---

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

              Thursday, November 22, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 234

                            Headlines

3300 CORP: Montgomery Seeks Minimum Wage & OT for Club Dancers
ACADIA PHARMA: Jan. 2019 Hearing on Bid to Consolidate Suits
AKORN INC: Frank Appeals Ruling in House Securities Fraud Suit
ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Fisher's TCPA Suit
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Class Certification Sought in Rodriguez Suit

ALTICE USA: Faces Newman Suit over IPO
AMERICAN DG: Court Denies Class Certification Bid as Moot
ANSAFONE CONTACT: Brown Seeks to Certify Class
ANTARES PHARMA: Continues to Defend Smith Class Suit in N.J.
APPLE INC: Siegal et al. Seek to Certify Class

ARCHSTONE-SMITH OPERATING: Stender Appeals Ruling to 10th Circuit
ARHAUS LLC: Violates ADA, Figueroa Suit Asserts
ASSERTIO THERAPEUTICS: Oral Argument in Huang Suit Set for Nov. 29
ASSOCIATED SUPERMARKET: Cerda et al Seek Overtime Pay
BANC OF CALIFORNIA: Trial in Consolidated Suit Set for Oct. 21

BERKSHIRE HILLS: Depositor's Class Action Ongoing in Massachusetts
BROOKLYN INDUSTRIES: Faces Figueroa ADA Suit in NY
BROOME STREET: Czarnecka Seeks Minimum Wages & OT Pay
BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Still Defends Fuel Surcharge-Related Suits
CALLS AFTER HOURS: Lehman Files Suit Over Unwanted Fax Ads

CAPSTONE TURBINE: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Calif.
CAPTIVA MVP: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss I.T. Tsao's Suit
CAVE LIGHT FILMS: Sullivan Suit Asserts ADA Violation
COMSCORE INC: Bid to Dismiss Privacy Class Action Pending
CORECIVIC INC: Still Defends Grae Securities Class Suit

CORONA REGIONAL: 9th Cir. Flips Denial of Certification in Spriggs
COUSIN VINNY'S: Bid to Certify Class of Delivery Workers Sustained
DELAWARE: Adger et al Sue over Ignoring Complaints of Inmates
DONNA SALYERS: Slade Files ADA Suit v. Faux Fur Seller
DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Faces Possick Securities Class Suit in Florida

DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal in California Securities Suit Ongoing
EIGER BIOPHARMA: Court Terminates CUPID 2 Data-Related Suit
ENGILITY HOLDINGS: Olsen Balks at Merger Deal with SAIC
EVERLAST WORLDWIDE: Faces Kiler ADA Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Sussie Bigger Seeks to Certify FLSA Class

FENIX PARTS: Court Denies Bid for Protective Order in Beezley
FIRST CLASS: Certification of 2 Classes Sought in Martinez Suit
FITBIT INC: Settlement in Sleep Tracking Suit Denied Approval
FOREST CITY: Agreement in Principle Reached in Scarantino Suit
FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Court Bars Direct Contact With Consumers

FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES: Wins Prelim. OK of Settlement in "Dominguez"
G2 ENGINEERING: Seeks 6th Cir. Review of Ruling in "McLaughlin"
GC SERVICES: Caradonna Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
GEORGE'S INC: Cook Appeals W.D. Arkansas Ruling to Eighth Circuit
GNC HOLDINGS: Mid-2019 Trial in Pa. Fluctuating Workweek Case

GNC HOLDINGS: Trial in Naranjo Class Suit to Begin Next Year
GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Has Agreed to Settle 2 Nevada Class Suits
GOOGLE LLC: Woods Seeks to Certify Two Classes
HAMILTON COUNTY, TN: Dismissal of Woodmore School Bus Suit Upheld
HC2 HOLDINGS: Schuff Case Parties Still Exploring Settlement

HC2 HOLDINGS: Settlement Agreement Ongoing in CGI Producer Suit
HENRY SCHEIN: Continues to Defend Marion Diagnostic Class Suit
HENRY SCHEIN: Salkowitz Securities Suit Has New Caption
HENRY SCHEIN: Settlement Agreement Reached in Dental Supplies Suit
HUMMUS & PITA: Perez et al. Seek Minimum Wage & OT Pay

INDIANA: Court Strikes Affirmative Defenses in Wilburn's Suit v JJC
J2 GLOBAL: Rehearing in Banc in Davis Neurology Suit Pending
JACKSON COUNTY, MO: Court Denied Certification of Inmates Class
JANUS HENDERSON: Subsidiary Still Defends VelocityShares Lawsuits
JULIAN SPENCE: Heberle's Bid to Certify Class Cont'd to Nov. 29

JUST ENERGY: Court Denies Class Certification in Evangelista Suit
KANDI TECH: Lead Plaintiff and Counsel Appointed in NY Suits
KARAYIANNIS GLOBAL: Perez Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay
KENTUCKY: Partial Summary Judgment in KAPT Suit Reinstated
KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT: Court Conditionally Certifies Brayman Class

KMG CHEMICALS: Files Merger-Related Disclosures to Appease Suits
LASALLE HOTEL: Lawsuit by Erie Employees Retirement Sys. Dropped
LIBERTY ALL SERVICES: Pico Sues over Spam Text Ads
LIFE STORAGE: $0.2MM Remaining to Settle Class Suit in New Jersey
LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Still Defends Amended Smith Class Suit in Utah

LIVANOVA PLC: Faces 150 Claims at Oct. 31 Over 3T Device Defect
LIVE NATION: Nine Class Suits over Overpriced Tickets Underway
LIVE NATION: Poser Class Suit Dropped Without Prejudice
LOUISIANA: Class Cert of Solar Energy Tax Credits Suit Reversed
LSTAR DEVELOPMENT: Failed to Pay Wages, Hamilton Says

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Bid for Summary Judgment in Gold Suit Pending
LUMENTUM HOLDINGS: Oclaro Still Defends Karri Merger Lawsuit
MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: Bid to Drop Freedman Amended Complaint Ongoing
MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: Court Closes Martinez & Lopez Class Suit
MAKESPACE LABS: Sued over Alleged Inaccurate Consumer Report

MANNKIND CORP: Israel High Court Upholds Ruling in Securities Case
MASTERCARD INC: TCPA Class Suit in Florida Still Stayed
MCCLATCHY CO: Third Phase Trial in Sawin to Start on March 12
MDL 2705: Court Narrows Claims in Grated Parmesan Cheese Suit
MEDICAL CENTER: Ga. App. Affirms Class Certification in Bowden

MERCK & CO: Nicholas Sue over Zostavax Vaccine
MORGAN STANLEY: Bid to Dismiss Iowa Public Employees' Suit Denied
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Becker Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
NAVIENT CORP: Bid to Drop Consolidated Pope Suit Remains Pending
NAVIENT CORP: Bid to Drop Lord Abbett Funds Suit Still Pending

NETGEAR INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid for Arbitration in Klebba Suit
NETGEAR INC: Nov. 29 Hearing Set for Bid to Dismiss Fischer Suit
NEVRO CORP: Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement Suit Ongoing
NEW PARAGON: Paredes Seeks Overtime Compensation
NEW YORK: Motion to Dismiss Filed in Krooks and Krooks Suit

NEW YORK: Troopers Group Appeals Order & Judgment to 2nd Circuit
NEWALTA ENVIRONMENTAL: Court Compels Arbitration in FLSA Suit
NEWLINK GENETICS: Motion to Drop 2nd Amended Abramson Suit Pending
NORTHERN OIL: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Fries Suit
NUVASIVE INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held

OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Faces Amended Complaint in Consolidated Suit
OHIO: Certification of Refugees Class Sought in CRIS Suit
OMEGA FLEX: Missouri Class Action Remains Pending
ON DECK CAPTIAL: Fabricant Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
PATRIOT ENVIRONMENTAL: McCleary Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA

PITNEY BOWES: City of Livonia Retiree Plan Suit Underway
POTBELLY CORP: Assistant Managers Class Suit Underway in N.Y.
POWER SOLUTIONS: Treadwell Sues over Use of Biometric Data
PPL CORPORATION: Kentucky Class Action v. LG&E Still Underway
PURDUE PHARMA: Wilk Sues over Health Insurance Premium Increase

RADIANT LOGISTICS: Still Defends Barahona Class Suit
REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Polat Securities Class Action Still Ongoing
REILY FOODS: First Circuit Appeal Filed in Dumont Class Suit
RENT-A-CENTER INC: Court Certifies Blair Class
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Munster Sues over No-Poach Practices

RH INC: Appeals Decision in Securities Suit to Ninth Circuit
RIPPLE LABS: Appeals Remand of Greenwald Suit to Superior Court
ROCKET PHARMACEUTICALS: 1st Cir. Dismisses Whitehead Class Suit
ROCKWELL MEDICAL: Court Consolidates Too and Spock Class Suits
ROWAN COMPANIES: Bromberg Files Securities Class Action in Texas

SCANA CORP: Continues to Defend Pennington Class Suit
SCANA CORP: Court Certifies Class in Consolidated Ratepayers Suit
SCANA CORP: Firemen's Retirement System Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
SCANA CORP: Marsha Fox Suit Consolidated in Securities Litigation
SCANA CORP: Still Defends Cook Class Action

SECURIAN FINANCIAL: Stospal Sues over Alleged Illegal Loan Scheme
SERENITY SQUARE: Solomon Seeks to Certify Collective Action
SKECHERS USA: Lawsuit by Steamfitters Pension Plan Remains Pending
SPARTAN CHEMICAL: Violates Disabilities Act, Sullivan Says
STAMPS.COM INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing in Feb. 2019

STEVENS SECURITY: Watson et al. Seek to Certify Classes
SYNACOR INC: Amended Complaint Filed in New York Securities Suit
SYNCHRONOSS TECH: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in NJ Suit
TELENAV INC: Accrues $250,000 Deductible Payment in Gergetz Accord
TENET HEALTHCARE: Bid to Dismiss Maderazo Case Underway

TESARO INC: Lead Plaintiff Drops Securities Class Suit
TESLA INC: Plaintiffs Amend Complaint in Model 3 Production Suit
TESLA INC: Seeks Dismissal of Suit over 2018 CEO Performance Award
TESLA INC: Still Defends Securities Suit on SolarCity Acquisition
TESLA INC: Still Faces Securities Suit on Musk's Go-Private Tweet

TESLA INC: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Nixon Says
TETRAPHASE PHARMA: Wants IGNITE3 Suit Moved to Massachusetts
TEVA PHARMA: Antitrust MDL on Generic Products Still Ongoing
TEVA PHARMA: Approved Aggrenox End Payers' Pact Taken to 2nd Cir.
TEVA PHARMA: Bench Trial on FTC's AndroGel Claims Set for Feb. 2019

TEVA PHARMA: Bid for Direct-Buyer Class Pending in Lamictal Case
TEVA PHARMA: Court Says United Healthcare Bound by Settlement
TEVA PHARMA: Effexor(R) Litigation Resumes in District Court
TEVA PHARMA: Faces Various Suits on Opioid Sales and Distribution
TEVA PHARMA: Lidoderm Antitrust Accords Receive Final Court Okay

TEVA PHARMA: Parties in Suit over Namenda IR Deal Sent to Mediation
TEVA PHARMA: Still Defends Actos Purchasers' Antitrust Lawsuit
TEVA PHARMA: Still Defends Antitrust Lawsuits over Niaspan Accord
TEVA PHARMA: Still Defends Consolidated Baker-Grodko Class Lawsuit
TEVA PHARMA: Still Defends Ontario Teachers Securities Class Suit

TEVA PHARMA: Suit over Employee Stock Purchase Plan Still Stayed
TEVA PHARMA: Unit Still Defends Antitrust Suit over Intuniv Accord
TG THERAPEUTICS: Reinmann Class Action Pending in New York
THOMAS DART: Hayes Seeks to Certify Class
TOUS USA: Figueroa Files ADA Suit v. Jewelry Store

TRANSDIGM GROUP: Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit in Ohio
TRANSUNION RENTAL: $425K Settlement Has Prelim Approval
TREEHOUSE FOODS: PERS Mississippi's Bid for Class Status Pending
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: 2nd Cir Appeal Filed in Frankfurt-Trust Suit
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Class Certification Sought in Amy G. Suit

US STEEL: Pennsylvania Court Narrows Claims in Shareholder Suit
VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Faces 3 Class Suits over Ultratech Acquisition
VIRGIN AMERICA: Court Excludes Disputed Evidence in Bernstein
VISA INC: New Settlement Reached in New York Antitrust Litigation
VISTRA ENERGY: Consolidated Gas Index Pricing Suit Still Ongoing

VITA-MIX CORP: Court Sets $40K Appeal Bond in "Linneman"
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Awaits Merkin & Smith's Next Move in Class Suit
VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust's COI Class Suit in Colo. Underway
VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust's COI Class Suit in Minn. Underway
VOYA FINANCIAL: Appeal from Nixed Dezelan Amended Suit Underway

VOYA FINANCIAL: Bid to Drop Barnes' Conversion Claim Still Pending
VOYA FINANCIAL: Bid to Nix Amended Goetz Complaint Still Pending
WADDELL & REED: Reaches Settlement of 401(k) Plan Lawsuit
WAL-MART STORES: Mays Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
WELLS FARGO: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Ibarra Class Suit

WELLS FARGO: Underpays Mortgage Sales Staff, Moses Claims
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Still Faces Class Suits over Labor Matters
WESTERN DIGITAL: Bid for Class Certification in Calif. Suit Okayed
WESTERN UNION: Bid to Dismiss Smallen Trust Suit Still Pending
WESTERN UNION: Class Suit v. Argentina Unit in Evidentiary Stage

WESTERN UNION: Still Faces Frazier et al. Class Suit
WESTERN UNION: Still Faces Tennille and Smet Suits in Colorado
WHITEWAVE FOODS: Padilla & Owens Allege Deceptive Packaging
WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Still Ongoing in Shanklin Suit
WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Roberta Little Now Sole Plaintiff

WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Still Faces Nev. Suit over Gas Price Handling
WILLIS TOWERS: Amended Complaint Filed in Delaware Suit
WILLIS TOWERS: Dec. 3 Oral Argument on Appeals from Stanford Pact
WILLIS TOWERS: UC Regents' Appeal Underway
WORLD THREADS: Faces Figueroa Suit Alleging ADA Breach

XEROX CORP: Appeal in Firefighters Pension Fund Suit Still Pending
XEROX CORP: Still Defends Lawsuits over Fuji Transaction
ZIMMER BIOMET: Still Defends Putative Securities Class Action

                            *********

3300 CORP: Montgomery Seeks Minimum Wage & OT for Club Dancers
--------------------------------------------------------------
KIA MONTGOMERY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 3300 CORP., d/b/a CLUB PINK CHAMPAGNE
AND SHOWGIRLS, a Florida Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
0:18-cv-62683-MGC (S.D. Fla., Nov. 3, 2018), seeks unpaid minimum
wage and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, this case implicates an adult
entertainment club which goes by the trade name of "CLUB PINK
CHAMPAGNE AND SHOWGIRLS." Club Pink has a longstanding policy of
misclassifying its employees as purported independent contractors.
In doing so, Club Pink required and/or permitted Plaintiff, and
others similarly situated, to work as exotic entertainers and/or
dancers at their adult entertainment club in excess of 40 hours per
week but refused to compensate them at the applicable minimum wage
and overtime rates. In fact, Club Pink refused to compensate
Plaintiff at all for the hours she and others like her worked.
These dancers' only compensation was in the form of tips from club
patrons -- Club Pink paid these dancers nothing, the lawsuit says.

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          David Cozad, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LEVY & LEVY, P.A.
          1000 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 588
          Sunrise, FL 33323
          Telephone: (954) 763-5722
          Facsimile: (954) 763-5723
          E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com
                  assistant@levylevylaw.com

ACADIA PHARMA: Jan. 2019 Hearing on Bid to Consolidate Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that several putative
lead plaintiffs have filed motions to consolidate the
NUPLAZID-related cases and to appoint a lead plaintiff and the
motions have been fully briefed and are set to be heard on January
3, 2019.

Between July 19 and August 3, 2018, following recent negative
publicity about NUPLAZID, three purported Company stockholders
filed putative securities class action complaints (captioned
Staublein v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No.
18-cv-01647-JAH-MDD, Stone v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No.
18-cv-01672-LAB-JMA, and Barglow v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
Case No. 18-cv-1812-DMS-WVG) in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California against the Company and certain of
its current executive officers.  

The complaints generally allege that defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and prospects by failing to disclose that
adverse events and safety concerns regarding NUPLAZID threatened
initial and continuing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
approval, and by failing to disclose that the Company engaged in
business practices likely to attract regulatory scrutiny.  

The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
Several putative lead plaintiffs have filed motions to consolidate
the cases and to appoint a lead plaintiff. The motions have been
fully briefed and are set to be heard on January 3, 2019. The
defendants' response to the complaints is stayed pending resolution
of the lead plaintiff motions.

ACADIA Pharmaceuticals said, "The Company has assessed such legal
proceedings, and given the unpredictability inherent in litigation,
the Company cannot predict the outcome of these matters. At this
time, the Company is unable to estimate possible losses or ranges
of losses that may result from such legal proceedings, and it has
not accrued any amounts in connection with such legal proceedings
other than ongoing attorneys' fees."

ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on the development and commercialization of small molecule drugs
that address unmet medical needs in central nervous system
disorders. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. was founded in 1993 and is
headquartered in San Diego, California.


AKORN INC: Frank Appeals Ruling in House Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intervenor Theodore H. Frank filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Shaun House v. Akorn, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-05018, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 30, 2018, in the
cases, SHAUN A. HOUSE, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, ROBERT CARLYLE, Plaintiff, DEMETRIOS
PULLOS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. AKORN, INC.; JOHN N. KAPOOR; KENNETH S. ABRAMOWITZ;
ADRIENNE L. GRAVES; RONALD M. JOHNSON; STEVEN J. MEYER; TERRY A.
RAPPUHN; BRIAN TAMBI; ALAN WEINSTEIN, Defendants, Case Nos. 17 C
5018, 17 C 5022, 17 C 5026 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Thomas M. Durkin
granted in part and denied in part Theodore Frank's motion for
reconsideration of the Court's denial of his motion to intervene.

Six named Plaintiffs each filed an action against Akorn and members
of its board of directors in order to force Akorn to make certain
revisions to the proxy statement it filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission in connection with Frensenius Kabi AG's bid
to acquire Akorn.  Akorn made the changes to its proxy statement,
which the Plaintiffs conceded mooted their claims, and led them to
stipulate to dismissal without prejudice of all six cases pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1).  Although five of the
six cases were filed as class actions, the cases were voluntarily
dismissed before any class was certified or any motion for class
certification was filed.

The appellate case is captioned as Shaun House v. Akorn, Inc., et
al., Case No. 18-3307, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Appellant's
brief is due on or before December 5, 2018, for Theodore H.
Frank.[BN]

Intervenor-Appellant THEODORE H. FRANK is represented by:

          Michael Frank Bednarz, Esq.
          COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE CENTER
          FOR CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS
          1145 E. Hyde Park Boulevard
          Chicago, IL 60615
          Telephone: (801) 706-2690
          E-mail: info@cei.org

Plaintiff-Appellee SHAUN A. HOUSE, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY
          30 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          E-mail: ckupka@zlk.com

Defendants-Appellees AKORN, INC., JOHN N. KAPOOR, KENNETH S.
ABRAMOWITZ, ADRIENNE L. GRAVES and RONALD M. JOHNSON are
represented by:

          Alexander Breckinridge, V, Esq.
          JONES WALKER LLP
          201 St. Charles Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70170-0000
          Telephone: (504) 582-8138
          E-mail: abreckinridge@joneswalker.com


ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Fisher's TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned NICK
FISHER, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a nationwide class
of similarly situated individuals, v. ALARM.COM HOLDINGS, INC. and
JOHN DOE ENTITIES, 1-10, Defendants. Case No. 18 cv 2299. (N.D.
Ill.).

Defendant, Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. (Alarm.com), moves to dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim.

Plaintiff, Nick Fisher, filed a five-count purported class action
complaint on behalf of himself and a nationwide class of similarly
situated individuals, alleging violations of Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), and the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and
Abuse Prevention Act (TCFAPA).

Legal Standard

To survive dismissal, the complaint must not only provide the
defendant with fair notice of a claim's basis, but must also be
facially plausible. A claim must be plausible rather than merely
conceivable or speculative, meaning that the plaintiff must include
enough details about the subject-matter of the case to present a
story that holds together. But the proper question to ask is still
could these things have happened, not did they happen.

Alarm.com moves to dismiss the complaint entirely for failure to
state a claim. The five-count complaint alleges: (Count I) an
individual claim for violations of the TCPA for autodialed and/or
predictive dialed calls without consent; (Count II) a class claim
for violations of the TCPA for autodialed and/or predictive dialed
calls without consent; (Count III) an individual claim for
violations of the TCPA for pre-recorded messages without consent;
(Count IV) a class claim for violations of the TCPA for
pre-recorded messages without consent; and (Count V) a class claim
for violations of the TCFAPA for fraudulent, harassing, illegal,
and abusive telemarketing calls.

Here, Fisher alleges that Alarm.com should be vicariously liable
for the Doe entities that placed the calls. Fisher alleges various
facts from the Abante Rooter summary judgment documents in the
complaint here. Defendants argue that such pleading is improper.
This Court has not found any authority that disallows references to
other litigation.  Those allegations do not save the complaint
here. As noted above, that case has not been adjudicated on the
merits, and nothing in that case supports an inference that
Alarm.com is vicariously liable for the calls made here.

Fisher claims, on information and belief, that each of the Doe
entities "is an agent of Alarm.com and/or Nortek. Alarm.com argues
that such generalized pleading is improper. One of the originally
named defendants, Nortek, has been voluntarily dismissed, but the
allegations as pleaded suggest that Nortek could be wholly
responsible for the alleged conduct. Fisher cannot put Alarm.com on
notice of the allegations against it if the very pleading suggests
that other parties could be wholly responsible.  

In some of the allegations when Fisher asked for more information
or a website to view he was directed to entities other than
Alarm.com. During one call, the caller explained that Alarm.com is
one of the applications, which is used by most companies for the
basic interactive services, so yeah, depending upon your installer.
When asked for clarification, the caller affirmed that Alarm.com is
the interactive part of the security system but 2GIG is the system
itself. There is only one instance, where a caller directed him to
the Alarm.com website. None of these allegations however support a
reasonable inference that Alarm.com is the principal and the
third-party caller is an agent controlled by Alarm.com.

This Court grants plaintiff's motion to cite additional authority
and grants defendant Alarm.com's motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 1, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ydxm8utl from Leagle.com.

Nick Fisher, Plaintiff, represented by Ahmad Tayseer Sulaiman ,
Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.,Joseph Scott Davidson , Sulaiman Law
Group, Ltd., Mohammed Omar Badwan , Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd., Omar
Tayseer Sulaiman , Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. & James C. Vlahakis ,
Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd., 900 Jorie Blvd, Suite 150,Oak Brook,IL.

Alarm.com Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Martin Wojslaw
Jaszczuk , Jaszczuk, P.C. &John F. Kloecker , Jaszczuk P.C., 311 S.
Wacker Drive, Suite 3200, Chicago, Illinois 60606


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Class Certification Sought in Rodriguez Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Josefa Rodriguez moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit captioned JOSEFA RODRIGUEZ,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL LP, Case No. 2:18-cv-01725 (E.D. Wisc.), and
further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant her (and the Defendant) relief from the
Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring
briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

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,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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


ALTICE USA: Faces Newman Suit over IPO
--------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit asserts strict-liability, non-fraud claims
under sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against
Altice USA, its former controlling parent Altice N.V. (now known as
Altice Europe N.V.), certain current and former officers and
directors of Altice USA and the former Altice N.V., and the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering.

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

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

The case is captioned as Ryan Newman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ALTICE USA, INC.,
ALTICE EUROPE N.V. (f/k/a ALTICE N.V.), PATRICK DRAHI, JÉRÉMIE
JEAN BONNIN, ABDELHAKIM BOUBAZINE, MICHEL COMBES, DAVID P.
CONNOLLY, DEXTER G. GOEI, VICTORIA M. MINK, MARK CHRISTOPHER
MULLEN, DENNIS OKHUIJSEN, LISA ROSENBLUM, CHARLES F. STEWART,
RAYMOND SVIDER, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES
LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.,
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC., BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.,
BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP., CREDIT AGRICOLE SECURITIES (USA)
INC., DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC,
SCOTIA CAPITAL (USA) LLC, SG AMERICAS SECURITIES LLC, and TD
SECURITIES (USA) LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 716650/2018 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Oct. 31, 2018).[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Thomas L. Laughlin, Esq.
          Rhiana L. Swartz, esq.
          SCOTT + SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 233-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 233-6334
          E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
                  rswartz@scott-scott.com


AMERICAN DG: Court Denies Class Certification Bid as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEE VARDAKAS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
AMERICAN DG ENERGY INC., JOHN N. HATSOPOULOS, GEORGE N.
HATSOPOULOS, et al., the Defendants, Case 1:17-cv-10247-LTS (D.
Mass.), the Hon. Judge Leo T. Sorokin entered an order on Nov. 16,
2018:

   1. allowing Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,
      as to remaining Counts III, IV, and V:

      Count III alleges the director and officer defendants
      breached their common-law fiduciary duties owed to American
      DG shareholders by "failing to take steps to obtain the
      highest available value for [American DG] consideration
      failing to adequately consider other strategic alternatives,

      and by favoring their own interests rather than protect the
      best interests of [American DG's] unaffiliated
      shareholders";

      Count IV alleges that J. and. G. Hatsopolous breached their
      common-law "fiduciary duties of loyalty, care, and good
      faith owed to [American DG's] unaffiliated shareholders by
      placing their personal interests ahead of the interests of"
      May and similarly situated shareholders" and foisting an
      unfair transaction, both in terms of process and price” on

      them. "Because they acted in concert as a control group and
      stood on both sides of the merger," May claims that they
      "have the burden of proving that the transaction as entirely

      fair" to May and similarly situated shareholders; and

      Count V alleges that G. Hatsopolous, Tecogen, and Merger Sub

      "knowingly aided and abetted" the director and officer
      defendants' breach of their fiduciary duties. "An aiding and

      abetting claim 'may be summarily dismissed based upon the
      failure of the breach of fiduciary duty claims against the
      director defendants.'" In re KKR Fin. Holdings LLC S'holder
      Litig. Because the primary claims of breach of fiduciary
      duty have failed, the aiding and abetting claims also fail;
      and

2. denying as moot May's Motion for Class Certification of:

      "all holders of the common stock of American DG Energy Inc."

ANSAFONE CONTACT: Brown Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LLOYD BROWN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
ANSAFONE CONTACT CENTERS, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company,
the Defendant, Case 5:18-cv-00490-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an entry of an Order permitting, under
court supervision, notice to following class of similarly situated
employees:

   "all persons employed as hourly paid call center employees for
   Defendant for the past three years (plus any applicable
   tolling) from the date of the Complaint to the present who were
   not paid full and proper overtime compensation for all hours
   worked due to Defendant's timekeeping practices."

Specifically, Plaintiff, Opt-In Plaintiffs, and the putative class
members, were subjected to the same illegal pay practices at issue
(nonpayment of full and proper overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 during any workweek). Specifically, Defendant has a
policy and practice of failing to pay hourly paid call center
employees like Plaintiff, Opt-In Plaintiffs, and putative class
members, full and proper overtime compensation for all overtime
hours worked, based on Defendant's common policy of refusing to
account for pre and post-shift work, including finding an available
work station, logging in and logging out, and performing other
necessary pre- and post-shift tasks to complete work duties for the
day, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant is a 24-hour a day, seven-day a week, 365-day per
year call center service provider, based in the United States, with
locations in Ocala, Florida and Santa Ana, California. Defendant
employed Plaintiff, Opt-In Plaintiffs, and the putative class, as
hourly paid call center employees, who are the backbone of
Defendant's business, bringing and maintaining Defendant's services
to the public.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

ANTARES PHARMA: Continues to Defend Smith Class Suit in N.J.
------------------------------------------------------------
Antares Pharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the defendants in
the case, Randy Smith, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Antares Pharma, Inc., Robert F. Apple and
Fred M. Powell ("Smith"), Case No. 3:17-cv-08945-MAS-DEA, intends
to file a motion to dismiss on or before November 26, 2018.

On October 23, 2017, Randy Smith filed a complaint in the District
of New Jersey, captioned Randy Smith, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Antares Pharma, Inc., Robert F.
Apple and Fred M. Powell ("Smith"), Case No. 3:17-cv-08945-MAS-DEA,
on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Antares securities between December 21, 2016 and October
12, 2017, inclusive, asserting claims for purported violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, against Antares, Robert F. Apple and Fred M. Powell.  

The Smith complaint contends that defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Antares
had provided insufficient data to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) in connection with the New Drug Application
(NDA) for XYOSTEDTM; and (ii) accordingly, Antares had overstated
the approval prospects for XYOSTEDTM.  

On July 27, 2018, the court entered an order appointing Serghei
Lungu as lead plaintiff, Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel, and Lite
DePalma Greenberg, LLC as liaison counsel for plaintiff. On August
3, 2018, the parties submitted a stipulation and proposed order,
setting forth an agreed-upon schedule for responding to the
complaint, which the court granted. Pursuant to that order,
plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on
October 9, 2018 and defendants intend to file a motion to dismiss
on or before November 26, 2018.

Antares Pharma The Company believes that the claims in the Smith
action lack merit and intends to defend them vigorously.

Antares Pharma, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, focuses
on developing and commercializing self-administered parenteral
pharmaceutical products and technologies worldwide. The company was
founded in 1978 and is headquartered in Ewing, New Jersey.


APPLE INC: Siegal et al. Seek to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS DAVIDSON, TODD
CLEARY, ERIC SIEGAL, MICHAEL PAJARO, JOHN BORZYMOWSKI, BROOKE
CORBETT, TAYLOR BROWN, JUSTIN BAUER, HEIRLOOM ESTATE SERVICES,
INC., KATHLEEN BAKER, MATT MUILENBURG, WILLIAM BON, and JASON PETTY
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. APPLE, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
5:16-cv-04942-LHK (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order on February 21, 2019:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "any person residing in Florida, Illinois, or Washington who
      purchased an Apple iPhone 6 or iPhone 6 Plus from Apple or
      an Apple Authorized Service Provider (listed on
      https://locate.apple.com/) that was manufactured without
      underfill under the U2402 integrated circuit chip"

      Excluded from the Class are governmental entities, Apple and

      its affiliates, subsidiaries, employees, current and former
      officers, director, agents, representatives, and members of
      this Court and its staff.

   2. appointing Plaintiffs to serve as Class Representatives of
      their respective states: Eric Siegal for Illinois, John
      Borzymowski for Florida, and William Bon and Matt Muilenburg

      for Washington; and

   3. appointing McCune Wright Arevalo LLP as Class Counsel for
      all certified classes.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class:

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          David C. Wright, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT A REVALO, LLP
          3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
          Ontario, California 91761
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                  dcw@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          Stephen G. Larson, Esq.
          R.C. Harlan, Esq.
          Robert C. O'Brien, Esq.
          LARSON O'BRIEN LLP
          555 South Flower Street, Suite 4400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213 436.4888
          Facsimile: 213 623.2000
          E-mail: slarson@larsonobrienlaw.com
                  rcharlan@larsonobrienlaw.com
                  robrien@larsonobrienlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
          Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLP
          555 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 200-0580
          E-mail: jgs@mccunewright.com
                  mds@mccunewright.com
                  jbk@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
          112 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 784-6400
          Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
          E-mail: mbreit@simmonsfirm.com

               - and -

          Greg Coleman, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049)
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
          Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone (973) 623-3000
          E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com


ARCHSTONE-SMITH OPERATING: Stender Appeals Ruling to 10th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Infinity Clark Street Operating, LLC, and Steven A.
Stender filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled
Stender, et al. v. Archstone-Smith, et al., Case No.
1:07-CV-02503-WJM-MJW, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado - Denver.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 16, 2018, the
District Court issued an Order affirming Taxation Costs in the
case.

The District Court awarded the Defendants their costs.  After a
contested hearing before the Court's Chief Legal Officer, to whom
taxation of costs has been delegated, the Clerk of Court taxed
$418,023.21 in favor of the Archstone Defendants and $61,643.01 in
favor of the Tishman Defendants.

The appellate case is captioned as Stender, et al. v.
Archstone-Smith, et al., Case No. 18-1432, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants STEVEN A. STENDER and INFINITY CLARK STREET
OPERATING, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Rick D. Bailey, Esq.
          BURG SIMPSON ELDREDGE HERSH & JARDINE PC
          40 Inverness Drive East
          Englewood, CO 80112-0000
          Telephone: (303) 792-5595
          E-mail: rick.davidbailey@gmail.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, #1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com

Plaintiffs-Appellants STEVEN A. STENDER and INFINITY CLARK STREET
OPERATING, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, and Plaintiff HAROLD SILVER are represented by:

          Kara A. Elgersma, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE, LLP
          55 West Monroe, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          E-mail: kae@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Matthew W.H. Wessler, Esq.
          GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
          1900 L Street NW, Suite 312
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 888-1741
          E-mail: matt@guptawessler.com

Plaintiff HAROLD SILVER is represented by:

          Thomas Arthur Doyle, Esq.
          Mark Richard Miller, Esq.
          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE, LLP
          55 West Monroe, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          E-mail: tad@wexlerwallace.com
                  mrm@wexlerwallace.com
                  kaw@wexlerwallace.com

Defendants-Appellees ARCHSTONE-SMITH OPERATING TRUST, et al., are
represented by:

          Adam Baker Banks, Esq.
          Justin David D'Aloia, Esq.
          Ashish Dinesh Gandhi, Esq.
          Caroline Hickey Zalka, Esq.
          Raquel Kellert, Esq.
          Jonathan Polkes, Esq.
          Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser, Esq.
          WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          767 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3301
          New York, NY 10153
          Telephone: (212) 310-8000
          E-mail: adam.banks@weil.com
                  justin.daloia@weil.com
                  Ashish.gandhi@weil.com
                  caroline.hickeyzalka@weil.com
                  raquel.kellert@weil.com
                  jonathan.polkes@weil.com
                  elizabeth.weiswasser@weil.com

               - and -

          Melanie A. Conroy, Esq.
          WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          101 Federal Street, 34th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 772-8820
          E-mail: melanie.conroy@weil.com

               - and -

          Ralph I. Miller, Esq.
          WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          1300 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 682-7133
          E-mail: Ralph.miller@weil.com

               - and -

          Frederick James Baumann, Esq.
          Alex C. Myers, Esq.
          LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
          1200 17th Street, Suite 3000
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 623-9000
          E-mail: fbaumann@lrrc.com
                  amyers@lrrc.com


ARHAUS LLC: Violates ADA, Figueroa Suit Asserts
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arhaus, LLC. The case
is styled as Jose Figueroa on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Arhaus, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10491 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 12, 2018).

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

Arhaus, LLC, doing business as Arhaus Furniture, manufactures home
furnishings. The company offers living, dining, bedroom, home
office, lighting, bedding, decoration, and outdoor furnishings; and
rugs and drapery collections. It serves customers through its store
locations, as well as online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ASSERTIO THERAPEUTICS: Oral Argument in Huang Suit Set for Nov. 29
------------------------------------------------------------------
Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that oral arguments on
the motion to dismiss in the case entitled, Huang v. Depomed et
al., are scheduled for November 29, 2018.

On August 23, 2017, the Company, its current chief executive
officer and president, its former chief executive officer and
president, and its former chief financial officer were named as
defendants in a purported federal securities law class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (Huang v. Depomed et al., No. 3:17-cv-4830-JST, N.D.
Cal.).

The action alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
relating to certain prior disclosures of the Company about its
business, compliance, and operational policies and practices
concerning the sales and marketing of its opioid products and
contends that the conduct supporting the alleged violations
affected the value of Company common stock and is seeking damages
and other relief.

In an amended complaint filed on February 6, 2018, the lead
plaintiff (referred to in its pleadings as the Depomed Investor
Group), which seeks to represent a class consisting of all
purchasers of Company common stock between July 29, 2015 and August
6, 2017, asserted the same claims arising out of the same and
similar disclosures against the Company and the same individuals as
were involved in the original complaint. The Company and the
individuals filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
April 9, 2018.

The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on June 8,
2018. The Company and the individuals filed a reply in support of
their motion to dismiss on July 23, 2018. Oral arguments are
scheduled for November 29, 2018.

Assertio Therapeutics said, "The Company believes that the action
is without merit and intends to contest it vigorously."

Assertio Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
engages in the development, sale, and licensing of products for
pain and other central nervous system conditions in the United
States. The company was formerly known as Depomed Inc. and changed
its name to Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. in August 2018 Assertio
Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Lake
Forest, Illinois.


ASSOCIATED SUPERMARKET: Cerda et al Seek Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
NANCY LUCIA CERDA and JOSE HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ASSOCIATED
SUPERMARKET GROUP, LLC, PERALTA-BUENO CORP. d/b/a ASSOCIATED
SUPERMARKET, and EVI PERALTA and ERASMO BUENO, as individuals, the
Defendants, Case No. 18-6178 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2018), seeks unpaid
overtime wages, compensatory damages and liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable
remedies, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully failed to post
notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a
conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required
by both the NYLL and the FLSA. The Defendants willfully failed to
keep accurate payroll records as required by both NYLL and the
FLSA, the lawsuit says.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


BANC OF CALIFORNIA: Trial in Consolidated Suit Set for Oct. 21
--------------------------------------------------------------
Banc of California, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the trial in the
consolidated class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California is set for October 21, 2019.

The Company was named as a defendant in several complaints filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California in January 2017 alleging violations of sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaints
were brought as purported class actions on behalf of stockholders
who purchased shares of the Company's common stock between varying
dates, inclusive of August 7, 2015 through January 23, 2017.

Those actions were consolidated, a lead plaintiff was appointed,
and the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on
May 31, 2017. The defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Complaint. On September 18, 2017, the district court
granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motions to dismiss.
Specifically, the court denied the defendants' motions as to the
Company's April 15, 2016 Proxy Statement which listed the positions
held by Steven A. Sugarman (the Company’s then (now former)
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer) with COR
Securities Holdings Inc., COR Clearing LLC, and COR Capital LLC
while omitting their alleged connections with Jason Galanis.

Trial is currently set for October 21, 2019.

Banc of California said, "The Company believes that the action is
without merit and intends to vigorously contest it."

Banc of California, Inc. is a financial holding company under the
Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, headquartered in
Santa Ana, California and incorporated under the laws of Maryland.


BERKSHIRE HILLS: Depositor's Class Action Ongoing in Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------------
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 9, 2018, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself
from a purported class of Berkshire Bank depositors

On April 28, 2016, Berkshire Hills and Berkshire Bank were served
with a complaint filed in the United States District Court,
District of Massachusetts, Springfield Division. The complaint was
filed by an individual Berkshire Bank depositor, who claims to have
filed the complaint on behalf of a purported class of Berkshire
Bank depositors, and alleges violations of the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act and certain regulations thereunder, among other
matters.

On July 15, 2016, the complaint was amended to add purported claims
under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. The complaint
seeks, in part, compensatory, consequential, statutory, and
punitive damages.

Berkshire Hills and Berkshire Bank deny the allegations contained
in the complaint and are vigorously defending this lawsuit.

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

Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. operates as a bank holding company
for Berkshire Bank that provides various banking products and
services. It offers various deposit accounts, including demand
deposit, NOW, regular savings, money market savings, time
certificates of deposit, and retirement deposit accounts; and
loans, such as commercial real estate, commercial and industrial,
consumer, and residential mortgage loans. Berkshire Hills Bancorp,
Inc. was founded in 1846 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.


BROOKLYN INDUSTRIES: Faces Figueroa ADA Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brooklyn Industries
LLC. The case is styled as Jose Figueroa on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Brooklyn Industries
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10494 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 12, 2018).

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

Brooklyn Industries LLC designs and sells clothes, bags, and
accessories through its retail stores and online Website.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BROOME STREET: Czarnecka Seeks Minimum Wages & OT Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
BONNIE WARREN, ZAIDA CZARNECKA, and IVA YORDANOVA on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
BROOME STREET FOOD AND DRINK, LLC, BLACK TAP LES, LLC and BLACK TAP
MIDTOWN, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 521774/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Oct. 30, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime
compensation, misappropriated tips, and other damages for
Plaintiffs and their similarly situated co-workers servers,
bartenders, bussers, barbacks, food runners, and other similarly
situated front-of-the-house tipped employees, who work or have
worked at Black Tap Craft Burgers and Beer, under the New York
Labor Law or the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, during Plaintiffs' employment,
Defendants applied a tip credit to Tipped Employees' wages and paid
Tipped Employees a reduced minimum wage rate. The Defendants failed
to provide Plaintiffs and other Tipped Employees with proper
notification of the tipped minimum wage rate or tip credit
provisions of the NYLL or the FLSA, or of their intent to apply a
tip credit to Plaintiffs’ and other Tipped Employees' wages. The
Defendants misappropriated gratuities from Plaintiffs and other
Tipped Employees by requiring them to engage in a tip distribution
scheme where tips were shared with employees that are not entitled
to tips under the NYLL and/or the FLSA, including, but not limited
to, shake makers and utility employees.

Defendants also required Tipped Employees to perform non-tip
producing side work including, but not limited to, general cleaning
of the restaurant and stocking and cleaning service
areas, for more than 2 hours and/or 20% of their shifts. The
Defendants also failed to properly pay call in pay as required by
the NYLL, the lawsuit says.

Owned, operated, and controlled by Broome Street Food and Drink,
LLC, Black Tap LES, LLC, and Black Tap Midtown LLC, The Black Tap
restaurants are known international for their craft burgers and
"crazy shake" milkshakes.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class:

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

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Carolyn D. Richmond, Esq.
          Jason Jendrewski, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
          101 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 878-7983
          E-mail: crichmond@foxrothschild.com
                  jjendrewski@foxrothschild.com

BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Still Defends Fuel Surcharge-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5,
2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the
company continues to defend itself from class action suits related
to fuel surcharges.

Beginning May 14, 2007, some 30 similar class action complaints
were filed in six federal district courts around the country by
rail shippers against BNSF Railway and other Class I railroads
alleging that they have conspired to fix fuel surcharges with
respect to unregulated freight transportation services in violation
of the antitrust laws. The complaints seek injunctive relief and
unspecified treble damages.

These cases were consolidated and are currently pending in the
federal District Court for the District of Columbia for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings. (In re: Rail Freight Fuel
Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1869).

Consolidated amended class action complaints were filed against
BNSF Railway and three other Class I railroads in April 2008. On
June 21, 2012, the District Court certified the class sought by the
plaintiffs. BNSF Railway and the other three Class I railroads
appealed the class certification decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals. On August 9, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals vacated the
District Court's class certification decision and remanded the case
to permit the District Court to reconsider its decision in light of
the United States Supreme Court case of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend.

In September 2016, the District Court held a hearing to determine
whether to certify a class. On October 10, 2017, the District Court
denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class. The plaintiffs
appealed the denial of class certification to the U.S. Court of
Appeals. In September 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals held a
hearing on the appeal of the denial of class certification, but no
order has been issued.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe said, "The Company continues to
believe that these claims are without merit and continues to defend
against the allegations vigorously. The Company does not believe
that the outcome of these proceedings will have a material effect
on its financial condition, results of operations or liquidity."

Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC, through its subsidiaries,
provides freight rail transportation services. The company
transports a range of products and commodities, including consumer
products, which cover domestic and international intermodal, and
automotive business sectors; industrial products that include
construction, petroleum, building, chemicals, and plastics
products, as well as food and beverages; agricultural products,
including corn, wheat, soybeans, ethanol, fertilizer, bulk foods,
feeds, oil seeds and meals, milo, oils, barley, oats and rye, flour
and mill products, specialty grains, and malt; and coal. The
company was incorporated in 1994 and is based in Fort Worth, Texas.
As of February 23, 2018, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC operates
as a subsidiary of National Indemnity Company.


CALLS AFTER HOURS: Lehman Files Suit Over Unwanted Fax Ads
----------------------------------------------------------
Sherelynn Lehman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Calls After Hours, LLC, a New
Jersey limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02601
(N.D. Ohio, November 12, 2018) seeks to stop Defendant's practice
of sending unauthorized and unwanted fax advertisements, and obtain
redress for all persons and entities injured by its conduct.

In an attempt to generate sales leads, and ultimately increase its
revenues, Calls After Hours created a fax-based marketing campaign
wherein it sent numerous unsolicited faxes advertising its products
and services across the country, notes the complaint.  Calls After
Hours sent the fax advertisements at issue to Plaintiff and members
of the Classes despite: (i) having no previous relationship with
them; and (ii) never receiving the recipients' consent to receive
such faxes.

The Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended
by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, and the regulations
promulgated under the Act, prohibits a person or entity from
faxing, or having an agent fax, advertisements without the
recipient's prior express consent, invitation, and permission, the
complaint asserts.

Defendant's fax advertisements violate the JFPA, and caused
Plaintiff and members of the Classes to suffer actual harm,
including the aggravation and nuisance of receiving such faxes, the
loss of use of their fax machines during the receipt of such faxes,
increased labor expenses, and the loss of any ink and paper used to
print them, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Lehman is a natural person and resident of Cuyahoga
County, Ohio.

Calls After Hours is a national company that offers virtual
receptionist services to medical offices. It is a limited liability
company incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of
New Jersey. Calls After Hours systemically and continuously
conducts business throughout this District, the State of Ohio, and
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam T. Savett, Esq.
     SAVETT LAW OFFICES LLC
     2764 Carole Lane
     Allentown PA 18104
     Phone: (610) 621-4550
     Facsimile: (610) 978-2970
     Email: adam@savettlaw.com


CAPSTONE TURBINE: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Capstone Turbine Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit in the U.S
District Court for the Central District of California.

Two putative securities class action complaints were filed against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
under the following captions: David Kinney, etc. v. Capstone
Turbine, et al., No. 2:15-CV-08914 on November 16, 2015 (the
"Kinney Complaint") and Kevin M. Grooms, etc. v. Capstone Turbine,
et al., No. 2:15-CV-09155 on November 25, 2015 (the "Grooms
Complaint").

The putative class in the Kinney Complaint was comprised of all
purchasers of the Company's securities between November 7, 2013 and
November 5, 2015. The Kinney Complaint alleges material
misrepresentations and omissions in public statements regarding BPC
and the likelihood that BPC would not be able to fulfill many legal
and financial obligations to the Company. The Kinney Complaint also
alleges that the Company's financial statements were not
appropriately adjusted in light of this situation and were not
maintained in accordance with GAAP, and that the Company lacked
adequate internal controls over accounting.

The Kinney Complaint alleges that these public statements and
accounting irregularities constituted violations by all named
defendants of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, as well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act by the individual defendants.  

The Grooms Complaint makes allegations and claims that are
substantially identical to those in the Kinney Complaint, and both
complaints seek compensatory damages of an undisclosed amount. On
January 16, 2016, several shareholders filed motions to consolidate
the Kinney and Grooms actions and for appointment as lead
plaintiff.  

On February 29, 2016, the Court granted the motions to consolidate,
and appointed a lead plaintiff. On May 6, 2016, a Consolidated
Amended Complaint with allegations and claims substantially
identical to those of the Kinney Complaint was filed in the
consolidated action. The putative class period in the Consolidated
Amended Complaint is June 12, 2014 to November 5, 2015.  Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on
June 17, 2016.

On March 10, 2017, the Court issued an order granting Defendants'
motion to dismiss in its entirety with leave to amend. Plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on April 28, 2017. On February 9, 2018,
the Court issued an Order denying Defendants' motion to dismiss.  

On March 30, 2018, Defendants filed an answer to the Consolidated
Amended Complaint. On May 17, 2018, the Court issued a scheduling
order setting a trial date of March 17, 2020. On June 26, 2018, the
Court entered an order vacating all deadlines through the end of
October 2018 and temporarily staying formal discovery and other
proceedings to allow the parties time to conduct a mediation. The
parties participated in mediation on September 24, 2018. The
mediation did not result in a settlement.

Capstone Turbine said, "The Company has not recorded any liability
as of September 30, 2018 since any potential loss is not probable
or reasonably estimable given the current status of the
proceedings."

Capstone Turbine Corporation develops, manufactures, markets, and
services microturbine technology solutions for use in stationary
distributed power generation applications worldwide. It offers
microturbine units, components, and various accessories for
applications, including cogeneration comprising combined heat and
power (CHP) and integrated CHP, as well as combined cooling, heat,
and power; and renewable energy, natural resources, and critical
power supply. Capstone Turbine Corporation was founded in 1988 and
is headquartered in Van Nuys, California.


CAPTIVA MVP: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss I.T. Tsao's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division, issued an Order granting Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint in the case
captioned I TAN TSAO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CAPTIVA MVP RESTAURANT PARTNERS,
LLC d/b/a PDQ, Defendant. Case No. 8:18-cv-1606-T-02SPF. (M.D.
Fla.).

The Plaintiff asserts that he purchased food at an affected PDQ on
two different occasions using two different reward payment credit
cards. The Plaintiff alleges that he contacted the bank, the cards
were cancelled, thereby causing him to lose the opportunity to
accrue rewards. Having to reset the new payment cards on autopay,
the Plaintiff claims, is an additional hassle.

The Defendant requests dismissal on two valid grounds: lack of
subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1); and failure to state a claim for relief under Rule
12(b)(6).

ARTICLE III STANDING

To meet the pleading standard for standing under Article III, a
plaintiff must first allege sufficient facts to show the injury in
fact is concrete and particularized and actual and imminent, not
conjectural or hypothetical.

The Plaintiff's complaint fails to allege any facts showing he has
suffered an injury in fact. He has not alleged an invasion of a
legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and
actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. The threatened
injury must be certainly impending to constitute injury in fact and
allegations of possible future injury are not sufficient.

The Plaintiff alleges that his private data was compromised and
exposed to criminals for future misuse. Not once does he allege
that his credit cards were used in any way by a thief or that his
identity was stolen. He alludes to the imminent risk of harm and
impending injury that he will suffer from potential fraud and
identity theft.  

To the extent the Plaintiff alleges in a conclusory fashion that he
and other class members have suffered actual harm as a result of
the data breach, he fails to include any factual specificity
regarding the date or nature of any injuries, actual misuse of the
credit card information, or the monetary value associated with any
such purported misuse of the information. The Plaintiff has not
identified a single specific, concrete injury in fact that he or
anyone else has suffered as a result of any misuse of customer
credit card information stemming from the PDQ data breach. Evidence
of a data breach, without more, is insufficient to satisfy injury
in fact under Article III standing and requires dismissal of the
complaint.  

Article III standing limits the judicial power of the United States
to the resolution of cases and controversies. Standing is a
threshold jurisdictional question which must be addressed prior to
and independent of a party's claims. The one named Plaintiff in
this class action law suit has not suffered an injury in fact.
Plaintiff has alleged no actual theft of personal information or
actual misuse of stolen data. His claims are based on fears of
hypothetical future harm that are not certainly impending.
Consequently, the complaint must be dismissed without prejudice for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 1, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yb7qng62 from Leagle.com.

I Tan Tsao, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Francis J. Flynn, Jr. --
francisflynn@gmail.com -- The Law Office of Francis J. Flynn, Jr.,
pro hac vice, James J. Rosemergy -- jrosemergy@careydanis.com --
Carey, Danis & Lowe, pro hac vice & Steven William Teppler --
steppler@lawfirm -- Steven William Teppler.

Captiva MVP Restaurant Partners, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, Defendant, represented by Marie A. Borland --
marie.borland@hwhlaw.com -- Hill Ward Henderson, PA & Robert A.
Shimberg -- robert.shimberg@hwhlaw.com -- Hill Ward Henderson, PA.


CAVE LIGHT FILMS: Sullivan Suit Asserts ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cave Light Films,
LLC. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr. on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cave Light
Films, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10481 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 12,
2018).

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

CaveLight Films is an all-purpose production house creating
projects that both inform and entertain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COMSCORE INC: Bid to Dismiss Privacy Class Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
comScore, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the motion to
dismiss the Privacy Class Action Litigation is pending.

On September 11, 2017, the Company and a wholly-owned subsidiary,
Full Circle Studies, Inc., ("Full Circle"), received demand letters
on behalf of named plaintiffs and all others similarly situated
alleging that the Company and Full Circle collected personal
information from users under the age of 13 without verifiable
parental consent in violation of Massachusetts law and the federal
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.

The letters alleged that the Company and Full Circle collected such
personal information by embedding advertising software development
kits ("SDKs") in applications created or developed by Disney. The
letters sought monetary damages, attorneys’ fees and damages
under Massachusetts law. The Company and Full Circle responded to
the demand letters on October 11, 2017.

On June 4, 2018, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints adding the
Company and Full Circle as defendants in a purported class action
against Disney, Twitter and other defendants, alleging violations
of California's constitutional right to privacy and intrusion upon
seclusion law, New York's deceptive trade practices statute, and
Massachusetts' deceptive trade practices and right to privacy
statutes.

The complaints allege damages in excess of $5 million, with any
award to be apportioned among the defendants. The defendants filed
a joint motion to dismiss on August 3, 2018, and a hearing on the
motion to dismiss was held on October 17, 2018.

comScore said, "The Company and Full Circle deny any wrongdoing or
liability and intend to vigorously defend against these claims.
Although the ultimate outcome of this matter is unknown, the
Company believes that a material loss was not probable or estimable
as of September 30, 2018."

comScore, Inc. operates as an information and analytics company
that measures audiences, consumer behavior, and advertising across
media platforms worldwide. The company offers digital audience
products and services, including Media Metrix and Mobile Metrix,
Video Metrix, Plan Metrix, and comScore marketing solutions, which
provide person-centric insights across various devices and can
capture various types of content. comScore, Inc. was founded in
1999 and is headquartered in Reston, Virginia.


CORECIVIC INC: Still Defends Grae Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
CoreCivic, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a purported securities class action suit
entitled, Grae v. Corrections Corporation of America et al.

Following the release of the August 18, 2016 DOJ memorandum, a
purported securities class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee,
or the District Court, captioned Grae v. Corrections Corporation of
America et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-02267.  

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who purchased or acquired the company's securities
between February 27, 2012 and August 17, 2016. In general, the
lawsuit alleges that, during this timeframe, the company's public
statements were false and/or misleading regarding the purported
operational, programming, and cost efficiency factors cited in the
DOJ memorandum and, as a result, the company's stock price was
artificially inflated.  

The lawsuit alleges that the publication of the DOJ memorandum on
August 18, 2016 revealed the alleged fraud, causing the per share
price of the company's stock to decline, thereby causing harm to
the putative class of shareholders.  

On December 18, 2017, the District Court denied the company's
motion to dismiss.  The case is in fact discovery, and the parties
are currently briefing class certification.

CoreCivic said, "We believe the lawsuit is entirely without merit
and intend to vigorously defend against it. In addition, we
maintain insurance, with certain self-insured retention amounts, to
cover the alleged claims which may mitigate the risk such
litigation would have a material adverse effect on our financial
condition, results of operations, or cash flows."

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

CoreCivic, Inc. is a diversified government solutions company with
the scale and experience needed to solve tough government
challenges in flexible, cost-effective ways. Through three
segments, CoreCivic Safety, CoreCivic Properties, and CoreCivic
Community, the company provides a broad range of solutions to
government partners that serve the public good through corrections
and detention management, government real estate solutions, and a
growing network of residential reentry centers to help address
America's recidivism crisis. The company is based in Nashville,
Tennessee.


CORONA REGIONAL: 9th Cir. Flips Denial of Certification in Spriggs
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued an Order
reversing the District Court's judgment denying Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification in the case captioned MARLYN SALI and
DEBORAH SPRIGGS, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly
situated and the general public, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CORONA
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; UHS OF DELAWARE INC.,
Defendants-Appellees. No. 15-56460. (9th Cir.).

This is an appeal from the District Court’s denial of
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.

The Plaintiffs brought a putative class action alleging that,
during their employment by Corona, they and other nurses were
subject to a number of policies and practices that violated
California's wage and hour laws.

The district court denied the motion to certify as to all of the
proposed sub-classes, holding, in relevant part, that Sali and
Spriggs had failed to satisfy Rule 23(a)'s typicality requirement
because they failed to submit admissible evidence that they had
suffered any of the damages suffered by the putative class. In
reaching this decision, the district court refused to consider the
only piece of evidence offered to establish Plaintiffs' injuries
the declaration of Javier Ruiz, a paralegal employed by the law
firm representing Plaintiffs because it contained inadmissible
evidence.

The district court found the Ruiz declaration was inadmissible for
three reasons. First, Ruiz lacked personal knowledge of the data in
the spreadsheets, and thus could not authenticate the data.

Second, Ruiz offered opinion testimony, improper unless he
qualified as an expert witness.

Third, Ruiz lacked the qualifications necessary for the cumulative
conclusions he reached via manipulation and analysis of raw data to
be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
Plaintiffs challenged this ruling on appeal.

Four of five other circuits to consider this issue disagree with
the panel.

The panel's opinion also puts the Ninth Circuit on the short side
of a lopsided circuit split the Second, Third, Fifth, and Seventh
Circuits all require expert testimony to be admissible to be
considered at the class certification stage.  Two other circuits
have so held in unpublished rulings.  

The panel acknowledges its conflict with the Third, Fifth, and
Seventh Circuits, but emphasizes its agreement with the Eighth the
only circuit to come out the other way.  But even that case does
not fully support the panel's decision. In Zurn Pex, homeowners
brought a class action against a plumbing company, claiming that
the systems installed by the company were defective. 644 F.3d at
608. At the class certification stage, the plaintiffs proffered
evidence from two experts regarding the failure of the plumbing
systems. The defendant attempted to exclude the testimony under
Daubert,and the plaintiffs argued Daubert did not apply.  

The district court conducted a focused Daubert analysis, declining
to rule on whether the testimony was admissible, but also taking
the Daubert factors into consideration in determining whether the
expert testimony supported class certification. The district court
found that the expert testimony supported class certification and
certified the class. Id. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that
the district court's focused Daubert analysis was correct and
stating that expert testimony need not be admissible at the class
certification stage, although the Daubert factors should be
considered.  

Zurn Pex is consistent with the panel's position that inadmissible
expert testimony can be used to support a class certification
motion, though as noted above, the Zurn Pex court, like the panel
here, misreads Eisen. But Zurn Pex's requirement that district
courts undertake a focused Daubert analysis is more specific and
rigorous than the panel's analysis and holding was here. The panel
states that the district court may consider admissibility and
should evaluate evidence in light of Daubert, but provides no
further guidance as to what standard district courts should apply.

Overall, the great weight of persuasive authority counsels against
the panel's decision. In total, six circuits have held in published
or unpublished decisions that expert testimony must be admissible
to be considered at the class certification stage. Before the
panel's decision in this case, only one circuit had reached the
opposite conclusion and even that circuit created a more stringent
evidentiary standard than the one applied by the panel here.

The Supreme Court's precedent counsels against the panel's
holding.

In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 342 (2011), the
Supreme Court reversed an en banc panel of this court that had
approved an order certifying an expansive, 1.5-million-person
class.

The class comprised current and former female employees of
petitioner Wal-Mart who allege[d] that the discretion exercised by
their local supervisors over pay and promotion matters violated
Title VII by discriminating against women. Before analyzing whether
the plaintiffs had satisfied the various elements of Rule 23, the
Court discussed in some detail the evidentiary standard appropriate
at the class certification stage. The Court noted that Rule 23 does
not set forth a mere pleading standard, rather, the moving party
must affirmatively demonstrate his compliance with the Rule.

The plaintiff must be prepared to prove that there are in fact
sufficiently numerous parties, common questions of law or fact,
etc. The Court thus reemphasized the point, made in a previous
case, that the district court must engage in a rigorous analysis"
to determine whether Rule 23 has been satisfied. And, relevant
here, the Court expressly doubted the idea, advanced by the
district court in Dukesand adopted by the panel here, that Daubert
does not apply to expert testimony at the certification stage of
class-action proceedings.

At least one other Supreme Court case counsels against the panel's
holding here. In Comcast Corporation v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27
(2013), the Supreme Court discussed again the evidentiary standard
at the class certification stage when it reversed the Third
Circuit's opinion affirming a grant of class certification. The
Court reaffirmed the principles emphasized in Dukes that Rule 23
demands more than a mere pleading standard and that a plaintiff
must affirmatively demonstrate that is, prove that he in fact has
complied with Rule 23. Although it failed to address directly
whether evidence must be admissible at the class certification
stage, the Court held that satisfying through evidentiary proof at
least one of the provisions of Rule 23(b) is a prerequisite to
class certification. Once again, the Court's guidance strongly
suggests that it favors the rule of the majority of circuits, which
the panel in this case rejected.

The panel's decision in this case involves a question of
exceptional importance and is plainly wrong. It goes against our
own binding precedent, the law of four other circuits, and the
Supreme Court's clear guidance on this issue. Our court should have
reheard this case en banc to reverse the panel's decision on our
own.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's November 1, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yasf8r5u from Leagle.com.


COUSIN VINNY'S: Bid to Certify Class of Delivery Workers Sustained
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Thomas Brandenburg, et
al., On behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. COUSIN VINNY'S PIZZA, LLC, et al., the Defendants,
Case: 3:16-cv-00516-WHR-MJN (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Walter H.
Rice entered an order on Nov. 6, 2018:

   1. sustaining motion to certify a class action pursuant to Fed.
      R. Civ. P. 23:

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

   2. designating Thomas Brandenburg as the Representative of the
      Class; and

   3. affirming selection of class counsel and authorizing to
      class  members for mail and e-mail delivery.[CC]

DELAWARE: Adger et al Sue over Ignoring Complaints of Inmates
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit alleges that Delaware's elected officials
with oversight of the Department of Corrections, including
governors, ignored all of the complaints that the DOC was simply
warehousing inmates, allowing correctional officers to abuse them,
providing them with very little rehabilitation or education, and
denying them adequate healthcare for serious injuries and
illnesses.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were inmates at the
James T. Vaughn Correctional Center in Smyrna, Delaware (JTVCC), a
high-security prison that the State of Delaware operates through
its DOC. All defendants are being sued in their individual capacity
for damages and in their official capacity for injunctive relief
only. For many years prior to February 1, 2017, it was no secret
that there were correctional officers (C/O's) at JTVCC and other
DOC prisons who illegally abused, mistreated, and tortured inmates
with virtually nothing being done by their JTVCC or DOC
supervisors, to stop them. Inmates and others repeatedly complained
about abuse, the increasingly unavailable healthcare, and the
increasing scarcity of education, rehabilitation, and recreation
options for inmates. These complaints were sent to the highest
levels of DOC administration and to the government officials with
oversight of DOC, yet DOC supervisors did not discipline the
abusing officers, made no attempt to provide rehabilitation or
education opportunities to inmates who wanted them, and permitted
the healthcare to get so bad, that many inmates are getting no care
for serious health issues.

The Delaware officials, who should have been protecting inmates and
correctional officers from the danger of out of control prisons,
did nothing to protect either group. They have ignored the
indisputable fact that prison systems with competent management who
offer inmates appropriate education, rehabilitation, recreation and
health care services are much safer for inmates and correctional
officers and have lower recidivism rates. As a result of the
neglect of Delaware prisons, the conditions in Delaware prisons has
deteriorated to the extent they are now considered some of the
worst in the country, the lawsuit says.

The case is captioned, ROBERT L. ADGER, CALVIN L. ALLEN, HENRY J.
ANDERSON, NATHANIEL BAGWELL, FENEL D. BAINE, DONALD F. BASS, JOSEPH
N. BENNETT, DYMERE T. BERRY, SAMUEL B. BISHOP, MARQUIS BOYER-
SMITH, JOHN BOYER, KEVIN C. BRATHWAITE, ALAN BROOKS, JARAD BROWN,
MICHAEL A. BROWN, JUSTIN L. BURRELL, LUIS G. CABRERA, FRED T.
CALDWELL, ALONZO I. CANNON, IVAN CARABELLO, MICHAEL A. CARELLO,
AARON K. CARTER, ROBERT W. CHANDLER, FREDERICK O. CLIFTON, DONALD
COLE, CURTIS M. COLLINS, KENJUAN CONGO, BRIAN CONLEY, CHRIS E.
CRAIG, JOSEPH CRUMPLER, MAURICE CRUZ- WEBSTER, PABLO A.
DAMIANI-MELENDEZ, JAMEL  DANIELS, JERMAINE DICKERSON, GREG DICKSON,
KRISHAN DILLARD, ANTWAN L. DOUGLAS, STEVEN DRAKE, DESHAWN D.
DRUMGO, JOHN R. DUPREE, KURT DUPREE, JEFFREY R. FOGG, DAVID D.
FOREMAN, KYAIR J. FULLMAN, MONIR A. GEORGE, CHARLES T. GETZ, REGENT
J. GODDARD, VICTOR GRANTHAM, KELLY L. HAND, THEODORE HARRIS,
CORNELL L. HESTER, SHAQUILLE K. JACKSON, ANTOINE JONES, MICHAEL E.
KEYSER, CLAUDE LACOMB, JAMES LAWHORN, ALFRED M. LEWIS, JR., ANDREW
D. LONG, DANA B. MARTIN, TYRONE MATHIS, JOHN C. MAYHEW, RICHARD D.
MCCANE, KEVIN MCCRAY, DAVID MCCULLOUGH, EDWARD MCLAUGHLIN, MARVIN
MENCIA, LAWRENCE L. MICHAELS, JOHN E. MILLER, KEITH J. MILLER, TONY
MOZICK, LAMONT L. NORMAN, ANTHONY J. ORTIZ, DONALD D. PARKELL, EZRA
S. PENDLETON, HASSAN J. PERRY, CHRISTOPHER PORTER, MILLARD E.
PRICE, MARK C. PURNELL, LOUIS W. RITTENHOUSE, ANDRE A. RIVERA,
MARCUS ROSSER, BEN ROTEN, RON ROUNDTREE, LARRY J. SARTIN, RAYMOND
Q. SAWYER, DANIEL E. SCHULTZ, JOSHUA D. SEARS, SYLVESTER C.
SHOCKLEY, LUIS SIERRA, RYAN SINCLAIR, DAVID R. SMITH, WADE T.
SMITH, RONALD L. SNEAD, RUSSELL E. STEEDLEY, LAMONT E. STEVENSON,
DARRIN L. SWIGGETT, NIGEL C. SKYES, GERARD E. SZUBIELSKI, HENRY R.
TAYLOR, JR., ELWOOD E. TEAGLE, ORIN L. TURNER, GABRIEL J. WALLACE,
JOSEPH WALLACE, LIONEL M. WALLEY, HOWARD A. WALSH, JAMES G. WELLS,
MICHAEL L. WELLS, CHRISTOPHER H. WEST, KEENAN WHEELER, EUBANKS
WHITE, EUGENE W. WIGGINS, DENNIS O. WILLIAMS, RONALDO WILLIAMS,
CLIFF WILSON, RAYMOND H. WOOD, RICHARD WOODARD, ROBERT L. WORLEY
for themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
vs. GOVERNOR JOHN CARNEY, FORMER COMMISSIONER ROBERT COUPE,
COMMISSIONER PERRY PHELPS, WARDEN DANA METZGER, WARDEN DAVID
PIERCE, WARDEN TIMOTHY RADCLIFF, DEPUTY WARDEN PHIL PARKER, DEPUTY
WARDEN JAMES SCARBOROUGH, MAJOR JEFFREY CARRUTHERS, CAPTAIN BRUCE
BURTON, LT. JUSTIN ATHERHOLT, LT. NATHAN D. ATHERHOLT, LT. JASON T.
COVIELLO, LT. GEORGE J. GILL, LT. MELVIN B. HARRIS, III, LT. KAREN
HAWKINS, LT. SEAN R. MILLIGAN, LT. JAMES P. SATTERFIELD, LT. LARRY
SAVAGE, LT. CHARLES D. SENNETT, JR., LT. TEDDY D. TYSON, SGT.
WILFRED BECKLES, SGT. LAWRENCE O. COVERDALE, SGT. TODD SCOTT DRACE,
SGT. JOHN R. FAULKNER, JR., SGT. RONALD FREDERICK, SGT. VINCENT E.
HAZZARD, SGT. VINCENT MAY, SGT. KEVIN R. MCKENNA, SGT. ROBERT MOCK,
SGT. CHARLES H. RADCLIFFE, SGT. DENNIS P. RUSSELL, CPL. NATHANIEL
C. PAYTON, CPL. DALE LEE RAINS, C/O MICHAEL J. ARABIA, C/O PAUL O.
BARONE, C/O JOSHUA A. CONNOR, C/O WILLIAM ESTRADA, C/O NORMAN
FIGUEROA, JR., C/O BRETT FORAKER, C/O LANCE N. GREEN, C/O RICHARD
L. GRIFFITH, C/O MICHAEL CHESTER LANDON, C/O JOSHUA PEPPERS, C/O
THOMAS PATRICK RUNYON, JR., C/O JOSHUA D. STEWART, C/O ABIGAIL
WEST, C/O TIMOTHY R. YOUNG, and 3C/O AARON FORKUM, the Defendants,
Case No.: N18C-10-336 EMD CCLD (Del. Super. Ct., Oct. 31,
2018).[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Stephen A. Hampton, Esq.
          Anthony V. Panicola, Esq.
          Zachary A. George, Esq.
          James J. Woods, Jr., Esq.
          GRADY & HAMPTON, LLC
          6 North Bradford Street
          Dover, DE 19904
          Telephone: (302) 678-1265

DONNA SALYERS: Slade Files ADA Suit v. Faux Fur Seller
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Donna Salyers'
Fabulous-Furs, Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Donna Salyers' Fabulous-Furs, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-10480 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 12, 2018).

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

Donna Salyers' Fabulous-Furs started in 1989 selling women's coats,
jackets, apparel, accessories, home goods, and footwear. Unlike
their competitors, Donna Salyers' Fabulous-Furs sells all faux fur
and animal print products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Faces Possick Securities Class Suit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
EVAN POSSICK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DYCOM INDUSTRIES, INC., STEVEN E.
NIELSEN and ANDREW DEFERRARI, the Defendants, Case
9:18-cv-81480-RLR (S.D. Fla., Oct. 30, 2018), seeks remedies under
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the case is a federal securities class
action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Dycom common stock between November 20, 2017, and August
10, 2018, inclusive. The Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
Company was highly dependent on permitting and tactical
considerations for its large projects; (ii) the Company's
permitting for its large projects was uncertain; (iii) as a result,
the Company was exposed to near-term margin pressure and absorption
issues; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 22, 2018, the Company disclosed, among other things, that
the Company was facing margin pressure caused by the
under-absorption of labor and field costs as large customer
programs mobilized. It was further disclosed that the Company
expected "margins to continue to be impacted in the near term with
the pressure dissipating as we gain greater momentum on these large
programs." Following these disclosures, the Company lowered its
outlook for the full fiscal year of 2018. On this news, the price
of the Company's common stock declined $23.56 from a close on May
21, 2018 at $116.20 per share, to close at $92.64 per share on May
22, 2018, a decline of approximately 20.27%. Then, on August 13,
2018, Dycom again announced disappointing results for the
quarter ended July 28, 2018, and announced it would revise its
financial guidance for fiscal year 2019. Specifically, it was
revealed that Dycom's "results were impacted by large scale
deployments that were slower than expected during the quarter, due
to customer timing and tactical considerations and margins that
were pressured from under-absorption of labor and field costs to
the lower revenue level. Following this news, shares of Dycom
declined more than 24% to close at $68.09 per share on August 13,
2018, the lawsuit says.

Dycom provides specialty contracting services through subsidiaries
throughout the United States and in Canada. Dycom's services
include program management, engineering, construction, maintenance,
and installation services for telecommunications providers,
underground facility locating services for various utilities,
including telecommunications providers, and other construction and
maintenance services for electric and gas utilities.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          FRANK S. HEDIN (FBN 109698)
          1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 357-2107
          Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal in California Securities Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dynavax Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the appeal
in the class action suit entitled, In re Dynavax Technologies
Securities Litigation, is ongoing.

On November 18, 2016, two substantially similar securities class
action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and two of its
executive officers, in Soontjens v. Dynavax Technologies
Corporation et. al., ("Soontjens") and Shumake v. Dynavax
Technologies Corporation et al., ("Shumake").

The Soontjens complaint alleges that between March 10, 2014 and
November 11, 2016, the Company and certain of its executive
officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with statements
related to HEPLISAV-B.

The Shumake complaint alleges violations of the same statutes
related to the same subject, but between January 7, 2016 and
November 11, 2016.

The plaintiffs in both actions are seeking an unspecified amount of
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 17, 2017, these two actions and all related actions that
subsequently may be filed in, or transferred to, the District Court
were consolidated into a single case entitled In re Dynavax
Technologies Securities Litigation. On January 31, 2017, the court
appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint on March 17, 2017.

Defendants' filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on May 1, 2017. On September 12, 2017, the District Court
granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, but gave lead plaintiff an
opportunity to amend his complaint. On October 3, 2017, plaintiff
filed a Second Amended Complaint. Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on November 3, 2017. A hearing
on Defendants' motion to dismiss was set for January 23, 2018, but
the hearing was vacated by the Court on January 18, 2018. On April
24, 2018, the Court reset the hearing on Defendants' motion to
dismiss for May 8, 2018. On June 4, 2018, Defendants' motion to
dismiss was granted and the case was dismissed with prejudice.  

On July 3, 2018, lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Lead plaintiff's
opening appellate brief is currently due on November 13, 2018.

Dynavax Technologies Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company,
focuses on leveraging the power of the body’s innate and adaptive
immune responses through toll-like receptor (TLR) stimulation.
Dynavax Technologies Corporation was founded in 1996 and is
headquartered in Berkeley, California


EIGER BIOPHARMA: Court Terminates CUPID 2 Data-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eiger BioPharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the
plaintiff in CUPID 2 data consolidated class action suit did not
file a petition for rehearing within the time period to file such
petition, thereby effectively terminating the shareholder suit.

In July 2015, following Celladon's announcements of the negative
CUPID 2 data and the suspension of further research and development
activities and the subsequent declines of the price of its common
stock, three putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California against Celladon and
certain of its current and former officers.

The complaints generally alleged that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act"), by making materially false and
misleading statements regarding the clinical trial program for
MYDICAR, thereby artificially inflating the price of Celladon's
common stock. The complaints sought unspecified monetary damages
and other relief, including attorneys' fees.

On December 9, 2015, the district court consolidated the three
putative securities class actions and appointed a lead plaintiff to
represent the putative class. The lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint on February 29, 2016.

On October 7, 2016, the district court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and granted leave to
amend within 60 days from the date of the district court's order.
The lead plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of intent not to
amend the consolidated amended complaint and instead indicated that
it intended to appeal the district court's decision. On December 9,
2016, the district court closed the case.

On December 28, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a notice to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit appealing the
district court's order dismissing the consolidated amended
complaint. On May 5, 2017, the lead plaintiff and appellant filed
his opening appellate brief. On July 5, 2017, defendants filed
their answering appellate brief response.

The Plaintiff subsequently filed their response to the Company's
July 5, 2017 filing on August 19, 2017. Oral arguments were heard
on August 28, 2018 before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and
on September 17, 2018, the court ruled that the lower court ruling
was re-affirmed. The plaintiff had two weeks to file a petition for
a rehearing and such filing was not made within the allowed time,
effectively terminating the shareholder lawsuit.

Eiger BioPharmaceuticals, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company, focuses on the development and commercialization of
targeted therapies for rare diseases in the United States and
internationally. The company was founded in 2008 and is
headquartered in Palo Alto, California.


ENGILITY HOLDINGS: Olsen Balks at Merger Deal with SAIC
-------------------------------------------------------
KARL OLSEN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ENGILITY HOLDINGS, INC., LYNN A. DUGLE,
STEVEN A. DENNING, DAVID M. KERKO, PETER A. MARINO, DARRYLL J.
PINES, ANTHONY PRINCIPI, CHARLES S. REAM, DAVID A. SAVNER, WILLIAM
G. TOBIN, JOHN W. BARTER, III, DAVID J. TOPPER, KATHARINA G.
MCFARLAND, RAPTORS MERGER SUB, INC., and SCIENCE APPLICATIONS
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, the Defendants, the Case No.
1:18-cv-01737-UNA (D. Del., Nov. 2, 2018), seeks to enjoin
Defendants from taking any steps to consummate a merger deal,
unless and until the material information discussed below is
included in an amendment, and in the event the Proposed Transaction
is consummated without the material omissions referenced below
being remedied, Plaintiff seeks to recover damages resulting from
the Defendants' violations.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff brings this class action
on behalf of the public stockholders of Engility Holdings, Inc.
against Engility's Board of Directors for their violations of
Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
for breaches of fiduciary duty arising out of the Board's attempt
to sell the Company to Science Applications International
Corporation through its wholly-owned subsidiary Raptors Merger Sub,
Inc. The Defendants have violated the Exchange Act by causing a
materially incomplete and misleading registration statement to be
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 18,
2018. The S-4 recommends that Engility stockholders vote in favor
of a proposed transaction whereby Engility is acquired by SAIC. The
Proposed Transaction was first disclosed on September 10, 2018,
when Engility and SAIC announced that they had entered into a
definitive merger agreement pursuant to which SAIC will acquire all
of the outstanding shares of common stock of Engility through an
all-stock transaction. Engility stockholders will receive 0.450
shares of SAIC common stock for each share of Engility stock that
they hold. The deal is valued at approximately $2.5 billion and is
expected to close by the end of the fiscal quarter ending February
1, 2019.

The Proposed Transaction is unfair to Engility's minority
stockholders. Approximately 48.6% of Engility's stock is held by
Birch Partners, L.P. BP is equally owned by General Atlantic
Service Company, LLC and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. Until
February 2018, BP held over 51% of Engility’s common stock and
had the right to nominate four directors to Engility's 11 member
Board. BP, KKR and GA were prohibited from selling their shares of
Engility until March 2018. In May 2018, around the time KKR
announced that it would be changing its corporate structure and
incurring a higher tax liability, the Engility Board decided to
consider a sale of the Company. The sales process was led by
conflicted directors, members of a committee that lacked
independence or authority. And the Merger Consideration fails to
take into account the benefits to SAIC of Engility's business lines
and the synergies that would come from the Proposed Transaction. As
such, the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
Company stockholders by agreeing to the Proposed Transaction which
undervalues the Company and is the result of a flawed process.
Furthermore, the S-4 is materially incomplete and contains
misleading representations and information in violation of Sections
14(a) and 20 (a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the S-4
contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning the sales process, financial projections prepared by
Engility management, as well as the financial analyses conducted by
Guggenheim Securities, LLC, Engility's financial advisor, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
          Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq.
          ROWLEY LAW PLLC
          50 Main Street, Suite 1000
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 400 1920
          Facsimile: (914) 301 3514
          E-mail: srowley@rowleylawpllc.com
                  drl@rowleylawpllc.com

               - and -

          Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
          O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC
          901 N. Market St., Suite 1000
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 778-4000
          Facsimile: (302) 778-4002
          E-mail: rernst@oelegal.com


EVERLAST WORLDWIDE: Faces Kiler ADA Class Action
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Everlast Worldwide,
Inc. The case is styled as Marion Kiler individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Everlast Worldwide, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06419
(E.D. N.Y., Nov. 12, 2018).

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

Everlast Worldwide, Inc. designs, manufactures, licenses, and
markets authentic boxing, mixed martial arts (MMA), and fitness
related sporting goods equipment, apparel, footwear, and
accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     Shaked Law Group, P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11217
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


FACEBOOK INC: Sussie Bigger Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSIE BIGGER, on behalf of
herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. FACEBOOK, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-07753 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to:

   1. grant conditional certification of this action as a
      representative collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor
      Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b), on behalf of the FLSA
      Collective Class:

      "all individuals who were employed by Facebook as Client
      Solutions Managers at level IC-3 or IC-4 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"

   2. order Defendant to produce to Plaintiff, within ten days of
      its Order, a computer-readable data file containing the
      names, addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, dates
      of employment, social security numbers and dates of birth
      for the members of the FLSA Collective Class;

   3. order court-facilitated notice of this collective action to
      the FLSA Class;

   4. authorize Plaintiff to send the Notice, at her expense, by
      first-class U.S. Mail and email to all members of the FLSA
      Collective Class to inform them of their right to opt-in to
      this lawsuit and a reminder notice 20 days before the end of

      the opt-in period; and

   5. order the posting of the Notice at a location in each of
      Defendant's offices where members of the FLSA Collective
      Class are likely to view it.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS , LLP
          100 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  tbecvar@stephanzouras.com


FENIX PARTS: Court Denies Bid for Protective Order in Beezley
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued an Opinion and Order denying
Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order in the case captioned
AMANDA BEEZLEY, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated Plaintiff, v. FENIX PARTS, INC., KENT ROBERTSON, SCOTT
PETTIT, BMO CAPITAL MARKETS CORP., STIFEL NICOLAUS & CO., INC.,
BB&T CAPITAL MARKETS, and BARRINGTON RESEARCH ASSOC, INC.,
Defendants, No. 17 C 7896 (N.D. Ill.).

The defendant's Motion for a Protective Order asks for a stay of
discovery pending Judge Norgle's ruling on the defendants' motion
for reconsideration of his denial of the defendants' motion to
dismiss.

Once the case was here, the Underwriter defendants and the Fenix
defendants each filed motions to dismiss. Judge Norgle dismissed
Count I against the Underwriter defendants as time-barred, finding
that the plaintiff had inquiry notice as early as March 2016 but
denied the Fenix defendants' motion to dismiss finding, inter alia,
that the plaintiff's claim against them was not time-barred because
it was not clear that the plaintiff was sufficiently apprised to be
placed on inquiry notice more than one year prior to filing the
original Complaint on January 12, 2017.

The Fenix defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration on August
20, 2018, which is currently pending before the district court,
focusing in the main on the statute of limitations issue and
inquiry notice.

A couple of weeks after that filing, the defendant filed the
instant motion for a protective order. The defendants complain that
the plaintiff began propounding discovery requests in advance of
any Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) conference, that, under the PSLRA, discovery
should not proceed until Judge Norgle rules on the defendants'
motion for reconsideration, and ask that merits-only discovery be
tabled until after the court has ruled on class certification. The
plaintiff takes issue with every facet of the defendants' motion.
Review of the parties' filings shows that the parties cannot, even
at this early stage, agree whether or when they had a Rule 26(f)
conference, or what they discussed or, at least, the tenor and
import of those discussions. That doesn't bode well for the
future.

The Plaintiff then served discovery requests on the defendants on
August 15, 2018. The Defendants thought this was too soon as the
parties hadn't yet completed their Rule 26(f) conference. On the
one hand, the defendants had a point as the plaintiff was not even
prepared for the initial meeting on July 24th, Judge Norgle had
indicated the parties should meet again, as nothing had been
accomplished. In the plaintiff's view, there was no hope of the
parties agreeing on a schedule or bifurcation, no matter how many
times they met. In the end, the parties argued back and forth a
little more and, finally, on September 20th, submitted opposing
discovery and class certification briefing schedules.

That was envisioned not only by Judge Norgle, but under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f)(3), which allows the parties to submit their
views and proposals on discovery, including when it should be
completed and whether it should be conducted in phases. In any
event, with the parties having submitted their opposing plans, the
whole issue about the plaintiff propounding discovery early because
no agreement was reached at the conference has become a moot point.
But the dispute over a stay of discovery and bifurcation of
discovery remains.

Given the extensive intrusion into the affairs of both litigants
and third parties that is both permissible and common in modern
discovery, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for the use
of protective orders, entered for good cause, to protect litigants
and third parties from the annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or
undue burden or expense that often attends the discovery process.
And so, the question is whether the defendants have shown good
cause for a stay of discovery pending Judge Norgle's resolution of
their motion for reconsideration  which it may be noted are
generally not favoured  and for bifurcation of discovery, with
merits-based discovery waiting until after the resolution of the
plaintiff's motion for class certification. We think, the answer
is, they have not.

There is the defendants' request for a stay of all discovery
pending resolution of the defendant's motion for reconsideration.
Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, all discovery
and other proceedings shall be stayed during the pendency of any
motion to dismiss a suit governed by the Act.  As already
indicated, Judge Norgle ruled on the defendants' motion to dismiss
in July 2018, and defendants filed a motion for reconsideration.
That doesn't exactly fit into the category of any motion to
dismiss, but at least one court has stayed discovery while
considering a motion for reconsideration. And, while courts have
specifically rejected requests to lift a stay where defendants have
filed a second motion to dismiss an Amended Complaint because the
stay applies regardless of whether the motion is brought initially
to dismiss a complaint, or subsequently, in response to an Amended
Complaint and have refused to lift a stay when an Amended Complaint
was met with another motion to dismiss, the situation here is
another matter.

That leaves bifurcation of discovery, a determination that rests
within the discretion of the trial court and thus is reviewable
only for abuse.  As it is a discretionary decision, two
decision-makers can, on the same record, theoretically arrive at
different results, yet both be upheld on appeal. Indeed, the very
exercise of discretion means that persons exercising discretion may
reach different results from exact duplicates. Assuming each result
is within the range of discretion, all are correct in the eyes of
the law.

Under the defendants' proposed schedule, bifurcation of discovery
does not provide for much gain in expediency, if any. Assuming six
weeks to consider the defendants' motion for reconsideration, the
defendants proposal for the filing of a class certification motion
would be the first week of February 2019, compared to plaintiff's
proposal of February 15, 2019. The difference would only be a
matter of days.

Furthermore, under defendants' proposal, the class certification
motion would not be fully briefed until the middle of June 2019,
while the plaintiff's proposed briefing schedule comes to a close
on May 31, 2019. Of course, no judge or magistrate judge would
assume that there is no possibility that plaintiff might seek an
extension of that schedule. Based on the two sides' proposals, and
assuming plaintiff is held to her word, bifurcation of discovery
would be useless in terms of getting this case to a resolution of
the class certification issue any more quickly.

In the end, the defendants have failed to establish good cause for
bifurcation of discovery. Indeed, the portion of defendants' brief
on the topic surprisingly, a two-paragraph, superficial gloss on
the question would not even merit consideration under basic Seventh
Circuit standards. Indeed, the Seventh Circuit, like other Courts
of Appeals, has repeatedly and consistently held that perfunctory
and undeveloped arguments, and arguments that are unsupported by
pertinent authority, are waived.

In order to establish good cause, courts have insisted on a
particular and specific demonstration of fact, as distinguished
from stereotyped and conclusory statements. Defendants fall short
of the mark here. Tellingly, their brief cites only a single,
non-binding, district court case on the bifurcation issue. The
district court denied the defendant's motion to bifurcate
discovery. Along the way the court even noted, as we do here, that
bifurcating discovery may give rise to disputes over whether a
particular discovery request relates to the merits or to class
certification.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 1, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7rgnx2g from
Leagle.com.

Amanda Beezley, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Erica Lauren Stone  --
estone@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Ex Kano S. Sams,
II  -- esams@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Robert
Vincent Prongay -rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray
LLP, pro hac vice & LAURENCE M. ROSEN  -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com --
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA.

Fenix Parts, Inc., Kent Robertson & Scott Pettit, Defendants,
represented by Michael J. Diver
- michael.diver@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP,
Michael James Lohnes -
michael.lohnes@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Eric
Thomas Werlinger -
eric.werlinger@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, pro hac
vice & Zachary M. Schmitz -- zachary.schmitz@kattenlaw.com --
Katten Muchin Rosenman Llp.

BMO Capital Markets Corp., Stifel, Nicolaus & Company,
Incorporated, BB&T Capital Markets & Barrington Research
Associates, Inc., Defendants, represented by Amanda B. Protess --
aprotess@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice, Brian
E. Pastuszenski -- bpastuszenski@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter
Llp, pro hac vice, Ezekiel L. Hill -- ehill@goodwinlaw.com --
Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice, Howard L. Teplinsky  --
hteplinsky@lgattorneys.com -- Levin Ginsburg & Inez H.
Friedman-boyce -- ifriedmanboyce@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter
Llp, pro hac vice.


FIRST CLASS: Certification of 2 Classes Sought in Martinez Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled DANIEL ALVARADO MARTINEZ;
ALEXANDRO PEREZ; NELSON EGUIZABAL BRITO; CARLOS CASTRO; and ALEXIS
MARQUEZ v. FIRST CLASS INTERIORS OF NAPLES, LLC; JOSE ROBERTO REYES
Individually and d/b/a FIRST CLASS INTERIORS OF NAPLES, LLC; and
MR. DRYWALL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00583 (M.D. Tenn.),
move the Court for an order conditionally certifying this case as a
collective action with respect to two classes of opt-in
plaintiffs:

   -- one class consisting of all workers performing drywall
      installation, framing, and/or finishing work on the
      Marriott Project at any time in the in the last three years
      ("Overtime Class"); and

   -- a second class consisting of all workers performing drywall
      installation, framing, and/or finishing work on the
      Marriott Project whose employment was terminated at any
      time between May 21 and May 29, 2018 ("Last Paycheck
      Class").

Pursuant to the Court's Case Management Order, the Plaintiffs are
not requesting court-supervised notice to potential collective
class members.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Karla M. Campbell, Esq.
          Callie Jennings, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., 2nd Floor
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          E-mail: karlac@bsjfirm.com
                  calliej@bsjfirm.com

Defendant Jose Roberto Reyes, Individually and dba First Class
Interiors of Naples, LLC, is represented by:

          Jamie F. Little, Esq.
          SITES & HARBISON, PLLC
          401 Commerce St., Suite 800
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 933-2208
          E-mail: jlittle@stites.com

Defendant MR Drywall Services, LLC, is represented by:

          M. Reid Estes, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew Ryder Lee, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
          424 Church Street, Suite 800
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 620-1737
          Facsimile: (844) 670-6009
          E-mail: restes@dickinson-wright.com

               - and -

          Kelly H. Kolb, Esq.
          Margaret Z. Villella, Esq.
          Mary Beth Ricke, Esq.
          BUCKANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          401 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 2250
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 703-3944
          Facsimile: (954) 527-9915
          E-mail: kelly.kolb@bipc.com
                  margaret.villella@bipc.com
                  marybeth.ricke@bipc.com


FITBIT INC: Settlement in Sleep Tracking Suit Denied Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended September 29, 2018, that the court in Sleep
Tracking-related suit held a hearing and denied preliminary
settlement approval without prejudice, and ordered revised
settlement papers be filed.

On May 8, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that the sleep tracking function available in
certain trackers does not perform as advertised.

Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, an award of
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, an award of
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other
further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

On January 31, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
granted on November 20, 2017. On April 20, 2017, the Company filed
a motion for summary judgment. The Company's motion for summary
judgment was denied on December 8, 2017. During the three months
ended June 30, 2018, the parties agreed to a settlement and on
August 1, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the class action settlement.

On September 13, 2018, the court held a hearing and denied
preliminary settlement approval without prejudice and ordered
revised settlement papers be filed by October 26, 2018.

Fitbit, Inc., a technology company, provides health solutions in
the United States and internationally. The company offers a line of
devices, including Fitbit Surge, Fitbit Blaze, Fitbit Charge 2,
Alta HR, Alta, Fitbit Flex 2, Fitbit One, and Fitbit Zip activity
trackers; Fitbit Ionic smartwatches; Fitbit Aria 2 Wi-Fi smart
scales; and a range of accessories, such as bands and frames for
its devices, as well as Fitbit Flyer, a wireless headphone designed
for fitness. Fitbit, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California.


FOREST CITY: Agreement in Principle Reached in Scarantino Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Forest City Realty Trust, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on November 5, 2018,
2018, that the parties in the case, Scarantino v. Bacon et al.,
have entered into an agreement in principle to settle and release
all claims.

On October 30, 2018, a putative derivative and class action
complaint was filed against the members of the board of directors
of Forest City Realty Trust, Inc. ("Forest City" or the "Company")
on behalf of the Company and the stockholders of the Company in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City under the caption Scarantino v.
Bacon et al., Case No. 24-c-18-005838 (Md. Cir. Ct., Baltimore
City) (the "Action").

The complaint alleges that the members of the board of directors of
Forest City ("defendants") breached fiduciary duties owed to Forest
City stockholders because they, among other things, made inadequate
disclosures in a definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on
October 12, 2018 (the "Proxy Statement") regarding the transactions
contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of July
30, 2018 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among Forest City, Antlia
Holdings LLC ("Parent") and Antlia Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub"),
pursuant to which the parties agreed that, subject to the terms and
conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge
with and into Forest City, with Forest City surviving such merger
and becoming a subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger").

The complaint filed in the Action alleges that the Proxy Statement
omits material information, rendering the information disclosed
misleading. The Action seeks, among other things, orders (i)
enjoining the defendants from proceeding with or consummating the
Merger, (ii) directing the defendants to account for all damages
sustained by the putative class, and (iii) awarding plaintiff's
costs and attorneys' and expert fees.

Forest City said, "While the Company believes that the Action is
without merit and that the disclosures in the Proxy Statement
comply fully with applicable law, in order to avoid the expense and
distraction of litigation, on November 2, 2018, the parties to the
Action entered into an agreement in principle to settle and release
all claims that were or could have been alleged by the plaintiff in
his individual capacity in the Action. The settlement provides for
the dismissal with prejudice of the plaintiff's individual claims
and dismissal without prejudice of the claims asserted derivatively
on behalf of Forest City and those asserted on behalf of a
purported class, subject to, among other things, the Company's
supplementation of the Proxy Statement with the amended and
supplemental disclosures."

The Amended and Supplemental Disclosures should be read in
conjunction with the Proxy Statement, which should be read in its
entirety. Defined terms used but not defined in the Amended and
Supplemental Disclosures have the meanings set forth in the Proxy
Statement. The plaintiff has agreed that, he will dismiss the
Action in its entirety, with prejudice as to the named plaintiff's
individual claims only and without prejudice as to the claims
asserted derivatively on behalf of Forest City and those asserted
on behalf of a purported class.

The resolution of the Action will not affect the timing of the
special meeting of Forest City stockholders, which is scheduled to
be held on November 15, 2018, or the amount of the consideration to
be paid to Forest City stockholders in connection with the Merger.
The resolution of the Action is not, and should not be construed
as, an admission of wrongdoing or liability by any defendant.
Furthermore, nothing in the resolution of the Action shall be
deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality of any of
the disclosures set forth.

Likewise, the Company does not believe that any further disclosure
regarding the Merger is required under applicable laws other than
that which has already been provided in the Proxy Statement.
However, to avoid the risk of the putative shareholder class Action
delaying or adversely affecting the Merger, to minimize the
substantial expense, burden, distraction and inconvenience of
continued litigation and to resolve the plaintiff's claims asserted
in the Action, the Company has agreed to make the Amended and
Supplemental Disclosures to the Proxy Statement.

A copy of the Supplement to Proxy Statement is available at
https://goo.gl/7syWs2.

Forest City Realty Trust, Inc. is an NYSE-listed national real
estate company with $7.9 billion in consolidated assets. The
company is principally engaged in the ownership, development,
management and acquisition of office, retail and apartment real
estate throughout the United States. The company is based in
Cleveland, Ohio.


FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Court Bars Direct Contact With Consumers
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order regarding Discovery Dispute Joint Letter
in the case captioned DANIEL BERMAN, Plaintiff, v. FREEDOM
FINANCIAL NETWORK, LLC, et al., Defendants. Case No.
18-cv-01060-YGR (JSC). (N.D. Cal.).

Now pending before the Court is a discovery dispute joint letter
from the parties regarding whether the Plaintiff can contact
consumers identified on the call logs produced by or to be produced
by the Defendants.

The Plaintiff brings a putative class action against the Defendants
for violation of the Telephone Communications Privacy Act. After
considering the parties' joint discovery letter brief, the Court
concludes that there is no good reason to bar the Plaintiff from
contacting consumers on the call logs, consumers who are potential
percipient witnesses with information directly relevant to the
issues in this case, including class certification issues.  

Nonetheless, the Court is mindful that the only reason the
Plaintiff can contact these consumers is because the Plaintiff
filed a lawsuit. In other words, these potential class members did
not consent to being contacted by telephone by the Plaintiff's
counsel and thus their privacy rights are implicated.

Accordingly, to ensure that the harm which the Plaintiff is
attempting to redress through this lawsuit is not exacerbated by
the Plaintiff's efforts to contact consumers, the Court orders the
Plaintiff to submit to the Court a proposed protective order that
includes a detailed plan for how he is going to contact these
consumers and other proposed limitations on the use of this
information.  

Unless and until the Court approves the Plaintiff's proposed
protective order, the Plaintiff shall refrain from directly
contacting consumers identified on the call logs. This Order does
not prohibit the Plaintiff from communicating with consumers who
initiate any communication.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 1, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yd7pbs9u from Leagle.com.

Daniel Berman, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony I. Paronich --
anthony@broderick-law.com -- Broderick & Paronich, P.C., pro hac
vice, Matthew Passi McCue -- mmccue@massattorneys.net -- The Law
Office of Matthew P. McCue, pro hac vice, Edward A. Broderick --
ted@broderick-law.com -- Broderick and Paronich, P.C. & Jon
Bernhard Fougner -- Jon@FougnerLaw.com

Freedom Financial Network, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian P.
Astrup -- bastrup@kleinmoynihan.com -- Klein Moynihan Turco LLP,
pro hac vice, Jay Thomas Ramsey -- jramsey@sheppardmullin.com --
Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP, Jonah Sampson Van Zandt --
jvz@severson.com -- Severson and Werson & Robert James Guite --
rguite@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP.

Freedom Debt Relief, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian P. Astrup
, Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, pro hac vice, Jay Thomas Ramsey ,
Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP & Jonah Sampson Van Zandt ,
Severson and Werson.


FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES: Wins Prelim. OK of Settlement in "Dominguez"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Stefan R. Underhill grants the Plaintiffs' Uncontested
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Collective and Class Action
Settlement in the lawsuit entitled RAFAEL DOMINGUEZ and CESAR
GRULLON, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly
Situated v. FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-00144-SRU
(D. Conn.).

The Court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only,
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216 an FLSA Class, defined as:

     all current or former technicians employed by Future
     Technologies, LLC during the Class Period1 who properly fill
     out and return the Opt-in Form (attached to the Class
     Notice) before the expiration of the
     Opt-In/Opt-Out/Objection Deadline.

The Court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only,
pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, a Rule 23 Class defined as:

     all current or former technicians who were employed by
     Future Technologies, LLC in Connecticut, Nebraska, Virginia,
     Rhode Island, and Ohio during the Class Period who do not
     properly fill out and return the Opt-out Form (attached to
     the Class Notice) before the expiration of the
     Opt-In/Opt-Out/Objection Deadline.

Excluded from the FLSA Class and Rule 23 Class are: Future
Technologies, LLC; any of its parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates;
any entity controlled by it; any officer, director, member,
manager, legal representative, predecessor, successor, or assignee;
any person who has previously released claims that will be released
by this settlement; and federal, state, and local governments
(including all agencies and subdivisions thereof, but excluding
employees thereof) and the judge to whom the matter is assigned and
any member of his immediate family.

Judge Underhill appoints Plaintiffs Rafael Dominguez and Caesar
Grullon as Class Representatives, and Jeffrey S. Morneau, Esq., of
Connor & Morneau, LLP, as Class Counsel.  The Court approves KCC as
the Settlement Administrator, with the responsibilities set forth
in the Settlement Agreement.  The Court approves the Class Notice
and the schedule for dissemination of the Class Notice.

A Final Approval Hearing is scheduled to be held on February 5,
2019, at 3:00 p.m., to consider the fairness, reasonableness and
adequacy of the Settlement Agreement, the entry of a Final Approval
Order and judgment in the case, any petition for attorneys' fees,
costs and reimbursement of expenses made by Class Counsel, service
awards to named Plaintiffs, and any other related matters that are
brought to the attention of the Court in a timely fashion.[CC]


G2 ENGINEERING: Seeks 6th Cir. Review of Ruling in "McLaughlin"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants G2 Engineering & Management, Inc., and Michael Twine
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled
Jacqueline McLaughlin v. G2 Engineering & Management, et al., Case
No. 3:15-cv-00537, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee at Knoxville.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action lawsuit was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee (assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02547) to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
(Knoxville) (assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00537-TAV-CCS).

The Plaintiff seeks from the Defendants alleged unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees,
costs, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Jacqueline McLaughlin v. G2
Engineering & Management, et al., Case No. 18-6126, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee JACQUELINE MCLAUGHLIN, on and in behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated employees of defendants,
is represented by:

          Volney Brand, Esq.
          BRAND LAW
          50001 Spring Valley Road, Suite 400E
          Dallas, TX 75244
          Telephone: (214) 932-1472

               - and -

          Eugene Carlos Tanner, III, Esq.
          TANNER & ASSOCIATES
          263 E. Pearl Street
          Jackson, MS 39201
          Telephone: (601) 460-1745

               - and -

          Juan Williams, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUAN WILLIAMS
          P.O. Box 578
          Southaven, MS 38671
          Telephone: (901) 213-6318

Defendants-Appellants G2 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT, INC., and
MICHAEL TWINE are represented by:

          Dale Jon Montpelier, Esq.
          MONTPELIER, COLE, DELLA-RODOLFA & FORD
          120 Suburban Road, Suite 203
          Knoxville, TN 37923
          Telephone: (865) 673-0330


GC SERVICES: Caradonna Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Services Limited
Partnership. The case is styled as Massimo Caradonna on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GC Services
Limited Partnership, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-06413 (E.D. N.Y.,
Nov. 12, 2018).

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

GC Services Limited Partnership provides accounts receivable and
customer care solutions to public and private sector organizations.
It offers first party receivable programs, including cure programs,
early stage collections, and pre charge-off collections; third
party receivables management programs, such as post charge-off
collections and skip tracing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GEORGE'S INC: Cook Appeals W.D. Arkansas Ruling to Eighth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jerry Cook filed an appeal from a memorandum opinion and
order issued on October 22, 2018, in the lawsuit titled Jerry Cook
v. George's, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-05124-TLB, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas -
Fayetteville.

The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on June 28, 2018.

George's Inc. processes poultry products.  The Company offers
frozen boneless, skinless, and portion controlled breast products;
individually frozen whole cut-up chickens and parts; individually
frozen B-52 disjointed wings; frozen marinated, raw, and breaded
cut up chicken; frozen breaded chicken products; and controlled
vacuum packed poultry products.

The appellate case is captioned as Jerry Cook v. George's, Inc., et
al., Case No. 18-3294, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Brief of Appellant Jerry Cook is due on December 5, 2018;

   -- Appendix is due on December 5, 2018;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the Court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant; and

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
      court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Jerry Cook, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Lucien Ramseur Gillham, Esq.
          Luther Oneal Sutter, Esq.
          SUTTER & GILLHAM, P.L.L.C.
          P.O. Box 2012
          Benton, AR 72018-2012
          Telephone: (501) 315-1910
          Facsimile: (501) 315-1916
          E-mail: luthersutter.law@gmail.com

Defendant-Appellee George's, Inc., is represented by:

          Kristy E. Boehler, Esq.
          K.C. Dupps Tucker, Esq.
          LAW GROUP OF NORTHWEST ARKANSAS LLP
          1830 Shelby Lane
          Fayetteville, AR 72704
          Telephone: (479) 316-3760
          E-mail: kristy.boehler@lawgroupnwa.com
                  kc.tucker@lawgroupnwa.com

               - and -

          Gary V. Weeks, Esq.
          BASSETT LAW FIRM
          221 N. College
          P.O. Box 3618
          Fayetteville, AR 72702-3618
          Telephone: (479) 521-9996
          E-mail: gweeks@bassettlawfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee Glen Balch is represented by:

          Stephen Lee Wood, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN LEE WOOD, P.A.
          110 S. Second
          Rogers, AR 72756-0033
          Telephone: (479) 631-0808
          E-mail: contact@stephenleewood.lawyer


GNC HOLDINGS: Mid-2019 Trial in Pa. Fluctuating Workweek Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that oral argument in
the Pennsylvania Fluctuating Workweek related suit is anticipated
to occur in early to mid-2019.

On September 18, 2013, Tawny Chevalier and Andrew Hiller commenced
a class action in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania. Plaintiff asserted a claim against the Company for a
purported violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"),
challenging the Company's utilization of the "fluctuating workweek"
method to calculate overtime compensation, on behalf of all
employees who worked for the Company in Pennsylvania and who were
paid according to the fluctuating workweek method.

In October 2014, the Court entered an order holding that the use of
the fluctuating workweek method violated the PMWA. In September
2016, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the
class in an immaterial amount, which has been recorded as a charge
in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a petition for an award of attorney's
fees, costs and incentive payment. The court awarded an immaterial
amount in legal fees. The Company appealed from the adverse
judgment and the award of attorney's fees.

On December 22, 2017, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the
Company correctly determined the "regular rate" by dividing weekly
compensation by all hours worked (rather than 40), but held that
the regular rate must be multiplied by 1.5 (rather than 0.5) to
determine the amount of overtime owed. Taking accumulated interest
into account, the net result of the Superior Court's decision was
to reduce the Company's liability by an immaterial amount, which
has been reflected in the accompanying Consolidated Financial
Statements.

The Company filed a petition for appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court on January 22, 2018. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted
the Company's petition for appeal and the Company filed its
appellant's brief on August 27, 2018. The appellees filed their
brief on September 26, 2018. It is anticipated that oral argument
will occur in early to mid-2019.

GNC Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
specialty retailer of health, wellness, and performance products.
It operates through three segments: U.S. and Canada, International,
and Manufacturing/Wholesale. he company was founded in 1935 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


GNC HOLDINGS: Trial in Naranjo Class Suit to Begin Next Year
------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that trial in the class
action complaint initiated by Elizabeth Naranjo is expected to
occur in 2019.

On February 29, 2012, former Senior Store Manager, Elizabeth
Naranjo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Alameda.

The class action complaint contains eight causes of action,
alleging, among other matters, meal, rest break and overtime
violations for which indeterminate money damages for wages,
penalties, interest, and legal fees are sought. In June 2018, the
Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's Motion for
Decertification.

In August 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the class
action claims alleging overtime violations. As of September 30,
2018, an immaterial liability has been accrued in the accompanying
financial statements.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the remaining
class action claims asserted in this action, and to seek
decertification as to some or all of the claims following
additional discovery. It is expected that the trial will occur in
2019.

GNC Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
specialty retailer of health, wellness, and performance products.
It operates through three segments: U.S. and Canada, International,
and Manufacturing/Wholesale. he company was founded in 1935 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Has Agreed to Settle 2 Nevada Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Golden Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company has
agreed to settle the Nevada class action suits and has recorded
reserves of $1.7 million at September 2018.

In February and April 2017, several former employees filed two
separate purported class action lawsuits against the Company in the
District Court of Clark County, Nevada, and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals employed by the Company in the State of
Nevada.

The lawsuits allege that the Company violated certain Nevada labor
laws including payment of an hourly wage below the statutory
minimum wage without providing a qualified health insurance plan
and an associated failure to pay proper overtime compensation. The
complaints seek, on behalf of the plaintiffs and members of the
putative class, an unspecified amount of damages (including
punitive damages), injunctive and equitable relief, and an award of
attorneys' fees, interest and costs.

The Company agreed to settle the first of these cases in the fourth
quarter of 2017 and the second of these cases in the third quarter
of 2018. Both settlements are subject to court approval and are
included in the Company's recorded reserves of $1.7 million at
September 30, 2018.

Golden Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, focuses
on distributed gaming, and resort casino operations in the United
States. The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Las
Vegas, Nevada.


GOOGLE LLC: Woods Seeks to Certify Two Classes
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICK WOODS, et al.,
Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 11-cv-1263-EJD
(VKD) (N.D. Cal.), the Plantiff asks the Court for an order on Jan.
17, 2019, certifying classes:

   Smart Pricing Class:

   "all person and entities located within the United States who,
   between August 22, 2006 and February 20, 2013, advertised
   through Google's AdWords program and paid for clicks on their
   Google AdWords advertisement(s), where such clicks were not
   Smart Priced because they (1) orignated from a property on
   Google's Display Network and Google applied no Smart Pricing
   measurementm or (2) were AFMA Clicks, Search Bundled Clicks, or

   mGDN Clicks"; and

   The Location Tageting Class:

   all person and entities located within the United States who
   between January 1, 2004 and March 22, 2011, advertised through
   Google's AdWords program and paid for clicks on their Google
   AdWords advertisement(s), where such cklicks did not originate
   from the location selected by the advertiser".[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq.
          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Matthew L. Mustokoff, Esq.
          Margaret E. Mazzeo, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP
          One Sansome, Street, Suite 1850
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 400 3000
          Facsimile: (415) 400 3001

               - and -

          Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq.
          Michael G. Angelovich, Esq.
          Bradley E. Beckworth, Esq.
          Andrew G. Pate, Esq.
          Brad E. Seidel, Esq.
          3600 N. Capital of Texas Highway
          Building B. Suite 350
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 328 5333
          Facsimile: (512) 328 5335

HAMILTON COUNTY, TN: Dismissal of Woodmore School Bus Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned M.S., a minor, by
his parent and next friend, Sharonda Covington; DEREK STEPP,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated;
SHARONDA COVINGTON, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HAMILTON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; DURHAM SCHOOL SERVICES, L.P.,
Individually; BENJAMIN COULTER, Individually, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-6241. (6th Cir.).

Johnthony Walker crashed a school bus while transporting
thirty-seven children from the Woodmore Elementary School in
Chattanooga, Tennessee. Six students died; a number of others were
injured. This appeal presents the question whether an amended class
action complaint filed on their behalf, with claims under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 and state law, was properly dismissed under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The Court must decide whether the pleadings are sufficient for the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the bus driver's
employer and the school district are liable under Section 1983 for
the injuries Plaintiffs sustained as a result of the crash.

The Plaintiffs bring three allegations of error in this appeal:

   -- first, that the district court erred in holding that the
amended complaint inadequately alleged that Durham was a state
actor;

   -- second, that the district court erred in holding that there
were insufficient allegations that the District had a policy that
caused the deprivation of the students' rights; and

   -- third, that the district court abused its discretion in
denying Plaintiffs leave to further amend their pleadings.

The Court first address whether the district court properly
dismissed the claims against Durham, the bus company. Section 1983
creates liability for private entities only when they act under
color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of
any State or Territory or the District of Columbia. To state a
claim against Durham, therefore, Plaintiffs must allege that
Durham, despite being a private entity, was acting under color of
law when it failed to prevent Walker from harming the
schoolchildren.

There are four tests generally applied to determine whether a
private actor can be held liable for acting under color of law in
Section 1983 claims. Plaintiffs argue that two tests are relevant
here: the symbiotic relationship or nexus test and the entwinement
test.

Under the symbiotic relationship or nexus test, the action of a
private party constitutes state action where there is a
sufficiently close nexus between the state and the challenged
action of the regulated entity so that the action of the latter may
be fairly treated as that of the state itself.

Similarly, the crucial inquiry under the entwinement test is
whether the nominally private character of the private entity is
overborne by the pervasive entwinement of public institutions and
public officials in its composition and workings such that there is
no substantial reason to claim unfairness in applying
constitutional standards to it.

Although there is no litmus to determine what actions are enough to
constitute a sufficient nexus or entwinement, courts are clear
about what actions are not enough for a private entity to be
considered a state actor.  

It also is not enough under either the nexus or the entwinement
theory that the parties have a contractual relationship, even when
that contract subjects the private actor to an extensive and
detailed set of requirements. Instead, Plaintiffs must show that
the state played a role in the decision made by the private actor
that led to the deprivation of Plaintiffs' rights, either by
showing, for example, that the contract necessitated the private
actor's decision or that state actors were involved in the
decision.  

The district court was correct in holding that the amended
complaint does not allege either (1) that the contract between
Durham and the District played a role in Durham's decision not to
discipline or terminate Walker or (2) that any District employee
played a role in that decision.

The Plaintiffs do not allege that this contract generally, or any
specific clause in the contract, required Durham to employ
dangerous drivers or in any way impeded Durham's ability to
discipline or terminate dangerous drivers.
  
Unable to rely on the contract for their argument, the Plaintiffs
nonetheless assert that District personnel had control over the
supervision and discipline of Durham's drivers and that the
District was therefore sufficiently entwined with Durham's decision
not to train or supervise Walker adequately. The Plaintiffs cite a
policy (Transportation Policy), also appended to the Plaintiffs'
response to the motion to dismiss, providing that a Transportation
Supervisor, a District employee, will have disciplinary power over
bus drivers for the Hamilton County Board of Education.

The district court held that this policy applies to bus drivers
employed by the Hamilton County Board of Education, not to Durham
employees, citing language in the Transportation Policy indicating
that it applies to District personnel, as well as language in the
contractual stipulation that bus drivers such as Walker shall be
CONTRACTOR employees and, in no event, shall be the employees of
the DISTRICT.

The district court's determination is supported by the fact that,
if the Transportation Policy applied to Durham employees, it would
contradict the contract between Durham and the District, which
provides that Durham "may take whatever action it deems necessary
and appropriate to ameliorate issues that the District might have
with Durham bus drivers, including, presumably, actions other than
those the Transportation Supervisor might prefer.

Even though Plaintiffs allege that the District and Durham worked
together to make certain decisions, such as establishing bus
schedules and routes, that is not enough to show that Durham's will
was so overborne as to render its actions those of the state.
Rather, at most it shows that they were working in accordance with
the contract a contract that clearly delineated that personnel
decisions were to be made by Durham, not the District. Without
allegations of the District's entwinement with Durham's personnel
decisions with respect to Walker, Plaintiffs have failed to state a
Section 1983 claim against Durham. This holding, of course, says
nothing about whether recovery may be available against Durham
under state law.

The Court now turns to whether the district court properly held
that the amended complaint insufficiently pleaded a District policy
that deprived the students of their constitutional rights.

Under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978),
a school district can be found liable under Section 1983 for the
unconstitutional acts of its official or employee, even when the
official's act did not arise from an explicit policy, if a
plaintiff shows (1) the existence of a clear and persistent pattern
of [unconstitutional activity] by school employees; (2) notice or
constructive notice on the part of the School Board; (3) the School
Board's tacit approval of the unconstitutional conduct, such that
their deliberate indifference in their failure to act can be said
to amount to an official policy of inaction; and (4) that the
School Board's custom was the moving force or direct causal link in
the constitutional deprivation.

The Plaintiffs have alleged that (1) the principal committed
affirmative acts by instructing the schoolchildren to board
Walker's bus; (2) this direction endangered the students because of
Walker's dangerous driving; (3) this danger was specific to those
students; and (4) the principal was sufficiently culpable because
she knew that Walker's driving was dangerous. The District contests
each point other than the third, which we address in turn.

The District first argues that the principal's directives to board
the bus were not affirmative acts because she was merely following
the District's policy of assisting students in boarding buses, and
her instruction to the Woodmore pupils was therefore an act of
omission failing to deviate from the District's policy.

Although this court has identified several factors to consider when
determining whether a state actor's actions shock the conscience,
our concern with preserving the constitutional proportions of
substantive due process demands an exact analysis of circumstances
before making that determination. And although there are
doubtlessly some cases in which a court could determine that a
state actor's actions did not shock the conscience at the
motion-to-dismiss stage, this is not that case.

Here, the record does not contain the precise number or content of
the warnings received by the principal, as the amended complaint
contains only two examples from among an unknown number of
complaints that the principal received. Because it is conceivable
that the principal received complaints such that it would be
conscience-shocking for her to have instructed the schoolchildren
to board Walker's bus after their receipt, it would be
inappropriate to grant a motion to dismiss on this ground.

The district court did not rule on the ground that the principal
did not create a danger, but on the distinct ground that, as the
District also argues, there can be no clear and persistent pattern
of abuse where there are only two specified complaints. This
holding mistakes the locus of unconstitutional activity: it is the
principal, not Walker, who is alleged to have deprived Plaintiffs
of their rights. And Plaintiffs allege that the principal deprived
the students of their rights every school-day afternoon between
early November and November 21, or approximately fifteen times.
Neither the district court nor the District cites any case
suggesting that this many instances of unconstitutional activity
cannot amount to a pattern of unconstitutional activity, and we are
unaware of any so holding. Accordingly, it was error to dismiss the
Monell claim at this stage.

The pleadings allege that the District had knowledge of the
principal's unconstitutional actions during the entire period in
which they occurred, that the District took no action either to
prevent the principal from instructing the students to board the
bus or to make the bus safer, and that the District's failure to
act in response to this knowledge caused the deprivation of
Plaintiffs' constitutional rights. Whether these allegations will
be borne out by evidence must wait for a later stage in this
litigation, which should not have been terminated at the
motion-to-dismiss stage.

The Plaintiffs asked the district court, in the event it were to
dismiss the amended complaint, to allow them to further amend their
pleadings, both to fix a scrivener's error and to add allegations.
They made this request, however, only in their response to
Defendants' motions to dismiss, and they did not indicate the
nature of the allegations that they would add or attach a copy of
the proposed second amended complaint. The district court denied
this request as futile, and we review this denial de novo.
  
Because the scrivener's error related to a claim against the
District, and because, as discussed, the claims against the
District should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim, the
request to amend the complaint to fix the scrivener's error is not
moot, and the district court therefore erred in denying Plaintiffs'
request.

Because the claims against the District should not have been
dismissed, the request to add allegations as to the District's
conduct is moot, as the amended complaint already is sufficient to
survive the motion to dismiss.

Because Plaintiffs have not provided sufficient allegations against
Durham to allow the claims against Durham to proceed, the request
to supplement those allegations is not moot, and the Court must
therefore determine whether the district court abused its
discretion in denying leave to amend.  

The Court cannot conclude that the district court abused its
discretion in denying Plaintiffs leave to add additional
allegations as to Durham. Plaintiffs provided neither the district
court nor this court any indication as to the nature of the
allegations that they wish to include or how they would cure the
deficiencies in the amended complaint and, given the absence of any
indication that [Plaintiffs'] amended complaint would survive a
motion to dismiss, the Court concludes that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiffs' unsupported
motion.

Accordingly, the Court affirms the district court's grant of
Durham's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, reverses
the district court's grant of the District's motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, affirms the district court's denial of
Plaintiffs' request to further amend the complaint to add
allegations, and reverses the district court's denial of the
Plaintiffs' request to amend the pleadings to correct a scrivener's
error.

A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's November 1, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y93y2h8j from Leagle.com.


HC2 HOLDINGS: Schuff Case Parties Still Exploring Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the parties in
Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, have been
exploring alternative frameworks for a potential settlement.

On November 6, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint
challenging the tender offer by which HC2 acquired approximately
721,000 of the outstanding common shares of DBM Global Inc. (DBMG)
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
captioned Mark Jacobs v. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul
Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O.
Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., and Schuff International, Inc., Civil
Action No. 10323 (the "Complaint").  

On November 17, 2014, a second lawsuit was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Arlen Diercks v.
Schuff International, Inc. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul
Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O.
Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 10359.  

On February 19, 2015, the court consolidated the actions (now
designated as Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation)
and appointed lead plaintiff and co-lead plaintiffs' counsel. The
currently operative complaint was filed by Mark Jacobs. The pending
complaint alleges, among other things, that in connection with the
tender offer, the individual members of the DBMG Board of Directors
and HC2, the controlling stockholder of DBMG, breached their
fiduciary duties to members of the plaintiff class. Plaintiffs also
assert that HC2 should be required to complete a short-form merger
based upon plaintiffs' expectation that the Company would cash out
the remaining public stockholders of DBMG following the completion
of the tender offer.  

The complaint seeks rescission of the tender offer and/or
compensatory damages, as well as attorney's fees and other relief.
The defendants filed answers to the complaint on July 30, 2015.

The parties have been exploring alternative frameworks for a
potential settlement.

HC2 Holdings said, "There can be no assurance that a settlement
will be finalized or that the Delaware Courts would approve such a
settlement even if the parties enter into a settlement agreement.
If a settlement cannot be reached, the Company believes it has
meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend this
matter."

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

HC2 Holdings, Inc. engages in the construction, marine services,
energy, telecommunications, insurance, life sciences, and other
businesses in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
internationally. The company was formerly known as PTGi Holding
Inc. and changed its name to HC2 Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. HC2
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


HC2 HOLDINGS: Settlement Agreement Ongoing in CGI Producer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the parties in the
CGI Producer Litigation are in the process of preparing a formal
settlement agreement, which will be subject to Court approval.

On November 28, 2016, Continental General Insurance Company (CGI),
a subsidiary of the Company, Great American Financial Resource,
Inc. ("GAFRI"), American Financial Group, Inc., and CIGNA
Corporation were served with a putative class action complaint
filed by John Fastrich and Universal Investment Services, Inc. in
The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska
alleging breach of contract, tortious interference with contract
and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs contend that they were agents of record under
various CGI policies and that CGI allegedly instructed
policyholders to switch to other CGI products and caused the
plaintiffs to lose commissions, renewals, and overrides on policies
that were replaced. The complaint also alleges breach of contract
claims relating to allegedly unpaid commissions related to premium
rate increases implemented on certain long-term care insurance
policies. Finally, the complaint alleges breach of contract claims
related to vesting of commissions. On August 21, 2017 the Court
dismissed the plaintiffs' tortious interference with contract
claim. CGI believes that the remaining allegations and claims set
forth in the complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend against them.

The case was set for voluntary mediation, which occurred on January
26, 2018. The Court stayed discovery pending the outcome of the
mediation. On February 12, 2018, the parties notified the Court
that mediation did not resolve the case and that the parties'
discussions regarding a possible settlement of the action were
still ongoing. The Court held a status conference on March 22,
2018, during which the parties informed the Court that settlement
negotiations remain ongoing.
Nonetheless, the Court entered a scheduling order setting the case
for trial during the week of October 15, 2019. Meanwhile, the
parties' continued settlement negotiations led to a tentative
settlement. The parties are in the process of preparing a formal
settlement agreement, which will be subject to Court approval.

Further, the Company and CGI are seeking defense costs and
indemnification for plaintiffs' claims from GAFRI and Continental
General Corporation ("CGC") under the terms of an Amended and
Restated Stock Purchase Agreement ("SPA") related to the Company's
acquisition of CGI in December 2015.  GAFRI and CGC rejected CGI's
demand for defense and indemnification and, on January 18, 2017,
the Company and CGI filed a Complaint against GAFRI and CGC in the
Superior Court of Delaware seeking a declaratory judgment to
enforce their indemnification rights under the SPA.  On February
23, 2017, GAFRI answered CGI's complaint, denying the allegations.
The dispute is ongoing and CGI intends to continue to pursue its
right to a defense and indemnity under the SPA regardless of the
tentative settlement in the class action. Meanwhile, the parties
are currently involved in settlement negotiations.

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

HC2 Holdings, Inc. engages in the construction, marine services,
energy, telecommunications, insurance, life sciences, and other
businesses in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
internationally. The company was formerly known as PTGi Holding
Inc. and changed its name to HC2 Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. HC2
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


HENRY SCHEIN: Continues to Defend Marion Diagnostic Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 29, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Marion Diagnostic
Center, LLC, et al. v. Becton, Dickinson, and Co., et al.

On May 3, 2018, a class action complaint, Marion Diagnostic Center,
LLC, et al. v. Becton, Dickinson, and Co., et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-010509 (S.D. Ill), was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois against Becton, Dickinson, and
Co. ("Becton"); Premier, Inc. ("Premier"), Vizient, Inc.
("Vizient"), Cardinal Health, Inc. ("Cardinal"), Owens & Minor Inc.
("O&M"), Henry Schein, Inc., and Unnamed Becton Distributor
Co-Conspirators.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants entered into a vertical
conspiracy to force healthcare providers into long-term
exclusionary contracts that restrain trade in the nationwide
markets for conventional and safety syringes and safety IV
catheters and inflate the prices of certain Becton products to
above-competitive levels.  The named plaintiffs seek to represent
three separate classes consisting of all healthcare providers that
purchased (i) Becton's conventional syringes, (ii) Becton's safety
syringes, or (iii) Becton's safety catheters directly from Becton,
Premier, Vizient, Cardinal, O&M or Henry Schein on or after May 3,
2014.  The complaint asserts a single count under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, and seeks equitable relief, treble damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs and expenses, and pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest.  On June 15, 2018, an amended complaint was
filed asserting the same allegations against the same parties and
adding McKesson Medical-Surgical, Inc. as an additional defendant.

"We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against this action,"
Henry Schein says.

Henry Schein provides health care products and services to dental
practitioners and laboratories, animal health clinics, physician
practices, government, institutional health care clinics, and other
alternate care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments,
Health Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added Services.
The company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville,
New York.


HENRY SCHEIN: Salkowitz Securities Suit Has New Caption
-------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 29, 2018, that the class action
suit filed by Joseph Salkowitz has been recaptioned the putative
class action as In re Henry Schein, Inc. Securities Litigation,
under the same case number.

On March 7, 2018, Joseph Salkowitz, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
complaint for violation of the federal securities laws against
Henry Schein, Inc., Stanley M. Bergman and Steven Paladino in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Case No.
1:18-cv-01428.  

The complaint sought to certify a class consisting of all persons
and entities who, subject to certain exclusions, purchased Henry
Schein securities from March 7, 2013 through February 12, 2018 (the
"Class Period").  The complaint alleged, among other things, that
the defendants had made materially false and misleading statements
about Henry Schein's business, operations and prospects during the
Class Period, including matters relating to the issues in the
antitrust class action and the  Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
action, thereby causing the plaintiff and members of the purported
class to pay artificially inflated prices for Henry Schein
securities. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and a
jury trial.  

Pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"), the court appointed lead
plaintiff and lead counsel on June 22, 2018 and recaptioned the
putative class action as In re Henry Schein, Inc. Securities
Litigation, under the same case number. Lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated class action complaint on September 14, 2018. The
consolidated class action complaint asserts similar claims against
the same defendants (plus Timothy Sullivan) on behalf of the same
putative class of purchasers during the Class Period.  

It alleges that Henry Schein's stock price was inflated during that
period because Henry Schein had misleadingly portrayed its
dental-distribution business "as successfully producing excellent
profits while operating in a highly competitive environment" even
though, "in reality, (Henry Schein) had engaged for years in
collusive and anticompetitive practices in order to maintain
Schein's margins, profits, and market share."  The complaint
alleges that the stock price started to fall from August 8, 2017,
when the company announced below-expected financial performance
that allegedly "revealed that Schein's poor results were a product
of abandoning prior attempts to inflate sales volume and margins
through anticompetitive collusion," through February 13, 2018,
after the FTC filed a complaint against Benco, Henry Schein and
Patterson alleging that they violated U.S. antitrust laws.  

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

Henry Schein said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously
against this action. Henry Schein has also received a request under
8 Del. C. Section 220 to inspect corporate books and records
relating to the issues raised in the securities class action and
the antitrust suit.

Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to
dental practitioners and laboratories, animal health clinics,
physician practices, government, institutional health care clinics,
and other alternate care clinics worldwide. It operates through two
segments, Health Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added
Services. The company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in
Melville, New York.


HENRY SCHEIN: Settlement Agreement Reached in Dental Supplies Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 29, 2018, that the parties in In
re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No.
1:16-CV-00696-BMC-GRB, executed a settlement agreement that
proposes a full and final settlement of the lawsuit on a classwide
basis, subject to court approval.

Beginning in January 2016, purported class action complaints were
filed against Patterson Companies, Inc. ("Patterson"), Benco Dental
Supply Co. ("Benco") and Henry Schein, Inc. Although there were
factual and legal variations among these complaints, each of these
complaints alleges, among other things, that defendants conspired
to fix prices, allocate customers and foreclose competitors by
boycotting manufacturers, state dental associations and others that
deal with defendants’ competitors.  

On February 9, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York ordered all of these actions, and all other
actions filed thereafter asserting substantially similar claims
against defendants, consolidated for pre-trial purposes. On
February 26, 2016, a consolidated class action complaint was filed
by Arnell Prato, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., d/b/a Down to Earth Dental,
Evolution Dental Sciences, LLC, Howard M. May, DDS, P.C., Casey
Nelson, D.D.S., Jim Peck, D.D.S., Bernard W. Kurek, D.M.D.,
Larchmont Dental Associates, P.C., and Keith Schwartz, D.M.D., P.A.
(collectively, "putative class representatives") in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled In re
Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No.
1:16-CV-00696-BMC-GRB.  

In the consolidated class action complaint, putative class
representatives allege a nationwide agreement among Henry Schein,
Benco, Patterson and non-party Burkhart Dental Supply Company, Inc.
("Burkhart") not to compete on price. The consolidated class action
complaint asserts a single count under Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, and seeks equitable relief, compensatory and treble damages,
jointly and severally, and reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees and expert fees.  

On February 22, 2018, plaintiffs moved to certify a class that,
subject to certain exclusions, includes all private dental
practices and laboratories that purchased dental supplies directly
from Henry Schein, Patterson, Benco, Burkhart or any combination
thereof, during the period beginning January 1, 2009 until March
31, 2016.  

On September 28, 2018, the parties executed a settlement agreement
that proposes a full and final settlement of the lawsuit on a
classwide basis, subject to court approval.  

Henry Schein said, "As a result, we recorded a charge of $38.5
million in our third quarter 2018 results."

Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to
dental practitioners and laboratories, animal health clinics,
physician practices, government, institutional health care clinics,
and other alternate care clinics worldwide. It operates through two
segments, Health Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added
Services. The company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in
Melville, New York.


HUMMUS & PITA: Perez et al. Seek Minimum Wage & OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------
GERARDO PEREZ and VICTOR HUGO CASARRUBIASBUSTAMANTE, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE
HUMMUS & PITA CO. FRANCHISING, LLC (D/B/A THE HUMMUS & PITA), THE
HUMMUS & PITA COMPANY, INC. (D/B/A THE HUMMUS & PITA), THE HUMMUS &
PITA COMPANY LLC (D/B/A THE HUMMUS & PITA), HUPICO LLC (D/B/A THE
HUMMUS & PITA), HUMMUS & PITAS NYC LLC (D/B/A THE HUMMUS & PITA),
DAVE PESSO, STEVEN PESSO, JANICE AXELROD, CHRISTINA DOE, and KAREN
DOE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10108 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31,
2018), seeks minimum wage and overtime compensation under Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are former employees of
Defendants, working as delivery workers at the restaurant located
at 79 Chambers St, New York, NY 10007. However, they were required
to spend a considerable part of their work day performing
non-tipped duties, including but not limited to cutting beets,
cleaning bathrooms and the restaurant, cleaning the tables and
chairs, sweeping and mopping, preparing orders, cleaning the
refrigerator, taking out trash, packing for deliveries, cleaning
the food machine, and preparing food (non-tipped duties).

The Plaintiffs worked for Franchisee Defendant Corporation and
Individual Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours
compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, Franchisee
Defendant Corporation and Individual Defendants failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to pay
Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.
Further, Franchisee Defendant Corporation and Individual Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any
day in which they had to work over 10 hours a day, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

INDIANA: Court Strikes Affirmative Defenses in Wilburn's Suit v JJC
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, South Bend Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting
Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses in the case
captioned TASHIANNE WILBURN et al., and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ST. JOSEPH COUNTY JUVENILE
JUSTICE CENTER et al., Defendants. Case No. 3:17-CV-331-PPS-MGG.
(N.D. Ind.).

Plaintiffs, Tashianne Wilburn and Quanan Wilburn, the natural
parents and guardians of Z.W., a minor child, filed a motion to
strike the Defendants' fourth and sixth affirmative defenses
pursuant to Rule 12(f).

The Wilburns proceed against Defendants at the St. Joseph County
Juvenile Justice Center (JJC) seeking money damages for the
solitary confinement of their minor child, Z.W., and declaratory
and injunctive relief for all similarly situated juvenile
detainees. [DE 12 at 2].

In response, the Defendants asserted inter alia the following
affirmative defenses:

   (1) Judicial immunity applies to all allegations which are
directed at the function of the St. Joseph Probate Court; and

   (2) Certain allegations of the complaint violate the Eleventh
Amendment of the United States.

Standard

Rule 12(f) states that the court may strike from a pleading an
insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter. Rule 12(f) authorizes the court to strike a
pleading or part of a pleading on its own; or on motion made by a
party either before responding to the pleading or, if a response is
not allowed, within 21 days after being served with the pleading.
  
Judicial Immunity Defense

The Wilburns argue that the defense of judicial immunity should be
stricken because they are suing Defendants only in their official
capacities. The assertion that this is solely an official capacity
suit is unopposed by the Defendants. The only immunities available
in an official capacity suit are those that may be asserted by the
governmental entity itself (Eleventh Amendment immunity or
sovereign immunity). The Wilburns are not suing defendants in their
individual capacities.

Thus, the Defendants' fourth affirmative defense of judicial
immunity is insufficient as a matter of law and should be stricken
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).

Eleventh Amendment Immunity

The Wilburns argue that the defense of Eleventh Amendment Immunity
should be stricken because the Eleventh Amendment does not apply to
actions against a county or political subdivision.

The Defendants do not contest this assertion concerning the Board
of County Commissioners of St. Joseph County or the St. Joseph
County Council, upon which multiple defendants sit. However,
Defendants argue that Eleventh Amendment Immunity could potentially
apply to Defendant Nelson in her official capacity as Executive
Director of the JJC because they argue it is uncertain whether the
Executive Director of the JJC is an employee of the St. Joseph
County Probate Court or of St. Joseph County.  

The Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal courts against States
and against officials acting as an arm of the state. However, the
Supreme Court has consistently refused to construe the Eleventh
Amendment to afford protection to political subdivisions such as
counties and municipalities.  

All Defendants are sued only in their official capacities and
Defendants admit that they are all elected members of county
government or employees of St. Joseph County. Yet Defendants argue
a dispute exists as to whether Nelson, in her official capacity as
the Executive Director of the JJC, is empowered by the county or
the St. Joseph County Probate Court. More specifically, the parties
dispute whether the St. Joseph County Probate Court is an arm of
the state.  

To determine if a particular entity is a state agency, i.e., an arm
of the state, courts look at: (1) the extent of the entity's
financial autonomy from the state; and (2) the general legal status
of the entity.

Thus, the first factor strongly indicates that the JJC is not an
arm of the state because it operates independently from Indiana's
state treasury.

The second factor in determining whether the JJC is a state agency
is the general legal status of the JJC. In deciding this factor,
courts examine whether the governmental entity served the state as
a whole or only a region. For example, the Eleventh Amendment did
not protect a county welfare department that performed duties on a
local level, even though the department was subject to state
supervision.  Ultimately, Defendants have not asserted that the JJC
serves beyond the local level to the entire state. As a result,
neither the financial autonomy nor the general legal status of the
JJC support the conclusion that the Eleventh Amendment shields
Nelson from official liability.

Thus, all defendants are county officials who are not protected
from official liability by the Eleventh Amendment. Accordingly,
Defendants' sixth affirmative defense is insufficient as a matter
of law.

The Wilburns are only suing Defendants in their official capacity,
precluding judicial immunity. Additionally, Eleventh Amendment
immunity does not apply to Defendants because they are county
officials. Thus, Defendants' fourth and sixth affirmative defenses
should be stricken.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 1, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9nlf46d from
Leagle.com.

Tashianne Wilburn, as the natural parent and guardian of & Quanan
Wilburn, as the natural parent and guardian of, Plaintiffs,
represented by Patrick David Murphy -- pmurphy@murphyrice.com --
Murphy Rice LLP & Charles Peter Rice -- crice@murphyrice.com --
Murphy Rice LLP.

Cynthia Nelson, in her official capacity as the Executive Director
of the St. Joseph County Juvenile Justice Center, Andrew
Kostielney, The Board of County Commissioners of St. Joseph County,
Deborah Fleming, The Board of County Commissioner of St. Joseph
County, Dave Thomas, The Board of County Commissioners of St.
Joseph County, Robert Kruszynski, Jr, The St. Joseph County
Council, Corey Noland, The St. Joseph County Council, James
O'Brien, The St. Joseph County Council, Rafael Morton, The St.
Joseph County Council, Diana Hess, The St. Joseph County Council,
Mark Telloyan, The St. Joseph County Council, Mark Catanzarite, The
St. Joseph County Council, Robert McCahill, The St. Joseph County
Council & Mark Root, St. Joseph County Council, Defendants,
represented by James F. Groves , Lee Groves and Zalas & George C.
Lepeniotis , Lee Groves and Zalas. 205 W Jefferson Blvd #502 South
Bend, IN 46601


J2 GLOBAL: Rehearing in Banc in Davis Neurology Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018,  or the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that j2 Global
affiliates have filed a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc
in the putative class action suit filed by Davis Neurology, P.A..

On January 21, 2016, Davis Neurology, P.A. filed a putative class
action against two j2 Global affiliates in the Circuit Court for
the County of Pope, State of Arkansas (58-cv-2016-40), alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

The case was ultimately removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas (the "Eastern District of Arkansas")
(No. 4:16-cv-00682). On June 6, 2016, the j2 Global affiliates
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On March 20, 2017,
the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed all claims against the
j2 Global affiliates.

On July 23, 2018, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the
judgment and remanded to district court with instructions to return
the case to state court. The j2 Global affiliates have filed a
petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc.

j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in the
provision of Internet services worldwide. It operates through two
segments, Cloud Services and Digital Media.  j2 Global, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.


JACKSON COUNTY, MO: Court Denied Certification of Inmates Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAILI PRADO, et al., the
Plaintiffs, v. JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI, et al., the Defendant,
Case No. 17-0506-CV-W-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Beth Phillips
entered an order denying Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of:

   "inmates and detainees asserting claims related to the
   conditions of their confinement."

The Court said, "Consistent with the Court's previous Order,
granting the joint motion to stay deadlines pending this ruling,
the parties are directed to file an amended Scheduling Order within
seven days."[CC]


JANUS HENDERSON: Subsidiary Still Defends VelocityShares Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Janus Henderson Group plc's subsidiary continues to defend itself
in class action suits related to VelocityShares Daily Inverse,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018.

On March 15, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York ("SDNY") against Janus Index & Calculation Services LLC
("Janus Index"), a subsidiary of the Group, on behalf of a proposed
class consisting of investors who purchased VelocityShares Daily
Inverse VIX Short-Term ETN (Ticker: XIV) between January 29, 2018,
and February 5, 2018 (Eisenberg v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus
Index).  Credit Suisse, the issuer of the XIV notes, is also named
as a defendant in the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs allege Credit Suisse and Janus Index disseminated
and/or approved materially false and misleading intraday indicative
values for XIV, causing inflated values of XIV at market close on
February 5, 2018.

On April 17, 2018, a second lawsuit was filed against Janus Index
and Credit Suisse in the United States District Court of the
Northern District of Alabama by certain investors in XIV (Halbert
v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Index).

On May 4, 2018, a third lawsuit, styled as a class action on behalf
of investors who purchased XIV between January 29, 2018, and
February 5, 2018, was filed against Janus Index and Credit Suisse
AG in the SDNY (Qiu v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Index).  The
Halbert and Qiu allegations generally copy the allegations in the
Eisenberg case.

On August 20, 2018, an amended complaint was filed in the Eisenberg
and Qiu cases (which have been consolidated in the SDNY under the
name Set Capital LLC, et al. v. Credit Suisse AG, et al.), adding
Janus Distributors LLC, doing business as Janus Henderson
Distributors, and Janus Henderson Group plc as parties, and adding
allegations of market manipulation by all of the defendants.

Janus Henderson said, "The Group believes the claims in these
lawsuits are without merit and is strongly defending the actions."

Janus Henderson Group plc operates as an investment management
company. The Company provides investment advisors for equities,
fixed income, property, and private equity sectors. Janus Henderson
Group serves customers worldwide.


JULIAN SPENCE: Heberle's Bid to Certify Class Cont'd to Nov. 29
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Jorge L. Alonso entered and continued to November 29,
2018, at 9:30 a.m., the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the
lawsuit entitled Kevin Heberle v. Julian Spence, Case No.
1:18-cv-02288 (N.D. Ill.).[CC]


JUST ENERGY: Court Denies Class Certification in Evangelista Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL EVANGELISTA, the
Plaintiff, vs. JUST ENERGY MARKETING CORP., ET AL., the Defendants,
Case No. 8:17-cv-02270-CJC-SS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J.
Carney entered an order on Nov. 8, 2018:

   1. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification of:

      "all persons who "performed door-to-door sales and marketing
      work" for Just Energy in California from November 21, 2013
      to April 27, 12 2018"; and

   2. granting Just Energy's motion to strike Plaintiff's
      representative California Private Attorneys General Act
      claim.[CC]


KANDI TECH: Lead Plaintiff and Counsel Appointed in NY Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that lead
plaintiff and lead counsel have been appointed in the shareholder
class action suits in the New York federal court.

Beginning in March 2017, putative shareholder class actions were
filed against Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. and certain of its
current and former directors and officers in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California and the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.


The complaints generally allege violations of the federal
securities laws based Kandi's disclosure in March 2017, that its
financial statements for the years 2014, 2015and the first three
quarters of 2016 would need to be restated, and seek damages on
behalf of putative classes of shareholders who purchased or
acquired Kandi's securities prior to March 13, 2017.

All the remaining cases are in the New York federal court, and lead
plaintiff and lead counsel have been appointed.

Kandi Technologies Group Inc manufactures small vehicles including
all terrain vehicles (ATVs), golf carts, motor cycles, motor
scooters and go-karts. The Company also is focused on the
development of energy saving mini-cars. The company is based in
Jinhua City, Zhejiang Province, People's Republic of China.


KARAYIANNIS GLOBAL: Perez Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
NORMA NAVA PEREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. KARAYIANNIS GLOBAL GROUP, INC. (D/B/A
LAUNDROMAT LUX) and GEORGE KARAYIANNIS, the Defendants, Case
1:18-cv-10212 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2018), seeks minimum wage and
overtime compensation under Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Law.

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

Furthermore, Defendants repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiff Nava
wages on a timely Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiff to
all other similarly situated basis.employees. The Defendants
maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and other
employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing
the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and
state law and regulations, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

KENTUCKY: Partial Summary Judgment in KAPT Suit Reinstated
----------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Kentucky issued an Opinion reversing the
Decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the judgment of the
District Court granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment in
the case captioned BETH LEWIS MAZE AND UNKNOWN SIMILARLY SITUATED
PURCHASERS OF KAPT CONTRACTS, Appellants, v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR
THE COMMONWEALTH POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION PREPAID TUITION TRUST
FUND; DAVID L. ALLEN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS; JOHN CHESHIRE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A
MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS; CHARLES VINSON, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS; ERICA L. HORN, IN
HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS; BECKY
LAMB, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS; BRENT A. McKIM, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS; KRISTI P. NELSON, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY
AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS; LISA PAYNE, IN HER OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS; BARBARA
SEXTON-SMITH, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS; J. SCOTT WANTLAND, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A MEMBER
OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS; DR. GARY S. COX, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS AN EX OFFICIO MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS; DR.
TODD HOLLENBACH, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS AN EX OFFICIO MEMBER
OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS; DR. TERRY HOLLIDAY, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS AN EX OFFICIO MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS; DR
ROBERT KING, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS AN EX OFFICIO MEMBER OF
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS; DR. LORI FLANERY, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY
AS AN EX OFFICIO MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS; KENTUCKY HIGHER
EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY; AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY,
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION CABINET, Appellees. No.
2017-SC-000233-DG. (Ky.)

Beth Lewis Maze, et al. (Appellants) appeal from a decision of the
Court of Appeals which reversed the order of the Franklin Circuit
Court that granted partial summary judgment to Appellants in a
dispute concerning various statutory amendments to the Kentucky
Affordable Prepaid Tuition Fund (KAPT) contracts previously
purchased by the Appellants.

The Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial court's legal
conclusion regarding the retroactive application of the 2014
statutory changes affecting the 2003 contracts for prepaid college
tuition entered into by Maze and the Board. The Court of Appeals
interpreted those contracts as providing, in association with their
enabling statutes, that KAPT participants like Maze, and others
similarly situated, had expressly agreed to be bound by amendments
to the contracts imposed by future statutory and regulatory
changes.

The Court of Appeals thus concluded that the 2014 amendments
validly altered Appellants' contracts. The Court of Appeals
reversed the trial court and held that the Appellees, rather than
Maze, should have been granted summary judgment as a matter of
law.

Because summary judgment involves only legal questions and the
existence of any disputed material issues of fact, an appellate
court need not defer to the trial court's decision and will review
the issue de novo. Since no material issues of fact are in dispute,
the state Supreme Court's review involves a de novo review of the
applicable KAPT enabling statutes and the terms of the Master
Agreement.  

The state Supreme Court's review requires the interpretation of
various KAPT statutory provisions contained in KRS Chapter 164A and
contractual provisions contained in the Master Agreement. A basic
rule of contract interpretation requires that preference be given
to the interpretation which gives a reasonable, lawful, and
effective meaning to all the terms over a reading which leaves a
part unreasonable, unlawful, or of no effect.

THE KAPT CONTRACTS EXECUTED BY THE PARTIES DO NOT CONFER THE
UNLIMITED AUTHORITY TO THE LEGISLATURE TO RETROACTIVELY AMEND THE
CONTRACTS

HB 279 expressly declared the retroactive application of the 2014
amendments. However, as explained, because the legislature's
authority to retroactively impose such amendments upon existing
contractual rights and obligations is not unlimited, the
retroactive language contained in the 2014 amendment is not
immediately dispositive of the issues here.

The Appellees argue that by signing the Master Agreement, Maze
expressly agreed that the General Assembly could amend the KAPT
program and the Master Agreement at any time, and that those
amendments could retroactively affect her KAPT contract. Crucial to
this conclusion are two provisions of the Master Agreement: Article
X Section 10.08 and Article II Section 2.09.

Article X Section 10.08 of the Master Agreement states:
"Promulgation and Amendment of KAPT Regulations. Purchaser
understands and agrees that, in consideration for the benefits
afforded under the KAPT program, changes to this Agreement may be
necessary to assure the program's compliance with 26 U.S.C. 529 and
related regulations. In such event, the Purchaser authorizes KAPT
to amend this Agreement to the extent necessary to obtain federal
income tax benefits."

Accordingly, the Board, on behalf of KAPT, shall promulgate such
other Regulations and procedures and shall amend such KAPT
Regulations as deemed appropriate or necessary by the Board to
maintain compliance with 26 U.S.C. 529 and Kentucky law. Amendments
to Regulations and procedures shall be incorporated into this
Agreement, and the Purchaser and Qualified Beneficiary shall be
subject to all such amendments. Amendments to this Agreement shall
be made with retroactive effect to the extent necessary to assure
compliance with applicable state or federal law or regulations or
to preserve favorable tax treatment of the KAPT program.

Article II Section 2.09 provides as follows: "Prepaid Tuition
Contract means this Agreement entered into by the Board and the
Purchaser for the purchase of Prepaid Tuition for a Qualified
Beneficiary to attend any Participating Institution, including
without limitation, the terms and provisions of KAPT Regulations
and KRS 164A.700-709, as may be amended from time to time. In the
event of any amendments to KAPT regulations, Code Section 529, or
state statute, this Agreement shall be amended consistent with any
such changes, with retroactive effect or otherwise."

In opposition to the Court of Appeals' conclusion, Maze argues that
Section 10.08 supports her position because it expressly authorizes
amendments to the KAPT agreement only as to the extent necessary to
obtain federal income tax benefits. Maze points out that she
agreed, pursuant to Section 10.08, only to the retroactive
application of amendments to the extent necessary to assure
compliance with applicable state or federal law or regulations or
to preserve favorable tax treatment of the KAPT program." Because
the 2014 amendments were not necessary for that stated purpose,
they fall outside of this limited authorization provided in Section
10.08.

Summary

In summary, the Court concludes that the trial court correctly
interpreted the relevant statutory text and Master Agreement. The
language of the contract reflects the agreement of Appellants to
accept future amendments of the governing statutes only to the
extent they are necessary to assure compliance with applicable
state or federal law or regulations or to preserve favorable tax
treatment of the KAPT program. The changes under review here do not
fit within that limited category.

Because the Court of Appeals concluded that Appellants, including
Maze, by the language of the contracts, had consented to be bound
to any future legislative changes, and thus had agreed to be bound
to the 2014 changes, its opinion did not need to address the
Impairment Clause issue. There is no Impairment Clause concern if
the parties anticipated and agreed that future legislation could
alter the terms of their contract.

Because the Court concludes that Appellants' contracts did not bind
them to future legislative amendments of their contracts, we must
look further to determine whether the impairment of contract
clauses in the state and federal constitutions protect them from
the legislative amendments to the terms of the contracts embodied
in the 2014 legislation.

THE 2014 AMENDMENTS TO KAPT VIOLATE THE FEDERAL AND STATE
IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACT CLAUSES

General Principles Relating to the Contract Impairment Clauses

The United States Constitution provides that no State shall pass
any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the
obligation of contracts. Similarly, the Kentucky Constitution
states that no ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the
obligation of contracts, shall be enacted.

Despite the seemingly unequivocal language of the federal and state
Contract Impairment Clauses, a constitutional prohibition against
impairing the obligation of contracts is not an absolute one to be
read with literal exactness. The Contract Clause does not prevent a
state from enacting regulations or statues which are reasonably
necessary to safeguard the vital interests of its people. Moreover,
the Clauses do not prevent parties from agreeing that their
contracts will be subject to present and future state and federal
law.

United States Trust Co. of New York Test

In United States Trust, the Supreme Court used the following
three-stage analysis for determining when a legislative action
violated the federal impairment of contract clause: (1) whether the
legislation operates as a substantial impairment of a contractual
relationship (2) if so, then the inquiry turns to whether there is
a significant and legitimate public purpose behind the regulation,
such as the remedying of a broad and general social or economic
problem; and (3) if, as in this case, the government is a party to
the contract, we examine whether that impairment is nonetheless
permissible as a legitimate exercise of the state's sovereign
powers and the Court determine if the impairment is upon reasonable
conditions and of a character appropriate to the public purpose
justifying its adoption.

Stage One: Substantial Impairment Inquiry

The first step under United States Trust is determining whether the
state law has, in fact, operated as a substantial impairment of a
contractual relationship. In applying this analysis, the severity
of the impairment guides the level of scrutiny to which the
legislation will be subjected, with the level of scrutiny
increasing in correlation with the severity of the impairment. The
destruction of a party's contractual expectations is not necessary
for a finding of substantial impairment.  

The Court's examination of the 2014 amendments demonstrates that
they do substantially impair the original contracts entered into by
Maze. Specifically, the 2014 KAPT amendments fundamentally altered
Maze's contractual right to use, for her children, her KAPT funds
for graduate school, and they directly curtailed the financial
value of the benefit by capping future growth so that all of the
promised tuition may not be paid. These changes were imposed
retroactively, significantly devaluing the benefit promised to
Maze.

Under the original Master Agreement, the student's ultimate use of
KAPT's prepaid tuition was not affected by his PCEY (projected
college entrance year), but the 2014 Amendments pegged the duration
of the KAPT benefits to the specific time frame beginning in the
PCEY. This new limit indirectly affects a participant's ability to
transfer KAPT benefits among siblings or other relatives, which was
an important selling point at the time Maze purchased her
contracts.

Stage Two: Justification Review

The second stage of the United States Trust analysis involves a
determination of whether the newly-imposed conditions that impair
the contract can be justified by a significant and legitimate
public purpose.

The Appellees argue that the amendments have the significant and
legitimate public purpose of protecting the Commonwealth's treasury
and assuring that the Commonwealth will be able to meet its
obligations to KAPT account holders.  

As noted by the trial court, reducing a large unfunded liability is
an admirable objective, but it is not reasonable that the General
Assembly would pursue that goal by impairing or devaluing the
state's existing contractual obligations, created precisely in
anticipation of rising tuition costs. The KAPT program was inspired
and created by the legislature to protect participants from the
rising costs of college tuition. Parents, like Maze and others,
were induced to sign KAPT agreements because KAPT promotional
material told them that college tuition was rising, and therefore,
paying at today's lower prices guarded against future increases.
The fact that the KAPT program's costs of performing its
contractual obligations exceeded its own expectations does not
justify altering the obligations so they more closely conform to
its faulty expectations.

In Unites States Trust, the Supreme Court disapproved of the
legislative impairment of contracts when the purported legitimate
purpose related to government spending or saving, noting the
states' self-interest as a concern. The only purpose of HB 279 and
the 2014 KAPT amendments was to reduce the state's liability by
abandoning a portion of its contractual obligation, which were
described to the contracting parties as an irrevocable pledge and
guarantee to cover the cost of future rises in tuition. The Court
is persuaded that the Appellees have failed to proffer a
significant and legitimate public purpose behind the law.

The Court accordingly hold that the 2014 amendments cannot be
sustained under step two of the United States Trust test.

Stage Three: Unforeseen or Unintended Effects

Because the Commonwealth is a party to the contract in this case,
the stricter standard applies in the Court's evaluation of the
reasonableness and necessity of the 2014 amendments. Because the
state's self-interest is involved, the Court do not accord the
complete deference to a legislative assessment of reasonableness
and necessity that would otherwise apply to legislation that
impinges upon the obligations of purely private-party contracts.

Appellees argue that the 2014 Amendments were reasonable and
appropriate in light of dramatically inflating tuition costs at
state universities, something they claim was unforeseeable when the
KAPT program was created. Appellants counter that the unanticipated
underfunding problem occurred because the KAPT fund was
inadequately managed.

The fundamental purpose of the KAPT program was to protect against
tuition inflation at state universities, and so, it is
self-contradictory to now claim that tuition inflation was
unforeseen at the time of the creation of the program. Indeed, the
program was operating precisely as foreseen in permitting its
participants to lock-in lower tuition rates as of the time they
entered into the program. And while unexpectedly high tuition
increases resulted in a $52 million underfunding, perhaps
exacerbated by a deficient investment strategy of KAPT managers,
these unforeseen events are not such that the General Assembly may
self-servingly renounce its debts and impair $20.1 million dollars
in benefits owed to the plan participants pursuant to the
agreements. We also note that the legislature was not totally
powerless with respect to control over the cost of tuition at state
universities.

It follows that the 2014 KAPT amendments are neither reasonable nor
necessary, and the state may not escape an unfavorable contract
with retroactive legislation that substantially impairs the state's
contractual obligations. This result is prohibited by the
respective Contract Clauses of the United States and Kentucky
Constitutions.

The Court concludes that the KAPT contracts executed by Maze and
those similarly situated, and the underlying enabling statutes, do
not provide for retroactive amendments such as those at issue here.
The Court further conclude that the enactment of those retroactive
amendments unlawfully impaired those contracts in violation of U.S.
Const. Art. I Section 10, cl. 1. and Ky. Const. Section 19.

The Court, accordingly, reverses the Court of Appeals and reinstate
the partial summary judgment awarded to Maze by the Franklin
Circuit Court.

A full-text copy of the state Supreme Court's November 1, 2018
0pinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycv6zmq8 from
Leagle.com.

Robert Andrew Rowland , 222 W Main St, Frankfort, KY 40601, Counsel
for Appellants.

Laura Tipton , Taylor Allen Payne , Assistant Attorneys General,
Counsel for Appellees.


KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT: Court Conditionally Certifies Brayman Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional
Certification in the case captioned RACHEL BRAYMAN, on behalf of
herself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. KEYPOINT
GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant.
Civil Action No. 18-cv-0550-WJM-NRN. (D. Colo.).

Plaintiff Rachel Brayman (Plaintiff) brings this action against
Defendant KeyPoint Government Solutions, Inc., (Defendant) for
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff's FLSA claim concerns the Defendant's alleged failure
to properly compensate employees for overtime hours worked and an
alleged policy of only permitting overtime in certain
circumstances.

The Plaintiff seeks to have this matter conditionally certified as
a collective action under the FLSA for all persons who worked as
Field Investigators, Background Investigators, or in other
positions with similar job duties for Defendant from March 8, 2015
to present.

LEGAL STANDARD

The FLSA permits collective actions when allegedly aggrieved
employees are similarly situated. Whether employees are similarly
situated is judged in two stages: a preliminary or notice stage, at
issue here and then a more searching, substantive stage, usually
after the close of discovery.

The Defendant claims that, for various reasons, the collective
action should not be conditionally certified. The Court will
address these arguments in turn.

Existence of a Decision, Policy or Plan

The Defendant argues that Plaintiff is not similarly situated to
the putative collective action members within the meaning of 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b) because the Field Investigators did not
suffer the same harm as the result of the same decision, policy, or
plan.

At the notice stage, a plaintiff is required to provide nothing
more than substantial allegations that the putative class members
were together the victims of a single decision, policy or plan. The
standard is lenient and typically results in conditional
certification. A plaintiff must establish a reasonable basis for
the claim that other employees are similarly situated. At this
stage, the court may rely on the allegations of the complaint and
any supporting affidavits filed by the plaintiff. Again, however,
at this stage of the litigation, the Court does not resolve factual
disputes, decide substantive issues, or make credibility
determinations.  

While Defendant points to its policy that all hours be recorded, a
written policy does not negate the possibility of an unwritten
policy or general practice to the contrary. Here, Plaintiff has
provided several declarations that support her claim that Defendant
has an unwritten practice of not paying certain overtime hours.
Given the role of the Court at the conditional certification stage,
the Court will not make factual determinations based on testimony
submitted by Defendant.

While Plaintiff certainly could have provided more detail in her
complaint and statistics and declarations submitted in support of
the Motion regarding the details of Defendant's alleged practice,
the allegations in the complaint are sufficiently substantial to
allow conditional certification and notice to potential collective
action members.

Potential Conflict Among Conditional Action Members

The Defendant relies on Ellerd v. County of Los Angeles to argue
that collective treatment is not warranted because the managers who
are putative conditional action members have allegedly implemented
the ad hoc policy being challenged, and thus there is a conflict
with other putative members of the collective action. 2009 WL
98077, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2009). The Plaintiff argues that
courts do not inquire into potential conflicts at the conditional
certification stage and that only a modest factual showing of a
common plan is required.  

The Court finds that Ellerd is factually distinguishable. In that
case, one of the named plaintiffs alleged that he was not
compensated for overtime hours worked in his role as supervisor,
and plaintiffs sought to represent both social workers and their
supervisors. Here, Plaintiff seeks only to represent Investigators,
some of whom subsequently became managers in the relevant time
period.

While a close call, the Court finds that any potential conflict
should not preclude conditional certification at this point in the
litigation.

Willfulness

Generally, claims under the FLSA are subject to a two-year statute
of limitations, except for when a plaintiff alleges a willful
violation. When a plaintiff alleges a willful violation, a
three-year statute of limitations applies. At the conditional
certification stage, a plaintiff must allege willfulness on the
part of the defendant.

Here, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has made only conclusory
allegations that Defendant's alleged violations of the FLSA were
willful and focuses on Defendant's policy and reminders to
employees to record all hours worked. Plaintiff summarily responds
in a footnote, citing seven paragraphs from her complaint and two
cases from this District.

The Defendant overlooks the Plaintiff's allegations that the
Defendant modified or altered time entries of the Plaintiff and
others to reflect fewer overtime hours, and that the Plaintiff's
supervisor acknowledged but refused to approve overtime hours
worked. These allegations, which are not addressed by Defendant, if
true, would support a finding of willfulness on the part of
Defendant. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has
sufficiently alleged willful conduct for purposes of conditional
certification of a 3-year putative class.  

Arbitration Contracts

The parties also disagree whether notice should be sent to Field
Investigators whose contracts contained arbitration clauses, or
indeed whether those individuals should included in the collective
action.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia addressed this
issue in a recent decision. In that case, the court observed that
courts have generally found that the existence of an arbitration
agreement is irrelevant to conditional certification of a
collective action, because the enforceability of such agreements is
a merits-based determination better dealt with at the
decertification stage. This Court agrees with this analysis and
conclusion. The purpose of conditional certification is to notify
putative collective action members of their right to join the
lawsuit. Though Defendant may have an affirmative defense to
litigating opt-in plaintiffs' FLSA claims, such a defense does not
negate the right of potential collective action members to join the
litigation.

The Court thus grants the Motion as to conditional certification
for all persons who fit the proposed collective action definition,
including those with arbitration provisions.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 1, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7k63w9e from Leagle.com.

Rachel Brayman, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin L. Davis,
III, The Law Offices of, Peter T. Nicholl, George Edward Swegman,
The Law Offices of, Peter T. Nicholl, & Rachhana T. Srey --
srey@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP.

Keypoint Government Solutions, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Elise Kalk --
jkalk@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC, Karin M. Cogbill --
kcogbill@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC, Margaret Parnell
Hogan -- mphogan@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC & Mary
Kathryne Bosbyshell -- kbosbyshell@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, PC.


KMG CHEMICALS: Files Merger-Related Disclosures to Appease Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
In connection with lawsuits related to its merger plan with Cabot
Microelectronics, KMG Chemicals, Inc. has voluntarily filed
supplemental disclosures in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated November 1, 2018.

A putative class action lawsuit captioned Richard Walter,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KMG
Chemicals, Inc., et al., No. 4:18-cv-00785 is pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against
the Company and the Board of Directors, and a putative derivative
and class action lawsuit captioned Jordan Rosenblatt, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Christopher T.
Fraser et al., No. 342-303508-18 is pending in the District Court
of the State of Texas for Tarrant County against the Board of
Directors, Cabot Microelectronics Corporation ("Cabot
Microelectronics"), Cobalt Merger Sub Corporation ("Merger Sub")
and the Company as a nominal defendant.

These two pending lawsuits ("KMG Merger Litigation") relate to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of August 14, 2018 (the
"Merger Agreement"), by and among Cabot Microelectronics, Merger
Sub and the Company, providing for the merger of Merger Sub with
and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the
Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cabot Microelectronics.

The complaints in the KMG Merger Litigation assert claims for,
among other things, breach of fiduciary duty and alleged violations
of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on allegations that the Proxy Statement/Prospectus is
materially incomplete and misleading.

The Company and other defendants believe the claims are without
merit and that the disclosures set forth in the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus comply fully with applicable state and federal
law.  While the Company and other defendants believe that no
further supplemental disclosure is required, in order to moot
plaintiffs' claims, avoid nuisance, potential expense and delay,
and to provide additional information to the Company's
shareholders, the Company has determined to voluntarily make
certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger,
all of which are set forth in the Company's Form 8-K dated November
1, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/vZ8TV9

KMG Chemicals, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures,
formulates, and distributes specialty chemicals and performance
materials worldwide.  The Company was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas.


LASALLE HOTEL: Lawsuit by Erie Employees Retirement Sys. Dropped
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled Erie County Employees Retirement System v.
LaSalle Hotel Properties, et al., the plaintiff's counsel has
dismissed the complaint but advised the Court of their intent to
seek an award of attorneys' fees, according to the Form 10-Q filing
of LaSalle Hotel Properties with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

On June 29, 2018, a purported class action complaint, Erie County
Employees Retirement System v. LaSalle Hotel Properties, et al.,
No. 24-C-18-003922, was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City, Maryland by purported Company shareholder Erie County
Employees Retirement System in connection with the Blackstone
Merger Agreement.

An amended complaint was filed on July 11, 2018.  The amended
complaint names as defendants the Company and the members of the
Company's Board of Trustees.  The amended complaint alleges, among
other things, that the Board of Trustees breached its duties in
agreeing to the Blackstone Merger Agreement, in not agreeing to a
transaction with Pebblebrook, and in failing to disclose certain
supposedly material information to shareholders in the preliminary
proxy statement filed in connection with the Blackstone Merger
Agreement.

The amended complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief,
including a preliminary injunction barring the shareholder vote on
the Blackstone Merger Agreement, as well as damages and attorneys'
fees and costs.

On August 21, 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction barring the shareholder vote on the Blackstone Merger
Agreement.  On September 6, 2018, the plaintiff withdrew that
motion.  The plaintiff's counsel have advised the Company's counsel
that they believe the Company's agreement to enter into a
transaction with Pebblebrook rendered the case moot and entitled
them to an award of attorneys' fees.

On October 10, 2018, the plaintiff's counsel dismissed the
complaint but advised the Court of their intent to seek an award of
attorneys' fees.

The Company does not believe that the case played any role in the
decision by its Board of Trustees to enter into a transaction with
Pebblebrook and intends to oppose any request for an award of
attorneys' fees.

The Company is unable to predict the developments in, outcome of,
and/or economic or other consequences of this litigation or predict
the developments in, outcome of, and/or other consequences arising
out of any potential future litigation or government inquiries
related to the Mergers.

LaSalle Hotel Properties is a leading multi-operator real estate
investment trust. The Company focuses on owning, redeveloping and
repositioning upscale, full-service hotels located in urban, resort
and convention markets. The company is based in Bethesda, Maryland.



LIBERTY ALL SERVICES: Pico Sues over Spam Text Ads
--------------------------------------------------
JUAN PICO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LIBERTY ALL SERVICES, CORP. D/B/A
UNIVISTA INSURANCE AND UNIVISTA INSURANCE CORPORATION, the
Defendants, Case 1:18-cv-24563-MGC (S.D. Fla., Oct. 31, 2018),
seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendants' illegal conduct, which
has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation,
and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals, and
seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the
class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Univista owns and/or operates
and/or acts as a franchisor for a chain of insurance agencies that
sell insurance. Liberty owns and/or operates an insurance agency in
Hialeah and is a franchisee of Univista. Pursuant to its franchise
agreement, Liberty is required to promote and market its facility
and the Univista brand. At issue is Liberty's automated text
messaging marketing that was approved, consented to, controlled,
and/or ratified by Univista. Further Univista knowingly received
and retained monetary benefit from Liberty's telemarketing
activities.

Defendants' text messaging marketing consists of sending
unsolicited text messages to consumers and soliciting them to
purchase goods and services from Defendants. Defendants' caused
thousands of unsolicited text messages to be sent to the cellular
telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members, causing them injuries,
including invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance,
intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

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

               - and -

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

LIFE STORAGE: $0.2MM Remaining to Settle Class Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Life Storage, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018, that the aggregate amount remaining to settle a
putative class action in New Jersey is US$0.2 million, which has
been recorded as a liability in the Company's consolidated balance
sheet.

On or about August 25, 2014, a putative class action was filed
against the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law
Division Burlington County.  The action sought to obtain
declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief for a class of
consumers based upon alleged violations by the Company of various
statutory laws.  On October 17, 2014, the action was removed from
the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division Burlington County to
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The parties subsequently reached a settlement of all claims for an
aggregate amount of US$8.0 million, and the settlement was approved
by the court on June 12, 2018.

The Company is in the process of making payments under the
settlement to the members of the class and has made most of the
required payments as of September 30, 2018.  The aggregate
remaining settlement amount of US$0.2 million has been recorded as
a liability in the Company's consolidated balance sheet.

Life Storage, Inc. is a self-administered and self-managed equity
REIT that is in the business of acquiring and managing self storage
facilities.  Located in Buffalo, New York, the Company operates
more than 700 storage facilities in 28 states.  The Company serves
both residential and commercial storage customers with storage
units rented by month.  Life Storage consistently provides
responsive service to its 400,000-plus customers, making it a
leader in the industry.


LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Still Defends Amended Smith Class Suit in Utah
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lifevantage Corporation continues to defend itself against the
class action lawsuit styled Smith v. LifeVantage Corp., which is
now pending in the Federal District Court for Utah, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2018.

On January 24, 2018, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut,
entitled Smith v. LifeVantage Corp., Case No. 3:18-cv-a35 (D.
Connecticut filed Jan. 24, 2018).

In this action, plaintiff alleged that the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer, Chief Sales Officer and Chief Marketing Officer
operated a pyramid scheme in violation of a variety of federal and
state statutes, including RICO and the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

On April 16, 2018, the Company filed motions with the court to
dismiss the complaint against LifeVantage, dismiss the complaint
against the Company's executives, transfer the venue of the case
from the State of Connecticut to the State of Utah, and contest
class certification.  On July 23, 2018, the parties filed a
stipulation with the Court agreeing to transfer the case to the
Federal District Court for Utah.

On September 20, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
Utah.  As per the parties stipulated agreement, plaintiff's amended
complaint dropped the RICO and Connecticut state law claims and
removed the Company's Chief Sales Officer and Chief Marketing
Officer as individual defendants (the Chief Executive Officer
remains a defendant in the case).  However, the amended complaint
adds a new antitrust claim, alleging that the Company fraudulently
obtained patents for its products and is attempting to use those
patents in an anti-competitive manner.

The deadline for LifeVantage to file a response to the amended
complaint was on November 5, 2018.  No further updates were
provided in the Company's SEC filings.

Lifevantage said, "The Company has not established a loss
contingency accrual for this lawsuit as it believes liability is
not probable or estimable, and the Company plans to vigorously
defend against this lawsuit.  Nonetheless, an unfavorable
resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on
the Company's business, results of operations or financial
condition."

Lifevantage Corporation is a company focused on biohacking the
aging code through nutrigenomics, the study of how nutrition and
naturally occurring compounds affect our genes. The company is
based in Sandy, Utah.


LIVANOVA PLC: Faces 150 Claims at Oct. 31 Over 3T Device Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
LivaNova PLC said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September
30, 2018, that the Company is involved in approximately 150 claims
worldwide related to its 3T device as of October 31, 2018.

The Company is currently involved in litigation involving its 3T
device.  The litigation includes a class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania,
federal multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania, various U.S. state court cases
and cases in jurisdictions outside the U.S.

As of October 31, 2018, the Company is involved in approximately
150 claims worldwide, with the majority of the claims in various
federal or state courts throughout the United States.  The
complaints generally seek damages and other relief based on
theories of strict liability, negligence, breach of express and
implied warranties, failure to warn, design and manufacturing
defect, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation/concealment,
unjust enrichment, and violations of various state consumer
protection statutes.

The class action, filed in February 2016, consists of all
Pennsylvania residents who underwent open heart surgery at WellSpan
York Hospital and Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
between 2011 and 2015 and who currently are asymptomatic for NTM
infection.  Members of the class seek declaratory relief that the
3T devices are defective and unsafe for intended uses, medical
monitoring, damages, and attorneys' fees.

The class action and cases in federal court have been stayed as a
result of the federal multi-district litigation.  However, cases in
state courts in the U.S. and in jurisdictions outside the U.S
continue to progress.

The Company said, "We have not recognized an expense related to
damages in connection with these matters because any potential loss
is not currently probable or reasonably estimable.  In addition, we
cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, that
may result from these matters."

LivaNova PLC, a medical device company, designs, develops,
manufactures, and sells therapeutic solutions worldwide.  The
Company operates in two segments, Cardiac Surgery and
Neuromodulation. LivaNova PLC was founded in 1987 and is
headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


LIVE NATION: Nine Class Suits over Overpriced Tickets Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. is facing nine class action
lawsuits in the U.S. and Canada related to inflated ticket prices,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018

The consumer class actions, which were filed against Live Nation
and/or its ticketing business Ticketmaster LLC, are the following:

   * Vaccaro v. Ticketmaster LLC (Northern District of Illinois,
filed September 2018);
   * Ameri v. Ticketmaster LLC (Superior Court of California,
Alameda County, filed September 2018);
   * Lee v. Ticketmaster LLC, et al. (Northern District of
California, filed September 2018);
   * Thompson-Marcial v. Ticketmaster Canada Holdings ULC (Ontario
Superior Court of Justice, filed September 2018);
   * McPhee v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Superior
Court of Quebec, District of Montreal, filed September 2018);
   * Crystal Watch v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al.
(Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan, by amendments filed
September 2018);
   * Gaetano v. Live Nation Entertainment Inc., et al. (Northern
District of New York, filed October 2018);
   * Dickey v. Ticketmaster, LLC, et al. (Central District of
California, filed October 2018); and
   * Gomel v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Supreme
Court of British Columbia, filed October 2018).

These lawsuits make similar factual allegations that Live Nation
and/or Ticketmaster LLC engage in conduct that is intended to
encourage the resale of tickets on secondary ticket exchanges at
elevated prices.

Based on these allegations, each plaintiff asserts violations of
different state/provincial and federal laws.  Each plaintiff also
seeks to represent a class of individuals who purchased tickets on
a secondary ticket exchange, as defined in each plaintiff's
complaint.  The complaints seek a variety of remedies, including
unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages, restitution,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company states, "Based on information presently known to
management, the Company does not believe that a loss is probable of
occurring at this time, and believes that the potential liability,
if any, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition, cash flows or results of operations.  Further, the
Company does not currently believe that the claims asserted in
these lawsuits have merit, and considerable uncertainty exists
regarding any monetary damages that will be asserted against the
Company.  As a result, the Company is currently unable to estimate
the possible loss or range of loss for these matters.  The Company
intends to vigorously defend these actions."

Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. operates as a live entertainment
company.  It operates through Concerts, Sponsorship & Advertising,
and Ticketing segments.  The Company was incorporated in 2005 and
is headquartered in Beverly Hills, California.


LIVE NATION: Poser Class Suit Dropped Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Poser has filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, without
prejudice, in a securities class action lawsuit against Live Nation
Entertainment, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018.

In April 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company
by Kathryn Poser, asserting claims for alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, in statements and/or omissions pertaining to a consent
decree related to its acquisition of Ticketmaster in 2010.  On
August 21, 2018, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal, without prejudice, thereby ending the litigation.

Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. operates as a live entertainment
company.  It operates through Concerts, Sponsorship & Advertising,
and Ticketing segments.  The Company was incorporated in 2005 and
is headquartered in Beverly Hills, California.


LOUISIANA: Class Cert of Solar Energy Tax Credits Suit Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Robinson, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of
Revenue, appeals to Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit,
the judgment of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court (19th JDC)
granting Justin Ulrich, Gwen Ulrich, Raymond Alleman, and Pam
Alleman's motion for class certification.

The Ulrichs and the Allemans are Louisiana residents seeking to
challenge the constitutionality of 2015 La. Act No. 131 (eff. June
19, 2015), amending and reenacting subsections of La. R.S. 47:6030
relative to the solar energy systems tax credit. Louisiana Revised
Statutes 47:6030 provides for a tax credit for Louisiana residents
who purchase or lease and install a qualified solar energy system
on residential property prior to January 1, 2018. This statute
became effective on July 10, 2007.

The factual findings upon which a class action certification is
based should be reviewed on appeal by the manifest error (clearly
wrong) standard.

The Department's Assignments of Error numbers two through seven
challenge the trial court's certification of the class. The class
action is a non-traditional litigation procedure permitting a
representative with typical claims to sue or defend on behalf of,
and stand in judgment for, a class of similarly situated persons
when the question is one of common or general interest to persons
so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them all before
the court.  

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 591(A) states:

"A. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as
representative parties on behalf of all, only if:

(1) The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable.
(2) There are questions of law or fact common to the class.
(3) The claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class.
(4) The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class.
(5) The class is or may be defined objectively in terms of
ascertainable criteria, such that the court may determine the
constituency of the class for purposes of the conclusiveness of any
judgment that may be rendered in the case."

The Department argues on appeal that the Ulrichs, the Allemans, and
the other purported class members cannot satisfy the requirements
of La. Code Civ. P. art. 591(A) because there is no evidence that
all of the purported class members have standing to challenge the
constitutionality of Act 131. According to the Department, any
purported class members who failed to appeal their respective
denials within the 60-day period provided in La. R.S. 47:1625 have
lost standing to challenge the constitutionality of Act 131.

In the present case, it is unclear whether the claims of the class
representatives the Ulrichs and the Allemans are typical of the
purported class members. The Ulrichs and the Allemans were denied a
tax credit because of Act 131. Further, the Ulrichs and the
Allemans appealed to the Louisiana Board of Tax Appeals within the
60-day appeal window provided for in La. R.S. 47:1625 and,
therefore, still have standing to pursue their claims.

However, while it is clear that the Ulrichs and the Allemans have
standing, the record is devoid as to whether the other purported
class members appealed their respective claims to the Louisiana
Board of Tax Appeals within the appropriate time period, thus
making it unclear whether each purported class member has standing.
If a purported class member lacks standing, the Ulrichs and the
Allemans will no longer possess claims typical of that class
member.

The issues regarding the standing of the purported class members to
challenge the constitutionality of Act 131 also relate to whether
the Ulrichs and the Allemans can adequately represent the purported
class members. The test for determining the existence of adequate
representation consists of three elements: (1) the claims of the
chosen class representatives cannot be antagonistic to or conflict
with those of other class members; (2) the chosen representatives
must have a sufficient interest in the outcome to ensure vigorous
advocacy; and (3) counsel for the chosen representatives must be
competent, experienced, qualified, and generally able to conduct
the litigation vigorously.  

It is clear that the Ulrichs and the Allemans have a sufficient
interest in the outcome of this case; both testified at the hearing
on the motion for class certification that they were entitled to a
$12,500 tax credit from the state of Louisiana and subsequently
denied that credit because of the cap imposed by Act 131. Further,
the Court do not doubt the competency or qualifications of their
chosen counsel. However, although the second and the third elements
of adequate representation are satisfied, the first element is not.
The claims of the Ulrichs and the Allemans conflict with the claims
of any purported class members who lack standing for reasons
detailed above. Appellees have not carried their burden of proving
whether all of the purported class members timely appealed their
respective tax credit denials to the Louisiana Board of Tax
Appeals.

The Court finds that the trial court manifestly erred in finding
that the plaintiffs satisfied the prerequisites for class action
certification set forth in La. Code Civ. P. art. 591(A).

Consequently, the Court concludes that the trial court abused its
discretion in certifying the class action. Accordingly, the Court
reverses the trial court's June 15, 2017 judgment granting the
plaintiffs' motion for class action certification and remands this
matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.

The appeals case is JUSTIN ULRICH, GWEN ULRICH, RAYMOND AND PAM
ALLEMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY
SITUATED, v. KIMBERLY ROBINSON, SECRETARY LOUISIANA DEPARMENT OF
REVENUE. JUSTIN ULRICH, GWEN ULRICH, RAYMOND AND PAM ALLEMAN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED, v.
KIMBERLY ROBINSON, SECRETARY LOUISIANA DEPARMENT OF REVENUE. No.
2017 CA 1119, Civil Writ No. 2017 CW 0763. (La. App.).

A full-text copy of the Court's November 1, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ya4ulbql from Leagle.com.

Christopher K. Jones -- cjones@sandsanderson.com -- Nancy B.
Gilbert, Brent J. Cobb -- brent.tomb@simon.com -- John N. Grinton,
Antonio C. Ferachi, Brandea Averett, Counsel for
Defendants/Appellants/Relator, Kimberly Robinson, Secretary of the
Louisiana Department of Revenue and the Louisiana Department of
Revenue.

Lawrence J. Centola, III, Jason Z. Landry, Nicole F. Gould Frey --
nicole.gould@bswllp.com -- Heidi Mabile Gould -- heidigould@mac.com
-- D. Blayne Honeycutt, Counsel for
Plaintiffs/Appellees/Respondents, Justin and Gwen Ulrich, Raymond
and Pam Alleman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated.


LSTAR DEVELOPMENT: Failed to Pay Wages, Hamilton Says
-----------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM HAMILTON, RHIANNON D'ANGELO, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LSTAR DEVELOPMENT
GROUP, INC., KYLE CORKUM, STEVEN VINING & PETE SULLIVAN, the
Defendants, Case No. 18-33946 (Mass. Super. Ct., Oct. 30, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages under Massachusetts General Law.

According to the complaint, the Defednants have failed to pay
promised base salary wages to Plaintiffs and all others similarly
situated.

D'Angelo is owed $8,076.92 in wages to date, as Defendants failed
to pay Plaintiff D'Angelo her promised salary for 2 recent pay
periods (each a two week pay period of $4,038.46), claiming a lack
of funds, the lawsuit says.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jeffrey M. Rosin, Esq.
          Kenton J. Villano, Esq.
          O'HAGAN & MEYER. PLLC
          111 Huntington Ave. Suite 2860
          Boston, MA 02199
          Telephone: (617) 843-6800
          E-mail: jrosin@ohaganmeyer.com
                  kvillam@ohaganmeyer.com

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Bid for Summary Judgment in Gold Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30,
2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a
motion for summary judgment in the class action suit filed by Dana
Gold, is pending.

On or about December 8, 2014, Dana Gold ("Gold") filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging that the Morning Star
bamboo flooring that the Company sells is defective. On February 2,
2018, plaintiffs filed their Fifth Amended Complaint, and
plaintiffs have narrowed the complaint to the Company's Morning
Star Strand Bamboo flooring (the "Strand Bamboo Product") sold to
residents of California, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania
and West Virginia for personal, family or household use.  

The plaintiffs allege that the Company has engaged in unfair
business practices and unfair competition by falsely representing
the quality and characteristics of the Strand Bamboo Products and
by concealing the Strand Bamboo Product's defective nature. The
plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their complaint
but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the plaintiffs seek
a declaration that the Company's actions violate the law and that
it is financially responsible for notifying all purported class
members, injunctive relief requiring the Company to replace and/or
repair all of the Strand Bamboo Product installed in structures
owned by the purported class members and a declaration that the
Company must disgorge, for the benefit of the purported classes,
all or part of the profits received from the sale of the allegedly
defective Strand Bamboo Product and/or to make full restitution to
the plaintiffs and the purported class members.

In November 2017, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification with respect to the six states. The Company
appealed the decision, but the petition for appeal was denied. The
Company filed a motion for summary judgment, which is currently
pending.  Trial is currently scheduled for February 25, 2019 and,
while no resolution has been achieved, the Company has participated
in court-ordered mediation sessions.

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hardwood
flooring, and hardwood flooring enhancements and accessories.
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is
headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


LUMENTUM HOLDINGS: Oclaro Still Defends Karri Merger Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lumentum Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 29, 2018, that Oclaro remains a defendant in a
putative class action styled SaiSravan B. Karri v. Oclaro, Inc., et
al., No. 3:18-cv-03435-JD.  The Company also disclosed that six
other merger-related lawsuits were filed and were later voluntarily
dismissed.

On March 11, 2018, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Oclaro, Prota Merger Sub,
Inc., and Prota Merger, LLC, pursuant to which the Company will
acquire Oclaro and Oclaro will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Lumentum.

In connection with the Company's acquisition of Oclaro, seven
lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of Oclaro challenging
the proposed merger (the "Merger").  Two of the seven suits were
putative class actions filed against Oclaro, its directors,
Lumentum, Prota Merger Sub, Inc. and Prota Merger, LLC: Nicholas
Neinast v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03112-VC, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (filed May 24, 2018) (the "Neinast Lawsuit"); and Adam
Franchi v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-00817-GMS, in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware (filed
June 9, 2018) (the "Franchi Lawsuit).  Both the Neinstat Lawsuit
and the Franchi Lawsuit were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

The other five suits, styled as Gerald F. Wordehoff v. Oclaro,
Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03148-NC (the "Wordehoff Lawsuit"),
Walter Ryan v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03174-VC (the
"Ryan Lawsuit"), Jayme Walker v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No.
5:18-cv-03203-EJD (the "Walker Lawsuit"), Kevin Garcia v. Oclaro,
Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03262-VKD (the "Garcia Lawsuit"), and
SaiSravan B. Karri v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03435-JD
(the "Karri Lawsuit" and, together with the other six lawsuits, the
"Lawsuits"), were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on May 25, 2018, May 29, 2018, May
30, 2018, May 31, 2018, and June 9, 2018, respectively.  These five
Lawsuits named Oclaro and its directors as defendants only and did
not name Lumentum.  The Wordehoff, Ryan, Walker, and Garcia
Lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed, and the Wordehoff, Ryan,
and Walker dismissals were with prejudice.  The Karri Lawsuit has
not yet been dismissed.  The Ryan Lawsuit was, and the Karri
Lawsuit is, a putative class action.

The Lawsuits generally alleged, among other things, that Oclaro and
its directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder by disseminating an incomplete and
misleading Form S-4, including proxy statement/prospectus.  The
Lawsuits further alleged that Oclaro's directors violated Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act by failing to exercise proper control
over the person(s) who violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act.

The remaining Lawsuit (the Karri Lawsuit) currently purports to
seek, among other things, injunctive relief preventing the parties
from consummating the Merger, damages to be awarded to the
plaintiff and any class if the Merger is consummated, and
litigation costs, including attorneys' fees.  The defendants intend
to defend the Karri Lawsuit vigorously.

Lumentum Holdings Inc. manufactures and sells optical and photonic
products in the Americas, the Asia-Pacific, Europe, the Middle
East, and Africa.  The Company operates through two segments,
Optical Communications and Commercial Lasers.  Lumentum Holdings
Inc. was incorporated in 2015 and is headquartered in Milpitas,
California.


MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: Bid to Drop Freedman Amended Complaint Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
magicJack VocalTec Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the Company has
filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the case,
Freedman v. magicJack VocalTec Ltd. et al.

On August 11, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit titled Freedman
v. magicJack VocalTec Ltd. et al., Case 9-17-cv-80940, was filed
against the Company and its Board of Directors in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The complaint alleged claims against the Company and the current
members of its Board of Directors as well as two former members for
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, arising from proxy statements issued in connection
with the April 19, 2017 shareholders meeting and the July 31, 2017
shareholders meeting that allegedly misrepresented material facts
concerning the "true value" of Broadsmart Global, Inc. and its
future prospects in order that the individual defendants (the Board
members) could entrench themselves on the Board and extract
unwarranted compensation from the Company in connection with their
attempt to sell the Company. In January 2018, the plaintiff filed
an Amended Complaint.

On February 16, 2018, the Company and all of the individual
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The
plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 2,
2018, and defendants' reply was filed on April 19, 2018.

The court issued an order dismissing the amended complaint without
prejudice on August 9, 2018.  The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, and on August 20, 2018, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint.  No decision has yet been
reached on the motion.

magicJack VocalTec said, "The Company cannot estimate the amount of
potential liability, if any, that could arise from this matter."

magicJack VocalTec Ltd., together with its subsidiaries, operates
as a cloud communications company in the United States. The
company's products and services allow users to make and/or receive
free telephone calls to and from where the customer has broadband
access to the Internet. magicJack VocalTec Ltd. was founded in 1989
and is headquartered in Netanya, Israel.


MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: Court Closes Martinez & Lopez Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
magicJack VocalTec Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court in the
putative class action suit filed by Ramon G. Martinez and Moses
Lopez has issued an order closing the case.

On July 12, 2018, plaintiffs Ramon G. Martinez and Moses Lopez
filed a putative class action complaint against magicJack LP and
YMAX Holdings Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida as case number 9:18-cv-80917-RLR,
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in
connection with calls placed by an autodialer using a pre-recorded
voice without the requisite consent.

The Plaintiffs entered into a stipulation with the Company under
which the Complaint has been dismissed with prejudice, and on
October 24, 2018, the Court issued an order closing the case.

magicJack VocalTec Ltd., together with its subsidiaries, operates
as a cloud communications company in the United States. The
company's products and services allow users to make and/or receive
free telephone calls to and from where the customer has broadband
access to the Internet. magicJack VocalTec Ltd. was founded in 1989
and is headquartered in Netanya, Israel.


MAKESPACE LABS: Sued over Alleged Inaccurate Consumer Report
------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON SANDERS, the Plaintiff, v. MAKESPACE LABS, INC, the
Defendant, Case 1:18-cv-10016 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2018), alleges
that MakeSpace violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the New
York State Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, in May 2018, Mr. Sanders sought
employment with MakeSpace. After the application and interview
process, MakeSpace gave him a conditional offer of employment
contingent on passing a background check. MakeSpace then ordered a
consumer report about Mr. Sanders. Devastatingly for Mr. Sanders,
Checkr's consumer report incorrectly stated he had multiple pending
criminal charges for rape and sexual assault. Mr. Sanders did not
and does not have any pending criminal charges, and has never been
convicted of any crime. Nonetheless, MakeSpace used the inaccurate
consumer report to summarily deny Mr. Sanders employment. MakeSpace
denied Mr. Sanders employment based on the inaccurate results of a
standardized background screen conducted by Checkr, Inc. Pursuant
to an agreement between Checkr and MakeSpace, Checkr performs
standardized background screens on MakeSpace candidates for hire or
promotion. Checkr adjudicated Plaintiff as not eligible for the job
based upon the purported pendency of numerous criminal charges for
rape and sexual assault. Plaintiff had been acquitted of all
charges more than two years prior to Checkr's report.

In violation of the FCRA, MakeSpace willfully and negligently
failed to comply with the FCRA's mandatory pre-adverse action
notification requirement, and failed to provide a copy of the
inaccurate background report it obtained from Checkr at least five
business days before taking adverse action against him, as required
by 15 U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(3). Numerous other individuals who
have applied to MakeSpace for employment have been similarly
aggrieved by the same violation. Additionally, MakeSpace's actions
violated important New York state law protections for individuals
acquitted of criminal charges, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Adam G. Singer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ADAM G. SINGER, PLLC
          60 E 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: 212 842.2428
          Facsimile: 212 658.9682
          E-mail: asinger@adamsingerlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew L. Weiner, Esq.
          Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq.
          WEINER & SAND LLC
          3525 Piedmont Road
          7 Piedmont Center, 3rd Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: 404.205.5029
          Facsimile: 866.800.1482
          E-mail: aw@atlantaemployeelawyer.com
                  js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com

               - and -

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

MANNKIND CORP: Israel High Court Upholds Ruling in Securities Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
In a securities lawsuit filed against MannKind Corporation, the
Supreme Court of Israel has upheld a district court ruling in
pronouncing that U.S. law will apply in the case, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

Following the public announcement of Sanofi's election to terminate
the Sanofi License Agreement and the subsequent decline in the
Company's stock price, two motions were submitted to the district
court at Tel Aviv, Economic Department for the certification of a
class action against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

In general, the complaints alleged that the Company and certain of
its officers and directors violated Israeli and U.S. securities
laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding
the prospects for Afrezza, thereby artificially inflating the price
of its common stock.  The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages.

In November 2016, the district court dismissed one of the actions
without prejudice.  In the remaining action, the district court
recently ruled that U.S. law will apply to this case.  The
plaintiff appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court of Israel,
which upheld the ruling of the lower court.

MannKind Corp. said, "The Company will vigorously defend against
the claims advanced."

MannKind Corporation is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the
development and commercialization of inhaled therapeutic products
for patients with diseases such as diabetes and pulmonary arterial
hypertension. The company is based in Westlake Village,
California.


MASTERCARD INC: TCPA Class Suit in Florida Still Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act class action suit against the company is
still stayed.

Mastercard is a defendant in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") class action pending in Florida. The plaintiffs are
individuals and businesses who allege that approximately 381,000
unsolicited faxes were sent to them advertising a Mastercard
co-brand card issued by First Arkansas Bank ("FAB").

The TCPA provides for uncapped statutory damages of $500 per fax.
Mastercard has asserted various defenses to the claims, and has
notified FAB of an indemnity claim that it has (which FAB has
disputed).

In June 2018, the court granted Mastercard's motion to stay the
proceedings until the Federal Communications Commission makes a
decision on the application of the TCPA to online fax services.

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

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. It facilitates the processing of
payment transactions, including authorization, clearing, and
settlement, as well as delivers related products and services. The
company was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Purchase, New
York.


MCCLATCHY CO: Third Phase Trial in Sawin to Start on March 12
-------------------------------------------------------------
The McClatchy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the third phase
trial in Sawin v. The McClatchy Company has been scheduled to begin
on March 25, 2019.

In December 2008, carriers of The Fresno Bee filed a class action
lawsuit against the company and The Fresno Bee in the Superior
Court of the State of California in Fresno County captioned Becerra
v. The McClatchy Company ("Fresno case") alleging that the carriers
were misclassified as independent contractors and seeking mileage
reimbursement.

In February 2009, a substantially similar lawsuit, Sawin v. The
McClatchy Company, involving similar allegations was filed by
carriers of The Sacramento Bee ("Sacramento case") in the Superior
Court of the State of California in Sacramento County.

The class consists of roughly 5,000 carriers in the Sacramento case
and 3,500 carriers in the Fresno case. The plaintiffs in both cases
are seeking unspecified restitution for mileage reimbursement. With
respect to the Sacramento case, in September 2013, all wage and
hour claims were dismissed and the only remaining claim is an
equitable claim for mileage reimbursement under the California
Civil Code. In the Fresno case, in March 2014, all wage and hour
claims were dismissed and the only remaining claim is an equitable
claim for mileage reimbursement under the California Civil Code.

The court in the Sacramento case trifurcated the trial into three
separate phases, independent contractor status, liability and
restitution. On September 22, 2014, the court in the Sacramento
case issued a tentative decision following the first phase, finding
that the carriers that contracted directly with The Sacramento Bee
during the period from February 2005 to July 2009 were
misclassified as independent contractors.

The company objected to the tentative decision but the court
ultimately adopted it as final. In June 2016, the company was
dismissed from the lawsuit, leaving The Sacramento Bee as the sole
defendant. On August 30, 2017, the court issued a statement of
decision ruling that the court would not hold a phase two trial but
would, instead, assume liability from the evidence previously
submitted and from the independent contractor agreements. The
company objected to the decision but the court adopted it as final.
The third phase has been scheduled to begin on March 25, 2019.

The court in the Fresno case bifurcated the trial into two separate
phases: the first phase addressed independent contractor status and
liability for mileage reimbursement and the second phase was
designated to address restitution, if any. The first phase of the
Fresno case began in the fourth quarter of 2014 and concluded in
late March 2015. On April 14, 2016, the court in the Fresno case
issued a statement of final decision in favor of us and The Fresno
Bee. Accordingly, there will be no second phase. The plaintiffs
filed a Notice of Appeal on November 10, 2016 and the case is
currently on appeal.

The McClatchy said, "We continue to defend these actions vigorously
and expect that we ultimately will prevail. As a result, we have
not established a reserve in connection with the cases. While we
believe that a material impact on our condensed consolidated
financial position, results of operations or cash flows from these
claims is unlikely, given the inherent uncertainty of litigation, a
possibility exists that future adverse rulings or unfavorable
developments could result in future charges that could have a
material impact. We have and will continue to periodically
reexamine our estimates of probable liabilities and any associated
expenses and make appropriate adjustments to such estimates based
on experience and developments in litigation."

The McClatchy Company provides news and advertising services in
digital and print formats in the United States. Its publications
include the Miami Herald, The Kansas City Star, The Sacramento Bee,
The Charlotte Observer, The (Raleigh) News and Observer, The (Fort
Worth) Star-Telegram, and The (Durham, NC) Herald-Sun. The
McClatchy Company was founded in 1857 and is headquartered in
Sacramento, California.


MDL 2705: Court Narrows Claims in Grated Parmesan Cheese Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
amended complaints in the case captioned  IN RE: 100% GRATED
PARMESAN CHEESE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION. This
Document Relates to All Cases Nos. 16 C 5802, MDL 2705 (N.D.
Ill.).

The Defendants in this multidistrict litigation are purveyors of
grated parmesan cheese products with labels stating 100% Grated
Parmesan Cheese or some variation thereof. The Plaintiffs filed
five consolidated class action complaints which alleged that they
were misled by the labels because the products contain non-cheese
ingredients such as cellulose.

100% Claims

The Plaintiffs contend that three new allegations in the amended
complaints warrant a different result: (1) a consumer survey
showing that the vast majority of purchasers believed, based on the
labels, that the products are 100% cheese and fully grated; (2) two
reports from linguistics professors opining that 100% Grated
Parmesan Cheese is susceptible only to the interpretation that the
products consist entirely of grated parmesan cheese and (3) a Kraft
patent stating that fully cured parmesan cheese keeps almost
indefinitely.

Consumer Protection Claims

When a plaintiff contends that certain aspects of a product's
packaging are misleading in isolation, but an ingredient label or
other disclaimer would dispel any confusion, the crucial issue is
whether the misleading content is ambiguous; if so, context [such
as an ingredient label] can cure the ambiguity and defeat the
claim, but if not, then context will not cure the deception and the
claim may proceed.

As for applying the standard, the court's earlier opinion held that
the description 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese is ambiguous, reasoning
that although 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese might be interpreted as
saying that the product is 100% cheese and nothing else, it also
might be an assertion that 100% of the cheese is parmesan cheese,
or that the parmesan cheese is 100% grated.

In challenging that conclusion, the Plaintiffs cite two reports
from linguistics professors opining that the phrase 100% Grated
Parmesan Cheese conveys only the message that the products consist
entirely of cheese. The linguists do not advance the Plaintiffs'
cause. As an initial matter, a reasonable consumer the touchstone
for analysis under the consumer fraud statutes does not approach or
interpret language in the manner of a linguistics professor.  

In any event, the reports do not indicate that the professors
examined the phrase 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese in the context of
shelf-stable, unrefrigerated containers of cheese. As the court
explained, that context is important given that the products are
packaged and shelf-stable at room temperature, a quality that
reasonable consumers know is not enjoyed by pure cheese and that
reasonable consumers are well aware that pure dairy products spoil,
grow blue, green, or black fuzz, or otherwise become inedible if
left unrefrigerated for an extended period of time. Even assuming
incorrectly that reasonable consumers view language through the
same lens as linguistics professors, because the linguists did not
take account of that context, their opinions are valueless in
deciding whether 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese is ambiguous.

The Plaintiffs' new allegations do not save their 100% claims to
the extent they arise under state consumer fraud statutes.

Warranty and Unjust Enrichment Claims

The Plaintiffs' warranty and unjust enrichment claims may succeed
only if a reasonable consumer could plausibly understand the label
100% Grated Parmesan Cheese, on a shelf-stable dairy product whose
easily accessible ingredient list identifies non-cheese
ingredients, to mean that the product contains only cheese. Because
a reasonable consumer would not reach that understanding,
particularly given the important contextual clues discussed above
and in the earlier opinion, the warranty and unjust enrichment 100%
claims are dismissed.  

Anti-caking Claims

The operative complaints also claim that the products' ingredient
lists except for Publix's falsely assert that cellulose is added
only to prevent caking, when in fact it also serves as filler.

Rules 8(a)(2) and 9(b)

The Defendants argue that the Anticaking claims fail to satisfy the
pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)(2). To satisfy Rule 8(a), a
plaintiff need only provide enough detail to present a story that
holds together. Upon accomplishing this task, the plaintiff
receives the benefit of imagination, so long as the hypotheses are
consistent with the complaint.

The Plaintiffs allege the following: Grated parmesan usually
available in the marketplace is cured and dried in such a way that
there is little problem of clumping or agglomeration, so there is
little need to ensure that grated parmesan does not clump or cake.


These allegations provide the Defendants sufficient notice of what
the case is all about that their ingredient lists falsely suggest
that cellulose is used only to prevent caking and show how, in the
plaintiff's mind at least, the dots should be connected that the
products contain suspiciously high percentages of cellulose given
that grated parmesan cheese is unlikely to clump or cake. No more
is required under Rule 8(a)(2).

The Anticaking claims satisfy these requirements because the
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants misrepresented on their
ingredient lists the where and how the role of cellulose in their
products (the what, which were purchased by Plaintiffs at retail
locations the when. This is all that is necessary under Rule 9(b).

Target/ICCO argue that the Anticaking claims against them do not
provide sufficient detail to satisfy Rule 8(a) let alone Rule 9(b)
because the Plaintiffs do not even allege how much cellulose is in
the product that ICCO makes for Target.

Target/ICCO are right.

The particularity requirement of Rule 9(b) is designed to
discourage a sue first, ask questions later philosophy and to force
the plaintiff to conduct a careful pretrial investigation so as to
operate as a screen against spurious fraud claims. The Target/ICCO
complaint alleges only that Plaintiffs believe that Target's
product contains excess cellulose; unlike the complaints against
Albertsons, Kraft, and Wal-Mart/ICCO, the Target/ICCO complaint
does not allege how much cellulose is in the Target/ICCO product,
and therefore cannot plausibly allege that the product includes
more cellulose than necessary for anticaking purposes.  

Wal-Mart/ICCO argue that the Plaintiffs fail to plead any
non-conclusory factual allegations regarding Wal-Mart's alleged
participation in the fraud. As the Seventh Circuit has held,
because fair notice is the most basic consideration underlying Rule
9(b), in a case involving multiple defendants, the complaint should
inform each defendant of the nature of his alleged participation in
the fraud. The Wal-Mart/ICCO complaint alleges that several named
plaintiffs purchased 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese products at
Wal-Mart stores in different States; that Wal-Mart is the
registered owner of the trademark Great Value,  the brand name
under which the products were sold and that Wal-Mart and ICCO are
co-participants in committing the acts of consumer fraud alleged.
These allegations do not impermissibly lump together" ICCO and
Wal-Mart; to the contrary, they provide Wal-Mart with sufficient
notice of its alleged participation in the fraud.  

Finally, Albertsons contends that because the Plaintiffs fail to
allege that they purchased any product from any store owned,
operated, or connected in any way to Albertsons in Alabama, the
Alabama claims against Albertsons should be dismissed.

Albertsons is correct. The Albertsons/SuperValu complaint alleges
that six containers of Essential Everyday 100% Grated Parmesan
Cheese, a brand whose trademark is owned by SuperValu, were
purchased at various stores in Alabama. There is no indication,
however, that the products were purchased at a store owned by
Albertsons in Alabama or that Albertsons played any other role in
the distribution, marketing, or sale of the products purchased in
Alabama.

It follows that the Anticaking claims against Albertsons under
Alabama law are dismissed.
The Anticaking claims against Target/ICCO are dismissed, as are the
Alabama Anticaking claims against Albertsons. The Anticaking claims
against SuperValu, Kraft, and Wal-Mart/ICCO, and the Anticaking
claims against Albertsons other than those under Alabama law,
survive Rules 8(a)(2) and 9(b), although they face the additional
hurdles set forth below.

Statutory Consumer Protection Claims

The operative complaints allege that the Plaintiffs purchased the
products believing them to be 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese. The
necessary implication is that Plaintiffs never consulted, let alone
relied upon, the ingredient labels' assertion that cellulose was
added to prevent caking. This dooms Plaintiffs' claims under the
above-referenced statutes, all of which require some form of causal
connection between the alleged misrepresentation and the
plaintiff's alleged injury.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Anticaking claims under the ADTPA, CLRA,
UCL, FDUTPA, NJCFA, NYGBL, MPCFA, MUTPA, and MFSAA are dismissed.

The Court finds that the amended complaints do not adequately
allege that the Plaintiffs will purchase the Defendants' products
again now that they are aware of the Defendants' alleged
misrepresentations. It follows that the Plaintiffs may not seek
injunctive relief, and because only injunctive relief is available
under the MDTPA, their MDTPA Anticaking claims are dismissed.

In sum, the Plaintiff's Anticaking claims under the ADTPA, CLRA,
UCL, FDUTPA,MPCFA, MUTPA, MFSAA, MDTPA, NJCFA, and NYGBL are
dismissed. The Anticaking claims under the CUTPA (against Kraft),
ICFA (against Kraft and Albertsons/SuperValu), and MCPA (against
Kraft) may proceed.

Express Warranty Claims

Like the statutory consumer fraud claims, the express warranty
claims allege that although the products' ingredient lists state
that cellulose was added to prevent caking, the amount of cellulose
exceeded what was necessary for anticaking purposes.  

Kraft contends that Plaintiffs cannot bring an express warranty
claim on behalf of a nationwide class given the material and
significant differences in express warranty law across the fifty
states.This contention is premature and more appropriately
addressed during class certification proceedings. True enough, Rule
23(c)(1)(A) provides that the court may reject a plaintiff's
attempt to represent a class as soon as it becomes obvious that she
will be unable to satisfy Rule 23.

Where, as here, a plaintiff would not expect a retailer to provide
her with detailed information about a product and the warranty is
reflected in the manufacturer's advertisements, Florida law does
not require the plaintiff to establish privity between herself and
the manufacturer. Alabama similarly permits express warranty claims
where a manufacturer intended to extend the express warranty at
issue directly to the ultimate purchaser, which is alleged to be
the case here.

However, it is reasonable to conclude, when drawing all reasonable
inferences in Plaintiffs' favor, that SuperValu falls within this
exception given the complaints' allegation that SuperValu is the
registered owner of the Essential Everyday' trademark and
distributes these products" to various stores.
  
These exceptions to the privity requirement do not apply under
Connecticut law. Plaintiffs contend that Connecticut will relax the
privity requirement where a plaintiff relies on a manufacturer's
written representations but this exception applies only where the
plaintiff suffers a physical injury not where, as here, only
economic injury is alleged. Plaintiffs' fallback position, that
Connecticut recognizes an exception to the privity requirement
where other avenues of recovery are foreclosed is inapplicable
here, as the Connecticut statutory consumer protection and unjust
enrichment claims have not been dismissed.

The Plaintiffs also contend that Michigan creates an exception
where the consumer purchases a product from the manufacturer's
agent. Yet Plaintiffs plead no facts suggesting an agency
relationship between Kraft the only defendant whose products
Plaintiffs purchased in Michigan and the retail locations in
Plymouth, Michigan where they acquired Kraft's products.  

The Plaintiffs contend that Illinois will relax its privity
requirements when a plaintiff relies on a manufacturer's written
representations, is the intended beneficiary of the sale, or
purchases a product from an agent of the manufacturer. The first
two exceptions do not apply here. As to the first, Plaintiffs fail
to allege that they saw, let alone relied on, Defendants'
anticaking representations. As to the second, while it is true that
the Illinois privity requirement is relaxed when a manufacturer
knows the identity, purpose and requirements of the dealer's
customer and manufactured or delivered the goods specifically to
meet those requirements the exception applies only where the
manufacturer is aware of the individual customer's identity a
situation not alleged here.  

As to the third exception to the privity requirement under Illinois
law, Defendants do not dispute the existence of an agency
exception. Accordingly, the Illinois express warranty claim against
Albertsons survives, as Plaintiffs adequately allege the existence
of an agency relationship between the various Jewel Osco retail
store locations at which the Illinois plaintiffs bought Essential
Everyday 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese and Albertsons, which operates
stores under the Jewel-Osco" brand.  

The Plaintiffs cannot assert a New York express warranty claim
because such a claim requires proof of reliance and Plaintiffs make
clear that they never actually saw the Anticaking statements.

Likewise, Plaintiffs do not allege that they relied on Kraft's
Anticaking statements, so the New York express warranty claim
against Kraft is dismissed as well.

In sum, the Connecticut, Michigan, and New York express warranty
claims are dismissed, as are the Illinois express warranty claims
against Kraft and SuperValu. The express warranty claims under
Alabama law (against Kraft, SuperValu, and Wal-Mart/ICCO),
California law (against Kraft and Wal-Mart/ICCO), Florida law
(against Kraft and Wal-Mart/ICCO), Illinois law (against Albertsons
only), Minnesota law (against Kraft and Wal-Mart/ICCO), and New
Jersey law (against Wal-Mart/ICCO) may proceed.

Implied Warranty Claims

The Plaintiffs allege that Albertsons/SuperValu, Kraft, and
Wal-Mart/ICCO breached an implied warranty of merchantability
because their products do not pass without objection in the trade
and are not of average quality within the contract description
because they contain cellulose powder in excessive quantities.
Defendants' arguments regarding pre-suit notice and multistate
classes, fail for the reasons set forth above in discussing the
express warranty claims.

Kraft and Wal-Mart/ICCO contend that the implied warranty claims
fail because Plaintiffs do not allege that their products were
inedible or lacked even the most basic degree of fitness of
ordinary use. Yet the statutes governing implied warranty claims in
the States (Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois,
Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York) where Plaintiffs
purchased the Albertsons, Kraft, and Wal-Mart/ICCO products require
not only that goods be fit for ordinary use, but also that they
conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the
container or label if any. As their text suggests, those statutes
permit a plaintiff alleging solely a misrepresentation on a
product's label to pursue an implied warranty claim.

Albertsons/SuperValu argue that the Alabama and Illinois implied
warranty claims should be dismissed for lack of privity. The
Alabama implied warranty claims are dismissed because Plaintiffs do
not cite, and the court has not found, any exceptions to the
general rule that, in cases of strictly economic harm, the absence
of privity is fatal to an implied warranty claim under Alabama law.
The Illinois implied warranty claims survive only as to Albertsons.
As explained above, Plaintiffs adequately allege the existence of
an agency relationship between Albertsons and the retailers where
Plaintiffs purchased the Albertsons product, but not between
SuperValu and those retailers.

Kraft suggests in passing that the California, Connecticut, and
Michigan implied warranty claims against it fail for lack of
privity. Because Kraft does not cite any case law in support, it
forfeits the argument for purposes of this motion.  

Finally, Wal-Mart/ICCO argue that the New York implied warranty
claims should be dismissed because Plaintiffs do not allege
reliance. However, Wal-Mart/ICCO cite no authority for the
proposition that reliance is an element of a New York implied
warranty claim, and thus forfeit the argument for purposes of this
motion.  

The Plaintiffs' Alabama and Illinois implied warranty claims
against SuperValu are dismissed, while the other implied warranty
claims may proceed.

Unjust Enrichment Claims

Finally, Plaintiffs bring unjust enrichment claims against
Albertsons/SuperValu, Kraft, and Wal-Mart/ICCO. Defendants'
arguments regarding the propriety of nationwide classes, fail for
the reasons set forth above in discussing the express warranty
claims.

The Defendants contend that the unjust enrichment claims should be
dismissed because the laws of Alabama, California, Connecticut,
Florida, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York do not permit such
claims if the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law. True enough,
some courts dismiss unjust enrichment claims where a plaintiff also
pursues tort, contract, or state consumer protection claims based
on the same allegedly wrongful conduct. Yet there is an equally
robust line of cases holding that because Rule 8(d)(2) permits
parties to set out two or more statements of a claim or defense
alternatively or hypothetically, it would be premature to dismiss
unjust enrichment claims at the pleading stage simply because the
plaintiff also pursues claims at law.  The court agrees with the
second line of cases and thus declines to dismiss the unjust
enrichment claims at the pleading stage on the ground that they are
duplicative of the warranty or consumer protection claims.

Albertsons/SuperValu and Kraft contend that Plaintiffs' Alabama and
Illinois unjust enrichment claims rise and fall with the Alabama
and Illinois warranty and state consumer protection claims because
the underlying allegations rest on the same underlying conduct. In
Cleary v. Philip Morris Inc., 656 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2011), the
Seventh Circuit held that because the improper conduct underlying
an ICFA claim and an unjust enrichment claim was insufficient to
support the ICFA claim, it was also insufficient to establish
unjust enrichment. There is no reason to run this issue to ground,
however; because the Alabama express warranty claims against
SuperValu and Kraft, the ICFA claims against Albertsons/SuperValu
and Kraft, and the Illinois express and implied warranty claims
against Albertsons survive dismissal, there remain several claims
on which to ground the Alabama and Illinois unjust enrichment
claims.

Finally, Kraft argues that the Michigan unjust enrichment claims
fail because Michigan law requires a plaintiff to show that he
directly conferred a benefit on the defendant. Courts have split on
whether Michigan unjust enrichment law requires that a plaintiff
confer a direct benefit on a defendant, or whether a benefit may be
unjustly obtained by a defendant through an intermediary.

The court believes that the latter cases have the better of the
argument, and accordingly will allow the Michigan unjust enrichment
claims to proceed.

In sum, other than those dismissed under Rule 9(b), the Anticaking
unjust enrichment claims may proceed.

The 100% claims are dismissed in their entirety, as are all
Anticaking claims against Target/ICCO and all Anticaking claims
under Alabama law against Albertsons. The Anticaking claims under
the ADTPA, CLRA, UCL, FDUTPA, MUTPA, MDTPA, MFSAA, MPCFA, NJCFA,
and NYGBL are dismissed as well. The Anticaking claims under
Connecticut, Michigan, and New York express warranty law are
dismissed, as are the Anticaking claims against Kraft and SuperValu
under Illinois express warranty law. The Anticaking claims against
SuperValu under Alabama and Illinois implied warranty law are also
dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 1, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ybowepwh from Leagle.com.

Rosemary Quinn, Alfonso Fata & Alan Ducorsky, Plaintiffs,
represented by Ben Barnow -- barnow@barnowlaw.com -- Barnow and
Associates, P.C. & Todd Seth Garber -- tgarber@fbfglaw.com --
Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei- Pearson & Garber, LLP.

Kristie Perkins & Chrissy Sellers, Plaintiffs, represented by
Phillip Timothy Howard , Howard & Associates.

Kiara Cruz, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Jan-Yura
Korolinsky.

Albertson Companies, Inc, Albertsons, LLC & Supervalu, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Gary Hansen -- ghansen@foxrothschild.com
-- Fox Rothschild LLP, pro hac vice, Heidi A.O. Fisher --
hfisher@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild LLP, pro hac vice,
Samuel John Tunheim -- stunheim@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild
LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Edward Collins --
jcollins@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild LLP & Robert J.
Rohrberger -- rrohrberger@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild LLP,
pro hac vice.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Eric
Sellinger -- sellingerd@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP, pro hac
vice, Francis A. Citera -- citeraf@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig,
LLP & John F. Gibbons -- gibbonsj@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig,
LLP.


MEDICAL CENTER: Ga. App. Affirms Class Certification in Bowden
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Georgia, Second Division, issued an Opinion
affirming the trial court's judgment granting Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification in the case captioned THE MEDICAL CENTER,
INC. v. BOWDEN. A18A1249. (Ga. App.)

The trial court granted the motions to add plaintiffs and for class
certification, admitted the expert's testimony, and denied TMC's
motion for summary judgment. TMC now appeals on all three grounds.

Danielle Bowden, Jacqueline Pearce, Karla Jasper, and Christian
Sprouse were injured in separate, unrelated auto accidents and
treated at The Medical Center, Inc. (TMC), a Columbus hospital. Due
to their lack of insurance coverage, TMC placed a lien on any
recovery they obtained as a result of their accidents to cover the
bills for their medical services, as permitted under OCGA Section
44-14-470. Bowden sued TMC, alleging that the amount TMC charged
for medical care was unreasonable and thus the lien the hospital
placed on any financial recovery she received was excessive. Bowden
later moved to add Pearce, Jasper, and Sprouse as plaintiffs and
requested class certification under OCGA Section 9-11-23.

TMC contends that class certification is not warranted because the
Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the numerosity, typicality, and
predominance requirements; money damages do not justify class
certification under Section 9-11-23 (b) (3) and the Plaintiffs'
request for injunctive relief was merely incidental to their claims
for damages, making certification under (b) (2) improper.

The Court concludes that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in certifying the class.

The trial court is vested with broad discretion to decide whether
to certify a class, and absent an abuse of that discretion, the
Court will not disturb the trial court's decision. Implicit in this
deferential standard of review is a recognition of the
fact-intensive basis of the certification inquiry and of the trial
court's inherent power to manage and control pending litigation.
Thus, the Court will affirm the trial court's factual findings
unless they are clearly erroneous. Under the clearly erroneous
test, factual findings must be affirmed if supported by any
evidence.

Numerosity

TMC argues that the Plaintiffs cannot meet the numerosity
requirement because the number of class members is speculative and
not all members can show actual damages, given that they did not
all pay for medical services.

TMC further argues that the trial court improperly identified the
class to include every person against whom TMC filed a hospital
lien regardless of whether that person made payments on the lien or
suffered injury due to the lien.

There is no minimum number of class members required for class
certification, but the Plaintiffs estimate that as many as 10,000
people may have been affected by TMC's liens, and as part of their
motion for class certification they submitted evidence of 267
liens. There is a general presumption that more than 40 class
members would establish the impracticability of handling cases
individually.  

Even if fewer than the 10,000 potential class members will actually
be part of the class, the discovery submitted shows that the named
Plaintiffs will be able to identify enough patients to satisfy the
numerosity requirement. The fact that some of these class members
might be entitled to fewer damages than others does not defeat
class certification. The Court therefore conclude that the trial
court properly determined that Bowden satisfied the numerosity
requirement at this juncture.

Commonality

To satisfy the commonality requirement, there must be questions of
law or fact common to the class. The commonality requirement is
satisfied where the character of the right sought to be enforced
may be common although the facts may be different as to each member
of the alleged class. In other words, as long as the common
questions predominate, a class may be certified even if some
individual questions of law or fact exist.

Here, the trial court found the commonality requirement satisfied
because there are common questions of liability arising from common
claims, as identified by the trial court:

After identifying these common questions, the trial court noted
that the Supreme Court in Bowden II instructed that the amounts
other patients were charged were relevant to the issue of
reasonableness, and that the record contained evidence regarding
how many patients actually paid the full chargemaster rate and the
average amount TMC collected from bills submitted. The Court
further notes that there was testimony from Bowden's expert
suggesting that TMC's charges were higher than those of other
hospitals and that charging uninsured patients the full
chargemaster rates was unreasonable. Although TMC's expert opined
that TMC's rates were reasonable and that addressing the
reasonableness of every patient's charges would be a highly
individualized task, Blount's testimony places at least some
evidence in the record to support the trial court's conclusion at
this stage of the litigation.  

Although courts in other jurisdictions have reached conflicting
conclusions regarding whether to subject similar claims to class
certification, the decision whether to certify a class depends in
large part upon the description of the class, the claims raised and
the evidence and arguments presented in support of class
certification. Accordingly, the Court considers this case based
upon the record before us.

The Court concludes that the trial court properly found that the
Plaintiffs satisfied the commonality requirement. The common
question applicable to all class members is whether the
chargemaster rate, which universally served as the basis for the
lien amount, was reasonable. There is evidence that it would be
possible to determine a common answer that does not require
individualized analysis. There was conflicting expert testimony on
the reasonableness of the chargemaster rates, and there was also
evidence that TMC bills everyone the chargemaster rate but collects
only about a third of the billed amount. Based on this evidence, a
jury can make a decision on reasonableness of the chargemaster
rates that will apply commonly across the entire class. Thus, the
Plaintiffs have satisfied this requirement.

Typicality

The typicality requirement under OCGA Section 9-11-23 (a) is
satisfied upon a showing that the defendant committed the same
unlawful acts in the same method against an entire class.
TMC contends that the potential class members are so differently
positioned from each other but fails to elaborate on this
assertion. Our review of the record shows that the Plaintiffs
satisfied the typicality requirement in that all were uninsured,
all were injured due to a third-party tortfeasor, and the hospital
filed a lien against all for non-payment of bills at the full
chargemaster rate. We thus conclude that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in finding that the Plaintiffs have satisfied
the typicality requirement.

Affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Ga. App.'s November 1, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7e7npkr from Leagle.com.

Paul Douglas Ivey, Jr. , for Appellant.

Lindsey Bowen Mann -- lindsey.mann@troutman.com -- for Appellant.

Robert Calhoun Martin, Jr. -- rcm@hallboothsmith.com -- for
Appellant.

William N. Withrow, Jr. -- bill.withrow@troutman.com -- for
Appellant.

Charles A. Gower, 1425 Wynnton Rd, Columbus, GA 31906, for
Appellee.

Charles Austin Gower, Jr., P.O. Box 5509, Columbus, GA 31906, for
Appellee.

Michael Brian Terry, 1201 West Peachtree Street NW, Suite 3900,
Atlanta, GA 30309, for Appellee.

Michael Rosen Baumrind, 1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite
3900, Atlanta, GA 30309, for Appellee.


MERCK & CO: Nicholas Sue over Zostavax Vaccine
----------------------------------------------
Kenneth Nicholas and Delores Nicholas, Plaintiffs, vs. MERCK & CO.,
INC., MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00222-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., Nov. 2, 2018), alleges that Merck
failed to warn the Plaintiffs and other consumers of the defective
condition of Zostavax, as manufactured and/or supplied by Merck.

According to the complaint, in 2015, the Plaintiff was treated by
Donald McCoy, MD at a healthcare facility located in Williston,
Florida for Shingles. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Shingles
and/or other zoster-related injuries after and despite being
inoculated with the ZOSTAVAX vaccine, and suffered serious
physical, emotional, and economic damages as a result of
Plaintiff's injuries. As a direct and proximate result of the
ZOSTAVAX vaccine, Plaintiff has and will continue suffer ongoing
injuries, including but not limited to: mental and physical pain
and suffering; extensive medical care and treatment for these
injuries; significant medical and related expenses as a result of
these injuries, including but not limited to medical losses and
costs include care for hospitalization, physician care, monitoring,
treatment, medications, and supplies; diminished capacity for the
enjoyment of life; a diminished quality of life; increased risk of
premature death, aggravation of preexisting conditions and
activation of latent conditions; and other losses and damages; and
will continue to suffer such losses, and damages in the future.

ZOSTAVAX vaccine was defective due to inadequate warnings or
instructions because Defendants knew or should have known that the
product created significant risks of serious bodily harm to
consumers an d they failed to adequately warn consumers and/or
their healthcare providers of such risks. Defendants failed to
provide adequate warnings to healthcare providers and users,
including Plaintiff and Plaintiff's healthcare providers, of the
increased risk of developing severe and permanent injuries,
including, but not limited to, the risk of contracting shingles and
suffering from zoster-related injuries associated with ZOSTAVAX,
the lawsuit says.

Merck developed, tested, designed, set specifications for,
licensed, manufactured, prepared, compounded, assembled, packaged,
processed, labeled, marketed, promoted, distributed, and/or sold
the Zostavax vaccine to be administered to patients throughout the
United States, including New Jersey.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Carmen A. DeGisi, Esq.
          Marc J. Bern & Partners LLP
          101 West Elm Street, Suite 215
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 941-9880
          Facsimile: (610) 941-1088
          E-mail: cdegisi@bernllp.com



MORGAN STANLEY: Bid to Dismiss Iowa Public Employees' Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court has
denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the class action complaint
filed by the Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System.

In August of 2017, the Firm was named as a defendant in a purported
antitrust class action in the United States District Court for the
SDNY styled Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System et al. v. Bank
of America Corporation et al. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that
the Firm, together with a number of other financial institution
defendants, violated U.S. antitrust laws and New York state law in
connection with their alleged efforts to prevent the development of
electronic exchange-based platforms for securities lending.

The class action complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class
of borrowers and lenders who entered into stock loan transactions
with the defendants. The class action complaint seeks, among other
relief, certification of the class of plaintiffs and treble
damages.

On September 27, 2018, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the class action complaint.

Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, provides various
financial products and services to corporations, governments,
financial institutions, and individuals in the Americas, Europe,
the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. The company operates
Institutional Securities, Wealth Management, and Investment
Management segments. Morgan Stanley was founded in 1924 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Becker Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Cody Becker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper,
Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-62747-MGC (S.D. Fla., November 12,
2018) is a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act arising from Defendant's knowing and willful
violations of the TCPA.

The complaint says the Defendant calls unsuspecting parties on
their cellular telephones with prerecorded messages in an attempt
to sell them mortgage loans. The Defendant caused thousands of
prerecorded messages to be sent to the cellular telephones of
Plaintiff and Class Members, causing them injuries, including
invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on
seclusion, trespass, and conversion, adds the complaint.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal
conduct. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of
himself and Class Members, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant.

Plaintiff is a natural person who, at all times relevant to this
action, was a resident of Broward County, Florida.

Defendant is a Texas company with its principal office located at
8950 Cypress Waters Blvd Coppell, TX 75019. Defendant directs,
markets, and provides business activities throughout the State of
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


NAVIENT CORP: Bid to Drop Consolidated Pope Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation's motion to dismiss the consolidated securities
class action in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
is still pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018.

Two putative class actions have been filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey captioned Eli Pope v. Navient
Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian Lown,
and Melvin Gross v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak
Chivavibul and Christian M. Lown, both of which allege violations
of the federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  These cases were consolidated
by the Court in February 2018, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint in April 2018 and the Company filed its Motion to
Dismiss in June 2018.  The Company has denied the allegations and
intends to vigorously defend itself.

Navient is a leading provider of asset management and business
processing solutions for education, healthcare, and government
clients at the federal, state, and local levels. The Company is
based in Wilmington, Delaware.


NAVIENT CORP: Bid to Drop Lord Abbett Funds Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation is still awaiting the Court's ruling of a
motion to dismiss the consolidated class action with Lord Abbett
Funds as the lead plaintiff, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

During the first quarter of 2016, Navient Corporation, certain
Navient officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain
Navient securities offerings were sued in three putative securities
class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain investors in
Navient stock or Navient unsecured debt.  These three cases, which
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware,
were consolidated by the District Court, with Lord Abbett Funds
appointed as Lead Plaintiff.

The caption of the consolidated case is Lord Abbett Affiliated
Fund, Inc., et al. v. Navient Corporation, et al. The plaintiffs
filed their amended and consolidated complaint in September 2016.
In September 2017, the Court granted the Navient defendants' motion
and dismissed the complaint in its entirety with leave to amend.

The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint with the court in
November 2017.  The Navient defendants deny the allegations and
intend to vigorously defend against the allegation in this lawsuit
and filed a motion to dismiss in January 2018.

Navient is a leading provider of asset management and business
processing solutions for education, healthcare, and government
clients at the federal, state, and local levels. The Company is
based in Wilmington, Delaware.


NETGEAR INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid for Arbitration in Klebba Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
NETGEAR, Inc. is awaiting the ruling of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas to the Company's motion to compel
arbitration in the "Klebba" lawsuit, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.  

On May 24, 2018, Ryan Klebba filed a purported class-action
complaint in the District Court for the Western District of Texas.
The complaint alleges that the Arlo Baby Product fails to perform
as advertised and the Company did not release a tablet as promised,
thereby decreasing the value of the Arlo Baby monitor.

On July 23, 2018, the Company answered the complaint by filing a
Motion to Compel Arbitration and a Motion to Dismiss.  

The plaintiff's oppositions to the (i) Motion to Compel Arbitration
and (ii) Motion to Dismiss were due on August 20, 2018, but on that
day plaintiff contacted the Company asking for its consent to allow
the plaintiff to file an amended complaint in lieu of a response to
the Company's motion to dismiss.  The Company consented and on that
day plaintiff filed an amended complaint and its opposition to the
Company's motion to compel arbitration.

The Company submitted its reply brief to plaintiff's opposition of
the motion to compel arbitration on September 5, 2018.

Plaintiff and Company have agreed that the Company's deadline to
answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint would be 30
days after the Court rules on the Company's motion to compel
arbitration.

The Company said, "It is too early to reasonably estimate any
financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation
matter."

NETGEAR, Inc. designs, develops, and markets networking and
Internet connected products for consumers, businesses, and service
providers.  The company operates in three segments: Arlo, Connected
Home, and Small and Medium Business.  NETGEAR, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is headquartered in San Jose, California.


NETGEAR INC: Nov. 29 Hearing Set for Bid to Dismiss Fischer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on NETGEAR, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the purported
class action complaint of Rob Fischer is scheduled for November 29,
2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018.

On June 4, 2018, Plaintiff Rob Fischer filed a purported
class-action complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill,
alleging the Company's Range Extender does not extend the range of
a consumer's WiFi network as shown in a diagram in a data sheet.

On August 3, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case.
The hearing for the motion is scheduled for November 29, 2018.

The Company said, "It is too early to reasonably estimate any
financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation
matter."

NETGEAR, Inc. designs, develops, and markets networking and
Internet connected products for consumers, businesses, and service
providers.  The company operates in three segments: Arlo, Connected
Home, and Small and Medium Business.  NETGEAR, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is headquartered in San Jose, California.


NEVRO CORP: Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nevro Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend a putative securities suit filed by Oklahoma Police Pension
and Retirement System.

On August 23, 2018, the Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement
System filed a putative securities class action complaint against
the Company and certain individual officers alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 of the
Exchange Act.  

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, seeks unspecified damages and
attorneys' fees based on alleged misleading statements or omissions
by the Company and the individual officers regarding the Company's
rights in technology underlying the Senza SCS systems and the
termination of the Company’s former Vice President of Worldwide
Sales.

Nevro Corp., a medical device company, provides products for the
patients suffering from chronic pain in the United States and
internationally. The company develops and commercializes the Senza
spinal cord stimulation system, an evidence-based neuromodulation
platform for the treatment of chronic pain. Nevro Corp. was founded
in 2006 and is headquartered in Redwood City, California.

NEW PARAGON: Paredes Seeks Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------
Benigno Paredes individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. New Paragon Cleaners Corp., (d/b/a New
Paragon Cleaners) and Paragon Cleaners Corp., (d/b/a Paragon
Cleaners) Sungduk Hong, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06266
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 4, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation,
spread-of-hours pay, unlawful deductions and breach-of-contract and
quantum meruit damages for Plaintiff and his similarly situated
co-workers who have been employed by Defendants as delivery
workers, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York
Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Prevention Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a former employee of
Defendants who was employed to iron clothes and handle dry cleaning
chemicals at Paragon Cleaners. The Defendants employed the policy
and practice of disguising Plaintiff's actual duties in order to
avoid paying Plaintiffs at the minimum wage or overtime rates.

The Plaintiff regularly work for Defendants in excess of 40 hours
per week, without receiving appropriate overtime compensation for
any of the hours that he worked. The Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which
he had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants failed to
maintain accurate record keeping as required by the FLSA and the
NYLL, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          42 Broadway, Suite 12-126
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 203-2417

NEW YORK: Motion to Dismiss Filed in Krooks and Krooks Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss in the case captioned as
BERNARD A. KROOKS, and ROBIN KROOKS, as Guardians of the Person and
Property of Max Krooks, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KERRY A. DELANEY, as acting
Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, Office Of
People With Developmental Disabilities; HOWARD A. ZUCKER, as
Commissioner of Department of Health, Defendants, Case No.
906334/2018 (N.Y. Sup., Albany Cty., Oct. 24, 2018).

The New York State Department of Health is the department of the
New York state government responsible for public health. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Littman Krooks LLP, Esq.
          399 Knollwood Road
          White Plains, NY 10603-1931
          Telephone: (914) 684-2100

The Defedants are represented by:

          Omar Siddiqi, Esq.
          Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
          The Capitol
          Albany, NY 12224
          Telephone: (518) 474-7124


NEW YORK: Troopers Group Appeals Order & Judgment to 2nd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs The Police Benevolent Association of the New York State
Troopers, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's
memorandum-decision and order, and judgment, both entered on
September 24, 2018, in their lawsuit titled The Police Benevolent
Association of the New York State Troopers, Inc., et al. v. The
State of New York, et al., Case No. 11-cv-1526, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of New York (Albany).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged civil rights violations.

The appellate case is captioned as The Police Benevolent
Association of the New York State Troopers, Inc., et al. v. The
State of New York, et al., Case No. 18-3049, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants The Police Benevolent Association of the New
York State Troopers, Inc.; Thomas Mungeer, individually, and as
President of the Police Benevolent Association of the New York Sate
Police, Inc.; Daniel Romano, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated; Mark Robillard, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated; Roland J. Russell, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated; John P. Moretti, Jr., on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated; Ricky D. Palacios, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Robert Welsh
and Frederick W. Scheidt are represented by:

          Stephen G. DeNigris, Esq.
          STEPHEN G. DENIGRIS, P.C.
          2100 M Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (703) 416-1036
          E-mail: sgd853@aol.com

Defendants-Appellees Andrew M. Cuomo, in his official capacity as
Governor of the State of New York; Patricia A. Hite, individually,
and in her official capacity as Acting Commissioner, New York State
Civil Service Department; Caroline W. Ahl, in her official capacity
as Commissioner of the New York State Civil Service Commission; J.
Dennis Hanrahan, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the
New York State Civil Service Commission; Robert L. Megna,
individually, and in his official capacity as Director of the New
York State Division of the Budget; and Thomas P. DiNapoli, in his
official capacity as Comptroller of the State of New York, are
represented by:

          Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
          NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          28 Liberty Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 416-8000
          E-mail: barbara.underwood@ag.ny.gov


NEWALTA ENVIRONMENTAL: Court Compels Arbitration in FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum Opinion granting Defendant's
Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned CHRIS BERRYMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. NEWALTA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant/Third-party Defendant, v. SMITH MANAGEMENT AND
CONSULTING, LLC, Third-party Defendant. Civil Action No. 18-793.
(W.D. Pa.)

Plaintiff Chris Berryman brings this class-action suit under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act (PMWA), seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages against Defendant Newalta Environmental Services, Inc.
(Newalta).

Berryman signed the arbitration agreement on April 24, 2017. Doc.
Signatories included Berryman (as Contractor) and Smith Management
(Company). As part of the arbitration agreement, Berryman agreed
that all Covered Claims shall be exclusively determined by final
and binding arbitration, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act.
Covered Claims include: all disputes, claims or controversies
between Contractor and the Company, or arising out of or relating
in any way to the services or work Contractor performs for or on
behalf of the Company or for or on behalf of any client of the
Company.

Standard of review

The arbitration agreement calls for final and binding arbitration
pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The Act establishes
a strong federal policy in favor of the resolution of disputes
through arbitration and it requires federal courts to enforce
privately negotiated agreements to arbitrate, like other contracts,
in accordance with their terms. A party to a valid and enforceable
arbitration agreement is entitled to an order compelling
arbitration; if all the claims in the suit are subject to
arbitration, the district court may also dismiss the suit.

Determining arbitrability

Texas law involving contract interpretation

Under Texas law,  in construing a written contract, the primary
concern of the court is to ascertain the true intentions of the
parties as expressed in the instrument. To achieve this objective,
courts consider the entire writing in an effort to harmonize and
give effect to all the provisions of the contract so that none will
be rendered meaningless.

Interpreting the contract

Here, the contract states that the benefit of arbitration is to
resolve disputes in a fair, private, expeditious, economical, final
and less burdensome manner, as compared to the more adversarial
process of litigation. The contract further provides:

While it is agreed that Contractor is not an employee of the
Company or any Company Client, it is acknowledged that disputes
arising between contractors and companies can be similar to those
that arise between employees and employers. Contractor and the
Company agree to resolve any and all Covered Claims through final
and binding arbitration.

In this case, the parties are not members of the securities
industry, and this contract is not part of broader efforts aimed at
regulating an entire industry. Nevertheless, the case is persuasive
because it is clear from the arbitration agreement that Berryman
and Smith Management intended to benefit a certain class. That is,
the contract makes clear that the parties intended to directly
benefit Smith Management's company clients, and that any disputes
involving those clients would be resolved at binding arbitration.

Berryman cites to Paragraph 5 of the agreement, where it states
that Contractor and the Company agree to resolve any and all
covered claims through final and binding arbitration. The Parties
defined as the Company and the Contractor understand that if either
the Company or Contractor files a lawsuit regarding a covered
claim, the other party may use this Agreement in support of its
request to the court to dismiss the lawsuit and require instead the
use of arbitration.

Berryman's argument is unpersuasive. If the court agreed with
Berryman's interpretation that only Smith Management, and not
Newalta, could compel arbitration, the result would be illogical.

Berryman could frustrate the parties' clear intent by litigating
Covered Claims in court, provided that he sued the company client
instead of Smith Management. Although that is precisely what
Berryman is attempting to do, the agreement plainly states that
Berryman agreed to arbitrate all Covered Claims, including those
brought against a company client.

Scope of the agreement

In determining whether Berryman's claims fall within the scope of
the arbitration agreement, the focus is on the factual
underpinnings of the claim rather than the legal theory alleged in
the complaint.

Here, the parties do not dispute that Berryman's claims fall within
the scope of the arbitration agreement. Indeed, Berryman admits
that the subject matter of his claims are envisioned in the
contract he executed with Smith Management. Covered Claims include
those arising under federal or state law, and any claim under any
other laws governing compensation and overtime, such as the Fair
Labor Standards Act. Based on this language, Berryman's claims
unquestionably fit within the scope of the agreement.

Waiver of arbitrability

The final issue before the court is whether Newalta waived its
right under the FAA to compel arbitration by filing a third-party
complaint against Smith Management.  Courts, not arbitrators,
should decide the question of whether a party has waived its right
to arbitrate by actively litigating the case in court.

In determining a waiver of arbitrability, the court's primary
concern is prejudice. Along these lines, courts are guided by the
Hoxworth v. Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc., 980 F.2d 912, 926-27 (3d
Cir. 1992)), factors: (1) timeliness or lack thereof of the motion
to arbitrate; (2) extent to which the party seeking arbitration has
contested the merits of the opposing party's claims; (3) whether
the party seeking arbitration informed its adversary of its intent
to pursue arbitration prior to seeking to enjoin the court
proceedings; (4) the extent to which a party seeking arbitration
engaged in non-merits motion practice; (5) the party's acquiescence
to the court's pretrial orders; and (6) the extent to which the
parties have engaged in discovery.

With respect to the first factor, the timeliness of the motion to
arbitrate, Newalta moved to compel arbitration during the initial
pleading stages and before the parties have even participated in an
initial Rule 16 conference. There has not been lengthy or
protracted litigation, which other courts have used to justify
waiver.  

As to the second factor, the court finds that Newalta has minimally
contested the merits of Berryman's claims. Put simply, Newalta has
not engaged in significant motions practice on the merits prior to
moving to compel arbitration. Although Newalta filed a third-party
complaint, this filing hardly suggests that Newalta is
substantially invoking the judicial process.

The third factor is whether the party seeking arbitration informed
its adversary of its intent to pursue arbitration prior to filing
the motion to compel. The court has no evidence regarding this
factor.

The extent to which the party seeking arbitration engaged in
non-merits motion practice encompasses the fourth factor. Newalta's
non-merits motions practice has been minimal. Newalta has only
sought a stay of proceedings pending the outcome the arbitration
issue. Along these lines, the court cannot say that Newalta has
engaged in motions practice of any kind such that it has
demonstrated the intent to litigate in court as opposed to
arbitrate.

As to the fifth factor, a party's acquiescence in a court's
pretrial orders, this factor does not support waiver. The court has
not issued substantive pretrial orders, and Newalta has not
attended even a single status conference.

As to the sixth and final factor, the parties have not engaged in
substantial discovery practice.

This factor is perhaps most significant in terms of finding that
waiver is not appropriate.

Overall, there are no circumstances that justify waiver. To the
extent that Berryman has incurred prejudice, it resulted from his
decision to litigate this case as opposed to arbitrate his claims
according to the agreement he signed.

The court will grant the motion to the extent it will compel
arbitration. Rather than dismiss the case, the court will stay the
action pending arbitration.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 1, 2018
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8dckuua
from Leagle.com.

CHRIS BERRYMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew W. Dunlap --
adunlap@mybackwages.com -- Josephson Dunlap Law Firm, Michael A.
Josephson -- mjosephson@mybackwages.com -- Josephson Dunlap Law
Firm, Jennifer Solak -- jsolak@mybackwages.com -- Josephson Dunlap
Law Firm, pro hac vice, Joshua P. Geist --
josh@goodrichandgeist.com -- Goodrich & Geist, P.C. & Richard J.
Burch -- rburch@brucknerburch.com -- Bruckner Burch PLLC.  

NEWALTA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, represented by
Rebecca B. Decook , Moye White LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew T. Flynn ,
Moye White LLP, pro hac vice, Bruce C. Fox --
bruce.fox@obermayer.com -- Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP,
Jeffrey B. Cadle & Rachel E. Yeates, Moye White LLP, pro hac vice.

NEWALTA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., ThirdParty Plaintiff,
represented by Andrew T. Flynn , Moye White LLP, pro hac vice,
Rebecca B. Decook , Moye White LLP, Bruce C. Fox , Obermayer
Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP, Jeffrey B. Cadle & Rachel E. Yeates ,
Moye White LLP.
SMITH MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING, LLC, ThirdParty Defendant,
represented by Daniel D. Fassio , Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


NEWLINK GENETICS: Motion to Drop 2nd Amended Abramson Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Newlink Genetics Corporation is awaiting the Court's ruling on a
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in a putative
securities class action lawsuit initiated by Trevor Abramson,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018.  Oral argument was held on October
19, 2018, after which the Court reserved decision.

On or about May 12, 2016, Trevor Abramson filed a putative
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, or the Court, captioned
Abramson v. NewLink Genetics Corp., et al., Case 1:16-cv-3545, or
the Securities Action.

Subsequently, the Court appointed Michael and Kelly Nguyen as lead
plaintiffs and approved their selection of Kahn, Swick & Foti, LLC
as lead counsel in the Securities Action.  On October 31, 2016, the
lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims under
the federal securities laws against the Company, the Company's
Chief Executive Officer Charles J. Link, Jr., and the Company's
Chief Medical Officer and President Nicholas Vahanian, or
collectively, the Defendants.

The amended complaint alleges the Defendants made material false
and/or misleading statements that caused losses to the Company's
investors.  In particular, the lead plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants made material misstatements or omissions related to the
Phase 2 and 3 trials and efficacy of the product candidate
algenpantucel-L.  The lead plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged
damages in the amended complaint but, in addition to attorneys'
fees and costs, they sought to recover damages on behalf of
themselves and other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's stock during the putative class period of September
17, 2013 through May 9, 2016, inclusive, at allegedly inflated
prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result.  The
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July
14, 2017.  The lead plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss on September 12, 2017.  The Defendants filed a reply in
support of the motion to dismiss on September 26, 2017.  Oral
argument was held on October 19, 2017, after which the Court
reserved decision.  On March 29, 2018, the Court dismissed the
amended complaint for failure to state a claim, without prejudice,
and gave the lead plaintiffs until May 4, 2018 to file any amended
complaint attempting to remedy the defects in their claims.

On May 4, 2018, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint asserting claims under the federal securities laws
against the Defendants.  Like the first amended complaint, the
second amended complaint alleges that the Defendants made material
false and/or misleading statements or omissions relating to the
Phase 2 and 3 trials and efficacy of the product candidate
algenpantucel-L that caused losses to the Company's investors.  The
lead plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in the second
amended complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs,
they sought to recover damages on behalf of themselves and other
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock
during the putative class period of September 17, 2013 through May
9, 2016, inclusive, at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly
suffered financial harm as a result.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on July 31, 2018.  The lead plaintiffs filed an
opposition to the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on
September 14, 2018.  The Defendants filed a reply in support of the
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on October 9, 2018.
Oral argument was held on October 19, 2018, after which the Court
reserved decision.

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

The Company intends to continue defending the Securities Action
vigorously.

Newlink Genetics Corporation is a clinical-stage immuno-oncology
company focused on discovering and developing novel
immunotherapeutic products for the treatment of patients with
cancer. The company is based in Ames, Iowa.


NORTHERN OIL: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Fries Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Northern Oil and Gas, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company is
awaiting the court's decision on its motion to dismiss the class
action suit filed by Jeffrey Fries.

On August 18, 2016, plaintiff Jeffrey Fries, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, Michael Reger (the
Company's former chief executive officer), and Thomas Stoelk (the
Company's former chief financial officer and interim chief
executive officer) as defendants.  An amended complaint was filed
by plaintiffs in July 2017.

Defendants (including the Company) filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in August 2017. The court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss in January 2018, but permitted plaintiff the
opportunity to further amend the complaint. A second amended
complaint was filed by plaintiffs in January 2018. Defendants
(including the Company) filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint in March 2018, and the Company is awaiting the
court's decision on that motion to dismiss.

The complaint purports to bring a federal securities class action
on behalf of a class of persons who acquired the Company's
securities between March 1, 2013 and August 15, 2016, and seeks to
recover damages caused by defendants' alleged violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

Northern Oil said, "The Company intends to continue to vigorously
defend itself in this matter."

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

Northern Oil and Gas, Inc., an independent energy company, engages
in the acquisition, exploration, exploitation, development, and
production of crude oil and natural gas properties in the United
States. The company primarily holds interests in the Bakken and
Three Forks formations in the Williston Basin of North Dakota and
Montana. The company is based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.


NUVASIVE INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held
----------------------------------------------------
NuVasive, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a hearing on the
final approval of the settlement by the court was scheduled for
November 19, 2018.

On August 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California naming the Company and certain of its current and former
executive officers for allegedly making false and materially
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
financial results, specifically relating to the purported improper
submission of false claims to Medicare and Medicaid.

The operative complaint asserts a putative class period stemming
from October 22, 2008 to July 30, 2013. The complaint alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees.

On February 13, 2014, Brad Mauss, the lead plaintiff in the case,
filed an Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the
Federal Securities Laws. The Company answered the complaint on
August 25, 2016, and discovery commenced. The plaintiffs filed
motions for class certification on October 28, 2016 and the
Company's opposition papers were filed on January 9, 2017. On March
22, 2017, the court issued an order granting class certification.
The Company filed a petition to appeal the order granting class
certification with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
(the "Ninth Circuit") on April 5, 2017 and the plaintiffs filed an
opposition to the petition.

On August 15, 2017, the Ninth Circuit denied the Company's
petition. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on
September 8, 2017. On February 1, 2018, the court entered an order
denying the Company's motion for summary judgment. On February 13,
2018, the Company entered into a memorandum of understanding with
the plaintiffs to settle the case for $7.9 million. On March 23,
2018, the parties executed a stipulation of settlement, which was
preliminarily approved by the court on June 11, 2018.

A hearing on the final approval of the settlement by the court was
scheduled for November 19, 2018.

The Company expects the settlement will be fully funded by
insurance proceeds. The settlement includes the dismissal of all
claims against the Company and the named individuals in the lawsuit
without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them.

NuVasive said, "There can be no assurance that a settlement will be
finalized and approved or as to the ultimate outcome of this
litigation. However, in connection with the proposed settlement and
in accordance with authoritative guidance, the Company has recorded
the loss contingency of $7.9 million as a current litigation
liability and the expected insurance proceeds of $7.9 million as a
current receivable in the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of
September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017."

NuVasive, Inc., a medical device company, develops and markets
minimally-disruptive surgical products and procedurally-integrated
solutions for spine surgery. Its products focus on applications for
spine fusion surgery, including ancillary products and services
used to aid in the surgical procedure. The company was founded in
1997 and is headquartered in San Diego, California.


OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Faces Amended Complaint in Consolidated Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated "Hustig" and "Cook" class action
lawsuits have filed an amended complaint, according to Obalon
Therapeutics, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2018.

On February 14 and 22, 2018, plaintiff stockholders filed class
action lawsuits against the Company and certain of its executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (Hustig v. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00352-AJB-WVG, and Cook v. Obalon
Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00407-CAB-RBB).

On July 24, 2018, the court appointed Inter-Local Pension Fund
GCC/IBT as lead plaintiff.  On October 5, 2018, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint.

The amended complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its
executive officers made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose material adverse facts about its business, operations,
and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The amended
complaint also alleges violations of Section 11 of the Exchange Act
arising out of the Company's initial public offering.  The
plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and
other unspecified equitable relief.

The case is at a preliminary stage and the Company intends to
vigorously defend against it.

Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. is a vertically integrated medical device
company focused on developing and commercializing innovative
medical devices to treat obese and overweight people by
facilitating weight loss. The company is based in Carlsbad,
California.


OHIO: Certification of Refugees Class Sought in CRIS Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Gumaa Ibrahim and Badreldin Rahouma move for an order
certifying the matter titled COMMUNITY REFUGEE AND IMMIGRATION
SERVICES; Gumaa Ismail Yahya IBRAHIM; and Badreldin RAHOUMA, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Don
PETIT, Registrar, Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles, in his official
capacity, Case No. 2:18-cv-01189-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), to proceed as
a class under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The class is defined as:

     All refugees residing in Ohio who possess a valid refugee
     I-94 document that is more than two years old and have not
     yet adjusted their status to that of a lawful permanent
     resident.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint as class counsel Emily
Brown, Esq., Kathleen Kersh, Esq., Mark Heller, Esq., and Eugenio
Mollo, Esq., of Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc.

The Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated to challenge the Defendant's alleged
unconstitutional policy that denies Ohio driver's licenses to the
named Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals, who hold
refugee status and who were admitted to the United States as
refugees more than two years ago.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Emily M. Brown, Esq.
          Kathleen C. Kersh, Esq.
          Mark R. Heller, Esq.
          Eugenio Mollo, Jr., Esq.
          ADVOCATES FOR BASIC LEGAL EQUALITY, INC.
          130 West Second St., Suite 700E
          Dayton, OH 45402
          Telephone: (937) 535-4408
          Facsimile: (937) 535-4600
          E-mail: ebrown@ablelaw.org
                  kkersh@ablelaw.org
                  mheller@ablelaw.org
                  emollo@ablelaw.org


OMEGA FLEX: Missouri Class Action Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Omega Flex, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that company continues
to defend a re-filed putative class action suit in Missouri.

In March 2017, a putative class action case was re-filed against
the Company and other parties in Missouri state court after the
predecessor case was dismissed without prejudice by the federal
court. The Company successfully removed the case to federal court
and is currently vigorously defending the case.

Omega Flex, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells flexible metal hoses and accessories in the United States and
internationally. It offers flexible gas piping for use in
residential and commercial buildings, as well as its fittings; and
corrugated medical tubing for use in hospitals, ambulatory care
centers, dental, physician and veterinary clinics, laboratories,
and other facilities.  Omega Flex, Inc. was founded in 1975 and is
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

ON DECK CAPTIAL: Fabricant Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
SIDNEY NAIMAN and TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ON DECK CAPTIAL,
INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No.
4:18-cv-06638-KAW (N.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2018), seeks damages and any
other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
illegal actions ON DECK CAPTIAL, INC., in negligently, knowingly,
and/or willfully contacting Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs' cellular
telephones in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
and related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call
provisions, thereby invading Plaintiffs' privacy.

According to the complaint, beginning in or around March 2017, the
Defendant contacted Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs' cellular telephone
numbers ending in -1083 and -5502, in an attempt to solicit
Plaintiffs to purchase Defendant's services. The Defendant used an
"automatic telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C.
section 227(a)(1) to place its call to Plaintiffs seeking to
solicit its services. The Defendant contacted or attempted to
contact Plaintiffs from telephone numbers (818) 736-4908, (730)
619- 3979 and (925) 373-6785. The Defendant's calls constituted
calls that were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C.
section 227(b)(1)(A).

During all relevant times, Defendant did not possess Plaintiffs'
"prior 4 express consent" to receive calls using an automatic
telephone dialing system or an 5 artificial or prerecorded voice on
their cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section
227(b)(1)(A). Further, Plaintiffs' cellular telephone numbers
ending in -1083 and – 5502 were added to the National Do-Not-Call
Registry on or about June 4, 2008 and July 23, 2003. The Defendant
placed multiple calls soliciting its business to Plaintiffs on
their cellular telephones ending in -1083 and -5502 in or around
March 2017 and 12 continuing through July 2017. Such calls
constitute solicitation calls pursuant to 47 C.F.R. section
64.1200(c)(2) as they were attempts to promote or sell Defendant's
services.

The Plaintiffs received numerous solicitation calls from Defendant
within 12-month period. The Plaintiffs requested for Defendant to
stop calling Plaintiffs during one of the initial calls from
Defendant, thus revoking any prior express consent that had existed
and terminating any established business relationship that had
existed, as defined under 16 C.F.R. 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B). Despite
this, Defendant continued to call Plaintiffs in an attempt to
solicit its services and in violation of the National Do-Not-Call
provisions of the TCPA, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

PATRIOT ENVIRONMENTAL: McCleary Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEFF MCCLEARY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plantiff, vs. PATRIOT ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-00193 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 2, 2018), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant employs oilfield personnel, like McCleary, to carry
out its work. McCleary, and the other workers like him, were
typically scheduled for 14 hour shifts, days a week, for weeks at a
time. But Defendant does not pay all of these workers overtime for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.

Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Defendant pays
these workers a day-rate, the lawsuit says.

Patriot is an oil and gas associated services company specializing
in the installation of plastic lined holding tanks for
environmental containment including waste water lagoons, salt water
disposals, frac water storage sites, and other water impoundment.
Patriot operates throughout the United States, and in Texas and
Oklahoma.[BN]

Attorneys in charge for McCleary:

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

               - and -

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


PITNEY BOWES: City of Livonia Retiree Plan Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Pitney Bowes Inc. continues to defend a lawsuit by the City of
Livonia Retiree Health and Disability Benefits Plan v. Pitney Bowes
Inc. et al., in Connecticut state court, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 5, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2018.

In August 2018, the Company, certain of its directors, officers and
several banks who served as underwriters, were named as defendants
in City of Livonia Retiree Health and Disability Benefits Plan v.
Pitney Bowes Inc. et al., a putative class action lawsuit filed in
Connecticut state court.

The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, on behalf of those who purchased notes issued by the
Company in connection with a September 13, 2017 offering, alleging,
among other things, that the Company failed to make certain
disclosures relating to components of its third quarter 2017
performance at the time of the notes offering. The complaint seeks
compensatory damages and other relief.

Pitney Bowes said, "Although litigation outcomes are inherently
unpredictable, we believe this case is without merit and intend to
defend it vigorously."

Pitney Bowes Inc. offers customer information management, location
intelligence, and customer engagement products and solutions in the
United States and internationally. The company operates in three
segments: Small & Medium Business Solutions; Enterprise Business
Solutions; and Digital Commerce Solutions. Pitney Bowes Inc. was
founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.


POTBELLY CORP: Assistant Managers Class Suit Underway in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Potbelly Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself from a purported collective and class
action suit initiated by assistant managers in New York.

In October 2017, plaintiffs filed a purported collective and class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company alleging violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL).

The plaintiffs allege that the Company violated the FLSA and NYLL
by not paying overtime compensation to the company's assistant
managers and violated NYLL by not paying spread-of-hours pay.

Potbelly believes the assistant managers were properly classified
under state and federal law. The Company intends to vigorously
defend this action.

Potbelly  said, "This case is at an early stage, and Potbelly is
therefore unable to make a reasonable estimate of the probable loss
or range of losses, if any, that might arise from this matter."

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

Potbelly Corporation, through its subsidiaries, owns, operates, and
franchises Potbelly Sandwich Works sandwich shops in the United
States. It offers toasty warm sandwiches, salads, and other items.
Potbelly Corporation was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois.


POWER SOLUTIONS: Treadwell Sues over Use of Biometric Data
----------------------------------------------------------
JEROME TREADWELL, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. POWER SOLUTIONS
INTERNATIONAL, INC., and NOVATIME TECHNOLOGY, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 2018CH13574 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), seeks to curtail
Defendants' unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of
Plaintiff's sensitive biometric data, under the Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, when Power Solutions hires an employee,
he or she is enrolled in its NOVA time employee database using a
scan of his or her fingerprint. Power Solutions uses the NOVA time
employee database to monitor the time worked by its hourly
employees. While many employers use conventional methods for
tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks),
Power Solutions' employees are required to have their fingerprints
scanned by a biometric timekeeping device.

Biometrics are not relegated to esoteric corners 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 Power Solutions' 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 or misuses -- 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.

By the time BIPA passed through the Illinois legislature in
mid-2008, most companies who had experimented using employees'
biometric data as an authentication method stopped doing so.
However, Defendants failed to take note of the shift in Illinois
law governing the collection and use of biometric data. As a
result, each Defendant continues to collect, store, use, and
disseminate Power Solutions employees' biometric data in violation
of BIPA, the lawsuit says.

Power Solutions International, Inc. is a company that manufactures
and distributes engines and power systems to industrial and on-road
sectors. NOVA time Technology Inc. is a technology company that
provides software and hardware that tracks and monitors employees'
time and attendance to companies worldwide.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Andrew C. Ficzk, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 233.1550
          Facsimile: 312.233.1560
          E-mail: Aficzko@stephanzouras.com


PPL CORPORATION: Kentucky Class Action v. LG&E Still Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Proceedings are still currently underway regarding potential class
certification in a class action complaint against LG&E and KU
Energy LLC filed in Kentucky, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

In December 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against LG&E and
PPL Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Kentucky (U.S. District Court) alleging violations of the Clean
Air Act, RCRA, and common law claims of nuisance, trespass and
negligence.  These plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and civil
penalties, plus costs and attorney fees, for the alleged statutory
violations.  Under the common law claims, these plaintiffs seek
monetary compensation and punitive damages for property damage and
diminished property values for a class consisting of residents
within four miles of the Cane Run plant, which retired three
coal-fired units in 2015.  In their individual capacities, these
plaintiffs sought compensation for alleged adverse health effects.

In July 2014, the court dismissed the RCRA claims and all but one
Clean Air Act claim, but declined to dismiss the common law tort
claims.  In November 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint removing the personal injury claims and removing certain
previously named plaintiffs.  In February 2017, the U.S. District
Court issued an Order dismissing PPL as a defendant and dismissing
the final federal claim against LG&E.  In April 2017, the U.S.
District Court issued an Order declining to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction on the state law claims and dismissed the case in its
entirety.

In June 2017, the plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in
Jefferson County, Kentucky Circuit Court, against LG&E alleging
state law nuisance, negligence and trespass tort claims.  The
plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages for alleged
property damage due to purported plant emissions on behalf of a
class of residents within one to three miles of the plant.
Proceedings are currently underway regarding potential class
certification, for which a decision may occur in late 2018 or in
2019.

PPL, LKE and LG&E cannot predict the outcome of this matter and an
estimate or range of possible losses cannot be determined.

LG&E and KU Energy LLC supplies natural gas and electricity.  The
Company generates electricity from coal, oil and gas, and hydro
energy sources. LG&E and KU operates in the United States.


PURDUE PHARMA: Wilk Sues over Health Insurance Premium Increase
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN WILK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA
INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; INSYS THERAPEUTICS, INC.;
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
ACTAVIS PLC; ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; WATSON
LABORATORIES, INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.;
and AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No.:
4:18-cv-00181-BO (E.D.N.C., Oct. 30, 2018), seeks redress for the
Defendants' alleged illegal acts that have caused the Plaintiff's
health insurance premiums to increase.

According to the complaint, the Defendants manufacture, market,
sell, and distribute prescription opioids, which are powerful,
highly addictive narcotic painkillers. The Defendants have engaged
in a cunning and deceptive marketing scheme to encourage doctors
and patients to use opioids to treat chronic pain. In doing so, the
Defendants falsely minimized the risks of opioids, overstated their
benefits, and generated far more opioid prescriptions than there
should have been.

"The opioid epidemic is the direct result of the Defendants'
deliberately crafted, well-funded campaign of deception. For years,
they misrepresented the risks posed by the opioids they manufacture
and sell, misleading susceptible prescribers and vulnerable patient
populations. As families and communities suffered from the scourge
of opioid abuse, the Manufacturer Defendants earned billions in
profits as a direct result of the harms they imposed", the lawsuit
says.

The Manufacturer Defendants knew that their misrepresentations
about the risks and benefits of opioids were not supported by, and
sometimes were directly contrary to, the scientific evidence.
Certain opioid manufacturers, including Defendant Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., have entered agreements prohibiting them
from making misrepresentations identified in this Complaint in
other jurisdictions. Nonetheless, the Manufacturer Defendants
continue to misrepresent the risks and benefits of long-term opioid
use in Pennsylvania, and they have not corrected their past
misrepresentations.

Prescription opioids have devastated communities across the country
and in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Since 1999, there have
been more than 183,000 reported opioid-related deaths nationwide --
more than three times the number of U.S. soldiers who died in the
Vietnam War. In addition to the tragic loss of life and the
heartbreaking impact on children and loved ones, some estimates
state that the opioid crisis is costing governmental entities and
private companies as much as $500 billion per year.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          E.D. Gaskins, Jr., Esq.
          James M. Hash, Esq.
          EVERETT GASKINS HANCOCK LLP
          The Historic Briggs Hardware Building
          220 Fayetteville Street, Suite 300
          Raleigh, NC 27602
          Telephone: 919-755-0025
          E-mail: ed@eghlaw.com
                  james@eghlaw.com

               - and -

          William S. Consovoy, Esq.
          Thomas R. McCarthy, Esq.
          Michael H. Park, Esq.
          CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC
          Arlington, VA 22201
          Telephone: 703 243.9423
          E-mail: will@consovoymccarthy.com
                  tom@consovoymccarthy.com
                  park@consovoymccarthy.com

               - and -

          Ashley Keller, Esq.
          Travis Lenkner, Esq.
          Seth Meyer, Esq.
          KELLER LENKNER LLC
          150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2570
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 741.5220
          E-mail: ack@kellerlenkner.com
                  tdl@kellerlenkner.com
                  sam@kellerlenkner.com

RADIANT LOGISTICS: Still Defends Barahona Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Radiant Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself from a class action suit entitled,
Ingrid Barahona v. Accountabilities, Inc. d/b/a/ Accountabilities
Staffing, Inc., Radiant Global Logistics, Inc. and DBA Distribution
Services, Inc. (Ingrid Barahona California Class Action).

On October 25, 2013, plaintiff Ingrid Barahona filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California against RGL, DBA Distribution Services, Inc. ("DBA", a
wholly-owned subsidiary), and two third-party staffing companies
(collectively, the "Staffing Defendants") with whom Radiant and DBA
contracted for temporary employees.

In the lawsuit, Ms. Barahona, on behalf of herself and the putative
class, seeks damages and penalties under California law, plus
interest, attorneys" fees, and costs, along with equitable
remedies, alleging that she and the putative class were the subject
of unfair and unlawful business practices, including certain wage
and hour violations relating to, among others, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, failure to pay minimum wages and overtime,
and failure to reimburse employees for work-related expenses. Ms.
Barahona alleges that she was jointly employed by the staffing
companies and Radiant and DBA.

Radiant and DBA deny Ms. Barahona's allegations in their entirety,
deny that they are liable to Ms. Barahona or the putative class
members in any way, and are vigorously defending against these
allegations based upon a preliminary evaluation of applicable
records and legal standards.

However, if Ms. Barahona were to prevail on her allegations on all
claims against the Company, the Company could be liable for
uninsured damages in an amount that, while not significant when
evaluated against either the Company's assets or current and
expected level of annual earnings, could be material when judged
against the Company's earnings in the particular quarter in which
any such damages arose, if at all.

Radiant Logistics said, "The case remains involved in various
procedural matters, including motions, discovery requests, status
conferences, and mediations that to date have not led to settlement
or resolution of the claims. At this time, the Company is unable to
express an opinion as to the likely outcome of the matter."

Radiant Logistics, Inc. operates as a third-party logistics and
multi-modal transportation services company primarily in the United
States and Canada. The company offers domestic and international
air and ocean freight forwarding services; and freight brokerage
services, including truckload, less than truckload, and intermodal
services. Radiant Logistics, Inc. was founded in 2001 and is
headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.


REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Polat Securities Class Action Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Regulus Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend the consolidated class action suit in
California.

On January 31, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed by
Baran Polat in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, or District Court, against the company,
Paul C. Grint (the company's former Chief Executive Officer), and
Joseph P. Hagan (then company's Chief Operating Officer and
currently the company's President and Chief Executive Officer).

The complaint includes claims asserted, on behalf of certain
purchasers of the company's securities, under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

In general, the complaint alleges that, between January 21, 2016,
and June 27, 2016, the defendants violated the federal securities
laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding
our business and the prospects for RG-101, thereby artificially
inflating the price of the company's securities. The plaintiff
seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

On February 10, 2017, a second putative class action complaint was
filed by Li Jin in the District Court against the Company, Mr.
Hagan, Dr. Grint, and Timothy Wright, the Company's Chief Research
and Development Officer. The Complaint alleges claims similar to
those asserted by Mr. Polat. The actions have been related.

On February 17, 2017, the District Court entered an order stating
that defendants need not answer, or otherwise respond, until the
District Court enters an order appointing, pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, lead plaintiff and lead
counsel, and the parties then submit a schedule to the District
Court for the filing of an amended or consolidated complaint and
the timing of defendants' answer or response.

On April 3, 2017, two motions for consolidation of the two actions,
appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of counsel were filed in
the actions, or the Consolidation and Lead Plaintiff Motions. On
October 26, 2017, the District Court entered an order consolidating
the cases, appointing lead plaintiffs, and appointing lead counsel
for lead plaintiffs.

On December 22, 2017, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint against the Company, Dr. Grint, Mr. Hagan, and Michael
Huang (the company's former Vice President of Clinical
Development). The consolidated complaint alleges that between
February 17, 2016 and June 12, 2017, the Defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, by making materially false and misleading statements
regarding RG-101. The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

On February 6, 2018, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint. On March 23, 2018, plaintiff filed their
opposition to the motion and on April 24, 2018, defendants filed
their response. No hearing date has been set.

Regulus Therapeutics said, "We intend to vigorously defend this
matter."

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

Regulus Therapeutics Inc., a clinical stage biopharmaceutical
company, engages in the discovery and development of medicines that
target microRNAs to treat a range of diseases in the United States
and Europe. Regulus Therapeutics Inc. was founded in 2007 and is
headquartered in San Diego, California.


REILY FOODS: First Circuit Appeal Filed in Dumont Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Kathy Dumont filed an appeal from a court ruling in her
lawsuit entitled Kathy Dumont
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Reily Foods Company, New England Coffee Company,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10907-RWZ, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, Boston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to ensure that the
Defendants properly label their coffees and to prevent the
Defendant from making the same misleading claims in the future.

The class action is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a
nationwide class of consumers, who purchased certain New England
Coffee Company coffees.  The Plaintiff purchased NECC's Hazelnut
Creme Coffee.  She contends that the front of the package
prominently described the coffee as Hazelnut Cream and indicated
only that it was a medium blend with a rich nutty flavor leaving
her and fellow consumers to reasonably believe that the coffee
contained enough of its characterizing ingredient (i.e. hazelnut)
to provide it with the promised flavor.  In truth, however, the
Hazelnut Creme Coffee contains none of its characterizing
ingredient, and instead is both artificially and naturally
flavored, she alleges.

The appellate case is captioned as Dumont v. Reily Foods Co., et
al., Case No. 18-2055, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit.[BN]

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

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          BRAUN LAW GROUP PC
          10680 W Pico Blvd
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 836-6000
          E-mail: mdb@braunlawgroup.com

               - and -

          John T. Longo, Esq.
          CITADEL CONSUMER LITIGATION, PC
          996 Smith Street
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: (401) 272-2177
          E-mail: jtlongo@citadelpc.com

Defendants-Appellees REILY FOODS COMPANY and NEW ENGLAND COFFEE
COMPANY are represented by:

          Thomas A. Casey, Esq.
          Mark A. Cunningham, Esq.
          John Guenard, Esq.
          JONES WALKER WAECHTER POITEVENT CARRERE & DENEGRE LLP
          201 St. Charles Ave., 47th Floor
          New Orleans, LA 70170-5100
          Telephone: (504) 582-8294
          E-mail: tcaseyjr@joneswalker.com
                  mcunningham@joneswalker.com
                  jguenard@joneswalker.com

               - and -

          Timothy Henry Madden, Esq.
          DONNELLY CONROY & GELHAAR LLP
          260 Franklin St., Suite 1600
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 720-2880
          E-mail: thm@dcglaw.com


RENT-A-CENTER INC: Court Certifies Blair Class
----------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned
PAULA BLAIR, ANDREA ROBINSON, and FALECHIA HARRIS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
RENT-A-CENTER, INC., a Delaware corporation, RENT-A-CENTER WEST,
INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants.
No. C 17-02335 WHA. (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of approximately 338,000
individuals who entered into rent-to-own agreements with RAC in
California since March 2013. Plaintiffs also seek to represent a
subclass of individuals for whose transactions RAC cannot produce a
signed arbitration agreement.

Based on these theories, the plaintiffs seek to certify the
following class and subclass:

California Class: All individuals who, on or after March 13, 2013,
entered into a rent-to-own transaction with RAC in California.

Usury Subclass: All individuals who, on or after March 13, 2013,
entered into a rent-to-own transaction with RAC in California, and
for whose transactions RAC cannot produce a signed arbitration
agreement.

Pursuant to FRCP 23(a), for a named plaintiff to obtain class
certification, the court must find: (1) numerosity; (2) common
questions of law or fact; (3) typicality; and (4) adequacy of the
class representatives and counsel.   

Here, the plaintiffs seek class certification under FRCP 23(b)(3),
which further requires predominance and superiority, or, in the
alternative, under FRCP 23(b)(2), which requires that the primary
relief sought be declaratory or injunctive.

NUMEROSITY

Under FRCP 23(a)(1), numerosity is satisfied by showing that
joinder of all members is impracticable. There are at least 338,000
individuals that fall within the definition of the proposed class.
Numerosity is therefore demonstrated for the class.

TYPICALITY

Typicality under FRCP 23(a)(3) is shown when the claims or defenses
of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses
of the class. The test of typicality is whether other members have
the same or similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct
which is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other
class members have been injured by the same course of conduct.

With respect to the plaintiffs' Karnette Act claims, the Court
finds that the plaintiffs fail to establish standing for violations
stemming from (1) RAC's misclassification of products as new when
those items were, in fact, used and (2) RAC's failure to adjust its
lessor's cost to reflect discounts, rebates, or incentives received
from its vendors. The Plaintiffs do not dispute that they were not
personally affected by these alleged practices. This lack of
standing is fatal to the plaintiffs' attempt to certify a class
under such theories. While the plaintiffs seek leave to add a new
class representative who has standing, the deadline to add new
parties passed in December 2017 and the plaintiffs provide no
explanation as to their failure to timely seek leave to add a new
party. Accordingly, the class will exclude those consumers whose
Karnette Act claims arise solely from RAC's misclassification of
products as new or RAC's failure to adjust its prices for
discounts, rebates, or incentives.

ADEQUACY

FRCP 23(a)(4) requires that "the representative parties will fairly
and adequately protect the interests of the class."

Nothing in the record indicates, and RAC does not argue, that the
plaintiffs would have a conflict with other potential class
members. RAC nevertheless argues that the lawyer-driven nature of
this action renders the proposed representatives inadequate. This
order disagrees.

First, a named plaintiff need not have a detailed understanding of
the legal or factual basis of a class action suit so long as she
has some minimal familiarity with the litigation.

Here, the proposed representatives have demonstrated sufficient
familiarity with the underlying theory of the dispute. Blair
testified during her deposition, for example, that RAC illegally
charged too much for the products that they that they sell.

Second, the fact that the named plaintiffs joined the litigation
only after receiving counsel's solicitation in the mail does not
defeat class certification.  

Third, RAC attacks the proposed representatives' credibility by
contending that the declarations submitted in support of their
motion for class certification suspiciously omit or shade key
information.

Fourth, RAC cites as factual background Harris's 25-year-old fraud
conviction for trying to cash a check that was not hers and a bench
warrant that issued after Harris failed to appear at a related
court hearing. RAC does not actually argue that these things make
Harris an inadequate representative and this order declines to so
find. In addition to the staleness of the conviction, nothing in
the record indicates that Harris has been anything but credible in
this action. This ancient conviction does not sufficiently
undermine her credibility such that she would be rendered an
inadequate class representative.

RAC does not challenge the adequacy of plaintiffs' counsel, Dostart
Hannink & Coveney LLP and Altshuler Berzon LLP, as class
representatives. Nor does RAC dispute that plaintiffs' counsel
would prosecute this action vigorously on behalf of class members.
As the record reflects, both Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP and
Altshuler Berzon LLP have experience representing plaintiffs in
complex class actions. This order finds Blair, Robinson, Harris,
Garza, and their counsel to be adequate representatives as required
by FRCP 23(a)(4).

COMMONALITY

Commonality is satisfied if there are questions of law or fact
common to the class.
Plaintiffs' Karnette Act and usury claims (as well as their
derivative Section 17200 and CLRA claims) present common issues
capable of classwide resolution. As the parties' cross-motions for
summary judgment demonstrated, whether or not RAC properly included
certain expenses within its lessor's cost presents a common issue.
Plaintiffs' usury claim also presents common issues, including
whether or not RAC's rent-to-own transactions are a loan or
forbearance within the meaning of the California Constitution, and,
if so, whether or not the loan or forbearance is absolutely
repayable by the borrower under the terms of the rental-purchase
agreements.

FRCP 23(B)(3) PREDOMINANCE

FRCP 23(b)(3) requires that questions of law or fact common to
class members predominate over any questions affecting only
individual members. This requirement "tests whether proposed
classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by
representation.  Class certification under FRCP 23(b)(3) is proper
when common questions represent a significant portion of the case
and can be resolved for all members of the class in a single
adjudication.

Usury Claim

The California Constitution provides that no corporation shall by
charging any fee, bonus, commission, discount or other compensation
receive from a borrower more than the interest authorized by this
section upon any loan or forbearance of any money, goods or things
in action. For items that are for use primarily for personal,
family, or household purposes, the maximum permissible interest
rate is 10%.  The Plaintiffs submit that whether a particular
transaction violates the 10% maximum can be determined by querying
RAC's transactions database. RAC does not substantively dispute
this, but responds that plaintiffs have failed to explain how usury
should be applied to rent-to-own contracts. Whether and how usury
should be applied to rent-to-own transactions are common legal
questions which will predominate over individual issues.
Certification of this claim is allowed.

Karnette Act Claim

The Plaintiffs claim that RAC violated the Karnette Act by
impermissibly including certain up-charges in its lessor's cost.
Specifically, for each item stored and transported by NPS, RAC
included a flat up-charge of $23.49, regardless of the item's size,
weight, or distance shipped. For items stored and transported by
NFI, RAC allocated an up-charge by dividing NFI's projected annual
fees by the number of units RAC anticipated shipping through NFI,
then adjusting that amount to take into account the item's weight,
volume, and other factors that could affect shipping costs.

In any event, even if identification of the relevant putative class
members was feasible, determining RAC's liability under the
Karnette Act will require the fact-finder to ascertain the amount
properly attributable to RAC's lessor's cost. As explained in the
parallel order regarding the parties' summary judgment motions, the
Court has ruled that RAC may include within its lessor's cost the
actual freight costs, if documented, incurred in having merchandise
shipped to its stores through NFI or NPS.

In light of this ruling, determining the amount properly included
within RAC's lessor's cost would devolve into an unmanageable
morass of factual issues surrounding the calculation of each item's
actual freight cost. Indeed, plaintiffs implicitly acknowledge this
by arguing for a rule regarding freight and lessor's cost that
would have avoided this difficulty. Because such re-calculations of
RAC's lessor's cost would be necessary in calculating the Karnette
Act's price caps and, therefore, in determining RAC's liability,
individual questions will predominate in the resolution of this
claim.

CLRA and Section 17200 Claims.

The parties agree that the plaintiffs' CLRA and Section 17200
claims are largely derivative of their Karnette Act claims. As to
the CLRA, plaintiffs allege that each violation of the Karnette Act
is also a violation of the CLRA. For the reasons explained, such
claims are not appropriate for class resolution under FRCP
23(b)(3). So too for the plaintiffs' derivative Section 17200
claims.

The Plaintiffs also allege that RAC's arbitration agreement which
this Court held impermissibly precludes public injunctive relief in
violation of McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal. 5th 945 (2017)
violates Section 1770(a)(14) of the California Civil Code, which
prohibits representing that a transaction confers or involves
rights, remedies, or obligations that it does not have or involve,
or that are prohibited by law. This common question of law will
predominate over any questions affecting only individual class
members. To the extent plaintiffs' Section 17200 claim is
derivative of this alleged violation or plaintiffs' claim for
usury, it is also suitable for class treatment.

FRCP 23(B)(3) SUPERIORITY.

Class certification under FRCP 23(b)(3) is appropriate only if
class resolution is superior to other available methods for fairly
and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. RAC argues that
notifying class members and distributing any monies received would
be difficult given the transient nature of RAC's customers who are
typically seeking to rent products because their life situation is
in flux and that in past cases involving RAC, class action
administrators have been unable to find the majority of RAC's
customers to award them settlement money. Maybe so. Nevertheless, a
single proceeding in this forum is preferable and more efficient
than individual proceedings.

TA class action would therefore be superior to individual actions
for the adjudication of plaintiffs' claims.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
granted in part and denied in part.

The following class is certified:

     All individuals who, on or after March 13, 2013, entered into
a rent-to-own transaction with RAC in California.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 1, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8w6a3ck from Leagle.com.

Paula L. Blair, Andrea Robinson & Harris A. Falechia, Plaintiffs,
represented by James T. Hannink -- Jim.Hannink@SDLaw.com -- Dostart
Hannink and Coveney, Zachariah Paul Dostart, Dostart Hannink &
Coveney LLP, Andrew Edward Kushner -- akushner@altshulerberzon.com
-- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Eric Prince Brown --
ebrown@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP & Michael Rubin
-- mrubin@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP.

Rent-A-Center, Inc., a Delaware corporation & Rent-A-Center West,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, represented by Christina
Guerola Sarchio -- christina.sarchio@dechert.com -- Dechert LLP, H.
Joseph Escher, III -- h.joseph.escher@dechert.com -- Dechert LLP,
Kirsten F. Gallacher -- KGallacher@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson
Turner Kosmo LLP, Lily Anna North -- lily.north@dechert.com --
Dechert, LLP, Robert Kenneth Dixon -- rdixon@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
-- Wilson Turner Kosmo, Robert Francois Friedman --
rfriedman@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., pro hac vice,
Vickie E. Turner -- vturner@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner
Kosmo LLP & Gregory G. Iskander -- giskander@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C.


RESTAURANT BRANDS: Munster Sues over No-Poach Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA MUNSTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RESTAURANT BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
BURGER KING WORLDWIDE, INC., and BURGER KING CORPORATION, the
Defendants, Case 1:18-cv-24623-RNS (S.D. Fla., Nov. 2, 2018),
alleges that Burger King's no-poach provision violates Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, by facilitating and entering agreements not to
compete among its franchises (and itself) Burger King harmed
Plaintiff and the class by suppressing their wages.

The average fast food worker in the United States earns $8.29 an
hour. In contrast, the United States' "living wage" -- the
"approximate income needed to meet a family's basic needs" -- is
$15.12. Contributing to this wage gap, according to a study by two
Princeton economists, are no-poach provisions in franchise
agreements of most major fast food chains which prohibit one
restaurant owner from offering work to employees of another
restaurant owner. Beginning no later than 2010, Burger King --
which has more than 7,000 restaurants across the country -- imposed
such a no-poach clause in their standard franchise agreement.
Owners of a Burger King franchise, for example, cannot hire anyone
who works or worked at another Burger King within the previous six
months. One of the Princeton study's authors explains that these
no-poach provisions can "significantly influence pay" by obviating
the need for franchise owners to compete for the best workers.
Another study, co-authored by Eric Posner, a professor at the
University of Chicago Law School, found that "when a franchisor
requires the different franchisees within its chain not to poach
each other's workers the no-poaching agreement is anticompetitive,
and will tend to suppress the wages of workers." Many states, such
as California and Oklahoma, prohibit non-compete clauses in
employment agreements. But by facilitating agreements between
franchise owners not to compete for each other's workers , major
brands like Burger King have been able to effectively utilize and
enforce from these prohibited clauses.

Federal courts recognize that these no-poach clauses in franchise
agreements are anticompetitive agreements between and among
franchisors and franchisees to reduce worker wages. For instance,
in June 2018 a federal court upheld a federal antitrust claim
against McDonald's for its no-poach clause, opining that "even a
person wit h a rudimentary understanding of economics would
understand" that if McDonald's franchises do not compete with each
other for workers, wages "would stagnate." Another federal court
ruled similarly in an antitrust action pertaining to Jimmy John's
no-poach agreements. Many states' attorneys general are
investigating fast-food chains (and other industries) for their
no-poach practices, and , as of October 15, 2018, at least 30
national chains, including Burger King, have already entered
consent decrees with the Washington Attorney General, pl edging to
remove no-poach provisions from their franchise agreements. While
eliminating these anti competitive clauses will help fast food
workers going forward, current and former employees of Burger King
restaurants -- including Plaintiff Sandra Munster -- are owed
antitrust damages for years of wage suppression. This action seeks
to recover these damages and obtain additional injunctive relief on
behalf of Ms. Munster and similarly situated Burger King workers,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Sandra Munster and the Proposed Class:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Marcio W. Valladares, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 North Franklin Street, Seventh Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: mvalladares@forthepeople.com
                  jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Schrag, Esq.
          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Joshua J. Bloomfield, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: mls@classlawgroup.com
                  ehg@classlawgroup.com
                  jjb@classlawgroup.com

               - and -

          George W. Sampson, Esq.
          SAMPSON DUNLAP LLP
          1001 4th Ave., Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98154
          Telephone: (206) 369-3962
          E-mail: george@sampsondunlap.com

RH INC: Appeals Decision in Securities Suit to Ninth Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants RH, Inc., Gary Friedman and Karen Boone filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled City of Miami General
Employee v. RH, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-00554-YGR, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Oakland.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 18, 2018, City of
Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust
filed a class action complaint in the District Court on February 2,
2017.  On March 16, 2017, Peter J. Errichiello, Jr., filed a
similar class action complaint in the same forum and against the
same parties.

On April 26, 2017, the District Court consolidated the two actions.
The consolidated action is captioned In re RH, Inc. Securities
Litigation.  An amended consolidated complaint was filed in June
2017 asserting claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The complaint asserts claims purportedly on behalf of a class of
purchasers of Company common stock from March 26, 2015 to June 8,
2016.  The alleged misstatements relate to statements regarding the
roll out of the RH Modern product line and the Company's inventory
levels.  The complaint seeks class certification, monetary damages,
and other appropriate relief, including an award of costs and
attorneys' fees.

The appellate case is captioned as City of Miami General Employee
v. RH, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-80148, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent CITY OF MIAMI GENERAL EMPLOYEES' & SANITATION
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT TRUST, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Brandon Marsh, Esq.
          Blair Allen Nicholas, Esq.
          David Stickney, Esq.
          Robert Trisotto, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 793-0070
          E-mail: brandon.marsh@blbglaw.com
                  blairn@blbglaw.com
                  davids@blbglaw.com
                  robert.trisotto@blbglaw.com

Defendants-Petitioners RH, INC., GARY FRIEDMAN and KAREN BOONE are
represented by:

          Jordan Eth, Esq.
          Mark Ryan Scott Foster, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7126
          E-mail: JEth@mofo.com
                  mfoster@mofo.com


RIPPLE LABS: Appeals Remand of Greenwald Suit to Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Ripple Labs, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling remanding the lawsuit entitled Avner Greenwald v. Ripple
Labs, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-04790-PJH, that was pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The Defendants-Petitioners are Ripple Labs Inc., XRP II, LLC,
Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ron Will, Antoinette
O'Gorman, Eric van Miltenburg, Susan Athey, Zoe Cruz, Ken Kurson,
Ben Lawsky, Anja Manuel, and Takashi Okita.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 30, 2018, the
District Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Mateo.

The lawsuit is a putative securities class action asserting that
Ripple created a digital currency called XRP and "from 2013 to the
present, defendants and their affiliates have been engaged in an
ongoing scheme to sell XRP to the general public."  Mr. Greenwald,
a resident of Israel, alleges that he bought and sold XRP in both
USD and Bitcoin and suffered losses on those investments as a
result of the Defendants' scheme.

The appellate case is captioned as AVNER GREENWALD, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff-Respondent
v. RIPPLE LABS INC., et al., Defendants-Petitioners, Case No.
18-80147, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.[BN]

The Plaintiff-Respondent is represented by:

          Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
          Rhiana L. Swartz, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
                  rswartz@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
          E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com

The Defendants-Petitioners are represented by:

          Peter B. Morrison, Esq.
          Virginia F. Milstead, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 687-5000
          Facsimile: (213) 687-5600
          E-mail: peter.morrison@skadden.com
                  virginia.milstead@skadden.com

               - and -

          John Neukom, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          525 University Avenue, Suite 1400
          Palo Alto, CA 94301
          Telephone: (650) 470-4500
          Facsimile: (650) 470-4570
          E-mail: john.neukom@skadden.com


ROCKET PHARMACEUTICALS: 1st Cir. Dismisses Whitehead Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the First
Circuit entered judgment dismissing the Whitehead v. Inotek
Pharmaceuticals Corporation, et al. on September 5, 2018.

On January 6, 2017, a purported stockholder of Inotek filed a
putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, captioned Whitehead v. Inotek Pharmaceuticals
Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-10025. An amended complaint was
filed on July 10, 2017, and a second amended complaint was filed on
September 5, 2017.

The second amended complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5
against the Company, David Southwell, and Rudolf Baumgartner based
on allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions
regarding Inotek's phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials of
trabodenoson. The lawsuit sought, among other things, unspecified
compensatory damages for purchasers of Inotek's common stock
between July 23, 2015 and July 10, 2017, as well as interest and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The second amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice on June
27, 2018. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the First Circuit
Court of Appeals on July 27, 2018, voluntarily dismissed their
appeal on August 31, 2018, and the First Circuit entered judgment
dismissing the action on September 5, 2018.

Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-platform biotechnology company that focuses on
developing gene therapies for rare and devastating pediatric
diseases. Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is headquartered in New
York, New York.


ROCKWELL MEDICAL: Court Consolidates Too and Spock Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court issued an
order consolidating the putative class action suits filed by Ah Kit
Too and Robert Spock.

On July 27, 2018, Plaintiff Ah Kit Too filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court in the Eastern
District of New York against the Company and former officers,
Robert Chioini and Thomas Klema.

The complaint is a federal securities class action purportedly
brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities, other than Defendants, who purchased or otherwise
acquired the publicly traded securities of the Company between
March 16, 2018 and June 26, 2018.

The Complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Chioini and
Klema violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Specifically, the Complaint
alleges that defendants filed reports with the Securities and
Exchange Commission that contained purported inaccurate and
misleading statements regarding the potential for the Company's
drug, Triferic, to quality for separate reimbursement status by the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

On September 4, 2018, Plaintiff Robert Spock filed a similar
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
in the Eastern District of New York against the Company and Messrs.
Chioini and Klema.

The Spock complaint is a federal securities class action
purportedly brought on behalf of a class consisting of persons who
purchased the Company's securities between November 8, 2017 and
June 26, 2018. This complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs.
Chioini and Klema violated the Exchange Act in that the Company was
aware the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services would not
pursue the Company's proposal for separate reimbursement for
Triferic; misstated reserves in the Company's quarterly report for
the first quarter of 2018; had a material weakness its internal
controls over financial reporting, which rendered those controls
ineffective; Mr. Chioini withheld material information regarding
Triferic from the Company's auditor, corporate counsel, and
independent directors of the Board; and, as a result of these
alleged issues, statements about the Company's business were
materially false and misleading.

On September 25, 2018, four Company stockholders filed motions to
appoint lead plaintiffs, lead counsel, and to consolidate the Ah
Kit Too v. Rockwell securities class action with the Spock v.
Rockwell securities class action.  On October 10, 2018, the court
issued an order consolidating the two actions, appointing co-lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. The lawsuits seek damages sustained
by the class and an award of plaintiffs’ costs and attorney
fees.

Rockwell Medical, Inc. operates as an integrated biopharmaceutical
company targeting end-stage renal and chronic kidney diseases in
the United States and internationally. Rockwell Medical, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is based in Wixom, Michigan.


ROWAN COMPANIES: Bromberg Files Securities Class Action in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yechiel Bromberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rowan Companies PLC, William E.
Albrecht, Thomas P. Burke, Jack B. Moore, Suzanne P. Nimocks,
Thierry Pilenko, John J. Quicke, Tore I. Sandvold, Charles L.
Szews, Defendants, Case  No. 4:18-cv-4284 (S.D. Tex., November 12,
2018) is a class action complaint for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on October
7, 2018 pursuant to which Rowan Companies PLC will combine with
Ensco PLC in an all-stock transaction. On October 7, 2018, Rowan's
Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into a Transaction
Agreement by and between Ensco and Rowan. On October 30, 2018,
Defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction.

The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement materially
false and misleading, says the complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement.

Plaintiff is, and has been continuously throughout all times
relevant hereto, the owner of Rowan ordinary shares.

Defendant Rowan, incorporated in England and Wales, is a global
provider of offshore contract drilling services to the oil and gas
industry in the ultra-deepwater and shallow water market, with a
focus on high-specification and harsh-environment jack-up rigs and
ultra deepwater drillships. Rowan's registered office and principal
executive offices are located at 2800 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite
5450, Houston, Texas, 77056.

William E. Albrecht was a director of Rowan, and Chairman of the
Rowan Board, at all times relevant hereto.

Thomas P. Burke was a director of Rowan, and its Chief Executive
Officer, at all times relevant hereto.

Thomas R. Hix, Jack B. Moore, Suzanne P. Nimocks, Thierry Pilenko,
John J. Quicke, Tore I. Sandvold, and Charles L. Szews were
directors of Rowan at all times relevant hereto.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
     THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
     700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 227-7720

          - and -

     Aaron L. Brody, Esq.
     Michael J. Klein, Esq.
     STULL, STULL & BRODY
     6 East 45th Street
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 687-7230
     Fax: (212) 490-2022
     Email: abrody@ssbny.com
            mklein@ssbny.com


SCANA CORP: Continues to Defend Pennington Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
SCANA Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend Pennington et al. v. SCANA, Fluor Corporation
and Fluor Enterprises class action suit.

On July 17, 2018, a case filed in the District Court styled
Pennington et al. v. SCANA, Fluor Corporation and Fluor Enterprises
was certified as a class action on behalf of persons who were
formerly employed at the Nuclear Project.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
violated the WARN Act in connection with the decision to stop
construction at the Nuclear Project. The plaintiffs allege that the
defendants failed to provide adequate advance written notice of
their terminations of employment.

While SCANA and SCE&G intend to contest this case, it is reasonably
possible that a loss estimated to be as much as $75 million could
be incurred, of which SCE&G's proportionate share as a co-owner of
the Nuclear Project would be 55 percent.

SCANA Corporation, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electricity to
retail and wholesale customers in the United States. The company
owns nuclear, coal, hydro, natural gas, oil, biomass, and solar
generating facilities. The company was founded in 1924 and is based
in Cayce, South Carolina.


SCANA CORP: Court Certifies Class in Consolidated Ratepayers Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SCANA Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court granted
class certification to the consolidated complaint as styled Richard
Lightsey, LeBrian Cleckley, Phillip Cooper et al. on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. SCE&G, SCANA, and
the State of South Carolina.

In May 2018, certain purported ratepayer class actions were
consolidated. These include actions which in previous Exchange Act
filings were defined as the Cleckley Lawsuit, the Lightsey Lawsuit,
and an action filed by plaintiff Edwinda Goodman.

The consolidated complaint is styled Richard Lightsey, LeBrian
Cleckley, Phillip Cooper et al. on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. SCE&G, SCANA, and the State of South
Carolina (the "SCE&G Ratepayer Case") and was filed in the State
Court of Common Pleas in Hampton County (the "Hampton County
Court").

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that SCE&G was negligent
and unjustly enriched, breached alleged fiduciary and contractual
duties, and committed fraud and misrepresentation in failing to
properly manage the Nuclear Project, and that SCE&G committed
unfair trade practices and violated state anti-trust laws. The
plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that SCE&G may not charge
its customers for any past or continuing costs of the Nuclear
Project.

In addition, the plaintiffs also seek to have the defendants'
assets frozen and all monies recovered from Toshiba and other
sources be placed in a constructive trust for the benefit of
ratepayers. The plaintiffs seek specific performance of the alleged
implied contract to construct the now abandoned project, as well as
compensatory, punitive and statutory treble damages, attorneys'
fees, and any other relief the court deems proper.

On September 20, 2018, the court certified this case as a class
action.

SCANA Corporation, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electricity to
retail and wholesale customers in the United States. The company
owns nuclear, coal, hydro, natural gas, oil, biomass, and solar
generating facilities. The company was founded in 1924 and is based
in Cayce, South Carolina.


SCANA CORP: Firemen's Retirement System Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
SCANA Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that Firemen's
Retirement System of St. Louis has filed a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal without Prejudice, effectively ending this case.

On December 13, 2017, a purported shareholder derivative action was
filed against Kevin Marsh, Jimmy Addison, Stephen Byrne, Maybank
Hagood, Lynne Miller, James Bennett, Maceo Sloan, Sharon Decker,
James Roquemore, Alfredo Trujillo, John F.A.V. Cecil, Gregory
Aliff, James Micali, Harold Stowe, and nominal defendant SCANA by
plaintiff Firemen's Retirement System of St. Louis, purportedly on
behalf of SCANA, in the Richland County Court.

The plaintiff makes substantially similar allegations as those
alleged in the Crangle and Todd Lawsuits. On January 12, 2018, the
suit was amended to add Dominion Energy and Sedona as defendants
and to assert putative class action claims alleging, among other
things, that defendants violated their fiduciary duties to
shareholders by executing a merger agreement that unfairly deprived
plaintiffs of the true value of their SCANA stock, and that
Dominion Energy and Sedona aided and abetted these actions.

On February 21, 2018, Dominion Energy removed the case to the
District Court. On June 27, 2018, the case was remanded back to the
Richland County Court. On July 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Notice
of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice, effectively ending this
case.

SCANA Corporation, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electricity to
retail and wholesale customers in the United States. The company
owns nuclear, coal, hydro, natural gas, oil, biomass, and solar
generating facilities. The company was founded in 1924 and is based
in Cayce, South Carolina.


SCANA CORP: Marsha Fox Suit Consolidated in Securities Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SCANA Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the purported class
action suit filed by Marsha Fox has been consolidated and is
captioned In re SCANA Corporation Securities Litigation.

On November 10, 2017, a purported class action was filed against
SCANA, Kevin Marsh, Jimmy Addison, and Steve Byrne by plaintiff
Marsha Fox on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
in the District Court (the "Fox Lawsuit"). The plaintiff makes
substantially similar allegations as those alleged in the Norman
Lawsuit, and seeks substantially similar relief.

As noted, on January 23, 2018, this case was consolidated and is
captioned In re SCANA Corporation Securities Litigation.  No
further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

SCANA Corporation, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electricity to
retail and wholesale customers in the United States. The company
owns nuclear, coal, hydro, natural gas, oil, biomass, and solar
generating facilities. The company was founded in 1924 and is based
in Cayce, South Carolina.


SCANA CORP: Still Defends Cook Class Action
-------------------------------------------
SCANA Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a purported class action suit filed by Jessica
Cook.

On September 7, 2017, a purported class action was filed against
Santee Cooper, SCE&G, Palmetto Electric Cooperative, Inc. and
Central Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. by plaintiff Jessica Cook,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated (the "Santee
Cooper Ratepayer Case") in the Hampton County Court.

The plaintiff makes substantially similar allegations as the SCE&G
Ratepayer Case. The plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that
defendants may not charge the purported class for reimbursement for
past or future costs of the Nuclear Project, as well as other
compensatory and statutory treble damages, attorneys' fees, and any
other relief the court deems proper.

On March 27, 2018, the plaintiff and additional named plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint including as additional named defendants
current and former directors of Santee Cooper and SCANA. On June
25, 2018, Santee Cooper filed a Notice of Petition for Original
Jurisdiction with the Supreme Court of South Carolina, which notice
was pending at September 30, 2018. Various motions remain pending
before the Hampton County Court at September 30, 2018.

SCANA Corporation, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electricity to
retail and wholesale customers in the United States. The company
owns nuclear, coal, hydro, natural gas, oil, biomass, and solar
generating facilities. The company was founded in 1924 and is based
in Cayce, South Carolina.


SECURIAN FINANCIAL: Stospal Sues over Alleged Illegal Loan Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LARRY STOSPAL, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SECURIAN FINANCIAL GROUP,
INC., MINNESOTA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, SECURIAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY and MINNESOTA MUTUAL COMPANIES, INC., CASE 0:18-cv-03047
(D. Minn., Oct. 30, 2018), the Plaintiff seeks to recover damages
on behalf of Plaintiff and members of a proposed class, who
purchased insurance from Defendants using loans from Future Income
Payments, LLC and suffered harm as a result of Defendants' breach
of fiduciary duties and their participation in a massive illegal
loan scheme perpetrated by FIP and facilitated by the "Securian
Financial Network" agents and brokers.

FIP's illegal loan scheme was spread nationwide by Defendants'
Securian Financial Network, its army of affiliated financial
advisors who steered Plaintiff and other Class members into FIP
products on the premise and promise that cash flow from FIP
products would finance Plaintiff's and Class members' purchase of
life insurance products from Defendants MLIC and SLIC. The
Plaintiff brings this action as a class action on behalf of himself
and all similarly affected policyholders of Defendants to recover
the millions of dollars in premiums paid to Defendants plus monies
lost by Class members in the FIP illegal loan scheme. Defendants
have unjustly benefitted through their illegal loan scheme that
Defendants acquired only as a result of perpetuating and
participating in the FIP scheme. Defendants earned these benefits
at the expense of Class members and cannot justly retain them, the
lawsuit says.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Karla M. Gluek, Esq.
          Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  kgluek@gustafsongluek.com
                  dnordin@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          Kara A. Elgersma, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  kae@wexlerwallace.com

SERENITY SQUARE: Solomon Seeks to Certify Collective Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned MATHILDA SOLOMON, on Behalf
of Herself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. SERENITY SQUARE LLC and GWENDOLYN CAILLIER, the
Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-01025-TAD-CBW (W.D. La.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an Order:

   1. conditionally certifying the case a Collective Action;

   2. authorizing, under Court supervision, Plaintiffs proposed
      Notice and Consent Form pursuant to Section 216(b) of the
      Fair Labor Standards Act;

   3. directing Defendants to produce to Plaintiff's counsel a
      computer-readable data file containing all Putative Class
      Members' names, last-known addresses, e-mail addresses, and
      telephone numbers within 14 days form the date of the Order;

      and

   4. authorizing a notice period allowing Putative Class Members
      90 days from the date the Notice and Consent Form is sent
      out to submit their consent to join with Plaintiff's
      counsel.

The Putative Class Members to which Plaintiff seeks to facilitate
notice consists of all individuals who:

   (1) Worked for Defendants at any time during the past three
   years; and (2) Worked as a home health care worker ("direct
   support worker") on behalf of Defendants and were paid straight

   time for all hours worked.[CC]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          George B. Recile, Esq.
          Preston L. Hayes, Esq.
          Ryan P. Monsour, Esq.
          CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY, RECILE,
            STAKELUM & HAYES, L.L.P.
          One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Metairie, LA 70001
          Telephone: (504) 833-5600
          Facsimile: (504) 613-4528

SKECHERS USA: Lawsuit by Steamfitters Pension Plan Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class action styled Steamfitters Local 449 Pension
Plan v. Skechers USA, Inc., Robert Greenberg and David Weinberg is
still pending, according to Skechers U.S.A., Inc.'s Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

The Company said, "On October 20, 2017, the Steamfitters Local 449
Pension Plan filed a securities class action, on behalf of itself
and purportedly on behalf of other shareholders who purchased
Skechers stock in a five-month period in 2015, against our company
and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, case number 1:17-cv-08107.  On
April 4, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated
complaint and on July 24, 2018 plaintiffs filed a second amended
and consolidated complaint.

"The lawsuit alleges that, between April 23 and October 22, 2015,
we made materially false statements or omissions of material fact
about the anticipated performance of our Domestic Wholesale segment
and asserts claims for unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and
equitable relief based on two counts for alleged violations of
federal securities laws.

"Given the early stage of this proceeding and the limited
information available, we cannot predict the outcome of this legal
proceeding or whether an adverse result in this case would have a
material adverse impact on our operations or financial position.
We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend this
matter vigorously."

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes
footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for
men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide.  It operates
through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International
Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales.  Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach,
California.


SPARTAN CHEMICAL: Violates Disabilities Act, Sullivan Says
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spartan Chemical
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr. on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Spartan
Chemical Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10482 (S.D.
N.Y., Nov. 12, 2018).

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

Spartan Chemical Company, Inc. manufactures and markets chemical
specialty maintenance products and industrial degreasers for the
industrial and institutional markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STAMPS.COM INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing in Feb. 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stamps.com Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court in the
case, Juan Lopez and Nicholas Dixon v. Stamps.com, Inc., has
scheduled a final hearing for February 11, 2019, to approve the
parties' settlement.

On February 8, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the company in a case entitled Juan Lopez and Nicholas
Dixon v. Stamps.com, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-01101, in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
Western Division, alleging wage and hour claims on behalf of the
company's current and former "non-exempt" hourly call center
employees.

The complaint sought class certification, unspecified damages,
unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, interest, and attorneys' fees
and costs. On July 24, 2018, the company entered into a preliminary
settlement that would resolve this matter for a non-material
payment to be distributed to the participating class members.

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and has
scheduled a final approval hearing to be held on February 11, 2019,
or on another date convenient to the court.

The Company had not accrued any material amounts related to any of
the Company’s legal proceedings as of September 30, 2018 or
December 31, 2017.

Stamps.com Inc. provides Internet-based mailing and shipping
solutions in the United States. The company offers mailing and
shipping solutions to mail and ship various mail pieces and
packages through the United States Postal Service (USPS) under the
Stamps.com and Endicia brands. Stamps.com Inc. was founded in 1996
and is headquartered in El Segundo, California.


STEVENS SECURITY: Watson et al. Seek to Certify Classes
-------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE GUNN, MICHAEL WATSON, and JACOB SAUNDERS, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. STEVENS
SECURITY & TRAINING SERVICES, INC. and AL STEVENS, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-06314 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order:

   1. certifying classes including Counts II-IV of their Second
      Amended Complaint as a class action pursuant to Rule
      23(b)v(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, stating
      in support as follows:

      For Count II:

      "all individuals who worked as security guards for Stevens
      Security between August 31, 2014 and the present, who were
      paid by the hour, and: (1) who worked for Stevens Security
      in excess of forty hours in any workweek or (2) who earned
      less than $8.25 per hour during any of their first six weeks

      of work due to uniform deductions";

      For Count III:

      "all individuals who worked as security guards for Stevens
      Security between August 31, 2014 and the present and who
      were paid at an hourly rate less than the applicable City of

      Chicago minimum wage";

      For Count IV:

      "all individuals who worked as security guards for Stevens
      Security between August 31, 2014 and the present, who were
      paid by the hour, and: (1) whose pay records show that
      Stevens Security made deductions from their hourly wages
      (other than for child support payments mandated by law and
      other than for three $80 deductions for uniforms)";

   2. appointing themselves as class representatives;

   3. appointing Christopher J. Wilmes and Matthew J. Piers of
      Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym as class counsel; and

   4. directing of notice of class action be mailed to the
      class.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Matthew J. Piers, Esq.
          Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq.
          HUGHES, SOCOL, PIERS, RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
          70 West Madison Street, Suite 4000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312-580-0100


SYNACOR INC: Amended Complaint Filed in New York Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Synacor, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that plaintiff in the
federal securities class action suit filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York filed an
amended complaint.

The Company and its Chief Executive Officer and former Chief
Financial Officer were named as defendants in a federal securities
class action lawsuit filed April 4, 2018 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The class includes persons who purchased the Company's shares
between May 4, 2016 and March 15, 2018. The plaintiff alleged that
the Company made materially false and misleading statements
regarding its contract with AT&T and the timing of revenue to be
derived therefrom, and that as a result class members suffered
losses because Synacor shares traded at artificially inflated
prices.

The plaintiff sought an unspecified amount of damages, as well as
interest, attorneys' fees and legal expenses. The court appointed a
lead plaintiff and approved plaintiff's selection of lead counsel
on July 6, 2018. On October 16, 2018 the court appointed new lead
counsel and confirmed the lead plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on November 2, 2018.

Synacor said, "The Company disputes these claims and intends to
defend them vigorously. The liabilities related to this lawsuit are
covered by D&O insurance after the Company reaches its
deductible."

Synacor, Inc. operates as a technology development, multiplatform
services, and revenue partner for video, Internet, and
communications providers; and device manufacturers, governments,
and enterprises. Synacor, Inc. was founded in 1998 and is
headquartered in Buffalo, New York.


SYNCHRONOSS TECH: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in NJ Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the
Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii has filed a
second consolidated amended complaint in the consolidated class
action suit in United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

On May 1, 2017, May 2, 2017, June 8, 2017 and June 14, 2017, four
putative class actions were filed against the Company and certain
of its officers and directors in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey (the "Securities Law Action").

After these cases were consolidated, the court appointed as lead
plaintiff Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii,
which filed, on November 20, 2017, a consolidated amended complaint
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between February 3, 2016 and June 13, 2017. On February 2, 2018,
the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
in its entirety, with prejudice.

Before that motion was decided, on August 24, 2018, lead plaintiff
filed a second consolidated amended complaint purportedly on behalf
of purchasers of the company's common stock between October 28,
2014 and June 13, 2017. The second consolidated amended complaint
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it alleges, among other
things, that the defendants made false and misleading statements of
material information concerning the Company's financial results,
business operations, and prospects.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs.


The Company believes that the asserted claims lack merit, and the
Company intends to defend against all of the claims vigorously.

Synchronoss Technologies said, "Due to the inherent uncertainties
of litigation, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the
actions at this time and can give no assurance that the asserted
claims will not have a material adverse effect on the financial
position or results of operations of the Company."

Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. provides cloud, digital, messaging,
and Internet of things platforms, products, and solutions
worldwide. Its products and services include cloud-based sync,
backup, storage and content engagement capabilities, broadband
connectivity solutions, analytics, white label messaging, and
identity/access management that enable communications service
providers, cable operators/multi-services operators, original
equipment manufacturers with embedded connectivity, and
multi-channel retailers, as well as other customers to accelerate
and monetize value-add services for secure and broadband networks
and connected devices. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. was founded
in 2000 and is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


TELENAV INC: Accrues $250,000 Deductible Payment in Gergetz Accord
------------------------------------------------------------------
Telenav, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company has
accrued the $250,000 deductible payment in fiscal 2018 in relation
to the settlement in the class action suit filed by Nathan
Gergetz.

On July 28, 2016, Nathan Gergetz filed a putative class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that Telenav violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, or TCPA.

The complaint purports to be filed on behalf of a class, and it
alleged that Telenav caused unsolicited text messages to be sent to
the plaintiff from July 6, 2016 to July 26, 2016. Plaintiffs sought
statutory and actual damages under the TCPA law, attorneys' fees
and costs of the action, and an injunction to prevent any future
violations.

A settlement was subsequently reached, and the plaintiff filed a
motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement on March
5, 2018. The court granted preliminary approval of the class action
settlement on April 30, 2018 and final approval of the settlement
on September 27, 2018.

The settlement became effective on October 30, 2018 and was paid by
the company's technology errors and omissions liability insurance
policy, after payment of the company's deductible of $250,000.

Telenav said. "We accrued the $250,000 deductible payment in fiscal
2018."

Telenav, Inc., together with its subsidiaries provides connected
car and location-based platform services in the United States and
internationally. The company operates through three segments:
Automotive, Advertising, and Mobile Navigation. Telenav, Inc. is
headquartered in Santa Clara, California.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Bid to Dismiss Maderazo Case Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
is awaiting the court's ruling on class certification bid in the
class action lawsuit entitled, Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio
Partners, L.P. d/b/a Baptist Health Systems, et al.

In Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a Baptist
Health Systems, et al., filed in June 2006 in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas, a purported class of
registered nurses employed by three unaffiliated San Antonio-area
hospital systems allege those hospital systems, including our
Baptist Health System, and other unidentified San Antonio regional
hospitals violated Section Section 1 of the federal Sherman Act by
conspiring to depress nurses' compensation and exchanging
compensation-related information among themselves in a manner that
reduced competition and suppressed the wages paid to such nurses.

The suit seeks unspecified damages (subject to trebling under
federal law), interest, costs and attorneys' fees. The case was
stayed from 2008 through mid-2015.

Tenet Healthcare said, "At this time, we are awaiting the court's
ruling on class certification and will continue to vigorously
defend ourselves against the plaintiffs' allegations. It remains
impossible at this time to predict the outcome of these proceedings
with any certainty; however, we believe that the ultimate
resolution of this matter will not have a material effect on our
business, financial condition or results of operations."

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

Tenet Healthcare Corporation operates as a diversified healthcare
services company. It operates in three segments: Hospital
Operations and Other, Ambulatory Care, and Conifer. The company was
founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


TESARO INC: Lead Plaintiff Drops Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
TESARO, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018, that the lead plaintiff in a putative class
action initiated by Roger Bowers has filed a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal Without Prejudice, ending the lawsuit.

A putative class action complaint was filed on January 17, 2018 in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
captioned Roger Bowers v. TESARO Incorporated (sic), et al., Case
No. 18-10086.  The complaint alleged that the Company and its Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer violated certain
federal securities laws, specifically under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 thereunder.  The plaintiff sought unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common
stock between March 14, 2016 and January 12, 2018.

On March 19, 2018, six separate applicants filed motions seeking
appointment as lead plaintiff.  Four of these applicants
subsequently withdrew their motions or indicated that they did not
oppose a competing motion filed by another applicant.  On May 4,
2018, the Court entered an order appointing one of the two
remaining applicants - Zev Crawley - as the lead plaintiff and
approving his selection of lead counsel for the class.

On October 12, 2018, lead counsel informed the Court that its
investigation had not revealed facts adequate to state a claim.
Accordingly, the lead plaintiff has filed a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal Without Prejudice, ending the lawsuit.

TESARO, Inc., an oncology-focused biopharmaceutical company,
identifies, acquires, develops, and commercializes cancer
therapeutics and oncology supportive care products in the United
States.  It was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Waltham,
Massachusetts.

TESLA INC: Plaintiffs Amend Complaint in Model 3 Production Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs have amended their complaint in a securities
litigation relating to production of Model 3 vehicles, according to
Tesla, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2018.

On October 10, 2017, a purported stockholder class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against Tesla, two of its current officers, and a former officer.
The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, and
seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of Tesla securities from May 4,
2016 to October 6, 2017.

The lawsuit claims that Tesla supposedly made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's preparedness to
produce Model 3 vehicles.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 23, 2018, and
defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 25, 2018.  The court
granted defendant's motion to dismiss with leave to amend.
Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on September 28, 2018.

The Company said, "We intend to file a motion to dismiss that
complaint as well.  We believe that the claims are without merit
and intend to defend against this lawsuit vigorously.  We are
unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any,
associated with this lawsuit."

Tesla, Inc., designs, develops, manufactures, and sells electric
vehicles and energy storage products in the United States, China,
Norway, and internationally.  The Company operates in two segments,
Automotive, and Energy Generation and Storage.  The Company was
formerly known as Tesla Motors, Inc. and changed its name to Tesla,
Inc. in February 2017.  Tesla, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is
headquartered in Palo Alto, California.


TESLA INC: Seeks Dismissal of Suit over 2018 CEO Performance Award
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tesla, Inc. is awaiting the Court's action on the defendants'
motion to dismiss the putative class and derivative action in the
Delaware Court of Chancery related to 2018 CEO Performance Award,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018.

As previously reported by the Class Action Reporter, a purported
Tesla stockholder made a demand on February 21, 2018, to inspect
Tesla's books and records, purportedly to investigate potential
breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the Tesla board's
approval of a conditional stock-based compensation plan for Elon
Musk, Tesla's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, in January
2018.

On June 4, 2018, a purported Tesla stockholder filed a putative
class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery
alleging that Tesla's directors breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the stock-based compensation plan.  The complaint seeks,
among other things, monetary damages and rescission or reformation
of the stock-based compensation plan.

On August 31, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.

The Company said, "We believe the claims asserted in this lawsuit
are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."

Tesla, Inc., designs, develops, manufactures, and sells electric
vehicles and energy storage products in the United States, China,
Norway, and internationally.  The Company operates in two segments,
Automotive, and Energy Generation and Storage.  The Company was
formerly known as Tesla Motors, Inc. and changed its name to Tesla,
Inc. in February 2017.  Tesla, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is
headquartered in Palo Alto, California.


TESLA INC: Still Defends Securities Suit on SolarCity Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tesla, Inc. continues to face securities litigation relating to its
acquisition of SolarCity Corporation, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

Between September 1, 2016 and October 5, 2016, seven lawsuits were
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by
purported stockholders of Tesla challenging the Company's
acquisition of SolarCity.  Following consolidation, the lawsuit
names as defendants the members of Tesla's board of directors and
alleges, among other things, that board members breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition.  The complaint
asserts both derivative claims and direct claims on behalf of a
purported class and seeks, among other relief, unspecified monetary
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.  On January 27, 2017,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the operative complaint.
Rather than respond to the defendants' motion, the plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint.  On March 17, 2017, defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint.  On December 13, 2017, the Court
heard oral argument on the motion.  On March 28, 2018, the Court
denied defendants' motion to dismiss.  Defendants filed a request
for interlocutory appeal, but the Delaware Supreme Court denied
that request, electing not to hear an appeal at this early stage of
the case.  Defendants filed their answer on May 18, 2018.  This
case will now proceed.

These plaintiffs and others filed parallel actions in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware on April 21, 2017.
Those actions have been consolidated and are stayed pending the
Chancery Court litigation.  They include claims for violations of
the federal securities laws and breach of fiduciary duties by
Tesla's board of directors.  That action is stayed pending the
Chancery Court litigation.

The Company said, "We believe that claims challenging the SolarCity
acquisition are without merit and intend to defend against them
vigorously.  We are unable to estimate the possible loss or range
of loss, if any, associated with these claims."

Tesla, Inc., designs, develops, manufactures, and sells electric
vehicles and energy storage products in the United States, China,
Norway, and internationally.  The Company operates in two segments,
Automotive, and Energy Generation and Storage.  The Company was
formerly known as Tesla Motors, Inc. and changed its name to Tesla,
Inc. in February 2017.  Tesla, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is
headquartered in Palo Alto, California.


TESLA INC: Still Faces Securities Suit on Musk's Go-Private Tweet
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tesla, Inc. continues to defend itself against the securities
litigation related to potential going private transaction based on
Elon Musk's August 7, 2018 Twitter post, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

Between August 10, 2018 and September 6, 2018, nine purported
stockholder class actions were filed against Tesla and Elon Musk in
connection with Elon Musk's August 7, 2018 Twitter post that he was
considering taking Tesla private.  All of the suits are now pending
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  Although the complaints vary in certain respects, they
each purport to assert claims for violations of federal securities
laws related to Mr. Musk's statement and seek unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of Tesla's securities.

The Company said, "We anticipate that, following the lead plaintiff
process, the lead plaintiff will file a consolidated amended
complaint.  We believe that the claims have no merit and intend to
defend against them vigorously.  We are unable to estimate the
potential loss, or range of loss, associated with these claims."

On October 17 and 25, 2018, derivative lawsuits were filed in
Delaware Court of Chancery against Mr. Musk and the members of
Tesla's Board in relation to statements made and actions connected
to a potential going private transaction.  Also on October 25,
2018, a third derivative lawsuit was filed in federal court in
Delaware against Mr. Musk and the members of the Board.  The
Company believes that the claims have no merit and intend to defend
against them vigorously.  The Company is unable to estimate the
potential loss, or range of loss, associated with these claims.

Tesla, Inc., designs, develops, manufactures, and sells electric
vehicles and energy storage products in the United States, China,
Norway, and internationally.  The Company operates in two segments,
Automotive, and Energy Generation and Storage.  The Company was
formerly known as Tesla Motors, Inc. and changed its name to Tesla,
Inc. in February 2017.  Tesla, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is
headquartered in Palo Alto, California.


TESLA INC: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Nixon Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD NIXON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. TESLA, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-06096-NGG-PK (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2018), seeks to put an end
to systemic civil rights violations committed by Defendant, against
sight-impaired, disabled individuals under the Americans with
Disability Act, within the State of New York and across the United
States.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impaired
and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to
access and read website content using his computer. The Plaintiff
uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all
individuals with visual impairments who meet the legal definition
of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of
less than or equal to 20/200. Some blind individuals who meet this
definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a
2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million
individuals in the United States are visually impaired, including
2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation
for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually
impaired persons live in the State of New York.

The Plaintiff commences this civil rights action against the
Defendants for the Defendants' failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendants' denial of full
and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its
products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its
physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under
the ADA. Because the Defendants' website is not equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired individuals, it violates the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendants' corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendants' website will thus become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired persons, the lawsuit says.

Tesla, Inc. is an American automotive and energy company based in
Palo Alto, California. The company specializes in electric car
manufacturing and, through its SolarCity subsidiary, solar panel
manufacturing.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 971-9474
          Facsimile: (718) 865-0943
          E-mail: Jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com

TETRAPHASE PHARMA: Wants IGNITE3 Suit Moved to Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------
Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the
defendants in the Ignite3-related class Action suit have moved to
transfer the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

In July 2018, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the company, its chief executive officer, its chief
scientific officer and the underwriters of the company's July 2017
public offering, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged class of those who
purchased the company's securities pursuant and/or traceable to the
company's July and August 2017 public offering and those who
purchased the company's securities between March 8, 2017 and
February 13, 2018. The complaint purports to allege claims arising
under Sections 10 and 20 of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by, among other things, making material
misstatements or omissions concerning IGNITE3. The complaint seeks,
among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs. The defendants have moved to transfer the lawsuit
to the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals said, "We believe we have valid defenses
against these claims, and will engage in a vigorous defense of such
litigation."

Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company, develops various antibiotics for the
treatment of serious and life-threatening multidrug-resistant
infections. The company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in
Watertown, Massachusetts.


TEVA PHARMA: Antitrust MDL on Generic Products Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that on October 16,
2018, the pending motions to dismiss consolidated amended
complaints related to several generic drug products were denied.

Beginning on March 2, 2016, numerous complaints have been filed in
the United States on behalf of putative classes of direct and
indirect purchasers of several generic drug products, as well as
several individual direct purchaser opt-out plaintiffs.  These
complaints, which allege that the defendants engaged in
conspiracies to fix, increase, maintain and/or stabilize the prices
of certain generic products, and/or allocate market share of
generic products, have been brought against various manufacturer
defendants, including Teva and Actavis.  The plaintiffs generally
seek injunctive relief and damages under federal antitrust law, and
damages under various state laws.

On April 6, 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") entered an order transferring such cases brought by
classes of direct or indirect purchasers for coordination or
consolidation with the multidistrict litigation currently pending
in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The panel subsequently
transferred further cases to that court and the plaintiffs filed
consolidated amended complaints on August 15, 2017.  Defendants
moved to dismiss certain of those consolidated amended complaints
on October 6, 2017.

On October 16, 2018, the pending motions to dismiss were denied.
Pursuant to orders dated February and April 2018, the court
overseeing the multidistrict litigation lifted the stay of
discovery on a limited basis to allow for document discovery and
non-merits based depositions.

Teva and Actavis deny having engaged in any conduct that would give
rise to liability with respect to the subpoenas and civil suits.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.


TEVA PHARMA: Approved Aggrenox End Payers' Pact Taken to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Orange County District Attorney and opt-outs from the end-payer
class have filed an appeal to the Second Circuit from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut's approval of the
settlement of lawsuits by Aggrenox(R) end payers, according to Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Limited's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018.

Since November 2013, numerous lawsuits have been filed in various
federal courts by purported classes of end payers for, and direct
purchasers of, Aggrenox(R) (dipyridamole/aspirin tablets) against
Boehringer Ingelheim ("BI"), the innovator, and several Teva
subsidiaries.  The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the
settlement agreement between BI and Barr entered into in August
2008 violated the antitrust laws.

A multidistrict litigation has been established in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut.  Teva and BI's
motion to dismiss was denied in March 2015.  On April 11, 2017, the
Orange County District Attorney filed a complaint for violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law based on the Aggrenox(R) patent
litigation settlement.

Teva has settled with the putative classes of direct purchasers and
end payers, as well as with the opt-out direct purchaser
plaintiffs, and with two of the opt-out end payer plaintiffs,
Humana and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana.  A provision has
been included in the financial statements for this matter.

The district court overruled certain objections to the end payer
settlement, including objections made by the Orange County District
Attorney, and approved such settlement.  The District Attorney
subsequently appealed the court's approval to the Second Circuit.
Opt-outs from the end payer class have also appealed certain
aspects of the court's approval order to the Second Circuit.  Those
appeals remain pending.

Annual sales of Aggrenox(R) were approximately US$340 million at
the time of the settlement and approximately US$455 million at the
time generic competition began in July 2015.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.


TEVA PHARMA: Bench Trial on FTC's AndroGel Claims Set for Feb. 2019
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A bench trial on the claims of the Federal Trade Commission related
to AndroGel(R) 1% (testosterone gel) is scheduled to start February
25, 2019, according to Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

In January 2009, the Federal Trade Commission and the State of
California filed a complaint for injunctive relief in California
federal court alleging that a September 2006 patent lawsuit
settlement between Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Watson"), now a
Teva subsidiary, and Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Solvay")
relating to AndroGel(R) 1% (testosterone gel) violated the
antitrust laws.  Additional lawsuits alleging similar claims were
later filed by private plaintiffs (including plaintiffs purporting
to represent classes of similarly situated claimants as well as
direct purchaser plaintiffs filing separately) and the various
actions were consolidated in a multidistrict litigation in Georgia
federal court.

The defendants filed various summary judgment motions on September
29, 2017, which the district court granted in part, and denied in
part, on June 13, 2018.

The direct-purchaser plaintiffs moved for class certification on
February 9, 2018 and that motion was denied on July 16, 2018.  The
direct-purchaser plaintiffs have not sought to immediately appeal
the denial of such class certification.  As a result, the three
direct purchasers that had sought class certification can proceed
as individual plaintiffs, but any other member of the proposed
direct purchaser class will need to file a separate, individual
lawsuit if it wishes to participate in the litigation.

The court has ordered a bench trial on the FTC's claims to start on
February 25, 2019, with a jury trial on the private plaintiffs'
claims to be scheduled thereafter.

Annual sales of AndroGel(R) 1% at the time of the settlement were
approximately US$350 million, and annual sales of the AndroGel
franchise (AndroGel(R) 1% and AndroGel(R) 1.62%) were approximately
US$140 million and US$1.05 billion, respectively, at the time
Actavis launched its generic version of AndroGel(R) 1% in November
2015.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.


TEVA PHARMA: Bid for Direct-Buyer Class Pending in Lamictal Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a purported class action related to lamotrigine (generic
Lamictal(R)), the Direct-Purchaser Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification has been fully briefed and remains pending, according
to Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018.

In February 2012, two purported classes of direct-purchaser
plaintiffs sued GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK") and Teva in New Jersey
federal court for alleged violations of the antitrust laws in
connection with their settlement of patent litigation involving
lamotrigine (generic Lamictal(R)) entered into in February 2005.
The plaintiffs claim that the settlement agreement unlawfully
delayed generic entry and seek unspecified damages.  In December
2012, the court dismissed the case, but in June 2015, the Third
Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

On February 19, 2016, Teva and GSK filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on
November 7, 2016.

In the meantime, litigation has resumed before the district court,
and direct-purchaser plaintiffs moved for class certification in
June 2018.  That motion has been fully briefed and remains
pending.

Annual sales of Lamictal(R) were approximately US$950 million at
the time of the settlement, and approximately US$2.3 billion at the
time generic competition commenced in July 2008.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.


TEVA PHARMA: Court Says United Healthcare Bound by Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has uphold its September 19, 2018 ruling that United Healthcare
Services is bound by the settlement agreement related to
PROVIGIL(R), according to Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

In April 2006, certain subsidiaries of Teva were named in a class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  The case alleges that the settlement
agreements entered into between Cephalon, Inc., now a Teva
subsidiary ("Cephalon"), and various generic pharmaceutical
companies in late 2005 and early 2006 to resolve patent litigation
involving certain finished modafinil products (marketed as
PROVIGIL(R)) were unlawful because they had the effect of excluding
generic competition.  The case also alleges that Cephalon
improperly asserted its PROVIGIL patent against the generic
pharmaceutical companies.

The first lawsuit was brought by King Drug Company of Florence,
Inc. on behalf of itself and as a proposed class action on behalf
of any other person or entity that purchased PROVIGIL directly from
Cephalon.  Similar allegations were made in other complaints,
including those filed on behalf of a proposed class of end payers
of PROVIGIL, by certain individual end payers, by certain retail
chain pharmacies and by Apotex, Inc. (collectively, these cases are
referred to as the "Philadelphia Modafinil Action").

Separately, Apotex challenged Cephalon's PROVIGIL patent, and in
October 2011, the court found the patent to be invalid and
unenforceable based on inequitable conduct.  This decision was
affirmed on appeal in April 2013.

Teva has either settled or reached agreements in principle to
settle with all of the plaintiffs in the Philadelphia Modafinil
Action.  However, one of the end payers, United Healthcare
Services, took the position that it is not bound by the settlement
that was agreed to on its behalf and brought a separate action in
Minnesota federal court, which was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where Teva had
filed suit to enforce the settlement.

A bench trial was held in April 2018, and the court issued its
opinion on September 19, 2018, ruling in Teva's favor and holding
that United Healthcare is bound by the settlement.

On October 16, 2018, United Healthcare moved the court to amend its
final judgment and to clarify that the final judgment does not
address how settlement proceeds should be allocated among United
Healthcare and the other end payers.  That motion was denied on
October 30, 2018.

Additionally, Cephalon and Teva have reached a settlement with 48
state attorneys general, which was approved by the court on
November 7, 2016.  Certain other claimants, including the State of
California, have given notices of potential claims related to these
settlement agreements.  Teva has produced documents and information
in response to discovery requests issued by the California Attorney
General's office as part of its ongoing investigation of generic
competition to PROVIGIL.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.


TEVA PHARMA: Effexor(R) Litigation Resumes in District Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the class action
litigation related to venlafaxine (generic Effexor(R) XR) has
resumed before the district court.

In December 2011, three groups of plaintiffs sued Wyeth and Teva
for alleged violations of the antitrust laws in connection with
their settlement of patent litigation involving extended release
venlafaxine (generic Effexor(R) XR) entered into in November 2005.
The cases were filed by a purported class of direct purchasers, by
a purported class of indirect purchasers and by certain chain
pharmacies in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey.  The plaintiffs claim that the settlement agreement
between Wyeth and Teva unlawfully delayed generic entry.

In October 2014, the court granted Teva's motion to dismiss in the
direct purchaser cases, after which the parties agreed that the
court's reasoning applied equally to the indirect purchaser cases.
Plaintiffs appealed, and on August 21, 2017, the Third Circuit
reversed the district court's decision and remanded for further
proceedings.

On November 20, 2017, Teva and Wyeth filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.  That petition was
denied on February 20, 2018, and litigation has resumed before the
district court.

Annual sales of Effexor(R) XR were approximately US$2.6 billion at
the time of settlement and at the time generic versions were
launched in July 2010.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.


TEVA PHARMA: Faces Various Suits on Opioid Sales and Distribution
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the Company and
various affiliates are defendants in numerous lawsuits, including a
multidistrict litigation in Ohio, related to opioid sales and
distribution.

Beginning in May 2014, various complaints were filed with respect
to opioid sales and distribution against various Teva affiliates,
along with several other pharmaceutical companies, by a number of
cities, counties, states and agencies across the country.  There
are actions currently pending against Teva and its affiliates that
have been brought by various states, subdivisions and state
agencies in both state and federal courts.  Most of the federal
cases have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in the
Northern District of Ohio ("MDL Proceeding").

In addition to the complaints filed by states, state agencies and
political subdivisions, over 1,500 total lawsuits have been filed
in various states, both in state and federal courts.  Most of the
federal class action cases, as well as state cases that have been
removed, have been consolidated into the MDL Proceeding.

Complaints asserting claims under similar provisions of different
state law, generally contend that the defendants allegedly engaged
in improper marketing and distribution of opioids, including
ACTIQ(R) and FENTORA.  The complaints also assert claims related to
Teva's generic opioid products.

In addition, several dozen complaints filed by cities, counties and
the State of Delaware have named Anda, Inc. (and other distributors
and manufacturers) alleging that Anda failed to develop and
implement systems sufficient to identify suspicious orders of
opioid products and prevent the abuse and diversion of such
products to individuals who used them for other than legitimate
medical purposes.

Plaintiffs seek a variety of remedies, including restitution, civil
penalties, disgorgement of profits, treble damages, attorneys' fees
and injunctive relief.  None of the complaints specify the exact
amount of damages at issue.

Teva and its affiliates that are defendants in the various lawsuits
deny all allegations asserted in these complaints and have filed or
will file motions to dismiss where possible.

On August 13, 2018, the judge in the MDL Proceeding issued a
revised case management order setting the first trial for September
2019.  The court has also commenced motion to dismiss briefing on
certain issues in bellwether cases and the first set of briefing
was completed in July 2018.

On October 5, 2018, the court issued a Report & Recommendation on
the first motion to dismiss filed in the bellwether cases, in which
it denied defendants' motions to dismiss except for the common law
public nuisance claim, which was dismissed.  Motions to dismiss in
eight additional similar cases remain pending.

In addition, discovery has commenced in the MDL Proceeding for
three cases based in Ohio and fact discovery is ongoing.  Other
cases remain pending in various state courts, including Oklahoma,
where a trial is scheduled to begin in May 2019.

In some jurisdictions, such as Connecticut, Illinois, New York,
Pennsylvania and Texas, certain state court cases have been
transferred to a single court within their respective state court
systems for coordinated pretrial proceedings.  Several state courts
have allowed discovery to begin.

On April 27, 2018, Teva received subpoena requests from the DOJ
seeking documents relating to the manufacture, marketing and sale
of opioids.  Teva is complying with this subpoena.

In addition, a number of state attorneys general, including a
coordinated multistate effort, have initiated investigations into
sales and marketing practices of Teva and its affiliates with
respect to opioids.  Other states are conducting their own
investigations outside of the multistate group.  Teva is
cooperating with these ongoing investigations and cannot predict
the outcome at this time.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.


TEVA PHARMA: Lidoderm Antitrust Accords Receive Final Court Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the district court
has given final approval for the Company's settlements with the
direct purchaser and the end-payer plaintiffs in their antitrust
lawsuits over Lidoderm(R).

In November 2013, a putative class action was filed in Pennsylvania
federal court against Actavis, Inc. and certain of its affiliates,
alleging that Watson's 2012 patent lawsuit settlement with Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc. relating to Lidoderm(R) (lidocaine transdermal
patches) violated the antitrust laws.

Additional lawsuits containing similar allegations followed on
behalf of other classes of putative direct purchaser and end-payer
plaintiffs, as well as retailers acting in their individual
capacities, and those cases were consolidated as a multidistrict
litigation in federal court in California.  On February 21, 2017,
the court granted both the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' and the
direct purchaser plaintiffs' motions for class certification.

Teva reached an agreement to settle the multidistrict litigation
with the various plaintiff groups in the first quarter of 2018.  A
provision for these settlements has been included in the financial
statements, and in September 2018, the district court gave final
approval for the settlements with the direct purchaser and
end-payer plaintiffs.

The FTC has also filed suit to challenge the Lidoderm(R)
settlement, initially bringing antitrust claims against Watson,
Endo, and Allergan in Pennsylvania federal court in March 2016.
The FTC later voluntarily dismissed those claims and refiled them
(along with a stipulated order for permanent injunction to settle
its claims against Endo) in the same California federal court in
which the private multidistrict litigation was pending.

On February 3, 2017, the State of California filed its own
complaint against Allergan and Watson, and that complaint was also
assigned to the California federal court presiding over the
multidistrict litigation.  After the FTC dismissed its claims in
Pennsylvania, but before it re-filed them in California, Watson and
Allergan filed suit against the FTC in the same Pennsylvania
federal court where the agency had initially brought its lawsuit,
seeking a declaratory judgment that the FTC's claims are not
authorized by statute, or, in the alternative, that the FTC does
not have statutory authority to pursue disgorgement.

The federal court in California stayed both the FTC's claims and
the State of California's claims against Allergan and Watson,
pending the outcome of the declaratory judgment action in
Pennsylvania.

On October 29, 2018, the Pennsylvania court dismissed that
declaratory judgment action for lack of jurisdiction.

Annual sales of Lidoderm(R) at the time of the settlement were
approximately US$1.2 billion, and were approximately US$1.4 billion
at the time Actavis launched its generic version in September
2013.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.


TEVA PHARMA: Parties in Suit over Namenda IR Deal Sent to Mediation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York has lifted the stay on the
lawsuits related to the settlement agreement between Forest
Laboratories, LLC ("Forest") and several generic manufacturers, and
has referred the parties to mediation.

Since May 2015, two lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York by a purported class of
direct purchasers of, and a purported class of end payers for,
Namenda IR(R) (memantine hydrochloride) against Forest
Laboratories, LLC ("Forest"), the innovator, and several generic
manufacturers, including Teva.  Teva is only a defendant in the end
payer case, in which defendants moved to dismiss the claims made by
the end payers.

The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the settlement
agreements between Forest and the generic manufacturers (including
Forest's November 2009 settlement agreement with Teva) violated the
antitrust laws.

On September 13, 2016, the court denied defendants' motions to
dismiss, but stayed the cases with respect to the claims brought
under state law, which are the only claims asserted against Teva.

The court lifted the stay on September 10, 2018 and has referred
the parties to mediation.

Annual sales of Namenda IR(R) at the time of the settlement were
approximately US$1.1 billion, and are currently approximately
US$1.4 billion.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.


TEVA PHARMA: Still Defends Actos Purchasers' Antitrust Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited continues to defend against
antitrust lawsuits by direct purchasers of Actos(R) and Acto plus
Met(R) (pioglitazone and pioglitazone plus metformin), according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2018.

Since January 2014, numerous lawsuits have been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York by purported
classes of end payers for and direct purchasers of Actos(R) and
Acto plus Met(R) (pioglitazone and pioglitazone plus metformin)
against Takeda, the innovator, and several generic manufacturers,
including Teva, Actavis and Watson.  The lawsuits allege, among
other things, that the settlement agreements between Takeda and the
generic manufacturers (including Takeda's December 2010 settlement
agreement with Teva) violated the antitrust laws.  The Court
dismissed the end payer lawsuits against all defendants in
September 2015.

In October 2015, the end payers appealed that ruling, and on March
22, 2016, a stipulation was filed dismissing Teva and the other
generic defendants from the appeal.

On February 8, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
affirmed the dismissal in part and vacated and remanded the
dismissal in part with respect to the claims against Takeda.

The direct purchasers' case had been stayed pending resolution of
the appeal in the end payer matter, and the direct purchasers
amended their complaint for a second time after the Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit's decision.  Defendants had moved to
dismiss the direct purchasers' original complaint.  Supplemental
briefing on that motion based on the new allegations in the amended
complaint was completed on June 29, 2017 and oral argument was held
on October 23, 2018.

At the time of the settlement, annual sales of Actos(R) were
approximately US$3.7 billion and annual sales of ACTO plus Met(R)
were approximately US$500 million.  At the time generic competition
commenced in August 2012, annual sales of Actos(R) were
approximately US$2.8 billion and annual sales of ACTO plus Met(R)
were approximately US$430 million.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.


TEVA PHARMA: Still Defends Antitrust Lawsuits over Niaspan Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited continues to defend itself
against antitrust lawsuits, including a multidistrict litigation in
Pennsylvania, related to Niaspan(R), according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

In April 2013, purported classes of direct purchasers of, and end
payers for, Niaspan(R) (extended release niacin) sued Teva and
Abbott for violating the antitrust laws by entering into a
settlement agreement in April 2005 to resolve patent litigation
over the product.  A multidistrict litigation has been established
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

Throughout 2015 and in January 2016, several individual direct
purchaser opt-out plaintiffs filed complaints with allegations
nearly identical to those of the direct purchaser class.

In October 2016, the District Attorney for Orange County,
California, filed a similar complaint, which has since been
amended, in California state court, alleging violations of state
law.

Defendants moved to strike the District Attorney's claims for
restitution and civil penalties to the extent not limited to
alleged activity occurring in Orange County.  The Superior Court
denied that motion, but defendants appealed, and on May 31, 2018,
the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reversed and
instructed the Superior Court to grant defendants' motion.

The District Attorney petitioned the California Supreme Court to
review the Court of Appeal's decision.  The petition was granted on
August 22, 2018, and the District Attorney filed its opening brief
before the California Supreme Court on September 21, 2018.

Annual sales of Niaspan(R) were approximately US$416 million at the
time of the settlement and approximately US$1.1 billion at the time
generic competition commenced in September 2013.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.


TEVA PHARMA: Still Defends Consolidated Baker-Grodko Class Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited continues to face the
consolidated putative securities class action lawsuit of Elliot
Grodko and Barry Baker, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018.

On August 21 and 30, 2017, each of Elliot Grodko and Barry Baker
filed a putative securities class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania purportedly on behalf of
purchasers of Teva's securities between November 15, 2016 and
August 2, 2017 seeking unspecified damages, legal fees, interest,
and costs.

The complaints allege that Teva and certain of its current and
former officers violated the federal securities laws and Israeli
securities laws by making false and misleading statements in
connection with Teva's acquisition and integration of Actavis
Generics.

On November 1, 2017, the court consolidated the Baker and Grodko
cases.  On April 10, 2018, the court granted Teva's motion to
transfer the consolidated action to the District of Connecticut
where the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation is currently
pending.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.


TEVA PHARMA: Still Defends Ontario Teachers Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited continues to defend itself
in putative securities class action, which is lead by the Ontario
Teachers' Pension Plan Board, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

On November 6, 2016 and December 27, 2016, two putative securities
class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against Teva and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.  After those two lawsuits were
consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, the court appointed the Ontario Teachers'
Pension Plan Board as lead plaintiff (the "Ontario Teachers
Securities Litigation").

The lead plaintiff then filed a consolidated amended complaint.  On
December 1, 2017, Teva and the current and former officer and
director defendants subsequently filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, with prejudice.  On April 3, 2018,
the court granted the motions to dismiss without prejudice.

Lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on June 22, 2018,
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Teva's securities between
February 6, 2014 and August 3, 2017.  The second complaint asserts
that Teva and certain of its current and former officers and
directors violated federal securities laws in connection with
Teva's alleged failure to disclose pricing strategies for various
drugs in its generic drug portfolio and by making allegedly false
or misleading statements in certain offering materials issued
during the class period.  The second complaint seeks unspecified
damages, legal fees, interest, and costs.

Teva and the current and former officer and director defendants
filed motions to dismiss the second complaint on September 14,
2018.

Lead plaintiff's opposition to the motions to dismiss was due on
November 9, 2018.  No further updates were provided in the
Company's SEC filings.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.


TEVA PHARMA: Suit over Employee Stock Purchase Plan Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the lawsuit over an
Employee Stock Purchase Plan is still stayed.

On July 17, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio derivatively on behalf of the
Teva Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and alternatively as a putative
class action lawsuit on behalf of individuals who purchased Teva
stock through that plan.

That lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, legal fees, interest and
costs.  The complaint alleges that Teva failed to maintain adequate
financial controls based on the facts underpinning Teva's FCPA DPA
and also based on allegations substantially similar to those in the
Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation.

On November 29, 2017, the court granted Teva's motion to transfer
the litigation to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut where the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation is
pending.

As reported by the Class Action Reporter, on December 29, 2017, the
parties jointly moved to stay the case pending resolution of the
motions to dismiss filed in the consolidated putative securities
class action, which the court granted on February 12, 2018.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.


TEVA PHARMA: Unit Still Defends Antitrust Suit over Intuniv Accord
------------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited's unit, Actavis, continues
to defend itself against a consolidated lawsuit over alleged
violations of various state consumer protection and antitrust laws
when it entered into a settlement agreement with Shire companies
related to the ADHD drug Intuniv, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

In November 2016, three putative indirect purchaser class actions
were filed in federal courts in Wisconsin, Massachusetts and
Florida against Shire U.S., Inc. and Shire LLC (collectively,
"Shire") and Actavis, alleging that Shire's 2013 patent litigation
settlement with Actavis related to the ADHD drug Intuniv(R)
(guanfacine) violated various state consumer protection and
antitrust laws.

On December 30, 2016 and January 11, 2017, two additional similar
actions were filed, also in Massachusetts federal court, against
Shire and Actavis or Teva (as successor to Actavis) by putative
classes of direct purchaser plaintiffs.

All five cases are now in Massachusetts federal court and on March
10, 2017, both the indirect purchaser plaintiffs and the direct
purchaser plaintiffs filed consolidated amended complaints.

Annual sales of Intuniv(R) were approximately US$335 million at the
time of the settlement, and approximately US$327 million at the
time generic competition began in 2014.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.


TG THERAPEUTICS: Reinmann Class Action Pending in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
TG Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the purported
securities class action suit entitled, Randall Reinmann v. TG
Therapeutics Inc., and Michael S. Weiss, is pending.

In October 2018, a purported securities class action complaint was
filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and one of its officers on behalf of all
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired TG Therapeutics
common stock between June 4, 2018 and September 25, 2018 (the
"Class Period").

The case is captioned Randall Reinmann v. TG Therapeutics Inc., and
Michael S. Weiss, Case No. 1:18-cv-09104-KPF. The complaint alleges
that, throughout the Class Period, the Company made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose various facts and
circumstances regarding its UNITY-CLL study allegedly in violation
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

TG Therapeutic said, "The action remains pending and is in the
early stages of litigation, and the Company intends to vigorously
contest the claims in the complaint."

TG Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the
acquisition, development, and commercialization of novel treatments
for B-cell malignancies and autoimmune diseases in the United
States.  TG Therapeutics, Inc. was incorporated in 1993 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


THOMAS DART: Hayes Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Hayes,
individually and for a class, the Plaintiff, vs. Thomas Dart,
Sheriff of Cook County, and Cook County, Illinois, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-04657 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff moves the Court
to certify a class of:

   "all individuals who were prescribed by a medical provider at
   the Cook County Jail and used either a crutch, walker, or cane
   to attend court at Leighton from August 2, 2016 to the date of
   judgment and required assistance moving up or down the
   ramps at the lower level of Leighton."[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Patrick W. Morrissey, Esq.
          Thomas G. Morrissey, Esq.
          10150 S. Western Ave.
          Chicago, IL. 60643
          Telephone: (773) 233-7900

TOUS USA: Figueroa Files ADA Suit v. Jewelry Store
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tous USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Jose Figueroa on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tous USA, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-10490 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 12, 2018).

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

Tous is a jewelry store in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRANSDIGM GROUP: Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
TransDigm Group, Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2018, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, that the
company continues to defend itself from a consolidated class action
lawsuit entitled, In re TransDigm Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio.

The company and certain of its current or former officers and
directors are defendants in a consolidated securities class action
captioned In re TransDigm Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01677-DCN (N.D. Ohio).  

The cases were originally filed on August 10, 2017, and September
18, 2017 and were consolidated on December 5, 2017. A consolidated
amended complaint was filed on February 16, 2018.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false or misleading
statements with respect to, or failed to disclose, the impact of
certain alleged business practices in connection with sales to the
U.S. government on the Company's growth and profitability. The
plaintiffs assert claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.  

In addition, the company, as nominal defendant, and certain of its
current or former officers and directors are defendants in a
shareholder derivative action captioned Sciabacucchi v. Howley et
al., No. 1:17-cv-1971-DCN (N.D. Ohio). The case was filed on
September 19, 2017.  

The plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty and other claims
arising out of substantially the same actions or inactions alleged
in the securities class actions. This action has been stayed
pending the outcome of a motion to dismiss on the securities class
action.  

Although the company is only a nominal defendant in the derivative
action, the company could have indemnification obligations and/or
be required to advance the costs and expenses of the officer and
director defendants in the action.

TransDigm Group said, "We intend to vigorously defend these matters
and believe they are without merit. We also believe we have
sufficient insurance coverage available for these matters.
Therefore, we do not expect these matters to have a material
adverse impact on our financial condition or results of operations.
However, given the preliminary status of the litigation, it is
difficult to predict the likelihood of an adverse outcome or
estimate a range of any potential loss."

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

TransDigm Group Incorporated designs, produces, and supplies
aircraft components in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in three segments: Power & Control, Airframe, and
Non-aviation. TransDigm Group Incorporated was founded in 1993 and
is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.


TRANSUNION RENTAL: $425K Settlement Has Prelim Approval
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification
of Settlement Class in the case captioned KELLISA
RONQUILLO-GRIFFIN, KHOI NGUYEN, and RUSSELL SMITH, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v.
TRANSUNION RENTAL SCREENING SOLUTIONS, INC. and TRANSATEL
(BARBADOS), INC., Defendants. Case No. 3:17-cv-129-JM-BLM. (S.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiffs Kelissa Ronquillo, a/k/a Kelissa Ronquillo-Griffin,
individually and on behalf of Class Members filed a Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification
of Settlement Class in the above-captioned action.

The Court preliminarily finds that the Settlement of the Action, on
the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement and the
exhibits thereto, is in all respects fundamentally fair,
reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement
Class Members, taking into consideration the benefits to Settlement
Class Members; the strength and weaknesses of Plaintiffs' case; the
complexity, expense and probable duration of further litigation;
and the risk and delay inherent in possible appeals. The Court
finds that notice of the Settlement should be given to persons in
the Settlement Class and a full hearing should be held on approval
of the Settlement. The provisions of the Settlement Agreement are
preliminarily approved and the Parties shall comply with its
terms.

The Court preliminarily approves the $425,000 Common Fund as fair,
reasonable and adequate for members of the Settlement Class. The
Defendants will deposit the Common Fund with the Settlement
Administrator within the timeframe set forth in the Agreement. The
Court preliminarily approves the process set forth in the Agreement
for reviewing, approving and paying claims from the Common Fund.

The last day submit claims will be one hundred thirty (130) days
after the date of this order granting preliminary approval to the
settlement. The Court also preliminarily approves the service
awards that will be sought by the Plaintiffs to be paid from the
Common Fund.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 1, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7xek7cv from Leagle.com.

Kelissa Ronquillo-Griffin, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Khoi Nguyen, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated & Russell Smith, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Abbas Kazerounian -- ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerounian Law Group, APC,
Jason A. Ibey --  jason@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group, APC,
Joshua B. Swigart -- josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde &
Swigart, Yana A. Hart -- yana@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde &
Swigart, Daniel G. Shay -- DanielShay@SanDiegoBankruptcyNow.com --
Law Offices of Daniel G. Shay & Nicholas Ryan Barthel --
nicholas@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group APC.

TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Cristina Anastassia Guido -- cguido@stroock.com  -- Stroock &
Stroock & Lavan LLP, Julia Beatrice Strickland --
jstrickland@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Shannon
E. Dudic -- sdudic@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP &
Stephen J. Newman -- snewman@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock &
Lavan LLP.

Transactel (Barbados), Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda
Catherine Fitzsimmons -- Amanda.Fitzsimmons@dlapiper.com -- DLA
Piper LLP, Edward D. Totino -- edward.totino@dlapiper.com -- DLA
Piper LLP & Perrie M. Weiner, DLA Piper LLP.


TREEHOUSE FOODS: PERS Mississippi's Bid for Class Status Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
TreeHouse Foods, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2018, that the Public Employees' Retirement
Systems of Mississippi's motion to certify a class remains pending
and the next status hearing is scheduled for December 20, 2018.

On November 16, 2016, a purported TreeHouse shareholder filed a
class action captioned Tarara v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-10632, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against TreeHouse and certain of its
officers.

The complaint, amended on March 24, 2017, is purportedly brought on
behalf of all purchasers of TreeHouse common stock from January 20,
2016 through and including November 2, 2016, asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks, among other things,
damages and costs and expenses.

On December 22, 2016, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed
an action captioned Wells v. Reed, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-16359,
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against TreeHouse
and certain of its officers.  This complaint, purportedly brought
derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse, asserts state law claims
against certain officers for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment, and corporate waste.

On February 7, 2017, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed
an action captioned Lavin v. Reed, Case No. 17-cv-01014, in the
Northern District of Illinois, against TreeHouse and certain of its
officers.  This complaint, like Wells, is purportedly brought
derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse, and it asserts state law
claims against certain officers for breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and
corporate waste.

All three complaints make substantially similar allegations (though
the amended complaint in Tarara now contains additional detail).
Essentially, the complaints allege that TreeHouse, under the
authority and control of the individual defendants: (i) made
certain false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and future prospects; and (ii) failed to
disclose that (a) the Company's private label business was
underperforming; (b) the Company's Flagstone business was
underperforming; (c) the Company's acquisition strategy was
underperforming; (d) the Company had overstated its full-year 2016
guidance; and (e) TreeHouse's statements lacked reasonable basis.
The complaints allege that these actions artificially inflated the
market price of TreeHouse common stock during the class period,
thus purportedly harming investors.

The Company said, "We believe that these claims are without merit
and intend to defend against them vigorously."

Since its initial docketing, the Tarara matter has been
re-captioned as Public Employees' Retirement Systems of Mississippi
v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al., in accordance with the Court's
order appointing Public Employees' Retirement Systems of
Mississippi as the lead plaintiff.

On May 26, 2017, the Public Employees' defendants filed a motion to
dismiss, which the court denied on February 12, 2018.  On April 12,
2018, the Public Employees' defendants filed their answer to the
amended complaint.

On April 23, 2018, the parties filed a joint status report with the
Court, describing the nature of the case and issues involved, as
well as setting forth a proposed discovery and briefing schedule
for the Court's consideration.

On July 13, 2018, lead plaintiff filed a motion to certify the
class, and defendants filed their response in opposition to the
motion to certify the class on October 8, 2018.  The motion to
certify remains pending before the Court.  The next status hearing
is scheduled for December 20, 2018.

Additionally, due to the similarity of the complaints, the parties
in Wells and Lavin have entered stipulations deferring the
litigation until the earlier of (i) the court in Public Employees'
entering an order resolving defendants' anticipated motion to
dismiss therein or (ii) plaintiffs' counsel receiving notification
of a settlement of Public Employees' or until otherwise agreed to
by the parties.  On September 27, 2018, the parties in Wells and
Lavin filed joint motions for entry of agreed orders further
deferring the matters in light of the Public Employees' Court's
denial of the motion to dismiss in February 2018.  The Wells and
Lavin Courts entered the agreed orders further deferring the
matters on September 27, 2018 and October 10, 2018, respectively.

In Lavin, the parties filed a joint status report on the progress
of the related litigation on October 26, 2017.  The Lavin parties
also filed additional status reports with the Court on March 12,
2018 and June 19, 2018.  

There is no set status date in Lavin at this time.  The next status
date in Wells is set for January 7, 2019.

TreeHouse Foods, Inc. operates as a food and beverage manufacturer
in the United States, Canada, and Italy. The company operates
through Baked Goods, Beverages, Condiments, Meals, and Snacks
segments. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. was founded in 1862 and is based in
Oak Brook, Illinois.


UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: 2nd Cir Appeal Filed in Frankfurt-Trust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiff Kapitalforeningen Laegernes Invest filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled FRANKFURT-TRUST
Investment Luxemburg AG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. United Technologies Corporation, et al., Case
No. 17-cv-3570, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 9, 2018, Judge
Victor Marrero granted the Defendants' renewed motion dismiss the
second amended complaint in the case.

Lead Plaintiff Kapitalforeningen Laegernes Invest brings the
putative class action on behalf of itself and other stock
purchasers and acquirers of Defendant United Technologies Corp.'s
("UTC") stock.  Kapitalforeningen alleges that UTC and its senior
executives made materially false and misleading statements and
omissions in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 about UTC's business and projected earnings per share
for the 2015 fiscal year.

The appellate case is captioned as FRANKFURT-TRUST Investment
Luxemburg AG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. United Technologies Corporation, et al., Case No.
18-3208, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Kapitalforeningen Laegernes Invest is
represented by:

          Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          E-mail: kjustice@ktmc.com

Defendants-Appellees United Technologies Corporation, Gregory J.
Hayes, Akhil Johri, Alain M. Bellemare and David Gitlin are
represented by:

          William D. Savitt, Esq.
          WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
          51 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 403-1000
          E-mail: WDSavitt@wlrk.com


UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Class Certification Sought in Amy G. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned AMY G. and GARY G.,
individually and as representatives of the class of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, vs. UNITEDHEALTHCARE and
UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, the Defendants, Case 2:17-cv-00413-DN-EJF
(D. Utah), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order to certify a
class of:

   "beneficiaries who received wilderness treatment or treatment
   in a wilderness setting for mental health and behavior
   disorders, whose claims were denied by the defendants, United
   Healthcare Services, Inc. and United Behavioral Health based
   upon a common practice and uniform decision and without
   evaluating each claim on its own merits or engaging in a
   meaningful dialogue or communication with the insured parties."

According to the complaint, UBH has a systematic and consistent
practice of excluding from coverage all claims for wilderness
treatment on the basis that is experimental, investigational, and
unproven. Its corporate representative testified that all
wilderness treatment claims were denied on this basis. Amy and
Gary's claims for A.G.'s treatment at Second Nature were excluded
for this specific reason. Hundreds of other beneficiaries of
UBH-insured and UBH-administered ERISA plans had their wilderness
treatment claims denied based on this corporate policy. Amy and
Gary's claims were common and typical compared to other UBH
beneficiaries whose wilderness treatment claims were excluded from
coverage. They and their counsel are adequate representatives of
the proposed class members. Thus, all the elements of Rule 23(a)
are met, the lawsuit says.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

          Brian S. King, Esq.
          BRIAN S. KING, PC
          336 South 300 East, No. 200
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 532-1739
          E-mail: brian@briansking.com

               - and -

          Brent D. Wride, Esq.
          RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER P.C.
          36 South State Street No. 1400
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 532-1500
          E-mail: bwride@rqn.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Chris Martinez, Esq.
          April N. Ross, Esq.
          Jennifer Romano, Esq.
          Andrew Holmer, Esq.
          E-mail: martinez.chris@dorsey.com
                  aross@crowell.com
                  jromano@crowell.com
                  aholmer@crowell.com

US STEEL: Pennsylvania Court Narrows Claims in Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Court in the Western District of Pennsylvania has
granted in part and denied in part the class action Defendants'
motion to drop the plaintiffs' claims, according to United States
Steel Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2018.

On October 2, 2017, an Amended Shareholder Class Action Complaint
was filed in Federal Court in the Western District of Pennsylvania
consolidating previously-filed actions.  Separately, four related
shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in State and Federal
courts in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The underlying consolidated class action lawsuit alleges that U.S.
Steel, certain current and former officers, an upper level manager
of the Company and the financial underwriters who participated in
the August 2016 secondary public offering (collectively,
Defendants) violated federal securities laws in making false
statements and/or failing to discover and disclose material
information regarding the financial condition of the Company.

The lawsuit claims that this conduct caused a prospective class of
plaintiffs to sustain damages during the period from January 27,
2016 to April 25, 2017 as a result of the prospective class
purchasing the Company's common stock at artificially inflated
prices and/or suffering losses when the price of the common stock
dropped.

The derivative lawsuits generally make the same allegations against
the same officers and also allege that certain current and former
members of the Board of Directors failed to exercise appropriate
control and oversight over the Company and were unjustly
compensated.  The plaintiffs seek to recover losses that were
allegedly sustained.

The class action Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' claims.
On September 29, 2018 the Court ruled on those motions granting
them in part and denying them in part.

The Company is vigorously defending the remaining claims.

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

United States Steel Corporation produces and sells flat-rolled and
tubular steel products primarily in North America and Europe. It
operates through three segments: Flat-Rolled Products
(Flat-Rolled), U. S. Steel Europe (USSE), and Tubular Products
(Tubular). United States Steel Corporation was founded in 1901 and
is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Faces 3 Class Suits over Ultratech Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Veeco Instruments Inc. expects the consolidation of three purported
class action complaints, including the "Wolther" case, related to
its acquisition of Ultratech, Inc., according to Veeco's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

On June 8, 2018, an Ultratech shareholder who received Veeco stock
as part of the consideration for the Ultratech acquisition filed a
purported class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned Wolther v.
Maheshwari et al., Case No. 18CV329690, on behalf of himself and
others who purchased or acquired shares of Veeco pursuant to the
registration statement and prospectus which Veeco filed with the
SEC in connection with the Ultratech acquisition (the "Wolther
Action").

The complaint seeks to recover damages and fees under Sections 11,
12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for, among other things,
alleged false/misleading statements in the registration statement
and prospectus relating to the Ultratech acquisition, relating
primarily to the alleged failure to disclose delays in the advanced
packaging business, increased MOCVD competition in China, and an
intellectual property dispute.

On August 2 and August 8, 2018, two purported class action
complaints substantially similar to the Wolther Action were filed
on behalf of different plaintiffs in the same court as the Wolther
Action.

These three cases are expected to be consolidated.  Veeco believes
these lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously contest
these matters.

Veeco Instruments Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, sells, and supports semiconductor process equipment
worldwide. Veeco Instruments Inc. was founded in 1945 and is
headquartered in Plainview, New York.


VIRGIN AMERICA: Court Excludes Disputed Evidence in Bernstein
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for
Sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 in the
case captioned JULIA BERNSTEIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VIRGIN
AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 15-cv-02277-JST. (N.D.
Cal.).

This is a wage-and-hour class action brought by flight attendants
who work or have worked for Defendants Virgin America, Inc. and
Alaska Air Group, Inc. (Virgin) in California. Plaintiffs allege
that Virgin violated various California labor laws regarding
payment for hours worked, wage amounts, wage documentation, and the
provision of meal and rest breaks.

Virgin moved to decertify the class, asserting in part that the
Court should exclude 88 Class Members who had participated in the
Career Choice program. Virgin did not produce any signed agreements
of those class members.  

The parties contest exactly when, and to what degree, Plaintiffs
became aware of the identities of these 88 class members during the
more than two-and-a-half years of this dispute. But all agree that
Virgin did not actually produce any individual's Career Choice
agreements until July 25, 2018, when Virgin produced 32 complete
and 27 partial signed forms.  

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(ii) requires a party to
include with its initial disclosures a copy  or a description by
category and location of all documents  that the disclosing party
has in its possession, custody, or control and may use to support
its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for
impeachment.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) provides: If a party fails
to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule
26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or
witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a
trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is
harmless.

Virgin argues, however, that (1) Plaintiffs lack standing to bring
this motion; (2) Virgin's failure was substantially justified; and
(3) Virgin's failure was harmless.
Standing

Virgin first argues that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this
motion because the named Plaintiffs did not participate in the
Career Choice program and therefore cannot adequately represent the
subclass.  

The Ninth Circuit has explained that a named plaintiff who is not a
member of a subclass cannot prosecute claims on their behalf.

This rule does not help Virgin here. First, Berger and Betts speak
of standing to prosecute claims,a necessary component of the Rule
23 analysis. Berger, 741 F.3d at 1067; Betts, 659 F.2d at 1005.
They do not indicate that this analysis is necessary for every
individual motion brought by class counsel during the course of
class litigation. Second, even accepting Virgin's unsupported
premise, the Career Choice participants are nonetheless members of
the class as well. The Court has not yet excluded those members
from the classs and rejected Virgin's prior request to do so
because Virgin failed to produce these very documents. To the
extent that Virgin is renewing its request, an opposition to a
motion for sanctions is not the appropriate vehicle to revisit this
issue.

Substantial Justification

Virgin offers two explanations for its failure to disclose the
documents. First, Virgin argues that it validly objected to
disclosure because the signed Career Choice agreements constituted
improper pre-certification merits discovery.

Second, Virgin contends that concerns regarding privacy rights of
Career Choice participants justified its failure to disclose.
Virgin does not, however, address the fact that these documents
would have been subject to the Court's protective order. Such
protective orders are routinely sufficient to protect party and
non-party rights in personnel files. In its sole footnote
addressing the issue, Virgin cites no authority to the contrary.
Nor does Virgin explain why these documents raise privacy concerns
not presented by the payroll and other personnel data that it
freely produced throughout the litigation. Accordingly, Virgin has
not met its burden to show that its noncompliance was substantially
justified on this basis.  

The Court thus finds that Virgin's failure to produce the Career
Choice agreements was not substantially justified.

Harmlessness

Virgin also argues that its noncompliance was harmless because
Plaintiffs were aware of the identities of the Career Choice class
members and could have obtained those documents from the members
themselves.  

Even accepting Virgin's premise, it has not adequately demonstrated
that its actions caused no prejudice to Plaintiffs' ability to
obtain such documents. The record is unclear whether Virgin
adequately identified the 88 class members as Career Choice
participants prior to the close of discovery. In March 2017, when
Virgin unilaterally excluded those individuals from the class list
ordered by the Court, Plaintiffs called attention to the fact that
the list appears not to include Class Members who elected Virgin's
Career Choice or otherwise signed severance packages from the
company. From this statement, Virgin asks the Court to infer that
Plaintiffs were aware of the full extent of Virgin's Career Choice
defense and the class members implicated.This suggested inference
is contradicted by Plaintiffs' counsel's sworn declaration and is
insufficient to carry Virgin's burden.

Virgin asserts that no prejudice occurred because trial has not yet
been set for the Career Choice subclass.  This argument overlooks
the role of Virgin's misconduct in bringing about this delay. The
Career Choice participants' membership in the class remains
unresolved in large part because of Virgin's failure to submit
these same documents in connection with its decertification motion,
let alone during the earlier discovery period.

The Court therefore finds that Virgin's noncompliance was not
harmless.

Willfulness

Because Plaintiffs ask the Court to exclude Virgin's evidence that
any class members entered into the Career Choice program, it
arguably amounts to a dismissal of Virgin's affirmative defense of
waiver.  

Virgin does not dispute that it has had possession of the documents
throughout the litigation. Even putting aside Virgin's meritless
objections to Plaintiffs' production request, Virgin also ignored
its own obligation to produce during discovery evidence it wishes
to rely on at trial. Moreover, merely excluding the withheld
documents but allowing Virgin to litigate its affirmative defense
would be an insufficient sanction, because Plaintiffs were not
permitted to fully discovery the facts of that defense during the
discovery period.

The Court finds that Virgin's noncompliance was willful. The Court
therefore grants Plaintiffs' request to exclude the disputed
evidence and strike Virgin's waiver defense.

Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude
documents and strike Virgin's affirmative defense.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 1, 2018 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/ya3mv889 from Leagle.com.

Julia Bernstein, Esther Garcia & Lisa Marie Smith, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Monique Olivier -- monique@osclegal.com -- Olivier
Schreiber & Chao LLP, Alison L. Kosinski -- alison@ktlawsf.com --
Kosinski & Thiagaraj, LLP, Chiharu Gina Sekino --
csekino@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP,
Emily Ann Thiagaraj -- emily@ktlawsf.com -- Kosinski & Thiagaraj,
LLP, James Edward Miller -- jmiller@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd
Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, James C. Shah -- jshah@sfmslaw.com --
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Kolin C. Tang --
ktang@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Nathan
Curtis Zipperian -- nzipperian@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd Finkleman
Miller & Shah, LLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Scott Kravitz --
rkravitz@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP.

Virgin America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert Jon
Hendricks -- rj.hendricks@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Brendan T. Killeen -- brendan.killeen@morganlewis.com
-- Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer Adkins Tomlin
-- jtomlin@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & Nancy
Villarreal  -- nvillarreal@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP.

Alaska Airlines, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert Jon
Hendricks , Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.


VISA INC: New Settlement Reached in New York Antitrust Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bancorp disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018, that Visa U.S.A. Inc. has signed a new
settlement agreement, superseding the original settlement
agreement, to class action claims associated with the
multi-district interchange litigation pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  The new
settlement is still subject to court approval.

The Company's payment services business issues credit and debit
cards and acquires credit and debit card transactions through the
Visa U.S.A. Inc. card association or its affiliates (collectively
"Visa").  In 2007, Visa completed a restructuring and issued shares
of Visa Inc. common stock to its financial institution members in
contemplation of its initial public offering ("IPO") completed in
the first quarter of 2008 (the "Visa Reorganization").  As a part
of the Visa Reorganization, the Company received its proportionate
number of shares of Visa Inc. common stock, which were subsequently
converted to Class B shares of Visa Inc. ("Class B shares").

Visa U.S.A. Inc. ("Visa U.S.A.") and MasterCard International
(collectively, the "Card Associations") are defendants in antitrust
lawsuits challenging the practices of the Card Associations (the
"Visa Litigation").  Visa U.S.A. member banks have a contingent
obligation to indemnify Visa Inc. under the Visa U.S.A. bylaws
(which were modified at the time of the restructuring in October
2007) for potential losses arising from the Visa Litigation.  The
indemnification by the Visa U.S.A. member banks has no specific
maximum amount.  Using proceeds from its IPO and through reductions
to the conversion ratio applicable to the Class B shares held by
Visa U.S.A. member banks, Visa Inc. has funded an escrow account
for the benefit of member financial institutions to fund their
indemnification obligations associated with the Visa Litigation.
The receivable related to the escrow account is classified in other
liabilities as a direct offset to the related Visa Litigation
contingent liability.

In October 2012, Visa signed a settlement agreement to resolve
class action claims associated with the multi-district interchange
litigation pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (the "Multi-District Litigation").
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the
approval of that settlement and remanded the matter to the district
court.

In September 2018, Visa signed a new settlement agreement,
superseding the original settlement agreement, to resolve class
action claims associated with the Multi-District Litigation.  The
new settlement is still subject to court approval.

U.S. Bancorp, a financial services holding company, provides
various financial services in the United States.  The Company
operates through five segments: Corporate and Commercial Banking,
Consumer and Business Banking, Wealth Management and Investment
Services, Payment Services, and Treasury and Corporate Support.
U.S. Bancorp was founded in 1863 and is headquartered in
Minneapolis, Minnesota.


VISTRA ENERGY: Consolidated Gas Index Pricing Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vistra Energy Corp. and its subsidiaries continue to defend
themselves in a consolidated lawsuit in Nevada related to alleged
gas index pricing manipulation, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

The Company, through its subsidiaries, and other energy companies
are named as defendants in several lawsuits claiming damages
resulting from alleged price manipulation through false reporting
of natural gas prices to various index publications, wash trading
and churn trading from 2000-2002.  The cases allege that the
defendants engaged in an antitrust conspiracy to inflate natural
gas prices in three states (Kansas, Missouri and Wisconsin) during
the relevant time period and seek damages under the respective
state antitrust statutes.

Four of the cases are putative class actions and one case,
Reorganized FLI (nka J.P. Morgan Trust Co., National Assn.) v.
Oneok Inc., et al., is an individual action on behalf of Farmland
Industries, Inc. (Farmland), with Farmland seeking full
consideration damages (i.e., the full amount it paid for natural
gas purchases during the relevant timeframe).  The cases are
consolidated in a multi-district litigation proceeding pending in
the U.S. District Court for Nevada.

In March 2017, the court denied the class plaintiffs' motions to
certify class actions in each of the states, which decision was
taken on an interlocutory appeal to U.S Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit Court).

In August 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court vacated the district court
orders denying class certification and remanded the cases to the
district court for further consideration of the class certification
issue.

In September 2018, the defendants filed a joint motion for entry of
an order denying class certification, and the plaintiffs filed a
motion for remand of the cases to the transferor courts to decide
class certification issues.

As for the Farmland matter, in March 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court
reversed a summary judgment in favor of the defendants and it
shortly will be remanded for further discovery and other pretrial
proceedings.

The Company said, "While we cannot predict the outcome of these
legal proceedings, or estimate a range of costs, they could have a
material impact on our results of operations, liquidity or
financial condition."

Vistra Energy Corp. is a Texas-based energy company focused on the
competitive energy and power generation markets.


VITA-MIX CORP: Court Sets $40K Appeal Bond in "Linneman"
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Western Division, issued an Order granting in part Plaintiffs'
Motion for Order Requiring Posting of Appeal Bond and Expedited
Discovery in  the case captioned Vicki Linneman, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. Vita-Mix Corporation, et al., Defendants. Case No.
1:15-cv-748. (S.D. Ohio)

After the Court granted final approval of the Settlement Agreement,
Objectors Kamala Bennett and Avigail Ruth Short filed Notices of
Appeal. The Settlement Class moved for an order requiring the
objectors to post an appeal bond of $250,000 and participate in
post-settlement discovery.

Request For Bond

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7, the district court may
require an appellant to file a bond or provide other security in
any form and amount necessary to ensure payment of costs on
appeal.

Courts within the Sixth Circuit weigh the following factors to
determine whether to impose a bond under Rule 7: (1) the
appellant's financial ability to post a bond (2) the risk that the
appellant would not pay appellee's costs if the appeal is
unsuccessful (3) the merits of the appeal and (4) whether the
appellant has shown any bad faith or vexatious conduct.

Bad Faith or Vexatious Conduct

Class counsel has drawn the Court's attention to several class
action settlement objections filed by Ms. Vourlis since 2014. Of
most significant interest, the Honorable Donald C. Nugent of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
granted an appeal bond against Ms. Vourlis's client in a case in
which Ms. Vourlis advanced seemingly verbatim arguments as those
presented here.  

The case is also notable insofar as Judge Nugent overruled Ms.
Vourlis's objections and imposed an appellate bond, finding her
appeal to be meritless, frivolous, and objectionably unreasonable
and referring to her as a serial objector whose objection was
significantly impeding relief to the plaintiff and class members.  
This history suggests that Objector Bennett is not appealing in
good faith. In addition, neither Objector Bennett nor her attorney
appeared at the final fairness hearing, which bolsters this
conclusion.
  
Thus, this factor weighs in favor of imposing an appeal bond.

Merits of Appeal

The Settlement Class argues that the abuse of discretion appellate
standard of review and facial defects with Objector Bennett's
objections render her appeal unlikely to be successful.

Vita-Mix argues that there are legitimate questions of law on
appeal and it is difficult to know how the Sixth Circuit will
rule.

In approving the settlement, the Court reviewed extensive briefs,
heard thorough arguments from the parties, and held a final
fairness hearing, such that it feels confident in its ruling. On
this record, the Court believes Objector Bennett will not be
successful in her appeal. This factor, then, weighs in favor of
imposing bond.

Risk of Nonpayment

This factor generally weighs in favor of requiring an appeal bond
where an objector resides outside of the court's jurisdiction.  It
is unclear where Objector Bennett resides, because she failed to
include her contact information in her objection (despite the
requirement that objections must contain a full name, address,
telephone number, and email address). She also did not provide this
information in her response in opposition to bond. Thus, the risk
of nonpayment factor weighs in favor of imposing bond.

Financial Ability to Post Bond

Lastly, it is the appellant's burden to demonstrate bond would
constitute a barrier to appeal. Objector Bennett has made no such
showing by arguing or presenting evidence that she lacks the
financial ability to post a bond. Thus, this factor, too, weighs in
favor of imposing bond.

Amount of Bond

The amount of a bond should be the amount necessary to ensure
payment of costs on appeal. Although there is disagreement as to
whether costs on appeal may include attorneys' fees and
administrative fees, there is no dispute that Rule 7 permits
recovery of costs as defined in 28 U.S.C. Section 1920 and Federal
Rule of Appellate Procedure 39. Costs available under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1920 include the marshal and clerk fees, court reporter
fees, printing and witness fees, copying fees, docket fees, and
compensation of court appointed experts and interpreters. Rule
39(e) provides that the following costs are taxable: (1) the
preparation and transmission of the record; (2) the reporter's
transcript, if needed to determine the appeal (3) premiums paid for
a supersedeas bond or other bond to preserve rights pending appeal;
and (4) the fee for filing the notice of appeal.

Fed. R. App. P. 39(e).

The Court finds that the amount of any of these costs applicable on
appeal is appropriate to be posted as bond by Objector Bennett.

In light of the unique circumstances of this case and the vexatious
history of Objector Bennett's attorney, which suggests that
Objector Bennett may not be appealing in good faith, the Court will
exercise its inherent power to require the posting of bond to cover
a small portion of projected attorneys' fees and delay costs.
However, the Court finds that the requested amount, a total of
$125,000, is too high, mindful that at some point, if the size of a
bond becomes too large, it constitutes an impermissible barrier to
appeal.

Accordingly, the Court will reduce the bond amount to cover taxable
costs, attorneys' fees, and delay costs in the amount of $40,000.
This amount is similar to the bond imposed per objector in the Meta
case. Case No. 4:14-cv-832 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 24, 2018)

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 1, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yagzqbvb from Leagle.com.

Vicki A Linneman, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Biller
-abiller@msdlegal.com -- Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC,
Christopher P. Finney -- chris@finneylawfirm.com -- Finney Law
Firm, LLC, Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg -- jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com --
Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, Justin Charles Walker --
justin@finneylawfirm.com -- Finney Law Firm, LLC, Paul M. De Marco
-- pdemarco@msdlegal.com -- Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC,
Terence Richard Coates -
tcoates@msdlegal.com -- Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC,
Christopher D. Stock -- cstock@msdlegal.com -- Markovits, Stock &
DeMarco LLC & Wilbert Benjamin Markovits -- bmarkovits@msdlegal.com
-- Markovits, Stock & DeMarco LLC.  

Obadiah N Ritchey, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Biller ,
Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC &Christopher P. Finney , Finney Law
Firm, LLC.

Obadiah N. Ritchey, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Scott
Goldenberg , Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, Justin Charles Walker ,
Finney Law Firm, LLC, Paul M. De Marco , Markovits, Stock &
DeMarco, LLC, Terence Richard Coates , Markovits, Stock & DeMarco,
LLC, Christopher D. Stock , Markovits, Stock & DeMarco LLC &
Wilbert Benjamin Markovits , Markovits, Stock & DeMarco LLC.

Vita-Mix Corporation, Vita-Mix Management Corporation & Vita-Mix
Manufacturing Corporation, Defendants, represented by Carolyn Ann
Taggart -- ctaggart@porterwright.com -- Porter Wright Morris &
Arthur, LLP, J. Philip Calabrese  -- pcalabrese@porterwright.com --
Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP, Tracey L. Turnbull  --
tturnbull@porterwright.com -- Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP,
Ana P. Crawford -- acrawford@porterwright.com -- Porter Wright
Morris & Arthur, Caroline Gentry -- cgentry@porterwright.com --
Porter Wright Morris & Arthur & Ryan Lewis Graham , Porter --
rgraham@porterwright.com -- Wright, Morris & Arthur.


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Awaits Merkin & Smith's Next Move in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vonage Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018, that the parties in the class action suit
initiated by Arthur Merkin and James Smith continue to file
quarterly joint status reports pending plaintiffs' decision on next
steps.  The Plaintiff's counsel has previously advised that they
intended to seek public injunctive relief.

On September 27, 2013, Arthur Merkin and James Smith filed a
putative class action lawsuit against Vonage America, Inc. in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
alleging that Vonage violated California’s Unfair Competition Law
by charging its customers fictitious 911 taxes and fees. On October
30, 2013, Vonage filed a notice removing the case to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California. On
November 26, 2013, Vonage filed its Answer to the Complaint. On
December 4, 2013, Vonage filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration,
which the Court denied on February 4, 2014.

On March 5, 2014, Vonage appealed that decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On March 26, 2014,
the district court proceedings were stayed pending the appeal. On
February 29, 2016, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district
court’s ruling and remanded with instructions to grant the motion
to compel arbitration.

On March 22, 2016, Merkin and Smith filed a petition for rehearing.
On May 4, 2016, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its February 29, 2016
decision and issued a new order reversing the district court’s
order and remanded with instructions to compel arbitration. The
Ninth Circuit also declared as moot the petition for rehearing. On
June 27, 2016, the lower court stayed the case pending
arbitration.

A joint status report was filed with the District Court on December
23, 2016. A second joint status report was filed with the District
Court on March 23, 2017. A third joint status report was filed with
the District Court on June 27, 2017. A fourth joint status report
was filed with the District Court on September 26, 2017. A fifth
joint status report was filed with the District Court on December
26, 2017.

Counsel for Vonage spoke with counsel for plaintiffs in
mid-February 2018, seeking voluntary dismissal. Plaintiff's counsel
advised they intended to seek public injunctive relief. The parties
are reviewing their respective positions. The parties continue to
file quarterly joint status reports pending plaintiffs decision on
next steps.

Vonage Holdings Corp. provides communications services connecting
people through cloud-connected devices worldwide. It offers various
business services, including basic dial tone, call queue,
conferencing, call groups, mobile functionality, CRM integration,
and detailed analytics, as well as Vonage Business Cloud and Vonage
Enterprise services. The company was incorporated in 2000 and is
headquartered in Holmdel, New Jersey.


VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust's COI Class Suit in Colo. Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc. is facing the cost of insurance litigation
styled Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA v. Security Life
of Denver (USDC District of Colorado, No. 1:18-cv-01897) (filed
July 26, 2018), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018.

Cost of insurance litigation for the Company includes Advance Trust
& Life Escrow Services, LTA v. Security Life of Denver (USDC
District of Colorado, No. 1:18-cv-01897) (filed July 26, 2018),

Plaintiff in this putative class action alleges that two specific
types of universal life insurance policies only permitted the
Company to rely upon the policyholder's expected future mortality
experience to establish and increase the cost of insurance, but the
Company instead relied upon other, non-disclosed factors not only
in the administration of the policies over time, but also in the
decision to increase insurance costs beginning in approximately
October 2015.  Plaintiff alleges a breach of contract and seeks
class certification.

The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the
complaint to be without merit, and intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.

On August 28, 2018, the Company filed its answer to the complaint
with affirmative defenses.

Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
insurance company in the United States. It operates through
Retirement, Investment Management, Individual Life, and Employee
Benefits segments. The company is based in New York.


VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust's COI Class Suit in Minn. Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc. is facing the putative class action styled
Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA v. ReliaStar Life
Insurance Company (USDC District of Minnesota, No. 1:18-cv-02863)
(filed October 5, 2018), according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

Subsequent to the close of the third quarter, the Company the
putative class action in which Plaintiff alleges that the Company's
universal life insurance policies only permitted the Company to
rely upon the policyholders' expected future mortality experience
to establish the cost of insurance, and that as projected mortality
experience improved, the policy language required the Company to
decrease the cost of insurance.

Plaintiff alleges that the Company did not decrease the cost of
insurance as required, thereby breaching its contract with the
policyholders, and seeks class certification.

The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the
complaint to be without merit, and will defend the lawsuit
vigorously.

Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
insurance company in the United States. It operates through
Retirement, Investment Management, Individual Life, and Employee
Benefits segments. The company is based in New York.


VOYA FINANCIAL: Appeal from Nixed Dezelan Amended Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled Dezelan v. Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity
Company (USDC District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-1251) (filed
July 26, 2016), the Plaintiff has filed an appeal to the U.S Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the district court's denial
of an amended complaint with prejudice, according to Voya
Financial, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2018.

Plaintiff, a participant in a 403(b) Plan, in this putative class
action seeks to represent a class of plans whose assets are
invested in Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company ("VRIAC")
"Group Annuity Contract Stable Value Funds."

Plaintiff alleges that VRIAC has violated the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") by charging unreasonable fees
and setting its own compensation in connection with stable value
products.  Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
disgorgement of profits, damages and attorney's fees.  The Company
denies the allegations, which it believes are without merit, and
intends to defend the case vigorously.

On July 19, 2017, the district court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss, but permitted the plaintiff to file an amended
complaint.  Plaintiff subsequently filed a first amended complaint,
and the district court denied the amended complaint with prejudice
on August 17, 2018.

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit on September 13, 2018.

Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
insurance company in the United States. It operates through
Retirement, Investment Management, Individual Life, and Employee
Benefits segments. The company is based in New York.


VOYA FINANCIAL: Bid to Drop Barnes' Conversion Claim Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the conversion claim in
the cost of insurance litigation styled Barnes v. Security Life of
Denver (USDC District of Colorado, No. 1:18-cv-00718) (filed March
27, 2018) is still pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

Cost of insurance litigation also includes Barnes v. Security Life
of Denver (USDC District of Colorado, No. 1:18-cv-00718) (filed
March 27, 2018).

The plaintiff in this putative class action alleges that his
insurance policy only permitted the Company to rely upon his
expected future mortality experience to establish and increase his
cost of insurance, but the Company instead relied upon other,
non-disclosed factors to do so.  Plaintiff alleges breach of
contract and conversion claims against the Company and also seeks
declaratory relief.

The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the
complaint to be without merit, and intends to defend the matter
vigorously.

On May 15, 2018, the Company moved to dismiss the conversion claim
from the complaint.  Plaintiff has opposed the motion.

Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
insurance company in the United States. It operates through
Retirement, Investment Management, Individual Life, and Employee
Benefits segments. The company is based in New York.


VOYA FINANCIAL: Bid to Nix Amended Goetz Complaint Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc.'s motion to drop the amended complaint in the
putative class action styled Goetz v. Voya Financial and Voya
Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company (USDC District of
Delaware, No. 1:17-cv-1289) (filed September 8, 2017) is still
pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018.

Litigation also includes Goetz v. Voya Financial and Voya
Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company (USDC District of
Delaware, No. 1:17-cv-1289) (filed September 8, 2017),

Plaintiff, a participant in a 401(k) plan, in this putative class
action seeks to represent other participants in the plan as well as
a class of similarly situated plans that "contract with [Voya] for
recordkeeping and other services."

Plaintiff alleges that "Voya" breached its fiduciary duty to the
plan and other plan participants by charging unreasonable and
excessive recordkeeping fees, and that "Voya" distributed
materially false and misleading 404a-5 administrative and fund fee
disclosures to conceal its excessive fees.  The Company denies the
allegations, which it believes are without merit, and intends to
defend the case vigorously.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 4, 2018, and the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February
8, 2018.

Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
insurance company in the United States. It operates through
Retirement, Investment Management, Individual Life, and Employee
Benefits segments. The company is based in New York.


WADDELL & REED: Reaches Settlement of 401(k) Plan Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that the parties in the 401(k)
Plan Class Action Litigation are finalizing the terms of the
proposed settlement, which will be subject to preliminary and final
court approval.

In an action filed on June 23, 2017 and amended on June 26, 2017 in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, Schapker v.
Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc., et al, (Case No. 17-2365 D.  Kan.),
Stacy Schapker, a participant in the Company's 401(k) and Thrift
Plan, as amended and restated (the "401(k) Plan"), filed a lawsuit
against the Company, the Company's Board of Directors, the
Administrative Committee of the 401(k) Plan, and unnamed Jane and
John Doe Defendants 1-25.

On August 7, 2017, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
which was filed on behalf of the 401(k) Plan and a proposed class
of 401(k) Plan participants, purports to assert claims for breach
of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA") based
on the 401(k) Plan's offering of investments managed by the Company
or its affiliates during a proposed class period of June 23, 2011
to present.

The second amended complaint dismissed the Company's Board of
Directors as a defendant and named as defendants the Company, the
Compensation Committee of the Company's Board of Directors, the
Administrative Committee of the 401(k) Plan, and the individuals
who served on those committees during the proposed class period.
Following the denial of their motion to dismiss, on March 8, 2018,
defendants filed their answer and defenses to plaintiff's second
amended complaint.

On April 23, 2018, the court entered an initial scheduling order,
ordering the parties to complete mediation by August 31, 2018.

While the Company and the other defendants deny any and all
liability with respect to the claims, the parties have reached an
agreement in principle to settle the litigation.  The parties are
finalizing the terms of the proposed settlement, which will be
subject to preliminary and final court approval.  The payment
contemplated by the proposed settlement is recoverable to the
Company through insurance.  The Company has recorded a liability
and offsetting receivable from insurance, as reflected in the
Company's consolidated balance sheet.  

Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
investment management and advisory, investment product underwriting
and distribution, and shareholder services administration to mutual
funds, and institutional and separately managed accounts in the
United States.  The Company was founded in 1937 and is based in
Overland Park, Kansas.


WAL-MART STORES: Mays Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Lerna Mays filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Lerna Mays v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No.
2:18-cv-02318-AB-KK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order:

   1. denying plaintiff's motion for class certification;

   2. dismissing Plaintiff's second cause of action for violation
      of California Labor Code section 226(a) for lack of
      standing; and

   3. directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint in an
      attempt to cure the standing defects.

The Court explained it cannot certify a class when the named
Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to support
standing.

The appellate case is captioned as Lerna Mays v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., Case No. 18-80149, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner LERNA MAYS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Dale Alan Harris, Esq.
          Priya Mohan, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          4771 Cromwell Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90027
          Telephone: (323) 962-3777
          Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
          E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com
                  pmohan@harrisandruble.com

Defendant-Respondent WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation,
is represented by:

          Susan Eileen Coleman, Esq.
          Cheryl Johnson-Hartwell, Esq.
          Mitchell Aaron Wrosch, Esq.
          BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
          444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 236-0600
          E-mail: scoleman@bwslaw.com
                  cjohnson-hartwell@bwslaw.com
                  mwrosch@bwslaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Ibarra Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jacqueline F. Ibarra filed an appeal from a court ruling
in her lawsuit titled Jacqueline Ibarra v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
Case No. 2:17-cv-04344-PA-AS, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit.
That appellate case is entitled Jacqueline Ibarra v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., Case No. 18-55626.

The case is a California state-wide class action for wage and labor
violations arising out of, among other things, the Defendant's
alleged failure to compensate its mortgage sales force in
compliance with California law.  The Defendant pays Plaintiff and
class members based on a sales commission, and fails to pay them
for all time worked, provide and/or or compensate them for meal and
rest breaks, and engages in other Labor Code violations, the
Plaintiff alleges.

The appellate case is captioned as Jacqueline Ibarra v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., Case No. 18-56425, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Jacqueline F. Ibarra's opening brief is due on
      December 24, 2018;

   -- Appellee Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s answering brief is due on
      January 24, 2019; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant JACQUELINE F. IBARRA, an individual, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, is represented
by:

          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          Graham G. Lambert, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2325
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 514-5681
          E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
                  gl@haffnerlawyers.com

               - and -

          Paul Stevens, Esq.
          STEVENS, LC
          700 S. Flower Street, Suite 660
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (310) 597-5107
          E-mail: pstevens@stevenslc.com

Defendant-Appellee WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., is represented by:

          Paul Berkowitz, Esq.
          Thomas Roy Kaufman, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6001
          Telephone: (310) 228-3700
          E-mail: pberkowitz@sheppardmullin.com
                  tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq.
          Theane Evangelis, Esq.
          Bradley Joseph Hamburger, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7658
          E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
                  tevangelis@gibsondunn.com
                  bhamburger@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Eugene Scalia, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036-5306
          Telephone: (202) 955-8206
          E-mail: escalia@gibsondunn.com


WELLS FARGO: Underpays Mortgage Sales Staff, Moses Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MOSES, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a
California Company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case 3:18-cv-06679 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 2, 2018), asserts a
California statewide class and representative Private Attorney
General Act action for wage and labor violations arising out of,
among other things, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s failure to compensate
its mortgage sales force in compliance with California law.

According to the Defendant pays Plaintiffs and class members based
on a sales commission, and fails to pay them for all time worked,
fails to compensate for rest breaks, and engages in other Labor
Code violations.

The Plaintiff worked as a "Mortgage Consultant" for Defendant
selling mortgages. Mortgage Consultants that are part of this
action include all persons who worked for Defendant in California
with the titles Home Mortgage Consultant, Home Mortgage Consultant,
Jr., Private Mortgage Banker, or Private Mortgage Banker, Jr. Under
Defendant's pay plan, Plaintiff and other Mortgage Consultants were
paid a monthly commission based on the amount of loans that closed
in a given month. The Defendant paid Plaintiff and other Mortgage
Consultants at approximately $12 per hour, but then deducted those
advances from the commissions, the lawsuit says.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a bank, headquartered in South Dakota,
with its principle place of business located at 420 Montgomery
Street, San Francisco, California, 94104.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and others similarly situated:

          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          Graham G. Lambert, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2325
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 514-5681
          Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
          E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
                  gl@haffnerlawyers.com

               - and -

          Paul D. Stevens, Esq.
          STEVENS LC
          700 S. Flower Street, Suite 660
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 270-1211
          Facsimile: (213) 270-1223
          E-mail: pstevens@stevenslc.com


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Still Faces Class Suits over Labor Matters
--------------------------------------------------------------
Werner Enterprises, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2018, that it is defending itself against
labor-related class action lawsuits.

The Company states, "We are involved in class action litigation in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, in which the
plaintiffs allege that we owe drivers for unpaid wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Nebraska Wage Payment and
Collection Act and that we failed to pay minimum wage per hour for
drivers in our student driver training program, related to short
break time and sleeper berth time.  The period covered by this
class action suit is August 2008 through March 2014.  The case was
tried to a jury in May 2017, resulting in a verdict of US$0.8
million in plaintiffs' favor on the short break matter and a
verdict in our favor on the sleeper berth matter.  As a result of
various post-trial motions, the court has awarded US$0.5 million to
the plaintiffs for attorney fees and costs.  As of September 30,
2018, we had accrued for the jury's award, attorney fees and costs
in the short break matter and had not accrued for the sleeper berth
matter.  Plaintiffs have appealed the post-verdict amounts awarded
by the trial court for fees, costs and liquidated damages.

"We are also involved in certain class action litigation in which
the plaintiffs allege claims for failure to provide meal and rest
breaks, unpaid wages, unauthorized deductions and other items.
Based on the knowledge of the facts, management does not currently
believe the outcome of these class actions is likely to have a
material adverse effect on our financial position or results of
operations.  However, the final disposition of these matters and
the impact of such final dispositions cannot be determined at this
time."

Werner Enterprises, Inc., a transportation and logistics company,
engages in transporting truckload shipments of general commodities
in interstate and intrastate commerce in the United States, Mexico,
Canada, China, and Australia.  It operates through two segments,
Truckload Transportation Services and Werner Logistics.  The
Company was founded in 1956 and is headquartered in Omaha,
Nebraska.


WESTERN DIGITAL: Bid for Class Certification in Calif. Suit Okayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Digital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 28, 2018, that the district court
has granted the Institutional Investor Group's motion for class
certification.

Beginning in March 2015, SanDisk and two of its officers, Sanjay
Mehrotra and Judy Bruner, were named in three putative class action
lawsuits filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. Two complaints are brought on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of SanDisk's securities between
October 2014 and March 2015, and one is brought on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of SanDisk's securities between April
2014 and April 2015.

The complaints generally allege violations of federal securities
laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the
defendants during the alleged class periods. The complaints seek,
among other things, damages and fees and costs.

In July 2015, the District Court consolidated the cases and
appointed Union Asset Management Holding AG and KBC Asset
Management NV as lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint in August 2015. In January 2016, the District
Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the
amended complaint with leave to amend. In February 2016, the
District Court issued an order appointing as new lead plaintiffs
Bristol Pension Fund; City of Milford, Connecticut Pension &
Retirement Board; Pavers and Road Builders Pension, Annuity and
Welfare Funds; the Newport News Employees' Retirement Fund; and
Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund (collectively, the
"Institutional Investor Group").

In March 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed an amended
complaint. In June 2016, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint with leave to
amend. In July 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed a
further amended complaint. In June 2017, the District Court denied
the defendants' motion to dismiss.

In September 2018, the District Court granted the Institutional
Investor Group's motion to certify a class of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired SanDisk's publicly
traded common stock between October 2014 and April 2015, excluding
those who purchased or otherwise acquired SanDisk's publicly traded
common stock during the class period but who sold their stock prior
to the first corrective disclosure in March 2015.

The Institutional Investor Group alleges artificial inflation in
the price of SanDisk’s publicly traded common stock of $9.04 per
share from October 16, 2014 through March 25, 2015, $2.26 per share
on March 26, 2015, and $1.35 per share from March 27, 2015 through
April 15, 2015.

Western Digital said, "The Company believes the allegations to be
without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously in this
matter."

Western Digital Corporation develops, manufactures, and sells data
storage devices and solutions worldwide. It offers client devices,
including hard disk drives (HDDs) and solid state drives (SSDs) for
computing devices, such as desktop and notebook PCs, security
surveillance systems, gaming consoles, and set top boxes;
flash-based embedded storage products for mobile phones, tablets,
notebook PCs, and other portable and wearable devices, as well as
automotive, IoT, industrial, and connected home applications;
flash-based memory wafers; and embedded storage solutions and iNAND
embedded flash products, such as multi-chip package solutions.
Western Digital Corporation was founded in 1970 and is
headquartered in San Jose, California.


WESTERN UNION: Bid to Dismiss Smallen Trust Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the case, Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne
Smallen Revocable Living Trust et al. v. The Western Union Company
et al., are still awaiting a court ruling on a motion to dismiss
the complaint, according to The Western Union Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

On February 22, 2017, the Company, its President and Chief
Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and a former
executive officer of the Company were named as defendants in two
purported class action lawsuits, both of which asserted claims
under section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange
Commission rule 10b-5 and section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On May 3, 2017, the two cases were consolidated by the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado under the
caption Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable
Living Trust et al. v. The Western Union Company et al., Civil
Action No. 1:17-cv-00474-KLM (D. Colo.).  On September 6, 2017, the
Court appointed Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen
Revocable Living Trust as the lead plaintiff.

On November 6, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint ("Amended Complaint") that, among other things, added two
other former executive officers as defendants, one of whom
subsequently was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs.  The
Amended Complaint asserts claims under section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission rule 10b-5 and
section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and alleges that, during the
purported class period of February 24, 2012, through May 2, 2017,
the defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to
disclose purported adverse material facts regarding, among other
things, the Company's compliance with AML and anti-fraud
regulations, the status and likely outcome of certain governmental
investigations targeting the Company, the reasons behind the
Company's decisions to make certain regulatory enhancements, and
the Company's premium pricing.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on January
16, 2018.  The plaintiffs filed an opposition on April 5, 2018.
The defendants filed a reply on June 5, 2018.  The consolidated
action is in a preliminary stage and the Company is unable to
predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if any,
which could be associated with it.

The Company and the individual defendants intend to vigorously
defend themselves in this matter.

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide.  The Company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions.  The Western Union
Company was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Englewood,
Colorado.


WESTERN UNION: Class Suit v. Argentina Unit in Evidentiary Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that the lawsuit in Argentina
against Western Union Financial Services Argentina S.R.L., is
currently in the evidentiary stage.

In October 2015, Consumidores Financieros Asociacion Civil para su
Defensa, an Argentinian consumer association, filed a purported
class action lawsuit in Argentina's National Commercial Court No.
19 against the Company's subsidiary Western Union Financial
Services Argentina S.R.L. ("WUFSA").

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that WUFSA's fees for
money transfers sent from Argentina are excessive and that WUFSA
does not provide consumers with adequate information about foreign
exchange rates.

The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, an order requiring
WUFSA to reimburse consumers for the fees they paid and the foreign
exchange revenue associated with money transfers sent from
Argentina, plus punitive damages.  The complaint does not specify a
monetary value of the claim or a time period.

In November 2015, the Court declared the complaint formally
admissible as a class action.  The notice of claim was served on
WUFSA in May 2016, and in June 2016 WUFSA filed a response to the
claim and moved to dismiss it on statute of limitations and
standing grounds.  In April 2017, the Court deferred ruling on the
motion until later in the proceedings.

The process for notifying potential class members has been
completed and the case is currently in the evidentiary stage.

The Company said, "Due to the stage of this matter, the Company is
unable to predict the outcome or the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, associated with this matter.  WUFSA intends to defend
itself vigorously."

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide.  The Company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions.  The Western Union
Company was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Englewood,
Colorado.


WESTERN UNION: Still Faces Frazier et al. Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company continues to defend itself in a purported
class action lawsuit styled Frazier et al. v. The Western Union
Company et al., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018.

On April 26, 2018, the Company, its WUFSI subsidiary, its President
and Chief Executive Officer, and various "Doe Defendants"
(purportedly including Western Union officers, directors, and
agents) were named as defendants in a purported class action
lawsuit asserting claims for alleged violations of civil RICO and
the Colorado Organized Crime Act, civil theft, negligence, unjust
enrichment, and conversion under the caption Frazier et al. v. The
Western Union Company et al., Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-00998-KLM
(D. Colo.).

The complaint alleges that, during the purported class period of
January 1, 2004 to the present, and based largely on the admissions
and allegations relating to the DPA, the FTC Consent Order, and the
NYDFS Consent Order, the defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud
customers through Western Union's money transfer system.  The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 17, 2018.

The amended complaint is similar to the original complaint,
although it adds additional named plaintiffs and additional counts,
including claims on behalf of putative California, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, and New Jersey subclasses for alleged violations
of the California Unfair Competition Law, the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Georgia Fair Business Practices
Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act, and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

On August 28, 2018, the Company and the other defendants moved to
stay the action in favor of individual arbitrations with the named
plaintiffs, which defendants contend are contractually required.
The parties are engaged in limited discovery related to the
arbitration issue, which also will involve further briefing, and
the case is otherwise stayed pending a determination of that
issue.

The Company said, "The action is in a preliminary stage and the
Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, which could be associated with it.  The
Company and the other defendants intend to vigorously defend
themselves in this matter."

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide.  The Company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions.  The Western Union
Company was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Englewood,
Colorado.


WESTERN UNION: Still Faces Tennille and Smet Suits in Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that the Company and one of its
subsidiaries are still defendants in two purported class action
lawsuits: James P. Tennille v. The Western Union Company, and
Robert P. Smet v. The Western Union Company, both of which are
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado.

The original complaints asserted claims for violation of various
consumer protection laws, unjust enrichment, conversion and
declaratory relief, based on allegations that the Company waits too
long to inform consumers if their money transfers are not redeemed
by the recipients and that the Company uses the unredeemed funds to
generate income until the funds are escheated to state governments.
During the fourth quarter of 2012, the parties executed a
settlement agreement, which the Court preliminarily approved on
January 3, 2013.

On June 25, 2013, the Court entered an order certifying the class
and granting final approval to the settlement.  Under the approved
settlement, a substantial amount of the settlement proceeds, as
well as all of the class counsel's fees, administrative fees and
other expenses, would be paid from the class members' unclaimed
money transfer funds.  During the final approval hearing, the Court
overruled objections to the settlement that had been filed by
several class members.

In July 2013, two of those class members filed notices of appeal.
On May 1, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision to overrule the
objections filed by the two class members who appealed.

On January 11, 2016, the United States Supreme Court denied
petitions for certiorari that were filed by the two class members
who appealed.

On February 1, 2016, pursuant to the settlement agreement and the
Court's June 25, 2013 final approval order, Western Union deposited
the class members' unclaimed money transfer funds into a class
settlement fund, from which class member claims, administrative
fees and class counsel's fees, as well as other expenses have been
paid, with the remainder to go to eligible jurisdictions to which
the unclaimed funds would have escheated in the absence of a
settlement.

On April 3, 2018, the Court entered an order creating a fund for
the remainder of the unclaimed funds, which gives eligible
jurisdictions one year to execute a release to receive their
proportionate share of the fund.  Some jurisdictions may opt not to
participate in the settlement, taking the position that the Company
must escheat those jurisdictions' full share of the settlement fund
and that the pro rata deductions for class counsel's fees,
administrative costs, and other expenses that are required under
the settlement agreement are not permitted.  In that event, there
is a reasonable possibility a loss could result up to approximately
the pro rata amount of those fees and other expenses.

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide.  The Company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions.  The Western Union
Company was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Englewood,
Colorado.


WHITEWAVE FOODS: Padilla & Owens Allege Deceptive Packaging
-----------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA PADILLA and KIMBERLY OWENS, individually, and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE
WHITEWAVE FOODS COMPANY dba WHITEWAVE SERVICES, INC., a Delaware
corporation; DANONE US, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
and DANONE NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability ,
company, the Defendants, Case 2:18-cv-09327 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 31,
2018), alleges that Defendants have packaged and sold Vega Food and
Protein Powders in opaque packaging that conceals from consumers
the amount of product actually contained therein.

According to the complaint, the Vega Food and Protein Powders are
advertised and sold in sealed, opaque plastic containers
significantly comprised of non-functional empty space, as detailed
below. This packaging prevents the consumer from directly seeing or
handling the product and leads reasonable consumers to believe that
the package contains significantly more product than it actually
does. Defendants' practice of substantially under-filling its Vega
Food and Protein Powders opaque containers with powder creates
non-functional slack fill, in violation of state and federal laws.
The use of non-functional slack fill allows Defendants to lower
their costs by deceiving customers into paying a higher price for
more product than they truly receive. As a result, Defendants have
realized sizable profits to the detriment of consumers.

The Plaintiffs and other consumers have reasonably relied on
Defendants' deceptive packaging in purchasing the Vega Food and
Protein Powders. If Plaintiffs and other consumers had known the
actual amount of protein or meal replacement powder contained in
the packaging, they would not have purchased the Vega Food and
Protein Powders or would have paid less for them. Therefore,
Plaintiffs and other consumers have suffered injury-in-fact as a
result of Defendants' deceptive practices, including, but not
limited to, out-of-pocket costs incurred in purchasing the
overvalued Vega Food and Protein Powders, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
          Cody R. Padgett, 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


WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Still Ongoing in Shanklin Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilhelmina International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that discovery
is still ongoing in a putative class action suit filed by Alex
Shanklin.

On October 24, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was brought
against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and
others (the "Shanklin Litigation"), in New York State Supreme Court
(New York County) by the same lead counsel who represented
plaintiffs in a prior, now-dismissed action brought by Louisa Raske
(the "Raske Litigation").

The claims in the Shanklin Litigation initially included breach of
contract and unjust enrichment allegations arising out of matters
similar to the Raske Litigation, such as the handling and reporting
of funds on behalf of models and the use of model images. Other
parties named as defendants in the Shanklin Litigation include
other model management companies, advertising firms, and certain
advertisers.

On January 6, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other
defendants also filed motions to dismiss. On August 11, 2014, the
court denied the motion to dismiss as to Wilhelmina and other of
the model management defendants. Further, on March 3, 2014, the
judge assigned to the Shanklin Litigation wrote the Office of the
New York Attorney General bringing the case to its attention,
generally describing the claims asserted therein against the model
management defendants, and stating that the case "may involve
matters in the public interest." The judge's letter also enclosed a
copy of his decision in the Raske Litigation, which dismissed that
case.

Plaintiffs retained substitute counsel, who filed a Second and then
Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint
asserts causes of action for alleged breaches of the plaintiffs'
management contracts with the defendants, conversion, breach of the
duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. The
Third Amended Complaint also alleges that the plaintiff models were
at all relevant times employees, and not independent contractors,
of the model management defendants, and that defendants violated
the New York Labor Law in several respects, including, among other
things, by allegedly failing to pay the models the minimum wages
and overtime pay required thereunder, not maintaining accurate
payroll records, and not providing plaintiffs with full
explanations of how their wages and deductions therefrom were
computed. The Third Amended Complaint seeks certification of the
action as a class action, damages in an amount to be determined at
trial, plus interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief
as the court deems proper.

On October 6, 2015, Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss as to most
of the plaintiffs' claims. The Court entered a decision granting in
part and denying in part Wilhelmina's motion to dismiss on May 26,
2017. The Court (i) dismissed three of the five New York Labor Law
causes of action, along with the conversion, breach of the duty of
good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment causes of action,
in their entirety, and (ii) permitted only the breach of contract
causes of action, and some plaintiffs' remaining two New York Labor
Law causes of action to continue, within a limited time frame. The
plaintiffs and Wilhelmina each appealed and the decision was
affirmed on May 24, 2018. On August 16, 2017, Wilhelmina filed its
Answer to the Third Amended Complaint, and discovery in this action
is continuing.

Wilhelmina International said, "The Company believes the claims
asserted in the Third Amended Complaint are without merit, and
intends to continue to vigorously defend the action."

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

Wilhelmina International, Inc. provides fashion model and talent
management services. The company engages in the representation and
management of models, entertainers, artists, athletes, and other
talent to various clients. Wilhelmina International, Inc. was
founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Roberta Little Now Sole Plaintiff
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wilhelmina International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that Shawn
Pressley has asked to withdraw from the case, leaving Roberta
Little as the sole named plaintiff in the Pressley Litigation.

On June 6, 2016, another putative class action lawsuit was brought
against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Shawn Pressley and
others (the "Pressley Litigation"), in New York State Supreme Court
(New York County) by the same counsel representing the plaintiffs
in the Shanklin Litigation, and asserting identical, although more
recent, claims as those in the Shanklin Litigation.

The Amended Complaint, asserting essentially the same types of
claims as in the Shanklin action, was filed on August 16, 2017.  

Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
September 29, 2017, which was granted in part and denied in part on
May 10, 2018. Some New York labor law and contract claims remain in
the case.  

Discovery is proceeding, and Ms. Pressley has withdrawn from the
case, leaving Roberta Little as the sole named plaintiff in the
Pressley Litigation.

Wilhelmina International said, "The Company believes the claims
asserted in the Pressley Litigation are without merit, and intends
to continue to vigorously defend the action."

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

Wilhelmina International, Inc. provides fashion model and talent
management services. The company engages in the representation and
management of models, entertainers, artists, athletes, and other
talent to various clients. Wilhelmina International, Inc. was
founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Still Faces Nev. Suit over Gas Price Handling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class actions related to alleged manipulation of
published gas price indices has been remanded back to the Nevada
federal district court, according to The Williams Companies, Inc.'s
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. In August 2018,
the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order denying class
certification.

The Company said, "Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in
various states filed individual and class actions against us, our
former affiliate WPX Energy, Inc. (WPX) and its subsidiaries, and
others alleging the manipulation of published gas price indices and
seeking unspecified amounts of damages.  Such actions were
transferred to the Nevada federal district court for consolidation
of discovery and pre-trial issues.  We have agreed to indemnify WPX
and its subsidiaries related to this matter.

"In the individual action, filed by Farmland Industries Inc.
(Farmland), the court issued an order on May 24, 2016, granting one
of our co-defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Farmland's
claims.  On January 5, 2017, the court extended such ruling to us,
entering final judgment in our favor.  Farmland appealed.  On March
27, 2018, the appellate court reversed the district court's grant
of summary judgment, and on April 10, 2018, the defendants filed a
petition for rehearing with the appellate court, which was denied
on May 9, 2018.  The case has been remanded to the Nevada federal
district court.

"In the putative class actions, on March 30, 2017, the court issued
an order denying the plaintiffs' motions for class certification.
On June 13, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit granted the plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal
the order.  On August 6, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed the order
denying class certification and remanded the case to the Nevada
federal district court.

"Because of the uncertainty around the remaining pending unresolved
issues, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential exposure
at this time.  However, it is reasonably possible that the ultimate
resolution of these actions and our related indemnification
obligation could result in a potential loss that may be material to
our results of operations.  In connection with this
indemnification, we have an accrued liability balance associated
with this matter, and as a result, have exposure to future
developments."

The Williams Companies, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure
company primarily in the United States. It owns and operates
natural gas pipeline system extending from Texas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, and the Gulf of Mexico through Alabama, Georgia, South
Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, and New Jersey to the New York City metropolitan
area. The Williams Companies, Inc. was founded in 1908 and is
headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma.


WILLIS TOWERS: Amended Complaint Filed in Delaware Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company is facing an amended
complaint filed by City of Fort Myers General Employees' Pension
Fund ('Fort Myers') and Alaska Laborers-Employers Retirement Trust
('Alaska') in a consolidated action pending in Delaware Court of
Chancery, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018.

On February 27, 2018 and March 8, 2018, two purported former
stockholders of Legacy Towers Watson, City of Fort Myers General
Employees' Pension Fund ('Fort Myers') and Alaska
Laborers-Employers Retirement Trust ('Alaska'), filed putative
class action complaints on behalf of a putative class of Legacy
Towers Watson stockholders against the former members of the Legacy
Towers Watson board of directors, Legacy Towers Watson, Legacy
Willis and ValueAct, in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned
City of Fort Myers General Employees' Pension Fund v. Towers Watson
& Co., et al., C.A. No. 2018-0132, and Alaska Laborers-Employers
Retirement Trust v. Victor F. Ganzi, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0155,
respectively.

Based on similar allegations as the Eastern District of Virginia
action, the complaints assert claims against the former directors
of Legacy Towers Watson for breach of fiduciary duty and against
Legacy Willis and ValueAct for aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty.


On March 9, 2018, Regents of the University of California
('Regents') filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of a
putative class of Legacy Towers Watson stockholders against the
Company, Legacy Willis, ValueAct, and Messrs. Haley, Casserley, and
Ubben, in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned The Regents of
the University of California v. John J. Haley, et al., C.A. No.
2018-0166.  Based on similar allegations as the Eastern District of
Virginia action, the complaint asserts claims against Mr. Haley for
breach of fiduciary duty and against all other defendants for
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.

Also on March 9, 2018, Regents filed a motion for consolidation of
all pending and subsequently filed Delaware Court of Chancery
actions, and for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for the
appointment of Bernstein as Lead Counsel for the putative class.

On March 29, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska responded to Regents'
motion and cross-moved for appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and
for the appointment of their counsel, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. and
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as Co-Lead Counsel.

On April 2, 2018, the court consolidated the Delaware Court of
Chancery actions and all related actions subsequently filed in or
transferred to the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On June 5, 2018, the court denied Regents' motion for appointment
of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel and granted Fort Myers' and
Alaska's cross-motion.

On June 20, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska designated the complaint
previously filed by Alaska (the 'Alaska Complaint') as the
operative complaint in the consolidated action.

On September 14, 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Alaska Complaint.

On October 31, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska filed an amended
complaint, which, based on similar allegations, asserts claims
against the former directors of legacy Towers Watson for breach of
fiduciary duty and against ValueAct and Mr. Ubben for aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty.

The defendants have not yet responded to the amended complaint.

Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and
administration services for health and group benefit programs; and
benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London,
England.


WILLIS TOWERS: Dec. 3 Oral Argument on Appeals from Stanford Pact
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company disclosed in its Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that oral argument
is scheduled for December 3, 2018, in the appeal related to the
approval of an agreement to settle lawsuits related to the collapse
of The Stanford Financial Group.

The Company has been named as a defendant in 15 similar lawsuits
relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group
('Stanford'), for which Willis of Colorado, Inc.  acted as broker
of record on certain lines of insurance.  The complaints in these
actions generally allege that the defendants actively and
materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanford
with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would be
used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford
client investors.  The complaints further allege that these
letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the insurance
policies that the defendants placed for Stanford, contained
untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in this manner
to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent
certificates of deposit.

The 15 actions are as follows:

   * Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A.  No.
3:9-CV-1274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings
plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc.  and a Willis associate, among
others.  On April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed the operative Third
Amended Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of a
putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis
Limited as a defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory
and common law and seeking damages in excess of US$1 billion,
punitive damages and costs.  On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Third Amended Class Action Complaint,
arguing, inter alia, that the plaintiffs' claims are precluded by
the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ('SLUSA').

On May 10, 2011, the court presiding over the Stanford-related
actions in the Northern District of Texas entered an order
providing that it would consider the applicability of SLUSA to the
Stanford-related actions based on the decision in a separate
Stanford action not involving a Willis entity, Roland v. Green,
Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N ('Roland').  On August 31, 2011,
the court issued its decision in Roland, dismissing that action
with prejudice under SLUSA.

On October 27, 2011, the court in Troice entered an order (i)
dismissing with prejudice those claims asserted in the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint on a class basis on the grounds set
forth in the Roland decision and (ii) dismissing without prejudice
those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class Action Complaint
on an individual basis.  Also on October 27, 2011, the court
entered a final judgment in the action.

On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a notice of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Subsequently, Troice, Roland and a third action captioned Troice,
et al. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-01600-N,
which also was dismissed on the grounds set forth in the Roland
decision and on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, were consolidated for purposes of briefing and oral
argument.  Following the completion of briefing and oral argument,
on March 19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the
actions.  On April 2, 2012, the defendants-appellees filed
petitions for rehearing en banc.  On April 19, 2012, the petitions
for rehearing en banc were denied.  On July 18, 2012,
defendants-appellees filed a petition for writ of certiorari with
the United States Supreme Court regarding the Fifth Circuit's
reversal in Troice.  On January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted
the Company's petition.  Opening briefs were filed on May 3, 2013
and the Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 7, 2013.  On
February 26, 2014, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's
decision.

On March 19, 2014, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a Motion to Defer
Resolution of Motions to Dismiss, to Compel Rule 26(f) Conference
and For Entry of Scheduling Order.

On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and the Janvey, et al. v.
Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. action stipulated to the
consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under Rule
42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  On March 28, 2014,
the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus, consolidated
Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a).

On September 16, 2014, the court (a) denied the plaintiffs' request
to defer resolution of the defendants' motions to dismiss, but
granted the plaintiffs' request to enter a scheduling order; (b)
requested the submission of supplemental briefing by all parties on
the defendants' motions to dismiss, which the parties submitted on
September 30, 2014; and (c) entered an order setting a schedule for
briefing and discovery regarding plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, which schedule, among other things, provided for the
submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification
(following the completion of briefing and discovery) on April 20,
2015.

On December 15, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss.  On January 30, 2015, the
defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint.

On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, the defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs'
motion, and the plaintiffs filed their reply in further support of
the motion.  Pursuant to an agreed stipulation also filed with the
court on April 20, 2015, the defendants on June 4, 2015 filed
sur-replies in further opposition to the motion.  The Court has not
yet scheduled a hearing on the motion.

On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.  On
November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew the motion.

On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions
entered into a settlement in principle.

   * Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A.  No. 9-22085,
was filed on July 17, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc and
Willis of Colorado, Inc.  in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.  The complaint was filed on behalf of
a putative class of Venezuelan and other South American Stanford
investors and alleges claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and Florida
statutory and common law and seeks damages in an amount to be
determined at trial.  On October 6, 2009, Ranni was transferred,
for consolidation or coordination with other Stanford-related
actions (including Troice), to the Northern District of Texas by
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the 'JPML').
The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Ranni.
On August 26, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the action without prejudice.

   * Canabal, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A.  No.
3:9-CV-1474-D, was filed on August 6, 2009 against Willis Group
Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc.  and the same Willis
associate named as a defendant in Troice, among others, also in the
Northern District of Texas.  The complaint was filed individually
and on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan Stanford investors,
alleged claims under Texas statutory and common law and sought
damages in excess of US$1 billion, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and costs.  On December 18, 2009, the parties in Troice and
Canabal stipulated to the consolidation of those actions (under the
Troice civil action number), and, on December 31, 2009, the
plaintiffs in Canabal filed a notice of dismissal, dismissing the
action without prejudice.

   * Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was
filed on September 14, 2009 on behalf of 97 Stanford investors
against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc.  and
the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court
(Bexar County).  The complaint alleges claims under the Securities
Act of 1933, Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law
and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than
US$300 million, attorneys' fees and costs.  On October 20, 2009,
certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed
Rupert to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related
action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination
by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern
District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions.  On April 1, 2010, the JPML issued a
final transfer order for the transfer of Rupert to the Northern
District of Texas.  On January 24, 2012, the court remanded Rupert
to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until
further order of the court.  On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a motion to lift the stay, which motion was denied by the
court on September 16, 2014.  On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs
appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the stay to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  On January 5, 2015,
the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the
Rishmague, et ano.  v. Winter, et al. action, and the consolidated
appeal, was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015.  Oral argument on
the consolidated appeal was held on September 2, 2015.  On
September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed.  The defendants
have not yet responded to the complaint in Rupert.

   * Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 3:10-CV-1862-O, was filed on September 16, 2010 on behalf of
seven Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc.  and the same Willis associate,
among others, also in the Northern District of Texas.  The
complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and
seeks actual damages in excess of US$5 million, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.  On February 13, 2015, the parties filed
an Agreed Motion for Partial Dismissal pursuant to which they
agreed to the dismissal of certain claims pursuant to the motion to
dismiss decisions in the Troice action and the Janvey action.  Also
on February 13, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings
plc answered the complaint in the Casanova action.  On June 19,
2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Plaintiffs have not
opposed the motion.

   * Rishmague, et ano.  v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2011CI2585,
was filed on March 11, 2011 on behalf of two Stanford investors,
individually and as representatives of certain trusts, against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc.  and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Bexar County).  The complaint alleges claims under
Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks
special, consequential and treble damages of more than US$37
million and attorneys' fees and costs.  On April 11, 2011, certain
defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed
Rishmague to the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML
of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the
action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should
be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation
or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions.  On August
8, 2011, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer of
Rishmague to the Northern District of Texas, where it is currently
pending.  On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs joined with the
plaintiffs in the Rupert action in their motion to lift the court's
stay of the Rupert action.  On September 9, 2014, the court
remanded Rishmague to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed
the action until further order of the court and denied the
plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay.  On October 10, 2014, the
plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the
stay to the Fifth Circuit.  On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit
consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the Rupert action, and
the consolidated appeal was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015.
Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on September 2,
2015.  On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed.  The
defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rishmague.

   * MacArthur v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2013-07840, was filed on
February 8, 2013 on behalf of two Stanford investors against Willis
Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of Texas, Inc.
and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court
(Harris County).  The complaint alleges claims under Texas and
Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks actual,
special, consequential and treble damages of approximately US$4
million and attorneys' fees and costs.  On March 29, 2013, Willis
of Colorado, Inc.  and Willis of Texas, Inc.  (i) removed MacArthur
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and
(ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action.  On
April 2, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc.  and Willis of Texas, Inc.
filed a motion in the Southern District of Texas to stay the action
pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be
transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or
coordination with the other Stanford-related actions.  Also on
April 2, 2013, the court presiding over MacArthur in the Southern
District of Texas transferred the action to the Northern District
of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions.  On September 29, 2014, the parties
stipulated to the remand (to Texas state court (Harris County)) and
stay of MacArthur until further order of the court (in accordance
with the court's September 9, 2014 decision in Rishmague), which
stipulation was 'so ordered' by the court on October 14, 2014.  The
defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in MacArthur.

   * Florida suits: On February 14, 2013, five lawsuits were filed
against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited and Willis of
Colorado, Inc.  in Florida state court (Miami-Dade County) alleging
violations of Florida common law.  The five suits are: (1) Barbar,
et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al.,
Case No. 13-05666CA27, filed on behalf of 35 Stanford investors
seeking compensatory damages in excess of US$30 million; (2) de
Gadala-Maria, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
Company, et al., Case No. 13-05669CA30, filed on behalf of 64
Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of
US$83.5 million; (3) Ranni, et ano.  v. Willis Group Holdings
Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05673CA06, filed on
behalf of two Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in
excess of US$3 million; (4) Tisminesky, et al. v. Willis Group
Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05676CA09,
filed on behalf of 11 Stanford investors seeking compensatory
damages in excess of US$6.5 million; and (5) Zacarias, et al. v.
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No.
13-05678CA11, filed on behalf of 10 Stanford investors seeking
compensatory damages in excess of US$12.5 million.  On June 3,
2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc.  removed all five cases to the
Southern District of Florida and, on June 4, 2013, notified the
JPML of the pendency of these related actions.  On June 10, 2013,
the court in Tisminesky issued an order sua sponte staying and
administratively closing that action pending a determination by the
JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern
District of Texas for consolidation and coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions.  On June 11, 2013, Willis of Colorado,
Inc.  moved to stay the other four actions pending the JPML's
transfer decision.  On June 20, 2013, the JPML issued a conditional
transfer order for the transfer of the five actions to the Northern
District of Texas, the transmittal of which was stayed for seven
days to allow for any opposition to be filed.  On June 28, 2013,
with no opposition having been filed, the JPML lifted the stay,
enabling the transfer to go forward.

On September 30, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
remand in Zacarias, and, on October 3, 2014, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motions to remand in Tisminesky and de Gadala Maria.
On December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015, the court granted the
plaintiffs' motions to remand in Barbar and Ranni, respectively,
remanded both actions to Florida state court (Miami-Dade County)
and stayed both actions until further order of the court.  On
January 2, 2015 and April 1, 2015, the plaintiffs in Barbar and
Ranni, respectively, appealed the court's December 3, 2014 and
March 3, 2015 decisions to the Fifth Circuit.  On April 22, 2015
and July 22, 2015, respectively, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the
Barbar and Ranni appeals sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction.  The
defendants have not yet responded to the complaints in Ranni or
Barbar.

On April 1, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc
filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky and
de Gadala-Maria.  On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed
motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de
Gadala-Maria for lack of personal jurisdiction.  On July 15, 2015,
the court dismissed the complaint in Zacarias in its entirety with
leave to replead within 21 days.  On July 21, 2015, the court
dismissed the complaints in Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria in their
entirety with leave to replead within 21 days.  On August 6, 2015,
the plaintiffs in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria filed
amended complaints (in which, among other things, Willis Group
Holdings plc was no longer named as a defendant).  On September 11,
2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaints.  The motions await disposition by the court.

   * Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:13-CV-03980-D, was filed on October 1, 2013 also in the Northern
District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of Colorado, Inc.  and
the same Willis associate.  The complaint was filed (i) by Ralph S.
Janvey, in his capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the
Stanford Receivership Estate, and the Official Stanford Investors
Committee (the 'OSIC') against all defendants and (ii) on behalf of
a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors against Willis
North America Inc.  Plaintiffs Janvey and the OSIC allege claims
under Texas common law and the court's Amended Order Appointing
Receiver, and the putative class plaintiffs allege claims under
Texas statutory and common law.  Plaintiffs seek actual damages in
excess of US$1 billion, punitive damages and costs.  As alleged by
the Stanford Receiver, the total amount of collective losses
allegedly sustained by all investors in Stanford certificates of
deposit is approximately US$4.6 billion.

On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs in Janvey filed the operative
First Amended Complaint, which added certain defendants
unaffiliated with Willis.  On February 28, 2014, the defendants
filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which
motions, other than with respect to Willis Group Holding plc's
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, were granted
in part and denied in part by the court on December 5, 2014.  On
December 22, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend the court's
December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth
Circuit, and, on December 23, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend
and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the court's December 5
order.  On January 16, 2015, the defendants answered the First
Amended Complaint.  On January 28, 2015, the court denied Willis's
motion to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an
interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit.  On February 4, 2015,
the court granted Willis's motion to amend and, to the extent
necessary, reconsider the December 5 order.

On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and Janvey stipulated to
the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  On March 28,
2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus,
consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule
42(a).

On January 26, 2015, the court entered an order setting a schedule
for briefing and discovery regarding the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided
for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery)
on July 20, 2015.  By letter dated March 4, 2015, the parties
requested that the court consolidate the scheduling orders entered
in Troice and Janvey to provide for a class certification
submission date of April 20, 2015 in both cases.  On March 6, 2015,
the court entered an order consolidating the scheduling orders in
Troice and Janvey, providing for a class certification submission
date of April 20, 2015 in both cases, and vacating the July 20,
2015 class certification submission date in the original Janvey
scheduling order.

On November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew its motion
to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions
entered into a settlement in principle.


   * Martin v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No.
201652115, was filed on August 5, 2016, on behalf of one Stanford
investor against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis
of Colorado, Inc.  and the same Willis associate in Texas state
court (Harris County).  The complaint alleges claims under Texas
statutory and common law and seeks actual damages of less than
US$100,000, exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  On
September 12, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
added five more Stanford investors as plaintiffs and seeks damages
in excess of US$1 million.  The defendants have not yet responded
to the amended complaint in Martin.


   * Abel, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A.  No.
3:16-cv-2601, was filed on September 12, 2016, on behalf of more
than 300 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc,
Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc.  and the same Willis
associate, also in the Northern District of Texas.  The complaint
alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks
actual damages in excess of US$135 million, exemplary damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.  On November 10, 2016, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint, which, among other things, added
several more Stanford investors as plaintiffs.  The defendants have
not yet responded to the complaint in Abel.

The plaintiffs in Janvey and Troice and the other actions seek
overlapping damages, representing either the entirety or a portion
of the total alleged collective losses incurred by investors in
Stanford certificates of deposit, notwithstanding the fact that
Legacy Willis acted as broker of record for only a portion of time
that Stanford issued certificates of deposit.  In the fourth
quarter of 2015, the Company recognized a US$70 million litigation
provision for loss contingencies relating to the Stanford matters
based on its ongoing review of a variety of factors as required by
accounting standards.

On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in
principle for US$120 million relating to this litigation, and
increased its provisions by US$50 million during that quarter.

The settlement is contingent on a number of conditions, including
court approval of the settlement and a bar order prohibiting any
continued or future litigation against Willis related to Stanford,
which may not be given.  Therefore, the ultimate resolution of
these matters may differ from the amount provided for.  The Company
continues to dispute the allegations and, to the extent litigation
proceeds, to defend the lawsuits vigorously.

Settlement.  On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a
settlement in principle, as reflected in a Settlement Term Sheet,
relating to the Stanford litigation matter.  The Company agreed to
the Settlement Term Sheet to eliminate the distraction, burden,
expense and uncertainty of further litigation.  In particular, the
settlement and the related bar orders, if upheld through any
appeals, would enable the Company (a newly-combined firm) to
conduct itself with the bar orders' protection from the continued
overhang of matters alleged to have occurred approximately a decade
ago.  Further, the Settlement Term Sheet provided that the parties
understood and agreed that there is no admission of liability or
wrongdoing by the Company.  The Company expressly denies any
liability or wrongdoing with respect to the matters alleged in the
Stanford litigation.

On or about August 31, 2016, the parties to the settlement signed a
formal Settlement Agreement memorializing the terms of the
settlement as originally set forth in the Settlement Term Sheet.
The parties to the Settlement Agreement are Ralph S. Janvey (in his
capacity as the Court-appointed receiver (the 'Receiver') for The
Stanford Financial Group and its affiliated entities in
receivership (collectively, 'Stanford')), the Official Stanford
Investors Committee, Samuel Troice, Martha Diaz, Paula
Gilly-Flores, Punga Punga Financial, Ltd., Manuel Canabal, Daniel
Gomez Ferreiro and Promotora Villa Marina, C.A.  (collectively,
'Plaintiffs'), on the one hand, and Willis Towers Watson Public
Limited Company (formerly Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
Company), Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of
Colorado, Inc.  and the Willis associate (collectively,
'Defendants'), on the other hand.  Under the terms of the
Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed to settle and dismiss the
Janvey and Troice actions (collectively, the 'Actions') and all
current or future claims arising from or related to Stanford in
exchange for a one-time cash payment to the Receiver by the Company
of US$120 million to be distributed to all Stanford investors who
have claims recognized by the Receiver pursuant to the distribution
plan in place at the time the payment is made.

The Settlement Agreement also provides the parties' agreement to
seek the Court's entry of bar orders prohibiting any continued or
future litigation against the Defendants and their related parties
of claims relating to Stanford, whether asserted to date or not.
The terms of the bar orders therefore would prohibit all
Stanford-related litigation, and not just the Actions, but
including any pending matters and any actions that may be brought
in the future.  Final Court approval of these bar orders is a
condition of the settlement.

On September 7, 2016, Plaintiffs filed with the Court a motion to
approve the settlement.  On October 19, 2016, the Court
preliminarily approved the settlement.  Several of the plaintiffs
in the other actions objected to the settlement, and a hearing to
consider final approval of the settlement was held on January 20,
2017, after which the Court reserved decision.  On August 23, 2017,
the Court approved the settlement, including the bar orders.
Several of the objectors have since appealed the settlement
approval and bar orders to the Fifth Circuit.  The briefing related
to the appeals is now completed and oral argument on the appeals is
scheduled for December 3, 2018.  There is no date certain for when
the appeal will be decided.  The Company will not make the US$120
million settlement payment unless and until the appeals are decided
in its favor and the settlement is not subject to any further
appeal.

Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and
administration services for health and group benefit programs; and
benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London,
England.


WILLIS TOWERS: UC Regents' Appeal Underway
-------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company disclosed in its Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that Lead Plaintiff
Regents of the University of California has filed its opening brief
in its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit.

On November 21, 2017, a purported former stockholder of Legacy
Towers Watson filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of
a putative class consisting of all Legacy Towers Watson
stockholders as of October 2, 2015 against the Company, Legacy
Towers Watson, Legacy Willis, ValueAct Capital Management
('ValueAct'), and certain current and former directors and officers
of Legacy Towers Watson and Legacy Willis (John Haley, Dominic
Casserley, and Jeffrey Ubben), in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The complaint asserted claims against certain defendants under
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 'Exchange
Act') for allegedly false and misleading statements in the proxy
statement for the Merger; and against other defendants under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for alleged 'control person'
liability with respect to such allegedly false and misleading
statements.  The complaint further contended that the allegedly
false and misleading statements caused stockholders of Legacy
Towers Watson to accept inadequate Merger consideration.  The
complaint sought damages in an unspecified amount.

On February 20, 2018, the court appointed the Regents of the
University of California ('Regents') as Lead Plaintiff and
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP ('Bernstein') as Lead
Counsel for the putative class, consolidated all subsequently
filed, removed, or transferred actions, and captioned the
consolidated action 'In re Willis Towers Watson plc Proxy
Litigation,' Master File No. 1:17-cv-1338-AJT-JFA.  On March 9,
2018, Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.  On April 13,
2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended
Complaint, and, on July 11, 2018, following briefing and argument,
the court granted the motions and dismissed the Amended Complaint
in its entirety.

On July 30, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the
court's July 11, 2018 dismissal order to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and, on September 28, 2018, Lead
Plaintiff filed its opening appeal brief.

Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and
administration services for health and group benefit programs; and
benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London,
England.


WORLD THREADS: Faces Figueroa Suit Alleging ADA Breach
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against World Threads, Inc.
The case is styled as Jose Figueroa on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. World Threads, Inc. doing
business as: Eberjey, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10492 (S.D. N.Y.,
Nov. 12, 2018).

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

Eberjey, well-known for its soft fabrics and pretty laces, is a
lifestyle brand selling intimate apparel, loungewear, resort wear,
and swimwear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


XEROX CORP: Appeal in Firefighters Pension Fund Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018, that the appeal from a ruling in the lawsuit
styled Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Xerox
Corporation, Ursula M. Burns, Luca Maestri, Kathryn A. Mikells,
Lynn R. Blodgett, Robert K. Zapfel, David H. Bywater and Mary
Scanlon, is still pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

On October 21, 2016, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and
Retirement System ("plaintiff") filed a purported securities class
action complaint against Xerox Corporation, Ursula Burns, Luca
Maestri, Kathryn Mikells, Lynn Blodgett and Robert Zapfel
(collectively, "defendants") in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of the plaintiff and
certain purchasers or acquirers of Xerox common stock.

The complaint alleged that defendants made false and misleading
statements, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, relating to the
operations and prospects of Xerox's Health Enterprise business.
Plaintiff sought, among other things, unspecified monetary damages
and attorneys' fees.  Other, similar lawsuits may follow.

On December 28, 2016, the Court entered a stipulated order setting
out a schedule for amendment of the complaint and for defendants'
response to that complaint following the Court's appointment of
lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.
On February 28, 2017, the Court issued an opinion and order
appointing the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System
("APERS") as lead plaintiff.  On May 1, 2017, APERS filed an
amended complaint, alleging substantially similar claims and
seeking substantially similar relief, but adding David Bywater and
Mary Scanlon as defendants.

On June 30, 2017, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint, and the motions were fully briefed on October 13, 2017.
On March 20, 2018, the Court entered an opinion and order granting
the motions, and on March 23, 2018, the Court entered a judgment of
dismissal and closed the case.

On April 20, 2018, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Company said, "Xerox will vigorously defend against this
matter.  At this time, it is premature to make any conclusion
regarding the probability of incurring material losses in this
litigation.  Should developments cause a change in our
determination as to an unfavorable outcome, or result in a final
adverse judgment or settlement, there could be a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, cash flows and financial
position in the period in which such change in determination,
judgment, or settlement occurs."

Xerox Corporation designs, develops, and sells document management
systems and solutions worldwide. It offers managed document
services, including managed print services and multi-channel
communication services, as well as a range of digital solutions,
such as workflow automation services, content management, and
digitization services. Xerox Corporation was founded in 1906 and is
headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut.


XEROX CORP: Still Defends Lawsuits over Fuji Transaction
--------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018, that it will "vigorously defend" the pending
lawsuits related to the Company's proposed transaction to combine
with Fuji Xerox to the extent that the proceedings continue as to
Xerox.

In February 2018, five complaints, including four putative class
actions (which have been consolidated), were filed by Xerox
shareholders in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County
("Court") in connection with the proposed transaction to combine
Xerox and Fuji Xerox ("Fuji Transaction").  All of the complaints
name as defendants Xerox, its directors, and FUJIFILM Holdings
Corporation ("Fujifilm").  The complaint in one of the actions also
names as a defendant Ursula M. Burns, the former Chief Executive
Officer of Xerox.  The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that
Xerox's directors breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating,
approving, and purportedly making false and misleading disclosures
about the Fuji Transaction, and that Fujifilm aided and abetted
those breaches.  The complaint in one of the actions further
alleges that Xerox and the director defendants engaged in common
law fraud by purportedly failing to disclose information about the
joint venture agreements between Xerox and Fujifilm.  The lawsuits
seek injunctive relief preventing the previously proposed
transactions, and/or additional disclosures by Xerox's directors,
unspecified damages from Xerox's directors, costs and attorneys'
fees, as well as other relief.

Another complaint filed by Darwin Deason, a Xerox shareholder,
against Xerox and its directors in the same Court on March 2, 2018
alleged that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by refusing
Mr. Deason's request for a waiver of the deadline for nomination of
a new slate of Xerox directors, and sought to enjoin Xerox and its
directors from enforcing Xerox's advance notice by-laws, thereby
allowing Mr. Deason to proceed with the nominations, as well as
costs, fees, and other relief.

On April 27, 2018, the Court issued decisions and orders granting
plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motions, which (i) enjoin Xerox
from "taking any further action to consummate the change of control
transaction between Xerox and Fuji that was announced on January
31, 2018 pending a final determination of the claims asserted in
the underlying action;" (ii) enjoin Xerox from enforcing its
advance notice bylaw provision requiring shareholders to nominate
directors for election at the 2018 annual shareholder meeting by
December 11, 2017; and (iii) require Xerox to waive such advance
notice bylaw provision to permit the noticing of a slate of
director nominees for election at the 2018 annual shareholder
meeting, and denying defendants' motions to dismiss.

On May 1, 2018, Xerox entered into a Director Appointment,
Nomination and Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement")
with Carl Icahn and Darwin Deason, among others, that would have
resolved the pending proxy contest in connection with Xerox's 2018
Annual Meeting of Shareholders, as well as the ongoing litigation
brought by Mr. Deason against Xerox and its directors related to
the Fuji Transaction.  The agreement expired by its terms on May 3,
2018 without becoming effective.

On May 7, 2018, defendants filed with the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department,
notices of appeal of, and motions to stay pending appeal, the lower
Court's decision and order.  Defendants also moved the appellate
court for interim relief ordering that the appeal be heard on an
expedited basis.  At a hearing before the appellate court on May 7,
2018, the appellate court ruled that the appeals would be heard on
an expedited basis and granted a partial interim stay allowing
Xerox and Fujifilm to take steps to seek regulatory approvals
related to the Fuji Transaction pending a ruling from the appellate
court on defendants' motions to stay pending appeal.

On May 13, 2018, a settlement agreement with respect to the Deason
cases was signed on behalf of plaintiff Deason, the Icahn Group and
related parties, and all defendants except Fujifilm, and a
memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of the putative
class case was signed by all defendants except Fujifilm.  Pursuant
to the settlements, the settling defendants withdrew their appeal
and motion to stay in the Deason cases.  The settling defendants
also withdrew their motion to stay in the putative class case.

Fujifilm's appeal and motion for a stay of the proceedings in the
first Deason case and the putative class case remain pending before
the Appellate Division.  The Court entered a stipulation of
discontinuance as to the settling parties in the second Deason case
on May 14, 2018, and agreed on June 22, 2018 to do the same in the
first Deason case.

On June 14, 2018, Fujifilm filed answers in the first Deason case
and the putative class case, along with cross-claims against the
members of the Xerox Board (as constituted before May 13, 2018) and
a third-party complaint against Xerox director Jonathan
Christodoro, seeking contribution for any potential award against
Fujifilm for aiding and abetting purported breaches of fiduciary
duties.

On June 19, 2018, the putative class plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary approval of a stipulation of settlement that would
resolve the claims asserted by the plaintiffs in the putative class
case against all defendants, other than Fujifilm.  Carmen Ribbe,
the plaintiff in the derivative action, and Fujifilm filed
oppositions to the motion on July 10, 2018.

On June 22, 2018, the Court entered an order denying a joint motion
by the putative class plaintiffs and the settling defendants to
dissolve the injunction in the class case as against the settling
defendants, and entered an order denying Fujifilm's motion to
dissolve the injunctions in the class case and the first Deason
case in their entirety.

On July 16, 2018, the Court held a hearing concerning the putative
class plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
in the putative class case.  The Court indicated that it was not
inclined to consider motions for approval of the settlement prior
to considering whether the putative class should be certified.

On August 2, 2018, the Appellate Division entered orders
recognizing the Xerox defendants' withdrawal of their appeal in the
Deason cases and denying all appellants' motions to stay pending
determination of appeals in the Deason and class cases.

On August 2, 2018, the Appellate Division entered orders (i) at
their request, deeming withdrawn the Xerox defendants' appeal and
motion to stay in the Deason cases; and (ii) upon their request,
deeming withdrawn the Xerox defendants' motion to stay, pending
determination of appeal, the putative class case; and (iii) denying
Fujifilm's motion to stay pending determination of its appeals in
the Deason and putative case cases.

On September 21, 2018, putative class plaintiffs filed a motion for
certification of a settlement class and a motion to transmit notice
of the proposed settlement to the proposed class.  On October 17,
2018, derivative plaintiff Carmen Ribbe and Fujifilm filed
oppositions to the putative class plaintiffs' motion to transmit
notice to the proposed class.  The class has not yet been
certified, and preliminary approval has not been granted.

The Appellate Division heard oral argument on September 25, 2018 on
Fujifilm's appeal of the Court's decision.

On October 16, 2018, the Appellate Division entered a decision and
order reversing the Court's rulings, ordering that the claims
brought against Fujifilm in the cases by Mr. Deason and the
purported class be dismissed, and further ordering that the
preliminary injunction of the proposed Fuji Transaction be
dissolved.

Xerox will vigorously defend these lawsuits to the extent that the
proceedings continue as to Xerox.

The Company said, "At this time, however, it is premature to make
any conclusion regarding the probability of incurring material
losses in these lawsuits.  Should developments cause a change in
our determination as to an unfavorable outcome, or result in a
final adverse judgment or settlement, there could be a material
adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows and
financial position in the period in which such change in
determination, judgment, or settlement occurs."

Xerox Corporation designs, develops, and sells document management
systems and solutions worldwide. It offers managed document
services, including managed print services and multi-channel
communication services, as well as a range of digital solutions,
such as workflow automation services, content management, and
digitization services. Xerox Corporation was founded in 1906 and is
headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut.


ZIMMER BIOMET: Still Defends Putative Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. continues to defend itself in a
putative securities class action, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

The Company states, "On December 2, 2016, a complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (Shah
v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al.), naming us, one of our
officers and two of our now former officers as defendants.  On June
28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a corrected amended complaint,
naming as defendants, in addition to those previously named,
current and former members of our Board of Directors, one
additional officer, and the underwriters in connection with
secondary offerings of our common stock by certain selling
stockholders in 2016.  On October 6, 2017, the plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the underwriters without prejudice.

"On October 8, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, naming as defendants, in addition to those current and
former officers and Board members previously named, certain former
stockholders of ours who sold shares of our common stock in
secondary public offerings in 2016.  We and our current and former
officers and Board members named as defendants are sometimes
hereinafter referred to as the "Zimmer Biomet Defendant group".
The former stockholders of ours who sold shares of our common stock
in secondary public offerings in 2016 are sometimes hereinafter
referred to as the "Private Equity Fund Defendant group".

"The second amended complaint relates to a putative class action on
behalf of persons who purchased our common stock between June 7,
2016 and November 7, 2016.  The second amended complaint generally
alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by
making materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
omissions about our compliance with FDA regulations and our ability
to continue to accelerate our organic revenue growth rate in the
second half of 2016.

"The defendants filed their respective motions to dismiss on
December 20, 2017, plaintiffs filed their omnibus response to the
motions to dismiss on March 13, 2018 and the defendants filed their
respective reply briefs on May 18, 2018.

On September 27, 2018, the court denied the Zimmer Biomet Defendant
group's motion to dismiss in its entirety.  The court granted the
Private Equity Fund Defendant group's motion to dismiss, without
prejudice.

"On October 9, 2018, the Zimmer Biomet Defendant group filed a
motion to amend the court's order on the motion to certify two
issues for interlocutory appeal, and a motion to stay proceedings
pending appeal.  That motion remains pending.

"The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and interest, attorneys'
fees, costs and other relief.  We believe this lawsuit is without
merit, and we and the individual defendants are defending it
vigorously."

Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
designs, manufactures, and markets musculoskeletal healthcare
products and solutions in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, and the Asia Pacific. The company is based in Warsaw,
Indiana.



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***