CAR_Public/180629.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Friday, June 29, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 130



                            Headlines


8POINT3 ENERGY: "Franchi" Securities Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal
424 MARKET: Curtis Alleges Improper Maintenance of Property
ABC PHONES: Fails to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wages, Trujillo Says
ACCELORE GROUP: Certification of FLSA Class Sought
ADT LLC: Fails to Pay Wages Weekly, Chung Says

ADVANCED DATA: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
AEGEAN MARINE: Violates Securities Laws, Strougo Says
AIRCRAFT SERVICE: "Martin" Suit Moved to N.D. California
ALLIANCE INSPECTION: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT, Cadena Says
ALLSTATE CORP: Class Certification Sought in Securities Case

AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Hoefert" Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Faces "Shulman" Suit in D. Massachusetts
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Investors Sue over Privatization, Stock Price
ARTOPIA OF ORLANDO: Jeffries Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
ASSET PROTECTION: Ried Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA

ASSISTCARE HOME: McBride Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
ASUS COMPUTER: "Carlotti" Suit Moved to N.D. California
AUGUSTA PRECIOUS: Faces "Richard" Suit in Cal. Super. Court
AUTO-CHLOR SYSTEM: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Sanchez Says
AXIS INSURANCE: Yadegar Seeks to Certify Class and Subclass

BED BATH: Hardy Appeals S.D. Florida Ruling to Eleventh Circuit
BIRCH'S BREWHOUSE: Faces "Zajec" Suit in Minnesota 4th Jud. Dist.
BLUE CROSS: Dilworth Sues over Telemarketing Calls
BROTHERS MOTHERS: "Buckler" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
BURGER KING: Gesten Seeks to Certify Customer Class

C.R. ENGLAND: Howard Seeks to Certify Employees Class
CALIFORNIA: Corrections Dept. Fails to Pay OT, Sanchez Says
CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA: "Comforte" Suit Moved to N.D. California
CAPEX OILFIELD: "Jones" Suit Seeks OT Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
CARGILL INC: "Tavares" Suit Moved to E.D. California

CARSTEN MASCHMEYER: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime, Nafi Says
CATALINA CHANNEL: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime, Gonzalez Says
CBOE EXCHANGE: Etten Alleges Volatility Index Derivative Rigging
CBS CORP: Diluting Voting Rights, National Amusements Claim
CENTURY PARK: Penarougue Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: "Tolani" Suit Moved to D. South Carolina
COGINT INC: Mohamed Seeks to Certify Account Executives Class
COLLECTO INC: Shinn Sues over Debt Collection Practices
COLORFUL NAILS: Kim Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages under FLSA
CONAGRA FOODS: Certification of 7 Employee Classes Sought

CONCRETE LABOR: Vasquez Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
COTY INC: Certification of Alabama Resident Class Sought
COUSIN VINNY'S: Certification of Delivery Drivers Class Sought
COVERALL NORTH AMERICA: Misclassifies Employees, Rivas Claims

CREDIT COUNSEL: Patti Sues over Debt Collection Practices
CSX TRANSPORTATION: "Diehl" Suit Moved to W.D. Pennsylvania
CUBIC CORP: Stackpoole Sues over Ride Pass Charges
CYTRX CORP: Settlement of "Crihfield" Case Has Initial Approval
DC INTERNATIONAL: "Aaron" Suit Moved to W.D. Louisiana

DEUTSCHE BANK: Zhao Sues over Stock Price Drop
DISCOUNT POWER: "Abramson" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
DIVERSIFIED RESTAURANT: Certification of FLSA Class Sought
DOORDASH INC: "Magana" Suit Moved to N.D. California
DR. PEPPER: Court Certifies Customer Class in "Russell" Suit

EIGHT SLEEP: Photoglou Sues over Unsolicited Text Message Calls
EMERGENCY CONSULTANTS: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification
ERIC RYAN: Gorss Motels Seeks to Certify Class
FIREBIRDS OF OVERLAND: "Nelson" Suit Wins Class Certification
FIRST NATIONAL CREDIT: Day Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses

FLORIDA DOC: Ruling on Amended Class Certification Bid Deferred
FLOWERS FOODS: Fails to Pay Delivery Employees' OT, Ludlow Claims
FRIEZE EVENTS: Art Galleries Sue over HVAC System Failure
FTS INTERNATIONAL: Court Denied Collective Action Certification
GERRARD EXCAVATING: Perez Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA

GOODMAN'S SALES: Rodriguez Sues over Unsolicited Marketing
GOOGLE LLC: Violates Automatic Renewal Law, Uzair Says
GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT: Certification of Class & Subclass Sought
GREEN STAR: Court Denied Bid for Class Certification
GULF COAST RESTAURANT: Mygrant & Webber Sue for Minimum & OT Pay

HADLEY COLLISION: Fails to Pay All Overtime Wages, Sandoval Says
HARTFORD FIRE: Court Certifies Merits-Only Class
HERTZ CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Mitchell Says
HOMELAND SECURITY: Sept. 13 Hearing on Class Certification Bid
HUMPHREY & RIST: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Samihijazin Says

ILLEN PRODUCTS: GORSS Motels Seeks to Certify Class
ILLINOIS: Dupree et al. Seek to Certify Classes & Subclasses
IMPRESS COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Marquez Says
INCOME PROPERTY: Lusk Sues over Use of Biometric Identifiers
INKAHOLIK TATTOOS: Rodriguez Sues over Spam Text Messages

INTEL CORP: Alliance Sues Over Processor Defect
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Fails to Pay Overtime, Rael Says
JH PORTFOLIO: Stringer Sues over Unauthorized Phone Calls
JOHN HEATH: "Lebowitz" Telemarketing Suit Transferred to D.N.J.
JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Robinson Says

K&J CONSTRUCTION: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, Mendoza Says
KIEWIT INFRASTRUCTURE: Fails to Pay Overtime & Wages, Kelly Says
KILLER PIZZA: Fails to Premium Wages, Demori Says
KNORR-BREMSE AG: McNeal Sues over Hiring Practices
KNORR-BREMSE AG: Lienemann Sues over Hiring Practices

LATIUM NETWORK: Solis Sues over Initial Coin Offering
LENNAR CORPORATION: Pyrinova Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
LITHIUM INNOVATIONS: Insurer Sues to Deny Payment of Legal Costs
LIVINGSTON, MI: EMTs Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
LIVINGSTON, MI: Court Certifies Class of Medical Technicians

LONG BEACH MUSEUM: Fails to Pay Compensation, Brookshire Says
LTD FINANCIAL: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
M.A.C. COSMETICS: "Deguchy" Suit Moved to S.D. California
MANDARICH LAW: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Kelly" Suit Says
MANNING'S BEEF: Fails to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wage, Garcia Says

MARK GOBER: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification
MASSE CONTRACTING: Ruiz Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
MAXIMUM BOOTING: "Polson" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of Georgia
MDL 2724: 1199SEIU et al. Sue Pharma Cos. over Drug Price Fixing
MDL 2843: "Malskoff" Suit vs FB, Cambridge Moved to N.D. Cal.

MDL 2855: ABA Asks Court to Move Two Cases to North Carolina
MED-SPEC: Certification of Class of Carriers Workers Sought
MEDICREDIT INC: Court Grants Class Certification in "Flecha" Suit
MEDICREDIT INC: "Johnson" Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Missouri
MELANIE HYER: Pickens Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages

MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: "Anderson" Disputes Vague Collection Letter
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Shelton" Suit in S.D. Indiana
MIDTOWN COMICS: Website not Accessible to Blind, Tucker Says
MIDWEST AIR: Palomar Sues over Itemized Wage Statements
MIDWEST RECEIVABLE: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed

MONAT GLOBAL: "Alabaster" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida
MONSANTO COMPANY: Bradleys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Harleys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Torreses Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MORRISON & FOERSTER: Female Lawyers Sue for Gender Discrimination

NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
NEMERA BUFFALO: Bryski Sues over Use of Sensitive Biometric Data
NEW DAY TOP: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, "Alonso" Suit Says
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Madrid and Miranda Sue over Vehicle Defect
NORI O INC: Goh Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action

NORTHERN STAR TANNING: Banks Sues over Spam Messages
NORTHWESTERN LAKE: Mazya Sues over Sensitive Biometric Data
ONNI PROPERTIES: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Santos Says
ORCHARD SUPPLY: Lester Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
PACIFIC OUTDOOR: Fails to Pay for Travel Time, Arevalo Claims

PACIFIC RACING: Randolph Sues over Payroll Records
PARADIGM LIAISON: Placeholder Class Certification Bid Filed
PATE LACAYE: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime, Ordelus et al. Say
PERSONNEL STAFFING: Matthews et al. Allege Gender Discrimination
PET STOP: Leon Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA

PNC BANK: Paolinos Sue over Debt Collection Practices
POINT BLANK: Ohio State Troopers Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
PRC MEDICAL: Franklin Sues over Debt Collections Practices
PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL: Fails to Pay Wages, Hhines Says
RAPID DISPLAYS: Fails to Provide Meal Periods, Vasquez Says

REALCARE INSURANCE: Ostroff Sues over Excessive Fees
REGIONS BANK: Turner Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
RH INC: Certification of Class of Investors Sought
RIC BRADSHAW: Court Denies Class Certification as Premature
ROBERT HALF: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Hamilton-Brown Says

SAINT-GOBAIN: Brown et al. Seek to Certify 4 Classes
SBR INC: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Puentes Says
SCOOBEEZ INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Griffin Says
SCOOBEEZ INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & Overtime, Walker Says
SEARS BRANDS: Ramirez Sues over Spam Messages

SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Moves Pearson et al. Suit to D. Mass.
SOPAPILLAS LLC: Stephens Seeks to Certify Employees Class
SOUP DUMPLING: Li Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
SPRINT NEXTEL: Certification of Settlement Subclasses Sought
ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, McLean Says

SUBURBAN DISPOSAL: Born Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
T & L TRANSPORTATION: Tuite Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
TRANS WORLD: Spack & Schmidt Seek to Certify FLSA Class
TRANSGLOBAL SERVICES: Bradbury Wins Conditional Certification
TRINITY HEALTH: Layer Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA

TUCKER ENERGY: Certification of Oilfield Workers Class Sought
U.S. BANK: Court Declines to Grant Conditional Certification
U.S. CORRECTIONS: Groover Seeks to Certify Class
UNITED PARCEL: "Dominguez" Suit Moved to C.D. California
UNITED PARCEL: Santos Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Millman, et al. Seek to Certify Class
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Inflates Earnings, Timber Hill Claims
WAL-MART STORES: Hamilton Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
WAL-MART STORES: Class Certification Bid in "Phipps" Dropped
WARDEN DAVID PIERCE: Parkell Seeks to Certify Prisoners Class

WAUKEGAN HOUSING: "Stewart" Class Certification Bid Shelved
WEINBERG & ASSOCIATES: Settlement Reached in "Weiss" Suit
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Underpays Truck Drivers, Midget Claims
WINDSOR FASHIONS: Underpays Store Staff, Zamora et al. Claim
YOUNGEVITY INTERNATIONAL: Canary Sues over Robocalling


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Still Defends Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Insurance Talks Ongoing at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Lift Stay Issue Still Pending at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Still Defends PL Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Still Defends PL Suits at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Still Defends PI Suits at March 3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Faces Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Had 8 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Had 98 PI Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Still Obliged to Indemnify Xylem at Mar. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corp. Still Faces Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Had US$866MM Claim Reserves at Mar. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at Mar31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Unit Had US$76.0MM Reserves at Mar. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Expects Additional Exposure at Mar. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 55,500 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $313MM Accrual at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Had 53,000 Open Claims at Mar.31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules LLC Had 12,000 PI Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 30,990 Pending Claims at Mar. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Nelson" Trial v. Crane Co. Settled in 2Q 2018
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "DeLisle" Suit v. Crane Co. Pending at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SCOTUS Won't Review Ruling in "Poage"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Coulbourn" Suit v Crane Co. Settled in 2Q 2018
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Emerson Electric Had $333MM Liability at Mar.31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 17,251 PI Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Equity LifeStyle, DAs Still in Talks at Mar 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Espinosa" PI Suit Remanded to State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Join Tortfeasors in "Grimes" Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Betzner" PI Suit Remanded to State Court




                            *********


8POINT3 ENERGY: "Franchi" Securities Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Adam Franchi, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 8Point3 Energy Partners
LP, Charles D. Boynton, Mark R. Widmar, Natalie F. Jackson, Alex
Bradley, Thomas C. O'Connor, Norman J. Szydlowski and Michael W.
Yackira, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00493, (D. Del., April 3,
2018), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on April 30, 2018, under Case No.
3:18-cv-02549.

Franchi seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in
concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing
the acquisition of 8point3 Energy Partners LP by affiliates of
Capital Dynamics, Inc., rescinding it and setting it aside or
awarding rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate
the merger.  The Plaintiff further seeks costs of this action,
including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees
and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, the Partnership's
Class A shareholders will receive $12.35 per share in cash.

8point3 is a limited partnership that owns, operates and acquires
solar energy generation projects.

According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a proxy
statement that failed to disclose revenues from unconsolidated
affiliates, principal repayments related to refinancing
activities, all line items used to calculate unlevered free cash
flow, all line items used to calculate adjusted earnings before
interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization and reconciliation
of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 295-531
      Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
      Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
             gms@rl-legal.com

             - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800
      Email: rm@maniskas.com

8Point3 Energy Partners is represented by :

      Travis Steven Hunter, Esq.
      Richards, Layton & Finger, PA
      One Rodney Square
      920 N. King Street
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 651-7564
      Email: hunter@rlf.com


424 MARKET: Curtis Alleges Improper Maintenance of Property
-----------------------------------------------------------
SLENE CURTIS, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 424 MARKET INVESTORS, LLC,
a Delaware Limited Liability Company; PEV HOLDINGS, LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company; THE PEV FAMILY REVOCABLE
TRUST; PACIFICA ENTERPRISES, INC., a California Corporation; GOOD
STEWARD MANAGEMENT, INC., a California Corporation; 424 MARKET
INVESTORS, LP, a California Limited Partnership, and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-
00028562-CU-PO-CU (Cal. Super. Ct., June 8, 2018), alleges that
the Defendants improperly maintained their property leading to
the development of toxic mold that has led to severe medical
problems for employees that work at the Property.

The Defendants are owners of the property leased to Haunted
Hotel, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lenden F. Webb, Esq.
          Brooke B. Nevels, Esq.
          WEBB LAW GROUP, APC
          466 W. Fallbrook Ave. Suite 102
          Fresno, CA 93711
          Telephone: (559) 431 4888
          Facsimile: (559) 821 4500
          E-mail: LWebb@WBLawGroup.com
                  BNevels@WBLawGroup.com


ABC PHONES: Fails to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wages, Trujillo Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCO TRUJILLO, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ABC PHONES OF NORTH
CAROLINA, INC., dba VICTRA, a North Carolina Corporation; and
DOES 1 through 10, the Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-01014 (C.D.
Cal., June 8, 2018), seeks to recover all unpaid wages and
minimum wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants paid Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees' sales commissions, non-
discretionary bonuses for completing trainings, and/or other
forms of non-discretionary pay not excludable as a matter of law
when calculating an employee's regular rate of pay. Despite
Defendants' payment of Incentive Pay to Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees, Defendants failed to properly incorporate the
value of earned Incentive Pay when calculating Plaintiff's and
similarly situated employees' regular rates of pay when they
worked overtime hours and received Incentive Pay during the
corresponding pay period, thereby causing Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees to be underpaid all of their earned overtime
wages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq.
          Matthew K. Moen, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
                  arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com
                  mmoen@haineslawgroup.com


ACCELORE GROUP: Certification of FLSA Class Sought
--------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Justin Castine and Rayan Black, on behalf
of themselves and similarly situated others, the Plaintiffs, v.
Accelore Group, L.L.C. d/b/a Accelore Solutions and DHL
Express (USA), Inc. d/b/a DHL Express, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00496-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order:

   1. conditionally certifying the lawsuit as collective action
      pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act:

      "all current and former employees of Defendants who are or
      were delivery drivers or couriers that reported to, worked
      at, or obtained freight or packages from the Austin DHL
      location on Cargo Avenue, Austin, Texas 78719, during the
      Class Period";

   2. approving Plaintiffs' proposed notices of the action;

   3. directing Defendants to provide name, contact information,
      dates of employment, and job titles for all potential class
      members;

   4. authorizing Plaintiffs to send the notices via first class
      mail, email, and text message; and

   5. allowing putative class members 90 days to opt-in to the
      action.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vbNxdMeR

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Kevin S. Mullen, Esq.
          THE MULLEN FIRM PLLC
          3801 N. Capital of Texas Hwy.
          Suite E-240/604
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 537 7959
          E-mail: kevin@themullenfirm.com

               - and -

          Eric J. Hansum, Esq.
          HANSUM LAW FIRM, PLLC
          609 West 9th Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone (512) 481 9292
          Facsimile (512) 287 4239
          E-mail: ehansum@hansumlaw.com


ADT LLC: Fails to Pay Wages Weekly, Chung Says
----------------------------------------------
JAY CHUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ADT, LLC, and DOES 1 to 100, the
Defendant, Case No. BC707885 (Cal. Super, Ct., May 29, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the class members
worked for Defendants as security guards. Pursuant to Labor Code
section 201.3(b), security guards must be paid weekly. The
Plaintiff intends to send a Private Attorneys General Act letter
to Defendants based on their violation of Labor Code 20 section
201.3, thereby entitled Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees to
the remedies in Labor Code section 210.

ADT Inc., formerly The ADT Corporation, is an American company
that provides residential and small business electronic security,
fire protection, and other related alarm monitoring services in
35 countries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Rose, Esq.
          FRONTIER LAW CENTER
          23901 Calabasas Road, STE 2074
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 914 3433
          Facsimile: (818) 914 3433
          E-mail: adam@fTontierlawcenter.com


ADVANCED DATA: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE, INC., an Ohio
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. ADVANCED DATA
SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ADVANCED DATA SYSTEMS CORP OF
DELAWARE and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
03620-JMV-JBC (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
      filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile
      messages of material advertising the commercial
      availability or quality of any property, goods, or services
      by or on behalf of Defendants, and (3) from which
      Defendants did not have prior express invitation or
      permission, or (4) which did not display a proper opt out
      notice"; and

      "all New Jersey residents who (1) on or after four years
      prior to the filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone
      facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial
      availability or quality of any property, goods, or services
      by or on behalf of Defendants, and (3) from which
      Defendants did not have prior express invitation or
      permission, or (4) which did not display a proper opt out
      notice."

   2. appointing Plaintiff as the class representative; and

   3. appointing Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel.

The Plaintiff submits this First Amended "Placeholder" motion for
class certification, contemporaneously with its first amended
class action complaint. See Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d
891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011) (holding plaintiffs "can move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint" and
that "[t]he pendency of that motion protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs"), overruled in
part by Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir.
2015). The Third Circuit held in Weitzner v. Sanofi Pasteur,
Inc., 819 F.3d 61, 64 (3d Cir. 2016), that its prior decisions
holding that a defendant's offer of full individual relief can
"moot" a plaintiff's claim were overruled in Campbell-Ewald Co.
v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016). The Third Circuit also
reaffirmed the "picking off exception to mootness" post-Campbell-
Ewald in Richardson v. Dir. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 829 F.3d 273,
283 (3d Cir. 2016). Nevertheless, the Third Circuit has not ruled
on whether a "placeholder" motion can prevent a defendant from
"mooting" a plaintiff's claim in some way other than an offer,
such as depositing funds with the court and moving for entry of
individual judgment in the plaintiff's favor. See Campbell-Ewald,
136 S. Ct. at 672 (declining to address this "hypothetical"); cf.
Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545 (7th Cir.
2017) (finding "no principled distinction between attempting to
force a settlement on an unwilling party through Rule 68, as in
Campbell-Ewald, and attempting to force a settlement on an
unwilling party through Rule 67").

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nek4plSX

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michael J. Canning, Esq.
          Matthew N. Fiorovanti, Esq.
          GIORDANO, HALLERAN & CIESLA
          125 Half Mile Road, Suite 300
          Red Bank, NJ 07701 6777
          Telephone: (732) 741 3900
          Facsimile: (732) 224 6599
          E-mail: mcanning@ghclaw.com
                  mfiorovanti@ghclaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368 1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com


AEGEAN MARINE: Violates Securities Laws, Strougo Says
-----------------------------------------------------
ROBERT STROUGO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AEGEAN MARINE PETROLEUM
NETWORK INC., E. NIKOLAS TAVLARIOS AND SPYROS GIANNIOTIS, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05165 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2018),
seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired Aegean securities between April
28, 2016, and June 4, 2018, both dates inclusive.

Aegean Marine Petroleum Network Inc. supplies and markets refined
marine fuel and lubricants to ships in port and at sea. The
Company also owns and operates a fleet of bunkering tankers in
multiple jurisdictions. Founded in 1995, Aegean is headquartered
in Piraeus, Greece, and its securities trade on the New York
Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the ticker symbol "ANW." Throughout
the Class Period, Defendants allegedly made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Aegean had improperly accounted for an approximate $200
million of accounts receivable as of December 31, 2017; (ii)
Aegean failed to maintain effective internal control over
financial reporting; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about Aegean's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AIRCRAFT SERVICE: "Martin" Suit Moved to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Dion Martin, an individual, on
behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Aircraft Service International, Inc.
a Corporation and Menzies Aviation (USA) Inc., the Defendants,
Case No. CGC-18-566072, was removed from the San Francisco County
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for Northern District
of California (San Francisco) on May 30, 2018. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-03213-RS to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg.

Aircraft Service International Group, Inc. provides commercial
aviation services to major airlines, airports, oil companies, and
other partners worldwide.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          Kyle Roald Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Molly Ann DeSario, Esq.
          Ruchira Piya Mukherjee, Esq.
          Victoria Bree Rivapalacio, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551 1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551 1232
          E-mail: norm@bamlawlj.com
                  aj@bamlawlj.com
                  kyle@bamlawlj.com
                  molly@bamlawca.com
                  piya@bamlawlj.com
                  victoria@bamlawca.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Christopher Gary Ward, Esq.
          Archana A. Manwani, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          555 South Flower Street, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2411
          Telephone: (213) 972 4500
          Facsimile: (213) 486 0065
          E-mail: cward@foley.com
                  amanwani@foley.com


ALLIANCE INSPECTION: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT, Cadena Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
DYLAN R. CADENA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLIANCE INSPECTION
MANAGEMENT, LLC, a California limited liability company; ALLIANCE
INSPECTION MANAGEMENT HOLDING, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC708537
(Cal. Super. Ct., June 6, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages and overtime wages under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants knew or should have
known that Plaintiff and Class Members were entitled to receive
wages for all time worked (including minimum wages and overtime
wages) and that they were not receiving all wages earned for work
that was required to be performed. In violation of the Labor Code
and IWC Wage Orders, the Plaintiff and Class Members were not
paid all wages (including minimum wages and overtime wages) for
all hours worked when Defendants required Plaintiff and Class
Members to work during meal periods and off-the-clock to
Defendants' benefit, among other things. Further, Defendants
improperly calculated the overtime rate of pay for Plaintiff and
Class Members because the rates did not include all non-
discretionary wages, including, but not limited to, bonuses or
commissions, into the computation of their regular rate of pay
for purposes of calculating the overtime rate of pay.

The Defendants provide vehicle inspection services in the State
of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          Simon Kwak, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379 6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379 6251


ALLSTATE CORP: Class Certification Sought in Securities Case
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit RE: THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:16-cv-10510 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons who purchased Allstate securities
      between October 29, 2014 and August 3, 2015, inclusive and
      who were damaged thereby";

   2. appointing Lead Plaintiffs and City of Providence Employees
      Retirement System as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing Lead Counsel as Class Counsel.

The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against The Allstate Corporation and two
individual defendants. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Defendants' made material misstatements and omissions concerning
the existence and reasons for of a large spike in "claims
frequency" -- i.e., the number of claims filed -- against
Allstate auto insurance policies. When the truth was publicly
revealed via a series of disclosures between February and August
2015, Allstate's stock price fell dramatically, dropping 10% on
August 4, 2015 alone, and causing substantial losses to
investors. On February 27, 2018, the Court denied Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Complaint.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ppFWECoX

Counsel for Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern
California; and Carpenters Annuity Trust Fund for Northern
California:

          Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq.
          Thomas G. Hoffman, Jr., Esq.
          Louis Gottlieb, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907 0700
          E-mail: tdubbs@labaton.com
                  thoffman@labaton.com
                  LGOTTLIEB@labaton.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          Louis C. Ludwig, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 S. LaSalle Street Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377 1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377 1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
                  lcludwig@pomlaw.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Hoefert" Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled John E. Hoefert, an individual,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. American Airlines Incorporated, a Delaware
Corporation, and American Airlines Group Incorporated, a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02996, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas (Fort Worth) on June 7, 2018. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-00466-A-BJ to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge John McBryde.

American Airlines, Inc. is a major United States airline
headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas.[BN]

Attorneys for John E Hoefert:

          Brian J Lawler, Esq.
          PILOT LAW PC
          1551 9th Ave
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 255 2398
          Facsimile: (619) 231 4984
          E-mail: blawler@pilotlawcorp.com

               - and -

          Charles Michael Billy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES M BILLY PC
          22706 Aspan St., Ste. 305
          Lake Forest, CA 92651
          Telephone: (949) 357 9636
          Facsimile: (949) 715 4311
          E-mail: cbilly@cmblawcorp.com

               - and -

          Crystal Lee Matter, Esq.
          Gene Joseph Stonebarger, Esq.
          Richard David Lambert, Esq.
          STONEBARGER LAW APC
          75 Iron Point Cir., Ste. 145
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 235 7140
          Facsimile: (916) 235 7141
          E-mail: cmatter@stonebargerlaw.com
                  gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com
                  rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Mark W Robertson, Esq.
          Sloane Ackerman, Esq.
          O'Melveny & Myers LLP
          Times Sq Twr., 7 Times Sq.
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 326 4329
          Facsimile: (212) 326 2061
          E-mail: mrobertson@omm.com
                  sackerman@omm.com


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Faces "Shulman" Suit in D. Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against American Medical Collection
Agency. The suit is captioned as Tatyana Shulman, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
American Medical Collection Agency doing business as: AMCA, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11116-WGY (D. Mass., May 29, 2018).
The case is assigned to the Judge William G. Young.

AMCA is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Investors Sue over Privatization, Stock Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit alleges that controlling stockholders of
AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. attempted to take AmTrust
private at an inopportune time for an unfair price and pursuant
to an unfair process.

AmTrust is controlled by the Karfunkel-Zyskind family, which owns
or controls 55% of the Company's outstanding stock and has three
members on the Company's board of directors, including the CEO,
Barry Zyskind. The Karfunkel-Zyskind family has dominated AmTrust
since it was founded by brothers George and Michael Karfunkel in
1998. From at least December 2013 through November 2017, AmTrust
used a wide range of fraudulent techniques to understate the
Company's loss reserves and overstate its financial results.
Evidence shows that a majority of the current Board was well
aware of AmTrust's issues, and either actively participated in,
or consciously disregarded, the accounting manipulation.

This forced the Company to restate nearly three years' worth of
revenue, total service and fee income, net income, and other
important metrics by double-digit percentages in 2017. It has
also led to numerous governmental investigations, including
investigations conducted by the New York Department of Financial
Services, the FBI, and the SEC. In the second half of 2017, after
the disclosure of these issues, the Company starting taking steps
to increase its capital and reserves, and represented that these
steps were putting the Company on strong footing to be profitable
going forward.

While the Karfunkel-Zyskind control of AmTrust caused severe
damage to the Company's stock price, plummeting from more than
$27 at the beginning of 2017, to $13.46 at the end of the third
quarter of 2017, the Company represented that the severe downward
pressure on the stock price was overstated and did not represent
the true value of the Company.

The case is captioned as POMPANO BEACH POLICE & FIREFIGHTERS'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, CITY OF LAUDERHILL POLICE OFFICERS' RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, and WEST PALM BEACH POLICE PENSION FUND, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
BARRY D. ZYSKIND, GEORGE KARFUNKEL, LEAH KARFUNKEL, ABRAHAM
GULKOWITZ, SUSAN C. FISCH, DONALD T. DECARLO, RAUL RIVERA, STONE
POINT CAPITAL LLC, TRIDENT PINE ACQUISITION LP, TRIDENT VII
PROFESSIONALS FUND, L.P., TRIDENT VII, L.P., TRIDENT VII DE
PARALLEL FUND, L.P. and TRIDENT VII PARALLEL FUND, L.P., the
Defendants Case No. 2018-0396-AGB (Del. Ch. Ct., May 31,
2018).[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Wales, Esq.
          Edward Timlin, Esq.
          John Vielandi, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
          & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          44th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554 1400

                - and -

          Michael J. Barry, Esq.
          Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
          Michael J. Barry, Esq.
          Kyle J. McGee, Esq.
          Joseph L. Christensen, Esq.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, Delaware 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622 7000

               - and -

          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          Adam D. Warden, Esq.
          Steven B. Singer, Esq.
          Joshua Saltzman, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          150 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 600
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 394 3382


ARTOPIA OF ORLANDO: Jeffries Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
NATHANIEL C. JEFFRIES, Individually and others, SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. ARTOPIA OF ORLANDO, LLC, A Florida
Limited Liability company and SARYOUL H. MUHAMMED, an individual,
the Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-00883-PGB-KRS (M.D. Fla., June 6,
2018), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and those similarly
situated worked under a plan or scheme whereby they were paid a
set amount each hour irrespective if they worked 40 hours per
week or more than 40 hours per week. The Defendants also failed
to withhold any Federal taxes, Social Security payments or
Medicare contributions from their paychecks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Constatine W. Papas, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CONSTATINE W. PAPAS, P.A.
          1277 N. Sermoran Blvd. Ste 106
          Orlando, FL 32807
          Telephone: (407) 347 6502
          Facsimile: (407) 206 3355
          E-mail: cwp@deanpapaslaw.com


ASSET PROTECTION: Ried Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL RIED on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ASSET PROTECTION & SECURITY
SERVICES, L.P., and AHTNA SUPPORT AND TRAINING SERVICES, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00089 (S.D. Tex., June 7, 2018),
alleges that Defendants failed to properly compensate their non-
exempt employees for all the work they performed in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Asset Protection & Security Services, L.P. offers physical
security guard services for federal, educational, and commercial
environments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
          John Neuman, Esq.
          SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
          5612 Chaucer Drive
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (281) 885 8630
          Facsimile: (281) 885 8813
          E-mail: JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com
                  BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com


ASSISTCARE HOME: McBride Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
SADIQA L. MCBRIDE, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees, the Plaintiff, v. ASSISTCARE HOME HEALTH SERVICES, LLC
D/B/A PREFERRED HOME CARE OF NEW YORK, LLC and "JOHN DOE", the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03325 (E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly and
willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees a wage for travel time between clients and a wage at
the overtime rate for all hours worked.

Assistcare is in the personal care facility business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES F. SULLIVAN, PC
          52 Duane Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 374 0009
          Facsimile: (212) 374 9931


ASUS COMPUTER: "Carlotti" Suit Moved to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Joseph Carlotti, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
ASUS Computer International and ASUSTeK Computer Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. RG18903641, was removed from the Superior
Court of California, Alameda County, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California (Oakland) on June 7,
2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-03369-
DMR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Donna M. Ryu.

ASUS Computer International, Inc. engages in manufacturing and
wholesaling computing, communications, and consumer electronics
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for ASUS Computer International:

          Robert Brett Bader, Esq.
          SACKS, RICKETTS & CASE LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 650
          SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 504 3148
          E-mail: rbader@srclaw.com


AUGUSTA PRECIOUS: Faces "Richard" Suit in Cal. Super. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Augusta Precious Metals. The
lawsuit is captioned as Wuest, Richard, on behalf of a class of
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Augusta Precious Metals and
Does 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00233802-CU-BT-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., May 29, 2018).

Augusta Precious Metals is a full-service provider of physical
gold and silver products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric A Grover, Esq.
          KELLERGROVER, LLP
          1965 Market St.
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (866) 663 3308
          E-mail: info@kellergrover.com


AUTO-CHLOR SYSTEM: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Sanchez Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, individually, and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AUTO-
CHLOR SYSTEM OF WASHINGTON, INC., an unknown business entity; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC707670
(Cal. Super. Ct., May 30, 2018), seeks to recover overtime and
minimum wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other class
members worked over eight hours in a day, and/or 40 hours in a
week during their employment with Defendants.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a pattern and
practice of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt
employees within the State of California. This pattern and
practice involved, inter alia, failing to pay them for all
regular and/or overtime wages earned and for missed meal periods
and rest breaks in violation of California law. The Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff
and the other class members were entitled to receive certain
wages for overtime compensation and that they were not receiving
accurate overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 Arden Ave Ste 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265 1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265 1021
          E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com


AXIS INSURANCE: Yadegar Seeks to Certify Class and Subclass
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled YADEGAR, MINOOFAR & SOLEYMANI LLP, a
limited liability partnership, on its own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AXIS INSURANCE
COMPANY., an Illinois corporation and AFFINITY INSURANCE
SERVICES, INC. dba AON AFFINITY INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. a
Pennsylvania Corporation and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-05830-PSG-AS (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court on October 22, 2018, for an order
certifying these Class and Subclass:

   Plaintiff Class:

   "all persons and entities that were at the time subscribers of
   telephone numbers to which materials that discusses,
   describes, or promotes any of Defendant's respective property,
   goods or services (whether separately or in combination with
   the property, goods, or services of any other Defendants) was
   sent via facsimile transmission commencing June 22, 2013 (four
   years from the filing of this action), including, without
   limitations"; and

   California Sub-Class:

   "all persons and entities residing in the State of California
   that were at the time subscribers of telephone numbers to
   which materials that discusses, describes, or promotes any of
   Defendant's respective property, goods or services (whether
   separately or in combination with the property, goods, or
   services of any other Defendants) was sent via facsimile
   transmission commencing June 22, 2013."

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Smyvz9ck

Attorneys for Yadegar, Minoofar & Soleymani LLP:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          Taylor L. Emerson, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
          Westlake Village, California 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270 7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270 7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
                  temerson@bradleygrombacher.com

               - and -

          Bahram Niknia, Esq.
          NIKNIA LAW FIRM
          1875 Century Park E, Suite 1240
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 601 8025
          Facsimile: (310) 909 7179
          E-mail: bniknia@niknialaw.com


BED BATH: Hardy Appeals S.D. Florida Ruling to Eleventh Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Candace Hardy filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Candace Hardy v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-22315-RNS, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

The appellate case is captioned as Candace Hardy v. Bed Bath &
Beyond Inc., Case No. 18-11730, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- The appellant's brief was due on or before June 4, 2018;

   -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
      the appellant's brief; and

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on or
      before May 23, 2018, as to Appellee Bed Bath & Beyond
      Inc.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CANDACE HARDY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,

          Angela Valentina Arango-Chaffin, Esq.
          THE CHAFFIN LAW FIRM
          540 West Ave., Suite 1113
          Miami Beach, FL 33139
          Telephone: (713) 818-2515
          E-mail: angela@chaffinlawfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee BED BATH & BEYOND INC. is represented by:

          Ellen Ross Belfer, Esq.
          Jeremy Leonard Kahn, Esq.
          Andrew D. Zaron, Esq.
          LEON COSGROVE, LLC
          255 Alhambra Cir., Suite 800
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 570-3243
          E-mail: ebelfer@leoncosgrove.com
                  jkahn@leoncosgrove.com
                  azaron@leoncosgrove.com

               - and -

          Marcos Daniel Jimenez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARCOS D. JIMENEZ, PA
          255 Alhambra Cir., Suite 800
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 570-3249
          E-mail: mdj@mdjlegal.com


BIRCH'S BREWHOUSE: Faces "Zajec" Suit in Minnesota 4th Jud. Dist.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Birch's Brewhouse,
LLC. The lawsuit is captioned as Michelle Zajec and Jacalyn
Dunham, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. Birch's Brewhouse, LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 27-CV-18-9051 (Minnesota 4th Judicial Dist., Hennepin Cty.,
May 29, 2018).[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony Lavell Brown, Esq.
          FOLEY & MANSFIELD
          Telephone: (314)925 5728
          E-mail: abrown@foleymansfield.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James H. Gilbert, Esq.
          JAMES H. GILBERT LAW GROUP, PLLC,
          12700 Anderson Lakes Parkway
          Eden Prairie, MN 55344
          E-mail: jhgilbert@lawgilbert.com


BLUE CROSS: Dilworth Sues over Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------
ANGELA DILWORTH, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF
ILLINOIS, A DIVISION OF HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, A MUTUAL
LEGAL RESERVE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03732
(N.D. Ill., May 29, 2018), seeks to recover damages and other
equitable and legal remedies resulting from Defendant's violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant allegedly caused multiple telemarketing calls to be
made using an automatic telephone dialing system to Plaintiff's
cellular phone. The Plaintiff never consented to receive these
calls, and Defendant failed to honor her request to be placed on
Defendant's do-not-call list.

Health Care Service Corporation is a not-for-profit corporation
health insurance company in the United States. HCSC was formerly
known as Hospital Service Corporation and changed its name to
Health Care Service Corporation in 1975.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233 1550
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  rstephan@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Simon S. Grille, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981 4800
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
                  sg@girardgibbs.com


BROTHERS MOTHERS: "Buckler" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JUSTIN A. BUCKLER and LONDON MORTON,
Individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. BROTHERS, MOTHERS & OTHERS CORPORATION d/b/a
CYPRESS GRILLE, the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00603-OLG-RBF
(W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting
Plaintiff's motion, providing Plaintiff with the discovery
requested, conditionally certifying case, and allowing the
Plaintiff to send out Notice on behalf of:

   "all current and former employees of Brothers, Mothers &
   Others Corporation d/b/a Cypress Grille ("Cypress Grille") who
   worked as a waiter at any time during the period of June 25,
   2015 to present."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6EreDRKB

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Christopher Mckinney, Esq.
          THE MCKINNEY LAW FIRM, P.C.
          110 Broadway Street, Suite 420
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 832 0932
          E-mail: chris@themckinneylawfirm.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Richard W. Espey, Esq.
          Joseph A. Bourbois, Esq.
          Dennis Moore, Esq.
          ESPEY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          13750 San Pedro Avenue, Suite 730
          San Antonio, TX 78232-4375
          Telephone: (210) 404 0333
          Facsimile: (210) 404 0336
          E-mail: espeyservice@lawespey.com


BURGER KING: Gesten Seeks to Certify Customer Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned RYAN GESTEN, on behalf of himself and
all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BURGER KING
CORPORATION, d/b/a BURGER KING, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
20450-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

     "all individuals in the U.S.: (i) who made a purchase at one
     of the forty-nine Burger King Corporation restaurants to
     Defendant's supplemental discovery responses during any of
     the time periods in which the Verifone VX 820 device is
     described as being "installed"; (ii) who paid for their
     purchase using a debit or credit card according to BK's
     records; and (iii) whose transaction was classified as "eat
     in," "take out," or "drive thru" according to BK's
     records."; and

   2. appointing himself and his counsel class representative and
     class counsel, respectively, and award all other and further
     relief that the Court deems equitable and just to conclude
     this matter.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oXd9aYMo

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Scott D. Owens, Esq.
          Sean M. Holas, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          3800 S. Ocean Dr., Ste. 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019
          Telephone: (954) 589 0588
          Facsimile: (954) 337 0666
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com
                  sean@scottdowens.com

               - and -

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Michael S. Hilicki, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726 1092
          E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com

               - and -

          Bret L. Lusskin, Esq.
          20803 Biscayne Blvd., Ste 302
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (954) 454 5841
          Facsimile: (954) 454 5844
          E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com


C.R. ENGLAND: Howard Seeks to Certify Employees Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Troy Howard, the Plaintiff, v. C.R.
England, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00268-RJS-BCW (D.
Utah), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a
class of:

   "all employees of Defendant that went through the training the
   company offered to obtain a Commercial Driver's License."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oSOV41t6

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Brian K. Jackson, Esq.
          BRIAN K. JACKSON, LLC
          341 South Main Street, Suite 500
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 441 8922
          Facsimile: (801) 534 1948
          E-mail: brianj@bjacksonlaw.com


CALIFORNIA: Corrections Dept. Fails to Pay OT, Sanchez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, a public entity
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, a public entity;
and DOES 1 - 20, the Defendants, Case No. BC707676 (Cal. Super.
Ct., May 31, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime
pay under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, all current and former Bargaining
Unit 6 employees who were and/or are denied statutory minimum
wages and contractual overtime wages for time spent complying
with Enhanced Inspections Policy, including waiting and being
searched at various security checkpoints within State
institutions, and traveling within the work-site to and from
assigned posts from April 9, 2014, to the present.[BN]

California, a western U.S. state, stretches from the Mexican
border along the Pacific for nearly 900 miles. Its terrain
includes cliff-lined beaches, redwood forest, the Sierra Nevada
Mountains, Central Valley farmland and the Mojave Desert.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Duchrow, Esq.
          Jill A. Piano, Esq.
          DUCHROW & PIANO, LLP
          2510 Main Street, Suite 205
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone (310) 452 4900
          Facsimile (310) 452 4901


CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA: "Comforte" Suit Moved to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled VICTOR JAMES COMFORTE, II and
BRENDAN MICHAEL CARR, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA,
FACEBOOK, INC., MARK ZUCKERBERG, and JOHN and JANE DOES 1-100,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02120, was transferred from the
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco) on June 8, 2018. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-03394-VC to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria.

The civil action is about a severe and unprecedented breach of
trust committed by the Defendants which allowed Cambridge, to
secretly and unlawfully mine the sensitive personal data of at
least 300,000 Facebook users to help Cambridge and its cronies
manipulate and misuse Facebook to target voters to help influence
the results of the 2016 Presidential Election.

Cambridge Analytica Ltd was a British political consulting firm
which combined data mining, data brokerage, and data analysis
with strategic communication during the electoral processes. It
was started in 2013 as an offshoot of the SCL Group.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq.
          James Constantine Vlahakis, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 575 8181
          E-mail: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com
                  jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com

Attorneys for Cambridge Analytica:

          Richard Bradshaw Kapnick, Esq.
          KATTEN & TEMPLE LLP
          209 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 950
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone (312) 663 4463
          E-mail: rkapnick@kattentemple.com

Attorneys for Facebook Inc. and Mark Zuckerberg:

          Orin Snyder, Esq.
          Kristin A. Linsley, Esq.
          Joshua S. Lipshutz, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 351 2400
          E-mail: osnyder@gibsondunn.com
                  jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com
                  KLinsley@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Nathan P. Eimer, Esq.
          Susan Mary Maile Razzano, Esq.
          EIMER STAHL LLP
          224 S. Michigan Avenue
          Suite 1100
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 660 7600
          Facsimile: (312) 692 1718
          E-mail: neimer@eimerstahl.com
                  srazzano@eimerstahl.com


CAPEX OILFIELD: "Jones" Suit Seeks OT Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
----------------------------------------------------------------
James R. Jones, Individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Capex Oilfield Services, Inc.
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00410 (S.D. Ohio, April 27, 2018),
seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages or
interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, for willful violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Capex provides rental equipment, service and support to the
energy industry to include drilling, completions, construction,
production, water conservation and mud recycling. Jones was
employed by Capex from approximately May 2017 through
approximately October 30, 2017 as a Solids Control Technician. He
allegedly spent 2.0 to 3.75 hours for attending pre-shift
meetings and working longer for pre-shift meetings without being
compensated for all such hours over forty at a rate of at least
one and one-half times their regular rates. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
     Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
     BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
     250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Telephone: (614) 221-4221
     Fax: (614) 744-2300
     Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
            bderose@barkanmeizlish.com

             - and -

     Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
     COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
     1457 S. High St.
     Columbus, OH 43207
     Phone: (614) 949-1181
     Fax: (614) 386-9964
     Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com


CARGILL INC: "Tavares" Suit Moved to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Maribel Tavares, individually and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated and on behalf of the aggrieved employees pursuant to the
California Private Attorneys General Act, the Plaintiff, v.
Cargill, Incorporated, an unknown business entity and Cargill
Meat Solution Corp., an unknown business entity, the Defendants,
Case No. 18CECG01380, was removed from the Fresno County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California - (Fresno) on June 8, 2018. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-00792-DAD-SKO to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd.

Cargill, Incorporated is an American privately held global
corporation based in Minnetonka, Minnesota, and incorporated in
Wilmington, Delaware. Founded in 1865, it is the largest
privately held corporation in the United States in terms of
revenue.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Ave., Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265 1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265 1021
          E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com

               - and -

          Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29800 Agoura Road No. 210
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991 8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991 8081
          E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jason Eric Barsanti, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          501 W. Broadway, Suite 1610
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 234 1700
          E-mail: jbarsanti@cozen.com


CARSTEN MASCHMEYER: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime, Nafi Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
LARBI NAFI, the Plaintiff, v. CARSTEN MASCHMEYER, an individual;
VERONICA FERRES, an individual; MASCHMEYER GROUP, an entity of
unknown form; CONSTRUCTION FILMPRODUKTION GMBH, an entity of
unknown form; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC709066 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 6, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid wages and overtime pay under the California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in
unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business acts or practices
depriving Plaintiff and all others similarly situated of the
minimum working standards and conditions due to them under
California' labor laws.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vahe Hovanessian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF VAHE HOVANESSIAN
          100 N. Brand Boulevard, Suite 536
          Glendale, CA 91203-2642
          Telephone: (818) 240 1333
          Facsimile: (818) 240 1369
          E-mail: vahe@vhlaw.com


CATALINA CHANNEL: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime, Gonzalez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES GONZALEZ, as an individual on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CATALINA CHANNEL EXPRESS,
INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the
Defendant, Case No. BC707664 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 29, 2018),
seeks to recover minimum and wages under the California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants operate a fleet of
high end and high-speed vessels providing transportation to and
from Catalina Island from Long Beach, San Pedro and Dana Point.
According to Defendants' website, each year, more than one
million passengers set sail on board the Catalina Express fleet.
Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt employee in a
maintenance position, until his termination in or about January
2017.

During Plaintiff's employment, Plaintiff was required to clock in
and out for periods of work, and although Defendants recorded
Plaintiffs hours worked to the minute, Defendants only paid
Plaintiff in quarter of an hour increments. Defendants' rounding
of time to the quarter of an hour was not even-handed, and has
resulted in Plaintiff and putative class members not being
compensated for all hours worked.

Catalina Channel provides marine transportation services. The
Company offers passenger ferry services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
          Daniel J. Brown, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  sblakely@haineslawgroup.com
                  dbrown@haineslawgroup.com


CBOE EXCHANGE: Etten Alleges Volatility Index Derivative Rigging
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Etten, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CBOE Exchange, Inc., CBOE Global Markets,
Inc., CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC, and John Does, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-03069 (N.D. Ill., April 30, 2018), seeks treble damages
arising out of the alleged manipulation of the prices of
financial instruments linked to the Chicago Board Options
Exchange Volatility Index in violation of the Sherman Act,
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Commodities Exchange Act.

Defendants allegedly colluded with each other to manipulate the
trading prices of Volatility Index Derivatives through the
placing of manipulative S&P 500 Index options orders that were
intended to cause Volatility Index Derivative settlement prices
to spike artificial.

Volatility Index is a benchmark index created by CBOE Exchange,
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant CBOE Global Markets,
Inc. It purports to measure the implied volatility of large cap
U.S. stocks, over 30 days in the future.

Etten transacted in VIX-linked products.

John Does are a group of unnamed financial institutions, market
makers, and/or traders on the Chicago Board Options Exchange.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark R. Miller, Esq.
     Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
     WEXLER WALLACE LLP
     55 West Monroe St., Suite 3300
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: (312) 346-2222
     Fax: (312) 346-0022
     Email: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
            mrm@wexlerwallace.com

            - and -

     Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
     Jason S. Kilene, Esq.
     Michelle J. Looby, Esq
     Joshua J. Rissman, Esq.
     GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
     220 South Sixth Street #2600
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Tel: (612) 333-8844
     Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
            jkilene@gustafsongluek.com
            mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
            jrissman@gustafsongluek.com

            - and -

     E. Powell Miller, Esq.
     Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
     Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
     THE MILLER LAW FIRM, PC
     950 W. University Dr., Suite 300
     Rochester, MI 48307
     Tel: (248) 841-2200
     Fax: (248) 652-2852
     Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
            ssa@millerlawpc.com
            dal@millerlawpc.com

            - and -

     Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
     REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
     W-1050 First National Bank Building
     332 Minnesota Street
     St. Paul, MN 55101
     Telephone: (651) 287-2100
     Fax: (651) 287-2103
     Email: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com


CBS CORP: Diluting Voting Rights, National Amusements Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS, INC., NAI ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS
LLC, and SHARI REDSTONE, the Plaintiffs, v. LESLIE "LES" MOONVES,
CBS CORPORATION, GARY L. COUNTRYMAN, CHARLES K. GIFFORD, BRUCE S.
GORDON, LINDA M. GRIEGO, MARTHA L. MINOW, JOSEPH A. CALIFANO,
JR., WILLIAM S. COHEN, LEONARD GOLDBERG, ARNOLD KOPELSON, and
DOUG MORRIS, the Defendants, Case No. 2018-0374 (Del. Ch., May
29, 2018), seeks to enjoin issuance and payment of the dilutive
dividend.

The case is about "extraordinary, unjustified and unlawful"
actions by certain of the Directors of CBS Corporation to
unilaterally dilute the voting rights of its controlling
stockholder, NAI, for all purposes and for all time. It is
undisputed that the Director Defendants' actions are
unprecedented under Delaware law.

The dilutive dividend -- which the Director Defendants approved
following a hastily called and perfunctory special meeting of
the CBS Board on May 17, 2018, and on a "conditional" basis
pending Delaware court review -- is invalid for at least four
reasons: (i) it was declared in violation of the Company's
bylaws; (ii) it was based on the recommendation of a special
committee, comprised of five Director Defendants, acting far
beyond its authority; (iii) it violates the Company's charter;
and (iv) the Director Defendants' purported dilution of CBS's
voting stockholders violates the directors' fiduciary duties in
numerous ways. Defendants' actions have thrust the Company into
uncertainty and disarray, damaging all CBS stockholders,
including stockholders other than NAI for whose benefit the
Director Defendants purported to act.

First, the dividend is plainly invalid under CBS's bylaws, as
amended on May 16, 2018. At the time of the Special Meeting, the
Company's bylaws required adherence to certain procedural
requirements and a supermajority vote of at least 90% of the
directors to approve any dividend. Even putting aside the
procedural requirements, fewer than 90% of the directors voted in
favor of the Special Committee's recommended dilutive dividend.
The dilutive dividend is therefore a corporate nullity.

Second, the dilutive dividend is improper and ineffective because
the Board's vote was based on a recommendation of the Special
Committee that far exceeded its defined authority. The Special
Committee was constituted in February 2018 to "consider[],
negotiat[e] and oversee[]" a potential business combination of
CBS and Viacom, Inc. The Board did not authorize the Special
Committee to consider or recommend a dilutive dividend (much less
to initiate a lawsuit against NAI to try to render it defenseless
against that dividend). The Special Committee certainly lacked
any such authority after the Special Committee determined not to
support a CBS/Viacom combination and the committee's work was
therefore complete. The Board's action taken upon the Special
Committee's ultra vires recommendation is a nullity.

Third, the dilutive dividend violates CBS's charter. The charter
permits the issuance of dividends in the form of voting Class A
shares to Class A stockholders, and non-voting Class B shares to
Class B stockholders; it does not permit issuing Class A shares
to Class B stockholders, which is the novel method by which
Defendants have purported to strip NAI of its controlling stake
in CBS. Indeed, Defendants have consistently disclosed that any
dividend must preserve in all material respects the differences
between Class A and Class B stock, and acknowledged that NAI's
voting control is "nondilutable." Defendants' convenient post hoc
interpretation that NAI can be diluted in this way -- if it were
correct (and it is not) -- would have been a material fact
requiring disclosure in CBS's SEC filings. Not only did CBS make
no such disclosure, but it repeatedly emphasized NAI's voting
control.

Finally, in voting to approve the unprecedented dilutive dividend
and, with respect to the Special Committee directors, filing a
lawsuit and motion for a temporary restraining order on May 14,
Defendants willfully flouted their fiduciary duties to all CBS
stockholders, including NAI and CBS's other voting stockholders,
in at least three ways. First, Defendants did not face even a
cognizable threat, let alone extreme, truly extraordinary
circumstances, and they did not have a compelling justification
to take the action they did. The only purported "threats" cited
by Defendants to justify their conduct involved (i) a possible
cram down of a merger with Viacom, which was based entirely on
unsourced media reports and conjecture; and (ii) vague and
unsubstantiated claims that NAI was "interfering" with
management. There was no truth to these imagined threats, which
in any event do not remotely approach the requisite egregious,
extreme conduct and compelling justification for a board to
intentionally act to dilute the controlling stockholder.

CBS Corporation is an American mass media corporation focused on
commercial broadcasting, publishing, and television production,
with most of its operations in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew E. Fischer, Esq.
          Michael A. Pittenger, Esq.
          Jacqueline A. Rogers, Esq.
          POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
          Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
          1313 N. Market Street
          P.O. Box 951
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 984 6000

               - and -

          Meredith Kotler, Esq.
          Victor L. Hou, Esq.
          Roger A. Cooper, Esq.
          Rahul Mukhi, Esq.
          Mark E. McDonald, Esq.
          CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
          One Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 225 2000


CENTURY PARK: Penarougue Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Penarougue, On behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Century Park Associates, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00122 (E.D. Tenn., June 7, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime pay under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the collective members are hourly
office workers employed and/or jointly employed by Defendant
within the last three years who were paid an hourly rate with no
overtime pat. These employees are responsible for bookkeeping,
collections, and various other office duties.

Century Park Associates offers personalized senior living,
assisted living and independent living throughout the United
States.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and others similarly situated:

          James M. Johson, Esq.
          James M. Johson, Attorney at Law
          620 Lindlay Street, Suite 210
          Chattanooga, TN 37403
          Telephone: (423) 648 493
          Facsimile: (423) 648 4094
          E-mail: jj@jamesmjohnsonatty.com

               - and -

          Derrick A. Reed, Esq.
          SMITH REED & ARMSTRONG, PLLC
          1920 Country Place Pkwy, Suite 350
          Pearland, TX 77584
          Telephone: (281) 519 7606
          E-mail: derrick@srapllc.com


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: "Tolani" Suit Moved to D. South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Vijay K. Tolani and Sadhana V.
Tolani, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Charter Communications Inc., doing
business as: Spectrum, the Defendant, Case No. 2018-CP-26-02855,
was removed from the Horry County Court of Common Pleas, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (Florence)
on June 7, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-
cv-01548-RBH to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge R. Bryan Harwell.

Charter Communications is an American telecommunications company
that offers its services to consumers and businesses under the
branding of Spectrum.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew Mitchell Breen, Esq.
          MATTHEW BREEN LAW OFFICE
          1341 44th Avenue N, Suite 200
          Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
          Telephone: (843) 283 2495
          E-mail: matthewbreen1990@gmail.com

Attorneys for Charter Communications Inc.:

          Frank Rogers Ellerbe, III, Esq.
          Kevin Kendrick Bell, Esq.
          SOWELL GRAY ROBINSON STEPP AND LAFFITTE LLC
          PO Box 11449
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Telephone: (803) 929 1400
          Facsimile: (803) 929 0300
          E-mail: fellerbe@sowellgray.com
                  kbell@sowellgray.com


COGINT INC: Mohamed Seeks to Certify Account Executives Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MICHELLE MOHAMED, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COGINT, INC., f/k/a
IDI, INC., a Delaware Corporation, INTERACTIVE DATA, LLC, a
Georgia Limited Liability Company, RED VIOLET, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, and XYZ ENTITIES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No.
9:18-cv-80686-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:

   1. approving a motion for conditional certification pursuant
      to the Fair Labor Standards Act:

      "current and former Account Executives employed by
      Defendants at any locations throughout the United States
      during any work weeks between June 2015 and the present of
      these employees' right to join this overtime lawsuit"; and

   2. approving Class notice and consent forms.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RJLGDwPo

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
          Keith M. Stern, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
          One Flagler - 14 NE 1s Avenue, Suite 800
          E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
                  hsolis@workingforyou.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Richard D. Tuschman, Esq.
          RICHARD D. TUSCHMAN, P.A.
          8551 W. Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 303
          Plantation, FL 33322
          Telephone: (954) 369 1050
          Facsimile: (954) 380 8938
          E-mail: rtuschman@gtemploymentlawyers.com
                  assistant@gtemploymentlawyers.com


COLLECTO INC: Shinn Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTMENE SHINN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COLLECTO, INC. d/b/a
EOS CCA, the Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-80750-DMM (S.D. Fla.,
June 8, 2018), seeks redress for unlawful conduct of Defendant in
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the
Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, on or about April 8, 2018, Defendant
sent a collection letter to Plaintiff in an attempt to collect
the Consumer Debt. In the Collection letter, the Defendant seeks
to collect an amount totaling $28,033.68. On the back of the
Collection Letter, Defendant provides a break-down of the amount
it seeks to collect; specifically, inter alia, Defendant seeks to
collect $78.48 in "collection fees." Among other requirements,
Defendant must have either express authorization by an agreement
or express statutory authority to collect any sort of collection
fee; here, Defendant has neither. To that end, Defendant has
violated multiple provisions of the FDCPA when it attempted to
collect the "collection fee" from Plaintiff and other consumers.

Collecto, Inc., doing business as EOS/CCA, Inc., operates as a
debt management and recovery resource company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954 907 1136
          Facsimile: 855 529 9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


COLORFUL NAILS: Kim Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
MIRAN KIM, the Plaintiff, v. COLORFUL NAILS IN NEW HYDE PARK INC.
d/b/a COLORFUL NAILS, and YOUNG SUK CHOI, SAEMEE HONG, and SIN AE
HONG, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03373
(E.D.N.Y., June 8, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages
and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff and the collective class work or have worked as
manicurists and pedicurists at Colorful Nails, located in New
Hyde Park, New York owned by Young Suk Choi and managed by Saemee
Hong and Sin Ae Hong.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
          225 Broadway, 3rd floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 323 6980
          Facsimile: (212) 233 9238
          E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com


CONAGRA FOODS: Certification of 7 Employee Classes Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In a consolidated action, the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order:

   1. certify seven classes of employees who worked for
      Defendants;

   2. appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives; and

   3. appointing Matern Law Group, PC and Rastegar Law Group APC
      as class counsel.

The five lawsuits in this consolidated action are:

   -- "MOISES NEGRETE, individually and on behalf of all others
      similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CONAGRA FOODS, INC.,
      et al., the Defendants";

   -- "VALENTIN VILLAR, individually, and on behalf of all others
      similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CONAGRA FOODS, INC.,
      et al., the Defendants";

   -- "STEPHEN ANDERSON, et al., individually and on behalf of
      all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CONAGRA
      FOODS, INC., et al., the Defendants";

   -- "JORDYN NJOROGE, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
      situated, and the general public, the Plaintiffs, v. FIRST
      RATE STAFFING CORPORATION, et al., the Defendants";

   -- "JESSE ALVAREZ, et al., individually and on behalf of all
      others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CONAGRA
      BRANDS, INC., et al., the Defendants."

The lead case is Case No. 2:16-cv-631-FMO-AJW which is
consolidated with Case Nos. 2:16-cv-02801 FMO-AJW; 5:16-cv-02219-
FMO-AJW; 2:16-cv-08069-FMOAJW; and 2:17-cv-03141-FMO-AJW.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xE905J2D

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Moises Negrete, Steven Anderson, Felicia
Avila, Ruben Maldonado, Felix Villela, Frank Perez, Anita del
Rosario Patriz, and Justin Soto, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Launa Adolph, Esq.
          Deanna S. Leifer, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531 1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531 1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  ladolph@maternlawgroup.com
                  dleifer@maternlawgroup.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Valentin Villar, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated:

          Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
          Douglas W. Perlman, Esq.
          RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC
          22760 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 200
          Torrance, CA 90505
          Telephone: (310) 961 9600
          Facsimile: (310) 961 9094
          E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com
                  douglas@rastegarlawgroup.com

Attorneys for Jordyn Njoroge:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888 7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888 0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  scott@setarehlaw.com

Attorneys for Abraham Ibarra, Arturo Verduzco, and Richard Cruse:

          Robert W. Sink, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT W. SINK
          1800 J.F.K. Boulevard, 14th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 995 1000
          Facsimile: (215) 475 4600
          E-mail: rsink@sinklawoffices.com

               - and -

          Cory G. Lee, Esq.
          THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (213) 291 3333
          Facsimile: (610) 813 4579
          E-mail: downeyjusticelee@gmail.com

Attorneys for ConAgra Foods, Inc., Ralcorp Holdings, Inc.,
ConAgra Foods Packaged Foods, LLC, and Conagra Brands, Inc.:

          Josef S. Glynias, Esq.
          Andrew J. Weissler, Esq.
          Scott D. Meyers, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 480 1500
          Facsimile: (314) 480 1505
          E-mail: Joe.Glynias@huschblackwell.com
                  AJ.Weissler@huschblackwell.com
                  Scott.Meyers@huschblackwell.com

               - and -

          Nicky Jatana, Esq.
          Jennifer B. Hodur, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 689 0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689 0430
          E-mail: HodurJ@jacksonlewis.com
          JatanaN@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Kate E. Juvinall, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          4801 Main Street, Suite 1000
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 983 8361
          Facsimile: (816) 983 8080
          E-mail: Kate.Juvinall@huschblackwell.com


CONCRETE LABOR: Vasquez Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------
ELVIN VASQUEZ, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C
206(B), the Plaintiff, v. CONCRETE LABOR SERVICES, INC., a
Florida Corporation, and ORESTES BOFFIL, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-22269-MGC (S.D. Fla., June 7, 2018),
contends that, throughout Plaintiff's employment with Concrete
Labor, the Plaintiff routinely worked for Concrete Labor from
Monday through Saturday, over 40 regular hours a week and
approximately 20 to 22 hours of overtime per week. Concrete Labor
willfully and intentionally failed/refused to pay to Plaintiff
the federally required overtime rate for the overtime hours he
worked.  It knew of the overtime requirements of the FLSA and
willfully/intentionally/recklessly failed to investigate whether
their payroll practices were in accordance with the Fair Labor
Standards Act. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered damages and is
entitled to receive overtime compensation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Monica Espino, Esq.
          ESPINO LAW
          2655 Le June Road
          Miami, FL 33129
          Telephone: (305) 704 3172
          Facsimile: (305) 722 7378
          E-mail: me@espino-law.com


CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ISRAEL BERNAL and MARCIA BERNAL,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC. and STATEWIDE
RECOVERY SPECIALISTS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00891
(E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying proposed classes in this case, appointing the
Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing Ademi &
O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further
relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual
settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision
cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from
representing a class. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d
541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=47tkDbn3

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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


COTY INC: Certification of Alabama Resident Class Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned DIANE BOWDEN, and CARRIE BOWENS
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. COTY, INC., a Delaware Corporation, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00622-WS-B (S.D. Ala.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying a class of:

   "all resident citizens of the State of Alabama who purchased
   the Clairol Balsam Color hair dye "Black | 618", "Natural
   Black | 12", and/or "Dark Brown | 615" for personal, family,
   or household use from February 20, 2013, to the present day."

   Excluded from the class are (i) any person who purchased
   Clairol Balsam Color hair dye "Black | 618", "Natural Black |
   12", and/or "Dark Brown | 615" for resale and not personal,
   family, or household use, (ii) any person who signed a release
   of any Defendant in exchange for consideration, (iii) any
   officers, directors, or employees, or immediate family members
   of the officers, directors, or employees of any Defendant or
   any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest,
   (iv) any legal counsel of employee of legal counsel for any
   Defendant, and (v) the presiding Judges in this legal action,
   as well as the Judges' staff and their immediate family
   members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cU5xnaeu

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
          William L. Bross, Esq.
          Brandy Lee Robertson, Esq.
          Honza J. Prchal, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          2224 First Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: 205 326 3336
          Facsimile: 205, Esq.380 8072
          E-mail: wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com
                  william@ghdlawfirm.com
                  brandy@hgdlawfirm.com
                  honza@hgdlawfirm.com

               - and -

          K. Stephen Jackson, Esq.
          Joseph L. "Josh" Tucker
          JACKSON & TUCKER, P.C.
          2229 First Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: 205 252 3535
          Facsimile: 205 252 3536
          E-mail: steve@jacksonandtucker.com
                  josh@jacksonandtucker.com


COUSIN VINNY'S: Certification of Delivery Drivers Class Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Thomas Brandenburg, On behalf of himself
and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Cousin Vinny's
Pizza, LLC, et al, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00516-WHR-MJN
(S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order:

   1. certifying this action as a class action, and designating
      Brandenburg as the representative of the following class:

      "all non-owner, non-employer delivery drivers who worked
      for Defendants at any Cousin Vinny's Pizza location in Ohio
      at any time from December 23, 2013 to present";

   2. appointing Andrew Biller and Andrew Kimble of Markovits,
      Stock & DeMarco, LLC as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule
      23(g); and

   3. permitting to send notice of the lawsuit to putative class
      members pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2);

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=94ujEHHV

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Paul DeMarco, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 651 3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665 0219
          E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com
                  pdemarco@msdlegal.com
                  akimble@msdlegal.com
                  pkrzeski@msdlegal.com


COVERALL NORTH AMERICA: Misclassifies Employees, Rivas Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS RIVAS, in his capacity as Private Attorney General
Representative, the Plaintiff, v. COVERALL NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-01007-AG-KES (C.D. Cal., June 7,
2018), alleges that the Defendant violated California law,
including requiring its cleaning workers to pay for their
cleaning work, as well as pay for various expenses that should
have been borne by the employer, such as for cleaning products,
equipment, and supplies; requiring the workers to pay for
franchise and additional business fees, as well as have other
charges improperly deducted from their pay, such as interest,
insurance, and administration charges, as well as withholding
wages in the form of "chargebacks" when customers fail to pay;
failing to provide proper itemized wage statements; failing to
pay wages twice each calendar month; willfully continuing to
misclassify its cleaning workers even after a recent ruling by
the California Supreme Court has made clear that these workers
are employees under California law; and failing to maintain
payroll records showing the hours worked daily and calculation of
wages paid to its cleaning workers.

The Plaintiff brings these claims pursuant to the Private
Attorney General Act on behalf of the state of California and all
other similarly situated aggrieved employees who have been
misclassified by Coverall in California since December 1, 2016.

Coverall North America, Inc., doing business as Coverall Cleaning
Concepts, provides commercial cleaning and office cleaning
services.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994 5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994 5801
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com


CREDIT COUNSEL: Patti Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
CANDICE PATTI, the Plaintiff, v. CREDIT COUNSEL INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-61297-WPD (S.D. Fla., June 8, 2018),
alleges that Defendant has dispatched thousands unlawful
collection letters to Florida consumers, whereby each letter
contains identical violations of sections 559.72(9) of the
Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, and section
1692g(a)(3), section 1692g(a)(4), section 1692g(b), and section
1692e of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff seeks redress for the unlawful conduct of
Defendant, on behalf of the putative classes.

Credit Counsel, Inc. offers debt recovery and collection
services. The company offers commercial, medical, international,
and occupational health collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907 1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529 9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


CSX TRANSPORTATION: "Diehl" Suit Moved to W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled DENORA DIEHL on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CSX
TRANSPORTATION, the Defendant, Case No. 18-00519, was removed
from the Bedford County Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania (Johnstown) on June 8, 2018. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00122-KRG to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kim R. Gibson.

CSX Transportation is a Class I railroad operating in the eastern
United States and the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
Headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida, the railroad operates
approximately 21,000 route miles of track.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Troy M. Frederick, Esq.
          MARCUS & MACK, P.C.
          P.O. Box 1107
          57 South 6th Street
          Indiana, PA 15701
          Telephone: (724) 349 5602
          Facsimile: (724) 349 8362
          E-mail: TFrederick@MarcusandMack.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Jackson, Esq.
          BURNS WHITE LLC
          Burns White Center
          48 26th Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-4634
          Telephone: (412) 995 3000
          Facsimile: (412) 995 3300
          E-mail: jajackson@burnswhite.com


CUBIC CORP: Stackpoole Sues over Ride Pass Charges
--------------------------------------------------
TAMARA STACKPOOLE, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CUBIC CORPORATION, CUBIC
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, INC., and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, the
Defendants, Case No. 2018CH07232 (Ill, Cir. Ct., Cook County,
June 7, 2018), seeks commensurate relief for Plaintiff and other
Ventra card holders who, like Plaintiff, purchased unlimited-ride
passes and have been saddled with charges after their unlimited-
ride passes expired.  The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants
must compensate riders for the wrongful charges they collected.

The Defendants are in charge of the Ventra card system that
authorizes rides and charges and collects fares for public
transportation in the Chicago, Illinois area, including rides
provided by the Chicago Transportation Authority and Pace
Suburban Bus and Paratransit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ilan Chorowsky, Esq.
          Mark A. Bulgarelli, Esq.
          PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP LLC
          1570 Oak A venue, Suite 103
          Evanston, IL 60201
          Telephone: (312) 787 2717


CYTRX CORP: Settlement of "Crihfield" Case Has Initial Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Nicholas Crihfield, the Plaintiff, v.
CytRx Corporation, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
05519-SJO-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge S. James Otero entered
an order granting Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement.

The Court said, "The Settlement Agreement proposes a $20,000
award to the Lead Plaintiff. Incentive awards are payments to
class representatives for their service to the class in bringing
the lawsuit. Radcliffe v. Experian Info. Sols. Inc., 715 F.3d
1157, 1163 (9th Cir. 2013). In evaluating incentive awards, the
Court may consider whether there is a "significant disparity
between the incentive award and the payments to the rest of the
class members" such that it creates a conflict of interest. Id.
At 1165. Nevertheless, "incentive awards are fairly typical in
class action cases" and are discretionary. Rodriguez v. W. Pub.
Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 958 (9th Cir. 2009) (emphasis removed).
"Incentive awards typically range from $2,000.00 to $10,000.00,"
and "higher awards are sometimes given in cases involving much
larger settlement amounts." Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co.,
306 F.R.D. 245, 266-67 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (collecting cases). In
the Ninth Circuit, a $5,000 incentive award is "presumptively
reasonable." See Bellinghausen, 306 F.R.D. at 266. The Court
notes that Plaintiff's proposed $20,000 incentive award falls
well outside of this range, and that Plaintiff will be required
to provide justification for this award prior to the final
approval hearing. As these fees and awards are to be determined
separately from the underlying settlement, however, they do not
prevent a finding that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate
and reasonable. The evidence submitted by the parties
demonstrates that this settlement was negotiated at arm's length,
that the parties made significant efforts towards discovery, and
that experienced attorneys believed the settlement to present the
best possible outcome for the proposed class. The Court thus
finds that the proposed settlement, and the procedures stipulated
by the parties in their proposed order, are fair, adequate, and
reasonable. A final approval hearing shall be held on September
24, 2018 at 10:00 a.m."

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xZdpXw8d


DC INTERNATIONAL: "Aaron" Suit Moved to W.D. Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled William Aaron, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DC
International Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00044, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana (Lafayette) on June 8, 2018. The Western
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:18-cv-00767 to the
proceeding.

The Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate
Plaintiff and the Class Members at the rate of time and one half
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a
workweek as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

DC International engages in the distribution of nails, screws,
staples, anchor bolts. The company was founded in 1990 and is
based in Tigard, Oregon.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J Foty, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES
          4409 Montrose Blvd Ste 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523 0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523 1116
          E-mail: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Douglas W Truxillo, Esq.
          ONEBANE LAW FIRM
          PO Box 3507
          Lafayette, LA 70502-3507
          Telephone: (337) 237 2660
          Facsimile: (337) 266 1232
          E-mail: truxillod@onebane.com


DEUTSCHE BANK: Zhao Sues over Stock Price Drop
----------------------------------------------
YONGQIU ZHAO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. DEUTSCHE BANK AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,
JOHN CRYAN, JAMES VON MOLTKE, AND MARCUS SCHENCK, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-05104 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2018), seeks to recover
damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired Deutsche Bank securities between
March 20, 2017, and May 30, 2018, both dates inclusive.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made allegedly
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Deutsche Bank's internal
control environment and infrastructure were materially weak and
deficient; and (ii) as a result, Deutsche Bank's statements about
the Company's business and operations were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On May 31, 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S.
Federal Reserve has designated Deutsche Bank's U.S. business to
be in "troubled condition," citing concerns "about its controls
around measuring financial exposure to clients and valuing
collateral that backed loans." The article further reported that
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has added Deutsche
Bank's subsidiary Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas to its
"problem banks" list of at-risk institutions.

On this news, Deutsche Bank's share price fell $0.49, or 4.24%,
to close at $11.08 on May 31, 2018. As a result of Defendants'
wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the
market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other
Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.

Deutsche Bank is a global financial service provider delivering
commercial, investment, private, and retail banking. The Bank
offers debt, foreign exchange, derivatives, commodities, money
markets, repo and securitization, cash equities, research, equity
prime services, loans, convertibles, advice on M&A and IPO's,
trade finance, retail banking, asset management, and corporate
investments.

Founded in 1870, Deutsche Bank is headquartered in Frankfurt am
Main, Germany, and its securities trade on the New York Stock
Exchange ("NYSE") under the ticker symbol "DB." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DISCOUNT POWER: "Abramson" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Abramson on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Discount Power, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-00728, (D. Conn., April 27, 2018), seeks damages,
attorneys' fees, costs together with other relief for violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Discount Power sent prerecorded calls for the purpose of
advertising its residential energy services to Abramson without
his consent, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd R. Michaelis, Esq.
      CARMODY TORRANCE SANDAK & HENNESSEY LLP
      50 Leavenworth Street
      Waterbury, CT 06721
      Tel: (203) 573-1200
      Fax: (203) 575-2600
      Email: tmichaelis@carmodylaw.com

             - and -

      Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
      BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
      99 High St., Suite 304
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (508) 221-1510
      Email: anthony@broderick-law.com

             - and -

      Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
      South Avenue, Suite 3
      Natick, MA 01760
      Tel: (508) 655-1415
      Email: mmccue@massattorneys.net


DIVERSIFIED RESTAURANT: Certification of FLSA Class Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MONIQUE CROSS and AMERICA THOMAS, on
behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated,
known and unknown, the Plaintiffs, v. DIVERSIFIED RESTAURANT
HOLDINGS, INC., a Michigan for-profit corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-11968-NGE-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective action and
      authorizing dissemination of a written notice to all
      similarly situated employees pursuant to the opt-in
      mechanism authorized by the Fair Labor Standards Act;

   2. permitting a 60-day period for additional plaintiffs to
      join this litigation;

   3. directing Defendant to provide each employee's last known
      telephone number, last known mailing address, and last
      known e-mail address within 10 days from the entry of the
      Court's Order; and

   4. requiring the proposed notice to be posted in Defendant's
      workplaces (away from view of customers but in a common
      place for its employees to view).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ivTMIurY

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

          Bryan Yaldou, Esq.
          Omar Badr, Esq.
          Elaina S. Bailey, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN YALDOU, PLLC
          23000 Telegraph, Suite 5
          Brownstown, MI 48134
          Telephone: (734) 692 9200
          Facsimile: (734) 692 9201
          E-mail: bryan@yaldoulaw.com


DOORDASH INC: "Magana" Suit Moved to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Manuel Magana, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Doordash, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. CGC-18-56404, was removed
from the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(Oakland) on June 8, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 4:18-cv-03395-DMR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu.

DoorDash Inc. is an on-demand restaurant delivery service founded
in 2013 by Stanford students Andy Fang, Stanley Tang, Tony Xu and
Evan Moore.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se:

The Defendant is represented by:

          Theane Evangelis Kapur, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229 7726
          E-mail: tevangelis@gibsondunn.com


DR. PEPPER: Court Certifies Customer Class in "Russell" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JACKIE FITZHENRY-RUSSELL, et al., the
Plaintiffs, v. DR. PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, INC., et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00564-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Nathanael M. Cousins entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' class certification motion, and
      certifying a class of:

      "all persons who, between December 28, 2012 and the
      present, purchased any Canada Dry Ginger Ale products in
      the state of California";

   2. appointing Fitzhenry-Russell and Margaryan as class
      representatives;

   3. appointing Gutride Safier LLP and the Margarian Law Firm as
      class counsel.

The Court said, "By July 6, 2018, the parties must jointly submit
a proposal for class notification, with the plan to distribute
notice by July 27, 2018. As for the motion to seal, Dr. Pepper
must refile the opposition to the motion for class certification
with only the approved redactions consistent with this order by
June 29, 2018. The Court realizes that it will only permit the
sealing of a limited amount of the information Givaudan in
particular seeks to retain under seal. However, the Court has not
revealed the measurements of any of the ingredients in Canada
Dry, nor information about the processing of the ginger allegedly
contained in Canada Dry. Thus, the motion to seal is denied as
both being not sufficiently narrowly tailored, and as not
satisfying the compelling reasons standard."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kasC3XJQ


EIGHT SLEEP: Photoglou Sues over Unsolicited Text Message Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK PHOTOGLOU, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. EIGHT SLEEP
INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-
00944-DSF-MRW (C.D. Cal., May 31, 2018), seeks to stop
Defendant's practice of making unsolicited text message calls to
consumers' cellular telephones, and to obtain redress for all
persons injured by their conduct.

According to the complaint, while conducting its "smart mattress"
business, Eight Sleep engaged in an invasive and unlawful form of
communication: the transmission of unauthorized "text message"
calls to the cellular telephones of consumers throughout the
nation. In doing so, Eight Sleep captured the cellular telephone
numbers of consumers who called its company and, without consent
or warning, transmitted text messages to those numbers.

Eight Sleep is an American technology company based in New York
City that specializes in developing and manufacturing smart
mattresses using data, design, science, and technology.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          James R. Patterson, Esq.
          Allison H. Goddard, Esq.
          Jacquelyn E. Quinn, Esq.
          PATTERSON LAW GROUP
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756 6990
          Facsimile: (619) 756 6991
          E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com
                  ali@pattersonlawgroup.com
                  jackie@pattersonlawgroup.com


EMERGENCY CONSULTANTS: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ROBERT M. KELLER, the Plaintiff, v.
EMERGENCY CONSULTANTS, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00448-RJJ-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Jonker
entered an order:

   1. denying Plaintiff's motion to appoint class counsel; and

   2. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NAhPcSGi


ERIC RYAN: Gorss Motels Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GORSS MOTELS, INC., individually and as
the representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons,
the Plaintiffs, v. THE ERIC RYAN CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00126-DJS
(D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons or entities who were successfully sent a
      facsimile on or about March 1, 2013, stating: 'The Eric
      Ryan Corporation, Sign Up for a Free Utility and
      Telecommunications Bill Review,' and 'To Find Out More,
      call (800) 837-6406, email: sales@ericryan.com, online:
      http://www.ericryan.com/wyndham-specials/'";and

   2. appointing Plaintiff as class representative and appointing
      Ryan M, Kelly of Anderson + Wanca and Aytan Y. Bellin of
      Bellin & Associates as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JqN11OsG

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Ryan M. Kelly ct30230
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368 1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com

               - and -

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          85 Miles Avenue
          White Plaines, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358 5345
          Facsimile: (212) 571 0284
          E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com


FIREBIRDS OF OVERLAND: "Nelson" Suit Wins Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Josh Nelson, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Firebirds
of Overland Park, LLC; and Firebirds International, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02237-JWL-JPO (D. Kan.), the Hon.
Judge John W. Lungstrum entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion for
      conditional certification;

   2. denying Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment;
      and

   3. directing parties to meet and confer about the form and
      substance of notice and, if an agreement is reached, to
      submit the proposed notice to the court for approval no
      later than Monday, July 2, 2018. If the parties are unable
      to reach an agreement, then plaintiff shall file a motion
      no later than Monday, July 2, 2018 seeking approval of his
      proposed notice. Defendants shall then file their
      objections to plaintiff's proposed notice and submit an
      alternate proposed notice no later than Friday, July 13,
      2018.

The Court agrees with defendants that a resolution of defendants'
objections at this stage will promote efficiency in terms of
finalizing the ultimate notice and dissemination plan. Plaintiff
does not suggest that he anticipates difficulties contacting
putative class members such that email notification above and
beyond written notice mailed to the home addresses of putative
class members might be necessary. See Fenley v. Wood Group
Mustang, Inc., 170 F. Supp. 3d 1063, 1074 (S.D. Ohio 2016)
(general rule is that notice is typically sent by a single method
absent some showing that additional method will ensure receipt of
notice). Moreover, even if the court was inclined to authorize
email notification, defendants have represented to the court that
they do not maintain email addresses for current or former
employees. Thus, requiring defendants to produce email addresses
would cast an undue (if not impossible) burden on defendants. The
court also agrees with defendants that two reminders during the
notice period is excessive and could be interpreted as
encouragement by the court to join the litigation. See Landry v.
Swire Oilfield Servs., LLC, 252 F. Supp. 3d 1079, 1130 (D.N.M.
2017). Nonetheless, the court is inclined to conclude that one
reminder during the notice period aimed only that those putative
class members who have not responded to the notice serves the
Fair Labor Standards Act's broad remedial purpose.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lToKzQ8W


FIRST NATIONAL CREDIT: Day Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled GREGORY DAY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FIRST
NATIONAL CREDIT BUREAU, INC., a foreign for-profit corporation,
and PINNACLE CREDIT SERVICES, LLC, a foreign limited liability
company, the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-02397-CEH-JSS (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying classes:

      Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Statutory Damage Class
      under Rule 23(b)(2) or (b)(3) or both, defined as:

      "all debtors to whom Defendants sent a form letter, sent in
      an attempt to collect a consumer debt, in substantially the
      same form as the Form Debt Collection Letter to the
      Complaint, to an address in the state of Florida, where
      such improper collection communications and representations
      took place or are continuing to take place within a one-
      year period of time prior to the filing of the initial
      Complaint, and up through the present date";

      Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act Statutory Damage
      Class under Rule 23(b)(2) or (b)(3) or both, defined as:

      "all debtors to whom Defendants sent a form letter, sent in
      an attempt to collect a consumer debt, in substantially the
      same form as the Form Debt Collection Letter attached as
      Composite Exhibit A to the Complaint, to an address in the
      state of Florida, where such improper collection
      communications and representations took place or are
      continuing to take place within a two-year period of time
      prior to the filing of the initial Complaint, and up
      through the present date";

      FDCPA Actual Damages Sub-Class under Rule 23(b)(3), defined
      as:

      "all persons who are members of the FDCPA Statutory Damage
      Class who, by virtue of Defendants' improper conduct,
      namely the collecting of consumer debts by asserting that
      Defendants would not report such Debts on consumer credit
      reports despite having actually reported such Debts on a
      respective debtor's credit report as of the date of the
      Form Debt Collection Letter, incurred actual damages by
      paying any portion of the Debt thereafter or who incurred
      attorneys' fees or costs in responding to Defendants' Form
      Debt Collection Letter regarding their Debt, (i.e., actual
      damages) within a one-year period of time prior to the
      filing of the original Complaint and up through the
      present"; and

      FCCPA Actual Damages Sub-Class under Rule 23(b)(3), defined
      as:

      "all persons who are members of the FCCPA Statutory Damage
      Class who, by virtue of Defendants' improper conduct,
      namely the collecting of consumer debts by asserting that
      Defendants would not report such Debts on consumer credit
      reports despite having actually reported such Debts on a
      respective debtor's credit report as of the date of the
      Form Debt Collection Letter, incurred actual damages by
      paying any portion of the Debt thereafter or who incurred
      attorneys' fees or costs in responding to Defendants' Form
      Debt Collection Letter regarding their Debt, (i.e., actual
      damages) within a two-year period of time prior to the
      filing of this Complaint and up through the present".

   2. appointing Plaintiff as the class representative and
      Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel.

      Excluded from the FDCPA and FCCPA Statutory Damage Classes
      and the FDCPA and FCCPA Actual Damages Sub-Classes are all
      directors, officers, agents, and employees of Defendants
      and the courts to which this case may be assigned. Also
      excluded from the Classes are the Judge, members of the
      Judge's staff, and the Judge's immediate family members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VxD4V4rv

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Ian R. Leavengood, Esq.
          Gregory H. Lercher, Esq.
          Sean E. McEleney, Esq.
          LEAVEN LAW
          Northeast Professional Center 3900
          First Street North, Suite 100 St.
          Petersburg, FL 33703
          Telephone: (727) 327 3328
          Facsimile: (727) 327 3305
          E-mail: consumerservice@leavenlaw.com
                  glercher@leavenlaw.com
                  smceleney@leavenlaw.com

               - and -

          Aaron M. Swift, Esq.
          SWIFT & ISRINGHAUS, P.A.
          10460 Roosevelt Boulevard North, Suite 313
          St. Petersburg, FL 33716
          Telephone: (727) 490 9919
          Facsimile: (727) 255 5332
          E-mail: aswift@swift-law.com


FLORIDA DOC: Ruling on Amended Class Certification Bid Deferred
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARK DAVIS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. JULIE
JONES, in her official capacity as an employee of the Florida
Department of Corrections, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-00820-MMH-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Marcial Morales
Howard entered an order on June 20, 2018.

   1. granting Defendants' unopposed motion for extension of time
      to respond to Plaintiffs' amended motion for class
      certification;

   2. directing Defendants to have 21 days after a ruling on the
      motion to dismiss to file a response to Plaintiffs' amended
      motion for class certification; and

   3. deferring ruling on Plaintiffs' amended motion for class
      Certification.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hI3ziEPQ


FLOWERS FOODS: Fails to Pay Delivery Employees' OT, Ludlow Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL LUDLOW, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. FLOWERS FOODS,
INC., a Georgia corporation; FLOWERS BAKERIES, LLC, a Georgia
limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-
01190-JAH-BLM (S.D. Cal., June 6, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Flowers' Delivery Employees,
including Plaintiff, regularly worked (and continues to work)
between 55 and 70 hours per week and 6 to 7 days per week in
accord with Flowers' mandated schedule. Yet Flowers never paid
Plaintiff or any member of the FLSA Class any of the overtime pay
they had earned. Flowers knows that these workers are improperly
classified and that they work well over 40 hours per week, but
intentionally and willfully fails to provide overtime premium
pay.

The Plaintiff brings this action as collective action under the
FLSA on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals.

Flowers sells billions of dollars of baked goods to retailers
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
          Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
          Shaun Markley, Esq.
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325 0492
          Facsimile: (619) 325 0496
          E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
                  atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
                  smarkley@nicholaslaw.org


FRIEZE EVENTS: Art Galleries Sue over HVAC System Failure
---------------------------------------------------------
SHANE CAMPBELL GALLERY, INC. and JULIE N. CAMPBELL, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
FRIEZE EVENTS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05134-RJS
(S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2018), alleges that Defendant breached a
contractual promise by failing to properly design, test and
regulate the ability of the air conditioning system at the Art
Fair to maintain an environment within which Exhibitors could
conduct commercial business.

This is a class action filed on behalf of hundreds of art
galleries and other persons who paid substantial sums to
participate in the 2018 Frieze Art Fair held on Randall's Island
in New York. The Defendant Frieze, in form written contracts,
promised each Exhibitor, among other things, to "use commercially
reasonable efforts to provide common area air conditioning."

According to the complaint, the Defendant has admitted it was
aware in advance of an impending heatwave with expected "record-
breaking temperatures" but was grossly negligent in preparing the
site for such heat and ensuring a reasonably efficient air
conditioning system. As a direct result of the oppressive heat,
art customers, collectors, consultants and their clients and
other attendees could not remain in the site and were forced to
leave. As such, the Exhibitors were prevented from engaging in
their commercial endeavors and suffered substantial financial
losses. This lawsuit seeks rescission of the contracts the
Exhibitors signed with Frieze, and reimbursement of all sums paid
for participation at the Art Fair.

Frieze is a media and events company that comprises three
publications, frieze, Frieze Masters Magazine and Frieze
Week.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lewis J. Saul, Esq.
          Edward A. Coleman, Esq.
          LEWIS SAUL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          29 Howard Street, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 376 8450
          Facsimile: (212) 376 8447
          E-mail: lsaul@lewissaul.com
                  ecoleman@lewissaul.com

               - and -

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          David A. Searles, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
          Land Title Building, Suite 1902
          100 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735 8600
          Facsimile: (215) 950 8000


FTS INTERNATIONAL: Court Denied Collective Action Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled STEPHEN AGNEW, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FTS INTERNATIONAL
SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00104-OLG (W.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge Orlando L. Garcia entered an order denying
Plaintiff's partially unopposed motion for conditional collective
action certification and notice to potential class members.

The Court said, "Defendant correctly observes, however, that the
waiver of the right to undertake a collective action by Plaintiff
and other employees does not contain any promise by Defendant.
Accordingly, Defendant's assertion that it is free to modify or
cancel that waiver does not render the waiver illusory, because
the waiver itself does not bind Defendant to any obligation, and
Defendant therefore does not escape any obligation by modifying
or canceling it. It is immaterial whether, as Plaintiff observes,
there might be circumstances in which Defendant would prefer to
litigate against employees on a collective rather than individual
basis. A party who finds it beneficial to release their
counterpart from a contractual obligation has not themselves
failed to perform a contractual obligation. And the fact that the
collective action waiver imposed an obligation upon Plaintiff but
not Defendant does not render it unenforceable for lack of
consideration. Defendant's policy of requiring employees to waive
their right to undertake collective actions was merely one
component of the employment agreement between the parties an
agreement that no party in this case contends was unenforceable
for lack of adequate consideration. Defendant's policy of
requiring employees to waive their right to undertake collective
actions was a term of Plaintiff's at-will employment,
which Plaintiff was deemed to accept by "continuing to show up
for the job and accept wages in return for work.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=J0C5mYwE


GERRARD EXCAVATING: Perez Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL PEREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GERRARD EXCAVATING, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01429-MEH (D. Colo., June 8, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of Defendant's
willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado
Wage Act, and the Colorado Minimum Wage Order.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is "one of the largest
infrastructure/site development contractors in the northern
region" of Colorado providing site development, excavation, road
construction and pipeline services.

The Plaintiff and the putative FLSA collective and Rule 23 class
members were employed by Defendant as hourly-paid Heavy Equipment
Operators to perform work at various job sites. The Defendant
required the Heavy Equipment Operators, on a daily basis, to
perform pre-shift work-related activities, including, but not
limited to, checking and warming up the machine and equipment, so
it would be ready for use at the beginning of their shifts.

The Defendant and its management, however, prevented the Heavy
Equipment Operators from reporting time they spent on such pre-
shift work-related activities. The Defendant and its management
had knowledge that such pre-shift work-related activities were
performed by the Heavy Equipment Operators per workday. As a
result of Defendant's common unlawful policies, the Heavy
Equipment Operators were not properly compensated overtime at a
rate of not less than one and one-half (1.5) times their regular
rate of pay for all hours they worked in excess of 40 per
workweek, in violation of the FLSA, CWA and CMWO.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas R. Conlon, Esq.
          Ching-Yuan ("Tony") Teng, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          155 2nd St., Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (877) 561 0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582 5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
                  tonyteng@jtblawgroup.com


GOODMAN'S SALES: Rodriguez Sues over Unsolicited Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------
DARIEN RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GOODMAN'S SALES, LLC,
a Florida Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-22298-KMM (S.D. Fla., June 8, 2018), seeks injunctive
relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct, which has
resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and
disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals, and
also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of
the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies,
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant owns and operates an appliance store and repair
shop. To promote its services, the Defendant engages in
unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the
process.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479 2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


GOOGLE LLC: Violates Automatic Renewal Law, Uzair Says
------------------------------------------------------
ABDULLAH UZAIR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 8CV328915
(Cal. Super. Ct., May 30, 2018), alleges that Google made, and
continues to make, automatic renewal or continuous service offers
to consumers in and throughout California, and charged, and
continues to charge, Plaintiff's and Class Members' credit or
debit cards, or third patty payment account, without first
obtaining Plaintiff's and Class Members' affirmative consent to
the agreement containing the automatic renewal offer terms or
continuous service offer terms in Violation of California
Business. Prof. Code, and the Automatic Renewal Law.

Moreover, Google, at the time of making the automatic renewal or
continuous service offer, failed to present the automatic renewal
offer terms or continuous service offer terms in a clear and
conspicuous manner and in visual proximity to the request for
consent to the offer before the subscription or purchasing
agreement was fulfilled. Google also failed to provide an
acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal or continuous
service offer terms, cancellation policy, and information
regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being
retained by the consumer. As a result, all goods, wares,
merchandise, or products sent to Plaintiff and Class Members
under the automatic renewal 0r continuous service agreement are
deemed to be unconditional gifts pursuant to Cal. Bus. Prof. Code
section 17603. Moreover, Class Members complained to Google that
they did not know their subscriptions would be automatically
renewed, yet Google did nothing to correct those business
practices.

Google is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, which
include online advertising technologies, search engine, cloud
computing, software, and hardware.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Putative Class:

          Laura L. Ho, Esq.
          James Kan, Esq.
          Katharine L. Fisher, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763 9800
          Facsimile: (510) 835 1417
          E-mail: lho@gbdhlegal.com
                  jkan@gbdhlegal.com
                  kflsher@gbdhlegal.com

               - and -

          Julian Hammond, Esq.
          Ari Chemiak, Esq.
          Polina Pecherskaya, Esq.
          HAMMONDLAW, RC.
          1829 Reisterstown Rd., Suite 410
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (310) 601 6766
          Facsimile: (310) 295 2385
          E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
                  ari.cherniak@gmai1.com
                  polina.pecherskaya@gmail.com


GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT: Certification of Class & Subclass Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MICHAEL KAISER-NYMAN, individually and on
behalf of a Classes of all persons and entities similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT AND MARKETING,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04440 (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying class & Subclass:

      Telephone Consumer Protection Act:

      "all persons within the United States to whom: (a)
      Defendant and/or a third party acting on their behalf, made
      one or more non-emergency telephone calls; (b) to their
      cellular telephone number; (c) using the same system or
      systems used to call Plaintiff or an artificial or
      prerecorded voice; and (d) at any time in the period
      that begins four years before the date of the filing of this
      Complaint to trial"; and

      Automatic Telephone Dialing System Subclass:

      "all persons in the State of Illinois to whom: (a) GP&M or
      someone on GP&M's behalf, made one or more non-emergency
      telephone calls; (b) to their cellular telephone number;
      (c) that played a prerecorded message (d) placed by the
      same system or systems used to call Plaintiff (e) at any
      time in the period that begins four years before the date
      of the filing of this complaint to trial";

   2. appointing Plaintiff as class representative;

   3. appointing Plaintiff's lawyers as counsel for the classes;
       and

   4. allowing Plaintiff to file a memorandum in support of this
      motion after further class discovery.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZQ3DmbVj

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726 1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726 1093
          E-mail: Keith@KeoghLaw.com

               - and -

          Edward Broderick, Esq.
          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
          99 High St., Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (508) 221 1510
          E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
                  anthony@broderick-law.com

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW MCCUE
          1 South Ave, Third Floor
          Natick, MA 01760
          Telephone: (508) 655 1415
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net


GREEN STAR: Court Denied Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ROBERT BOHLKE, individually and on
behalf of al1 others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GREEN
STAR CAPITAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, and DOES 1 Through 10, inclusive,
and each of them, the Defendants, Case No. 9:17-cv-81379-DMM
(S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Donald M . Middlebrooks entered an
order denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification and
appointment of class counsel.

The Court said, "Plaintiff may refile its motion by June 22,
2018. The discovery period, which ended on May 18, 2018, remains
closed."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OUdEj6sm


GULF COAST RESTAURANT: Mygrant & Webber Sue for Minimum & OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN MYGRANT and JONATHAN WEBBER, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs, v. GULF
COAST RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., HALF SHELL OYSTER HOUSE, INC., and
ROBERT TAYLOR d/b/a HALF SHELL OYSTER HOUSE, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00264-WS-M (S.D. Ala., June 6, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid (or underpaid) minimum and overtime wages, equal
amount of liquidated damages, costs, and attorneys' fees, and
seek all other legal or equitable relief to which they, and other
similar situated employees who join this action, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants require Plaintiffs and
all other similarly situated employees to absorb the Defendants'
business expenses, including, without limitation, the purchase of
Uniform Shirts, Uniform Aprons, other tools of the trade, paying
for walk offs and ordering errors, resulted in minimum wage and
overtime violations as it constituted an unlawful kick and
violated the free and clear requirements of the FLSA in the weeks
those expenses were incurred and a violation of the tip credit
requirements.

The Defendants failed to pay employees the mandated minimum wage
for time they spent performing non-tip producing work (pre- and
post- customer serving time) that exceeded 20% of their work
time. The Defendants did not pay the employees the required
minimum wage for time spent studying and taking the menu tests.
The Defendants failed to compensate employees for time spent
maintaining their Uniform Shirts and Uniform Aprons in a
condition satisfactory to the restaurant standards.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel E. Arciniegas, Esq.
          ARCINIEGAS LAW PLLC
          100 Reliance Drive
          Franklin, Tennessee 37067
          Telephone (629) 777 5339
          E-mail: Daniel@attorneydaniel.com

               - and -

          Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
          YEZBAK LAW PLLC
          2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Telephone: (615) 250 2000
          Facsimile: (615) 250 2020
          E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com


HADLEY COLLISION: Fails to Pay All Overtime Wages, Sandoval Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SANDOVAL, an individual and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HADLEY COLLISION
CENTER INC., a California Corporation; COURTESY TRANSPORT &
TOWING, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
the Defendant, Case No. BC707883 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 29, 2018),
seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wages under the California
Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants own and operate
various towing and collision facilities throughout California.
The Plaintiff works for Defendants as a driver out of Defendants'
Whittier, California location.

During his employment, Plaintiff was required to clock in and out
for periods of work, and although Defendants recorded Plaintiffs
hours worked to the minute, Defendants only paid Plaintiff in
quarter of an hour increments. Defendants' rounding of time to
the quarter of an hour was not even-handed, and has resulted in
Plaintiff and putative class members not being compensated for
all hours worked, including all minimum and overtime.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
          Daniel J. Brown, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  sblakely@haineslawgroup.com
                  dbrown@haineslawgroup.com


HARTFORD FIRE: Court Certifies Merits-Only Class
------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled KAREN ANDREAS-MOSES; ELIZABETH WAGNER;
JACQUELINE WRIGHT; MIKAELA DELPHA; STEPHANIE WEST; JOSEPH J.
WOJCIK; TINA PALMER; and AMY COOK, the Plaintiffs, v. HARTFORD
FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-02019-
RBD-KRS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy Dalton entered and order
on June 18, 2018:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion for
      class certification and appointment of Plaintiffs' Counsel
      as Class Counsel;

   2. certifying merits-only class;

   3. on or before Friday, June 22, 2018, directing parties to
      submit a joint proposed notice to the Court;

   4. appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives; and

   5. appointing Plaintiffs' Counsel Mary E. Lytle and David V.
      Barszcz of Lytle & Barszcz and Brian J. LaClair of Blitman
      & King as class counsel.

The case will proceed in two phases: merits and damages. In light
of this, the parties are directed to meet and confer within
fourteen days and re-submit a Case Management Report. The Court
will then prepare a Case Management and Scheduling Order, Court
says.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Zi94hXwF


HERTZ CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Mitchell Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MITCHELL, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE HERTZ
CORPORATION, a Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. CGC-18-567019 (Cal. Super. Ct. June 6,
2018), alleges that, as a result of their rigorous work
schedules, the Plaintiff and other California Class Members were
from time to time unable to take off duty meal breaks and were
not fully relieved of duty for meal periods. The Plaintiff and
other California Class Members were required to perform work as
ordered by defendant for more than five hours during a shift
without receiving an off-duty meal break.

Hertz Corporation, a subsidiary of Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.,
operates the Hertz, Dollar and Thrifty vehicle rental brands. The
Hertz Corporation is one of the largest worldwide airport general
use vehicle rental companies, and the Hertz brand is one of the
most recognized in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
          Website: www.bamlawca.com
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551 1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551 1232


HOMELAND SECURITY: Sept. 13 Hearing on Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled, Margarito Castanon Nava and John Doe, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE); Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary;
Thomas D. Homan, Acting Director, ICE; and Ricardo Wong, Field
Office Director (FOD) of the ICE Chicago Field Office; the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03757 (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2018), the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23, and motion for a temporary restraining Order
and preliminary injunction are entered and continued for
briefing.

A motion hearing was held on June 11, 2018.  According to Judge
Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, response must be filed by or on Sept. 2,
2018.  Reply is due Sept. 9.  Another hearing is set for Sept. 13
at 9:30 a.m.

The Court granted a motion for leave to file under seal, motion
to file excess pages, and motion for leave to proceed under
pseudonym.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AeRnBwa7

The United States Department of Homeland Security is a cabinet
department of the United States federal government with
responsibilities in public security, roughly comparable to the
interior or home ministries of other countries.

Attorneys for Margarito Castanon Nava and John Doe:

          Mark M. Fleming, Esq.
          Katherine Elizabeth Mello Goettel, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER
          208 S. Lasalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 660 1628
          E-mail: mfleming@heartlandalliance.org
                  kgoettel@heartlandalliance.org

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Linda Y Cheng, Esq.
          Wisecup Lloyd Jason, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION,
          OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION
          P.O. Box 878
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 514-0500
          E-mail: linda.cheng@usdoj.gov
                  jason.wisecup2@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Craig Arthur Oswald, Esq.
          AUSA - CHICAGO, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          (NDIL-CHICAGO)
          219 South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60604
          E-mail: USAILN.ECFAUSA@usdoj.gov
                  craig.oswald@usdoj.gov


HUMPHREY & RIST: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Samihijazin Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Wasim Samihijazin, an individual, and on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Gus's Oil
Company, Inc., and Does, 1 through 10, the Defendants, Case No.
BC707882 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 29, 2018), is brought on behalf of
all persons employed in non-exempt positions at Gus's Oil gas
station locations owned and/or operated in the Slate of
California who worked one or more shifts at Gus's Oil gas station
location.  This lawsuit challenges Defendant's employment
practices with respect to payment of wages and provisions for
meal and rest periods applicable to non-exempt employees,
including Defendant's policies and practices of (a) failing to
pay for every hour worked, including minimum wages, designated
wages, and overtime; (b) failing to provide meal and rest breaks
that comply with California law; (c) requiring non-exempt
employees to enter into an "on-duty" meal period agreement that
do not comport with California law; and (d) failing to pay
premium wages and/or restitution for on-duty, missed, short,
and/or late meal and rest breaks.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff and Putative Class:

          Christina A. Humphrey, Esq.
          Thomas A. Rist, Esq.
          HUMPHREY & RTST, LLP
          1216 State Street, Fourth .Floor
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 618 2924
          Facsimile: (805) 618 2939
          E-mail: christina@humphrevrist.coin
                  tom@humphreyrist.com


ILLEN PRODUCTS: GORSS Motels Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned GORSS MOTELS, INC., a Connecticut
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. ILLEN PRODUCTS LTD.
d/b/a IMPRINT PLUS and CCL INDUSTRIES INC., the Defendants, Case
No. 3:18-cv-01052-AVC (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
for an order:

   a. taking motion under submission and deferring further
      activity on it until after the discovery cutoff date to be
     set in the Court's upcoming Rule 23 scheduling order, or
     alternatively; and

   b. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification
      pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MIixMqVK

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368 1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


ILLINOIS: Dupree et al. Seek to Certify Classes & Subclasses
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DONNA DUPREE, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
ANGELA LOCKE, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01104-MMM
(N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying Class I under Rule 23(b)(3), with corresponding
      Subclasses A & B:

      Class I (Damages Class):

      "all individuals who were subjected to the October 31, 2013
      cadet training exercise at Logan Correctional Center";

      Subclass A:

      "all individuals who were subjected to the October 31, 2013
      cadet training exercise at Logan Correctional Center, and
      who remain in the custody of the Illinois Department of
      Corrections since that time";

      Subclass B

      "all individuals who were subjected to the October 31, 2013
      cadet training exercise at Logan Correctional Center, and
      who were subsequently released from the custody of the
      Illinois Department of Corrections";

   2. certifying Class II under Rule 23(b)(2);

      Class II (Injunctive Relief Class):

      "all women who are currently incarcerated at Logan
      Correctional Center, and all women who will be incarcerated
      at Logan Correctional Center in the future, who are at risk
      of being subjected to a group strip search during a cadet
      training exercise";

   3. appointing Plaintiff Sherry Hartison to be the
      representative of Class I(A);

   4. appointing Plaintiff Donna Dupree to be the representative
      of Class I(B);

   5. appointing Plaintiff Hartison to be the representative of
      Class II; and

   6. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel, Jared Kosoglad & Blake
      Horwitz, as counsel for Classes I and II.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QVcmiWq5

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Jared S. Kosoglad, Esq.
          JARED S. KOSOGLAD, P.C.
          223 West Jackson, Suite 200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 513 6000
          E-mail: jared@jaredlaw.com


IMPRESS COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Marquez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK MARQUEZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. IMPRESS
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC707689 (Cal.
Super. Ct., May 30, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime, unpaid meal
period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, and unpaid minimum
wages under the California Labor Code.

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

Impress Communications, Inc. provides printing services. The
Company offers graphic and packaging designing, brand identity,
and print collateral services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


INCOME PROPERTY: Lusk Sues over Use of Biometric Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------
ALTHEA LUSK, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. INCOME PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, INC.,
THE BLACKSTONE GROUP, L.P., and ELK GROVE VILLAGE HOTEL, LLC
d/b/a MOTEL 6 ELK GROVE VILLAGE, the Defendants, Case No. 018-CH-
07273 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. June 8, 2018), seeks to redress
and curtail the Defendants' unlawful collection, use, storage,
and disclosure of Plaintiffs sensitive biometric identifiers and
information, pursuant to the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

While most employers use conventional methods for tracking time
worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), Motel 6
employees are required, as a condition of employment, to have
their fingerprints scanned by a biometric timekeeping device.

Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or
replaced if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are unique,
permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee.
This exposes Motel 6 employees to serious and irreversible
privacy risks. For example, if a database containing fingerprints
or other sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked,
breached, or otherwise exposed -- like in the recent Yahoo, eBay,
Equifax, Uber, Home Depot, MyFitnessPal, Panera, Whole Foods,
Chipotle, Omni Hotels & Resorts, Trump Hotels, and
Facebook/Cambridge Analytica data breaches -- employees have no
means by which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking
or other unlawful or improper use of this highly personal and
private information.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 6060
          Telephone: 312 233 1550
          Facsimile: 312 233 1560
          E-mail: aficzko@stephanzouras.com


INKAHOLIK TATTOOS: Rodriguez Sues over Spam Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
DARIEN RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. INKAHOLIK TATTOOS, INC.,
a Florida Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-22274-CMA (S.D. Fla., June 7, 2018), seeks injunctive
relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in
the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption
of the daily life of thousands of individuals, and statutory
damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies, pursuant to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant operates multiple
tattoo parlors throughout Miami-Dade County. To promote its
services, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming
thousands of consumers in the process.

On or about December 23, 2017, January 7, 2018 and January 13,
2018, Defendant sent telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff's
cellular telephone number ending in 0303. Defendant's text
messages were transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular telephone, and
within the time frame relevant to this action.

Defendant's text messages constitute telemarketing because they
encouraged the future purchase or investment in property, goods,
or services, i.e., selling Plaintiff an automobile. The
information contained in the text message advertises Defendant's
"FREE PIERCINGS," which Defendant sends to promote its business.
The Plaintiff received the subject texts within this judicial
district and, therefore, Defendant's violation of the TCPA
occurred within this district.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479 2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


INTEL CORP: Alliance Sues Over Processor Defect
-----------------------------------------------
Alliance Healthcare System, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Intel Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00740, (D. Or., April 27, 2018), seeks
all proper measures of monetary relief and damages, plus
interest, equitable, injunctive and declaratory relief including
restitution and disgorgement, costs of suit, including reasonable
attorneys' fees and expenses and such further relief resulting
from negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty
and violation of California Business and Professions Code.

Intel manufactures the central processing units (CPU) that power
most servers, laptops, desktop computers, tablets, smartphones,
and other computing devices. Said CPUs suffer from several
defects that allow hackers to access to what was supposed to be
secure data. Says the Plaintiff. These defects cannot be fixed
remotely via a software update while any mitigation efforts would
seriously affect CPU performance.

Alliance Healthcare System, Inc. is a for-profit health care
provider doing business in Holly Springs, Mississippi and
incorporated under Delaware law. It purchased servers, personal
computers and other devices with Intel CPUs with security
defects. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Dunbar, Esq.
      LARKINS VACURA KAYSER LLP
      121 SW Morrison St Suite 700
      Portland, OR 97204
      Telephone: (503) 222-4424
      Email: jdunbar@lvklaw.com

             - and -

      Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq.
      Michael R. Cashman, Esq.
      Michael P. Srodoski, Esq.
      HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
      8050 West 78th Street
      Edina, MN 55439
      Tel: (952) 941-4005
      Fax: (952) 941-2337
      Email: rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com
             mcashman@hjlawfirm.com
             msrodoski@hjlawfirm.com

             - and -

      Quentin Whitwell, Esq.
      HARPER WHITWELL, PLLC
      800 College Hill Road, Suite 5201
      P.O. Box 3150
      Oxford, MS 38655
      Tel: (662) 234-0320
      Fax: (662) 259-8464
      Email: quentin@harperwhitwell.com


INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Fails to Pay Overtime, Rael Says
---------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA RAEL on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
and On behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v.
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP RESOURCES, INC. and DOES 1-100, the
Defendants, Case No. BC708589 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 31, 2018),
alleges that Defendants did not pay compensation for all time
worked at the straight or overtime rate, provide paid sick days
for all hours worked, and pay wages due upon termination,
pursuant to the California Labor Code.

InterContinental Hotels Group Resources, Inc. operates a chain of
hotels. The Company offers amenities such as restaurants, room
service, and swimming pools.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Turley, Esq.
          David Mara, Esq.
          Jill Vecehi, Esq.
          Nikki Qusdahl, Esq.
          THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: 619 234 2833
          Facsimile: 619 234 4048


JH PORTFOLIO: Stringer Sues over Unauthorized Phone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA STRINGER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. JH PORTFOLIO DEBT EQUITIES LLC.,
OLIPHANT FINANCIAL CORPORATION and DOES 1-10, the Defendant, Case
No. 4:18-cv-00889 (E.D. Mo., June 7, 2018), alleges that
Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, in
making unauthorized phone calls and unsolicited voice calls to
cellular telephones without prior express written consent.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff had a cell phone number
ending in 7032. The Plaintiff never gave her cell number to any
entity that either acquired or attempted to collect the debt
Defendants were attempting to collect from her. The Plaintiff did
not list her cell number in or on any other documents at any time
during the transaction that resulted in the debt owed, nor did
she verbally provide her phone number to or consent to any calls
on her cell number by Defendants. The debt that Defendants were
attempting to collect, by calling Plaintiff, was not Plaintiffs
debt.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patric A. Lester, Esq.
          LESTER & ASSOCIATES
          5694 Mission Center Road, No. 358
          San Diego, California 92108
          Telephone: (619) 665 3888
          Facsimile: (314) 241 5777
          E-mail: rlester@rlesterlaw.com


JOHN HEATH: "Lebowitz" Telemarketing Suit Transferred to D.N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned James Lebowitz, and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. John C. Heath, Attorney at Law
PLLC (d/b/a Lexington Law Firm) Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-10973
(D. Mass., May 26, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey on April 30, 2018, under
Case No. 18-cv-08552.

Lebowitz seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal
telemarketing calls via an "automatic telephone dialing system"
conducted by Heath in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby invading his privacy. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Herbert Weinberg, Esq.
      ROSENBERG & WEINBERG
      805 Turnpike Street, Suite 201
      North Andover, MA 01845
      Telephone: (978) 208-2501
      Facsimile: (978) 682-3041
      Email: hweinberg@jrhwlaw.com


JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Robinson Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS ROBINSON, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-
2018-00028234-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., June 7, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid regular and overtime wages, including unpaid
compensation for meal and/or rest period violations, interest,
reimbursement of business expenses, liquidated damages and other
penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under, pursuant to the California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has had a consistent
policy of permitting, encouraging and/or requiring Plaintiff to
work in excess of eight hours per day and/or in excess of forty
hours per week without paying him overtime compensation as
required by California's wage and hour laws, unlawfully denying
Plaintiff and Class Members statutorily-mandated meal and rest
periods, willfully failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members
with accurate semimonthly itemized wage statements reflecting the
total number of hours each worked, the applicable deductions, and
the applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period, and
willfully failing to pay compensation in a prompt and timely
manner to Plaintiff and those Class Members whose employment with
Defendant has terminated.

Johnson & Associates is a full-service nationwide security
management and consultant firm.[BN]

Attorneys for Representative Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class:

          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          Andrew Weaver, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
          www.scalaw.com
          1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 891 9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891 7030
          E-mail: scole@scalaw.com
                  aweaver@scalaw.com


K&J CONSTRUCTION: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, Mendoza Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
JORGE MENDOZA, VIRGILIO RAMOS, and ALVARO RAMOS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. K&J
CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANT SERVICE INC. and JENNY CHIANG, as an
individual, the Defendants, Case No. CV-18-3172 (E.D.N.Y., May
30, 2018), seeks to recover damages for egregious violations of
state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiffs'
employment at K&J Construction Consultant Ervice Inc., located at
144 Broadway, Greenlawn, New York 11740.

Although Jorge Mendoza worked approximately 55 hours per week
from in or around January 2015 until in or around December 2017,
the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half (1.5) for
all hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime
provisions contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Law.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


KIEWIT INFRASTRUCTURE: Fails to Pay Overtime & Wages, Kelly Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
REGINALD KELLY, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KIEWIT
INFRASTRUCTURE WEST COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC707674 (Cal.
Super. Ct., May 31, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to pay
overtime, provide uninterrupted meal periods, provide itemized
Statements, and pay wages due upon termination.

Kiewit Infrastructure operates as a heavy civil construction
contractor. It constructs marine and port facilities, highways
and bridges, dams and reservoirs, concrete tanks, and hydro
plants. Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. was formerly known as
Kiewit Pacific Co.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin A. Lipeles, Esq.
          Thomas H. Schelly, Esq.
          LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC
          880 Apollo Street, Suite 336
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 322 2211
          Facsimile: (310) 322 2252


KILLER PIZZA: Fails to Premium Wages, Demori Says
-------------------------------------------------
MASSIMO DEMORI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. KILLER PIZZA ENTERPRISES, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC707668 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 30, 2018),
seeks to recover premium wages for missed meal and rest periods,
penalties, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

According to the complaint, for at least four years prior to the
filing of this action and continuing to the present, Defendant
has had a consistent policy of failing to provide Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees or former employees within the
State of California a 30-minute uninterrupted meal period for
days on which the employees worked more than five hours in a
workday and a second 30 minute uninterrupted meal periods for
days on which the employees worked in excess of 10 hours in a
work day, and failing to provide compensation for such unprovided
meal periods as required by California wage and hour laws.

Killer Pizza, under the trade name Toscana, is in the Italian
Restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          James A. De Sario, Esq.
          Melissa M. Kurata, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone (310) 553 3600
          Facsimile (310) 553 3603


KNORR-BREMSE AG: McNeal Sues over Hiring Practices
--------------------------------------------------
JANIS MCNEAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. KNORR-BREMSE AG; KNORR BRAKE COMPANY
LLC; NEW YORK AIR BRAKE LLC; BENDIX COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SYSTEMS
LLC; WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; FAIVELEY
TRANSPORT NORTH AMERICA INC.; RAILROAD CONTROLS L.P.; RICHARD
BOWIE; and DOES 1-20, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01667-CCB
(D. Md., June 6, 2018), alleges a series of unlawful agreements
between three of the world's largest rail equipment suppliers to
restrain competition in the labor markets in which they compete
for employees, thus violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Rather than compete to attract the best employees by offering
higher salaries and attractive benefits, the Defendants allegedly
conspired to thwart competition for employees and suppress wages
and employment opportunities.

Knorr-Bremse is a manufacturer of braking systems for rail and
commercial vehicles that has operated in the field for over 110
years. New York Air Brake has been serving the rail industry
since 1890. Bendix Commercial develops and supplies safety
technologies, energy management solutions, and air brake charging
and control.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cyril V. Smith, Esq.
          Alicia Shelton, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440
          Baltimore, MD 21202-1031
          Telephone: (410) 332 0444
          Facsimile: (410) 659 0436
          E-mail: csmith@zuckerman.com
                  ashelton@zuckerman.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
          Zachary Arbitman, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER &CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667 7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667 7056
          E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                  kjustice@ktmc.com
                  zarbitman@ktmc.com


KNORR-BREMSE AG: Lienemann Sues over Hiring Practices
-----------------------------------------------------
DANIEL LIENEMANN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KNORR-BREMSE AG; KNORR
BRAKE COMPANY LLC; NEW YORK AIR BRAKE LLC; WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; AND FAIVELEY TRANSPORT NORTH AMERICA,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00704-CRE (W.D. Pa., May
29, 2018), alleges that Defendants violates Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, relating to a series of unlawful agreements between
the world's largest rail equipment suppliers to restrain
competition in the labor markets in which they compete for
employees.

According to the complaint, the Defendants, and their respective
subsidiaries, are each other's top competitors for rail equipment
used in freight and passenger rail applications. They also
compete with each other to attract, hire, and retain various
skilled employees, including rail industry project managers,
engineers, sales executives, business unit heads, and corporate
officers.

Prior to its acquisition by Wabtec in November 2016, Faiveley
also competed with Knorr, and Wabtec and their subsidiaries to
attract, hire, and retain employees. The unlawful agreements
between Knorr, Wabtec, and Faiveley included promises and
commitments not to solicit, recruit, hire without prior approval,
or otherwise compete for employees (collectively, "no-poach
agreements"). The no-poach agreements were not reasonably
necessary to any separate, legitimate business transaction or
collaboration between the companies. They spanned several years
and were monitored and enforced by high-level company executives,
and had the effect of unlawfully allocating employees between the
companies, resulting in harm to U.S. workers and consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mary-Jo Rebelo, Esq.
          BURNS WHITE, LLC
          48 26th Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 995 3347
          E-mail: mjrebelo@burnswhite.com

               - and -

          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER, LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687 1980
          Facsimile: (212) 687 980
          E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Suite 200
          Washington, D.C. 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789 3690
          Facsimile: (202) 789 1813
          E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com


LATIUM NETWORK: Solis Sues over Initial Coin Offering
-----------------------------------------------------
JOEVANNIE SOLIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LATIUM NETWORK, INC., a
Delaware corporation, DAVID JOHNSON, and MATTHEW CARDEN, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-10255 (D.N.J., June 6, 2018),
alleges that the Defendants violated Section 5 of the Securities
Act of 1933, in connection with the Latium initial coin offering.

The Defendants allegedly raised more than $17 million by offering
and selling unregistered securities, in the form of LatiumX
("LATX") tokens, in direction violation of the Securities Act.

Latinum Network provides consumer insights, marketing strategies,
and direct consumer access to member companies.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Eric T. Kanefsky, Esq.
          Samuel S. Cornish, Esq.
          Martin B. Gandelman, Esq.
          CALCAGNI & KANEFSKY, LLP
          One Newark Center
          1085 Raymond Boulevard, 14th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (862) 397 1796
          E-mail: eric@ck-litigation.com
                  sam@ck-litigation.com
                  mgandelman@ck-litigation.com

               - and -

          Aaron K. Dickey, Esq.
          FLINT LAW FIRM LLC
          222 East Park Street, Suite 500
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 205 2017
          E-mail: adickey@flintlaw.com


LENNAR CORPORATION: Pyrinova Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
OLGA PYRINOVA, an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. LENNAR CORPORATION, a
foreign corporation, and LENNAR HOMES LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-80727-DMM
(S.D. Fla., June 6, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' actions were willful
and/or showed reckless disregard for the provisions of the FLSA
in that, among other conduct, Defendants were aware of their
obligation to pay overtime, and intentionally prevented Plaintiff
and others from asserting their rights under the FLSA and from
recording her hours worked.

Lennar Homes engages in the construction of residential
properties. Lennar Homes, LLC was formerly known as F & R
Builders, Inc. The company is based in Miami, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank H. Henry, Esq.
          BLUEROCK LEGAL, P.A.
          10800 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 410
          Miami, FL 33161
          Telephone: (305) 981 4300
          Facsimile: (305) 981 4304
          E-mail: fhenry@bluerocklegal.com


LITHIUM INNOVATIONS: Insurer Sues to Deny Payment of Legal Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
THE BURLINGTON INSURANCE CO., the Plaintiff, v. LITHIUM
INNOVATIONS COMPANY, LLC c/o Ford B. Cauffiel, Statutory Agent
3171 N. Republic Blvd. Toledo, OH 43615, and FORD B. CAUFFIEL,
9148 Rolling Hill Road, Holland, OH 43528, the Defendants, Case
No. 3:18-cv-01300-JGC (N.D. Ohio, June 7, 2018), seeks
declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Defendants
under the Policy with respect to an underlying lawsuit, which
alleges various pollution-related claims against Defendants that
are excluded under the Policy.

This action addresses liability insurance coverage for a class-
action lawsuit brought against Defendants by Plaintiffs Kaye and
Golwin Williams, Individually and as Class Representatives on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, and numerous other
individuals residing in Toledo, Ohio. The case is an insurance
coverage action seeking declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
sections 2201 and 2202. TBIC issued to LIC Commercial General
Liability Policy No. HGL0043404, effective May 5, 2016 to May 5,
2017.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Harrison, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
          255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 977 8200
          Facsimile: (513) 977 8141
          E-mail: greg.harrison@dinsmore.com


LIVINGSTON, MI: EMTs Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Don Carr, Mack Carr, Autumn Millerov, Thomas Johnson, Tracey
Camalet, and all other persons similarly situated, known or
unknown, Plaintiffs, v. Livingston County Board of Commissioners
and Livingston County, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-11313 (E.D.
Mich., April 27, 2018), seeks to recover monetary and liquidated
damages, costs including reasonable attorney's fees for violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs are employed by Defendants' Emergency Medical Services
Division as non-exempt Emergency Medical Technicians. Defendant
allegedly failed to pay them one and a half times their regularly
hourly wage for hours worked in excess of forty.

Livingston County is a Michigan Municipal Corporation located in
the County of Livingston, State of Michigan with the Livingston
County Board of Commissioners as its chief policy-making body.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Kotzian, Esq.
      David F. Greco, Esq.
      Angela Mannarino, Esq.
      GASIOREK, MORGAN, GRECO, McCAULEY & KOTZIAN, P.C.
      30500 Northwestern Highway, Suite 425
      Farmington Hills, MI 48334
      Tel: (248) 865-0001
      Fax: (248) 865-0002
      Email: dkotzian@gmgmklaw.com
             dgreco@gmgmklaw.com
             amannarino@gmgmklaw.com


LIVINGSTON, MI: Court Certifies Class of Medical Technicians
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned DON CARR, MACK CARR, AUTUMN MILLEROV,
THOMAS JOHNSON, TRACEY CAMELET, and all other persons similarly
situated, known or unknown, the Plaintiffs, v. LIVINGSTON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, AND LIVINGSTON COUNTY, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:18-cv-11313-RHC-SDD (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge
Robert H. Cleland entered an order on June 20, 2018:

   1. conditionally certifying action as a collective action on
      behalf of:

      "all Emergency Medical Technicians who worked for
      Defendants at any time between April 27, 2015 and present
      and who worked at any time in excess of 40 hours per
      workweek";

   2. appointing Gasiorek, Morgan, Greco, McCauley & Kotzian,
      P.C. as class counsel for all opt-in Plaintiffs who file
      the Consent to Join form;

   3. approving notice and consent forms to be sent via U.S. Mail
      and e-mail;

   4. directing Defendant to serve Plaintiffs' Counsel with a
      computer readable and exportable Excel file containing the
      full name, last known address, last known telephone number,
      employee ID number, and last known e-mail address of all
      putative class members identified above within 10 days from
      the date of entry of the Order;

   5. authorizing Plaintiffs to promptly disseminate the approved
      notice and consent form to all putative class members
      pursuant to the "opt-in" mechanism for collective actions
      authorized by the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
     section 216(b) and in any event, no later than 10 days after
      receipt of the above computer-readable and exportable Excel
      file from Defendants;

   6. directing Plaintiffs' counsel to file with the Court all
      opt-in consent forms they receive within 90 days of sending
      the court-approved notice; and

   7. directing Defendants to refrain from communication with
      putative class members concerning this lawsuit or the
      underlying issues.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WjjB3N4r

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          David A. Kotzian, Esq.
          David F. Greco, Esq.
          Angela Mannarino, Esq.
          GASIOREK, MORGAN, GRECO,
          McCAULEY & KOTZIAN, P.C.
          30500 Northwestern Highway, Suite 425
          Farmington Hills, MI 48334
          Telephone: (248) 865 0001
          Facsimile: (248) 865 0002
          E-mail: dkotzian@gmgmklaw.com
                  dgreco@gmgmklaw.com
                  amannarino@gmgmklaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Bonnie G. Toskey, Esq.
          Sarah K. Osburn, Esq.
          COHL, STOKER & TOSKEY, P.C.
          601 N. Capitol Avenue
          Lansing, MI 48933
          Telephone: (517) 372 9000
          Facsimile: (517) 372 1026
          E-mail: btoskey@cstmlaw.com
                  sosburn@cstmlaw.com


LONG BEACH MUSEUM: Fails to Pay Compensation, Brookshire Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY BROOKSHIRE, on behalf of herself and all similarly
situated employees for the purposes of the Private Attorney
General Act, the Plaintiff, v. LONG BEACH MUSEUM OF ART
FOUNDATION, and DOES 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. BC709328 (Cal.
Super. Ct., June 8, 2018), alleges that LBMAF failed to
compensate Brookshire pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Brookshire was employed at the restaurant in the Museum known as
Claire's at the Museum from 2013 until her termination as of
August 2, 2017. According to the complaint, by assessing a
percentage of the bar bill and food bill against Brookshire's and
other servers' earnings, LBMAF improperly collected part of wages
paid to her.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Henry J. Josefsberg, Esq.
          4050 East Katella Avenue, Suite 205
          LOS ALAMITOS, CA 90720
          Telephone: (562) 342 9401
          Telecopier: (562) 342 9403
          E-mail: Henryjjesq@Gmail.com


LTD FINANCIAL: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARY HEPFNER, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. LTD FINANCIAL
SERVICES LP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00971-PP (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying
proposed classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as class
representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the
Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XUbr1jPf

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


M.A.C. COSMETICS: "Deguchy" Suit Moved to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Mercedes Deguchy, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. M.A.C. Cosmetics, Inc., a Delaware corporation and
Does 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No. 37-02018-00022837-
CU-OE-CTL, was transferred from the Superior Court of CA, for the
County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (San Diego) on June 8, 2018. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-01210-BEN-KSC to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Roger T.
Benitez.

MAC Cosmetics, stylized as M A C, is a cosmetics manufacturer
founded in Toronto in 1984 by Frank Toskan and Frank Angelo. The
company is headquartered in New York City and became part of the
Estee Lauder Companies in 1998.[BN]

Attorneys for Mercedes Deguchy, as an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated:

          James Richard Patterson, Esq.
          PATTERSON LAW GROUP, APC
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756 6990
          Facsimile: (619) 756 6991
          E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com

Attorneys for M.A.C. Cosmetics, Inc.:

          Kathy A. Le, Esq.
          Jackson Lewis, Esq.
          5000 Birch Street, Suite 5000
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 885 1360
          Facsimile: (949) 885 1380
          E-mail: Kathy.le@jacksonlewis.com


MANDARICH LAW: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Kelly" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
TROY KELLY and BRIAN COMER, individually and on behalf of
similarly aggrieved employees, the Plaintiff, v. MANDARICH LAW
GROUP, LLP, a California limited liability partnership; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC709242 (Cal.
Super. Ct., June 7, 2018), alleges that Defendants directed
Plaintiffs' work hours and imposed strict deadlines requiring
Plaintiffs, and each of them, to incur substantial overtime;
required Plaintiffs, and each of them, to adhere to a "uniform
work schedule" which required them to work more than eight hours
each day and more than 40 hours each work week; and failed to pay
Plaintiffs, and each of them, for any of the overtime hours,
pursuant the California Labor Code.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott Thomas Green, Esq.
          Daniel J. Spurgeon, Esq.
          Mike Khalilpour, Esq.
          THE GREEN LAW GROUP, LLP
          1777 E. Los Angeles Avenue
          Simi Valley, CA 93065
          Telephone: (805) 306 1100
          Facsimile: (805) 306 1300
          E-mail: SCOTT@THEGREENLAWGROUP.COM
                  DANIEL@THEGREENLAWGROUP.COM
                  MIKE@THEGREENLAWGROUP.COM


MANNING'S BEEF: Fails to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wage, Garcia Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SANTIAGO GARCIA, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MANNING'S BEEF, LLC, a
California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100,
Case No. BC707884 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 29, 2018), seeks to
recover overtime and minimum Wage under the California Labor
Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that during the four years preceding the
filing of the Complaint and continuing to the present, the
Defendants did (and continue to do) business slaughtering and
packaging beef products. The Plaintiff was required to clock in
and out for periods of work, and although Defendants recorded
Plaintiffs hours worked to the minute, Defendants only paid
Plaintiff in quarter of an hour increments. Defendants' rounding
of time to the quarter of an hour was not even-handed, and has
resulted in Plaintiff and putative class members not being
compensated for all hours worked.

Manning's Beef, LLC was founded in 1920. The Company's line of
business includes operating meat packing plants and slaughter
houses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
          Daniel J. Brown, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  sblakely@haineslawgroup.com
                  dbrown@haineslawgroup.com


MARK GOBER: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned PAUL DARROUGH, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, PLAINTIFF, v. MARK GOBER,
individually and in his official capacity; and JOHN DOES 1-10,
the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 4:18-cv-00113-JLH (E.D. Ark.), the Hon.
Judge J. Leon Holmes entered an order denying a motion for class
certification.

The Court said, "In response to the motion for class
certification, Gober has submitted the uncontested affidavit of
Susan Potts, along with records of Darrough's arrest and first
appearance. Pursuant to a bench warrant, Darrough was arrested on
May 10, 2017, at 12:30 p.m. He appeared before a judge for his
first appearance on May 12, 2017. Thus, he was provided a timely
first appearance. Based upon the facts in the Potts' affidavit,
Darrough is not a member of the class that he seeks to represent
and his claims are, therefore, not typical of the class. In Re
Milk Products Litigation, 195 F.3d 430, 436 (8th Cir. 1998). Nor
can he adequately represent the class. The motion for class
certification is therefore denied."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qZdunobv


MASSE CONTRACTING: Ruiz Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
JOSE RUIZ, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MASSE CONTRACTING, INC. and BOLLINGER
SHIPYARDS, L.L.C., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-05721 (E.D.
La., June 7, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed as a
pipefitter by Defendants. While working for Defendants, Plaintiff
was not paid one-and-a-half times his regular hourly rate for all
hours worked in excess of forty hours a workweek, in violation of
the FLSA.

Masse Contracting, Inc., a labor contracting company, provides
welding services to industrial and commercial companies primarily
in Louisiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 534 5005
          E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
                  whb@beaumontcostales.com
                  eaw@beaumontcostales.com


MAXIMUM BOOTING: "Polson" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jessy Polson, Individually, and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. Kenny McElwaney, doing business as: Maximum Booting
Co.; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; and Bright-Myers Union City
Associates, L.P., the Defendants, Case No. 17EV003164, was
removed from the State Court of Fulton County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) on
May 30, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-
02674-MLB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Michael L. Brown.[BN]

Attorneys for Jessy Polson:

          Kevin Charles Patrick, Esq.
          KEVIN PATRICK LAW, LLC
          2860 Piedmont Road, Suite 195
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 566 8964
          E-mail: kevin@patricktriallaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew Q. Wetherington, Esq.
          Michael L. Werner, Esq.
          Robert Neil Friedman, Esq.
          WERNER WETHERINGTON, P.C. - GA.
          2860 Piedmont Rd., N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 564 4329
          E-mail: matt@wernerlaw.com
                  mike@wernerlaw.com
                  Robert@wernerlaw.com

Attorneys for Kenny McElwaney, doing business as: Maximum Booting
Co.:

          Brynda Rodriguez Insley, Esq.
          Kenneth James Bentley, Esq.
          INSLEY & RACE
          The Mayfair Royal
          181 14th Street, N.E., Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 876 9818
          Facsimile: (404) 876 9817
          E-mail: binsley@insleyrace.com
                  chrisjackson2014@gmail.com
                  kbentley@insleyrace.com

               - and -

          Jason S. Bell, Esq.
          SMITH GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP - GA
          1230 Peachtree St., N.E., Suite 3100, Promenade
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3592
          Telephone: (404) 815 3619
          E-mail: jbell@sgrlaw.com

Attorneys for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.:

          Cari K. Dawson, Esq.
          Lara Tumeh, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD, LLP - ATL
          1201 West Peachtree St., Suite 4900
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Telephone: (404) 881 7000
          E-mail: cari.dawson@alston.com
                  lara.tumeh@alston.com


MDL 2724: 1199SEIU et al. Sue Pharma Cos. over Drug Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: Generic Pharmaceuticals
Pricing Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:18-cv-02401-CMR (E.D.
Pa, June 7, 2018), several entities seek to secure injunctive
relief and recoup overcharges that resulted from an unlawful
agreement among Defendants to allocate customers, rig bids, and
fix, raise, and/or stabilize the prices of, these generic
pharmaceutical drugs:

     * Acetazolamidel,
     * Doxycycline Hyclate,
     * Doxycycline Monohydrate,
     * Fosinopril-Hydrochlorothiazide,
     * Glipizide-Metformin,
     * Glyburide,
     * Glyburide-Metformin,
     * Leflunomide,
     * Meprobamate,
     * Nimodipine,
     * Nystatin,
     * Paromomycin,
     * Theophylline,
     * Verapamil and
     * Zoledronic Acid.

According to the complaint, the Defendants participated in an
overarching conspiracy, the purpose of which was to raise prices
and minimize competition in the generic drug industry for
numerous generic drugs. This overarching conspiracy encompassed
an agreement among all Defendants that covered all Drugs at
Issue, and included subsidiary agreements among certain
Defendants relating to individual Drugs at Issue.

Defendants' conspiratorial conduct was widespread and has had a
tremendous impact on the marketplace. In addition to the Drugs at
Issue identified in this overarching conspiracy complaint,
numerous lawsuits alleging conspiratorial conduct relating to 16
other drugs and involving all of these Defendants (and additional
defendants) are currently pending. In a competitive marketplace,
each generic drug manufacturer should price its drug
competitively relative to other manufacturers. Accordingly, if
any one company decided to raise prices, it would do so at the
risk of losing customers and sales to its rivals with more
competitive prices. But, beginning at least as early as 2011, the
generic pharmaceutical market has not been characterized by such
competition. The Defendants engaged in pervasive conspiratorial
conduct designed to maintain inflated prices and avoid
competition with one another.

Throughout the conspiracy, Defendants communicated with each
other to determine and agree on the amount of market share each
competitor would be allocated. These shares were determined by
the timing of each Defendant's entry into the market (with early
entrants entitled to a proportionately larger share than later
entrants). The purpose of Defendants' unlawful "fair share"
allocation was to fix, maintain and stabilize prices -- either
for a particular generic drug or any number of generic drugs. In
this way, each entrant would benefit from coordination as a
whole, even if a manufacturer did not seek a market allocation
for a particular drug. The Defendants implemented the "fair
share" agreement by refusing to bid for a particular customer or
by providing a pretextual bid that they knew would not be
successful.

The case is captioned as 1199SEIU NATIONAL BENEFIT FUND; 1199SEIU
GREATER NEW YORK BENEFIT FUND; 1199SEIU NATIONAL BENEFIT FUND FOR
HOME CARE WORKERS; 1199SEIU LICENSED PRACTICAL NURSES WELFARE
FUND; AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES DISTRICT COUNCIL 37 HEALTH & SECURITY PLAN; LOUISIANA
HEALTH SERVICE & INDEMNITY COMPANY D/B/A BLUE CROSS AND BLUE
SHIELD OF LOUISIANA AND HMO LOUISIANA, INC.; SELF-INSURED SCHOOLS
OF CALIFORNIA; SERGEANTS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION OF THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND; and
UNITE HERE HEALTH, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ACTAVIS HOLDCO US, INC.;
ACTAVIS ELIZABETH LLC; ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC.; APOTEX CORP.;
AUROBINDO PHARMA USA, INC.; BARR PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC; CITRON
PHARMA LLC; DAVA PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC; DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES,
INC.; FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; GENERICS BIDCO I, LLC;
GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
LANNETT COMPANY, INC.; MAYNE PHARMA INC.; MUTUAL PHARMACEUTICAL
COMPANY, INC.; MYLAN INC.; MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; PAR
PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PERRIGO NEW YORK, INC.; PLIVA, INC.;
RAJIV MALIK; SANDOZ, INC.; SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC.;
TARO PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.;
WEST-WARD PHARMACEUTICALS CORP.; and, ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS
(USA), INC., the Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 1005
          Telephone: (212) 907 0700
          E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956 1000
          E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com

               - and -

          Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKEMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          1625 N. Commerce Parkway, Suite 320
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
          Telephone: (886) 849 7545
          E-mail: jgoldstein@fmslaw.com

               - and -
          Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
          FINE, KAPLAN and BLACK RPC
          One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 567 6565
          E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com

               - and -

          Michael M. Buchman, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          600 Third Avenue, Suite 2101
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 577 0040
          E-mail: mbucham@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          James R. Dughan, II, Esq.
          THE DUGAN LAW FIRM APLC
          365 Canal Street, Suite 1000
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 648 0180
          E-mail: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Mindee J. Reuben, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          1835 Market Street, 27th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 314 7980
          E-mail: mreuben@litedepalam.com

               - and -

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 500 6800
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339 6900
          E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697 6000
          E-mail: azapala@cpmlegal.com

                - and -

          Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 633 1908
          E-mail: bsweeney@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Audrey A. Browne, Esq.
          Seth Kennedy, Esq.
          AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND
          MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES DISTRICT COUNCIL 37
          HEALTH & SECURITY PLAN
          125 Barclay Street, Room 313
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 815 1304
          E-mail: abrowne@dc37.net
                  skennedy@dc37.net

               - and -

          Peter Safirstein, Esq.
          SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP
          1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 201 2845
          E-mail: psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com

               - and -

          Dan Drachler, Esq.
          ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
          41 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 223 3900
          E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com

               - and -

          Dena C. Sharp, Esq.
          Girard Gibbs LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981 4800
          E-mail: chc@girardgibbs.com


MDL 2843: "Malskoff" Suit vs FB, Cambridge Moved to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JAY MALSKOFF and KENNETH IRVINE,
individually and on behalf of all others, the Plaintiffs, v.
FACEBOOK INC., CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA, CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA(UK) LTD.,
CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA LLC, ROBERT MERCER, and ALEKSANDR KOGAN, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04451, was transferred from the
the U.S. District Court for District of New Jersey, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on June 8, 2018. The Northern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-03393-VC to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria.

The Malskoff case is being consolidated with MDL 2843 in re:
Facebook, Inc., Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation. The MDL
was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on June 6, 2018. In its June 6, 2018
Order, the MDL Panel found that centralization under Section 1407
will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All
responding parties agree that the actions share factual issues
arising out of allegations that Cambridge Analytica and other
defendants exploited Facebook's platform to obtain user data, and
that Facebook should have imposed more robust controls on the use
of data by third party applications to prevent this conduct.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery. The lead
case is 3:18-md-02843-VC.

Facebook is an American online social media and social networking
service company based in Menlo Park, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
          Christopher L. Ayers, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
          Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
          Telephone: (212) 584 0700
          Facsimile: (212) 584 0799
          E-mail: sweiss@seegerweiss.com
                  cayers@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
          Michael A. Innes, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
          OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, PC
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068-1739
          Telephone: (973) 994 1700
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  decklund@carellabyrne.com
                  minnes@carellabyrne.com


MDL 2855: ABA Asks Court to Move Two Cases to North Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit re: LAW SCHOOL ACCREDITATION LITIGATION, the
American Bar Association, the ABA's Council of the Section of
Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, and the Accreditation
Committee of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the
Bar asks the Court to transfer two cases -- one pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida and the
other in the District of Arizona, to the Western District of
North Carolina for consolidation with a parallel action pending
there before Hon. Judge Graham Mullen.[BN]

This litigation involves three largely identical lawsuits brought
by InfiLaw Corporation (joined in each case by one of InfiLaw's
subsidiary law schools) challenging accreditation standards
promulgated by, and decisions of, the ABA's Council, which is the
agency approved by the U.S. Department of Education to accredit
law schools. All three cases are in their infancy, having been
filed between May 10 and 24, 2018.

Attorneys for American Bar Association:

          Anne E. Rea, Esq.
          Tacy F. Flint, Esq.
          Steven J. Horowitz, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          One South Dearborn
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853 7000
          Facsimile: (312) 853 7036
          E-mail: area@sidley.com
                  tflint@sidley.com
                  shorowitz@sidley.com


MED-SPEC: Certification of Class of Carriers Workers Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SANDRA WASHINGTON and MICHAEL RATLIFF, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. MED-SPEC. TRANSPORT, INC. and WILLIAMS JENKINS,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03334 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:

   1. allowing the case to proceed as a collective action as to
      the Fair Labor Standards Act and Equal Pay Act claims, and
      as a class action as to the Illinois Minimum Wage Law
      claims:

      "all persons who worked as Carriers (or other job titles
      performing similar job duties) for Defendants at any time
      since three years prior to the filing of the Complaint";
      and

   2. appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives as to the
      FLSA and IMWL claims, and appointing Plaintiff as class
      representative for EPA Claim.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9Z3BpRWR

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Arthur S. Gold, Esq.
          GOLD & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          55 W Monroe Street, Suite 2300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: 312 372 0777
          Facsimile: 312 372 0778
          E-mail: asg@gcjustice.com

               - and -

          Cass T. Casper, Esq.
          TALON LAW, LLC
          1153 West Lunt Avenue, Suite 253
          Chicago, IL 60626
          Telephone: (312) 351 2478
          Facsimile: (312) 276 4930
          E-mail: ctc@talonlaw.com


MEDICREDIT INC: Court Grants Class Certification in "Flecha" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled NINA FLECHA, the PLAINTIFF, v.
MEDICREDIT, INC. AND FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND,
the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 1:16-cv-00792-LY (W.D. Tex.), the Hon.
Judge Lee Yeakel entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification (filed
      July 13, 2017):

      "all persons in Texas from whom Medicredit attempted to
      collect and who received a form collection letter from
      Medicredit containing these statements: Your seriously
      delinquent Seton Medical Center Hays account remains unpaid
      despite past requests for payment."

   2. appointing Nina Flecha as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing Community Lawyers Group, Ltd. as class counsel.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qehKx9UX


MEDICREDIT INC: "Johnson" Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Doleata Johnson, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
MediCredit, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1811-CC0431, was
removed from the St. Charles County Circuit Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis)
on June 8, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-
cv-00892-PLC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Patricia L. Cohen.

MediCredit, Inc. provides debt collection services. The company
is based in the United States. MediCredit, Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of The Outsource Group, Inc.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Dominic M. Pontello, Esq.
          PONTELLO AND BRESSLER
          406 Boones Lick Road
          St. Charles, MO 63301
          Telephone: (636) 541 7673
          Facsimile: (636) 441 6881
          E-mail: dominicpontello@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Megan D. Meadows, Esq.
          SPENCER FANE LLP
          1 N. Brentwood Blvd., Suite 1000
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 863 7733
          Facsimile: (314) 862 4656
          E-mail: mmeadows@spencerfane.com

               - and -

          Scott J. Dickenson, Esq.
          SPENCER FANE LLP
          1 N. Brentwood Blvd., Suite 1000
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 863 7733
          Facsimile: (314) 862 4656
          E-mail: sdickenson@spencerfane.com


MELANIE HYER: Pickens Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW PICKENS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MELANIE HYERAND MIAMI BEACH
REALTY, LLC d/b/a KELLER WILLIAMS MIAMI BEACH REALTY, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-22282-UU (S.D. Fla., June 8, 2018),
seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendants' illegal conduct
which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment,
aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of
individuals, and also seeks statutory damages on behalf of
himself and members of the class, and any other available legal
or equitable remedies, pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' text messages were
transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular telephone, and within the
time frame relevant to this action.  The Defendants' text
messages constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the
future purchase or investment in property, goods, or services,
i.e., Defendants' real estate services.  The number (305-396-
8676) that transmitted the text messages is operated by or on
behalf of Defendants. The link (www.ProbateAndEstateRealty.com)
contained in the text messages is a link to Defendants' website
and is operated by Defendants.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and all others similarly situated:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone (305) 479 2299
          Facsimile (786) 623 0915
          E-mail: efilings@shamisgentile.com


MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: "Anderson" Disputes Vague Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colette Anderson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Merchants & Medical Credit Corporation,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-11329 (E.D. Mich., April 27,
2017), seeks actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and
further relief pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Plaintiff allegedly owes Defendants personal medical services who
sent Anderson a collection letter, albeit, from "Henry Ford
Health System" thus creating a confusion as to who the actual
debtor is. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Panvini, Esq.
      THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
      5235 E. Southern Ave. D106-618
      Mesa, AZ 85206
      Telephone: (602) 388-8875
      Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
      Email: jpanvini@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Shelton" Suit in S.D. Indiana
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The lawsuit is captioned as RICHARD SHELTON
individually and on behalf of a nationwide class of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00097-TWP-DML
(S.D. Ind., May 31, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Tanya Walton Pratt.

Midland Credit, a licensed debt collector, assists customers in
resolving past-due financial obligations through various
education and payment.[BN]

Attorneys for Richard Shelton:

          James Constantine Vlahakis, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD.
          2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 575 8181
          Facsimile: (630) 575 8188
          E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com

Attorneys for Midland Credit Management, Inc.

          Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD.
          2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 575 8181
          Facsimile: (630) 575 8188
          E-mail: osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com


MIDTOWN COMICS: Website not Accessible to Blind, Tucker Says
------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY TUCKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MIDTOWN COMICS, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-05124 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2018), alleges that the
Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website,
and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby
and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using
his computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-
impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet
the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual
acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some
blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others
have no vision.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the
American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately
400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

Midtown Comics is a New York City comic book retailer with three
shops in Manhattan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575 4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575 4195
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003-2461
          Telephone: (212) 228 9795
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


MIDWEST AIR: Palomar Sues over Itemized Wage Statements
-------------------------------------------------------
GRISELDA PALOMAR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MIDWEST AIR TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC707892 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 31, 2018),
alleges that Defendant have acted intentionally and with
deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of
all employees by failing to provide accurate itemized wage
statements to these employees, and engaged in, among other things
a system of knowing and intentional violations of the California
Labor Code.

Midwest Air Technologies is a manufacturer of airknives
constructed of 304 SS materials. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488 6554
          E-mail: iwiee@diversitylaw.com

               - and -

          Edward W. Choi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 381 1515
          Facsimile: (213) 465 4885
          E-mail: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com

               - and -

          David Lee, Esq.
          DAVID LEE LAW
          515 S. Flower Street, Suite 3600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 236 3536
          Facsimile: (866) 658 4722
          E-mail: david@davidjleelaw.com


MIDWEST RECEIVABLE: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MARYANN OLSZEWSKI, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
MIDWEST RECEIVABLE SOLUTIONS LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-
cv-00968-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order certifying proposed classes in this case, appointing the
Plaintiff as class representatives, and appointing Ademi &
O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further
relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the
Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oWMGWKeN

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


MONAT GLOBAL: "Alabaster" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled AMBER ALABASTER, on Behalf of
Herself and all others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
MONAT GLOBAL CORP., the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00224, was
removed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Western
Oklahoma, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on June 7, 2018. The Southern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-22273 to the proceeding.

This class action is brought by Plaintiff, on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated persons, against Defendant.
Unlike many beauty products sold through big box stores and
salons, MONAT Hair Care Products are sold through a multi-level
marketing scheme in which the company actively recruits
purchasers to become "Market Partners." Market Partners are
utilized to market and sell MONAT Hair Care Products through
social media and other marketing channels to consumers. MONAT
provides a sales platform for its Market Partner agents and
micro-websites hosted on the MONAT website where customers can
place orders for MONAT Hair Care Products and credit the Market
Partner. If these Market Partners recruit additional Market
Partners they share in the "down-line" profits generated by their
recruits. In this way, MONAT functions in a manner many would
think of as a pyramid scheme.

MONAT Global is a wholly owned subsidiary of Alcora Corp., whose
holdings include L'EUDINE Global, an established Direct Selling
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Bradleys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
CARL and BETTY BRADLEY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-03183-VC (E.D. Mo., May 29, 2018),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and
proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing
the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs allege that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

"Roundup" refers to all formulations of Defendant Roundup
products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate
Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom
Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate,
Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup
Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer,
and Roundup Herbicide.

Monsanto Company is an agrochemical and agricultural
biotechnology corporation wholly owned by Bayer. It is
headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Harleys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
BARRY AND KELLY HARLEY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-03184-VC (E.D. Mo., May 29, 2018),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and
proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing
the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs allege that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

"Roundup" refers to all formulations of Defendant Roundup
products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate
Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom
Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate,
Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup
Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer,
and Roundup Herbicide.

Monsanto Company is an agrochemical and agricultural
biotechnology corporation wholly owned by Bayer. It is
headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Torreses Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
GILBERT and BELINOLA TORRES, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-03182-VC (E.D. Mo., May 29,
2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a
direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup
(TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs allege that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

"Roundup" refers to all formulations of Defendant Roundup
products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate
Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom
Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate,
Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup
Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer,
and Roundup Herbicide.

Monsanto Company is an agrochemical and agricultural
biotechnology corporation wholly owned by Bayer. It is
headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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


MORRISON & FOERSTER: Female Lawyers Sue for Gender Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2 and Jane Doe 3 on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Morrison &
Foerster, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02542, (N.D. Cal., April
30, 2018), seeks monetary and injunctive relief, all legal and
equitable relief available under state and federal anti-
discrimination, equal pay and retaliation statutes, including
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Family and Medical
Leave Act, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the California Equal Pay
Act, California Labor Code, California Fair Employment and
Housing Act and the California Family Rights Act.

Morrison & Foerster, LLP is a law firm employing nearly 800
attorneys across the country, with sixteen offices globally,
specializing in defense-side labor and employment law. Plaintiffs
are attorneys employed in one of Defendant's California offices.
All three claim to be discriminated and passed on for career
development after taking maternity leaves. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David W. Sanford, Esq.
      Deborah K. Marcuse, Esq.
      Ed Chapin, Esq.
      Jill Sullivan Sanford, Esq.
      Aimee Krause Stewart, Esq.
      Danielle Fuschetti, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
      Danielle Fuschetti, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
      111 Sutter Street, Suite 975
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 795-2020
      Facsimile: (415) 795-2021
      Email: dfuschetti@sanfordheisler.com


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled CYNTHIA GROSS, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONWIDE
CREDIT & COLLECTION INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00970-
NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order
certifying proposed classes in this case, appointing the
Plaintiff as class representatives, and appointing Ademi &
O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further
relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the
Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=94fpsijb

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


NEMERA BUFFALO: Bryski Sues over Use of Sensitive Biometric Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES BRYSKI, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NEMERA BUFFALO GROVE LLC and ADP LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 2018-CH-07264 (Ill. Cir. Ct., June 8,
2018), seeks to redress and curtail Defendants' unlawful
collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's sensitive
biometric data, pursuant to the Biometric Information Privacy
Act.

Nemera is an organization engaged in manufacturing, importing,
and exporting drug delivery devices. When Nemera hires an
employee, he or she is enrolled in its ADP employee database.
Defendants use the employee database to monitor the time worked
by Nemera's hourly employees.

While many employers use conventional methods for tracking time
worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), Nernera's
employees are required to have their fingerprints scanned by a
biometric timekeeping device. Biometrics are not relegated to
esoteric comers of commerce. Many businesses -- such as
Defendants -- and financial institutions have incorporated
biometric applications into their workplace in the form of
biometric timeclocks, and into consumer products, including such
ubiquitous consumer products as checking accounts and cell
phones. Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or
replaced if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are unique,
permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee.
This exposes Nemera's employees to serious and irreversible
privacy risks. For example, if a database containing fingerprints
or other sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked,
breached, or otherwise exposed -- like in the recent Yahoo, Ebay,
Equifax, Uber, Horne Depot, MyFitnessPal, Panera, Whole Foods,
Chiptle, Omni Hotels & Resorts, Trump Hotels, and
Facebook/Cambridge Analytica data breaches -- employees have no
means by which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking
or other unlawful or improper use of this highly personal and
private information.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Halsx R. Jenkins, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Haley R. Jenkins, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 6060
          Telephone: (312) 233 1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233 1560
          E-mail: enkins@stephanzouras.com


NEW DAY TOP: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, "Alonso" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ALONSO and MARCELO JUAREZ FLORES on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NEW DAY TOP
TRADING INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04745-PAE
(S.D.N.Y., May 30, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages,
overtime compensation, spread of hours pay, and other wages for
Plaintiffs and all similarly situated co-workers fork lift
drivers and driver's assistants who work or have worked at New
Day Top Trading Inc. in New York City and New Jersey, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, pursuant to Defendant's policy,
pattern, and/or practice, Plaintiff Flores regularly worked more
than 40 hours in a workweek, but was not compensated for overtime
hours worked.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class and Collective:

          Cheryl-Lyn Bentley, Esq.
          Molly Brooks, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245 1000


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Madrid and Miranda Sue over Vehicle Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
SALOME MADRID and TERESE MIRANDA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NISSAN NORTH
AMERICA, INC. and NISSAN MOTOR COMPANY, LTD., the Defendants,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00534 (M.D. Tenn., June 8, 2018), alleges that
Nissan marketed and sold Class Vehicles without disclosing the
material fact that the Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT)
with which the Class Vehicles come equipped has a propensity to
fail prematurely and without warning, which poses an unreasonable
safety hazard to consumers and the general public (CVT Defect).

The Plaintiffs bring this action for themselves and on behalf of
all persons in the United States who purchased or leased any
2013-2016 Nissan Altima (Class Vehicles) designed, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, sold, warranted, and/or serviced by Nissan
North America, Inc. and Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.

According to the complaint, consumers have complained
consistently since 2012 that the CVT Defect manifests without
warning, including catastrophic failure, which present an extreme
and unreasonable safety hazard to both vehicle occupants and
pedestrians. Owners and lessees have reported a significant delay
in their Class Vehicles' response when attempting to accelerate
from a stop or accelerate to merge into high-speed traffic.
Complaints of the engine revving as the driver depresses the gas
pedal typically accompany this failure to accelerate immediately.
Other associated complaints include the gears' failing to engage,
despite the CVT's continuous shifting through the gear ration,
and stalling, jerking, lurching, and/or shaking. Some complaints
describe a sudden loss of power, such that the rate of speed
drops, the vehicle stalls, or the gears abruptly engage and the
vehicle surges forward.

Nissan North America, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and
markets Nissan and Infiniti vehicles in the United States,
Canada, and Mexico. It offers various cars, such as sedans,
electric cars, sports cars, crossovers and SUVs, minivans and
vans, trucks and commercial vehicles, and various
accessories.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247 0080
          Facsimile: (865) 533 0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  adam@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
          Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
          Robert K. Friedl, Esq.
          Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556 4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943 0396
          E-mail: Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com
                  Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
                  Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
                  Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com
                  Robert.Friedl@capstonelawyers.com


NORI O INC: Goh Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JIT SHI GOH, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NORI O INC. d/b/a
Sushi O, OTAYA SUSHI II INC. d/b/a Sushi O, PENG L. TAM a/k/a
Alan Tam, YUK YEN CHAI a/k/a Ivy Chai, and YUK WING CHAI, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02811-KSH-CLW (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court for an Order:

   1. granting collective action status, under the Fair Labor
      Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);

   2. directing the Defendants to produce a Microsoft Excel data
      file containing contact information, including but not
      limited to last known mailing addresses, last known
      telephone numbers, last known email addresses, Social
      Security numbers, work locations, and dates of employment
      for all those individuals who have worked for the
      Defendants as a non-managerial employee between May 18,
      2013 and the date this Court decides this Motion;

   3. authorizing that notice of this matter be sent to members
      of the putative collective;

   4. authorizing equitable tolling of the statute of limitation
      pending the expiration of the opt-in period; and

   5. directing Defendants to post the approved Proposed Notice
      in conspicuous locations at the location where the
      Prospective Collective Action Members worked, or are now
      working.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=q0sATuXQ

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

          Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
          AARON SCHWEITZER
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762 1324


NORTHERN STAR TANNING: Banks Sues over Spam Messages
----------------------------------------------------
EMILY BANKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NORTHERN STAR TANNING COMPANY D/B/A
BOCA TANNING CLUB, a Florida Limited Liability Company, the
Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-61276-BB (S.D. Fla., June 7, 2018),
seeks redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act; injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which
has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation,
and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals; and
statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the class,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is a tanning salon that
sells memberships for its services to individuals and sells
cosmetic tanning products. To promote its services, Defendant
engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers
in the process. [BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479 2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


NORTHWESTERN LAKE: Mazya Sues over Sensitive Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------
YANA MAZYA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NORTHWESTERN LAKE FOREST HOSPITAL,
NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE, OMNICELL, INC., and BECTON
DICKINSON, the Defendant, Case No. 2018-CH-07161 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
June 6, 2018), alleges that the Defendants lack retention
schedules and guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiff's
and other similarly-situated individuals' biometric data and has
not and will not destroy their biometric data as required by
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital is a community-based hospital
in Lake Forest, Illinois and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Northwestern Memorial HealthCare, one of the nation's premiere
academic medical centers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233 1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233 1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  cmitchell@stephanzouras.com


ONNI PROPERTIES: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Santos Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
CRISBEL ARGUETA SANTOS, an Individual, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ONNI PROPERTIES
LLC; CAPILANO PROPERTIES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive,
the Defendant, Case No. BC708545 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 8, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and minimum wages under
the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants require Plaintiffs and
members of the Plaintiff Class to work off the clock on a daily
basis. Further, Defendants have established a rounding policy
which does not compensate the employees for the time they
actually worked and as a result Defendants have failed to pay all
wages due including overtime wages for all hours worked and
failed to pay the required minimum wage for all hours worked.

Onni operates as a real estate developer that engages in the
design, build, property development, construction, management,
leasing, sale, and marketing of real estate projects in North
America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce Kokozian, Esq.
          KOKOZIAN LAW FIRM, APC
          9440 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 510
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone (323) 857 5900


ORCHARD SUPPLY: Lester Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE D. LESTER, Individually, and on Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ORCHARD SUPPLY COMPANY,
LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. BC708538 (Cal. Super.
Ct., June 6, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have had a consistent
policy of requiring non-exempt employees within the State of
California, including Plaintiff to work through meal periods and
work at least five hours without a meal period and failing to pay
such employees one (1) hour of pay at the employees' regular rate
of compensation for each workday that the meal period is not
provided, or other compensation, as required by California's
state wage and hour laws.

Orchard Supply Hardware is an American retailer of home
improvement and gardening products. Headquartered in San Jose,
California, Orchard Supply Hardware has dozens of locations
throughout California, with expansions into Oregon and
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris L. Camakis, Esq.
          Leah M. Beligan, Esq.
          BELIGAN & CARNAKIS LLP
          19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 300
          Newport Beach, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 224 3881
          Facsimile: (949) 724 4566
          E-mail: ccarnakis@bbclawyers.net
                  lmbeligan@bbclcrwyers.net


PACIFIC OUTDOOR: Fails to Pay for Travel Time, Arevalo Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE AREVALO and RIGOBERTO HERNANDEZ, Individuals, the
Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC OUTDOOR LIVING, INC., California
corporation; TERRY MORRILL, an individual; and DOES 1 through
100, the Defendants, Case No. BC707722 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 29,
2018), alleges that, during their employment with the Defendant,
the Plaintiffs were required to travel to the Employers'
facility, "the yard," and the warehouse prior to beginning work
each day, and prepare and load all equipment necessary to perform
their duties. The Plaintiffs were neither compensated for the
travel time from the yard to the client location, nor from the
client location back to the yard.

In addition to not being paid for travel time from the yard to
client locations and back, they were not paid for time spent at
the yard loading, preparing, cleaning, performing maintenance on
equipment and/or completing paperwork, i.e. Plaintiffs were only
paid for the time actually spent working at the client
location.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul T. Cullen, Esq.
          THE CULLEN LAW FIRM, APC
          19360 Rinaldi Street, Box 647
          Porter Ranch, CA 91326
          Telephone: (818) 360 2529
          Facsimile: (866) 794 5741
          E-mail: paul@cullenlegal.com


PACIFIC RACING: Randolph Sues over Payroll Records
--------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL RANDOLPH, as an individual on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC RACING ASSOCIATION,
a California corporation; and DOES 1 21 11 through 50,
inclusive,, the Defendant, Case No. RG18908139 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 8, 2018), alleges that the Defendants, jointly and
severally, have acted intentionally and with deliberate
indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all
employees in Defendants' failure to provide accurate payroll
records, pursuant to the California Labor Code.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          risten M. Agnew, Esq.
          Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488 6554

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          Polaris Law Group LLP
          San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531 4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634 0333


PARADIGM LIAISON: Placeholder Class Certification Bid Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DENNIS R. SERAMUR d/b/a DENNIS & SONS
BUILDERS, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. PARADIGM LIAISON
SERVICES, LLC and THE PARADIGM ALLIANCE, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00244-JVB-JEM (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court for an order:

   1. certifying Plaintiff's "Damasco" motion for class
      certification of;

      "all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
      filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile
      messages of material advertising the commercial
      availability or quality of any property, goods, or services
      by or on behalf of Defendants, (3) from whom Defendants did
      not obtain "prior express invitation or permission" to send
      fax advertisements, or (4) with whom Defendants did not
      have an established business relationship, and/or (5) where
      the fax advertisements did not include an opt-out notice
      compliant with 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(a)(4)(iii)";

   2. appointing Plaintiff as the class representative; and

   3. appointing Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel.

The Plaintiff submits his Motion for Class Certification pursuant
to Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011)
(holding plaintiffs "can move to certify the class at the same
time that they file their complaint" and "[t]he pendency of that
motion protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the
named plaintiffs"), overruled in part by Chapman v. First Index,
Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) (overruling Damasco "to
the extent [it] hold[s] that a defendant's offer of full
compensation moots the litigation or otherwise ends the Article
III case or controversy" but not commenting on effect of a
"placeholder" motion if plaintiff's individual claim becomes moot
for some other reason); Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct.
663, 672 (Jan. 20, 2016) (holding "an unaccepted settlement offer
or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a
would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must
be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is
warranted").

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ymFyI4To

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368 1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


PATE LACAYE: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime, Ordelus et al. Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
EMMANUEL ORDELUS and FRANCITHA PETIT HOMME ROMAIN, Individually
and on BEHALF OF ALL OTHER COLLECTIVE PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
the Plaintiffs, v. PATE LACAYE, INC. d/b/a LA BAGUETTE SHQP,
BAGUETTE LA KAY INC d/b/a LA BAGUETTE SHOP, FRANTZ MAYARD, MARIE
J. MAYARD, and MARIE County of Queens F. POULARD, Jointly and
Severally, the Defendant, Case No. 708921/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
June 8, 2018), seeks remedy from Defendants' wrongful withholding
of Plaintiffs' lawfully earned wages and overtime compensation,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Peter Sim, Esq.
          PARK & SIM GLOBAL LAW GROUP, LLP
          39-01 Main Street, Suite 608
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 445 1300


PERSONNEL STAFFING: Matthews et al. Allege Gender Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
QUIANA MATTHEWS, KEEONA PERSON and MICHELLE GONGORA, on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated female laborers, the
Plaintiffs, v. PERSONNEL STAFFING GROUP, LLC d/b/a MVP, the
Defendant, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03720 (N.D. Ill., May 29,
2018), alleges that Defendant discriminated female laborers in
connection with MVP's practices of making assignments at the
company's dispatch office in Illinois to work at its various
client companies.

MVP is a temporary staffing agency that contracts with its client
companies to provide temporary laborers to work at those client
companies for a fee. Since at least September 2014, Plaintiff
Matthews sought work assignments from MVP at MVP's Elmwood Park
office to MVP's client companies but on one or more occasions was
not assigned to a client company because of her gender. Since at
least September 2014, Plaintiff Person sought work assignments
from MVP at MVP's Cicero Park office to MVP's client companies
but on one or more occasions was not assigned to a client company
because of her gender.

As a direct and proximate result of the above-alleged acts or
omissions of Defendant MVP, Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated female MVP laborers suffered damages of a pecuniary and
non-pecuniary nature, humiliation, and degradation.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
          Alvar Ayala, Esq.
          WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 701
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 795 9121


PET STOP: Leon Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------
NESON LEON, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE PET STOP MOBILE CLINIC,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. Case 8:18-cv-01358-VMC-AAS (M.D.
Fla., June 6, 2018), contends that the Defendant failed to pay
Plaintiff and Members of the Class an overtime premium for all
the overtime hours that they worked in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donna V. Smith, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 386 0995
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com
                  rcooke@fclaw.com


PNC BANK: Paolinos Sue over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------
ROSE MARY PAOLINO and JEFFREY PAOLINO, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PNC BANK,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, and JAMES E. ALERTELLI P.A., d/b/a ALAW,
the Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-61266-FAM (S.D. Fla., June 6,
2018), seeks to recover damages under Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

The Plaintiffs and Class Members are Florida homeowners whose
loans have been in default. PNC is the servicer and collector of
Plaintiffs' and Class Members' mortgage loan debts. Albertelli
Law acts as PNC's agent and representative in collecting mortgage
loan debts PNC has serviced.

The Defendants have each routinely and systematically mailed
reinstatement quotes under the letterhead of Albertelli Law that
list the total amounts homeowners, including Plaintiffs and Class
Members, must pay to reinstate their loans.

These reinstatement amounts have routinely included "estimated"
fees PNC and Albertelli Law each expects to incur but has not
actually incurred, ranging from estimated attorney's fees to a
"Co. Clerk LP Release Estimate", to estimated wire charges. But
"estimated" fees and Defendants' conduct regarding them are
unlawful. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jordan A. Shaw, Esq.
          Mark Fistos, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Slaven, Esq.
          ZEBRESKY PAYNE, LLP
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 595 6060
          Facsimile: (954) 989 7781
          E-mail: jshaw@pllp.com
                  mfistos@zpllp.com
                  kslaven@zpllp.com

               - and -

          J. Dennis Card, Esq.
          Darren R. Newhart, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
          721 US HIGHWAY 1, Suite 201
          North Palm Beach, FL 33408
          Telephone: (561) 822 3446
          Facsimile: (305) 574 0132
          E-mail: dennis@cloorg.com
                  darren@cloorg.com


POINT BLANK: Ohio State Troopers Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned OHIO STATE TROOPERS ASSOCIATION, INC,
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF POLICE ASSOCIATIONS, TREVOR KOONTZ, RYAN
PURPURA and STEVEN ROHNER, the Plaintiffs, v. POINT BLANK
ENTERPRISES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-62051-UU (S.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying classes:

   2. appointing Plaintiffs as representatives for members of the
      Class; and

   3. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel pursuant to
      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).

For purposes of Plaintiffs' Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act claims, the Plaintiffs define the Class as
including:

   "all individuals and entities in the fifty United States and
   the District of Columbia that purchased and/or used new SSBS
   Vests from Defendant or one of Defendant's authorized
   distributors or sales representatives, and who continue to
   purchase and/or use such vests up to the date a Class is
   certified by this Court."

For purposes of the Individual Plaintiffs' warranty claims, the
Class includes:

   "all individuals and entities in California, Florida, Georgia,
   Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York,
   Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Washington that
   purchased and/or used new SSBS Vests from Defendant or one of
   Defendant's authorized distributors or sales representatives,
   and who continue to purchase and/or use such vests up to the
   date a Class is certified by this Court."

Both classes exclude Defendant, its affiliates, parents and
subsidiaries, all directors, officers, agents, and employees of
Defendant, its distributors, federal agencies and any persons who
have been physically injured as a result of defects in their
vests.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lZZlDwvh

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Ari J. Glazer, Esq.
          Michael W. Moskowitz, Esq.
          MOSKOWITZ, MANDELL, SALIM &
          SIMOWITZ, P.A.
          800 Corporate Drive, Suite 500
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33334
          Telephone: (954) 491 2000
          Facsimile: (954) 491 2051
          E-mail: aglazer@mmsslaw.com
                  mmoskowitz@mmsslaw.com

               - and -

          Allan Kanner, Esq.
          Cynthia St. Amant, Esq.
          KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
          701 Camp Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 524 5777
          Facsimile: (504) 524 5763
          E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com
                  c.stamant@kanner-law.com

               - and -

          David M. Cohen, Esq.
          COMPLEX LAW GROUP, LLC
          40 Powder Springs Street
          Marietta, GA 30064
          Telephone: (770) 200-3100
          Facsimile: (770) 200-3101
          E-mail: dcohen@complexlaw.com

               - and -

          Herschel M. Sigall, Esq.
          190 West Johnstown Road
          Gahanna, OH 43230
          Telephone: (614) 781 7686
          Facsimile: (614) 781 7685

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Leonard K, Samuels, Esq.
          BERGER SINGERMAN
          350 East Las Olas Blvd.
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525 9900
          E-mail: lsamuels@bergersingerman.com

               - and -

          Troy S. Brown, Esq.
          Elisa P. McEnroe, Esq.
          Brian Ercole, Esq.
          Clay Carlton, Esq.
          Melissa M. Coates, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-5000
          E-mail: Troy.brown@morganlewis.com
                  Elisa.mcenroe@morganlewis.com
                  Brian.ercole@morganlewis.com
                  Clay.carlton@morganlewis.com
                  Melissa.coates@morganlewis.com


PRC MEDICAL: Franklin Sues over Debt Collections Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
MARCUS FRANKLIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PRC MEDICAL, LLC d/b/a
PROFESSIONAL CREDIT CONTROL and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-02642-ELR-LTW (D. Ga., May 29, 2018), seeks to
recover damages and declaratory relief under the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act.

According to the complaint, some time prior to February 27, 2018,
an obligation was allegedly incurred to ARIS. The ARIS obligation
arose out of a transaction involving medical services which the
Plaintiff used primarily for personal, family or household
purposes. The alleged ARIS obligation is a "debt" as defined by
15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5). ARIS is a "creditor" as defined by 15
U.S.C. section 1692a(4). ARIS or a subsequent alleged owner of
the ARIS debt contracted with the Defendant to collect the
alleged debt. The Defendant collects and attempts to collect
debts incurred or alleged to have been incurred for personal,
family or household purposes on behalf of creditors using the
United States Postal Services, telephone and internet.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jonathan B. Mason, Esq.
          MASON LAW GROUP, P.C.
          GA Bar No. 475659
          1100 Peachtree St NE, Ste 200
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 920 8040
          Facsimile: (404) 920 8039
          E-mail: jmason@atlshowbizlaw.com


PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL: Fails to Pay Wages, Hhines Says
-------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD RALPH HHINES, the Plaintiff, v. PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL
SECURITY SERVICES, INC. ET AL, the Defendants, Case No. CGC-18-
567020 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 6, 2018), seeks to recover
penalties arising from unpaid wages earned and due, including but
not limited to unpaid and illegally calculated overtime
compensation, illegal meal and rest period policies, failure to
pay all wages due to discharged or quitting employees, failure to
maintain required records, failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, failure to timely pay wages during employment,
failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures and/or
losses incurred in discharging their duties, pursuant the
California Labor Code.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Joshua D. Boxer, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans A venue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531 1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531 1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  jboxer@maternlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Corey B. Bennett, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          One Market Street, Suite 3676
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 990 8390
          Facsimile: (310) 531 1901
          E-mail: cbennett@maternlawgroup.com


RAPID DISPLAYS: Fails to Provide Meal Periods, Vasquez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA VASQUEZ, an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RAPID DISPLAYS INC.; and
DOES I thru 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RGl890779l
(Cal. Super. Ct., June 6, 2018), alleges that Defendant failed to
inform Plaintiff and the Proposed Class of their right to take
meal periods by way of a lawful policy and requiring Plaintiff
and the Proposed Class to work more than five hours without a
timely meal period, and failed to pay employees one hour of pay
at the employees' regular rate of compensation for each workday
that the meal period is not provided after five hours, as
required by California state wage and hour laws.

Rapid Displays offers custom retail displays, store fixtures,
kiosk merchandising for an end-to-end visual merchandising
solution.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.,
          Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          411 Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990 8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990 2903
          E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                  liane@kingsleykingsley.com


REALCARE INSURANCE: Ostroff Sues over Excessive Fees
----------------------------------------------------
BARBARA OSTROFF, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. REALCARE INSURANCE MARKETING, INC., a
California corporation and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. 37-2018-00026939-CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., May 31,
2018) alleges that Realcare violated rate setting procedures
established by Insurance Code section 1861.05, by charging for
fees, which are subsumed in the premium by law, yet exceed the
Commissioner-approved premium rate, and further violated
Insurance Code sections 381 and 383 by issuing policies of
insurance that did not contain an express statement of the
premium they charged for the policy of insurance.

RealCare Insurance provides auto/car Insurance, homeowners
insurance, business/commercial Insurance, and life/health
Insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel R. Shinoff, Esq.
          David L. Lewis, Esq.
          ARTIANO SHINOFF
          2488 Historic Decatur Road, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92106
          Telephone: (619) 232 3122
          Facsimile: (619) 232 3264
          E-mail: dshinoff@as71aw.com
                  dlewis@as71aw.com


REGIONS BANK: Turner Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------
PAMELA TURNER, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. REGIONS BANK, the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-00880-UJB-KOB (N.D. Ala., June 7, 2018), alleges that
Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act in failing to pay
the Plaintiff and those similarly situated all overtime wages
owed to them.

According to the complaint, Defendant's conduct in failing to pay
Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs properly was and is
willful and was not based upon any reasonable interpretation of
the law. As a result of Defendant's unlawful conduct, the
Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs have suffered damages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony D. Michel, Esq.
          Joshua A. Wrady, Esq.
          WRADY & MICHEL, LLC
          505 20th Street North, Suite 1650
          Birmingham, AL 35203

               - and -

          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Highway North, Ste. 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685 7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685 7417
          E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com
                  mmiller@swartz-legal.com


RH INC: Certification of Class of Investors Sought
--------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit RE: RH, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 4:17-
cv-00554-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on
September 25, 2018, for an order:

   1. certifying a class of investors defined as:

      "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
      acquired the common stock of Restoration Hardware Holdings,
      Inc. during the period from March 26, 2015 through June 8,
      2016, inclusive."

      Excluded from the Class are (i) Defendants RH, Gary
      Friedman and Karen Boone; (ii) members of the immediate
      families of Gary Friedman and Karen Boone; (iii) any person
      who was an officer or director of RH; (iv) any firm or
      entity in which any Defendant has or had a controlling
      interest; (v) any person who participated in the wrongdoing
      alleged; (vi) Defendants' liability insurance carriers;
      (vii) any affiliates, parents, or subsidiaries of RH;
      (viii) all RH plans that are covered by ERISA; and (ix) the
      legal representatives, agents, affiliates, heirs,
      beneficiaries, successors-in-interest, or assigns of any
      excluded person or entity, in their respective capacity as
      such.

   2. appointing Lead Plaintiffs, the Public School Teachers'
      Pension & Retirement Fund of Chicago and the Arkansas
      Teacher Retirement System, as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as
      Class Counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IRq7bdKj

Attorneys for Lead Plaintiffs Public School Teachers' Pension &
Retirement Fund of Chicago and Arkansas Teacher Retirement System
and Lead Counsel for the Class:

          David R. Stickney, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
          Brandon Marsh, Esq.
          Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
          Avi Josefson, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
          & GROSSMANN LLP
          12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 793 0070
          Facsimile: (858) 793 0323
          E-mail: davids@blbglaw.com
                  jonathanu@blbglaw.com
                  brandon.marsh@blbglaw.com
                  jerry@blbglaw.com
                  avi@blbglaw.com


RIC BRADSHAW: Court Denies Class Certification as Premature
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled H.C., et al., the Plaintiffs, v. RIC
BRADSHAW, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-80810-WPD
(S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge William Dimitrouleas entered an order
denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as premature
on procedural grounds only; it makes no conclusions regarding the
substance of the motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1ieORMWn


ROBERT HALF: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Hamilton-Brown Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARJORIE HAMILTON-BROWN, an individual, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL
INC., a Delaware corporation; ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
DBA OFFICE TEAM, a Delaware corporation; MERCY HOUSING, INC. DBA
NEBRASKA MERCY HOUSING, INC.; a Nebraska corporation; and DOES I
through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CGC-18-567041
(Cal. Super. Ct., June 7, 2018), seeks to recover penalties
arising from unpaid wages earned and due, including but not
limited to unpaid and illegally calculated overtime compensation,
illegal meal and rest period policies, failure to pay all wages
due to discharged or quitting employees, failure to maintain
required records, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to timely pay wages during employment,
failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures and/or
losses incurred in discharging their duties.

Robert Half International Inc. provides staffing and risk
consulting services in North America, South America, Europe,
Asia, and Australia.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Marjorie Hamilton Brown individually, and
on behalf of others similarly situated:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Joshua D. Boxer, Esq.
          Corey B. Bennett, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531 1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531 1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  jboxer@maternlawgroup.com
                  cbennett@maternlawgroup.com


SAINT-GOBAIN: Brown et al. Seek to Certify 4 Classes
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned KEVIN BROWN et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORPORATION; and GWENAEL
BUSNEL, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00242-JL (D.N.H.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying four classes:

* Private Well Property Owners Property Damage Class:

   "all persons who own residential properties with private
   groundwater wells within the Private Well Class Geographic
   Area";

* Private Well Medical Monitoring Class:

   "all persons who have occupied residential properties with
   private groundwater wells within the Private Well Class
   Geographic Area and who were born to mothers who consumed
   household water containing 20 parts per trillion ("ppt") or
   higher of the sum of PFOA and PFOS for a cumulative time
   period of one year or more before that child's birth, or
   during the period from birth up to their 20th birthday for a
   cumulative time period of one year or more, consumed household
   water containing 20 ppt or higher of the sum of PFOA and PFOS
   and/or were breast-fed by mothers who consumed household water
   containing 20 ppt or higher of the sum of PFOA and PFOS for a
   cumulative time period of one year or more before that
   person's birth, or consumed household water containing 70 ppt
   or higher of the sum of PFOA and PFOS during the period from
   their 20th birthday and after for a cumulative time period of
   one year or more";

* Municipal Well Property Owners Property Damage Class:

   "all persons who own residential properties in Merrimack and
   Bedford, New Hampshire served by MVDWW"; and

* Municipal Water Medical Monitoring Class:

   all persons who have occupied residential properties in
   Merrimack and Bedford, New Hampshire served by MVDWW and who
   were born to mothers who consumed household water containing
   20 ppt or higher of the sum of PFOA and PFOS for a cumulative
   time period of one year or more before that person's birth, or
   during the period from birth up to their 20th birthday for a
   cumulative time period of one year or more, consumed household
   water containing 20 ppt or higher of the sum of PFOA and PFOS
   and/or were breast-fed by mothers who consumed household water
   containing 20 ppt or higher of the sum of PFOA and PFOS for a
   cumulative time period of one year or more, before that
   person's birth, or consumed household water containing 70 ppt
   or higher of the sum of PFOA and PFOS during the period from
   their 20th birthday and after from a cumulative time period of
   one year or more.

The Private Well Class Geographic Area is the area defined as:

   In Bedford and Merrimack, the geographic area west of the
   Merrimack River within three (3.0) miles of the property
   boundary of the Saint-Gobain Site; in Litchfield, the
   Geographic area bounded by the Merrimack River on the west,
   Cummings Drive on the South, extended east to the Merrimack
   River and west to the Londonderry Town line, and the
   Londonderry Town line on the East and the City of Manchester
   on the North and East, and the geographic area in Manchester
   bounded by Raymond Wieczorek Drive on the North and is
   depicted in Ex. 25, Class Geographic Area Map.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Y1M5J0Ie

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Kevin S. Hannon, Esq.
          THE HANNON LAW FIRM, LLC
          1641 Downing Street
          Denver, CO 80218
          Telephone: (303) 861 8800
          E-mail: khannon@hannonlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul M. DeCarolis, Esq.
          GOTTESMAN AND HOLLIS, P.A.
          39 East Pearl Street
          Nashua, NH 03060
          Telephone: (603) 318 0445
          E-mail: pdecarolis@nh-lawyers.com

Attorneys for Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation:

          Sheila L. Birnbaum, Esq.
          Mark S. Cheffo, Esq.
          Douglas E. Fleming, III, Esq.
          Patrick D. Curran, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          Three Bryant Park
          1095 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036-6797
          E-mail: sheila.birnbaum@dechert.com
                  mark.cheffo@dechert.com
                  douglas.fleming@dechert.com
                  patrick.curran@dechert.com

               - and -

          Bruce W. Felmly, Esq.
          Nicholas F. Casolaro, Esq.
          MCLANE MIDDLETON, PA
          900 Elm Street
          Manchester, NH 03101
          E-mail: bruce.felmly@mclane.com
                  nicholas.casolaro@mclane.com

SBR INC: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Puentes Says
----------------------------------------------------
HUMBERTO PUENTES, as an individual and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. SBR, INC., dba SBR ROOFING,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC707900 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 6, 2018), seeks relief against
Defendant for failure to pay all wages due including both regular
and overtime wages; failure to provide rest periods or
compensation; failure to provide legally compliant meal periods;
failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees; failure
to provide accurate itemized wage statements upon payment of
wages; and failure to indemnify/reimburse employer-related
business expenditures pursuant to the California Labor Code.

SBR was founded in 2009. The company's line of business includes
the retail sale of specialized lines of merchandise.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anna R. Salusky, Esq.
          Edward Kim, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590 5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590 8400
          E-mail: asalusky@mahoney-law.net
                  ekim@mahonev-law.net


SCOOBEEZ INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Griffin Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARWAN GRIFFIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SCOOBEEZ, INC.; AVITUS,
INC.; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, the Defendant,
Case No. BC707677 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 31, 2018), alleges that
Defendants failed to pay minimum wages and overtime wages;
provide meal periods; permit rest breaks; reimburse business
expenses; pay wages upon separation of employment and within the
required time; and furnish accurate wage statements, pursuant to
the California Labor Code.

Scoobeez operates as an on demand door-to-door logistics and real
time delivery service company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          Simon Kwak, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618-2902
          Telephone: (949) 379 6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379 6251


SCOOBEEZ INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & Overtime, Walker Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DE'VON WALKER, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SCOOBEEZ, a California corporation;
AVITUS, INC., a Montana corporation; AVTTUS GROUP., an unknown
business entity; SCOOBEEZ, INC. CORP LA., a business entity of
unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC707663 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 29, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other Class
members worked for Defendants as drivers in Los Angeles County,
throughout California and the rest of the United States, and
consistently worked at Defendants' behest without being paid all
wages due. More specifically, Plaintiff and the other similarly
situated Class members were employed by Defendants and worked at
Defendants' offices and other facilities where the conduct giving
rise to the allegations in this Class Action Complaint occurred.

Scoobeez operates as an on demand door-to-door logistics and real
time delivery service company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Yeremian, Esq.
          Roman Shkodnik, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230 8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230 0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com
                  roman@yeremianlaw.com

               - and -

          Emil Davtyan, Esq.
          DAVTYAN PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          21900 Burbank Blvd., Suite 300
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 992 2935
          Facsimile: (818) 975 5525
          E-mail: emil@davtyanlaw.com


SEARS BRANDS: Ramirez Sues over Spam Messages
---------------------------------------------
Erendira Ramirez, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sears Brands, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-01763-GMS (D. Ariz., June 7, 2018), alleges that
Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in the retail
and online retail of home appliances in the United States and
internationally. It sells auto products; baby products; clothing
for men, women, girls, and boys; electronics; fitness and sports
products; home products; jewelry; outdoor products; shoes; tools;
toys; Christmas and gift products; parts and services; and other
products. The Plaintiff has had the same cellular telephone
number since 2015. The Defendant placed at least one call to
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number on May 1, 2018, May 8,
2018, and May 15, 2018. The Defendant placed its calls to
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number from (888) 710-8432, a
telephone number assigned to Defendant. Upon placing an outbound
call to telephone number (888) 710-8432, a message states, "Thank
you for calling Sears". Defendant's records will show additional
calls it placed, or caused to be placed, to Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number by using an automatic telephone dialing system
or an artificial or prerecorded voice. Each of Defendant's calls
to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number was accompanied by an
artificial or prerecorded voice message.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the proposed class:

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


SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Moves Pearson et al. Suit to D. Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as KELLIE PEARSON, ROGER BURRELL, BRIAN
GIVENS, and THE LAW OFFICES OF MARK BOOKER, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THOMAS
M. HODGSON, Individually and In His Official capacity as Sheriff
Of Bristol County, and SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. SUCV2018-01360-BLS1. (Suffolk Sup. Ct.),
Securus Defendant removed the case to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on May 30, 2018. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-11130-IT to the
proceeding.

The complaint alleges that Securus committed the tort of
conversion and was unjustly enriched with revenues taken from
putative class members when they paid for telephone calls with
prisoners at BCSO facilities. The complaint also alleges that
Securus violated Chapter 93A by: charging and collecting money
from the [putative class members] for telephone calls made by
prisoners, in order to make unlawful payment to the BCSO;
[t]aking Plaintiffs' funds through coercion and without legal
authority; and [u]sing funds derived from telephone calls [to]
pay commissions and prearranged lump-sum payments to the BCSO in
violation of Massachusetts statutes and regulations.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stuart Rossman, Esq.
          Joanna K. Darcus, Esq.
          Brian Highsmith, Esq.
          NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER
          7 Winthrop Square, Fourth Floor
          Boston, MA 02110

               - and -

          Roger Bertling, Esq.
          THE WILMERHALE LEGAL SERVICES
          CENTER OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
          122 Boylston Street
          Jamaica Plain, MA 02130

               - and -

          Bonita Tenneriello, Esq.
          Elizabeth Matos, Esq.
          PRISONERS' LEGAL SERVICES OF
          MASSACHUSETTS
          10 Winthrop Square, 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110

               - and -

          John Roddy, Esq.
          Elizabeth Ryan, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110

Attorneys For Securus Technologies, Inc.

          Jason D. Frank, Esq.
          Amanda McGee, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Federal Street
          Boston, MA 02110-1726
          Telephone: (617) 341 7700
          Facsimile: (617) 951 8736
          E-mail: jason.frank@morganlewis.com
                  amanda.mcgee@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth B. Herrington, Esq.
          Megan R. Braden, Esq.
          Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
          77 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601-5094
          Telephone: (312) 324 1445
          Facsimile: (312) 324 1001
          E-mail: beth.herrington@morganlewis.com
                  megan.braden@morganlewis.com


SOPAPILLAS LLC: Stephens Seeks to Certify Employees Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SUSANNA STEPHENS, the Plaintiff, v. STEVEN
J. DALE, SOPAPILLAS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00296
(M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order
certifying a class of:

   "all current and former employees who have worked for
   Defendants at any time since March 20, 2015, which is three
   years prior to this filing of this motion"

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uYH1fcBw

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Daniel Eduardo Arciniegas, Esq.
          ARCINIEGAS LAW, PLLC
          123 Reliance Drive
          Franklin, Tennessee
          Telephone: 629 777 5339
          Facsimile: 615 988 9113
          E-mail: Daniel@AttorneyDaniel.com

               - and -

          Charles P. Yezbak, Esq.
          YEZBAK LAW, PLLC
          2002 Richard Jones Road
          Nashville, Tennessee 37215
          Telephone: (615) 250 2000
          E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Robert E. Blanchefield, Esq.
          ROBERT BLANCHEFIELD, P.A.
          127 West Fairbanks Avenue, Suite 272
          Winter Park, FL 32789
          401 E. Trinity Lane
          Nashville, TN 37207
          Telephone: (407) 497 0463
          Facsimile: (866) 530 8441
          E-mail: bob@blanchefieldlawfirm.com


SOUP DUMPLING: Li Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
FENG MEI LI, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. SOUP DUMPLING PLUS INC. d/b/a Soup Dumpling
Plus, ZHENCHI C LIANG, JOHN LIN, JOHN DOE, and JOHN ROE, the
Defendants. Case No. 2:18-cv-09887-CCC-MF (D.N.J., May 30, 2018),
seeks to recover compensation for wages paid at less than the
statutory minimum rate, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, arising from
Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies,
patterns and/or practices.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to
maintain accurate records of hours that Plaintiff and those
similarly situated employed by Defendants work or worked,
including work done in excess of 40 hours each workweek.[BN]

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

          Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762 1324
          E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com


SPRINT NEXTEL: Certification of Settlement Subclasses Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROXIE SIBLEY, JEANNE NOEL, ERNESTO
BENNETT, JAMIE WILLIAMS, GREG ST. JULIEN, TRACIE HERNANDEZ, JOHN
JASINSKI, and TEISHA KING, individually and on behalf of the
class, the Plaintiffs, v. SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION, and
SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 2:08-
cv-02063-KHV (D. Kan.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order
granting Plaintiffs' motion for certification of settlement
subclasses.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vmy4gqli

Attorneys for the Class:

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714 7100
          E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
          Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256 3200
          E-mail: fisher@nka.com
                  lukas@nka.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Gregory T. Wolf, Esq.
          SNR DENTON US LLP
          4520 Main Street, Suite 1100
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          E-mail: gregory.wolf@snrdenton.com

               - and -

          Elise M. Bloom, Esq.
          Steven D. Hurd, Esq.
          Mark W. Batten, Esq.
          Nicole A. Eichberger, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          Eleven Times Square
          New York, NY 10036-8299
          E-mail: ebloom@proskauer.com
          shurd@proskauer.com
          mbatten@proskauer.com
          neichberger@proskauer.com

               - and -

          Michael Blumenthal, Esq.
          SEYFERTH, BLUMENTHAL & HARRIS, LLC
          300 Wyandotte Street, Suite 430
          Kansas City, MO 64105


ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, McLean Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
NADIA McLEAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL, THE HEART
CENTER, the Defendant, Case No. 708839/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June
7, 2018), alleges that Defendant has engaged and continues to
engage in illegal and improper wage practices which include:
requiring Techs to perform work without compensation before the
start of their shift; requiring Techs to perform work without
compensation after the end of their shift; failing to pay Techs
at their straight or agreed upon rate for all hours worked under
40 in a week; failing to pay Techs overtime of time and one-half
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a week;
and failing to provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and, also
on behalf of all other similarly situated non-exempt hourly paid
employees who work or worked as a medical technician/assistant of
Defendant St. Francis Hospital, The Heart Center in the State of
New York at any time during the period commencing six years prior
to the filing of this action and continuing until such further
date as the practices complained of are discontinued.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
          THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
          1613 Northern Boulevard
          Roslyn, NY 11576
          Telephone: (516) 625 0105


SUBURBAN DISPOSAL: Born Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------
THOMAS BORN, on behalf of himself and former and current
similarly situated employees of Suburban Disposal, Inc., a/k/a
Roselle Garbage Disposal, Roselle Waste Management, Roselle
Sanitation, and John Roselle, Individually, the Plaintiffs,
v. SUBURBAN DISPOSAL, INC., a/k/a ROSELLE GARBAGE DISPOSAL,
ROSELLE WASTE MANAGEMENT, ROSELLE SANITATION, AND JOHN ROSELLE,
INDIVIDUALLY, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-10273 (D.N.J.,
June 7, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against Defendants as a
collective and class action on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated -- non-exempt truck drivers -- who
suffered damages for damages as a result of Defendants'
violations of the FLSA pursuant to the collective action
provisions of 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and Defendants' violations
of the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com
                  JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


T & L TRANSPORTATION: Tuite Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH TUITE, the Plaintiff, v. T & L TRANSPORTATION, T & L ONE
TRANSPORTATION, JOHN DOE CORPORATION, and JOHN DOE, individually,
the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-09871-FLW-TJB (D.N.J., May 30,
2018), alleges that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against Defendants as a
collective action on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated non-exempt drivers who suffered damages as a
result of Defendants' violations of the FLSA pursuant to the
collective action provisions of 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly and
willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and the other similarly
situated to them at time and one half of their regular rate of
pay for their overtime hours worked in a work period. [BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, No. 306
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (201) 687 9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595 0308
          E-mail: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com
                  AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com


TRANS WORLD: Spack & Schmidt Seek to Certify FLSA Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CAROL SPACK, TABITHA SCHMIDT,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, as
Collective representative, the Plaintiffs, v. TRANSWORD
ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION and RECORD TOWN, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01335-TJM-CFH (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will
move the Court on July 27, 2018 asks the Court for an order
conditionally certifying case as a Fair Labor Standards Act
collective action and authorizing Plaintiffs to send a notice of
pendency to the putative collective action members.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vkMBeZYL

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Stephen T. Mashel, Esq.
          500 Campus Dr Suite 303
          Morganville, NJ 07751


TRANSGLOBAL SERVICES: Bradbury Wins Conditional Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JOSH BRADBURY, SHELDON SIDES, TRACY
EVERETT, CYNTHIA BROADWAY, JOSH BROADWAY, and JEREMY BERRY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. TRANSGLOBAL SERVICES, LLC, JOHN RATLIFF, and
JEFFERY COLWELL, the Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-00036-DC (W.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge David Counts entered an order on June 16,
2018:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification;

   2. directing Defendants, within fourteen days of this Order,
      to provide Plaintiffs' Counsel with the names, last known
      addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers of the
      potential opt-in plaintiffs, in a usable electronic format.
      Telephone numbers shall be used only to verify addresses or
      email addresses for potential opt-in plaintiffs, and shall
      not be used to solicit;

   3. permitting Plaintiffs' Counsel, upon obtaining the Court-
      Ordered Information, to send notices of this action in the
      form set forth in the approved Revised Proposed Notice, by
      mail and email, for a period of 60 days from the date
      Defendants provide Plaintiffs with the Court-Ordered
      Information;

   4. directing Plaintiffs' Counsel to file an advisory of any
      sending of such notices with this Court within three
      business days of doing so. In such advisories, Plaintiffs'
      Counsel shall specify the date and manner by which the
      notices were sent; and

   5. directing Plaintiffs' Counsel to file the notices of
      consent to join of all opt-in plaintiffs received unless
      such plaintiffs file their consents directly with the court
      until 15 days after the expiration of the 60-day notice
      period.

The Court said, "In the response, Defendants note that they
reserve other objections to the proposed notice until after the
Court's certification decision. To avoid further objection, the
Court Orders the parties to file a Joint Revised Proposed Notice
with the Court that complies with this Order within three
business days of the signing of this order. If the parties are
unable to reach an agreement, Plaintiffs shall file their Revised
Proposed Notice and Defendants shall file their objections within
the same three-day period. A proposed order approving the notice
shall also be provided."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YwliwqCH


TRINITY HEALTH: Layer Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN LAYER, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees, the Plaintiff, v. TRINITY HEALTH CORPORATION;
MERCY HEALTH SYSTEM; and LOURDES HEALTH SYSTEM, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-02358-PD (E.D. Pa., June 6, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, prejudgment interest, and
liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff brings his FLSA claim on behalf of all employees in
the United States who, during any pay period within the past
three years: were classified as non-exempt from the FLSA's
overtime pay mandate; worked for two or more healthcare systems,
hospitals, or facilities owned or operated by Trinity or its
subsidiaries; and were not paid overtime premium pay based on the
total combined hours worked at all healthcare systems, hospitals,
or facilities owned or operated by Trinity or its subsidiaries.

Trinity Health is a national, not-for-profit Catholic health
system operating 93 hospitals in 22 states, including 120
continuing care locations -- including home care, hospice, PACE
and senior living facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884 2491
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winbrakelaw.com


TUCKER ENERGY: Certification of Oilfield Workers Class Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled BRANDON MCELROY, ROBERT HARRINGTON,
AVERIL OWENS and MICHAEL RIDER, Individually and on behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. TUCKER ENERGY
SERVICES, INC., and TUCKER ENERGY SERVICES, USA INC., Defendants,
Case No. 5:18-cv-00010-FB-ESC (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "all current and former hourly-paid oilfield workers
      employed by Defendants at any time since January 4, 2015."

   2. directing Defendants to produce contact information of
      putative class members;

   3. approving sending of notice and consent to join;

   4. approving sending of postcard; and

   5. granting counsel a period of 90 days from the date
      Defendants fully and completely release r potential class
      members' contact information.

Copies of the Court documents are available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BeYKzkNBand at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7AQhfTY5

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Talley R. parker, Esq.
          Michael J. DePonte, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          500 North Akard, Suite 2500
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 520 2400
          Facsimile: (214) 520 2008
          E-mail: depontem@jacksonlewis.com
                  talley.parker@jacksonlewis.com


U.S. BANK: Court Declines to Grant Conditional Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JORDAN MOSEMAN, the Plaintiff, v. U.S.
BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00481-
FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Frank Whitney entered an order
granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification and judicial notice under 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b).

The Court approves Plaintiff's issuance of a notice consistent
with its Order and sets August 24, 2018, as the deadline for
opting into this action.  The Court, in the exercise of its
discretion, concludes that approval of a notice to both proposed
collectives when limited to individuals who worked for Defendant
at the Charlotte office is appropriate on this record. As to both
classes, Plaintiff has plead, attested to facts.

The Court declines to grant Plaintiff's request to "conditionally
certify" the collective action. Conditional certification of a
collection action is not required by the FSLA, the Supreme Court,
or the Fourth Circuit. Cf. Mickles, 887 F.3d at 1278 (holding
that conditional certification is not required to become a party
plaintiff in light of the plain language of section 216(b) and
the Supreme Court's holdings).

The Plaintiff is seeking certification of two FLSA collective
classes:

   "all individuals who worked for U.S. Bank through staffing
   agencies as hourly-paid AML/BSA Preliminary Investigators, or
   any equivalent position, at any location in the United States
   during the period from three years prior to the entry of the
   conditional certification order to the present"; and

   "all individuals who worked for U.S. Bank as AML/BSA
   Investigators, or any equivalent position, and were classified
   as exempt employees at any location in the United States
   during the period from three years prior to the entry of the
   conditional certification order to the present."

The Court also declines to grant Plaintiff's request to send
additional notices or duplicative notices by email. Given the
timing of the Notice, the Court believes repetitive unsolicited
contact with potential party plaintiffs after the initial Notice
by First Class Mail may create the appearance of undue Court
involvement in the solicitation of claims.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DZDVRIhM


U.S. CORRECTIONS: Groover Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JEFFREY EMIL GROOVER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
U.S. CORRECTIONS, LLC; PRISONER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, LLC; and
JOHN DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. 0:15-cv-61902-BB (S.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of:

   "all persons in the United States who, between October 12,
   2012 and the date of the Court's order granting class
   certification, were transported as a pretrial detainee by
   Prisoner Transportation Services, LLC or any of its affiliates
   or subsidiaries, including U.S. Corrections, LLC, in a
   "dogcage" -- equipped van for 24 or more hours, through at
   least one location with an outdoor temperature of at least 80
   degrees Farenheit, as measured by a judicially-noticeable
   source."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SpgjwfEn

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          David W. Hall, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 357 2107
          Facsimile: (305) 200 8801
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
                  dhall@hedinhall.com


UNITED PARCEL: "Dominguez" Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Andrew Dominguez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated and the general public,
the Plaintiff, v. United Parcel Service, Inc., named as United
Parcel Service, Co., a Delaware corporation and Does 1 through
50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CIVDS1810106, was removed
from the San Bernardino Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Eastern Division -
Riverside) on May 30, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 5:18-cv-01162-JGB-SP to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal.

United Parcel Service is an American multinational package
delivery company and a provider of supply chain management
solutions.[BN]

Attorneys for Andrew Dominguez:

          John Scott Russo, Esq.
          RUSSO AND DUCKWORTH LLP
          9090 Irvine Center Drive 2nd Floor
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 752 7106
          Facsimile: (949) 752 0629
          E-mail: jsrusso@russoandduckworth.com

               - and -

          Robert E Bright, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT E BRIGHT
          999 Corporate Drive, Suite 100
          Ladera Ranch, CA 92649
          Telephone: (949) 396 2406
          Facsimile: (949) 396 2561

Attorneys for United Parcel Service, Inc.:

          Amanda Bolliger Crespo, Esq.
          Claire A Hoffmann, Esq.
          E. Jeffrey Grube, Esq.
          Elizabeth Alexandra Brown, Esq.
          GRUBE BROWN AND GEIDT LLP
          633 West 5th Street Suite 3330
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 358 2810
          Facsimile: (213) 995 6382
          E-mail: amandacrespo@gbgllp.com
                  clairehoffmann@gbgllp.com
                  jeffgrube@gbgllp.com
                  lisabrown@gbgllp.com


UNITED PARCEL: Santos Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------
EMILIA SANTOS, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICES,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., an
Ohio Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-03177-JCS (N.D. Cal., May 29, 2018),
alleges that Defendants' failed to pay wages for all time worked
and failed to provide timely and uninterrupted meal and rest
periods, pursuant to the California Labor Code.

United Parcel Service is an American multinational package
delivery company and a provider of supply chain management
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David R. Marckham, Esq.
          Maggie Realin, Esq.
          Michael J. Morphew, Esq.
          THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
          750 B Street, Suite 1950
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 399 3995
          Facsimile: (619) 615 2067
          E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com
                  mrealin@markham-law.com
                  mmoephew@markham-law.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
          Huntington Beach CA 92649
          Telephone: (888) 474 7242
          Facsimile: (562) 256 1006
          E-mail: walterhaines@yahoo.com


UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Millman, et al. Seek to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled OPAL MILLMAN, ERIC POWELL, and LAURY
POWELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, LEAR
CORPORATION EEDS AND INTERIORS, as successor to United
Technologies Automotive, Inc., ANDREWS DAIRY STORE, INC., L.D.
WILLIAMS, INC., CP PRODUCT, LLC successor to Preferred Technical
Group, Inc., and LDW DEVELOPMENT, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-00312-TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to certify a class of:

   "all persons who have owned, rented, or resided at property
   within the class area at any time between 1983 and July 18,
   2016."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2Mdmy9R1

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Thomas A. Barnard, Esq.
          Rodney L. Michael, Esq.
          Tammara D. Porter, Esq.
          Benjamin A. Wolowski, Esq.
          TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 3500
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 713 3500
          Facsimile: (317) 713 3699


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Inflates Earnings, Timber Hill Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
TIMBER HILL LLC, on behalf of itself and all other similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS
INTERNATIONAL, INC., J. MICHAEL PEARSON, HOWARD B. SCHILLER,
ROBERT L. ROSIELLO, DEBORAH JORN, ARI S. KELLEN and TANYA
CARRO, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-10246 (D.N.J., June 6,
2018), alleges massive fraudulent scheme perpetrated by Valeant,
its senior executives and those working in concert with them to
artificially inflate Valeant's revenues and purported profits
through, among other things, a clandestine pharmacy network,
deceptive drug pricing and reimbursement practices, and
fictitious accounting.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, Valeant
engaged in a growth by acquisition strategy, repeatedly reporting
extraordinary quarterly and year-end revenue and earnings growth.
The Defendants variously attributed Valeant's extraordinary
performance to its "innovative" marketing, "outstanding" sales
teams, "great leadership" and alternative fulfillment channels
that purportedly provided Valeant with a "competitive advantage."

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is a multinational
specialty pharmaceutical company based in Laval, Canada.[BN]

Counsel for Timber Hill LLC:

          Christopher W. Kinum, Esq.
          CRITCHLEY, KINUM & DENOIA LLC.
          75 Livingston Avenue, Suite 303
          Roseland, New Jersey 07068
          Telephone: (973) 422 9200
          E-mail: cwkinum@critchleylaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
          Robert N. Cappucci, Esq.
          Sean M. Riegert, Esq.
          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
          299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10171
          Telephone: (212) 894 7200
          Facsimile: (212) 894 7272
          E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com
                  rcappucci@entwistle-law.com
                  sriegert@entwistle-law.com


WAL-MART STORES: Hamilton Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled CHELSEA HAMILTON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and ALYSSA HERNANDEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., a corporation, WAL-MART
ASSOCIATES, INC., a corporation and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-01415-AB-KK (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs will moved the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all current and former non-exempt employees employed
      by Defendants in the State of California who worked in a
      Walmart Fulfillment Center at any time during the period
      from June 8, 2013 to the present"; and

   2. certifying subclasses:

      a. Security Checkpoint Subclass:

         "all current and former nonexempt employees employed by
         Defendants in the State of California and who worked in
         a Walmart Fulfillment Center and who were required to go
         through a security checkpoint during a meal period
         and/or at the end of his/her shift during the period
         from June 8, 2013 to the present";

      b. Overtime Subclass:

         "all current and former non-exempt employees employed by
         Defendants in the State of California and who worked in
         a Walmart Fulfillment Center and who worked one or more
         shifts in excess of 8 hours in a day or 40 hours in a
         workweek and who were not properly paid all overtime
         wages during the period from June 8, 2013 to the
         present";

      c. Alternative Workweek Subclass:

         "all current and former nonexempt employees employed by
         Defendants in the State of California who worked in a
         Walmart Fulfillment Center and pursuant to an
         alternative workweek schedule were not paid daily
         overtime for work in excess of eight 8 but less than 10
         hours";

      d. Meal Break Subclass:

         "all current and former non-exempt employees employed by
         Defendants in the State of California and who worked in
         a Walmart Fulfillment Center and who worked a shift in
         excess of six hours during the period from June 8, 2013
         to the present";

      e. Rest Break Subclass:

         "all current and former non-exempt employees employed by
         Defendants in the State of California and who worked in
         a Walmart Fulfillment Center and who worked a shift of
         at least 3.5 hours during the period from June 8, 2013
         to the present";

      f. Waiting Time Penalty Subclass:

         "all current and former nonexempt employees employed by
         Defendants in the State of California and who worked in
         a Walmart Fulfillment Center and who separated from
         their employment with Defendants during the period from
         June 8, 2014 to the present"; and

      g. Wage Statement Penalty Subclass:

         "all current and former non-exempt employees employed by
         Defendants in the State of California and who worked in
         a Walmart Fulfillment Center during the period from June
         8, 2016 to the present".

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NwKRaNOB

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq.
          Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq.
          Brian G. Lee, Esq.
          YOON LAW, APC
          One Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 612 0988
          Facsimile: (213) 947 1211
          E-mail: kyoon@yoonlaw.com
                  syasuda@yoonlaw.com
                  blee@yoonlaw.com

               - and -

          G. Samuel Cleaver, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF G. SAMUEL CLEAVER
          5670 Wilshire Boulevard, 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Telephone: (323) 648-6676
          E-mail: sam@gscleaverlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Mankin, Esq.
          Peter J. Carlson, Esq.
          FERNANDEZ & LAUBY LLP
          4590 Allstate Drive
          Riverside, CA 92501
          Telephone: (951) 320 1444
          Facsimile: (951) 320 1445
          E-mail: bjm@fernandezlauby.com
                  pjc@fernandezlauby.com


WAL-MART STORES: Class Certification Bid in "Phipps" Dropped
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled CHERYL PHIPPS, and SHAWN GIBBONS, the
Plaintiffs, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
3:12-cv-01009 (M.D. Tenn.), the Honorable David M. Lawson entered
an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for scheduling conference;

   2. directing counsel for the parties must submit to the Court,
      on or before June 22, 2018 at noon; and

   3. dismissing Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
      the Defendant's motion to exclude the declaration of Marc
      Bendick as moot because the plaintiffs have withdrawn their
      motion for class certification.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=s558nd5l


WARDEN DAVID PIERCE: Parkell Seeks to Certify Prisoners Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned DONALD PARKELL, et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. WARDEN DAVID PIERCE, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00157-LPS (D. Del.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order
certifying a class of:

   "all prisoners housed in the Delaware Department of
   Corrections James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Building "C"
   on February 1 and 2, 2017, who were victims of an insurrection
   and takeover of Building "C" by a small number of inmates (not
   members of the class) and who have been subjected to
   unconstitutional punishment and deprivations by the
   Defendants, as more particularly outlined in the Complaint,
   including but not limited to the following:

   (a) Subjecting the members of the Class to cruel and unusual
       punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the
       U.S. Constitution by ordering class members to be beaten
       and terrorized; failing to provide necessary security
       measures to provide the reasonable safety of the class
       members; ordering medical vendors to withhold medical,
       dental and mental healthcare to the Class; imposing
       excessive restrictions on the Class and other similar
       Constitutional violations;

   (b) Violating the due process rights of the class members
       under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
       Constitution, by, among other things, seizing destroying
       and/or refusing to return their personal property; and
       placing them in maximum security and solitary confinement
       despite their medium risk classifications, without any
       opportunity to be heard;

   (c) Violating the Class members' Eighth Amendment rights by
       creating or worsening conditions in Building C that posed
       a substantial risk of serious harm to the Class members
       and failing to take reasonable measures to abate the
       serious risk or to protect the Class members from the
       substantial risk of serious harm; and

   (d) Subjecting the Class to cruel and unusual punishment in
       violation of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
       by failing to address or intentionally disregarding
       security issues they knew would occur upon implementation
       of the Court Order in the "CLASI" lawsuit.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iQHX4Rms

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          James S. Green, Sr., Esq.
          Jared T. Green, Esq.
          SEITZ, VAN OGTROP & GREEN, P.A.
          222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500
          P. O. Box 68
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 888 0600


WAUKEGAN HOUSING: "Stewart" Class Certification Bid Shelved
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned John Stewart, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
Waukegan Housing Authority, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:13-
cv-08444 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge John J. Tharp Jr. entered an
order taking under advisement Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, appointment of class representatives and
appointment of class counsel is taken under advisement.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on June 26, 2018,
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, appointment of class
representatives and appointment of class counsel is taken under
advisement. The Plaintiffs' amended complaint is due by June 29,
2018. Status hearing is set on July 11 at 9:30 a.m. If defendant
seeks to file a summary judgment motion, it must submit a summary
statement of the grounds for such a motion, of no more than three
pages, by July 9.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1PAkPNua


WEINBERG & ASSOCIATES: Settlement Reached in "Weiss" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ERIC S. WEISS, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE LAW
OFFICES OF FREDERIC I. WEINBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.C., FREDERIC I.
WEINBERG, and DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01679-
RMB-KMW (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order
granting preliminary approval to the class settlement agreement.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=w4putWEe

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
          Telephone: (973) 379 7500

Attorney for Defendant:

          Dante C. Rohr, Esq.
          Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, P.C.
          15000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 200
          P.O. Box 5429 Mt.
          Laurel, NJ 08054

               - and -

          THE LAW OFFICES OF
          FREDERIC I. WEINBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          375 E Elm St No. 210
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: 484 351 0500


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Underpays Truck Drivers, Midget Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER MIDGET, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-00238 (D. Neb., May 30, 2018), seeks
to recover minimum wages under Fair Labor Standards Act and
Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is employed by
Defendant as a truck driver (despite being misclassified as an
independent contractor since 2015). He has driven for the company
since 2012. The Defendant allegedly failed to pay required
minimum wages and made unlawful deductions from earned
compensation.

Werner Enterprises, Inc. is an American freight carrier and
transportation and logistics company headquartered in Omaha,
Nebraska. It was founded in 1956 by Executive Chairman, Clarence
L. Werner.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven H. Howard, Esq.
          DOWD HOWARD & CORRIGAN, LLC
          1411 Harney Street, Suite 100
          Omaha, NE 68102
          Telephone: (402) 341 1020
          Facsimile: (402) 341 0254
          E-mail: steve@dowd-law.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
          MCINNES LAW LLC
          3500 West 75th Street, Suite 200
          Praire Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 220 2488
          Facsimile: (913) 273 1671
          E-mail: jack@mcinnes-law.com


WINDSOR FASHIONS: Underpays Store Staff, Zamora et al. Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
YOLANDA ZAMORA, JASMINE QUINTERO, LESLIE PAREDES, individually,
and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the
California Private Attorneys General Act; LAROSA WILNER,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general
public similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. WINDSOR FASHIONS,
INC., a California corporation; WINDSOR FASHIONS, LLC, an unknown
business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. RG18906746 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 30, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums,
unpaid rest period premiums, and unpaid minimum wages under the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to provide
Plaintiffs and the other class members and aggrieved employees
were entitled to receive certain wages for overtime compensation
and that they were not receiving accurate overtime compensation
for all overtime hours worked.

Windsor Fashions retails women's apparels. The Company offers
prom dresses, tops, jackets, bottoms, shoes, and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


YOUNGEVITY INTERNATIONAL: Canary Sues over Robocalling
------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN CANARY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. YOUNGEVITY INTERNATIONAL, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-03261-VKD (N.D. Cal., May 31, 2018),
alleges that Youngevity International marketed certain products
and services via unsolicited phone calls using autodialer
technology and prerecorded messages, otherwise known as
robocalling -- in plain violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Youngevity is a "network marketing business" that uses illegal
prerecorded telemarketing calls to sell certain products and
services, including small business services. Plaintiff received
one such robocall on behalf of a Youngevity division the company
refers to as David Allen Capital, Inc., through which Youngevity
markets small business loans.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
          Anna C. Haac, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          483 Ninth Street, Suite 200
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 254 6808
          Facsimile: (510) 210 0571
          E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com
                  ahaac@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
          BURKE LAWOFFICES, LLC
          155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
          Chicago, IL 60651
          Telephone: (312) 729 5288
          E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com



                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Still Defends Suits at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC, continues to defend itself against personal
injury suits related to asbestos exposure, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Kaanapali Land, as successor by merger to
other entities, and D/C Distribution Corporation ("D/C"), a
subsidiary of Kaanapali Land, have been named as defendants in
personal injury actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos.
While there are relatively few cases that name Kaanapali Land,
there were a substantial number of cases that were pending
against D/C on the U.S. mainland (primarily in California).

"Cases against Kaanapali Land (hereafter, "Kaanapali Land
asbestos cases") are allegedly based on its prior business
operations in Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on
the sale of asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior
distribution business operations primarily in California.  Each
entity defending these cases believes that it has meritorious
defenses against these actions, but can give no assurances as to
the ultimate outcome of these cases.  The defense of these cases
has had a material adverse effect on the financial condition of
D/C as it has been forced to file a voluntary petition for
liquidation.

"Kaanapali Land does not believe that it has liability, directly
or indirectly, for D/C's obligations in those cases.  Kaanapali
Land does not presently believe that the cases in which it is
named will result in any material liability to Kaanapali Land;
however, there can be no assurance in this regard."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/LYTtmT


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Insurance Talks Ongoing at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC, said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission fiscal year ended December 31,
2017, that it continues to pursue discussions with Fireman's Fund
Insurance Corporation in an attempt to resolve the issues related
to insurance coverage on the asbestos lawsuits that the Company
is facing.

The Company states, "On February 12, 2014, counsel for Fireman's
Fund, the carrier that has been paying defense costs and
settlements for the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases, stated that it
would no longer advance fund settlements or judgments in the
Kaanapali Land asbestos cases due to the pendency of the D/C and
Oahu Sugar bankruptcies.

"In its communications with Kaanapali Land, Fireman's Fund
expressed its view that the automatic stay in effect in the D/C
bankruptcy case bars Fireman's Fund from making any payments to
resolve the Kaanapali Land asbestos claims because D/C
Distribution is also alleging a right to coverage under those
policies for asbestos claims against it.  However, in the
interim, Fireman's Fund advised that it presently intends to
continue to pay defense costs for those cases, subject to
whatever reservations of rights may be in effect and subject
further to the policy terms.

"Fireman's Fund has also indicated that to the extent that
Kaanapali Land cooperates with Fireman's Fund in addressing
settlement of the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases through
coordination with its adjusters, it is Fireman's Fund's present
intention to reimburse any such payments by Kaanapali Land,
subject, among other things, to the terms of any lift-stay order,
the limits and other terms and conditions of the policies, and
prior approval of the settlements.

"Kaanapali Land continues to pursue discussions with Fireman's
Fund in an attempt to resolve the issues, however, Kaanapali Land
is unable to determine what portion, if any, of settlements or
judgments in the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases will be covered by
insurance."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/LYTtmT


ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Lift Stay Issue Still Pending at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Proceedings regarding a bid to lift stay remains pending in the
bankruptcy cases of Kaanapali Land, LLC's subsidiary, D/C
Distribution Corporation, according to Kaanapali's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017.  The bankruptcy court has
previously lifted the stay in 2015, but the decision was reversed
by the district court in 2016.

The Company states, "On or about April 28, 2015, eight litigants
who filed asbestos claims in California state court (hereinafter,
"Petitioners") filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay
in the D/C bankruptcy (hereinafter "life stay motion").  Under
relevant provisions of the bankruptcy rules and on the filing of
the D/C bankruptcy action, all pending litigation claims against
D/C were stayed pending resolution of the bankruptcy action.  In
their motion, Petitioners asked the bankruptcy court to lift the
stay in the bankruptcy court to name D/C and/or its alternate
entities as defendants in their respective California state court
asbestos actions and to satisfy their claims against insurance
policies that defend and indemnify D/C and/or their alternate
entities.  The Petitioner's motion to lift stay thus in part has
as an objective ultimate recovery, if any, from, among other
things, insurance policy proceeds that were allegedly assets of
both the D/C and Oahu Sugar bankruptcy estates.

"Kaanapali, the EPA, and the Navy are claimants in the Oahu Sugar
bankruptcy and the Fireman's Fund policies are allegedly among
the assets of the Oahu Sugar bankruptcy estate as well.  For this
and other reasons, Kaanapali, the EPA and the Navy opposed the
motion to lift stay.

"After briefing and argument, on May 14, 2015, the United States
Bankruptcy Court, for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, in In Re D/C Distribution, LLC, Bankruptcy Case No. 07-
12776, issued an order lifting the stay.  In the order, the court
permitted the Petitioners to "proceed in the applicable
nonbankruptcy forum to final judgment (including any appeals) in
accordance with applicable nonbankruptcy law.  Claimants are
entitled to settle or enforce their claims only by collecting
upon any available insurance Debtor's liability to them in
accordance with applicable nonbankruptcy law.  No recovery may be
made directly against the property of Debtor, or property of the
bankruptcy estate." Kaanapali, Firemen's Fund and the United
States appealed the bankruptcy court order lifting the stay.

"In March 2016, the district court reversed the bankruptcy court
order finding that the bankruptcy court did not apply relevant
law to the facts in the case to arrive at a reasoned decision.
On appeal the district court noted that the law requires
consideration of a number of factors when lifting a stay to
permit certain claims to proceed, including consideration of the
adequacy of remaining insurance to meet claims still subject to
the stay.  Among other things, the court noted that the
bankruptcy court failed to explain why it was appropriate for the
petitioners to liquidate their claims before the other claimants
whose claims remained subject to the stay.  The district court
remanded the case for further proceedings.  It is uncertain
whether such further proceedings on the lift stay will take
place.

"The parties in the D/C and Oahu Sugar bankruptcies have reached
out to each other to determine if there is any interest in
pursuing a global settlement of the claims in the Oahu Sugar and
D/C bankruptcies insofar as the Fireman's Fund insurance policies
are concerned.  If such discussions take place, they may take the
form of a mediation or other format and involve some form of
resolution of Kaanapali's interest in various of the Fireman's
Fund insurance policies for Kaanapali's various and future
insurance claims.  Kaanapali may consider entering into such
discussions, but there is no assurance that such discussions will
take place or prove successful in resolving any of the claims in
whole or in part."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/LYTtmT


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Still Defends PL Suits at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
Manitex International, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 3, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that it has been
named as a defendant in several multi-defendant asbestos related
product liability lawsuits.

The Company states, "In certain instances, the Company is
indemnified by a former owner of the product line in question.
In the remaining cases the plaintiff has, to date, not been able
to establish any exposure by the plaintiff to the Company's
products.  The Company is uninsured with respect to these claims
but believes that it will not incur any material liability with
respect to these claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/vlBqGX


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Still Defends PL Suits at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Manitex International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 11, 2018, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that it has been named
as a defendant in several multi-defendant asbestos related
product liability lawsuits.

The Company states, "In certain instances, the Company is
indemnified by a former owner of the product line in question. In
the remaining cases the plaintiff has, to date, not been able to
establish any exposure by the plaintiff to the Company's
products. The Company is uninsured with respect to these claims
but believes that it will not incur any material liability with
respect to these to claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/RpceSa


ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Still Defends PI Suits at March 3
--------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company continues to face asbestos-related claims and
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 3, 2018.

The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in
lawsuits in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products
containing asbestos manufactured more than 30 years ago.  The
plaintiffs generally bring these lawsuits against multiple
defendants and seek damages (both actual and punitive) in very
large amounts.  In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable injuries or
that the injuries suffered were the result of exposure to
products manufactured by us.  We are typically dismissed as a
defendant in such cases without payment.  If the plaintiff
presents evidence indicating that compensable injury occurred as
a result of exposure to our products, the case is generally
settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness of the
injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to
products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other
defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case
has been brought.

"A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including
indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement
under which we acquired a business from a third party.
Currently, this third party is defending and paying settlement
amounts, under a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos
cases tendered to the third party.

"In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third
parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide
coverage for asbestos liabilities, including defense costs.
Historically, insurers have paid a significant portion of our
defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation.
However, certain of our insurers are insolvent.  We have entered
into cost-sharing agreements with our insurers that provide for
the allocation of defense costs and settlements and judgments in
asbestos-related lawsuits.  These agreements require, among other
things, that we fund a share of settlements and judgments
allocable to years in which the responsible insurer is insolvent.

"We do not believe that it would be meaningful to disclose the
aggregate number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us
because relatively few of these lawsuits are known to involve
exposure to asbestos-containing products that we manufactured.
Rather, we believe it is more meaningful to disclose the number
of lawsuits that are settled and result in a payment to the
plaintiff.  To the extent we can reasonably estimate the amount
of our probable liabilities for pending asbestos-related claims,
we establish a financial provision and a corresponding receivable
for insurance recoveries.

"Based on currently available information, we have concluded that
the resolution of any pending matter, including asbestos-related
litigation, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition or cash flow."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/bLDli5


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Faces Suits at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., still faces asbestos-related
lawsuits pending in Louisiana, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

The Company states, "We are one of several unrelated defendants
in lawsuits filed in Louisiana state courts alleging that
defendants manufactured, distributed or utilized drilling mud
containing asbestos and, in our case, allowed such drilling mud
to have been utilized aboard our drilling rigs.  The plaintiffs
seek, among other things, an award of unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages.  The manufacture and use of asbestos-
containing drilling mud had already ceased before we acquired any
of the drilling rigs addressed in these lawsuits.

"We believe that we are not liable for the damages asserted in
the lawsuits pursuant to the terms of our 1989 asset purchase
agreement with Diamond M Corporation.  We are unable to estimate
our potential exposure, if any, to these lawsuits at this time
but do not believe that our ultimate liability, if any, resulting
from this litigation will have a material effect on our
consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/VMCa1X


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Had 8 Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that eight plaintiffs have claims against the
Company's subsidiaries at March 31, 2018.

The Company states, "In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were
named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in
complaints filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of
Mississippi, and in 2014, a group of similar complaints were
filed in Louisiana.

"The plaintiffs, former employees of some of the defendants,
generally allege that the defendants used or manufactured
asbestos containing drilling mud additives for use in connection
with drilling operations, claiming negligence, products
liability, strict liability and claims allowed under the Jones
Act and general maritime law.  The plaintiffs generally seek
awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, but the
court-appointed special master has ruled that a Jones Act
employer defendant, such as us, cannot be sued for punitive
damages.

"At March 31, 2018, eight plaintiffs have claims pending in
Louisiana in which we have or may have an interest.

"We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously, although we can
provide no assurance as to the outcome.  We historically have
maintained broad liability insurance, although we are not certain
whether insurance will cover the liabilities, if any, arising out
of these claims.  Based on our evaluation of the exposure to
date, we do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from
these claims to have a material adverse effect on our condensed
consolidated statement of financial position, results of
operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/07lXfN


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Had 98 PI Suits at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that one of its subsidiaries was a defendant in
approximately 98 asbestos-related lawsuits as of March 31, 2018.

The Company states, "One of our subsidiaries has been named as a
defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits
arising out of the subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat
exchangers, and involvement in the construction and refurbishment
of major industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.

"As of March 31, 2018, the subsidiary was a defendant in
approximately 98 lawsuits with a corresponding number of
plaintiffs.

"For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided with
sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether
all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary,
the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged
injuries.

"The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its
operations were discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no
remaining assets other than insurance policies, rights and
proceeds, including (i) certain policies subject to litigation
and (ii) certain rights and proceeds held directly or indirectly
through a qualified settlement fund.  The subsidiary has in
excess of US$1.0 billion in insurance limits potentially
available to the subsidiary.

"Although not all of the policies may be fully available due to
the insolvency of certain insurers, we believe that the
subsidiary will have sufficient funding directly or indirectly,
including from settlements and payments from insurers, assigned
rights from insurers and coverage-in-place settlement agreements
with insurers to respond to these claims.

"While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome
of these matters, we do not expect the ultimate liability, if
any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse
effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/07lXfN


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Still Obliged to Indemnify Xylem at Mar. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation (now ITT LLC) still has an obligation to
indemnify Xylem Inc. from liabilities associated with asbestos
matters, according to Xylem's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.

The Company states, "From time to time claims may be asserted
against Xylem alleging injury caused by any of our products
resulting from asbestos exposure.  We believe there are numerous
legal defenses available for such claims and would defend
ourselves vigorously.  Pursuant to the Distribution Agreement
among ITT Corporation (now ITT LLC), Exelis and Xylem, ITT
Corporation (now ITT LLC) has an obligation to indemnify, defend
and hold Xylem harmless for asbestos product liability matters,
including settlements, judgments, and legal defense costs
associated with all pending and future claims that may arise from
past sales of ITT's legacy products.  We believe ITT Corporation
(now ITT LLC) remains a substantial entity with sufficient
financial resources to honor its obligations to us.

"As part of our 2011 spin-off from our former parent, ITT
Corporation (now ITT LLC), Exelis Inc. and Xylem will indemnify,
defend and hold harmless each of the other parties with respect
to such parties' assumed or retained liabilities under the
Distribution Agreement and breaches of the Distribution Agreement
or related spin agreements.  The former parent's indemnification
obligations include asserted and unasserted asbestos and silica
liability claims that relate to the presence or alleged presence
of asbestos or silica in products manufactured, repaired or sold
prior to October 31, 2011, the Distribution Date, subject to
limited exceptions with respect to certain employee claims, or in
the structure or material of any building or facility, subject to
exceptions with respect to employee claims relating to Xylem
buildings or facilities.  The indemnification associated with
pending and future asbestos claims does not expire.  Xylem has
not recorded a liability for material matters for which we expect
to be indemnified by the former parent or Exelis Inc. through the
Distribution Agreement and we are not aware of any claims or
other circumstances that would give rise to material payments
from us under such indemnifications.

"On May 29, 2015, Harris Inc. acquired Exelis.  As the parent of
Exelis, Harris Inc. is responsible for Exelis's indemnification
obligations under the Distribution Agreement."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ioHk6W


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corp. Still Faces Claims at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eaton Corporation plc is subject to asbestos claims from historic
products which may have contained asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Eaton is subject to a broad range of claims,
administrative and legal proceedings such as lawsuits that relate
to contractual allegations, tax audits, patent infringement,
personal injuries, antitrust matters and employment-related
matters.  Eaton is also subject to asbestos claims from historic
products which may have contained asbestos.  Insurance may cover
some of the costs associated with these claims and proceedings.
Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome
or cost of these matters, the Company believes they will not have
a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial
statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/p4l1Rt


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Had US$866MM Claim Reserves at Mar. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation had US$866 million reserves for asbestos
claims net of reinsurance recoverables as of March 31, 2018,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Allstate's reserves for asbestos claims were
US$866 million and US$884 million, net of reinsurance
recoverables of US$399 million and US$412 million, as of March
31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively.  Reserves for
environmental claims were US$162 million and US$166 million, net
of reinsurance recoverables of US$33 million and US$33 million,
as of March 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively.

"The Company establishes reserves for claims and claims expense
on reported and unreported claims of insured losses.  The
Company's reserving process takes into account known facts and
interpretations of circumstances and factors including the
Company's experience with similar cases, actual claims paid,
historical trends involving claim payment patterns and pending
levels of unpaid claims, loss management programs, product mix
and contractual terms, changes in law and regulation, judicial
decisions, and economic conditions.  In the normal course of
business, the Company may also supplement its claims processes by
utilizing third party adjusters, appraisers, engineers,
inspectors, and other professionals and information sources to
assess and settle catastrophe and non-catastrophe related claims.
The effects of inflation are implicitly considered in the
reserving process.

"Because reserves are estimates of unpaid portions of losses that
have occurred, including incurred but not reported ("IBNR")
losses, the establishment of appropriate reserves, including
reserves for catastrophes and reserves and reinsurance
recoverables for the Discontinued Lines and Coverages, is an
inherently uncertain and complex process.  The ultimate cost of
losses may vary materially from recorded amounts, which are based
on management's best estimates.  The highest degree of
uncertainty is associated with reserves for losses incurred in
the current reporting period as it contains the greatest
proportion of losses that have not been reported or settled.  The
Company regularly updates its reserve estimates as new
information becomes available and as events unfold that may
affect the resolution of unsettled claims.  Changes in prior year
reserve estimates, which may be material, are reported in
property and casualty insurance claims and claims expense in the
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations in the period
such changes are determined.

"Management believes that the reserve for property and casualty
insurance claims and claims expense, net of reinsurance
recoverables, is appropriately established in the aggregate and
adequate to cover the ultimate net cost of reported and
unreported claims arising from losses which had occurred by the
date of the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Financial
Position based on available facts, technology, laws and
regulations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/NQa0ni


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at Mar31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc. continues to face personal injury
lawsuits filed by people claiming exposure to asbestos in certain
product components, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

The Company states, "We (including our subsidiaries) have been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain
components of our products many years ago.  Currently there are a
few thousand claimants in lawsuits that name us as defendants,
together with hundreds of other companies.  In some cases, the
claims involve products from divested businesses, and we are
indemnified for most of the costs.  However, we have agreed to
defend and indemnify asbestos claims associated with products
manufactured or sold by our former Dodge mechanical and Reliance
Electric motors and motor repair services businesses prior to
their divestiture by us, which occurred on January 31, 2007.

"We are also responsible for half of the costs and liabilities
associated with asbestos cases against the former Rockwell
International Corporation's divested measurement and flow control
business.  But in all cases, for those claimants who do show that
they worked with our products or products of divested businesses
for which we are responsible, we nevertheless believe we have
meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of
the products, the encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing
components, and the lack of any impairing medical condition on
the part of many claimants.  We defend those cases vigorously.
Historically, we have been dismissed from the vast majority of
these claims with no payment to claimants.

"We have maintained insurance coverage that we believe covers
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising from our former Allen-Bradley
subsidiary.  Our insurance carrier entered into a cost share
agreement with us to pay the substantial majority of future
defense and indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims.
We believe that this arrangement will continue to provide
coverage for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims throughout the
remaining life of the asbestos liability.

"We also have rights to historic insurance policies that provide
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising out of certain asbestos
liabilities relating to the divested measurement and flow control
business.  We initiated litigation against several insurers to
pursue coverage for these claims, subject to each carrier's
policy limits, and the case is now pending in Los Angeles County
Superior Court.  In September 2016, we entered into settlement
agreements with certain insurance company defendants, and we
continue to pursue our claims against the remaining defendants.
We believe these settlement agreements will continue to provide
partial coverage for these asbestos claims throughout the
remaining life of asbestos liability.

"The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult
to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims.
That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse
rulings or new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or
the settlement process.  Subject to these uncertainties and based
on our experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe
these lawsuits will have a material effect on our business,
financial condition or results of operations.

"We have, from time to time, divested certain of our businesses.
In connection with these divestitures, certain lawsuits, claims
and proceedings may be instituted or asserted against us related
to the period that we owned the businesses, either because we
agreed to retain certain liabilities related to these periods or
because such liabilities fall upon us by operation of law.  In
some instances, the divested business has assumed the
liabilities; however, it is possible that we might be responsible
for satisfying those liabilities if the divested business is
unable to do so.

"In connection with the spin-offs of our former automotive
business, semiconductor systems business and avionics and
communications business, the spun-off companies have agreed to
indemnify us for substantially all contingent liabilities related
to the respective businesses, including environmental and
intellectual property matters.

"In conjunction with the sale of our Dodge mechanical and
Reliance Electric motors and motor repair services businesses, we
agreed to indemnify Baldor Electric Company for costs and damages
related to certain legal, legacy environmental and asbestos
matters of these businesses arising before January 31, 2007, for
which the maximum exposure would be capped at the amount received
for the sale."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/gMXHKD


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Unit Had US$76.0MM Reserves at Mar. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
had reserved US$76 million at March 31, 2018 for asbestos-related
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Generation maintains a reserve for claims
associated with asbestos-related personal injury actions in
certain facilities that are currently owned by Generation or were
previously owned by ComEd and PECO.  The estimated liabilities
are recorded on an undiscounted basis and exclude the estimated
legal costs associated with handling these matters, which could
be material.

"At March 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, Generation had recorded
estimated liabilities of approximately US$76 million and US$78
million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily
injury claims.  As of March 31, 2018, approximately US$21 million
of this amount related to 232 open claims presented to
Generation, while the remaining US$55 million is for estimated
future asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise
through 2050, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which
are updated on an annual basis.  On a quarterly basis, Generation
monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted
claims to be received and expected claim payments and evaluates
whether adjustments to the estimated liabilities are necessary."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/mXJuM0


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Expects Additional Exposure at Mar. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018 that there is a reasonable possibility that
the Company may have additional exposure to estimated future
asbestos-related bodily injury claims in excess of the amount
accrued and the increases could have a material unfavorable
impact on financial conditions, results of operations and cash
flows of the Company and its subsidiaries Exelon Generation
Company, LLC and PECO Energy Company.

The Company states, "On November 22, 2013, the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania held that the Pennsylvania Workers Compensation Act
does not apply to an employee's disability or death resulting
from occupational disease, such as diseases related to asbestos
exposure, which manifests more than 300 weeks after the
employee's last employment-based exposure, and that therefore the
exclusivity provision of the Act does not preclude such employee
from suing his or her employer in court.  The Supreme Court's
ruling reverses previous rulings by the Pennsylvania Superior
Court precluding current and former employees from suing their
employers in court, despite the fact that the same employee was
not eligible for workers compensation benefits for diseases that
manifest more than 300 weeks after the employee's last
employment-based exposure to asbestos.  Since the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court's ruling in November 2013, Exelon, Generation, and
PECO have experienced an increase in asbestos-related personal
injury claims brought by former PECO employees, all of which have
been accrued for on a claim by claim basis.  Those additional
claims are taken into account in projecting estimated future
asbestos-related bodily injury claims.

"On November 4, 2015, the Illinois Supreme Court found that the
provisions of the Illinois' Workers' Compensation Act and the
Workers' Occupational Diseases Act barred an employee from
bringing a direct civil action against an employer for latent
diseases, including asbestos-related diseases that fall outside
the 25-year limit of the statute of repose.  The Illinois Supreme
Court's ruling reversed previous rulings by the Illinois Court of
Appeals, which initially ruled that the Illinois Worker's
Compensation law should not apply in cases where the diagnosis of
an asbestos related disease occurred after the 25-year maximum
time period for filing a Worker's Compensation claim.  As a
result of this ruling, Exelon, Generation, and ComEd have not
recorded an increase to the asbestos-related bodily injury
liability as of March 31, 2018.

"There is a reasonable possibility that Exelon may have
additional exposure to estimated future asbestos-related bodily
injury claims in excess of the amount accrued and the increases
could have a material unfavorable impact on Exelon's,
Generation's and PECO's financial conditions, results of
operations and cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/mXJuM0


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 55,500 Claims at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc. (fka Crown Cork & Seal Co. Inc.) had 55,500
pending claims related to asbestos matters as of March 31, 2018,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. ("Crown
Cork") is one of many defendants in a substantial number of
lawsuits filed throughout the U.S. by persons alleging bodily
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.  These claims arose
from the insulation operations of a U.S. company, the majority of
whose stock Crown Cork purchased in 1963.  Approximately ninety
days after the stock purchase, this U.S. company sold its
insulation assets and was later merged into Crown Cork.

"Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered
by a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement
with carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork
became self-insured.  The fund was depleted in 1998 and the
Company has no remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs.

"In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger
to companies involved with asbestos.  The legislation limits the
successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired company's
asset value adjusted for inflation.  Crown Cork has paid
significantly more for asbestos-related claims than the acquired
company's adjusted asset value.  In November 2004, the
legislation was amended to address a Pennsylvania Supreme Court
decision (Ieropoli v. AC&S Corporation, et al., No. 117 EM 2002)
which held that the statute violated the Pennsylvania
Constitution due to retroactive application.  The Company
cautions that the limitations of the statute, as amended, are
subject to litigation and may not be upheld.

"In June 2003, the state of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies
such as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities
because they are successors by corporate merger to companies that
had been involved with asbestos.  The Texas legislation, which
applies to future claims and pending claims, caps asbestos-
related liabilities at the total gross value of the predecessor's
assets adjusted for inflation.  Crown Cork has paid significantly
more for asbestos-related claims than the total adjusted value of
its predecessor's assets.

"In October 2010, the Texas Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision,
reversed a lower court decision, Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork &
Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of
Appeals, Texas, which had upheld the dismissal of an asbestos-
related case against Crown Cork.  The Texas Supreme Court held
that the Texas legislation was unconstitutional under the Texas
Constitution when applied to asbestos-related claims pending
against Crown Cork when the legislation was enacted in June 2003.
The Company believes that the decision of the Texas Supreme Court
is limited to retroactive application of the Texas legislation to
asbestos-related cases that were pending against Crown Cork in
Texas on June 11, 2003 and therefore, in its accrual, continues
to assign no value to claims filed after June 11, 2003.

"In recent years, the states of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,
Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,
Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West
Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming enacted legislation that limits
asbestos-related liabilities under state law of companies such as
Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they
are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos.  The legislation, which applies to future
and, with the exception of Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina,
South Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming, pending claims, caps
asbestos-related liabilities at the fair market value of the
predecessor's total gross assets adjusted for inflation.  Crown
Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than
the total value of its predecessor's assets adjusted for
inflation.  Crown Cork has integrated the legislation into its
claims defense strategy.

"The Company further cautions that an adverse ruling in any
litigation relating to the constitutionality or applicability to
Crown Cork of one or more statutes that limits the asbestos-
related liability of alleged defendants like Crown Cork could
have a material impact on the Company."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/dfvIQS


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $313MM Accrual at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc. (fka Crown Cork & Seal Co Inc.) had accrual
of US$313 million for pending and future asbestos-related claims
and related legal costs as of March 31, 2018, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Crown Cork has entered into arrangements
with plaintiffs' counsel in certain jurisdictions with respect to
claims which are not yet filed, or asserted, against it.
However, Crown Cork expects claims under these arrangements to be
filed or asserted against Crown Cork in the future.  The
projected value of these claims is included in the Company's
estimated liability as of March 31, 2018.

"As of March 31, 2018, the Company's accrual for pending and
future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was US$313
million, including US$266 million for unasserted claims.  The
Company determines its accrual without limitation to a specific
time period.

"It is reasonably possible that the actual loss could be in
excess of the Company's accrual.  However, the Company is unable
to estimate the reasonably possible loss in excess of its accrual
due to uncertainty in the following assumptions that underlie the
Company's accrual and the possibility of losses in excess of such
accrual: the amount of damages sought by the claimant (which was
not specified for approximately 81% of the claims outstanding at
the end of 2017), the Company and claimant's willingness to
negotiate a settlement, the terms of settlements of other
defendants with asbestos-related liabilities, the bankruptcy
filings of other defendants (which may result in additional
claims and higher settlements for non-bankrupt defendants), the
nature of pending and future claims (including the seriousness of
alleged disease, whether claimants allege first exposure to
asbestos before or during 1964 and the claimant's ability to
demonstrate the alleged link to Crown Cork), the volatility of
the litigation environment, the defense strategies available to
the Company, the level of future claims, the rate of receipt of
claims, the jurisdiction in which claims are filed, and the
effect of state asbestos legislation (including the validity and
applicability of the Pennsylvania legislation to non-Pennsylvania
jurisdictions, where the substantial majority of the Company's
asbestos cases are filed)."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/dfvIQS


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Had 53,000 Open Claims at Mar.31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that there were 53,000
open asbestos-related claims filed against the Company at March
31, 2018.

The Company states, "The claims alleging personal injury caused
by exposure to asbestos asserted against Ashland result primarily
from indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection
with the sale of Riley.  The amount and timing of settlements and
number of open claims can fluctuate from period to period.  A
summary of Ashland asbestos claims activity, excluding Hercules
claims, follows.

"From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for
litigation defense and claim settlement costs, which generally
approximates the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure
from model results.  Ashland reviews this estimate and related
assumptions quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-
inflated, non-discounted approximate 50-year model developed with
the assistance of Nathan.

"During the most recent annual update of this estimate completed
during the June 2017 quarter, it was determined that the
liability for Ashland asbestos-related claims should be increased
by US$36 million.  Total reserves for asbestos claims were US$402
million at March 31, 2018 compared to US$419 million at September
30, 2017.

"Ashland has insurance coverage for certain litigation defense
and claim settlement costs incurred in connection with its
asbestos claims, and coverage-in-place agreements exist with the
insurance companies that provide substantially all of the
coverage that will be accessed.

"For the Ashland asbestos-related obligations, Ashland has
estimated the value of probable insurance recoveries associated
with its asbestos reserve based on management's interpretations
and estimates surrounding the available or applicable insurance
coverage, including an assumption that all solvent insurance
carriers remain solvent.  Substantially all of the estimated
receivables from insurance companies are expected to be due from
domestic insurers, all of which are solvent.

"At March 31, 2018, Ashland's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers
amounted to US$149 million (excluding the Hercules receivable for
asbestos claims) compared to US$155 million at September 30,
2017.  During the June 2017 quarter, the annual update of the
model used for purposes of valuing the asbestos reserve and its
impact on valuation of future recoveries from insurers was
completed.  This model update resulted in a US$15 million
increase in the receivable for probable insurance recoveries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/cGSD6W


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules LLC Had 12,000 PI Claims at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that wholly-owned
subsidiary Hercules LLC had 12,000 open claims filed against it
related to asbestos matters at March 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Hercules has liabilities from claims
alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos.  Such
claims typically arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers
from resin encapsulated pipe and tank products which were sold by
one of Hercules' former subsidiaries to a limited industrial
market.  The amount and timing of settlements and number of open
claims can fluctuate from period to period.

"From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for
litigation defense and claim settlement costs, which generally
approximates the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure
from model results.  Ashland reviews this estimate and related
assumptions quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-
inflated, non-discounted approximate 50-year model developed with
the assistance of Nathan.  As a result of the most recent annual
update of this estimate, completed during the June 2017 quarter,
it was determined that the liability for Hercules asbestos-
related claims should be increased by US$16 million.  Total
reserves for asbestos claims were US$311 million at March 31,
2018 compared to US$323 million at September 30, 2017.

"For the Hercules asbestos-related obligations, certain
reimbursement obligations pursuant to coverage-in-place
agreements with insurance carriers exist.  As a result, any
increases in the asbestos reserve have been partially offset by
probable insurance recoveries.  Ashland has estimated the value
of probable insurance recoveries associated with its asbestos
reserve based on management's interpretations and estimates
surrounding the available or applicable insurance coverage,
including an assumption that all solvent insurance carriers
remain solvent.  The estimated receivable consists exclusively of
solvent domestic insurers.

"As of March 31, 2018, and September 30, 2017, the receivables
from insurers amounted to US$68 million.  During the June 2017
quarter, the annual update of the model used for purposes of
valuing the asbestos reserve and its impact on valuation of
future recoveries from insurers was completed.  This model update
resulted in a US$5 million increase in the receivable for
probable insurance recoveries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/cGSD6W


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 30,990 Pending Claims at Mar. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. has 30,990 pending asbestos-related claims as of March
31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018.

The Company states, "As of March 31, 2018, the Company was a
defendant in cases filed in numerous state and federal courts
alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos.

"Of the 30,990 pending claims as of March 31, 2018, approximately
18,200 claims were pending in New York, approximately 500 claims
were pending in Texas, approximately 400 claims were pending in
Mississippi, and approximately 200 claims were pending in Ohio,
all jurisdictions in which legislation or judicial orders
restrict the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the
merits.

"The Company has tried several cases resulting in defense
verdicts by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the
court.  The Company further has pursued appeals of certain
adverse jury verdicts that have resulted in reversals in favor of
the defense."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/WBCGi2


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Nelson" Trial v. Crane Co. Settled in 2Q 2018
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the Company has settled the lawsuit over
James Nelson's asbestos claim in the second quarter of 2018.

The Company states, "On March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, state court jury found the Company responsible for
a 1/11th share of a US$14.5 million verdict in the James Nelson
claim.  On February 23, 2011, the court entered judgment on the
verdict in the amount of US$4.0 million, jointly, against the
Company and two other defendants, with additional interest in the
amount of US$0.01 million being assessed against the Company,
only.  All defendants, including the Company, and the plaintiffs
took timely appeals of certain aspects of those judgments.  On
September 5, 2013, a panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court, in
a 2-1 decision, vacated the Nelson verdict against all
defendants, reversing and remanding for a new trial.  Plaintiffs
requested a rehearing in the Superior Court and by order dated
November 18, 2013, the Superior Court vacated the panel opinion,
and granted en banc reargument.  On December 23, 2014, the
Superior Court issued a second opinion reversing the jury
verdict.  Plaintiffs sought leave to appeal to the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court, which defendants opposed.  By order dated June 21,
2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied plaintiffs'
petition for leave to appeal.  The case was set for a new trial
in April 2018.  The Company settled the matter in the second
quarter of 2018."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/WBCGi2


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "DeLisle" Suit v. Crane Co. Pending at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. still faces an asbestos lawsuit filed by Richard
DeLisle, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018.

The Company states, "On September 17, 2013, a Fort Lauderdale,
Florida state court jury in the Richard DeLisle claim found the
Company responsible for 16% of an US$8 million verdict.  The
trial court denied all parties' post-trial motions, and entered
judgment against the Company in the amount of US$1.3 million.
The Company appealed and oral argument on the appeal took place
on February 16, 2016.  On September 14, 2016, a panel of the
Florida Court of Appeals reversed and entered judgment in favor
of the Company.  Plaintiff filed with the Court of Appeals a
motion for rehearing and/or certification of an appeal to the
Florida Supreme Court, which the Court denied on November 9,
2016.  Plaintiffs subsequently requested review by the Supreme
Court of Florida.  Plaintiffs' motion was granted on July 11,
2017.  Oral argument took place on March 6, 2018."

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

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/WBCGi2


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SCOTUS Won't Review Ruling in "Poage"
------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that The Supreme Court of the United States
denied further review on March 26, 2018 in the asbestos suit
filed by James Poage.

The Company states, "On July 2, 2015, a St. Louis, Missouri state
court jury in the James Poage claim entered a US$1.5 million
verdict for compensatory damages against the Company.  The jury
also awarded exemplary damages against the Company in the amount
of US$10 million.  The Company filed a motion seeking to reduce
the verdict to account for the verdict set-offs.  That motion was
denied, and judgment was entered against the Company in the
amount of US$10.8 million.  The Company initiated an appeal.
Oral argument was held on December 13, 2016.  In an opinion dated
May 2, 2017, a Missouri Court of Appeals panel affirmed the
judgment in all respects.  The Court of Appeals denied the
Company's motion to transfer the case to the Supreme Court of
Missouri.  The Company sought leave to appeal before the Supreme
Court of Missouri, which denied that request.  The Supreme Court
of the United States denied further review on March 26, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/WBCGi2


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Coulbourn" Suit v Crane Co. Settled in 2Q 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the Company settled the asbestos claim of
George Coulbourn in the second quarter of 2018.

The Company states, "On April 22, 2016, a Phoenix, Arizona
federal court jury found the Company responsible for a 20% share
of a US$9 million verdict in the George Coulbourn claim, and
further awarded exemplary damages against the Company in the
amount of US$5 million.  The jury also awarded compensatory and
exemplary damages against the other defendant present at trial.
The court entered judgment against the Company in the amount of
US$6.8 million.  The Company filed post-trial motions, which were
denied on September 20, 2016.  The Company pursued an appeal to
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which affirmed the judgment on
March 29, 2018.  The Company settled the matter in the second
quarter of 2018."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/WBCGi2


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Emerson Electric Had $333MM Liability at Mar.31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Electric Co. has US$333 million as liability related to
asbestos litigation at March 31, 2018, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Other long-term assets include $131 million
of asbestos-related insurance receivables."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ATnvBz


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 17,251 PI Suits at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corporation continues to defend itself against 17,251
pending asbestos personal injury actions at March 31, 2018,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.

Harsco Corp. states, "The Company is named as one of many
defendants (approximately 90 or more in most cases) in legal
actions in the U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to
airborne asbestos over the past several decades.  In their suits,
the plaintiffs have named as defendants, among others, many
manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of
equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos.

"The Company believes that the claims against it are without
merit.  The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or
processor of asbestos fibers.  Any asbestos-containing part of a
Company product used in the past was purchased from a supplier
and the asbestos encapsulated in other materials such that
airborne exposure, if it occurred, was not harmful and is not
associated with the types of injuries alleged in the pending
actions.

"At March 31, 2018, there were 17,251 pending asbestos personal
injury actions filed against the Company.  Of those actions,
16,737 were filed in the New York Supreme Court (New York
County), 111 were filed in other New York State Supreme Court
Counties and 403 were filed in courts located in other states.

"The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form
that contains a standard damages demand of US$20 million or US$25
million, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical
condition, and without identifying any specific Company product.

"At March 31, 2018, 16,712 of the actions filed in New York
Supreme Court (New York County) were on the Deferred/Inactive
Docket created by the court in December 2002 for all pending and
future asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot demonstrate
that they have a malignant condition or discernible physical
impairment.  The remaining 25 cases in New York County are
pending on the Active or In Extremis Docket created for
plaintiffs who can demonstrate a malignant condition or physical
impairment.

"The Company has liability insurance coverage under various
primary and excess policies that the Company believes will be
available, if necessary, to substantially cover any liability
that might ultimately be incurred in the asbestos actions.  The
costs and expenses of the asbestos actions are being paid by the
Company's insurers.

"In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation in the U.S.,
the Company expects to continue to receive additional claims in
the future.  The Company intends to continue its practice of
vigorously defending these claims and cases.  At March 31, 2018,
the Company has obtained dismissal in 27,971 cases by stipulation
or summary judgment prior to trial.

"It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-
related actions in the U.S. due to the unpredictable nature of
this litigation, and no loss provision has been recorded in the
Company's condensed consolidated financial statements because a
loss contingency is not deemed probable or estimable.  Despite
this uncertainty, and although results of operations and cash
flows for a given period could be adversely affected by asbestos-
related actions, the Company does not expect that any costs that
are reasonably possible to be incurred by the Company in
connection with asbestos litigation would have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/jVmIAV


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Equity LifeStyle, DAs Still in Talks at Mar 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc., remains in settlement
discussions with the District Attorneys' offices regarding
alleged asbestos-related violation on its properties in
California, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018.

The Company states, "In November 2014, we received a civil
investigative subpoena from the office of the District Attorney
for Monterey County, California ("MCDA"), seeking information
relating to, among other items, statewide compliance with
asbestos and hazardous waste regulations dating back to 2005
primarily in connection with demolition and renovation projects
performed by third-party contractors at our California
Properties.  We responded by providing the information required
by the subpoena.

"On October 20, 2015, we attended a meeting with representatives
of the MCDA and certain other District Attorneys' offices at
which the MCDA reviewed the preliminary results of their
investigation including, among other things, (i) alleged
violations of asbestos and related regulations associated with
approximately 200 historical demolition and renovation projects
in California; (ii) potential exposure to civil penalties and
unpaid fees; and (iii) next steps with respect to a negotiated
resolution of the alleged violations.

"No legal proceedings have been instituted to date and we are
involved in settlement discussions with the District Attorneys'
offices.  We continue to assess the allegations and the
underlying facts, and at this time we are unable to predict the
outcome of the investigation or reasonably estimate any possible
loss."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/P2GDuV


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Espinosa" PI Suit Remanded to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Vince Chhabria of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California has entered an order
remanding the case styled Angela D. Espinosa, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. Certainteed Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-
01833-VC. United States District Court, N.D. California to the
Alameda County Superior Court.

Trista Haggard, one of the four plaintiffs in this wrongful death
action, is a California citizen. So are four of the five
defendants. The complaint alleges that Edward Espinosa, Haggard's
father, was exposed to asbestos when he was laying asbestos pipes
for C.F. Fredrick, Inc. in the late 1970s. It also alleges
exposure that Espinosa was exposed to asbestos through his
father's work as a laborer at C.F. Fredrick during the early
1970s.

Certainteed Corporation, the fifth defendant, argues that the
Plaintiffs cannot recover from Keenan Properties, Inc., a
distributor of asbestos-cement pipes, because Keenan did not
distribute asbestos-cement pipe between 1974 and 1982, the years
that Espinosa worked C.F. Fredrick, Inc. But Keenan was
distributing asbestos-cement pipe to C.F. Fredrick in the early
1970s, when Espinosa's father was working at C.F. Fredrick.

The Court determines that Certainteed Corporation has not shown -
- as it must for the Court to have diversity jurisdiction -- that
the four other defendants are sham defendants. The Court explains
that a non-diverse defendant is not considered for purposes of
diversity if there is no possibility that the plaintiff can
"establish a cause of action against the allegedly non-diverse
party." During this inquiry, a court can look outside the
pleadings to see if there are "discrete and undisputed facts that
would preclude plaintiff's recovery against" the non-diverse
party. Under this strict standard, Certainteed Corporation has
failed to show that -- at a minimum -- Keenan Properties, Inc.
and Sully-Miller Contracting Company are sham defendants.

Certainteed also has not shown that there is no possibility that
the plaintiffs can recover from Sully-Miller -- an installer of
asbestos pipes at the same site that Espinosa installed asbestos
pipes for C.F. Fredrick in the late 1970s. At Espinosa's
deposition in his prior personal injury suit, he admitted that he
never saw workers employed by another contractor. But Certainteed
does not explain why this fact precludes establishing that Mr.
Espinosa was exposed to asbestos by Sully-Miller and its agents.

The motion to seek jurisdictional discovery is also denied.
Certainteed has not explained why it cannot obtain this discovery
in state court.

Accordingly, the Court also denied the motion for jurisdictional
discovery and the administrative motion to supplement the record
as moot.

A copy of the Order dated June 19, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ydza36cl from Leagle.com.

Angela D. Espinosa, individually and as successor in interest to
Edward M. Espinosa, Christoper M Espinosa, Trista Haggard &
Patricia L. Fonseth, Plaintiffs, represented by Carole M. Bosch,
Kazan McClain Satterley & Greenwood, Denise R. Smith, Kazan
McClain Satterley Greenwood, Ian Wilfred Alido Rivamonte, Kazan
McClain Satterley & Greenwood A Professional Law Corporation &
Justin Alexander Bosl, Kazan McClain Satterley Greenwood.

Certainteed Corporation, individually and as successor-in-
interest parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of Water Works
Supply Company, Inc. and Keasbey & Mattison Company, Defendant,
represented by Jennifer J. Lee -- jennifer.lee@dentons.com --
Dentons US LLP, Lisa Lurline Oberg -- Lisa.Oberg@dentons.com --
Dentons US LLP, Emily Katherine Ayers -- emily.ayers@dentons.com
-- Dentons US LLP & Michael Neil Lloyd -- nlloyd@schiffhardin.com
-- Schiff Hardin LLP.

The Republic Supply Company of California, Defendant, represented
by Nicole Denine Brown Yuen -- nyuen@foleymansfield.com

Allied Fluid Products Corp., formerly known as, Defendant,
represented by Theodore Thomas Cordery, Imai Tadlock Keeney &
Cordery, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Join Tortfeasors in "Grimes" Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Alison J. Nathan of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York has issued a Memorandum Opinion
and Order denying Defendant Crane Co. request to require joinder
of necessary parties under Rule 19.

On October 3, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed two lawsuits in New York
state court against two different groups of defendants. One
lawsuit was filed against 83 defendants, not including Crane, and
alleged that Mr. Grimes developed mesothelioma as a result of
exposure to Defendants' asbestos-containing products. That action
remains pending in New York state court. The second action -- the
instant action, styled as John Grimes & Linda Phelps, Plaintiffs,
v. CBS Corporation, et al., Defendants, No. 17 Civ. 8361 (AJN),
(S.D.N.Y.) -- was filed against four other defendants, including
Crane.

The Plaintiffs similarly alleged that Mr. Grimes developed
mesothelioma as a result of exposure to Defendants' asbestos-
containing products. On October 30, 2017, Defendants Foster
Wheeler LLC and General Electric Company removed that case to
federal court.

Crane moves for joinder of necessary parties under Rule 19 and
requests that the Court require Plaintiffs to join in this action
all defendants that Plaintiffs sued in the parallel state court
action. Crane argues that this lawsuit and the pending state
court action "request the same relief, under substantially the
same legal theories, for the same injuries, arising from the same
alleged exposure to asbestos," and it contends that Plaintiffs
pursued two lawsuits to segregate defendants like Crane who could
remove the case to federal court from those who could not.
Plaintiffs admit to segregating defendants to avoid the
possibility of removal, but they emphasize that joinder is still
not appropriate.

Crane contends that joinder of the state court defendants is
necessary because if they are absent from this action, Crane
will, if found to be at fault, incur greater liability than it
would if those defendants had been joined. Crane insists that
joinder under Rule 14 is an inadequate solution.

The Plaintiffs dispute Crane's contention, and they emphasize
that Crane could pursue a subsequent contribution action against
any of the state court defendants, if necessary. Plaintiffs also
emphasize that it is unnecessary to name every joint tortfeasor
in one action. As Plaintiffs note, "it is not necessary for all
joint tortfeasors to be named as defendants in a single lawsuit"
since their liability is both joint and several." Under well-
established law, Plaintiffs "did not need to include all joint
tortfeasors as defendants in a single lawsuit." If Crane, like
the non-settling defendants in Brooklyn Navy Yard, is required to
pay more than its equitable share, it has the right to pursue
reimbursement from absent joint tortfeasors.

Crane insists, however, that maritime law applies to this action
and that, under maritime law, "fault must be allocated among the
parties at trial and settling parties", such that "denying
joinder of the parties. . . will almost certainly result in a
gross over-allocation of responsibility to Crane Co. should it be
found at fault,"

The Court notes that federal courts applied New York state law in
Brooklyn Navy Yard. However, the Court need not decide at this
stage whether New York law or maritime law governs this action.
First, it is not clear that, if maritime law applied, Crane would
be unable to pursue contribution actions against the state
defendants or that this Court would be unable to permit a jury to
apportion fault among non-party entities. Crane cites to only
one, non-binding case that expresses doubt "whether federal
maritime principles permit a court to enter a judgment reflecting
a jury's apportionment of damages among entities that were never
named defendants in the lawsuit before the court and from whom
plaintiff has received no compensation for his injuries." Second,
even if Crane were required to pay more than its fair share, the
proportionate share approach recognizes that over-payment may
occur in certain circumstances, such as when a defendant is
insolvent. Thus, Crane may still be required to "pay more than
its apportioned share of liability," if the state court
defendants are not joined does not render those defendants
necessary parties.

Crane further contends that joinder is appropriate to protect the
public interest in avoiding duplicative litigation. Plaintiffs
respond, "the fact that joining joint tortfeasors under Rule 19
may reduce the need for subsequent litigation does not mean that"
joinder under Rule 19 is appropriate. Rule 19 does not direct the
Court to consider the "public interest" of the risk of multiple
lawsuits -- as opposed to multiple obligations -- when deciding
whether a party is required to be joined as a party to an action.
Accordingly, that joinder of the state-court defendants may be
efficient does not make those defendants necessary parties.

Accordingly, the motion for joinder is denied and the initial
pretrial conference remains scheduled for August 10, 2018.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 21, 2018,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8te73sq from Leagle.com.

John Grimes & Linda Phelps, Plaintiffs, represented by Brendan
James Tully, Phillips & Paolicelli, LLP & Daniel John Woodard,
Phillips & Paolicelli, LLP.

CBS Corporation, formerly known as, Defendant, represented by
Dennis Enrique Vega, Sedgwick LLP.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Tara Lynne Pehush --
tara.pehush@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP, David Oxamendi --
david.oxamendi@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP & Nicole Melody Kozin
-- nicole.kozin@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC & General Electric Company, Defendants,
represented by Michael Alan Tanenbaum, Sedgwick LLP & Dennis
Enrique Vega, Sedgwick LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Betzner" PI Suit Remanded to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois has issued a Memorandum and
Order remanding the case Bruce Betzner and Barbara Betzner,
Plaintiffs, v. A.O. Smith Corporation, et al, Defendants, Case
No. 18-CV-1294-SMY-RJD, (S.D. Ill.) to the Circuit Court of the
Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois.

Plaintiffs Bruce and Barbara Betzner originally filed this
lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit,
Madison County, Illinois, alleging that Bruce Betzner sustained
injuries due to asbestos exposure. On June 18, 2018, Defendant
Boeing Co. removed the action to this Court, asserting federal
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1442,
the federal officer removal statute.

The federal officer removal statute permits removal of a state
court action to federal court when such action is brought against
"the United States or an agency thereof of any officer (or any
person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any
agency thereof, sued in an official or individual capacity for
any act under color of such office. As the proponent of
jurisdiction, the Court states that Boeing must show that it was
a (1) "person" (2) "acting under" the United States, its
agencies, or its officers (3) that has been sued "for or relating
to any act under color of such office," and (4) has a colorable
federal defense to Plaintiff's claim.

Boeing maintains that it was acting under an officer or agency of
the United States government in relation to Plaintiffs' claims
and that "it can state at least a colorable federal defense to
Plaintiffs' claims." However, Boeing's Notice of Removal is
devoid of any facts, supporting affidavits, or exhibits
supporting its claimed government contractor defense. Thus,
Boeing's bald assertions are insufficient to meet the criteria
for federal officer jurisdiction. As such, the Court concludes
that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and is
obligated to remand the case back to the Circuit Court of the
Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois.

A copy of the Memorandum and Order dated June 21, 2018, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc5cown7 from Leagle.com.

Bruce Betzner & Barbara Betzner, Plaintiffs, represented by
Judith E. Conway, Cooney and Conway.

The Boeing Company, Defendant, represented by Brian Thomas
Lesiewicz -- BLesiewicz@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley,
et al., Leslie Anne Federer -- LFederer@maronmarvel.com -- Maron
Marvel Bradley, et al. & Greg M. McMahon --
GMcMahon@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley, et al.





                            *********


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  * * *