsuit against a Delaware poultry processor
over wastewater violations.

A partner at law firm Baird, Mandalas and Brockstedt, Chase
Brockstedt, told WBOC-TV the lawsuit against Mountaire Farms
would be filed on June 13.

Brockstedt says the plaintiffs must prove Mountaire's wastewater
discharge violations were negligent and reckless, causing injury
and harm.  The lawsuit's demands include that the company
overhaul its wastewater treatment plant and provide clean
drinking water to those whose wells were affected. The law firm
estimates remediation could exceed $150 million.

Mountaire entered into a consent decree with the state, but the
law firm filed a motion to intervene, calling it inadequate.
Mountaire filed a motion to strike that challenge on June 12.

As for the lawsuit, a Mountaire spokesman says the company will
comment after it reviews it. [GN]


NATURAL IMMUNOGENICS: Malpractice Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina, Asheville Division, granted Defendant Newport
Trial Group's Motion to Transfer Venue in the case captioned
NATURAL IMMUNOGENICS CORP., Plaintiff, v. NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP,
SCOTT J. FERRELL, RYAN M. FERRELL, JAMES B. HARDIN, VICTORIA C.
KNOWLES, ANDREW LEE BASLOW, ANDREW NILON, SAM PFLEG, MATTHEW
DRONKERS, TAYLOR DEMULDER, SAM SCHOONOVER, GIOVANNI SANDOVAL, and
DOES 1-10, Defendants, No. 1:18MC3 (W.D.N.C.).

The Pending Litigation raises claims for malicious prosecution,
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
(RICO) Act, and the violation of California's Unfair Competition
Law.

The Court finds that the following exceptional circumstances
warrant the transfer of venue:

   First, the transfer of venue should be granted because it will
promote judicial economy. In particular, the Special Master
presently presiding in the Pending Litigation is familiar with
the factual background relevant to the discovery issues presented
by Defendant NTG's Motion to Compel.

   Second, transferring venue to the Central District of
California will essentially eliminate the chance of inconsistent
rulings.  The Special Master granted Defendant NTG's request for
an order compelling a non-party witness to attend a second
deposition to properly answer questions.  The Special Master also
agreed to attend the second deposition to address any further
objections and assertions of privilege.

   Third, contrary to Negrete's protests, transferring venue to
the Central District of California will not impose a burden on
him. In particular, Negrete will not be required to come to
California, as any hearing before the Special Master would be
conducted telephonically.

In sum, the Court finds that exceptional circumstances warrant
the transfer of venue to the Central District of California. In
particular, the transfer of venue will promote judicial
efficiency, essentially eliminate inconsistent rulings, and will
not impose a burden on Negrete.

Accordingly, Defendant NTG's Motion to Transfer Venue is granted.

Defendant NTG's Motion to Compel will be transferred to the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California,

A full-text copy of the District of Court's April 19, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycmv85ba from Leagle.com.

Natural Immunogenics Corp., a Florida corporation, Plaintiff,
represented by Joshua Scott Furman -- jfurman@emord.com -- Emord
& Associates, PC, pro hac vice & Kathryn Gusmer Cole --
katecole@mvalaw.com -- Moore & Van Allen PLLC.

Newport Trial Group, a California Corporation, Scott J. Ferrell,
a Texas resident, Ryan M. Ferrell, an Arizona resident, Victoria
C. Knowles, a California resident & Andrew Lee Baslow, a
California resident, Defendants, represented by James M. Dedman,
IV -- jdedman@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A.,
Stephanie A. Sperber, Callahan & Blaine, A Professional Law
Corporation, 3 Hutton Centre Drive, Ninth Floor, Santa Ana, CA
92707, pro hac vice & Christopher M. Kelly --
ckelly@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White & Boyd, P.A..


NORTH DAKOTA: Ex-Women Hockey Players File Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Elliott Schlossman, writing for Grand Forks Herald, reports
that eleven former members of the now-defunct UND women's hockey
program filed a class action discrimination lawsuit against the
North Dakota University System in U.S. District Court on June 12.

Their goal is to reinstate the program that was cut 15 months
ago.

"That's our No. 1, No. 2 . . . all the way to No. 10 goal," said
Dan Siegel, the attorney for the players.  "We want the
university to start playing women's ice hockey again."

Mr. Siegel said the players aren't seeking financial damages
outside of covering court costs.

Mr. Siegel recently represented former University of Minnesota
Duluth women's hockey coach Shannon Miller in her successful
discrimination lawsuit against the school.  Ms. Miller was
awarded $3.74 million by a jury in March after the school decided
not to renew her contract.

Mr. Siegel said this case is different because Ms.  Miller's was
an employment case.

"I'm hoping UND would decide to take the right approach to this
case and will agree to sit down and see if we can work it out,"
Mr. Siegel said.  "The sooner we work it out, the sooner the
program could be put back to work and the less money UND will
spend fighting the case and less money we will spend fighting the
case.  Hopefully, we can get an early resolution."

UND spokesman Peter Johnson said that "the University of North
Dakota doesn't typically comment on legal actions that are in
process."

UND President Mark Kennedy was in Bismarck on the June 12 meeting
with NDUS Chancellor Mark Hagerott.

The 11 former players named in the lawsuit are Breanna Berndsen,
Kristen Campbell, Charly Dahlquist, Taylor Flaherty, Ryleigh
Houston, Anna Kilponen, Rebekah Kolstad, Sarah Lecavalier, Alyssa
MacMillan, Annelise Rice and Abbey Stanley.

All were members of the team when the program was cut and had
college eligibility remaining.  Nearly all of them have since
transferred to other schools -- Ms. Berndsen to the University of
Toronto, Ms. Campbell to Wisconsin, Ms. Dahlquist to Ohio State,
Ms. Flaherty to Vermont, Ms. Houston to Minnesota Duluth, Ms.
Kilponen to Quinnipiac, Ms. Kolstad to Minnesota State University
Mankato, Ms. Lecavalier to Robert Morris, Ms. MacMillan to the
University of Ottawa and Stanley to Boston University. Rice took
last year off.

The lawsuit alleges that UND violated Title IX through the
selection of sports and level of competition.

Title IX does not require schools to offer particular sports or
the same sports, but it requires that schools "effectively
accommodate" student interests and abilities.

The lawsuit alleges that UND did not do that when it cut women's
hockey.

This is not the first time UND has faced legal challenges
stemming from the elimination of women's hockey and men's and
women's swimming and diving.

One former UND athlete filed two complaints with the U.S.
Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights after the school
cut women's hockey and men's and women's swimming and diving.

Both of those complaints were dismissed last fall.

"That will not affect our suit at all," Mr. Siegel said.  "The
OCR complaints were based on different facts and different legal
theories. They didn't pass on the particular claims that we're
making in our case."

The UND women's hockey program, which started in 2002, had five
Olympic medalists in February.  Grand Forks natives Jocelyne
Lamoureux-Davidson and Monique Lamoureux-Morando won gold with
Team USA, while Michelle Karvinen, Susanna Tapani and Emma
Nuutinen won bronze with Finland. UND had eight Olympians in
2014.
The program reached the NCAA tournament twice, losing to
Minnesota in the quarterfinals in 2012 and 2013.

In 2013, UND lost to an undefeated Gopher team in triple overtime
with a Frozen Four berth on the line. [GN]


OUR LADY OF LOURDES: Denial of Nurse Class Certification Flipped
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc, reversed the Opinion of
the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court
denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case
captioned JUDITH Q. CHAVEZ, KATHLEEN CHRISTIANSON, ORALIA GARCIA,
and MARRIETTA JONES, individually, and on behalf of all similarly
situated registered nurses employed by Our Lady of Lourdes
Hospital at Pasco, d/b/a/ Lourdes Medical Center, Petitioners, v.
OUR LADY OF LOURDES HOSPITAL AT PASCO, d/b/a LOURDES MEDICAL
CENTER and JOHN SERLE, individually, and in his capacity as an
agent and officer of Lourdes Medical Center, Respondents, No.
94592-6 (Wash.).

Judith Q. Chavez, Kathleen Christianson, Oralia Garcia, Marrietta
Jones, and other registered nurses sought class certification in
their wage action against their employer, Our Lady of Lourdes
Hospital at Pasco d/b/a Lourdes Medical Center and John Serle
(Lourdes). The trial court denied class certification, and the
Court of Appeals affirmed.

At issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in
ruling that the nurses failed to satisfy the predominance and
superiority requirements of CR 23(b)(3).

The Washington Supreme Court finds that the trial court abused
its discretion by ruling that the nurses failed to satisfy the
predominance requirement

To determine whether common issues predominate over individual
ones, a trial court pragmatically examines whether there is a
common nucleus of operative facts in each class member's claim.
The relevant inquiry is whether the issue shared by class members
is the dominant, central, or overriding issue in the litigation.
The trial court ruled that the nurses had not satisfied the
predominance prong of CR 23(b)(3).

The Court finds that common class issues do not predominate over
individual questions because issues regarding shift, nurse type,
nurse roles and job duties, patient assignments and census,
managers, and department cause the specifics for each class
member to overrun any generalities.

The trial court ruled that the nurses could not satisfy the
predominance requirement because of the individual issues
regarding nurse type and shift length. But the trial court failed
to explain how the differences between nurse type and shift
length would be relevant to a determination of whether the
hospital maintained an adequate system for ensuring that nurses
could take breaks and record missed breaks.  Factors such as
nurse type and shift length are relevant to a damages calculation
because they help the court determine how many breaks a nurse was
entitled to but those factors are not relevant to determining the
hospital's liability regarding its obligation to comply with WAC
296-126-092 or pay nurses for missed breaks.

The predominance requirement is not defeated merely because
individual factual or legal issues exist. A single common issue
may be the overriding one in the litigation, despite the fact
that the suit also entails numerous remaining individual
questions. The Court find that the individual issues in this case
do not override the central, predominant issue of whether Lourdes
failed to ensure its nurses could take breaks and record missed
breaks.

The Court therefore overturns the trial court's finding that the
nurses failed to satisfy the predominance requirement and remand
for findings consistent with this opinion.

The trial court abused its discretion by ruling that the nurses
failed to satisfy the superiority requirement.

The trial court ruled that the nurses had not satisfied the
superiority prong of CR 23(b)(3).

The Court also finds that a class action is not superior to
alternatives such as joinder or individual lawsuits for fair and
efficient adjudication of the claims. Finally, the Court also
finds that the proposed class, or the proposed nine subclasses by
department, would be unmanageable at trial.

In the interests of judicial economy, and in order to guide the
court on remand, the state Supreme Court address the superiority
requirement directly and hold that a class action is superior to
other methods of adjudication for the resolution of this case.
The other CR 23(b)(3) factors, in addition to manageability, also
weigh in favor of finding that a class action is superior to
other methods of adjudication.

The first factor considers the interest of each member in
individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate
actions.

Here, the individual claims of class members are small and well
suited for class-wide resolution. The nurses have an interest in
litigating their claims together because each nurse's claim
arises from a common nucleus of operative facts and relies on the
same evidence.

The second factor considers the extent and nature of any
litigation concerning the controversy already commenced. Lourdes
is not involved in other litigation regarding its meal and break
policies. Therefore, this factor favors certification.

The third factor concerns the desirability of concentrating the
litigation of the claims in the particular forum. Concentrating
these claims into one forum and certifying this class is likely
the only way that the nurses' rights will be vindicated because
individual nurses may be reluctant to sue their employers.
Individual nurses likely do not have the bargaining power to
achieve systemic victories but here, merely filing this class
action appears to have caused Lourdes to uniformly change its
break tracking procedures and implement a new accounting system.

Each of the CR 23(b)(3) factors weighs in favor of finding that a
class action is superior to alternative methods of adjudication
such as joinder or small claims court. The Court remand to the
trial court with instructions to certify the class.

Accordingly, the Court reverses the Court of Appeals and overturn
the trial court's denial of certification. The Court remands to
the trial court with instructions to certify.

A full-text copy of the state Supreme Court's April 19, 2018
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yajecsgx from
Leagle.com.

Jack B. Krona Jr., Attorney at Law, 6509 46th St Nw, Gig Harbor,
WA, 98335-7212, James Gerard McGuinness, James G. McGuinness,
5030 1st Ave S Ste 101, Seattle, WA, 98134-2438, Aaron M Streepy,
Streepy Law, PLLC, 5030 1st Ave S Ste 101, Seattle, WA, 98134-
2438, Counsel for Petitioner(s).

Aaron Bass, Attorney at Law, 111 Sw 5th Ave Ste 1200, Portland,
OR, 97204-3613, Rebecca Watkins, Sather Byerly & Holloway LLP,
111 Sw 5th Ave Ste 1200, Portland, OR, 97204-3613, Counsel for
Respondent(s).

Blythe H Chandler, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, 936 N 34th St
Ste 300, Seattle, WA, 98103-8869, Toby James Marshall, Terrell
Marshall Law Group PLLC, 936 N 34th St Ste 300, Seattle, WA,
98103-8869, Jeffrey Lowell Needle, Attorney at Law, 705 2nd Ave
Ste 1050, Seattle, WA, 98104-1759, Amicus Curiae on behalf of
Washington Employment Lawyers Association.

Jennifer L Robbins, Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin & Lav, 18
W Mercer St Ste 400, Seattle, WA, 98119-3971, Danielle Elizabeth
Franco-Malone, SCBI&L, 18 W Mercer St Ste 400, Seattle, WA,
98119-3971, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington State Labor
Council.

Timothy Sears, Attorney at Law, 575 Andover Park W Ste 101,
Tukwila, WA, 98188-3348, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington
State Nurses Association.


PEPSICO INC: Faces "Toribio" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pepsico, Inc. The
case is styled as Elizabeth Toribio, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pepsico, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-03637 (E.D. N.Y., June 22, 2018).

PepsiCo, Inc. is an American multinational food, snack, and
beverage corporation headquartered in Purchase, New York. PepsiCo
has interests in the manufacturing, marketing, and distribution
of grain-based snack foods, beverages, and other products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
   30 East 39th Street
   2nd floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Fax: (212) 465-1181
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


PERRIGO COMPANY: Roofers' Pension Fund Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the Company continues to defend against the
securities case, Roofers' Pension Fund v. Papa, et al.

On May 18, 2016, a shareholder filed a securities case against
the company and its former CEO, Joseph Papa, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey (Roofers' Pension Fund v.
Papa, et al.). The plaintiff purported to represent a class of
shareholders for the period from April 21, 2015 through May 11,
2016, inclusive. The original complaint alleged violations of
Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5) and 14(e)
against both defendants and 20(a) control person liability
against Mr. Papa.

In general, the allegations concerned the actions taken by the
company and the former executive to defend against the
unsolicited takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21,
2015 through November 13, 2015. The plaintiff also alleged that
the defendants provided inadequate disclosure concerning alleged
integration problems related to the Omega acquisition in the
period from April 21, 2015 through May 11, 2016.

On July 19, 2016, a different shareholder filed a securities
class action against the company and its former CEO, Joseph Papa,
also in the District of New Jersey (Wilson v. Papa, et al.). The
plaintiff purported to represent a class of persons who sold put
options on the Company's shares between April 21, 2015 and May
11, 2016. In general, the allegations and the claims were the
same as those made in the original complaint filed in the
Roofers' Pension Fund case.

On December 8, 2016, the court consolidated Roofers' Pension Fund
case and the Wilson case under the Roofers' Pension Fund case
number. In February 2017, the court selected the lead plaintiffs
for the consolidated case and the lead counsel to the putative
class. In March 2017, the court entered a scheduling order.

On June 21, 2017, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint that superseded the original complaints in the
Roofers' Pension Fund case and the Wilson case. The lead
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of shareholders for the
period April 21, 2015 through May 3, 2017, and identifies three
subclasses -- shareholders who traded during the entire period on
the U.S. exchanges; shareholders who traded during the entire
period on the Tel Aviv exchange; and shareholders who traded
during the period while the Mylan tender offer was pending (April
21, 2015 through November 13, 2015). The amended complaint names
as defendants the company and 11 current or former directors and
officers of Perrigo (Mses. Judy Brown, Laurie Brlas, Jacqualyn
Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, and Messrs. Joe Papa, Marc Coucke, Gary
Cohen, Michael Jandernoa, Gerald Kunkle, Herman Morris, and Donal
O'Connor).

The amended complaint alleges violations of Securities Exchange
Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5) and 14(e) against all
defendants and 20(a) control person liability against the 11
individuals. In general, the allegations concern the actions
taken by the company and the former executives to defend against
the unsolicited takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April
21, 2015 through November 13, 2015 and the allegedly inadequate
disclosure throughout the entire class period related to
purported integration problems related to the Omega acquisition,
alleges incorrect reporting of organic growth at the Company,
alleges price fixing activities with respect to six generic
prescription pharmaceuticals, and alleges improper accounting for
the Tysabri(R) royalty stream.

The amended complaint does not include an estimate of damages.

Perrigo said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that in August 2017, the defendants
filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. The plaintiffs
filed their opposition in October 2017. The defendants filed
replies in support of the motions to dismiss in November 2017.
The court has not indicated whether there will be oral argument
of the motions or whether the court will decide the motions on
the papers.

Perrigo said, "We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously."

Perrigo Company PLC is a global healthcare company that delivers
value to customers and consumers by providing Quality Affordable
Healthcare Products(R). Founded in 1887 as a packager of home
remedies, the company had built a unique business model that is
best described as the convergence of a fast-moving consumer goods
company, a high-quality pharmaceutical manufacturing organization
and a world-class supply chain network.


PLAZA SERVICES: Faces "Allen" Suit in N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Plaza Services,
LLC. The case is styled as Devonni Allen, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Plaza
Services, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
03029-ELR-JFK (N.D. Ga., June 22, 2018).

Plaza Services LLC is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan Braxton Mason, Esq.
   Mason Law Group, LLC - GA
   1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 200
   Atlanta, GA 30309
   Tel: (404) 920-8040
   Fax: (404) 920-8039
   Email: jmason@atlshowbizlaw.com


QDOBA RESTAURANT: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Qdoba Restaurant
Corporation. The case is styled as Steven Matzura, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Qdoba
Restaurant Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05689 (S.D.
N.Y., June 22, 2018).

Qdoba Restaurant Corporation owns, operates, and franchises a
chain of restaurants in the United States, Canada, Africa, and
Asia. It also provides catering services. The company was founded
in 1995 and is based in Lakewood, Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


REV GROUP: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on June 12 disclosed
that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired REV
Group, Inc. (NYSE:REVG) securities pursuant and/or traceable to
REV Group's initial public offering ("IPO") on or about January
26, 2017 at $22.00 per share.

Investors who have incurred losses in shares of REV Group, 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 REV Group, Inc. and
would like to assist with the litigation process as a lead
plaintiff, you may, no later than August 7, 2018, 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 REV Group, Inc.

According to the filed complaint, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:

REV Group was unable to use its "strong visibility into future
net sales" to "effectively plan" and manage its backlog of
vehicles;

REV Group facilities were not operating efficiently or at a low
cost to satisfy customer demand; and

as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

REV Group last traded on June 12 at $15.94 per share, 28% below
its IPO price in January 2017.

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP has extensive
experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and
derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate
courts across the country.  The firm has attorneys in various
practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego.
The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and
other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the
courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex
securities multi-district and consolidated litigation.

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.

Contact:

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Kevin Cooper, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 [GN]


RICK BUTLER: Faces Sexual Abuse Class Action, Denies Allegations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Seidel and Michael O'Brien, writing for Chicago Sun Times,
report that a lawsuit accusing powerhouse youth volleyball coach
Rick Butler of sexually abusing teenage girls in the 1980s made
national headlines earlier this year.

And publicly, Mr. Butler and his wife have had little to say
about it.

But newly filed court records show the couple, in private emails,
have repeatedly denied the claims and promised to file "several
lawsuits" over the "horrific allegations" that gained new
traction this year.

Meanwhile, the attorney behind the initial lawsuit is accusing
the Butlers of intimidation.  He is asking a judge for sanctions,
making his case with the emails that lend some limited insight
into how the Butlers have reacted to the controversy.

One, signed "Rick & Cheryl," describes the case as "a systematic
attempt to completely destroy everything Cheryl and I have been
working to build over the past 30+ years.  They want to put us
out of business."

Discussing the woman who sued them, Cheryl Butler allegedly wrote
in another email, "we will be counter suing her!" It's not clear
if that's still the Butlers' plan.

Finally, Cheryl Butler claimed the couple had "proof" that would
eventually undermine the lawsuit and lead to its dismissal.

An attorney representing the Butlers, who run Sports Performance
Volleyball Club in Aurora, did not comment when asked about the
filings, which include the emails.

So far this year, Mr. Butler has been banned by the massive
Amateur Athletic Union and the Wisconsin-based Junior Volleyball
Association.  USA Volleyball also announced a ban in January, and
Walt Disney World Resorts has said he is not welcome on its
property.

The proposed class-action lawsuit, filed by Laura Mullen, alleges
Butler "used his position of power to sexually abuse no fewer
than six underage teenage girls" and that Cheryl Butler concealed
the abuse by pressuring and threatening victims.  Ms. Mullen's
daughters played at the Butlers' club, but she claims she
wouldn't have paid the fees had she known about the allegations
against Mr. Butler.

Ms. Mullen's lawyer, Jay Edelson, argues the Butlers' talk of
lawsuits is meant to intimidate anyone who might join Ms. Mullen.

The Butlers claim in the emails to possess correspondence from
Mullen that shows she knew about the sexual abuse allegations.
However, Mr. Edelson points out they offered no such evidence
when they asked a judge to toss the case a few weeks ago.

When Mr. Edelson asked the Butlers' lawyer, Danielle D'Ambrose,
about the evidence during a recent phone call, Ms. D'Ambrose
said, "I'm not going to tell you whether or not that's something
that we have," according to a transcript of the conversation
filed by Mr. Edelson.

"You asked if Laura Mullen knew that Rick was raping people,"
Ms. D'Ambrose told Mr. Edelson during a heated back-and-forth in
the transcript.  "I said that we've denied that it took place, so
there's no way that she could know that Rick was raping people
when we denied that rape took place."

Ms. D'Ambrose also initially told Mr. Edelson she did not expect
the Butlers to file a counterclaim against Ms. Mullen.  However,
she said, "It's absolutely something we considered."

And, as Mr. Edelson continued to push, Ms. D'Ambrose said, "Jay,
I'm telling you right now, it could happen."

The two sides were due back in court on June 14. [GN]


RIPPLE LABS: Faces Another Class Action Over XRP Token
------------------------------------------------------
Ulysses Smith, writing for Crypto Gazette, reports that Ripple
has had a hard time defending assertions that its token XRP
constitutes a security.  This dodgy matter has trailed the crypto
for the better part of 2018, with the US Securities and Exchanges
Commission (SEC), expected to make pronouncements on it.

It is even harder, with the average investor unable to
distinguish the cryptocurrency ripple (XRP) that shares a name
with the company Ripple. One thing that continues to elude most
people is the fact that ripples (XRP) and Ripple (the company)
are two distinct and entirely independent entities.  While it's
undisputed that the company created the cryptocurrency, the
latter is a distributed ledger, not tied in any way to the
company that provides blockchain solutions for businesses and
financial institutions.

The lack of clarity has even drawn in the SEC, which is expected
to give directions over the same.  The constant speculation about
what the SEC would determine it to have largely led to questions
concerning the coin's future.

Will wrong with Ripple?

Ripple (XRP), that is native to the XRP Ledger continues to
baffle as to why its value and price performances never
correspond to its definite growth off the market.  The huge
numbers of high-profile partnerships and positive news have
failed to push the XRP prices higher.  The reason is likely the
negative image that is associated with the token, despite it
being one of the most promising cryptocurrencies.

Class action lawsuits

Ripple was hit with a class-action lawsuit earlier in the year.
That matter came hot on the heels of the company suffering
another blow in a case involving it and R3 HoldCo, over the XRP
token.  While those two are yet to conclude, the bad times seemed
to continue.  Though not immediately clear, these issues continue
to negatively impact the XRP token and those that may feel the
heat are the holders.

Another class-action lawsuit was recently filed against Ripple
and its CEO Brad Garlinghouse.  This second lawsuit wants Ripple
(XRP) declared a security by the courts under California laws.

The complainant, Vladi Zakinov, contends that XRP is actually a
security even if the team behind it denies it is.  His main point
is that the token has been sold to the public and proceeds used
to further the company's expansion. It is akin to the earlier
lawsuit by Ryan Coffey that called the process a "never-ending
ICO".

The suit alleges that the XRP investment is at substantial risk
of collapse as the plaintiffs are powerless in controlling its
success.

According to the lawsuit, Ripple Labs' largest source of revenue
is the sale of the XRP tokens to the public.  It also has
continuously promoted the value of the token to the public with
the intention of driving up value to make more profits.
Moreover, the lawsuit alleges that Ripple uses XRP to fund its
operations and promote the network.

Ripple in the spotlight again

The latest class action lawsuit puts Ripple in the spotlight once
again.  Ripple has maintained that the allegations concerning it
are false and that its "ready to fight this opportunistic suit in
an appropriate federal court."  The reports carried in Coindesk a
while ago also indicate that the team behind that crypto is
"confident that the claims regarding XRP are completely unfounded
both in law and fact"

The end to this matter may likely be a matter of the courts to
determine and the SEC to make its own determination.  If the
unexpected happens, then the bad times may not be over for the
crypto.  At the moment, Ripple is understood to have the
determination to prove everything as unfounded both in law and in
facts.

What may help Ripple is the understanding that two of its
representatives are former employees of the SEC.  The two is
Mary Jo White and Andrew Ceresney, who worked for the regulatory
body between 2013 and 2017.  It's going to be interesting to find
out what the two bring to the table in defense of XRP and Ripple.

What next?

Will this end? Most definitely it will, hopefully sooner rather
than later.  The regulatory bodies may be forced to act in the
wake of these lawsuits.  What isn't clear is what the decision
will be and how that impacts Ripple.  At the moment, XRP will
continue to struggle with a confluence of bearish momentum and
negative news.  Its prices have dropped by 13% over the last 7
days to trade at $0.59 to the USD. [GN]


RIPPLE LABS: Taps Ex-SEC Chair to Represent Firm in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Molly Jane Zuckerman, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that
Ripple Labs has appointed a former chair of the SEC to represent
them in a class action lawsuit that alleges that sales of Ripple
token are sales of unregistered securities.  The defendant claims
that he lost a little more than $551 by trading XRP, and accuses
the company of profiting personally from XRP's price increases.
Ripple maintains that, in their opinion, XRP is not a security.
[GN]


SAFEMARK SYSTEMS: Gorss Motels Appeals Ruling to Eleventh Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Gorss Motels, Inc., and E&G, Inc., filed an appeal
from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled Gorss Motels, Inc.,
et al. v. Safemark Systems, LP, Case No. 6:16-cv-01638-GAP-DCI,
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 10, 2018, the
Hon. Gregory A. Presnell denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify
class.

The classes are defined as:

Class A - 2013 Faxes

    "all persons or entities successfully sent one or more
     facsimiles on or about September 4, 2013, and September 6,
     2013, stating "Free month (average value $500 per 100
     rooms," "Free Battery replacement every 18 months for
     initial term of contract (3 times)," and "1 Free Safe for
     Office."

Class B - 2015 Fax

    "all persons or entities successfully sent a facsimile on or
     about December 1, 2015, stating "Attention owners and hotel
     employees: Increase Cash Flow at NO COST!" and "Learn more
     today at Safemark.com."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DmnKPHtf

The appellate case is captioned as Gorss Motels, Inc., et al. v.
Safemark Systems, LP, Case No. 18-90012, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners GORSS MOTELS, INC., a Connecticut
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, and E&G, INC., a West Virginia
corporation, individually and as the representatives of a class
of similarly-situated persons, are represented by:

          Ross M. Good, Esq.
          Glenn L. Hara, Esq.
          Ryan Michael Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: rgood@andersonwanca.com
                  GHara@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com

Defendant-Respondent SAFEMARK SYSTEMS, LP, is represented by:

          Amy Baker, Esq.
          WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER, LLP
          111 N Orange Ave., Suite 1200
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 203-7599
          E-mail: amy.baker@wilsonelser.com

               - and -

          Joseph L. Francoeur, Esq.
          WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER, LLP
          150 E 42nd St.
          New York, NY 10017-5639
          Telephone: (212) 490-3000
          E-mail: joseph.francoeur@wilsonelser.com


SNAP: Court Allows Shareholders' Lawsuit Over IPO to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
PYMNTS reports that Snap, the maker of the disappearing messaging
app Snapchat, saw a court ruling that gave investors the green
light to pursue a lawsuit involving its initial public offering
(IPO).

According to the Los Angeles Times, citing court proceedings,
investors contend that ahead of the IPO, Snap didn't disclose how
much competition from Instagram, the photo sharing social media
network, was impeding its ability to grow in the last six months
of 2016.  Snap has been seeking to dismiss the lawsuit, but those
efforts were ultimately unsuccessful.

The investors also contend that Snap didn't disclose a
whistleblower lawsuit by an ex-employee who claimed there were
inaccuracies in how Snap calculated and reported daily active
users.  They also claim that the company misrepresented its use
of so-called growth hacking, in which Snap sends push
notifications to its users to improve the daily numbers.  Snap
declined to comment on the ruling.

The shareholders' next move would be to pursue class-action
status, which the report noted would put it in a better position
to negotiate with the company.

The lawsuit comes as a report surfaced that the company is in
need of a cash infusion.  According to a recent report in The
Information, Snap torched through $1.1 billion in five quarters,
not counting acquisitions.  That means the company will need some
dollars at some point within the next year and a half -- and it
seems to have snuck out of a securities filing in early May,
which strongly indicates it is trying to raise some funds by a
sale of shares or debt.  In and of itself, it is a standard and
unremarkable filing, but it does serve as a stark reminder that
Snap needs cash. [GN]


STAFFMARK HOLDINGS: Judge Approves Wage Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Lane, writing for Northern California Record, reports that
U.S. Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California recently granted a
motion for final approval and certification of a settlement in a
class action regarding worker wages and hours.

The lawsuit concerned a class action filed Dec. 27, 2015 by Earl
Fronda on behalf of himself and 4,407 class members against
Staffmark Holdings Inc. and CBS Personnel Services LLC (together,
the CBS Defendants), the June 1 filing by James said.

The court preliminarily approved the class action settlement
proposed by Fronda and CBS Personnel Services on Nov. 27, 2017,
the filing noted.  The plaintiff and CBS Defendants settled their
claims in private mediation on Jan. 4, 2018.

Plaintiff now seeks final approval of the settlement, as well as
attorneys' fees and costs. Neither CBS Defendants nor CEVA
Logistics U.S., Inc., another defendant in the case, opposed the
motion for final approval.

In filing the complaint, which included defendant CEVA Logistics
U.S., Inc., plaintiff asserted eight claims based on California
state law: (1) failure to provide meal periods, (2) failure to
provide rest periods, (3) failure to pay hourly wages, (4)
failure to provide accurate written wage statements, (5) failure
to timely pay all final wages, (6) failure to pay wages without
discount, (7) unfair competition, and (8) civil penalties under
the private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").

James said in her ruling that the court held a hearing on these
matters on May 31, 2018.  "Having considered the parties'
positions, the relevant legal authority, and the record in this
case, the court grants the motion for final approval and grants
in part the motion for attorneys' fees and enhancement award,"
the ruling said.

Regarding distribution of settlement payments, the ruling said
the settling defendants agreed to pay a maximum sum of $5.6
million.  As outlined in the ruling, this figure includes (1)
payments to class members, (2) class counsel's attorneys' fees
and costs, (3) administration costs, (4) any enhancement award to
plaintiff, and (5) payment to the California Labor and Workforce
Development Agency (LWDA).

The ruling said participating class members shall be paid a
proportionate share of the net settlement sum.  The net
settlement sum represents the settlement sum less attorneys' fees
and costs, administration costs, an enhancement award and the
LWDA payment.

The ruling said the settlement administrator shall calculate the
individual class member settlement amount, the amount of the net
settlement sum allocated to each participating class members.

The settlement provides for all class counsel's attorneys' fees
and costs to be paid from the settlement sum.  Class counsel will
seek up to one-third of the settlement fund, that is,
$1,866,666.67.

The settlement also provides that plaintiff shall seek an
enhancement award of no more than $10,000.  This award shall be
deducted from the settlement sum.

Disputes regarding the implementation or interpretation of the
settlement shall be submitted to the private mediator the parties
previously worked with to settle their dispute.  Settlement
administration costs are awarded in the amount of $24,750.

No later than Sept. 28, the parties shall file a joint status
report indicating (1) the number of class members who have cashed
their settlement checks, (2) the amount of uncashed funds, (3)
any issues the parties believe should be addressed, and (4) a
proposed course of action for remedying such issues, if any, the
ruling said. [GN]


SPRINT CORP: Settles Sales Employees' Class Action for $3.65MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Maxham, writing for Android Headlines, reports that on
June 4, Sprint settled a class-action lawsuit with thousands of
sales employees.  Sprint settled for $3.65 million on a class-
action lawsuit that has been going on for over nine years in the
US District Court of Kansas City, Kansas.  Back in May 2008,
almost four thousand Sprint business channel sales employees
filed this suit against Sprint.  The argument was the fact that
Sprint failed to pay commissions they were owed after merging
with Nextel.  The employees said that the system Sprint was using
was not able to track commissions and pay data for several years.
Of course, Sprint is still continuing to deny these allegations.

This was a pretty long lawsuit for Sprint and these employees,
and while the employees did ultimately end up winning, it is a
pretty small settlement.  Just $3.65 million.  After paying off
the lawyers that argued the case, the employees involved here
likely won't receive much money from this class-action lawsuit,
and that is typically the case with these class-action lawsuits
anyways.  Usually those involved only get a check for a few
bucks. According to court documents, the employees will receive
around $25 for this case.  About $1.9 million goes to the nearly
four thousand employees, while the remainder goes to paying the
lawyers (around $839,600) and litigation costs (around $850,000).

Sprint isn't the only one that has been in a good number of
lawsuits as of late.  All four of the US carriers have had their
own fair share of lawsuits lately, and a number of them were due
to business practices that were not in favor of its customers.
Though Sprint is the first one to really have its employees file
a lawsuit against them.  A nine-year lawsuit is definitely a long
one, and it's possible that many of these employees have left
Sprint for many years already.  While the $25 class-action
lawsuit check likely won't make up for the lost money, it is
better than nothing here. [GN]


STUBHUB: Court Allows Class Action Over Ticket Fees to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Cooke, writing for Complete Music Update, reports that a
class action case against StubHub, eBay's ticket touting
platform, has been allowed to proceed by a US court.  It relates
to the practice of adding substantial fees at the end of the
ticket buying process.

Much attention in the ticket touting domain of late has been
focused on champion rule breaker and unapologetic consumer
confuser Viagogo.  So much so, you might have forgotten that the
anti-tout brigade also have issues with the other secondary
ticketing sites.  Even if they have generally complied with the
rules in the UK.

This US case centres on a frequently raised issue that is
actually addressed by the UK touting rules that Viagogo has been
trying its best to ignore, but which StubHub is now complying
with over here.

That is the common practice of secondary ticketing sites adding
their substantial fees at the end of the transaction process.
This means that tickets are initially advertised at a much lower
cost than that which the buyer will actually have to pay.

In California a class action has been filed arguing that this
practice violates state law. The litigation, led by plaintiff
Susan Wang, cites a relatively recent case involving retailer
Banana Republic, in which it was alleged that retailer broke
unfair competition and false advertising laws through their use
of signage promoting a sale in their stores.

Customers were only told at the checkout that the sale didn't
apply to all items, by which point said customers said they felt
compelled to go through with the purchase, either out of
embarrassment or because they had now gone through the hassle of
queuing up to pay.

StubHub argued that the precedent set in that case didn't apply
to the way it lists ticket prices, because the circumstances were
sufficiently different.  Those being that it's an online
operation and it never specifically promised users a bargain. On
that basis, the eBay company wanted the case thrown out.

However, a judge on June 11 ruled that the case should proceed.
Although he added that, while he felt the legal framework
provided by the Banana Republic case was sufficient for Wang's
case to cross the first hurdle, "it may not get her past any
other hurdle".   with that in mind, he told StubHub's legal rep
that he should re-present the arguments made at this stage once
again further down the line.

That said, the judge gave short shrift to StubHub's argument that
its terms told Wang that there may be additional fees on her
ticket purchase.  According to Law 360, he mused that it would be
easy for StubHub to list its fees upfront, and that the eBay
company was basically arguing that it should "get off scot-free
because somewhere in what I imagine to be a prolix document, it
says it's going to charge fees".

So, for now at least, the case continues. [GN]


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Oct. 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Pomerantz LLP
regarding the Symbol Technologies Securities Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION

Case No.: 05-cv-3923
(DRH-AKT)

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO:  ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE COMMON STOCK OF SYMBOL
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ("SYMBOL") BETWEEN MARCH 12, 2004 AND
AUGUST 1, 2005.

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

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, that the Court-
appointed Lead Plaintiff, Ironworkers Local #580 Pension Fund, on
behalf of itself and Class Members, has reached a proposed
settlement of a Class Action pending against Symbol, Salvatore
Iannuzzi, Todd Abbott, James M. Conboy, William R. Nuti and Mark
T. Greenquist.  A hearing will be held on October 30, 2018 at
1:30 p.m. before the Honorable Denis R. Hurley, United States
District Judge of the Eastern District of New York, 100 Federal
Plaza, Central Islip, NY 11722 (the "Settlement Hearing"):

   1. to determine whether the Settlement, including a payment of
$15,000,000 (Fifteen Million Dollars) in cash, subject to certain
terms and conditions, should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate;

   2. to determine finally whether the Order and Final Judgment
as provided under the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
("Stipulation") should be entered, dismissing the operative
Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ("Complaint")
on the merits and with prejudice, and to determine whether the
release by the Class of the Released Persons as set forth in the
Stipulation, should be ordered, along with a permanent injunction
barring efforts to bring any Released Claims extinguished by the
Settlement against any Released Persons;

   3. to determine finally whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation for the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund is
fair and reasonable and should be approved by the Court;

   4. to consider the application of Lead Plaintiff's Counsel for
an award of Attorneys' Fees in an amount not to exceed 30% of the
Gross Settlement Fund and an award of expenses of not more than
$1,350,000, and for a Compensatory Award to Lead Plaintiff
Ironworkers Local #580 Pension Fund of no more than $15,000 in
the aggregate;

   5. to consider Class Members' objections to the Settlement, if
any; and

   6. to rule upon such other matters as the Court may deem
appropriate.

If you purchased common stock of Symbol between March 12, 2004
and August 1, 2005, your rights may be affected by the Settlement
of this Action. If you have not received a detailed Notice of
Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice") and a copy of
the Proof of Claim and Release Form (the "Proof of Claim"), you
may obtain them free of charge by writing to Symbol Technologies
Securities Litigation, c/o KCC Class Action Services, P.O. Box
404059, Louisville, KY 40233-4059, by calling toll-free 1-866-
650-3813, or by obtaining one on the internet at
www.SymbolTechnologiesSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Class, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim to the Claims Administrator no later than November 29,
2018, establishing that you are entitled to recovery.  As further
described in the Notice, unless you previously submitted a
written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment
rendered in the Action whether or not you submit a Proof of
Claim.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, Lead
Plaintiff's Counsel's request for an award of Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses, or request for a Compensatory Award to Lead Plaintiff
must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice
and postmarked no later than October 9, 2018, to each of the
following:

Michael J. Wernke, Esq.
Pomerantz LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the Class

Kathleen N. Massey, Esq.
Dechert LLP
1095 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036

Defendants' Counsel

In addition, by the same date, October 9, 2018, you must file any
objections with the Clerk of the Court, identifying this Action
and stating fully the basis of your objection, at the following
address: Clerk of the Court, U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of New York, 100 Federal Plaza, Central Islip, NY 11722.

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to the Claims Administrator or Lead Plaintiff's Counsel:

Claims Administrator:
Symbol Technologies Securities Litigation
c/o KCC Class Action Services
P.O. Box 404059
Louisville, KY 40233-4059
Tel.: 1-866-650-3813
info@SymbolTechnologiesSecuritiesLitigation.com
www.SymbolTechnologiesSecuritiesLitigation.com

Lead Plaintiff's Counsel:
Michael J. Wernke, Esq.
Pomerantz LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel.: (212) 661-1100
Fax: (212) 661-8665

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

DATED: May 22, 2018
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK [GN]


TESLA MOTORS: Opposes New State Labor Rule Amid Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Ashton, writing for Sacramento, reports that the only large-
scale car manufacturer in California argues that doing business
in the state is hard enough without a fast-developing labor
regulation backed by organizations that want to unionize its
Fremont plant.

Elon Musk's Tesla is fighting a rule under development by two
state agencies that would require it to be certified as a "fair
and responsible workplace" for its customers to be eligible for
taxpayer-backed state electric vehicle rebates.

Those rebates are key incentives in Gov. Jerry Brown's plan to
put 5 million electric vehicles on California roads by 2030.
They take thousands of dollars off the price of buying a new
Tesla car, and unions want lawmakers to withhold them from
companies they believe have unfair labor practices.

"The goals of a clean environment and a thriving middle class are
inseparable for the Labor movement and we are committed to
achieving both," wrote Angie Wei, a lobbyist for the Labor
Federation, in a letter supporting the rule.

The rule could take effect as early as July, opening Tesla to
additional scrutiny from the Labor and Workforce Development
Agency and the California Air Resources Board.

In a 16-page letter fighting the rule, Tesla says the "state is
targeting" the company and that other car manufacturers avoid
operating here because they view it "as a competitive
disadvantage."

The company declined to comment beyond its letter to the air
board.  Its allies argue the rule will deter other manufacturers
from opening here.

The proposed rule "discourages future manufacturing investment in
California by effectively holding companies that create
manufacturing jobs in California to a different and higher
standard," Carl Guardino, president of the Silicon Valley
Leadership Group, wrote in a letter supporting Tesla.

California lawmakers called for the rule in a provision they
placed in the state budget a year ago, a move that was perceived
as giving United Auto Workers and the California Labor Federation
a lift in their efforts to unionize Tesla's Fremont plant.

Since then, the state labor agency and the California Air
Resources Board have held under-the-radar discussions with car
companies, unions and environmental groups.

The state also released a concept paper on May 23 that describes
broadly how the agencies might enforce the rule.  It would give
companies two years to more or less self-certify as "fair and
responsible workplaces" before bringing in more oversight.  It
asks that companies report on workplace injuries, labor
complaints and nondiscrimination standards.

The agencies accepted comments on the paper through June 4 and
plan to revise the document.  Ms. Wei said unions plan to ask the
Legislature to put the certification process into law after the
agencies review feedback and release a revised plan.

If anything, labor organizations want the state to move faster in
tying electrical vehicle rebates to the labor practices of car
manufacturers.  The UAW wrote: "Full certification should
commence no later than July 1, 2019" -- a year earlier than the
agencies are recommending.

The state rule is moving forward as Tesla employees and unions
draw attention to what they regard as unsafe or illegal practices
at the company.

A Tesla employee in November filed a class action lawsuit in
federal court alleging the company has tolerated racist behavior.
Others filed similar lawsuits in state court.  Marcus Vaughn, the
employee behind the federal lawsuit, alleged that he and other
black employees were called the n-word on an assembly floor even
after complaining about it.

The United Auto Workers also has filed unfair labor practice
charges against the company, alleging it inappropriately laid off
a group of employees.

"I know in my heart that what they did was wrong, and I look
forward to our day in court," Richard Ortiz, a former employee
and union supporter, said in an April news release from the UAW
about one of its filings.

The UAW wants to represent Tesla's workforce, just as it did for
employees of New United Motor Manufacturing Inc.  NUMMI, a joint
venture by Toyota and General Motors, closed in 2010.  Tesla's
main manufacturing facility is in the NUMMI plant.

Mr. Musk, the billionaire founder of Tesla and Space X, has taken
shots at the drive on Twitter.

"I've never stopped a union vote nor removed a union.  UAW
abandoned this factory.  Tesla arrived & gave people back their
jobs.  They haven't forgotten UAW betrayed them . That's why UAW
can't even get people to attend a free BBQ, let alone enough
(signatures) for a vote," he wrote on May 23.

The state's concept paper stresses that car companies must be
compliant with local, state and national labor laws for their
customers to receive rebates that take thousands of dollars off
the price of electrical vehicles.  Car companies told the air
board they want more information about how a company would lose
its rebate certification, worrying the state would rescind the
benefit over minor infractions.

Representatives from foreign car companies and manufacturers with
facilities outside of California said the state would have little
authority to investigate their operations.

"There is therefore no legal way that California could deprive a
manufacturer from participating in the CVRP based on activities
taking place entirely outside the state," wrote lobbyists for
Global Automakers, a coalition of foreign car companies that
includes Nissan, Subaru and Toyota.

Tesla recently has been touting its economic footprint in
California.  It commissioned a study released in May that showed
the Palo Alto-based company has 20,000 employees in California
and supports another 31,000 jobs among its suppliers.

CALSTART, a business-backed clean technology advocacy group,
wrote a letter to the air board implying those jobs were at risk
as it moves forward with the labor rule.

"By creating an additional bar for companies who both rely on the
(rebate) and who are operating in areas that already have higher
standards, the approach could encourage (manufacturers) of (zero-
emission vehicles) to move to locations with lower standards.
Such a policy would give companies a reason to manufacture in
places besides California, which could undermine the potential
for continuing to build (zero-emission vehicle) manufacturing
jobs in the state," the letter reads. [GN]


TESLA MOTORS: Shareholder Sues Over Elon Musk's Payment Package
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Hals, writing for Reuters, reports that Elon Musk's multi-
billion dollar compensation package should be rescinded and the
board of Tesla Inc should be overhauled to better protect
investors in the electronic car company, according to a law suit
filed by a shareholder on June 7.

The lawsuit accused the board of corporate waste and Mr. Musk,
the company's chief executive officer and chairman, of unjust
enrichment.

The lawsuit is seeking class action status.

Tesla said in a statement that the lawsuit "seeks to take the
power from our shareholders and instead give it to plaintiffs
lawyers.  We will respond accordingly."

Mr. Musk received the support of the company's shareholders in
March for a package that Tesla estimated to be worth $2.6
billion.

A Morgan Stanley analyst estimated the package could be worth up
to $70 billion if the company continues to grow quickly.  While
the award of the pay package cooled speculation that Mr. Musk
might be planning to quit, it was also criticized for its
unprecedented size.

Proxy advisory services ISS and Glass Lewis both had recommended
shareholders reject the package.

"The new E. Musk compensation plan is so large it dwarfs the pay
package of every other public company CEO," said the complaint by
Richard Tornetta that was unsealed on June 7 in Delaware's Court
of Chancery.

Tesla's statement noted that Musk gets nothing unless the
company's market value doubles and continues to increase until it
becomes one of the world's most valuable companies.

Much of the complaint describing the how the pay package is
unfair was redacted.

The complaint said Mr. Tornetta obtained corporate records from
Tesla as permitted under Delaware corporate law.  Companies
sometimes provide that information only if a shareholder signs a
non-disclosure agreement.

The lawsuit was unsealed days after shareholders rejected a
shareholder proposal to strip Musk of the chairman role.

That had represented the strongest challenge yet to Musk's grip
on the Silicon Valley car maker, which also faces production
setbacks and expectations by many analysts that it will need to
raise new cash.

The case was assigned to vice chancellor Joseph Slights.  In
March, Slights ruled against Tesla's request for an early
dismissal of a shareholder class action challenging the company's
acquisition of SolarCity Corp, a renewable energy company.  The
lawsuit alleged that Mr. Musk used his power over Tesla's board
to buy SolarCity at a price that unfairly benefited Musk, a large
shareholder in SolarCity.

The SolarCity deal closed in November 2016.  That case is
proceeding to trial. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court OKs Modification to FCRA Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Parties' Stipulation Re
Modification to Settlement Agreement in the case captioned IN RE
UBER FCRA LITIGATION, Case No. 15-cv-6851-CMR (N.D. Cal.).

The Court, having reviewed the parties' Revised Stipulation Re
Modification To Settlement Agreement filed and good cause
appearing, the Court modifies the definition of Settlement Class
Members' Released Claims in the parties' Stipulation of
Settlement.

The Court finds that these modifications to the parties'
Stipulation of Settlement and the Order are properly made without
further notice to the class because the modifications are for the
benefit of the class.

A full-text copy of the District of Court's April 19, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y766ob2b  from Leagle.com

Abdul Kadir Mohamed, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Keith King,
Ahdoot and Wolfson, P.C., 8424 Santa Monica Blvd Ste 575. West
Hollywood, CA 90069-4267, Robert Ahdoot --
rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C., Theodore
Walter Maya -- tmaya@ahdootswolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson,
P.C.,, Andrew Paul Lee -- ALEE@GBDHLEGAL.COM -- Goldstein,
Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, Elisa Marie Della-Piana, Lawyers
Committee For Civil Rights, Laura L. Ho -- LHO@GBDHLEGAL.COM  --
Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho & Tina Wolfson  --
twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C.

Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Michael
Spurchise -- aspurchise@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
Debra Wong Yang -- dwongyang@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn
Crutcher LLP, Dhananjay Saikrishna Manthripragada --
dmanthripragada@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher, Emily
Erin O'Connor  -- eoconnor@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson,
P.C., John C. Fish, Jr.  -- jfish@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, PC, Joshua Seth Lipshutz -- jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com -
-  Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Marcellus Antonio McRae --
mmcrae@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Rod M.
Fliegel -- rfliegel@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson P.C., Sophia
Behnia -- sbehnia@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Theane
D. Evangelis -- tevangelis@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. --
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Attorney at Law Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP & William J. Simmons -- wsimmons@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson PC.


UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Medicaid Expansion
---------------------------------------------------------
Misty Williams and Mary Ellen McIntire, writing for Roll Call,
report that the midterm elections are poised to play a pivotal
role in whether more states expand Medicaid eligibility, as the
number of red-state holdouts dwindles.

Governors' races in states such as Florida and Kansas, along with
ballot initiatives in Idaho, Nebraska and Utah, are being watched
closely by Medicaid experts this year.

The first half of 2018 already marks a monumental shift in
Medicaid, the government insurance program for low-income
Americans.  And we could see the largest number of states in
years adopt Medicaid expansion after this fall's elections.  But
unprecedented changes to the program -- namely, work requirements
-- are also beginning to take effect in some states that could
shift the program in the other direction and scale back its
population.

The expansion of Medicaid in Virginia is giving advocates hope.
Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam on June 7 signed a state budget
that includes extending Medicaid coverage to about 400,000
people.  The move comes after years of expansion efforts by
Democrats, who achieved significant gains in the state
legislature last year with health care as a key campaign issue.

The case of Virginia, where the 2017 legislative elections
trimmed the Republicans' statehouse majority to a razor-thin
margin, shows how electoral changes may lead other states to
expand eventually, said Ben Sommers, associate professor of
health policy and economics at Harvard.

"The implications for the midterm elections nationally are
clear," Sommers said. "In states that have yet to expand, if
there is a large influx of new legislators and/or governors
supportive of expansion, we'll probably see some other states
follow suit."

Interest in expansion
Experts say the recent developments are fueled, in part, by
greater certainty of continued federal support for Medicaid,
following last year's unsuccessful Republican efforts to repeal
and replace the 2010 health care law.  Medicaid expansion also
established itself as an issue voters are more aware of and that
many support, they say.

"After a year or two in limbo without much movement, the state
debate over Medicaid expansion is back in full swing," Mr.
Sommers said.

Kansas is one state to watch. Earlier this year, GOP Gov.
Sam Brownback, who stood in the way of expansion despite support
for it in the legislature, left to become ambassador at large for
international religious freedom.  A crowded field of candidates
is vying for the governorship.

"Kansas' state legislature already passed Medicaid expansion only
to fall just short of overriding the governor's veto, so the
election there will be critical to determining Medicaid's fate,"
Mr. Sommers said.

Another is Florida, where several Democratic and Republican
candidates are competing in the Aug. 28 gubernatorial primaries.
Among the Democrats supporting expansion are former Rep. Gwen
Graham and former Miami Beach Mayor Philip Levine.  The
Republicans who oppose broadening the program include Rep. Ron
DeSantis and former Rep. Adam H. Putnam, now the state's
agriculture commissioner.  Ms. Graham mentioned Medicaid
expansion in a 30-second TV ad.

Nationwide, 33 states and the District of Columbia opted to
expand the program under the health care law.

Last fall, Maine became the first state to adopt expansion via a
ballot referendum, which garnered nearly 60 percent voter
approval.  The state's Republican Gov. Paul R. LePage, a staunch
expansion opponent, refused to implement it, but a Maine superior
court judge ruled the state must comply with the law and move
forward.

Advocates in Idaho, Utah and Nebraska pursuing ballot measures
are optimistic.  Expansion would extend health coverage to more
than 300,000 people in those states. Meanwhile, in Montana,
supporters are also focused on renewing its expansion, which
covers nearly 100,000 people and is set to expire next year.

In Utah, volunteers have already gathered enough signatures to
have the expansion question put on the ballot.  It also seems
likely in Idaho, though the signatures turned in to the state in
April must still be officially certified. Signature collection in
Nebraska and Montana appears on track, according to the Fairness
Project, an advocacy group championing expansion ballot
initiatives.

"What we're seeing play out are attempts at the state level to
stabilize some of the chaos that's been created out of
Washington, D.C.," said Jonathan Schleifer, the group's executive
director.  "Americans want more health care, not less."

Mr. Schleifer said he's hearing from advocates in more states
interested in pursuing similar ballot initiatives in 2020, though
he wouldn't specify which ones.

Medicaid expansion will be a defining factor for voters this
fall, whether through voting for ballot initiatives, state
legislators or gubernatorial candidates, Mr. Schleifer predicted.

Experts point to several reasons why the issue will be an active
topic.

The "coverage gap," where some people make too much money to
qualify for Medicaid but too little to get subsidies on the
health care law's insurances exchanges, hasn't gone away, said
Cindy Mann, an expert with consulting firm Manatt who ran
Medicaid during the Obama administration.

"As years go by, in states with large numbers of residents in the
gap, it becomes increasingly untenable to leave federal dollars
on the table that could cover most of the cost of the coverage,"
she said.

Under the health care law's expansion, the federal government
promised to cover 93 percent of the cost of new enrollees next
year, with support phasing down to 90 percent in 2020 and beyond.

Conservative concepts
The Trump administration's embrace of Medicaid work requirements
may also prompt more red states to revisit the expansion
question.  Virginia's Medicaid expansion vote was accompanied by
a work requirement plan.

It's a conservative idea that makes expansion more politically
palatable, experts say.

"Work requirements facilitate expansion as a political compromise
and as a fig leaf for some Republicans to change their
positions," said Paul Ginsburg, a health policy expert at the
liberal-leaning Brookings Institution.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has so far this
year approved work requirements in four states -- Kentucky,
Arkansas, Indiana and New Hampshire.

Arkansas became the first state to institute its work mandate on
June 1, while Kentucky plans to begin rolling the program out in
phases later this summer.

Conservatives tout the idea as a way to lift people out of
poverty, while critics warn people with disabilities and other
vulnerable groups will be unfairly kicked off Medicaid as a
result.

Several consumer advocacy groups are challenging the Trump
administration in court over the issue, arguing the federal
government doesn't have the authority to allow states to make
such an unprecedented change to Medicaid.  They filed a class
action lawsuit in January aimed at stopping the Kentucky
requirements, with its first hearing scheduled for June 15 in
federal court.

Some Republicans have expressed skepticism of the work
requirements concept.

Speaking with reporters on June 5, Sen. Bill Cassidy said he is
personally pessimistic that Medicaid work requirements will be
beneficial, noting that people can always go to the emergency
room whether or not they have health coverage.

"With that said, I'm a big believer in federalism and some things
that seem sure to work don't, and some things that seem maybe not
so good turn out very well," the Louisiana Republican said.  "So,
as a believer in federalism, I'm willing to see what happens."

He also discussed challenges with Medicaid expansion in his home
state, where coverage was extended to about 450,000 people.

People have access to doctors, but that's typically primary care
with limited opportunities for specialty care, he said.
Mr. Cassidy noted his state faces a budget crisis, even before
2020 when he said Louisiana's share of expansion will be $310
million.

Health policy experts note, however, that expansion has brought
states billions of dollars in new federal funding and produced
savings in other areas of the health care system.  For instance,
states can use federal money -- instead of strictly state dollars
-- to help pay for mental health services under expansion.
Hospitals have also seen uncompensated care costs drop, as the
number of people with insurance rose.

"With the passage of time, there is more and more evidence that
expansions have resulted in historic and sustainable drops in
uninsurance, sharp reductions in uncompensated care, state budget
and overall economic gains, and generally good access to care and
satisfaction levels," Ms. Mann said.  "Gubernatorial and state
legislative elections in 2018 might add momentum to the expansion
debate." [GN]


UNITED STATES: Bid to Dismiss Ruling Flood-Control Suit Deferred
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Federal Claims issued a Memorandum
Opinion and Order deferring the Ruling on the Government's Motion
to Dismiss the case captioned IN RE DOWNSTREAM ADDICKS AND BARKER
(TEXAS) FLOOD-CONTROL RESERVOIRS, THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL
DOWNSTREAM CASES, No. 17-9002L (Fed. Cl.).

The court issued an Order requiring the parties to submit a Joint
Status Report that includes: (1) a final list of the test
properties together with a short statement of why each was
selected, the proponent, and whether the property owner is an
individual plaintiff or a member of a proposed class action; (2)
a proposed discovery plan for jurisdictional and liability
issues; and (3) a list of individuals tentatively identified for
depositions.

During the April 10, 2018 telephone conference, the Government
also objected to a schedule that would close discovery before the
court ruled on the Government's February 20, 2018 Motion To
Dismiss.

For these reasons, the court has determined that the interests of
justice require the court to defer ruling on the Government's
February 20, 2018 Motion To Dismiss, pursuant to RCFC 12(i).

In addition, after considering the parties' proposals and
argument at the April 10, 2018 telephone conference, the court
has determined that another schedule will supersede the prior
Scheduling Orders and govern this case.

A full-text copy of the Federal Claims Court's April 19, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yb4fv64s from Leagle.com.

IN RE DOWNSTREAM ADDICKS AND BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD-CONTROL
RESERVOIRS, Plaintiff, represented by David Charles Frederick --
dfrederick@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg, Hansen, et al, Derek
Heath Potts -- dpotts@potts-law.com -- Potts Law Firm, LLP, Jack
Edward McGehee, McGehee, Chang, Barnes, Landgraf, 10370 Richmond
Ave Ste 1300. Houston, TX 77042-0002, Rand P. Nolen --
rand_nolen@fleming-law.com -- Fleming, Nolen & Jez, L.L.P.,
Richard Warren Mithoff, Jr. -- rmithoff@mithofflaw.com -- Mithoff
Law, William S. Consovoy -- will@consovoymccarthy.com -- Consovoy
McCarthy Park PLLC, Allen Craig Eiland -- CEiland@eilandlaw.com -
- The Law Offices of A. Craig Eiland, P.C., Anthony Glenn Buzbee,
The Buzbee Law Firm, 701 Poydras Street. Suite 5000, One Shell
Square. New Orleans, LA 701395099, Benjamin Russell Roberts,
Pinkerton Law Firm, PLLC., 5020 Montross Blvd., Ste 550, Houston,
TX 77006,  Bryant Steven Banes -- bbanes@nhblaw.com -- Neel,
Hooper & Banes, PC, Charles W. Irvine -- Charles@irvineconner.com
-- Irvine & Conner, LLC, Christopher Stephen Johns --
cjohns@jmehlaw.co -- Johns, Marrs, Ellis & Hodge LLP, Clayton A.
Clark, Clark, Love & Hutson, G.P.,  440 Louisiana St #1600,
Houston, TX 77002, Dax Frank Garza, Dax F. Garza, PC, One City
Centre, 1021 Main Street, Suite 1400, Houston, Texas 77002,  Don
C. Griffin -- dgriffin@velaw.com -- Vinson & Elkins LLP, Edward
Blizzard, Blizzard & Nabers, LLP, 440 Louisiana St #1710,
Houston, TX 77002.

USA, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Camille Brown, U.S.
Department of Justice.


UNITED STATES: Suit Seeks Mandatory Use of Soccer Head Gear
-----------------------------------------------------------
Unequal on June 12 disclosed that a class-action lawsuit was
recently filed on behalf of two families and their minor female
soccer players in the U.S. District Court of Western Pennsylvania
against the United States Soccer Federation and the U.S. Youth
Soccer Association.  The suit seeks to make compulsory the
wearing of protective headgear as a mandated piece of equipment
for all soccer players.  The two sanctioning bodies are cited as
negligent for their failure in protecting players against the
risk of concussions when suitable and proven headgear exists.
Both Unequal Technologies and LDR Headgear have released
statements in support of the class action suit.

"For what I find to be illogical reasons, the shins have enjoyed
mandatory protection for decades in soccer while the head has
been an afterthought," stated Rob Vito, CEO of Unequal and maker
of Unequal Halo soccer headgear.  "That this class-action lawsuit
has been filed speaks to the urgent need for a new policy
addressing this very important safety issue effecting millions of
our nation's youth soccer athletes.  This hopefully will be a
wake-up call for soccer governing bodies to finally take action
to mitigate what have become oppressive stats for players not
wearing headgear, especially girls."

The two named defendants in the suit, the U.S. Soccer Federation
and the U.S. Youth Soccer Association, have 21 days to answer the
filed complaint or file a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.  A core issue that will be decided is
whether or not the two defendants have adhered to the duty of
care doctrine, which explicitly states a legal obligation imposed
on an individual or organization, requiring adherence to a
standard of reasonable care when asking others to perform any
acts that could foreseeably create harm.

LDR Headgear, maker of the Soccer XP Headband, also weighed in on
the importance of the issue.  "In the sport of wrestling, we have
seen a significant decrease in head impact injuries from the
athletes wearing our added protection," stated Lawrence
Marchionda, co-owner of LDR Headgear.  'Likewise, in soccer, all
athletes who have been wearing head protection agree it offers
added protection which can never be argued.  To date, no
'Gladiator Effect' has been studied or quantified.  The medical
community does not recognize the advantages of added protection
for athletes playing soccer.  We at LDR believe the head is far
more important protecting than the ears in wrestling or shins in
soccer, and the federations should be held accountable for not
making head protection mandatory."

Unequal's full line of Halo headgear and LDR's Soccer XP Headband
both recently received top ratings from University of Virginia
Tech Department of Biomedical Engineering and Mechanics.  The
study's results are the first independent ratings assigned to the
evaluation of protective headgear for soccer players.

A trial date has not been set.  For more information, please
visit https://unequal.com/shop/halo and www.leaderheadgear.com.

                         About Unequal

Invented by company founder and CEO Rob Vito, Unequal is
military-grade protection that has been modified for sport.  With
over 100 patents in the U.S. and abroad, Unequal is fortified
with protective technology like no other.  From the World Cup to
the NFL to collegiate, high school and youth league players,
Unequal protects.

Unequal's military-grade composites are built with TriDur,
Accelleron, Airilon and optional ImpacShield.  This ultralight,
ultrathin athletic gear works differently than virtually every
other traditional foam and plastic of equal weight and thickness
on the market.  It absorbs, disperses and dissipates impact
energy away from the body to provide the ultimate in protection.
Unequal does not compromise mobility and bolsters confidence,
allowing athletes to play at a higher level.
                       About LDR Headgear

LDR Headgear designs, tests and manufactures sports impact
protection equipment for the athletes' head and other parts of
the body.  The aim is to reduce the impact that athletes see
while playing their respective sports without reducing their
ability to participate and excel in that sport.  The athletes
themselves test out our designs in their respective sports.  The
three founders of LDR all played contact sports at an All-
American, International or Professional level and we understand
the importance of testing our ideas at that level of very high
performance.  LDR Headgear is committed to manufacturing quality
products and reducing the impact athletes see in their sports.
[GN]


VECTRUS INC: Continues to Defend Employment Class Suit in Wash.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vectrus, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 30, 2018, that the parties are negotiating a settlement in
the labor-related class action lawsuit pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Vectrus said, "We are defending a class action employment lawsuit
that was initiated in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington in April 2010 against the
predecessor of our Former Parent by individuals who worked on a
particular contract in Kuwait after April 12, 2009."

The plaintiffs are alleging a breach of employment contract by
the predecessor of the company's Former Parent due to an alleged
violation of Kuwait labor law. In November 2016, following an
interlocutory appeal by Vectrus, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision certifying a class
of plaintiffs.

The company filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme
Court on the class certification decision in March 2017.  Vectrus
said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that on October 2, 2017, the U.S. Supreme
Court denied certiorari.

While Vectrus continues to vigorously defend the lawsuit, the
parties are in the process of negotiating a settlement, the terms
of which are expected to be submitted to the District Court by
May 11, 2018 for its review and initial approval.

The proposed settlement, if initially approved by the District
Court, will require notice to be issued to class members and an
opportunity for class members to object to the settlement. Final
approval by the District Court will not occur until all
requirements, including an anticipated fairness hearing, have
been met.

Vectrus is a leading provider of services to the U.S. government
worldwide. The company operates in one segment and offer facility
and logistics services and information technology and network
communications services. The company is based in Colorado
Springs, Colorado.


VIVINT SOLAR: Arbitration in Calif. Suit Administered by JAMS
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the arbitration in the class action filed in
Cal. Super. Ct., Kern County, is being administered by JAMS.

In September 2015, two of the Company's customers, on behalf of
themselves and a purported class, named the Company in a putative
class action, Case No. BCV-15-100925 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern
County), alleging violation of California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 and requesting relief pursuant to
Section 1689 of the California Civil Code.

The complaint sought: (1) rescission of their PPAs along with
restitution to the plaintiffs individually and (2) declaratory
and injunctive relief.

In October 2015, the Company moved to compel arbitration of the
plaintiffs' claims pursuant to the provisions set forth in the
PPAs, which the Court granted and dismissed the class claims
without prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed the Court's order.

On July 26, 2017, the Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate
District ruled that all issues concerning the interpretation,
validity, or enforceability of the PPAs, including the
arbitrability of class claims, must be submitted to arbitration.

The appellate court vacated the portion of the trial court's
order dismissing class claims, requiring that issue to be
determined by an arbitrator. The case is now proceeding in
arbitration administered by JAMS.

The Company is unable to estimate the amount or range of
potential loss, if any, at this time.

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

Vivint Solar, Inc. provides distributed solar energy to
residential, commercial, and industrial customers in the United
States. The company operates in two segments, Residential, and
Commercial and Industrial. The company is based in Lehi, Utah.


VIVINT SOLAR: Settlement Reached in Alameda County Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the parties in a class action lawsuit have
reached a settlement with two individual plaintiffs.

In November 2016, a customer of the Company filed a putative
class action lawsuit in Superior Court in Alameda County,
California, purportedly on behalf of all customers of a
particular Company sales representative in California, claiming
that the representative's sales practices were improper under
California consumer protection law. The Company moved to dismiss
that action to compel arbitration.

In March 2017, the original plaintiff filed an amended complaint
adding an additional plaintiff, purporting to expand the proposed
class to include all customers who are eligible for the
California Alternate Rates for Energy program, and adding claims
of misconduct in the Company's sales practices apart from the
individual representative identified in the original complaint.
The Company moved to compel arbitration of the new plaintiff's
claims as well. The Company disputed the allegations in both the
original and amended complaints.

In January 2018, the parties reached a settlement with the two
individual plaintiffs. Under the settlement, in addition to
certain changes to its sales process and immaterial compensation
payments to the individual plaintiffs, the Company agreed to pay
attorneys' fees in an amount that has yet to be determined but is
expected to be immaterial to the Company's results of operations.

Vivint Solar, Inc. provides distributed solar energy to
residential, commercial, and industrial customers in the United
States. The company operates in two segments, Residential, and
Commercial and Industrial. The company is based in Lehi, Utah.


WESTAR ENERGY: Parties to Merger-Related Suits Agree to Dismiss
---------------------------------------------------------------
Westar Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the parties in each of the actions filed in
connection to the merger, independently agreed to withdraw
requests for injunctive relief and otherwise agreed in principle
to dismissing the actions with prejudice and to providing
releases, in exchange for the supplemental disclosures

Following the announcement of the original merger agreement in
May 2016, two putative class action petitions (which were
consolidated and superseded by a consolidated class action
petition) and one putative derivative petition challenging the
original merger were filed in the District Court of Shawnee
County, Kansas. In September 2016, the plaintiffs in both actions
agreed in principle to dismiss the actions in exchange for the
company's agreement to make supplemental disclosures to
shareholders in connection with the original merger agreement and
grant waivers of the prohibition on requesting a waiver of the
standstill provisions in the confidentiality and standstill
agreements executed by the bidders that participated in a sale
process that was conducted as part of the original merger
agreement.

After the announcement of the revised merger agreement, the
plaintiffs in the consolidated putative class action moved to
amend their petition, and the plaintiff in the putative
derivative case refiled his petition.

The consolidated putative class action petition, originally filed
July 25, 2016, is captioned In re Westar Energy, Inc. Stockholder
Litigation, Case No. 2016-CV-000457. This petition named as
defendants Westar Energy, the members of our board of directors
and Great Plains Energy.

On September 25, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for
leave to amend her class action petition and attached an amended
petition. The petition as amended now includes an additional
plaintiff. The petition challenges the revised proposed merger
and alleges a claim of breach of fiduciary duty against our board
of directors and a claim of aiding and abetting that alleged
breach against us and Great Plains Energy.

The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief declaring the action
maintainable as a class action and certifying that the plaintiffs
are the class representatives; preliminarily and permanently
enjoining the defendants from closing the merger unless the
company implements a procedure to obtain a merger agreement
providing fair and reasonable terms and consideration to the
plaintiffs and the class; rescinding the merger agreement or
granting the plaintiffs and the class rescissory damages;
directing the company's board of directors to account to the
plaintiffs and the class for damages suffered as a result of the
alleged breach of fiduciary duty; awarding the plaintiffs
reasonable costs and disbursements of the action, including
reasonable attorneys' fees and expert fees; and granting other
equitable relief as the court deems proper.

The petition alleges inadequacies in the company's joint proxy
statement concerning the revised proposed transaction and the
degree to which its board of directors solicited or considered
offers from prior bidders after the proposed original merger was
denied by the KCC, and claims that the consideration the
company's stockholders stand to receive in connection with the
revised proposed transaction is unfair.

Plaintiffs have added two new defendants, Monarch Energy Holding,
Inc. and King Energy, Inc., whom they allege aided and abetted
our board of directors in breaching their fiduciary duties.

On October 18, 2017, the putative derivative petition, captioned
Braunstein v. Chandler et al., Case No. 2017-CV-000692, was re-
filed in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas. This
putative derivative action names as defendants the members of the
company's board of directors, Great Plains Energy, and
subsidiaries of Great Plains Energy, with Westar Energy named as
a nominal defendant.

The petition asserts that the members of the company's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the company's
shareholders in connection with actions taken after the KCC
rejected the proposed original merger. It also asserts that Great
Plains Energy and subsidiaries of Great Plains Energy aided and
abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties.

The petition alleges, among other things, that the members of the
company's board of directors failed to obtain the best possible
price for its shareholders because of a flawed process that
discouraged third parties from submitting potentially superior
proposals, and that members of the company's board of directors
committed waste by not collecting termination fees that may have
been payable following the KCC's rejection of the original merger
agreement.

The petition seeks, among other remedies, an order enjoining the
merger on the terms proposed and directing that the director
defendants exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a
transaction, which is in the best interests of us and our
shareholders, a declaration that the proposed merger was entered
into in breach of the fiduciary duties of the defendants and is
therefore unlawful and unenforceable, rescission of the merger
agreement if consummated, the imposition of a constructive trust
in favor of the plaintiff, on behalf of the company, upon any
benefits improperly received by the named defendants as a result
of their wrongful conduct, and an award for costs, including
attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

In addition, on September 21, 2017, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas, captioned David Pill v. Westar Energy, Inc.
et al, Civil Action No. 17-4086. The federal class action
complaint challenges the merger and alleges violations of
sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (Exchange Act).

The complaint seeks an order declaring that the action is
maintainable as a class action and certifying that the plaintiff
is the class representative; preliminarily and permanently
enjoining defendants from consummating the mergers or, if
consummated, setting them aside and awarding rescissory damages;
directing the defendants to file a registration statement on Form
S-4 that corrects alleged misstatements; directing our board of
directors to account to plaintiff and the class for their
damages; awarding reasonable costs and disbursements of the
action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expert fees; and
granting other further relief as the court deems proper.

On October 6, 2017, another putative class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Kansas, captioned Robert L. Reese v. Westar Energy, Inc. et al,
Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-02584.

This federal class action complaint challenges the proposed
merger and alleges violations of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. The complaint seeks an order enjoining the board
and other parties from proceeding with, consummating, or closing
the merger or, if consummated, setting it aside and awarding
rescissory damages; directing the board to disseminate a
registration statement that corrects alleged misstatements and
includes all material facts the plaintiff asserts are missing;
declaring that the defendants violated sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9; awarding reasonable costs and
disbursements of the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees
and expert fees; and granting other equitable relief as the court
deems proper.

On November 16, 2017, the parties in each of the actions
independently agreed to withdraw requests for injunctive relief
and otherwise agreed in principle to dismissing the actions with
prejudice and to providing releases, in exchange for the
supplemental disclosures that the company filed in a Form 8-K on
November 16, 2017.

Westar Energy said "These agreements do not constitute any
admission by any of the defendants as to the merits of any
claims. In the future, the parties will prepare and present to
the court for approval Stipulations of Settlement that will, if
accepted by the court, settle the actions in their entirety. The
outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain. The defense or
settlement of any lawsuit or claim that remains unresolved at the
time the merger closes may adversely affect the combined
company's business, financial condition or results of operation."

Westar Energy, Inc. is the largest electric utility in Kansas.
The company produces, transmits and sells electricity at retail
to customers in Kansas under the regulation of the KCC. The
company also supplies electric energy at wholesale to
municipalities and electric cooperatives in Kansas under the
regulation of FERC. The company is based in Topeka, Kansas.


WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Faces "Rushing" Suit in E.D. Kentucky
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Williams-Sonoma,
Inc. The case is styled as William Rushing, individually & on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Williams-
Sonoma, Inc. doing business as: Williams-Sonoma doing business
as: Williams-Sonoma Home doing business as: Pottery Barn a
Delaware corporation, Williams-Sonoma DTC, Inc. a California
corporation, Williams-Sonoma Advertising, Inc. a California
Corporation and John and Jane Does 1-30, Defendants, The Pond
Lady, LLC, Movant/Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00420-CHB (E.D.
Ky., June 22, 2018).

Williams-Sonoma, Inc., is an American publicly traded consumer
retail company that sells kitchenwares and home furnishings. It
is headquartered in San Francisco, California, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Amber Eck, Esq.
   Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck - San Diego
   225 Broadway, Suite 2050
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Tel: (619) 342-8000

      - and -

   Audra Petrolle, Esq.
   Rose Law Group, PC - AZ
   7144 E. Stetson Drive, Suite 300
   Scottsdale, AZ 85251
   Tel: (480) 505-3936

      - and -

   George Richard Baker, Esq.
   Baker Law, PC - L.A.
   436 N. Stanley Avenue
   Los Angeles, CA 90036
   Tel: (323) 452-9685

      - and -

   Kathryn Honecker, Esq.
   Rose Law Group, PC - AZ
   7144 E. Stetson Drive, Suite 300
   Scottsdale, AZ 85251
   Tel: (480) 505-3936

The Movant is represented by:

   Scott T. Rickman, Esq.
   Morgan & Pottinger, P.S.C. - Lexington
   175 E. Main Street, Suite 200
   Lexington, KY 40507
   Tel: (859) 226-5282
   Fax: (859) 255-2038
   Email: str@m-p.net


YNAP CORP: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against YNAP Corporation.
The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YNAP
Corporation doing business as: MaisonMargiela, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-05713 (S.D. N.Y., June 22, 2018).

YNAP Corporation designs and sells fashion products under the
Karl Lagerfeld brand name worldwide. The company offers ready-to-
wear for men and women, accessories, bags, watches, and eyewear;
urban menswear and fragrances; and kids wear. It also operates
Karl.com, an online store for women. YNAP Corporation offers
products through its retail stores and wholesale locations. The
company was incorporated in 2002 and is based in New York, New
York. YNAP Corporation operates as a subsidiary of YOOX Net-A-
Porter Group S.p.A.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10017-6705
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


ZILLOW GROUP: Bid to Drop Consolidated Amended Complaint Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zillow Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company is seeking dismissal of the
consolidated amended complaint in the "Vargosko" and "Shotwel"
lawsuits.

In August and September 2017, two purported class action lawsuits
were filed against the company and certain of its executive
officers, alleging, among other things, violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of a class of those who purchased the
company's common stock between February 12, 2016 and August 8,
2017.

One of those purported class actions, captioned Vargosko v.
Zillow Group, Inc. et al, was brought in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

The other purported class action lawsuit, captioned Shotwell v.
Zillow Group, Inc. et al, was brought in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington.

The complaints allege, among other things, that during the period
between February 12, 2016 and August 8, 2017, the company issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding its business
practices. The complaints seek to recover, among other things,
alleged damages sustained by the purported class members as a
result of the alleged misconduct.

In November 2017, an amended complaint was filed against the
company and certain of its executive officers in the Shotwell v.
Zillow Group class action lawsuit, extending the beginning of the
class period to November 17, 2014. In January 2018, the Vargosko
v. Zillow Group purported class action lawsuit was transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
and consolidated with the Shotwell v. Zillow Group purported
class action lawsuit.

In February 2018, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, and in April 2018, the company filed its motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

Zillow Group said "We have denied the allegations of wrongdoing
and intend to vigorously defend the claims in this lawsuit. We
have not recorded an accrual related to this lawsuit as of March
31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, as we do not believe a loss is
probable."

Zillow Group, Inc. operates a real estate and home-related
information marketplaces on mobile and the web, with a
complementary portfolio of brands and products to help consumers
find vital information about homes and connect with local
professionals. The company is based in Seattle, Washington.


* SAN Calls for Inclusion of Class Action Protocol in Court Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Jibueze, writing for The Nation, reports that a Senior
Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mr Uche Val Obi, has called for a
review of courts rules to institutionalise class action
procedures.

He said practice directions that would align with class action
rules should also be considered.

Obi urged the Council of Legal Education to incorporate the study
of class action procedure into the Nigerian Law School civil
procedure curriculum.

Leaders of arbitration and alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
institutes, he said, should review their rules to accommodate
emerging trends in class action.

The Managing Partner of Alliance Law Firm, spoke during the
presentation of his book: Class Action in Nigeria at the firm's
maiden lecture and luncheon with the theme: Contemporary
Corporate Governance issues in Nigeria.

Obi believes that class action mechanisms would improve access to
justice as more people could seek redress "by just falling within
the class of persons affected by a particular act of wrongdoing."

According to him, the book was written to reduce an "obvious
deficiency in this area of law".

"This book is more of a wake-up call for all hands to be on deck
for the development of a class action procedure in Nigeria than
an analytical book.

"By putting the instrumentality of class action as a viable legal
tool for resolving mass wrongs in Nigeria into serious public
discourse, I think that a principal object of the book has been
realised.

"What is then left is for all stakeholders in the legal
profession to adopt a coordinated strategy to ensure that it
works to the benefit of our society," he said.

Obi said the Alliance Lecture Series was initiated as the firm's
corporate social responsibility project envisioned to stimulate
public discourse on national issues and to assist in policy
formulation and implementation processes.

The event, chaired by Prof Pat Utomi, had Justice Ejembi Eko who
represented Chief Justice Walter Onnoghen as the special guest of
honour.

It featured a panel discussion by Prof Fabian Ajogwu, Seplat
Chief Executive Office Austin Avuru, as well as representatives
of the Nigerian Stock Exchange Chief Executive Officer Oscar
Onyema, Budget Office Director-General Ben Akabueze and
Securities and Exchange Commission Acting Director-General Mary
Uduk.  Prof Gbolahan Elias (SAN) reviewed the book.

Financial Reporting Council of Nigeria (FRCN) chairman Mr
Adedotun Sulaiman, who was the lead speaker, said a revised
Corporate Governance Code, which he described as flexible, less
prescriptive and principles-based, would soon be made public.

"We know that we need to make our country more investor-friendly.
We were clear that the code we'll come up with will not be as
prescriptive as the past one, and definitely less business
antagonistic and therefore won't be as contentious as the last
attempt was," he added.

According to Sulaiman, the revised code would be released first
as an exposure draft, and would be codified after stakeholders
input.

He said it would be less controversial compared to the defunct
three-in-one National Code of Corporate Governance (NCCG) issued
in October 2016 by former FRCN Executive Secretary Jim Obazee.

The former code triggered uproar due to the tenure limit
stipulated for leaders of not-for-profit-bodies.

The Federal Government on October 28, 2016 suspended the code and
inaugurated a new board chaired by Sulaiman, with Mr Daniel
Asapokhai replacing Mr Obazee.

Sulaiman said the code would be releases in phases: the first
phase would involve a code for public interest entities, which
covers corporate organisations; the second code would be for the
public sector; the third would be for the not-for-profit sector.

"We'll do it in a way that it won't be controversial and will be
easily accepted.  The whole idea of going into the code process
was to rebuild public confidence and trust and key into the
current climate of easing doing business in Nigeria and promote
investment.

"We put together a team of about 15 very eminent Nigerians and
set them the task of coming up with a revised code, which they
have done a fantastic job of it.  We have a draft code, which is
undergoing some kind of review before we send it out to the
public as an exposure draft.

"We wanted the code to be friendly and not be too hard to comply
with.  In not making it very prescriptive, we also wanted to
create room for some flexibility.  One of the major criticisms of
the old code was that it was very expensive to comply with --
with minimum number of directors prescribed, etc.

"It'll be a principles-based code.  We've come up with 28
corporate governance principles that we think is good practice to
embrace, with over 200 practices that will give effect to the
principles.

"We adopted an apply-and-explain model -- applying the principles
and explaining which of the practices you have used to give
effect to the principles.  So, as long as you're an organised
business, those principles are universally applicable no matter
the size of the organisation," Sulaiman said. [GN]





                            *********


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.
Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche
Maricon Castillon-Lopez, 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  * * *