CAR_Public/181217.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, December 17, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 251

                            Headlines

24 WEST FOOD: Reyes Seeks Unpaid Wages and Overtime
3M COMPANY: Ackerman Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
ABC CORP: Placido Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
AECOM: Singletary Seeks Overtime Pay
AFORTUS FINANCIAL: Naiman Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls

ALLSUP'S CONVENIENCE: Smith Seeks Overtime Compensation
AMERICAN FAMILY: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Anderson Suit
AMERICAN YACHT: Illegally Keeps Employees' Gratuities, Suit Claims
ANDERSEN CORPORATION: Luna Suit Moved to N.D. California
APPTIO INC: Scarantino Balks at Merger Deal with Vista Equity

ARCIMOTO INC: 1st Amended Complaint in Consolidated Suit Underway
ASUS COMPUTER: Sued over Misrepresentation of USB Laptops Prices
BANK OF AMERICA: Bids for Certification in Fernandez Suit Denied
BANK OF AMERICA: Removed Veritas Case to District of New Jersey
BANK OF AMERICA: Uong et al Suit Moved to C.D. California

BERGHOFF INTERNATIONAL: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Perry Says
BESURE HOME: Amaya Seeks Minimum Wage and OT Pay for Caregivers
BIG BUBBA'S: Linneberger Seeks Back Wages, Damages
BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE: Records Phone Calls, Treihart Says
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Castillo Suit Moved to District of Nevada

CHAMPION PETFOODS: Removed Shaker Case to E.D. Michigan
CHEETAH MOBILE: Marcu Sues over Misleading Financial Report
CHULA VISTA: Sold Discounted Access to Condo Units, Suit Claims
CITIBANK NA: Revitch Moves for Class Certification Under TCPA
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Geffner Appeals S.D.N.Y. Judgment to 2nd Cir.

COLE COUNTY, MO: Class Certification Sought in Turtle Island Suit
CONN'S INC: 5th Cir. Dismisses Appeal in Texas Securities Suit
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Illegally Sends Text Ads, LaRock Suit Claims
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Orozco Sues over Debt Collection Practices
CRUISES & TOURS: Spotts Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages

CURO GROUP: Share Prices Inflated, Yellowdog Partners Claims
DASTMALCHI LLC: Faces Palermo Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing
DAXI SICHUAN: Zang Seeks Overtime Pay
DIMICHELE ENTERPRISES: Thompson Seeks Overtime Pay
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Removes Silva Case to Central Dist. of California

EAST CAPITOL: Wins Prelim. Nod of Settlement in Kinard Suit
ECA: Terminates Employees without Proper Legal Notice, Suit Says
EDUCATION CORP: Sued over Mass Layoff without Written Notice
ERIC KIM: Yu et al Seeks Overtime Wages
ESA MANAGEMENT: Liggins Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of California

ESTES FORWARDING: Kirkland Suit Moved to N.D. California
FAIRWAY INDEPENDENT: Valdez Suit Moved to S.D. California
FINA: Sued over Control of International Swimming Competitions
FINISAR CORP: Class Certification Bid in Securities Suit Underway
FLORIDA COMMUNITY: Stewart Sues over Debt Collection Practices

FOOD LION: Ratcliffe Moves to Certify Asst. Store Managers Class
GC SERVICES: Ocampo's Renewed Bid for Class Certification Denied
HD SUPPLY: Shareholders Class Suit in Georgia in Discovery Stage
HYPERION BIOTECHNOLOGY: Smith Suit Moved to C.D. California
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Musgrave Sues Over Wiring Defect in Vehicles

ILLINOIS INSTITUTE: Conceals Accreditation Status, Suit Says
IMPERVA INC: Scarantino Sues Over Thomas Bravo Merger
INLAND PRODUCTS: Sued Over Deceptive Business Practices
INTERFAITH MEDICAL: Made Unlawful Pay Deductions, Okeke Says
JPMORGAN CHASE: Manipulates Metals Futures Contracts, Serri Says

JULIAN SPENCE: Heberle's Cert. Bid Denied; Hearing on Dec. 20
KATHERINE'S CATERING: Underpays Service Staff, Tansey et al. Claim
KELLOGG COMPANY: Smith Suit Transferred to W.D. Michigan
KOREAN VETERANS: Man Kyu Choi Files RICO Class Action in Calif.
LA MESA, CA: Suenishi Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

LOS ANGELES, CA: Zissa Seeks Overtime Pay for Social Workers
MANDARIN ORIENTAL: Olsen Files ADA Suit in New York
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: McGrath Sues over Data Breach
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Perkins Sues over Data Breach
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Raab Sues over Data Breach

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sciascia et al. Sue over Data Breach
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sisbarro Sues Over Massive Data Breach
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sprowl et al Sue over Data Breach
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sundius-Rose Sues over Data Breach
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Taylor Sues Over Data Security Breach

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Trager Sues over Data Breach
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Turner Sues over Data Breach
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Van Dam Sues over Data Breach
MAXHOME, LLC: Vail Seeks Overtime Compensation
MDL 2617: Arnold Wants Suit to Be Included in Data Breach MDL

MDL 2741: Anderson Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Barbour Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Hiatt Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Hogan Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Kruppa Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MDL 2741: Lis Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Riordan Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Strong Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2804: Eiland vs. Purdue Pharma over Opiates Consolidated
MDL 2871: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 2 Crop Insurance Lawsuits

MEDLEY CAPITAL: RICO Suits in Virginia & Pennsylvania Ongoing
MIDLAND CREDIT: Koch Moves to Certify Michigan Class Under FDCPA
MONSANTO COMPANY: Samaniego Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Stadter Brothers Sues over Xtend Crop System
NATION WASTE: Sued by Johnson for Not Paying Drivers Overtime Pay

NATIONAL ACCREDITING: Meaders Seeks Overtime Pay
NORTH 6TH PLACE: Mendez Sues over Job Related Injuries
NUTS' N MORE: Faces Morrison Class Suit in NY for  Fraud
OLAM SPICES: Beltran et al. Suit Moved to E.D. California
OLNICK ORGANIZATION: Violates Disabilities Act, Olsen Suit Says

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Butts Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
PUERTO MADERO: Souyris Seeks Overtime Pay for Servers
RAYDON CORP: Sued over Employee Stock Ownership Plan Losses
RH INC: Appeal in California Securities Class Suit Underway
RICH'S CAR WASH: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Rosales Suit

ROADRUNNER TRANS: Faces Gomez Suit in California State Court
SAN DIEGO CORP: Leyva Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Removed Reid Case to District of Massachusetts
SEIKO EPSON: Allegedly Disabled Printers through Firmware Update
SEMPER BLUE: Seeks Unpaid Wages and Overtime Pay

SKC ENTERPRISES: Conditional Certification Bid in Davis Suit Nixed
SMITH DEBNAM: Faces Cavin FDCPA Suit in North Carolina
SODEXO INC: Rivera Suit Moved to Central District of California
STATE-OWNED ASSETS: Cole Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Louisiana
STOYANOV & HYMAS: Fabricant Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls

STRAX WELLNESS: Carnevali Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
TD BANK: Perks Sues over Multiple Non-Sufficient Funds Fees
TOA USA: McCracken Seeks Overtime Pay for Servers
TOYOTA MOTOR: Cuts Support for Entune Audio System, Auyeung Claims
TRANSPORTATION MEDIA: Failed to Pay Sales Reps OT Pay, Suit Says

TRAVELEX CURRENCY: Website not Accessible to Blind, Nixon Says
TREMONT CONSTRUCTION: Mt Hawley Files Insurance-related Suit
UNITED STATES: S.M.S.R Sues Over Asylum Eligibility Policy
WELLS FARGO: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Varga Class Suit
WELLTOWER INC: Hoffman Plaintiffs Agree to Dismiss Suit

WHITE CASTLE FOOD: Cothron Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
WS ENERGY: Medina Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
YETI COOLERS: Sued over Deceptive Rambler Colster Product
YORK RISK: Oliver Sues over Unauthorized Text Message Calls
YORKVILLE MANSION: Elena Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages

ZALE DELAWARE: Lovette Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of California

                            *********

24 WEST FOOD: Reyes Seeks Unpaid Wages and Overtime
---------------------------------------------------
SANTIAGO REYES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 24 WEST FOOD CORP. d/b/a FOOD DYNASTY
SUPERMARKET, ABDEL K. ABUZAHRIEH, MOHAMMED ABUZAHRIEH, and HIKMAT
ABUZAHRIEH, Jointly and Severally, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-10878 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime premium pay pursuant to both the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a former supermarket
employee at Defendants' supermarket located in Bronx, New York. The
Plaintiff was not paid minimum wages for all hours worked and was
not paid overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 in a given
workweek.

The Plaintiff also brings claims for unpaid spread-of-hours
premiums and for failure to provide proper wage notices and wage
statements pursuant to NYLL and the supporting regulations. The
Plaintiff brings his FLSA claims on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated employees of Defendants and his NYLL claims on
behalf of himself and a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class of
all non-management employees working for Defendants in New York,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative FLSA Collective and
Class:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          www.peltongraham.com
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700

3M COMPANY: Ackerman Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against 3M Company was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the  Eastern District of Washington (Case
No. 2:18-cv-00117) to the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina (Charleston) on Dec. 7, 2018. The District of South
Carolina court Clerk assigned Case No.: 2:18-cv-03311-RMG tob the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard M
Gergel.

The Plaintiffs and the Putative Class seek recovery from all
Defendants for injuries, damages, and losses suffered by the
Plaintiffs, each of whom suffered injuries as a direct and
proximate result of exposure to and consumption of PFC-contaminated
water from their drinking water supplies, in an amount to be
determined at trial, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorneys’
fees.

The case is captioned as CHRISTINA ACKERMAN; SUSAN BAKOS; PHYLLIS
BERGMAN; CHARLES BLAKE; SUSIE BUSH; GLENN CALLENDER; JACQUELINE
CALLENDER; JUSTIN CALLENDER; JERRI CARVER; BARBARA COLLINS; BRUCE
CORBETT; CHRISTY CORBETT; CHARLES DAVIS; TERESA DAVIS; JULIE
DIBBLE; CHAD EVANS; KRISTIN EVANS; JOHN EYRE; VINCENT FIATTARONE;
CHERYL FRENCH; STEVEN FRENCH; ASHLEY GENZEL; COURTNIE GILLETTE,
Individually and as Next Friend for her minor child, P.G.; MICAH
GILLETTE, Individually and as Next Friend for his minor child,
P.G.; HELENE HATCH; BRITTANY HENSLEY, Individually and as Next
Friend for her minor child, L.H.; JORDAN HENSLEY, Individually and
as Next Friend for his minor child, L.H.; BILL HIGGINS; JAKEN
HUECHE; DENNIS HUNLEY; HEATHER HUNLEY, Individually and as Next
Friend for her minor children, P.H. and T.H.; JOANNE HUNLEY; SHAWN
HUNLEY; ANITA JARUIS; JENNIFER JOHNSON, Individually and as Next
Friend for her minor children, L.J. and Q. J.; SEAN JOHNSON,
Individually and as Next Friend for his minor children, L.J. and
Q.J.; DIANA KNEFF; STEVEN KANAGA, Individually and in his capacity
as Executor of the ESTATE OF MILLWEE HOLLER-KANAGA; RICHARD LINK,
Individually and as Next Friend for his minor child, G.L.; TERRI
LINK; JOSEPH MARTINEZ; JOHN MITSCHKE; YANG MITSCHKE; DONNA
O’BRIEN; JEREMY OWNBY; CORY PASSINETTI; EMMA PASSINETTI,
Individually and as Next Friend for her minor child, A.P.; JANAE
PASSINETTI, Individually and as Next Friend for her minor children,
E.P., J.P., K.P., M.P., and T.P.; JASON PASSINETTI; DONNA PETERSON;
DELBERT REIBER; Individually and as Next Friend for his minor
children, A.R. and C.R.; MARSHALL REIBER; SARRA REIBER; GARRET
RUPERT, Individually and as Next Friend for his minor children,
C.R., K.R., and K.R.; HEATHER RUPERT, Individually and as Next
Friend for her minor children, C.R., K.R., and K.R.; LEWIS SCHWINN;
BRADLY SHRUM; CORY SHRUM; JAN SHARDELL SHRUM; JULIE SHRUM,
Individually and as Next Friend for her minor child, W.S.; JALEY
SIMMONS, Individually and as Next Friend for her minor children,
K.T. and K.T.; CHRIS TAYLOR, Individually and as Next Friend for
his minor children, K.T. and K.T.; PAMELA WILLIAMS; ANTHONY ABEL;
SAMANTHA BARCUS; MICHAEL BUYONAVICH; JACKIE COLBURN; JOEL ERWIN;
JENNIFER FOLAND; EARL FORSMAN, Individually and in his capacity as
Trustee for the EARL N. AND JANET L. FORSMAN TRUST; JANET FORSMAN,
Individually and in her capacity as Trustee for the EARL N. AND
JANET L. FORSMAN TRUST; ANTHONY GALLEGOS; HELEN GALLEGOS; DEBRA
GEHRET; ROBIN GIPSON; AMY HAVENS, Individually and as Next Friend
for her minor child, J.H.; DONNA JOHNSON; DOUGLAS JOHNSON; MICHAEL
JOHNSON; KEIRSTIN JONES; TINA JONES; KENNETH KELLER; JILL LINK;
CHRIS MCCULLOCH; SHARON MCCULLOCH; TODD MCINNIS; HEATHER PETRO;
MATTHEW PETRO; LUANN STEPHENSON; WILLIAM STEPHENSON; WILLIAM
URDRIAN; and FRANCELINA WALKER; individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P.,
successor in interest to THE ANSUL COMPANY; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; and NATIONAL FOAM, INC., the Defendants.


Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Breean L. Beggs, Esq.
          Andrew S. Biviano, Esq.
          Mary Elizabeth Dillon, Esq.
          PAUKERT AND TROPPMANN, PLLC
          522 W. Riverside Ave., Ste. 560
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Telephone: (509) 232-7760

               - and -

          Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
          Patrick Lanciotti, Esq.
          Tate J. Kunkle, Esq.
          Aaron Modiano, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC
          360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000

Attorneys for Tyco Fire Products LP formerly known as: Ansul
Company successor in interest to:

          Liam J Montgomery, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY
          725 Twelfth Street NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434-5030
          E-mail: lmontgomery@wc.com

               - and -

          John Ray Nelson, Esq.
          FOSTER PEPPER PLLC - SPO
          618 West Riverside Avenue, Suite 300
          Spokane, WA 99201-5102
          Telephone: (509) 777-1604
          Facsimile: (509) 777-1616
          E-mail: john.nelson@foster.com

Attorneys for Buckeye Fire Equipment Company:

          Michael Carpenter, Esq.
          516 South New Hope Road
          Gastonia, NC 28054
          Telephone: (704) 865-4400

               - and -

          Brook L. Cunningham, Esq.
          RANDALL & DANSKIN PS
          601 W Riverside Avenue, Suite 1500
          Spokane, WA 99201-0653
          Telephone: (509) 747-2052
          Facsimile: (509) 624-2528
          E-mail: blc@randalldanskin.com

Attorneys for National Foam Inc.:

          James Milton Nelson, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG
          1201 K Street, Suite 1100
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 442-1111
          E-mail: nelsonj@gtlaw.com

ABC CORP: Placido Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Hector Placido and Geovany Lopez, individually and on behalf all
other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ABC Corp. d/b/a
Kin Khao Thai Kitchen, Jakrapop Panurach a/k/a Pop, and Bin "Doe"
(Legal Name Unknown), Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06864 (E.D.
N.Y., December 3, 2018) is an action brought by Plaintiffs on their
own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated employees, alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law, arising from Defendants' various willful and unlawful
employment policies, patterns and/or practices.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern
and practice of failing to pay their employees, including
Plaintiffs, the correct minimum wage and overtime compensation for
all hours worked over 40 each workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs allege pursuant to the FLSA, that they are entitled to
recover from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
compensation, reimbursement for expenses relating to tools of the
trade, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post- judgment interest;
and attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiffs further allege pursuant to New York Labor, Rules and
Regulations ("NYCRR") and New York Common law that they are
entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wages,
overtime compensation, unpaid "Spread of Hours" premium, unpaid
agreed upon wages, compensation for failure to provide wage notice
at the time of hiring and failure to provide paystubs in violation
of the NYLL, liquidated damages equal to the sum of unpaid minimum,
unpaid spread of hours premium, and unpaid overtime compensation
pursuant to the NY Wage Theft Prevention Act, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest; and attorney's fees and costs.

Plaintiff Placido is a resident of Manhattan and is employed as a
delivery and cleaning worker by Defendants, with its principal
place of business at 2200 Amsterdam Ave, New York, NY 10032, from
on or about December 2017 until present.

Plaintiff Geovany Lopez is a resident of the Bronx and is employed
as a delivery, food preparer and cleaning worker by Defendants,
with its principal place of business at 2200 Amsterdam Ave, New
York, NY 10032, from on or about December 2017 until present.

Corporate Defendant, ABC Corp. d/b/a Kin Khao Thai Kitchen, is a
domestic business corporation organization and existing under the
laws of the State of New York and maintains its principal place of
business at 2200 Amsterdam Ave, New York, NY 10032.

ABC Corp. d/b/a Kin Khao Thai Kitchen, is a business or enterprise
engaged in interstate commerce employing more than 2 employees and
earning gross annual sales over Five Hundred Thousand Dollars.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Lorena P. Duarte, Esq.
     136-20 38th Ave., Suite #10G
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Phone: (718) 353-8588
     Direct Line: (718) 353-8522
     Email: lduarte@hanglaw.com


AECOM: Singletary Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------
JERRY SINGLETARY, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs AECOM, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00372
(E.D. Wash., Nov. 30, 2018), alleges that AECOM failed to pay
Singletary, and other workers like him, overtime as required by the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Revised Code of Washington,
Chapter 49.46 et seq. (RCW), Washington's Minimum Wage Act, and any
relevant regulations and/or rules adopted by the Washington.

According to the complaint, instead, AECOM pays Singletary, and
other workers like him, the same hourly rate for all hours worked,
including those in excess of 40 in a workweek. AECOM further failed
to pay Singletary, and other workers like him, for all rest breaks,
meal breaks in violation of Washington Wage Laws. AECOM paid
Singletary at the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including
those in excess of 40 in a workweek. Rather than receiving time and
half as required by the FLSA, Singletary only received "straight
time" pay for overtime hours worked, the lawsuit says.

AECOM is an American multinational engineering firm that provides
design, consulting, construction, and management services to a wide
range of clients. AECOM has approximately 87,000 employees, and is
number 164 on the 2018 Fortune 500 list.[BN]

Attorney for Jerry Singletary, et al.:

          Nicholas D. Kovarik, Esq.
          PISKEL YAHNE KOVARIK, PLLC
          522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 700
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Telephone: 509-321-5930
          Facsimile: 509-321-5935
          E-mail: nick@pyklawyers.com

AFORTUS FINANCIAL: Naiman Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
SIDNEY NAIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AFORTUS FINANCIAL, LLC, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-07266 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 30, 2018), seeks damages and any
other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or
willfully contacting Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby
invading Plaintiff's privacy and causing him to incur unnecessary
and unwanted expenses.

According to the complaint, beginning in or around April 2018,
Defendant contacted Plaintiff on his cellular telephone numbers
ending in -3945 and -5502, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to
purchase Defendant's services. The Defendant used an "automatic
telephone dialing system' as defined by 47 U.S.C.  227(a)(1) to
place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The
Defendant contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff from
telephone 24 numbers (844) 814-5432, (844) 371-1201, and (650)
279-8800 confirmed to be Defendant's numbers.

Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency
purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). The
Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to
receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant
to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). Further, Plaintiff's cellular
telephone numbers ending in -3945 and -5502 were added to the
National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about June 25, 2005 and on or
about July 27, 2003, the lawsuit says.

Afortus Financial offers debt elimination, insurance, investment &
retirement planning services to ensure your financial security and
independence.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: 323 306-4234
          Facsimile: 866 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com
                  abacon@ toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com

ALLSUP'S CONVENIENCE: Smith Seeks Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------
MELINDA SMITH, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly Situated
Persons, the Plaintiff, vs. ALLSUP'S CONVENIENCE STORES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00235-D (N.D. Tex., Dec. 7, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a
store manager from February of 2016 until July 16, 2018. Smith's
duties included, but were not limited to, making employee work
schedules, working the register and tending to customers, ordering
products for the store, making bank deposits and completing daily
reports and paperwork. Although Plaintiff's title was "manager,"
she had limited authority and did not have the ability to hire or
fire, and did not have any say over personnel matters, which were
handled by her supervisor and/or from the home office. During her
tenure with the Defendant as a manager, Plaintiff regularly worked
in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff was paid on a salary
basis and and was not paid an overtime premium for hours worked
over 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant knew of, approved of, and
benefited from Plaintiff's regular and overtime work. The Defendant
knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out its
illegal pattern or practice regarding overtime compensation with
respect to Plaintiff.

Allsup's, sometimes misspelled as Allsups, is a privately owned
chain of convenience stores that serves New Mexico and Texas, with
one store in Frederick, Oklahoma. It is a 24-hour chain selling
fuel under the Shell, Alon, ConocoPhillips, Exxon and "Allsup's On
the Go" brands.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Telephone: 713 868-3388
          Facsimile: 713 683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

               - and -

          Vijay Pattisapu, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Telephone: 713-868-3388
          Facsimile: 713-683-9940
          E-mail: vijay@buenkerlaw.com

AMERICAN FAMILY: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Anderson Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Garth Anderson filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Garth Anderson v. American Family Insurance
Company, Case No. 5:15-cv-00475-MTT, in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Georgia.

The appellate case is captioned as Garth Anderson v. American
Family Insurance Company, Case No. 18-14772, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 1, 2018, the Hon.
Marc T. Treadwell granted the Defendant's motion for summary
judgment.

AFIC moved for summary judgment on the claims of Plaintiff Garth
Anderson.  The motion is granted, and Mr. Anderson's claims are
dismissed with prejudice.  Accordingly, his motion to certify class
and the parties' Daubert motions are moot, according to the Order.

The lawsuit is one of several putative class action cases filed in
the Court by insureds, all represented by the same lawyers, who
claim that their insurers have failed to pay for the diminished
value their homes suffered as the result of a loss that is
otherwise covered by their insurance policies.  In this context,
the Court noted, diminished value has a very specific meaning: the
loss in value of a property notwithstanding full repairs due to an
intangible stigma owing to the circumstances of the loss.

Judge Treadwell opined that Mr. Anderson has not presented any
evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find that AFIC is
liable to him for failure to pay for diminished value due to
stigma.

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

   -- The appellant's brief is due on or before December 26,
      2018;

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

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons due on or
      before December 13, 2018, as to Appellee American Family
      Insurance Company.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant GARTH ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated, is represented by:

          C. Cooper Knowles, Esq.
          ANDREW KNOWLES & PRINCENTHAL
          260 Peachtree St. NW, Suite 502
          Atlanta, GA 30303-1201
          Telephone: (404) 524-4000
          E-mail: cknowles@akpfirm.com

               - and -

          Richard Kopelman, Esq.
          KOPELMAN SITTON LAW GROUP, LLC
          3405 Piedmont Rd., NE
          Atlanta, GA 30305-1745
          Telephone: (404) 261-6141
          E-mail: richard@kopelmansitton.com

               - and -

          Adam Patrick Princenthal, Esq.
          PRINCENTHAL & MAY, LLC
          750 Hammond Dr., Bldg. 12, Suite 200
          Sandy Springs, GA 30328
          Telephone: (678) 534-1980
          E-mail: adam@princemay.com

               - and -

          Clinton W. Sitton, Esq.
          MARTIN & JONES
          3353 Peachtree Rd. NE, Suite 510
          Atlanta, GA 30326-1053
          Telephone: (404) 257-1117
          E-mail: cws@m-j.com

Defendant-Appellee AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY is represented
by:

          Michael S. McCarthy, Esq.
          Heather Carson Perkins, Esq.
          D. Lucetta Pope, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          1700 Lincoln St., Suite 3200
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 607-3670
          E-mail: michael.mccarthy@faegrebd.com
                  heather.perkins@FaegreBD.com
                  lucetta.pope@FaegreBD.com

               - and -

          Collier West McKenzie, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF COLLIER WEST MCKENZIE
          435 2nd St., 5th Floor
          Macon, GA 31201
          Telephone: (478) 745-2821

               - and -

          Robert Claude Norman, Jr., Esq.
          JONES CORK, LLP
          435 2nd St., 5th Floor
          Macon, GA 31201
          Telephone: (478) 745-2821
          E-mail: bob.norman@jonescork.com


AMERICAN YACHT: Illegally Keeps Employees' Gratuities, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR VILLASIN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. AMERICAN YACHT CLUB; DAVID A.
SCHWARTZ-LEEPER; and any other related entities, the Defendants,
Case No. 608975/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 5, 2018), seeks
compensation, including gratuities that the plaintiffs were
deprived of, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in a policy
and practice of unlawfully retaining employees' gratuities at all
of Defendants' restaurant and catering venues located in New York.
A reasonable customer would believe that the Service Charge was in
fact a gratuity for Plaintiff and similarly situated service
employees. The Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of
failing to pay the Service Charge to Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees and instead retained the money for their own
benefit in violation of Labor Law Article 6 section 196-d, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Named Plaintiff & Putative Class:

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

ANDERSEN CORPORATION: Luna Suit Moved to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, John Luna as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Renewal by Andersen and
Andersen Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV337047, was
removed from the Santa Clara County Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose)
on Dec. 3, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk
assigned Case No.: 5:18-cv-07304-NC to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Nathanael M. Cousins.

Andersen Corporation is an international window and door
manufacturing enterprise employing approximately 12,000 people at
more than 30 manufacturing, logistic centers and company owned
retail locations. Andersen is a private company with its
headquarters in Bayport, Minnesota.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Danielle Leigh Manning, Esq.
          Marc Lawrence Godino, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2722
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
                  dmanning@glancylaw.com
                  mgodino@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Mark Samuel Greenstone, Esq.
          GREENSTONE LAW APC
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9156
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Joe Jaurigue, Esq.
          JAURIGUE LAW GROUP
          300 West Glenoaks Blvd., Suite 300
          Glendale, CA 91202
          Telephone: (818) 630-7280
          Facsimile: (888) 879-1697
          E-mail: michael@jlglawyers.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Ronald Q Tran, Esq.
          Lance Douglas Wilson, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          One Market Plaza
          Steuart Tower, Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 617-2234
          Facsimile: (415) 617-2409
          E-mail: ronald.tran@tuckerellis.com
                  lance.wilson@tuckerellis.com

APPTIO INC: Scarantino Balks at Merger Deal with Vista Equity
-------------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS SCARANTINO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. APPTIO, INC., SUNNY GUPTA,
TOM BOGAN, PETER KLEIN, JOHN MCADAM, MATT MCILWAIN, REBECCA JACOBY,
RAJEEV SINGH, and KATHLEEN PHILIPS, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01938-UNA (D. Del., Dec. 6, 2018), seeks to enjoin
Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing a proposed transaction,
and in the event Defendants consummate the Proposed Transaction,
rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages.

According to the complaint, the action stems from a proposed
transaction announced on November 11, 2018, pursuant to which
Apptio, Inc. will be acquired by affiliates of Vista Equity
Partners. On November 9, 2018, Apptio's Board of Directors caused
the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Bellevue Parent, LLC and Bellevue Merger Sub, Inc. Pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement, Apptio's stockholders will receive
$38.00 in cash for each share of Apptio common stock they hold. On
November 21, 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 false and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff
alleges that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy
Statement, the lawsuit says.

Apptio is a Bellevue, Washington-based company founded in 2007 that
develops technology business management software as a service
applications. Apptio enterprise apps are designed to assess and
communicate the cost of IT services for planning, budgeting and
forecasting purposes.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

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


ARCIMOTO INC: 1st Amended Complaint in Consolidated Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arcimoto, 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 plaintiffs in the consolidated Switzer
and Mendelson lawsuit have filed a First Amended Consolidated
Complaint.

On March 11, 2018, the Company was served with a lawsuit entitled
John R Switzer vs W.R.  Hambrecht & Co.  LLC et al., Case Number:
CGC-18-564904, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court in the
State of California.  In this action, the Company has been named as
a defendant along with five individuals who were directors and/or
executive officers at the time of the completion of the Company's
Regulation A offering on September 21, 2017.  The action is styled
as a putative class action, alleged on behalf of all those who
purchased the Company's common stock in its Regulation A offering.

The plaintiff has alleged violations of Section 12(a)(2) and
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and is
seeking damages in an unspecified amount to be proven at trial.

In addition, on March 28, 2018, the Company was served with another
lawsuit entitled Jay Mendelson v. Arcimoto, Inc. et al., Case
Number CGC-18-565324, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court
in the State of California.  In that action, which is styled as a
putative class action, the Company has also been named as a
defendant along with the same individuals who were directors and/or
executive officers at the time of the completion of the Company's
Regulation A offering on September 21, 2017.

The allegations and claims made in the Mendelson action are
substantially similar to those of the Switzer action and the
plaintiff also is seeking damages in an unspecified amount to be
proven at trial.

The two actions were consolidated into a single lawsuit on May 28,
2018.

Arcimoto said, "The Company believes that the consolidated lawsuit
is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against
these claims in court."

On July 30, 2018, counsel for the Company filed a demurrer to the
consolidated complaint, seeking its dismissal.  By Order dated
September 19, 2018, the San Francisco Court sustained in part and
denied in part the demurrer.

On September 28, plaintiffs in that case filed a First Amended
Consolidated Complaint.

Arcimoto further stated, "The Company denies the substantive claims
and allegations made in that amended pleading, and shall continue
to assert a vigorous defense."

Arcimoto, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and sells
three-wheeled electric vehicles. The company was formerly known as
WTP Inc and changed its name to Arcimoto, Inc. in December 2011.
Arcimoto, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Eugene,
Oregon.


ASUS COMPUTER: Sued over Misrepresentation of USB Laptops Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD BREKHUS, an individual, on behalf of himself, the general
public, and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ASUS
COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, the Defendant, Case No. CGC-18-571553 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Nov. 26, 2018), seeks compensatory damages -- in the
amount of the price premium paid (i.e., the difference between the
price consumers paid for the Purported USB Laptops and the price
they would have paid but for Defendant's misrepresentations), in an
amount to be proven at trial using econometric or statistical
techniques such as hedonic regression or conjoint analysis -- for
fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation; violation of the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act; false advertising; negligent misrepresentation;
unfair, unlawful, and deceptive trade practices; breach of express
warranty; and violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

This case concerns laptop computers that were marketed and sold by
ASUS as including Universal Serial Bus ("USB") 3.0 "Gen 1" ports.
ASUS specifically marketed, advertised and represented to consumers
that the USB ports of the Purported USB 3.0 Laptops were capable of
transferring data at rates of 5 gigabits (Gb) per second. ASUS's
representations are false. As Plaintiff discovered after purchasing
a Purported USB 3.0 Laptop advertised with a data transfer rate of
5Gb/s, the USB ports are incapable of transferring data at anywhere
near the speeds advertised. Rather, the USB ports are capable of
transferring data at a rate of only about 2,160 megabits/second --
less than half as fast as advertised.

In fact, the USB ports on the Purported USB 3.0 Laptops are not
really USB 3.0 ports. The USB 3.0 specification states that Gen 1
USB 3.0 hosts must be capable of transferring data at a
"SuperSpeed" rate of 5 gigabits/second. As stated above, the USB
ports of the Purported USB 3.0 Laptops-even when operating at their
highest speeds -- only transfer data at less than half of the
required 5 gigabits/second rate, the lawsuit says.

ASUS is an international manufacturer of products that include
notebooks, netbooks, motherboards, and graphics cards.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Adam J. Gutride, Esq.
          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Todd Kennedy, Esq
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 789-6390
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          E-mail: adam@gutridesafier.com
                  seth@gutridesafier.com
                  todd@gutridesafier.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Bids for Certification in Fernandez Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald denied two motions for
certification filed by Plaintiffs Jose Fernandez, Alex Yong, and
Joshua Boswell in their lawsuit titled Jose Fernandez, et al. v.
Bank of America, N.A., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-06104-MWF-JC (C.D.
Cal.).

Judge Fitzgerald opines that the Motion for Rule 23 Class
Certification (the "Certification Motion") is denied in its
entirety because the Plaintiffs fail to present clear evidence of
any specific policy governing the employment status (exempt versus
non-exempt) of Bank of America's lending officers.  Rather, Judge
Fitzgerald notes, the Plaintiffs rely on a common incentive plan,
which does not speak to if or how lending officers were
misclassified.  Thus, individualized determination about each class
member's exemption status is likely to overwhelm common issues.

Judge Fitzgerald also denied in its entirety the Motion for FLSA
Conditional Certification and for an Order Circulating 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b) Notice (the "FLSA Motion").  Judge Fitzgerald
explains that the Plaintiffs fail to establish that they are
"similarly situated" to other members of the proposed collective
action.  Determining whether lending officers are "exempt" or
"non-exempt" from the FLSA requirement for overtime compensation
involves a highly individualized inquiry into daily job
responsibilities of each lending officer, Judge Fitzgerald points
out.

Plaintiffs Jose Fernandez and Alex Yong initiated this action on
August 17, 2017.  On April 6, 2018, this action was consolidated
with Boswell v. Bank of America Corp., et al., No. 2:17-cv-6120-MWF
(RAOx).  The Putative Lead Plaintiffs were previously employed by
Bank of America: Plaintiff Boswell as a mortgage loan officer from
September 2015 to March 2017, Plaintiff Yong as a mortgage lending
officer from October 2013 to September 2014, and Plaintiff
Fernandez as a mortgage originator from September 2013 to October
2014.

In the Certification Motion, the Plaintiffs seek to represent one
class and one subclass of California employees, defined as:

   1. The Class:

      All current and former California residents who worked for
      Defendant at its financial centers selling or originating
      mortgages at any time beginning August 17, 2013 through the
      date notice is mailed to the Class; and

   2. The Overtime Subclass:

      All current or former California residents who worked for
      Defendant at its financial centers selling or originating
      mortgages at any time beginning August 17, 2013 through the
      date notice is mailed to the Class, and who were classified
      as exempt from overtime.

In the FLSA Motion, the Plaintiffs next seek to represent one
nationwide class of similarly situated individuals, defined as:

   1. The Class:

      All persons who currently or formerly worked for [Bank of
      America] at its financial centers in the United States of
      America selling or originating mortgages at any time
      beginning August 17, 2014 until the date of judgment after
      trial, and who were classified as exempt from overtime.[CC]


BANK OF AMERICA: Removed Veritas Case to District of New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America, N.A. and Bank of America Corp. removed case
captioned as CHRIS VERITAS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BANK OF AMERICA CORP. and
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., the Defendants, Case No. ESX-L-006242-18,
from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey on Dec. 3, 2018. The
District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-16775
to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges violation of New Jersey Wage and Hour Law,
N.J.S.A. sections 34:11-56(a) et seq.  The Plaintiff asserts that
Defendants failed to pay overtime, failed to keep, make, preserve,
maintain, and furnish accurate records of time worked by the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, and failed to
furnish each of them their wage and hour records showing all wages
earned and due for all work performed for labor or services
rendered. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a putative class
of allegedly similarly situated employees, seeks compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Defendants Bank of America, N.A. and Bank of America
Corp.:

          Jeffrey I. Kohn, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Times Square Tower
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 326-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 326-2061
          E-mail: jkohn@omm.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Uong et al Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, Duc Uong and Tony Nguyen on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Bank of America,
National Association, a Delaware Corporation, Brett Robinson, an
individual residing in the State of California, and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 30-02018-01004646, was
transferred from the Orange County Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Southern
Division - Santa Ana) on Dec. 7, 2018. The Central District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:18-cv-02169 to the
proceeding. The suit alleges Labor-related violation.

Bank of America, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank
offers saving and current account, investment and financial
services, online banking, mortgage and non-mortgage loan
facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Adam Paul KohSweeney, Esq.
          O'Melveny and Myers LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center 28th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3823
          Telephone: (415) 984-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
          E-mail: akohsweeney@omm.com

BERGHOFF INTERNATIONAL: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Perry Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deana Perry, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. BergHOFF International, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 4:18-cv-04552 (S.D. Tex., December 3, 2018) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages from Defendant pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The complaint says BergHOFF violated the FLSA by employing
Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt employees for a
workweek longer than forty hours but refusing to compensate them
for their employment in excess of forty hours at a rate not less
than one and one-half times the regular rate at which they are or
were employed. BergHOFF further violated the FLSA by failing to
maintain accurate time and pay records for Plaintiff and other
similarly situated nonexempt employees, adds the complaint.

Deana Perry is an individual who resides in Harris County, Texas
and who was employed by BergHOFF during the last three years.

BergHOFF International, Inc. is a Florida corporation that is not
registered agent to transact business in Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Melissa Moore, Esq.
     Curt Hesse, Esq.
     Bridget Davidson, Esq.
     MOORE & ASSOCIATES
     Lyric Center
     440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 222-6775
     Facsimile: (713) 222-6739


BESURE HOME: Amaya Seeks Minimum Wage and OT Pay for Caregivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHELMY AMAYA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BESURE HOME HEALTH SERVICES INC.
(D/B/A BESURE HOME HEALTH SERVICES), VALRIE HENRY, and JAZMIN
RODRIGUEZ, the Defendants, Case No. 161230/2018 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30,
2018), alleges that 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 state law and regulations.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a former employee of
Defendants. The Defendants own, operate, or control a home health
services center, located at 736 Allerton Avenue, Suite 207, Bronx,
NY 10467 under the name "Besure Home Health Services". While
employed by Defendants, Plaintiff Amaya provided services to
homebound, ailing elderly and/or disabled clients at their homes,
including but not limited to, personal care services, such as
assistance with dressing, bathing and personal grooming, lifting
and transferring bed-ridden and/or immobile clients, cooking and
serving food, changing diapers and toileting, cleaning, such as
mopping, sweeping, cleaning the bathrooms, doing laundry, making
appointments, escorting clients to the doctor, making
transportation arrangements and taking out garbage. The Plaintiff
worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours
compensation for the hours that she worked. Rather, the Defendants
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked,
failed to pay Plaintiff Amaya appropriately for any hours worked,
either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium, 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

BIG BUBBA'S: Linneberger Seeks Back Wages, Damages
--------------------------------------------------
Doug Linneberger Plaintiff v. Big Bubba's LLC and Eric Khozindar
dba Big Bubba's Bail Bonds, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-03179-M
(M.D. Fla., December 2, 2018) is an action for overtime wage theft
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Plaintiff filed the case
on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees to
recover back wages, an equal amount of liquidated/double damages,
attorney fees, interest, and costs.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an hourly-paid employee. He
regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek, and the
Defendants did not pay him an overtime premium of at least one and
one-half times his regular rate for hours worked over 40 in a
workweek.

The complaint asserts that the Defendants' actions  were willful.
Defendants understood the obligation to pay hourly employees an
overtime premium for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, and
elected not to pay overtime wages, it adds.

Plaintiff Doug Linneberger is an individual who resides in Wood
County, TX.

Big Bubba's LLC is a limited liability company organized under the
laws of the State of Texas.

Eric Khozindar is an individual who is a citizen of the State of
Texas and resides in Dallas County. Khozindar maintains or has
maintained assumed name certificates for Big Bubba's Bail Bonds in
Dallas County, Tarrant County, and Collin County, TX; and Big
Bubba's Bail Bonds II in Dallas County and Collin Dallas County,
TX.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Barry S. Hersh, Esq.
     Hersh Law Firm, PC
     3626 N. Hall St., Suite 800
     Dallas, TX 75219-5133
     Phone: (214) 303-1022
     Fax: (214) 550-8170
     Email: barry@hersh-law.com


BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE: Records Phone Calls, Treihart Says
----------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY T. TREIHART, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE
CORPORATION dba DRIVETIME CAR SALES COMPANY, the Defendant, Case
No. 5:18-cv-02540 (S.D. Cal., Dec. 3, 2018), alleges violation of
the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant intentionally recorded a
communication transmitted between a cellular radio telephone and a
landline telephone without Plaintiff's consent as prohibited by
California Penal Code section 632.7(a). On or around April 7, 2016,
Defendant called Plaintiff on his cellular telephone ending in
1740.  When Plaintiff answered the telephone, Defendant's
representative identified as "Shannon" labeled the call a courtesy
call and wanted to go over account information and dealership
experience. At no time during the call did Defendant's
representative inform Plaintiff that the call was being recorded.
The Plaintiff did not consent to the call being recorded without
his knowledge.  Defendant records all of its telephone calls,
including the call to Plaintiff, the lawsuit says.

Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation, a licensed third-party
servicer, services loans for DriveTime and other affiliated finance
companies in the United States. It provides car and vehicle loans
to customers. Bridgecrest was formerly known as DT Acceptance
Corporation and changed its name to Bridgecrest Acceptance
Corporation in April 2016. The company was founded in 2003 and is
based in Phoenix, Arizona. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation
operates as a subsidiary of DriveTime Automotive, Inc.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          Nicholas R. Barthel, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  jason@kazlg.com
                  nicholas@kazlg.com

CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Castillo Suit Moved to District of Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Justin Castillo as an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Caesars
Entertainment Corporation and Desert Palace, LLC, doing business
as: Caesars Palace Hotel & Casino, the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-05781, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada (Las Vegas) on Dec. 3, 2018. The District of
Nevada Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-02297-GMN-NJK to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Gloria M. Navarro.
The suit alleges Telephone Consumer Protection Act violation.

Caesars Entertainment Corporation, is an American gaming
corporation based in Paradise, Nevada that owns and operates over
50 casinos and hotels, and seven golf courses under several brands.
In 2013, it was the fourth-largest gaming company in the world,
with annual revenues of $8.6 billion.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Danielle Leigh Manning, Esq.
          Marc Lawrence Godino, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: INFO@GLANCYLAW.COM

               - and -

          Mark Samuel Greenstone, Esq.
          GREENSTONE LAW APC
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9156
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160

               - and -

          Michael Joe Jaurigue, Esq.
          JAURIGUE LAW GROUP
          300 West Glenoaks Blvd., Suite 300
          Glendale, CA 91202
          Telephone: (818) 630-7280
          Facsimile: (888) 879-1697

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Matthew T. Murchison, Esq.
          Melanie Marilyn Blunschi, Esq.
          Adam J. Tuetken, Esq.
          Natalie Hardwick Rao, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC, DC 20004-1304
          Telephone: (202) 637-2200
          Facsimile: (202) 637-2201

CHAMPION PETFOODS: Removed Shaker Case to E.D. Michigan
-------------------------------------------------------
Champion Petfoods removed case captioned case RAMY SHAKER,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. CHAMPION PETFOODS USA, INC. and
CHAMPION PETFOODS LP, Case No. 18-013670-NP (filed October 19,
2018), was removed from the Michigan Circuit Court for the County
of Wayne to the United States District Court for Eastern District
of Michigan on  Nov. 19, 2018. The Eastern District of Michigan
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-13603-LJM-DRG to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that Champion deceptively marketed its Acana
and Orijen brand pet foods as "Biologically Appropriate" and
"designed to nourish dogs and cats according to their evolutionary
adaptation to a diet rich and diverse in fresh meat and protein"
when the products allegedly contained "heavy metals and toxins.",
pursuant to the Michigan Consumer Protection Act.[BN]

Attorney for Defendants:

          John J. O'Shea, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOHN J. O'SHEA, P.L.C.
          18000 Mack Avenue
          Grosse Pointe, MI 48230
          Telephone: (313) 884-2000
          Facsimile: (313) 884-2265
          E-mail: oshealaw@att.net

CHEETAH MOBILE: Marcu Sues over Misleading Financial Report
-----------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN MARCU, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CHEETAH MOBILE INC., SHENG FU, and
VINCENT ZHENYU JIANG, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-11184
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2018), seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the case is a federal securities class
action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Cheetah securities between April 26, 2017, and
November 27, 2018, both dates inclusive. The Company provides its
advertising customers, which include direct advertisers and mobile
advertising networks through which advertisers place their
advertisements, with direct access to highly targeted mobile users
and global promotional channels. The Company also provides
value-added services to its mobile application users through the
sale of in-app virtual items on selected mobile products and games.
The Company was formerly known as Kingsoft Internet Software
Holdings Limited and changed its name to Cheetah Mobile Inc. in
March 2014. Cheetah was incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered
in Beijing, People's Republic of China.

Throughout the Class Period, 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) Cheetah's
apps had undisclosed imbedded features which tracked when users
downloaded new apps; (ii) Cheetah used this data to inappropriately
claim credit for having caused the downloads; (iii) the foregoing
features, when discovered, would foreseeably subject the Company's
apps to removal from the Google Play store; (iv) accordingly,
Cheetah's Class Period revenues were in part the product of
improper conduct and thus unsustainable; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. On November 26, 2018, BuzzFeed News reported
that certain Cheetah apps then available in the Google Play store
were exploiting user permissions as part of an ad fraud scheme. The
BuzzFeed News article stated that Cheetah's apps "tracked when
users downloaded new apps and used this data to inappropriately
claim credit for having caused the download." BuzzFeed News
reported that two of Cheetah's apps were removed from the Google
Play store after publication of the article. On this news,
Cheetah's American depositary receipt ("ADR") price fell $3.32, or
nearly 37%, over the next two trading sessions, closing at $5.48 on
November 27, 2018. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says.

Cheetah Mobile Inc is a Chinese mobile Internet company
headquartered in Beijing, China. Being the creator to some of the
most popular global mobile apps, it has more than 634 million
monthly active users as of Jan 2017.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ
          & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42 nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

CHULA VISTA: Sold Discounted Access to Condo Units, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH SARTIN, KENNETH RICHE, TONY EDWARDS, ROBERT SILBERMAN, and
SCOTT WILLOCK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CHULA VISTA, INC., CVR MANAGEMENT,
LLC, MICHAEL KAMINSKI, MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH, LLP, and NANCY
HAGGERTY, ESQ., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01890-JPS (E.D.
Wisc., Nov. 30, 2018), alleges that Defendants are engaged in a
scheme to take financial advantage of condominium unit owners at
the Chula Vista Resort & Waterpark, including, but is not limited
to: (i) the unlawful conversion of Plaintiffs' property without
paying Plaintiffs due consideration; (ii) requiring Plaintiffs to
pay inflated condominium assessments, which are used for
Defendants' exclusive benefit; and (iii) fraudulently overcharging
Plaintiffs for maintenance, repair, and miscellaneous improvements.


According to the complaint, the Chula Vista Defendants operate the
Chula Vista resort and oversee rental of the condominium units.
Rather than operate the resort in Plaintiffs' best interests, as
they are legally obligated to do, the Chula Vista Defendants use
Plaintiffs' condominium units for their own personal and pecuniary
gain. Most insidiously, the Chula Vista Defendants sell "Club"
memberships to the general public, which allow Club members to
receive massive rental discounts on Plaintiffs' condominium units.
While the Chula Vista Defendants collect millions of dollars in
Club membership fees and dues by selling discounted access to
Plaintiffs' condominium units, they do not give Plaintiffs any
portion of the Club membership fees and dues.

The Plaintiffs never authorized the Chula Vista Defendants to sell
discounted access to their condominium units through The Club
program, nor did Plaintiffs authorize the Chula Vista Defendants to
keep all proceeds therefrom. Additionally, the Chula Vista
Defendants force Plaintiffs to pay inflated assessments on their
condominium units, for which Plaintiffs receive minimal, if any,
benefit. Instead, the Chula Vista Defendants use the money from
these inflated assessments for their own financial gain. The Chula
Vista Defendants also profit off of Plaintiffs by fraudulently
overcharging them for routine maintenance, repair, and
miscellaneous improvements in their condominium units. Rather than
enjoy the expected rental income on their condominium units,
Plaintiffs have lost substantial amounts of money as a direct
result of Defendants' unlawful activity, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Steven A. Hart, Esq.
          Brian Eldridge, Esq.
          HART MCLAUGHLIN & ELDRIDGE, LLC
          22 W. Washington St., Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312 955 0545
          E-mail: shart@hmelegal.com
                  beldridge@hmelegal.com

CITIBANK NA: Revitch Moves for Class Certification Under TCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled JEREMIAH REVITCH, on Behalf of
Himself and all Others Similarly Situated v. CITIBANK, N.A., Case
No. 3:17-cv-06907-WHA (N.D. Cal.), seeks certification of this
class:

     All persons in the United States who (1) between March 17,
     2014, through August 21, 2018; (2) were called on their
     cellular telephone by Defendant or its agent/s using its
     Aspect Unified dialer; and (3) where such person was not
     listed in Defendant's records as the intended recipient of
     the calls.

The lawsuit arises from alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Mr. Revitch also asks the Court to appoint him as class
representative, and to appoint Bursor & Fisher, P.A., as class
counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on February 7, 2019, at 8:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
          Thomas A. Reyda, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  jsmith@bursor.com
                  ykrivoshey@bursor.com
                  treyda@bursor.com


COCA-COLA COMPANY: Geffner Appeals S.D.N.Y. Judgment to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Evan Geffner and Ivan Babsin filed an appeal from a
court ruling from the District Court's opinion and order, and
judgment, issued on October 31, 2018, in their lawsuit styled
Geffner, et al. v. The Coca-Cola Company, Case No. 17-cv-7952, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New
York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of New York's
Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices Law, False Advertising Law,
negligent and intentional misrepresentation, restitution, and
breach of express and implied warranties.

The Plaintiffs allege that Coca-Cola's marketing Diet Coke as
"diet" is false, misleading, and unlawful.

The appellate case is captioned as Geffner, et al. v. The Coca-Cola
Company, Case No. 18-3548, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Evan Geffner, on behalf of themselves, all
others similarly situated, and the general public; and Ivan Babsin,
on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the
general public, are represented by:

          Abraham Melamed, Esq.
          DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
          1 Penn Plaza
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (303) 929-3903
          E-mail: abe@dereksmithlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee The Coca-Cola Company is represented by:

          Catherine Williams, Esq.
          PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
          1133 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 336-2000
          E-mail: cawilliams@pbwt.com


COLE COUNTY, MO: Class Certification Sought in Turtle Island Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled Turtle Island Foods, SPC,
doing business as The Tofurky Company; and The Good Food Institute
v. Mark Richardson, in his official capacity as Cole County
Prosecuting Attorney and on behalf of all Missouri Prosecuting
Attorneys, Case No. 2:18-cv-04173-FJG (W.D. Mo.), move the Court
for certification of a Defendant Class.

In this action, the Plaintiffs challenge recent amendments to Mo.
Rev. Stat. Section 265.494(7) that make "misrepresenting a product
as meat that is not derived from harvested production livestock or
poultry" a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by incarceration up to
one year and a fine up to $1,000.

Through this law, the Missouri legislature intended to -- and has
-- criminalized the use of the word "meat" and meat-related
terminology in the marketing and packaging of plant-based meat
products, the Plaintiffs contend.  The Plaintiffs asserts that the
challenged provision is enforced by the individual prosecuting
attorneys throughout Missouri.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony E. Rothert, Esq.
          Jessie Steffan, Esq.
          ACLU OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION
          906 Olive Street, Suite 1130
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 652-3114
          E-mail: trothert@aclu-mo.org

               - and -

          Gillian R. Wilcox, Esq.
          ACLU OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION
          406 W. 34th Street, Suite 420
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 470-9933
          E-mail: gwilcox@aclu-mo.org

               - and -

          Matthew Liebman, Esq.
          Amanda M. Howell, Esq.
          Alene Anello, Esq.
          ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND
          525 E. Cotati Ave.
          Cotati, CA 94931
          Telephone: (707) 795-2533
          E-mail: mliebman@aldf.org
                  ahowell@aldf.org
                  aanello@aldf.org

               - and -

          Jessica Almy, Esq.
          THE GOOD FOOD INTITUTE
          1380 Monroe St. NW, #229
          Washington, DC 20010
          Telephone: (866) 849-4457
          E-mail: jessicaa@gfi.org


CONN'S INC: 5th Cir. Dismisses Appeal in Texas Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Conn's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2018, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit has dismissed the appeal in the consolidated
securities class action suit entitled, In re Conn's Inc. Securities
Litigation, Cause No. 14-CV-00548.

The company and two of its former executive officers were
defendants in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas (the "Court"), captioned In re Conn's Inc.
Securities Litigation, Cause No. 14-CV-00548 (the "Consolidated
Securities Action").

The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action alleged that
the defendants made false and misleading statements or failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the company's business,
operations, and prospects. They alleged violations of sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder and sought to certify a class of all
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Conn's
common stock or call options, or sold or wrote Conn's put options
between April 3, 2013 and December 9, 2014. The complaint did not
specify the amount of damages sought.

On June 30, 2015, the Court held a hearing on the defendants'
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. At the hearing the Court
dismissed Brian Taylor, a former executive officer, and certain
other aspects of the complaint. In May 2016, the Court issued a
ruling that dismissed 78 of 91 alleged misstatements. In late June
2017 the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and shortly thereafter, Defendants filed a petition
for permission to appeal to the United States Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals (the "Fifth Circuit"). The Fifth Circuit granted leave
to appeal on August 21, 2017.

On June 14, 2018, the parties filed a motion for preliminary
approval of a settlement for the Consolidated Securities Action.
The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement terms and
stayed the Consolidated Securities Action on June 28, 2018. The
$22.5 million settlement was funded solely by proceeds from the
company's insurance carriers.

As part of the settlement, the company, along with the other
executive officer defendants, have denied and continue to deny any
wrongdoing giving rise to any liability or violation of the law,
including the U.S. securities laws, as well as each and every one
of the claims alleged by plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities
Action.

The Court held a final settlement approval hearing on October 11,
2018 and that same day the Court signed its Final Order and
Judgment approving the terms of the settlement of the Consolidated
Securities Action.

On November 16, 2018, after no appeal from the Final Order and
Judgment was filed and the settlement became final, the company
filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the Fifth Circuit appeal. The
Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal on November 15, 2018.

Conn's, Inc. operates as a specialty retailer of durable consumer
goods and related services in the United States. The company
operates through two segments, Retail and Credit. Conn's, Inc. was
founded in 1890 and is headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas.


CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Illegally Sends Text Ads, LaRock Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
MEMARY LAROCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CONTEXTLOGIC, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-07177 (N.D. Cal.,
November 27, 2018), accuses the Defendant of violating the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The lawsuit arises from the Defendant's alleged illegal actions in
transmitting unsolicited SMS text message advertisements to the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone and the cellular telephones of
numerous other consumers across the country who, like the
Plaintiff, have never enrolled in the Defendant's services.

ContextLogic, Inc., is an Internet marketing company headquartered
in San Francisco, California.  The Defendant operates several
e-commerce Web sites, including the Web sites located at Wish.com
and all subdomains thereto.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Hall, Esq.
          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 766-3534
          Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
          E-mail: dhall@hedinhall.com
                  fhedin@hedinhall.com


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Orozco Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN OROZCO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-00624-RWS-JDL (E.D. Tex., Nov. 30,
2018), seeks to recover damages under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, Convergent is engaged in the business
of a collection agency, using the mails and telephone to collect
consumer debts originally owed to others. The Plaintiff suffered
actual harm by being the target of the Defendants’ misleading
debt collection communications. Defendants violated the Plaintiff's
right not to be the target of misleading debt collection
communications. The Defendant used materially false, deceptive,
misleading representations and means in its attempted collection of
Plaintiff's alleged debt. Defendant's communications were designed
to cause the debtor to suffer a harmful disadvantage in charting a
course of action in response to the Defendant's collection efforts.
The Plaintiff has suffered damages including but not limited to,
fear, stress, mental anguish, emotional stress and acute
embarrassment. Plaintiff and putative class members are entitled to
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, including declaratory
relief and damages, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Joel S. Halvorsen, Esq.
          HALVORSEN KLOTE
          680 Craig Road, Suite 104
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 451-1314
          Facsimile: (314) 787-4323
          E-mail: joel@hklawstl.com

CRUISES & TOURS: Spotts Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTIN SPOTTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CRUISES & TOURS WORLDWIDE, LLC D/B/A
DREAM VACATIONS, a Florida Limited Liability Company, the
Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-62976-BB (S.D. Fla., Dec. 6, 2018),
seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which
has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation,
and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals, and
seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the
class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant is a travel agency. To
promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing,
harming thousands of consumers in the process. On or about August
6, 2018, Defendant sent telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff's
cellular telephone number ending in 7211. Defendant's text messages
constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the future
purchase or investment in property, goods, or services, i.e.,
selling Plaintiff travel agency services and/or cruises. The
information contained in the text message advertises Defendant's
cruise specials, which Defendant sends to promote its business. The
Plaintiff received the subject texts within this judicial district
and, therefore, Defendant's violation of the TCPA occurred within
this district. At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant
with his express written consent to be contacted using an ATDS, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

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

               - and -

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

CURO GROUP: Share Prices Inflated, Yellowdog Partners Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
YELLOWDOG PARTNERS, LP, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CURO GROUP HOLDINGS CORP.,
DONALD F. GAYHARDT, WILLIAM BAKER, and ROGER W. DEAN, the
Defendants, Case 2:18-cv-02662 (D. Kan., Dec. 5, 2018), seeks to
recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, upon announcement of the Company's
disappointing 2018 third quarter financial results and revised 2018
full-year guidance, the price of the Company's shares was
decimated. As illustrative, CURO stock closed at $22.87 on October
24, 2018, the last day of the Class Period. After the truth was
revealed, on October 25, 2018, the Company's shares closed sharply
downward at $15.18 -- a staggering loss of $7.69 per share.

CURO provides short-term credit to underbanked consumers in the
United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. In the United States,
it operates under two principal brands, "Speedy Cash" and "Rapid
Cash." In the United Kingdom, CURO operates online as "Wage Day
Advance" and "Juo Loans." In Canada, the Company's stores are
branded "Cash Money" and it offers "LendDirect" installment loans
online and at certain stores. CURO offers "Single-Pay Loans,"
"Unsecured Installment Loans," "Open-End Loans" and "Secured
Installment Loans."

This case concerns Defendants' materially false and misleading
statements, including on-going financial guidance, relating to
CURO's efforts to transition its Canadian inventory of products
from Single-Pay Loans to Open-End Loans. In this regard, throughout
the Class Period, Defendants materially misrepresented to investors
the deleterious effect that the up-front loan loss
provisioning in connection with the transition was having on the
Company's financial performance and 2018 full-year Company
guidance. Because CURO's Open-End Loans had a materially lower
lending yield than the Single-Pay Products, and the portfolio of
Open-End Loans was still immature and unseasoned, the up-front loan
loss provisioning for these loans was far greater than publicly
revealed (and the yield far lower). This caused the Company to
materially overstate its 2018 projected financial results,
including CURO's adjusted EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation and amortization), net revenue and operating earnings.
As a result of these misrepresentations, CURO stock traded at
artificially inflated price levels throughout the Class Period As a
result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, Yellowdog and
the Class purchased CURO common stock at artificially inflated
prices, causing economic harm and damage to Yellowdog and the
Class.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Ryan C. Hudson, Esq.
          Larkin E. Walsh, Esq.
          REX A. SHARP P.A.
          5301 W. 75th Street
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901-0505
          Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
          E-mail: rhudson@midwest-law.com
                  lwalsh@midwest-law.com

               - and -

          Ashley C. Keller, Esq.
          Travis D. Lenkner, Esq.
          Seth A. Meyer, Esq.
          U. Seth Ottensoser, Esq.
          KELLER LENKNER LLC
          150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telphone: (312) 741-5222
          E-mail: ack@kellerlenkner.com
                  tdl@kellerlenkner.com
                  sam@kellerlenkner.com
                  so@kellerlenkner.com

DASTMALCHI LLC: Faces Palermo Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alicia Palermo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Dastmalchi LLC d/b/a Vanity Planet, a
California Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No.
8:18-cv-02144 (C.D. Cal., December 3, 2018) is an action against
the Defendant to secure redress for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant is a company that sells beauty and health products.
To promote its services, Defendant engages in aggressive
unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the
process, says the complaint.

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life
of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages
on behalf of herself and members of the class, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies.

Plaintiff is a natural person who, at all times relevant to this
action, was a resident of Hillsborough County, Florida.

Defendant is a California limited liability company whose principal
office is located at 4490 Von Karman Ave, Suite 150, Newport Beach,
CA 92660. Defendant directs, markets, and provides its business
activities throughout the United States, including throughout the
states of California and Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
     Mona Amini, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
     245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Phone: (800) 400-6808
     Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
     Email: ak@kazlg.com
            mona@kazlg.com

          - and -

     Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
     HYDE & SWIGART
     2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Phone: (619) 233-7770
     Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
     Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


DAXI SICHUAN: Zang Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------
Zhongzhi Zang, individually and on behalf of all other Employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff(s), vs. DAXI SICHUAN INC. d/b/a
DAXI RESTAURANT, Shihai Liu, John Doe No. 1-10 and Jane Doe No.
1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06910 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 5,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys'
fees and costs, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff(s):

          Hui Chen, Esq.
          HUI CHEN AND ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          136-20 38th Ave., Suite 9E
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 463-2666
          E-mail: hui.chen@alum.cardozo.yu.edu

DIMICHELE ENTERPRISES: Thompson Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
JIM THOMPSON, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DIMICHELE ENTERPRISES, INC., NICOLE
DIMICHELE; and DEAN DIMICHELE, the Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-00903-SWW (E.D. Ark., Dec. 5, 2018), seeks declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a
result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and other
hourly-paid employees lawful overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week, under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants tracked Plaintiff's working
hours using a time clock system in Defendants' restaurant that
employees, including Plaintiff, used to record their working hours
by physically clocking in at the beginning of their shifts and out
at the end of their shifts. The time clock used by Defendants to
track the working hours of Plaintiff and other hourly employees
regularly failed to accurately record hours worked. The Plaintiff
was at times unable to clock in at the time he arrived and began
working, but rather often had to wait until a manager arrived at
work to clock him in. As a result, the clock-in time reflected on
the time clock was later than the time that Plaintiff actually
began working. This was true of other hourly employees for
Defendants as well.

As a result of Defendants' failure to accurately record hours
worked by Plaintiff and other hourly employees, Defendants failed
to pay Plaintiff and other hourly employees proper minimum and
overtime wages for all hours worked each week. Defendants failed to
pay and have yet to pay to Plaintiff his last paycheck after his
employment with the Defendants was terminated by Defendants on
November 22, despite Plaintiff making lawful demand upon Defendants
that they do so both within and after the seven days following
Plaintiff's last day of employment, the lawsuit says.

Dimichele Enterprise is in the management consulting services
industry in North Little Rock, Arizona.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

DOMINO'S PIZZA: Removes Silva Case to Central Dist. of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Domino's Pizza LLC removes case captioned EDDIE SILVA on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff. vs.
DOMINO'S PIZZA, a Michigan Corporation, and Does 1-10, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. 30-2018-8 01027517-CU-OE-CXC (Filed Oct.
23, 2018), from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Orange, top the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Nov. 30, 2018). The Central District of
California Court clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-10047 to the
proceeding.

The complaint alleges eight causes of action against Domino's: (1)
violation of the California Private Attorney General Act; (2)
failure to provide meal breaks; (3) failure to provide rest breaks;
(4) failure to separately pay all wages for work performed; (5)
failure to reimburse for work expenses; (6) failure to issue
accurate itemized wage statements; (7) waiting time penalties; and
(8) unfair business practices under the UCL.

Domino's Pizza, Inc., branded as Domino's, is an American pizza
restaurant chain founded in 1960. The corporation is headquartered
at the Domino's Farms Office Park in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and
incorporated in Delaware. In February 2018, the chain became the
largest pizza seller worldwide in terms of sales.[BN]

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Margaret A. Keane, Esq.
          Eric Ortiz, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
          Telephone: 415 836 2500
          Facsimile: 415 836 2501
          E-mail: margaret.keane@dlapiper.com
                  eric.ortiz@dlapiper.com

EAST CAPITOL: Wins Prelim. Nod of Settlement in Kinard Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Timothy J. Kelly grants preliminary approval of the Class
Action Settlement Agreement and Release in the lawsuit styled
MILDRED KINARD, EARLENE WHEELER, VICKY BORDEAUX, and DONALD
ROBINSON v. EAST CAPITOL FAMILY RENTAL, L.P., A&R MANAGEMENT, INC.,
and KETTLER MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-01935-TJK (D.D.C.).

The Settlement Class is defined as:

     All tenants who were residents at Capitol Gateway Family
     Rental in one of the Units for any period of time between
     January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015.

The Court approves the Class Notice, Claim Form, Reminder Postcards
and the Class Notice Procedure.  The Claims Administrator --
Settlement Services, Inc. -- shall mail the Class Notice, Claim
Form, and Reminder Postcards to the Settlement Class in accordance
with the Settlement Agreement.

Judge Kelly appoints the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives for
the Settlement Class and appoints their counsel as Class Counsel.

The Court will conduct a final fairness hearing on April 10, 2019,
at 10:00 a.m.[CC]


ECA: Terminates Employees without Proper Legal Notice, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEBI TOWNSEND, CHELSEA SMITH, HOLLY S. DANIELS, JENNIFER D. GERVAIS
and SHELLEY HENDERSON, individually and as class representatives
for all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, vs.
EDUCATION CORPORATION OF AMERICA, BRIGHTWOOD CAREER INSTITUTE,
BRIGHTWOOD COLLEGE, ECOTECH INSTITUTE, GOLF ACADEMY OF AMERICA and
VIRGINIA COLLEGE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01941-UNA (D.
Del., Dec. 7, 2018), seeks to recover receive payments owed to
Plaintiffs under ECA's compensation and benefit plans, actual
payroll checks for payment of wages/salary, vacation benefits,
deferred compensation and bonuses, including incentive bonuses,
severance and retention bonuses, that were subsequently not honored
or paid.

According to the complaint, the action is brought by former
employees of Education Corporation of America and its wholly owned
subsidiaries Brightwood Career Institute, Brightwood College,
Ecotech Institute, Golf Academy of America and Virginia College who
were terminated without proper legal notice, as part of, or as a
result of, campus shutdowns and/or mass layoffs at various
facilities, including but not limited to, campuses located in
Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland,
Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were terminated by ECA
on or about December 5, 2018. The Plaintiffs, and the members of
the class they seek to represent, failed to receive proper advance
notification of their terminations, in violation of the WARN Act
and/or state wage and employee laws. The Plaintiffs bring this
action on behalf of themselves, and other similarly situated former
employees who worked for Defendants and who were terminated without
cause, as part of, or as the result of, campus closings ordered by
Defendants and who were not provided 60 days advance written notice
of their terminations by Defendants, as required by the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the lawsuit says.

ECA owns and operated private institutions of higher education
throughout the The ECA Subsidiaries are wholly-owned subsidiaries
of ECA, a Delaware corporation, which operates from campuses
throughout the United States. ECA exercised direct control over the
ECA Subsidiaries and made the decision to terminate employees of
the ECA Subsidiaries without proper notice, severance, benefits or
payment for earned wages, bonuses and other compensation.[BN]

Attorneys for Class Plaintiffs and the Putative Class:

          Sally E. Veghte, Esq.
          KLEHR HARRISON HARVEY
          BRANZBURG LLP
          919 Market Street, Suite 1000
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 552-5503
          E-mail: sveghte@klehr.com
                  Charles A. Ercole, Esq.

EDUCATION CORP: Sued over Mass Layoff without Written Notice
------------------------------------------------------------
JERRELL SMITH and R. DAILEY, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. EDUCATION CORPORATION OF
AMERICA, the Defendant, Case No.: 1:18-cv-01937-UNA (D. Del., Dec.
6, 2018), seeks to recover 60 days' wages and benefits, pursuant to
29 U.S.C. section 2104 from Defendant.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were employees of
Education Corp and were terminated on or around December 5, 2018,
as part of a mass layoff and/or plant closing without being given
60 days advance written notice. On that date, Defendant announced
that it was permanently discontinuing its operations and, on or
about that date, terminated approximately 3,000 other similarly
situated employees without 60 days advance written notice, as
required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

The mass layoffs or plant closings at the Facilities resulted in
"employment losses," as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. section
2101(a)(2) for at least fifty of Defendant's employees as well as
more than 33% of Defendant's workforce at the Facilities, excluding
"part-time employees," as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. section
2101(a)(8). The Plaintiffs and the Class Members were terminated by
Defendant without cause on their part, as part of or as the
reasonably foreseeable consequence of the mass layoffs or plant
closings ordered by Defendant at the Facilities, the lawsuit says.

Education Corporation of America, headquartered in Birmingham,
Alabama, is a privately held company that operated proprietary
colleges across the United States. Included were three schools with
31 campuses, plus one online school and four affiliated
businesses.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the putative Class:

          Christopher D. Loizides, Esq.
          LOIZIDES, P.A.
          1225 King Street, Suite 800
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 654-0248
          E-mail: loizides@loizides.com

               - and -

          Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
          Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 3rd Avenue, 25 th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          E-mail: jar@outtengolden.com
                  rsr@outtengolden.com

ERIC KIM: Yu et al Seeks Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------
SHENG WEI YU, KENICHI MURAKI, WEI JIE YU, and AIMEE LACADEN, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
vs. ERIC KIM, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-07001 (E.D.N.Y., Dec.
9, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest;
and/or attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Defendant has willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL
by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their
employees, including Plaintiffs, minimum wage and overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.[BN]

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

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324
          E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com

ESA MANAGEMENT: Liggins Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Adrienne Liggins individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated and aggrieved, the Plaintiff, vs. ESA Management
LLC, a Delaware corporation and Extended Stay America-Anaheim
Convention Center a business entity of unknown form, the
Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-01807, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on Dec. 6, 2018. The  Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No.: 3:18-cv-07367-JCS to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Joseph C. Spero. The suit
asserts employment discrimination claims.[BN]

Attorneys for Adrienne Liggins, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated and aggrieved:

          Joshua D. Boxer, Esq.
          Matthew John Matern, Esq.
          Roy Karngwon Suh, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 30266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: jboxer@maternlawgroup.com
                  MMatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  rsuh@maternlawgroup.com

Attorneys for Defendant ESA Management LLC:

          Lindbergh Porter, Jr., Esq.
          Ebunoluwa O. Olaleye, Esq.
          Kurt R Bockes, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
          333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          Facsimile: (415) 399-8490
          E-mail: lporter@littler.com
                  dolaleye@littler.com
                  kbockes@littler.com

ESTES FORWARDING: Kirkland Suit Moved to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Giselle Kirkland, on behalf of
herself, all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Estes
Forwarding Worldwide, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company,
the Defendant, Case No. CGC-18-569316, was removed from San
Francisco Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Dec. 4, 2018.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.:
3:18-cv-07324-LB. The suit alleges Fair Credit Reporting Act
violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler.

Estes Forwarding Worldwide, LLC provides domestic and international
freight forwarding services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Howard Scott Leviant, Esq.
          William Matthew Pao, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: scott@setarehlaw.com
                  william@setarehlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Garrett Voorhees Jensen, Esq.
          CAROTHERS DISANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP
          2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 622-1661
          Facsimile: (949) 622-1669

FAIRWAY INDEPENDENT: Valdez Suit Moved to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, Susana Valdez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Fairway Independent Mortgage
Corporation, a Texas corporation and Does 1 through 20, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. 37-02018-00053677-CU-OE-CTL, was removed
from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego) on Dec. 6, 2018. The Southern District of California Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-02748-CAB-KSC to the proceeding.
The suit alleges labor-related violation. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo.

Fairway Independent offers financing options and mortgage advice.
The company offers range of residential loan programs.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Ali Sarah Carlsen., Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
          E-mail: acarlsen@aegislawfirm.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Christopher W. Decker, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART PC
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239-9800
          Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
          E-mail: christopher.decker@ogletreedeakins.com

FINA: Sued over Control of International Swimming Competitions
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS A. SHIELDS, MICHAEL C. ANDREW, and KATINKA HOSSZU, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
vs. FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE NATATION (FINA), Defendant, Case
No. 3:18-cv-07393 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 7, 2018), seeks both injunctive
relief against FINA's enforcement of its anti-competitive
"unauthorised relations" (sic) rules and damages to compensate
Plaintiff for real financial harm FINA's efforts already have
caused.

The Plaintiffs bring this action against FINA to prevent and
address clear antitrust violations arising from FINA's complete
control, by unlawful means, over the promotion and organization of
international swimming competitions and its efforts to ensure that
FINA, and only FINA, can determine what swimming athletes will be
paid for their efforts. FINA calls itself the world's governing
body for all aquatic sports. As the authorized gatekeeper to the
Olympic Games' aquatic events, there can be no doubt that, as it
boasts on its own website, FINA "controls the development" of
competitive swimming and diving disciplines.

The case is specifically about swimming; about whether FINA's
control over swimming opportunities -- at least as exercised
outside of the Olympic Games and FINA's own competitions --
amounts to an unlawful restraint of the ability of the athletes, on
whose bodies FINA's income and power depend, to earn what they
would command in a market free of FINA's iron grip. This case is
also about whether FINA -- entrenched in and fearful of losing
total control over lucrative swimming competitions -- unlawfully
wields its dominant influence to prevent 19 outside organizations
from expanding opportunities for hundreds of world-class swimmers
and their millions of fans across the world. FINA does so in a
manner that not only restricts FINA's competitors in the market for
the promotion of top-tier international swimming competitions from
entering the market, but also restricts opportunities for sponsors,
event broadcasters, licensees, and other related ancillary
businesses that would benefit from an increased number of top-tier
international swimming competitions. And this case is about whether
FINA's unreasonable market restraints and consolidated market power
have unlawfully restricted the ability of the world's top-tier
swimmers from enjoying expanded opportunities to exploit their own
hard work, rather than having to continue to suffer the
FINA-controlled exploitation of their lifetimes' worth of training
and labor.

Recognizing the damage its actions caused to the swimmers that FINA
depends upon and apparently attempting to assuage swimmers' anger,
FINA suddenly announced it would increase prize money available to
swimmers competing in the FINA World Swimming Championships (25m),
a short-course competition set for December 11-16, 2018, featuring
top-5 tier swimmers competing in the type of races most similar to
those planned by ISL. In other words, the mere threat of ISL’s
market entry has already increased pay for swimmers in the market
in which FINA has been unlawfully suppressing competition, which
demonstrates one element of anti-competitive harm -- depressed
swimmer compensation -- that FINA's illegal stranglehold has
imposed on the market.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class:

          Neil A. Goteiner, Esq.
          C. Brandon Wisoff, Esq.
          Matthew S.L. Cate, Esq.
          Aviva J. Gilbert, Esq.
          Hilary C. Krase, Esq.
          FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP
          235 Montgomery Street, 17 th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 954-4400
          Facsimile: (415) 954-4480
          E-mail: ngoteiner@fbm.com
                  bwisoff@fbm.com
                  mcate@fbm.com
                  agilbert@fbm.com
                  hkrase@fbm.com

               - and -

          Richard M. Heimann, Esq.
          Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
          Valerie D. Commenencia Ortiz, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: rheimann@lchb.com
                  efastiff@lchb.com
                  vcomenenciaortiz@lchb.com

FINISAR CORP: Class Certification Bid in Securities Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Finisar Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 3, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended October 28, 2018, that the plaintiff in the
consolidated class action suit pending before the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California has filed a new
motion for class certification.

Several securities class action lawsuits related to the Company's
March 8, 2011 earnings announcement alleging claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 have been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California on behalf of a purported class of persons who
purchased stock between December 2, 2010 through March 8, 2011.

The named defendants are the Company and Jerry Rawls, its former
Chief Executive Officer and former Chairman of the Board, and Eitan
Gertel, its former Chief Executive Officer. To date, no specific
amount of damages has been alleged.

The cases were consolidated, lead plaintiff was appointed and a
consolidated complaint was filed. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the case. On January 16, 2013, the District Court granted
the Company's motion to dismiss and granted the lead plaintiffs
leave to amend the consolidated complaint. An amended consolidated
complaint was filed on February 6, 2013.

Thereafter, the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss the case.
On September 30, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's
motion and dismissed the case with prejudice, and plaintiff
appealed. On January 8, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed the judgment in part for further proceedings in the
District Court.

On July 15, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
in the District Court. On August 19, 2016, the Company moved to
dismiss. On May 1, 2017, the District Court denied the motion and a
case scheduling order has been issued.

On December 5, 2017, the District Court issued an order denying
class certification. On February 1, 2018, the plaintiff filed a
petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to
appeal the denial of class certification and, on July 13, 2018, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petition for permission
to appeal.

On October 10, 2018, the plaintiff filed a new motion for class
certification, which the Company will oppose.

Finisar Corporation provides components and subsystems to
networking equipment manufacturers, data center operators, telecom
service providers, consumer electronics, and automotive companies
in the United States, China, Malaysia, and internationally. Finisar
Corporation was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Sunnyvale,
California.


FLORIDA COMMUNITY: Stewart Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
CLARK STEWART, on behalf of himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FLORIDA COMMUNITY LAW GROUP, P.L. the
Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-02111-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla., Dec. 7,
2018), seeks to recover damages under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff's alleged obligation arises
from a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or
services that are th subject of the transaction were incurred
primarily for personal, family, or household purposes -- namely,
the replacement of Plaintiff's residential roof. Defendant
regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly,
debts owed or due asserted to be owed, another. In connection with
the collection of the Debt, Defendant filed lawsuit against
Plaintiff dated Oct. 10, 2018. The lawsuit requires Plaintiff to
respond within 20 days after service. The lawsuit does not explain
the apparent contradiction between the requirement to respond
within 20 days and the consumer's right to dispute the Debt within
30 days, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Alex D. Weisberg, Esq.
          WEISBERG CONSUMER LAW GROUP PA
          5846 s. Flamingo Rd., Ste. 290
          Cooper City, FL 33330
          Telephone: (954) 212-2184
          Facsimile: (866) 577-0963
          E-mail: aweisberg@afclaw.com

FOOD LION: Ratcliffe Moves to Certify Asst. Store Managers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled TERRY RATCLIFFE, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. FOOD LION, LLC, Case
No. 3:18-cv-01177 (M.D. Tenn.), asks the Court to enter an order:

   (1) conditionally certifying a proposed collective of
       Assistant Store Managers who worked at any Food Lion
       location in the United States between March 17, 2015 and
       the present and whom Food Lion classified as exempt (the
       "Collective");

   (2) ordering Food Lion, LLC to produce contact information for
       all potential Collective members; and

   (3) authorizing the issuance of the proposed Court-Authorized
       Notice, Consent to Join Form, and Reminder Notice to all
       Collective members.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          Deirdre Aaron, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com
                  daaron@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Laura Iris Mattes, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One California Street, 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638-8800
          Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
          E-mail: imattes@outtengolden.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Jason Conway, Esq.
          CONWAY LEGAL, LLC
          1700 Market Street, Suite 1005
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 278-4782
          Facsimile: (215) 278-4807


GC SERVICES: Ocampo's Renewed Bid for Class Certification Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert M. Dow, Jr., denies the Plaintiff's renewed motion
for class certification in the lawsuit titled JOSE LUIS OCAMPO v.
GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 1:16-cv-09388 (N.D.
Ill.).

The Plaintiff is given until January 7, 2019, to file any motion
for substitution.  The case is set for further status hearing on
January 10, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.

On September 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed this class action
lawsuit against GCS and GC Services International, LLC, bringing
one count under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Specifically, the Plaintiff claims that the August 18, 2016
collection letter violated Section 1692g(a)(1) and Section 1692e of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

In his memorandum opinion and order, Judge Dow opines that based on
the Plaintiff's deposition testimony, the Court is not satisfied of
the Plaintiff's ability and willingness to vigorously prosecute the
action.

To begin, Judge Dow says, the Plaintiff lacks a fundamental
understanding of the class action process and his responsibilities
as a class representative.  "In fact, Plaintiff did not appear to
know even what a class action is."

"He also did not know what a class representative is or the duties
a class representative owes to the class," Judge Dow notes.  "He
could not say why he filed this lawsuit," Judge Dow adds, among
other things.[CC]


HD SUPPLY: Shareholders Class Suit in Georgia in Discovery Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------
HD Supply, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended October 28, 2018, that the shareholders'
putative class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia is now in discovery.

On July 10, 2017 and August 8, 2017, shareholders filed putative
class action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, alleging that HD Supply and certain senior
members of its management (collectively, the "defendants") made
certain false or misleading public statements in violation of the
federal securities laws between November 9, 2016 and June 5, 2017,
inclusive (the "original securities complaints").

Subsequently, the two securities cases were consolidated, and, on
November 16, 2017, the lead plaintiffs appointed by the Court filed
a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended
Complaint") against the defendants on behalf of all persons other
than defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between November 9, 2016 and June 5, 2017, inclusive.


The Amended Complaint alleges that defendants made certain false or
misleading public statements, primarily relating to the Company's
progress in addressing certain supply chain disruption issues
encountered in the Company's Facilities Maintenance business unit.
The Amended Complaint asserts claims against the defendants under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
SEC Rule 10b-5, and seeks class certification under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as unspecified monetary damages,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
other costs.

On September 19, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The matter is now in discovery.

HD Supply, Inc. operates as an industrial distribution company in
North America. The company operates in two segments, Facilities
Maintenance and Construction & Industrial. The company was formerly
known as The Home Depot Supply, Inc. and changed its name to HD
Supply, Inc. in December 2006. HD Supply, Inc. is headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia. HD Supply, Inc. is a subsidiary of HD Supply
Holdings, Inc.


HYPERION BIOTECHNOLOGY: Smith Suit Moved to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as KENNETH SMITH, an individual, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HYPERION
BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC., and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No.: BC 720939, was removed from the Superior Court, County of
Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on Nov. 30, 2018. The
Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.:
2:18-cv-10043 to the proceeding. The suit alleges Fair Labor
Standards Act violation.

Hyperion Biotechnology, Inc. offers research programs to military,
government, and private sectors.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Negin Iraninejadian, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS PC
          725 South Figueroa Street 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 689-0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
          E—mail: negin.iraninejadian@jacksonlewis.com

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Musgrave Sues Over Wiring Defect in Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rick Musgrave, David Krakauer, Jonathan Raiskin, and Alexis
Salvadore, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Hyundai Motor
Company, Kia Motors America, Inc., and Kia Motors Corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-07313-EDL (N.D. Cal., December 3,
2018) asserts claims against Defendants for fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of express and implied warranties,
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and unjust enrichment.
Plaintiffs also bring claims under consumer protection statutes of
California, Florida, and New Jersey, including the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Business & Professions
Code the California False Advertising Law, California Business &
Professions Code ("FAL"), the Unfair Competition Law, California
Business & Professions, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The Defendants Hyundai Motor America, Inc. ("HMA"), Hyundai Motor
Company ("HMC"), Kia Motors America, Inc. ("KMA"), and Kia Motors
Corporation ("KMC") are the manufacturers of vehicles sold under
the Hyundai and Kia brands throughout the United States. Defendants
designed, manufactured, imported, distributed, marketed, and/or
sold the vehicles throughout the United States. Defendants also
provided – and continue to provide – service and maintenance
for the vehicles through their extensive network of authorized
dealers and service providers nationwide.

The Plaintiffs assert that Defendants have wrongfully and
intentionally concealed a wiring defect in certain Kia and Hyundai
models1 ("the Class Vehicles") which can cause electrical shortages
that may result in a spontaneous fire during normal operation of
the Class Vehicles. Defendants have also actively concealed and
failed to disclose the Wiring Defect to consumers, despite their
knowledge that the Class Vehicles were defective and not fit for
their intended purpose of providing consumers with safe and
reliable transportation at the time of the sale and thereafter,
including during scheduled maintenance.

The Plaintiffs further note that Defendants have not repaired the
Wiring Defect, have not offered Class Vehicle owners a suitable
repair or replacement free of charge, and have not offered to
reimburse all Class Vehicle owners and leaseholders the costs they
incurred relating to diagnosing and repairing the Wiring Defect. As
a result, Defendants have wrongfully and intentionally transferred
the cost of repair of the Wiring Defect to Plaintiffs and members
of the Classes by fraudulently concealing the existence of the
Wiring Defect.

According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants breached their express
and implied warranties through which they promised to, inter alia,
(1) provide Class Vehicles fit for the ordinary purpose for which
they were sold; and (2) repair and correct manufacturing defects or
defects in materials or workmanship of any parts they supplied,
including the Wiring Defect. Because the Wiring Defect was present
at the time of sale, lease, or service of the Class Vehicles,
Defendants are required to repair and/or replace the Class Vehicles
pursuant to the terms of the warranties.

Plaintiff Rick Musgrave is a citizen of the state of California and
resides in Pacheco, California. Plaintiff Musgrave is the owner of
a 2011 Kia Sorento SX, which is subject to the Wiring Defect.

Plaintiff David Krakauer is a citizen of the State of New Jersey
and resides in Lincoln Park, New Jersey. Plaintiff is the owner of
a 2013 Hyundai Sonata, which is subject to the Wiring Defect.

Plaintiff Jonathan Raiskin is a citizen of the State of Florida and
resides in New Port Richey, Florida. Plaintiff is the owner of a
2013 Hyundai Sonata, which is subject to the Wiring Defect.

Plaintiff Alexis Salvadore is a citizen of the State of Florida and
resides in Greenacres, Florida. Plaintiff is the owner of a 2013
Hyundai Sonata, which is subject to the Wiring Defect.

Hyundai Motor Company is a South Korean corporation with its
principal place of business in Seoul, South Korea. HMC is the
parent corporation of HMA, a wholly-owned subsidiary. HMC, through
its various entities – including HMA – designs, manufactures,
markets, distributes and sells Hyundai automobiles in California,
Florida, New Jersey and throughout the United States through a
network of dealerships that are the agents of HMA and HMC.

Hyundai Motor America, Inc. is a California corporation with its
principal place of business located at 10550 Talbert Avenue,
Fountain Valley, California 92708. HMA does business in California,
Florida, New Jersey and throughout the United States. HMA is a
wholly owned U.S. subsidiary of HMC, and it engages in business,
including the advertising, marketing and sale of Hyundai
automobiles nationwide. HMA is HMC's U.S. sales and marketing
division, which oversees sales and other operations across the
United States. HMA distributes Hyundai vehicles and sells these
vehicles through its network of dealerships that are the agents of
HMA and HMC. Money received from the purchase of a Hyundai vehicle
from a dealership flows from the dealer to HMA and ultimately to
HMC.

Kia Motors Corporation is a South Korean corporation with its
principal place of business in Seoul, South Korea. KMC is the
parent corporation of Defendant KMA, a wholly-owned subsidiary. KMC
and HMC, through their various entities – including KMA –
design, manufacture, import, market, distribute and sell Kia
automobiles in California, Florida, New Jersey, and throughout the
United States.

Kia Motors America, Inc. is a California corporation with its
principal place of business at 111 Peters Canyon Road, Irvine,
California 92606. KMA does business in California, Florida, New
Jersey, and throughout the United States. KMA is the wholly owned
subsidiary of KMC and serves as KMC's U.S. sales and marketing
division, which oversees sales and other operations across the
United States. KMA distributes Kia vehicles and sells these
vehicles through its network of more than 755 dealerships that are
the agents of KMA, KMC, and HMC. Money received from the purchase
or lease of a Kia vehicle from a dealership flows from the dealer
to KMA and ultimately to KMC and/or HMC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
     Joel D. Smith, Esq.
     Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
     Walnut Creek, CA 94596
     Phone: (925) 300-4455
     Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
     Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
            fklorczyk@bursor.com
            jsmith@bursor.com

          - and -

     Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.     
     888 Seventh Avenue
     New York, NY 10019
     Phone: (646) 837-7150
     Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
     Email: scott@bursor.com


ILLINOIS INSTITUTE: Conceals Accreditation Status, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
EMMANUEL DUNAGAN, JESSICA MUSCARI, ROBERT J. INFUSINO, and
STEPHANIE PORRECA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiff, vs. ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF
ART-CHICAGO, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company; ILLINOIS
INSTITUTE OF ART-SCHAUMBURG, LLC, an Illinois limited liability
company; ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF ART, LLC, an Illinois limited
liability company; DREAM CENTER FOUNDATION, a California non-profit
corporation; DREAM CENTER EDUCATIONAL HOLDINGS, LLC, a Pennsylvania
limited liability company; and JOHN DOES 1-10, in their individual
capacity, the Defendants, Case No. 2018CH15216 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook
Cty., Dec. 6, 2018), alleges that Defendants violated the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act.

According to the complaint, on March 3, 2017, DCF entered into an
agreement to purchase IIA from its then-owner, Education Management
Corporation ("EDMC"). At the time of the purchase, HA, and all its
campuses, were accredited by the Higher Learning Commission
("HLC"), a private, non-profit accrediting agency recognized by the
United States Department of Education. On January 20, 2018, the
transfer of control of HA schools from EDMC to DCF and its
subsidiaries went into effect. On that date, IIA's
campuses-including HA-Chicago, located in Chicago, IL, and
HA-Schaumburg, located in Schaumburg, IL-lost their status as
accredited institutions of higher education.

Defendants did not inform IIA students at any time after agreeing
to purchase IIA that IIA campuses could lose their accreditation,
and, in direct defiance of HLC's instruction, did not inform
students when the loss of accreditation happened. For at least five
months thereafter, Defendants made false and misleading
representations to Named Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
students regarding IIA's accreditation status, including, in widely
disseminated materials, that IIA campuses "remain accredited."
Defendants' misrepresentations violated the ICFDPA and Illinois
common law. Defendants also concealed from Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated students for those same five months that HA had
lost its status as an accredited institution of higher education.
Defendants' concealment likewise violated the ICFDPA and Illinois
common law. The Plaintiffs discovered the truth about IIA's lack of
accreditation between approximately June 20, 2018 and July 10,
2018, when they returned from break to start the summer quarter.
Defendants continued to make false and misleading representations
after July 9, 2018, including that IIA was likely to reobtain
accreditation and that credits earned since IIA lost accreditation
would be deemed fully accredited once IIA's accreditation was
ultimately reinstated. IIA' s accreditation was never reinstated.
Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions of material facts
regarding IIA's lack of accreditation violate the ICFDPA and
Illinois common law and have caused substantial harm to  Plaintiffs
and over 1,000 similarly situated students, the lawsuit says.

AII is an institution of higher education in operation since 1916,
which is comprised of multiple campuses, and offers bachelor's and
associate degrees for several programs, including culinary mis,
design, fashion, and media arts.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq
          Cassandra P. Miller, Esq
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-1824
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com

IMPERVA INC: Scarantino Sues Over Thomas Bravo Merger
------------------------------------------------------
Richard Scarantino, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Imperva, Inc., Allan Tessler,
Christopher Hylen Albert Pimentel, James Tolonen, Randall Spratt,
and Roger Sippl, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01913-UNA (D. Del.,
December 3, 2018) is a complaint for violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on October
10, 2018, pursuant to which Imperva, Inc. will be acquired by
affiliates of Thoma Bravo, LLC: Imperial Purchaser, LLC and
Imperial Merger Sub, Inc.

On October 10, 2018, Imperva's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Thoma
Bravo. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Imperva's
stockholders will receive $55.75 in cash for each share of Imperva
common stock they hold. On November 13, 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 false and
misleading. Accordingly, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy
Statement, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is, and has been continuously throughout all times
relevant hereto, the owner of Imperva common stock.

Imperva is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices at 3400 Bridge Parkway, Redwood Shores,
California 94065. Imperva's common stock is traded on the NasdaqGS
under the ticker symbol "IMPV". Imperva is a party to the Merger
Agreement.

Allan Tessler is Chairman of the Board of the Company.

Christopher Hylen is President, Chief Executive Officer, and a
director of the Company.

Albert Pimentel, James Tolonen, Randall Spratt, and Roger Sippl are
directors of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 295-5310
     Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
     Email: sdr@rl-legal.com
            bdl@rl-legal.com
            gms@rl-legal.com

          - and -

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


INLAND PRODUCTS: Sued Over Deceptive Business Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
Mongkol Mahavongtrakul, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Inland Products,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-07261-JSC (N.D. Cal., November
30, 2018) is a proposed class action brought by Plaintiff,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, against Inland, seeking redress for the Company's
unjust, unfair, and deceptive practices in misrepresenting the
capacity of its products in violation of state law during the
applicable statute of limitations period.

According to the complaint, portable electronic devices (PEDs) have
made it convenient for consumers to constantly stay in
communication with colleagues, friends, and loved ones, and to
immediately access information. However, like any electronic
device, PEDs require power and their internal batteries must be
periodically recharged. To address the needs of consumers to use
PEDs during travel, or when the consumer otherwise lacks access to
an electrical outlet, the portable charger industry emerged. A
portable charger, often called a power bank is a small, portable
power source consumers can use to recharge their PEDs during
travel.

Inland manufactures, markets, and distributes for sale nationwide
to consumers a number of Power Banks under the ProHT label. Inland
does so by prominently representing the Products' capacities as
measured in mAh. Unfortunately for consumers, testing has shown the
Products' actual capacity is substantially lower than what Inland
represents, notes the complaint.

By deceiving consumers about the Products' capacity, Inland is able
to sell more of, and charge more for, the Products than it could if
they were labeled accurately. Furthermore, Inland is incentivized
to mislead consumers to take market share away from competing
products, thereby increasing its own sales and profits, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Mongkol Mahavongtrakul is a resident of Martinez,
California. Plaintiff purchased the Products at Fry's Electronics
in Contra Costa County, California, most recently in November
2017.

Inland Products, Inc. is organized under the laws of the State of
California with its principle place of business at 1410 E. Walnut
Avenue, Fullerton, California 92831.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
     Jean M. Sedlak, Esq.
     FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP,
     FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
     445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605
     White Plains, NY 10601
     Phone: (914) 298-3290
     Email: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
            jsedlak@fbfglaw.com

          - and –

     Laurence D. King, Esq.
     Mario M. Choi, Esq.
     KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
     350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: (415) 772-4700
     Facsimile: (415) 772- 4707
     Email: lking@kaplanfox.com
            mchoi@kaplanfox.com


INTERFAITH MEDICAL: Made Unlawful Pay Deductions, Okeke Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Theophilus Okeke, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Interfaith Medical Center, Laray
Brown, individually and as officer, director, shareholder, and/or
principal of Interfaith Medical Center, and Charles Lawrence
individually and as officer, director, shareholder, and/or
principal of Interfaith Medical Center, Defendants, Case No.
524200/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., December 3, 2018) is an
action for damages and other legal and equitable relief from
Defendants for violation of the New York Labor Law, and the Wage
Theft Prevention Act.

Plaintiff Okeke brings this action, pursuant to New York Civil
Practice Law and Rules Article 9, on behalf of a class of persons
who are and were employed by Defendants as Per Diem Physicians
during the past 6 years through the final date of the disposition
of this action, who were subjected to a 1 hour meal break deduction
per workday from their paychecks despite working through the
purported break time in violation of the NYLL and are entitled to
recover: unlawful deductions of earnings, liquidated damages,
interest, attorney fees and costs, pursuant to the NYLL, and such
other and further relief as the Court finds necessary and proper.

In addition to Plaintiff Okeke's class allegation, Plaintiff Okeke
brings this action for Defendants' failure to issue him the
requisite wage statements pursuant to the WTPA and is entitled to
recover: penalties, attorney's fees, and such other and further
relief as the Court finds necessary and proper, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Okeke was an employee within the meaning of the NYLL and
domiciled in Nassau County, New York.

Defendant Interfaith is organized under the laws of the state of
New York and has its principal place of business in Brooklyn, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert J. Valli, Jr., Esq.
     Matthew L. Berman, Esq.
     Alexander M. White, Esq.
     Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP
     600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516)203-7180
     Fax: (516) 706-0248



JPMORGAN CHASE: Manipulates Metals Futures Contracts, Serri Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK SERRI, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiff, vs JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JOHN EDMONDS, and JOHN DOE
Nos. 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-11458 (S.D.N.Y., Dec.
7, 2018), alleges that Defendants unlawfully and intentionally
manipulated prices of gold, silver, platinum, and palladium
("precious metals") futures contracts and options on such contracts
traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and the
Commodity Exchange, Inc. (COMEX) from approximately January 1, 2009
through December 31, 2015 in violation of the Commodity Exchange
Act, 7 U.S.C. sections 1, et seq. and the common law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are a group of precious
metals traders and the bank that employed them during the Class
Period. On November 6, 2018, the United States Department of
Justice announced that Defendant John Edmonds pleaded guilty in
federal court in the District of Connecticut on October 9, 2018 to
one count of conspiracy to commit write fraud, commodities fraud,
commodities price manipulation, and spoofing and one count of
commodities fraud for his scheme to manipulate the market for
precious metals futures contracts. As a result of his unlawful
conduct, Defendant Edmonds faces a maximum combined term of
imprisonment for his criminal conduct of 30 years and a fine that
is the greater of (1) twice his gross gain resulting from the
offenses; (2) twice the gross loss resulting from the offenses; or
(3) $250,000. The DOJ press release indicated that Defendant
Edmonds executed his manipulation scheme with other trading
partners employed at Defendant JP Morgan Chase & Co., including
more senior traders, and with the knowledge and consent of his
immediate supervisors.

Specifically, Defendants manipulated the prices of NYMEX platinum
and palladium and COMEX silver and gold futures and options
contracts during the Class Period using a technique called
"spoofing" (explained infra) whereby Defendants routinely placed
electronic orders to buy and sell such futures contracts with the
intent to cancel those orders before execution. These spoof orders
injected materially false and illegitimate signals of supply and
demand into the market and were intended to induce other market
participants to trade at futures prices that were made artificial
as a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct. Defendants' spoof
orders were intended to, and did in fact, artificially move the
prices of NYMEX and COMEX precious metals futures and options
contracts during the Class Period in a pre-determined direction
that was favorable to Defendants, but unfavorable to Plaintiff and
the proposed Class. As a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct,
Plaintiff and members of the Class have suffered damages and
injury-in-fact due to having transacted at artificial prices for
precious metals futures contracts and options on those futures
contracts, to which Plaintiff and the Class would not have been
subject, but for the unlawful conduct of the Defendants as
alleged.

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. is an American multinational investment
bank and financial services company headquartered in New York City.
JPMorgan Chase is the largest bank in the United States, and the
second largest bank in the world by total assets, with the amount
of $2.534 trillion.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff Mark Serri and the Proposed Class:

          Hollis Salzman, Esq.
          Kellie Lerner, Esq.
          Bernard Persky, Esq.
          Nahid A. Shaikh, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: 212-980-7400
          Facsimile: 212-980-7499
          E-mail: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com
                  KLerner@RobinsKaplan.com
                  BPersky@RobinsKaplan.com
                  NShaikh@RobinsKaplan.com

               - and -

          K. Craig Wildfang, Esq.
          Thomas J. Undlin, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: 612-349-8500
          Facsimile: 612-339-4181
          E-mail: KCWildfang@RobinsKaplan.com
          TUndlin@RobinsKaplan.com

               - and -

          Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          2440 West El Camino Real, Suite 100
          Mountain View, CA 94040
          Telephone: 650-784-4040
          Facsimile: 650-784-4041
          E-mail: ASheanin@RobinsKaplan.com

               - and -

          Steven R. Goldberg, Esq.
          225 Liberty Street, Suite 1020A
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: 212-845-5100
          Facsimile: 212-845-4197
          E-mail: Sgoldberglaw@verizon.net

JULIAN SPENCE: Heberle's Cert. Bid Denied; Hearing on Dec. 20
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on November 29, 2018, in the case
titled Kevin Heberle v. Julian Spence, Case No. 1:18-cv-02288 (N.D.
Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Jorge L.
Alonso.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Motion hearing was held;

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied as
      moot;

   -- For the reasons stated on the record, the Plaintiff's
      amended motion for class certification is denied; and

   -- Status hearing is set for December 20, 2018, at 9:30
      a.m.[CC]


KATHERINE'S CATERING: Underpays Service Staff, Tansey et al. Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------
KAITLYN TANSEY and SARAH CAUDILL, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated employees, the laintiffs, vs. KATHERINE'S
CATERING AND SPECIAL EVENTS, INC., KATHERINE'S CATERING DETROIT,
LLC, KATHERINE'S CATERING ROYAL OAK, LLC, KATHERINE'S CATERING
OAKLAND COUNTY, LLC, KATHERINE'S CATERING CANTON, LLC, KATHERINE'S
CATERING OF BRIGHTON, LLC, and KATHERINE H. FARRELL, the
Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-13800-JEL-MKM ECF (E.D. Mich., Dec. 7,
2018), seeks unpaid wages and all available relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, Defendants provide full-service,
special-events catering to customers throughout southeast Michigan
in connection with corporate events, weddings, and other social
events. In addition to providing catering services at remote
locations, Defendants also operate two venues in Canton and Wixom,
Michigan, respectively. Defendants employ approximately 75
employees at any given time. Defendants produce over 2,500 events
annually and, according to their website, "since 1985, the
Katherine's team has produced over 65,000 events." According to
Defendants' website, "our service staff will exude steadfast
hospitality and graciousness at every turn." The service staff
members employed by Defendants to work the catering events include
hourly Event Supervisors, Servers, Bartenders, and Food Runners.
All of Defendants' service staff members began their employment in
a training program where they are provided with a "C.A.T.E.R.
Card," which contained a training checklist for their supervisors
to sign off as the service staff members are trained on certain
tasks. Until the C.A.T.E.R. Card was completed, See
https://www.katherines.com/about-us/ (last visited December 7,
2018). The service staff members were paid $10.00 per hour and were
not permitted to accept gratuities/tips nor participate in any
gratuity/tip pools. Upon completion of the C.A.T.E.R. Card, the
service staff members turned their Cards into Defendants and began
working as full-fledged service staff members. From this point, the
service staff members also began earning a higher hourly rate, plus
gratuities/tips, and were eligible to participate in the
gratuity/tip pools. Many of Defendants' service staff members
worked in multiple service staff positions throughout their
employment (i.e. Event Supervisors, Servers, Bartenders, and Food
Runners) depending on Defendants' needs for each catering event.
All of Defendants' service staff members, including Plaintiffs,
recorded their work hours by either clocking in and out through
Defendants' electronic timekeeping system or by submitting written
time cards to Defendants' Human Resources office.

All of Defendants' service staff, including Plaintiffs, earned a
flat hourly rate plus any gratuities/tips received from patrons.
They customarily and regularly received more than $30 per month in
gratuities/tips. For example, Defendants employed Plaintiff Tansey
as an hourly Server at $14.50 per hour (plus gratuities/tips) and
as an hourly Event Supervisor at $14.50 per hour (plus
gratuities/tips).  Likewise, Defendants employed Plaintiff Caudill
as an hourly Server at $12.00 per hour (plus gratuities/tips) and
as an hourly Bartender at $12.00 per hour (plus gratuities/tips).
All of Defendants' service staff, including Plaintiffs, and
regardless of the service staff position in which they worked, were
paid in the similar manner by Defendants, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          KREIS ENDERLE, P.C.
          8225 Moorsbridge, P.O. Box. 4010
          Kalamazoo, MI 49003-4010
          Telephone: (269) 324-3000
          E-mail: jyoung@kehb.com

KELLOGG COMPANY: Smith Suit Transferred to W.D. Michigan
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Kellog Co. was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (Case No.
2:17-cv-01914) to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Michigan (Southern Division) on Dec. 3, 2018. The Western
District of Michigan Court Clerk assigned Case No.:
1:18-cv-01341-PLM-RSK to the proceeding. The Michigan case is
assigned to the Hon. District Judge Paul L. Maloney.

This case is brought to remedy the failure of Defendants to pay
Plaintiff and other employees who were required to visit retail
stores and merchandise Kellogg products on shelves and displays and
who were paid on a salary basis without compensation at the rate of
time and one-half for all hours worked more than 40 in a workweek
as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, including without
limitation Retail Sales Representatives, Territory Managers, Retail
Sales Managers, and Kellogg Sales Representatives.

Kellogg Company, doing business as Kellogg's, is an American
multinational food-manufacturing company headquartered in Battle
Creek, Michigan, United States.

The case is captioned as BRIAN SMITH, on behalf of himself and
those similarly situated persons, Scotty Poarch, David W Phillips,
Daniel P Muesenfechter, Richard Bush, Andrew Brown, Renato
Linsangan, Scott Chwascinski, Charles Aaron Gee, Gregory Ratliff,
Jay J. Ammer, Gary Feeney, Felix Gregory, William Vehlewald, Terrie
Steele, Philip J. Gluszak, Kevin W. Johnson, Kyle Leikam, Elizabeth
LaMasse, Charles R. Sewell, Jonathan Jakubiak, Brian A Mack,
Shelley Goddard, Amy Spadaro, Raudel Medina, Carman Payne, Andy
Alvarado, Regina Coshatt, Ralph Barrish, Larry Knab, Sheila
Simpson, Dorothy E Soppleland, Brian J Bloom, Richard Abbott,
Robert Graham, Albert Boudreaux, Roseann Miracola, David Barnes,
Richard E. Carns Sean Fefie, Darrell Godbee, Thoetis L. Ramsey,
Theresa M. Sozzo Mark Young, Bryan Malone, William H Sing, Robert
Nichols, Ralph Alexander, Carl R Haas, Jennifer L Holman, Linda
Giguere, Philip Talento, Lonnie Williams, David Whelan, William
Callaway, Mark Schanzenbach, Rich Mag, David Fletcher, Timothy W
Siegrist, James C Keillor, John Theodore, Kenneth Henrick, Timothy
Altman, Tina M Krycia, Michael J. Shirey, Melody English, Greg
Snider, John F Ahart, Donald H Link, Tammy Brewer, Shenodh Yousef,
Deborah A Schutt, Jesus Varela, Ronald Eibner, Jim Hoos, Charles
Williamson Lance Turner, Keith Rulka, Joseph Simao, Darrell
Parrish, Matthew Smith, Kenneth Baker, Anthony Bouchard, Razza
Oreste, John Sloan Albert Byrd, Jr., Maurizio Dolce, Andrew
Lescinsky, Brian Heber Jeff Elia, Kenneth D Uder, Daniel Reller,
Donald Aubrey, Scott Chwascinski, Christian Sanchez, John
Apostolou, Jamie Phillips Amanda Surko, Chad Brooks, Brian Feeley,
Daniel Becker, Cyndi Watson, Mario Espaillat, Haniel Santiago,
Daniel Ramseth Alice Donovan, Roger Pillitteri, Dustan Gill,
Barbara McGinnis Logan J. Hartman, Donald A Malmgren, Shannon K
Webb, Cynthia Daniels, Travis M Anderson, Kathy Black, Frank
Pimental Joseph Markiewicz, Natalie Leatherwood, James L Lowery,
Keith Young, John Schmidt, Paul Turner, David C. Phillips, Jeffrey
M. Sitarek, David C. Prohow, Todd Bruck, Joseph Berres, Billy
Roberts, Justin Van Wyk, John Furby, Carlada Christian, Kimberly A
Gilford, Kenneth R Leather, Patrick Sullivan, Mark Heger, Johnny
Padgett, Kelly-Anne Tremper, James D. Hess, Douglas C Merrill,
Terri L. Saunders, Kristy Bond, Jeffrey J. Curley, Alfreda
Gatewood, Mary C. Keeley, Dylan Harris, Jason C. Trahan, Bryan M.
Duntz, Raymond Kwan, Marcus Mason, Mark LaRue, Michael Gaddy and
Lauren Miller Reeves, the Plaintiffs, vs. KELLOGG COMPANY and
KELLOGG SALES COMPANY, the Defendants.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and and the FLSA Class:

          Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq.
          Alex Dumas, Esq.
          Matthew Thomas Dunn, Esq.
          GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC
          260 Fair St.
          Kingston, New York 12401
          Telephone: (845) 255-9370
          Facsimile: (845) 255-8649
          E-mail: msweeney@getmansweeney.com
                  adumas@getmansweeney.com

               - and -

          Christian J. Gabroy, Esq.
          GABROY LAW OFFICES
          The District at Green Valley Ranch
          170 S. Green Valley Parkway, Suite 280
          Henderson, NV 89012
          Telephone: (702) 259-7777
          Facsimile: (702) 259-7704
          E-mail: Christian@gabroy.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Christiana L. Signs, Esq.
          James Norman Boudreau, Esq.
          Tami D. Cowden, Esq.
          James M Nelson, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          2700 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 988-7868
          Facsimile: (215) 717-5232

KOREAN VETERANS: Man Kyu Choi Files RICO Class Action in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Korean Veterans
Association of the U.S.A. Western Region, et al. The case is styled
as Man Kyu Choi an individual and a member of the Korean Veterans
Association of the USA Wester Region, similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. The Korean Veterans Association of the U.S.A. Western Region,
Jae Kook Wee an individual, Jae Kwon Kim an individual, Dae In Lim
an individual, Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-10048-PSG-AFM (C.D. Cal., Nov. 30, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

The KWVA is a veterans' service organization which seeks to
preserve the interest in the welfare of Korean War veterans and
their families.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se:

     Man Kyu Choi, Esq.
     2975 Wilshire Boulevard No. 358
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Phone: (310) 938-8785
     PRO SE


LA MESA, CA: Suenishi Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Suenishi, and Peter Meredith, on behalf of themselves and
all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City of La
Mesa, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-02730-CAB-BGS (S.D. Cal., December 3, 2018) is an action
seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, interest, attorney's fees and costs under the provisions
of Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The complaint says each of the plaintiffs worked more than 40 hours
in many seven-day work weeks. Plaintiff Deborah Suenishi worked
more than 40 hours in 45 work weeks since November 29, 2015.
Plaintiff Peter Meredith worked more than 40 hours in more than 50
work weeks since November 29, 2015. The plaintiffs who have
consented to join this case have also worked more than 40 hours in
many seven-day work weeks during the three years preceding the
filing of this complaint.

During the work weeks that the plaintiffs worked overtime (i.e.,
more than 40 hours), the City failed to correctly pay overtime to
the plaintiffs as required by the FLSA. Specifically, the City
failed to pay at least four hours of overtime in weeks that the
plaintiffs worked more than 44 hours, the complaint relates.

The City's violation of the FLSA was "willful" because, based on
information and belief, the City took no affirmative action to
assure compliance with the FLSA requirements, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are employees or former employees of the City of La
Mesa.

City of La Mesa is the employer of the plaintiffs and those
similarly situated.

The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate,
associate, or otherwise, of defendants DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, are
unknown to plaintiffs, who therefore sue said defendants by such
fictitious names.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael A. Conger, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A. CONGER
     16236 San Dieguito Road, Suite 4-14
     P.O. Box 9374
     Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
     Phone: (858) 759-0200
     Facsimile: (858) 759-1906
     Email: congermike@aol.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: Zissa Seeks Overtime Pay for Social Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
JUDITH ZISSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a legal
subdivision of the State of California, the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-10174 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 6, 2018), seeks unpaid wages,
including overtime, declaratory, equitable, and injunctive relief,
including restitution under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff brings this collective
action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
individuals who have worked for the County of Los Angeles,
Department of Children and Family Services, as Children's Social
Workers. The Plaintiff and members of the putative Collective are
current and former non-exempt CSWs. They work tirelessly to make
sure that children are safe in Los Angeles County. They investigate
allegations of abuse, develop case plans to ensure that children
are safe in their homes, monitor children and families to ensure
health, safety, and compliance with case plans, arrange and
facilitate placements outside the home, supervise parental
interactions, and complete paperwork, case notes, and court
reports. The Plaintiff and members of the putative Collective work
long hours performing these important duties. They are scheduled to
work 40 hours per week, but they often work up to 50 hours per week
and even more. Caseloads are assigned on operational needs, and not
on a realistic assessment of how much work a CSW can handle. The
burdens of the heavy caseloads are magnified by the important and
sensitive nature of the work.

However, DCFS and its managers make it impossible for CSWs to
obtain pay for the extra work. As a general rule, overtime must be
pre-approved by the CSW’s manager. The CSW must complete a County
form and obtain manager approval before working the extra time.
However, the process is time-consuming and cumbersome, and requests
are met with refusals and resistance from DCFS. DCFS managers
regularly refuse overtime requests by asking that CSWs "flex" their
time - working more than their scheduled hours when they have a
heavy workweek, and making up for it by working less than their
scheduled hours in other weeks. If they request overtime, CSWs are
questioned and even belittled by DCFS managers for not completing
the job within the scheduled hours. Due to budgetary concerns,
overtime hours are closely scrutinized, managers are evaluated on
their ability to cut down overtime, and requests for overtime are
widely disfavored. CSWs fear negative repercussions for simply
requesting overtime pre-approval. As a result of these policies,
practices, and procedures, DCFS denies, discourages and suppresses
CSW requests for overtime pre- approval, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Collective:

          Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
          Ori Edelstein, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com

MANDARIN ORIENTAL: Olsen Files ADA Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mandarin Oriental
(New York) Inc. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Mandarin Oriental (New York) Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-06850 (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 2, 2018).

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

Mandarin Oriental, New York, is a five-star hotel located in
Manhattan's Time Warner Center at Columbus Circle in New York City,
managed by Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group. A part of the multi-use
Time Warner Center development, the hotel opened in December 2003.
In addition to the 248 guestrooms and suites, the hotel provides
services for 64 residences. The hotel has received many national
and international awards, and operates one of only two Forbes
Five-Star spas in Manhattan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     Fifth Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: McGrath Sues over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
DENNIS MCGRATH, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., ARNE M.
SORENSON, KATHLEEN KELLY OBERG, and BAO GIANG VAL BAUDUIN, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06845 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2018), seeks
to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of
the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the case is a federal securities class
action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities
other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the
publicly traded securities of Marriott from November 9, 2016
through November 29, 2018, both dates inclusive. On September 23,
2016, Marriott announced it had completed its over $13 billion
acquisition of Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.  On
November 9, 2016, Marriott filed a Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016 with the SEC (the "3Q 2016 10-Q"),
which provided the Company's financial results and position. The 3Q
2016 10-Q was signed by Defendant Bauduin. The 3Q 2016 10-Q
contained signed certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 ("SOX") by Defendants Sorenson and Oberg attesting to the
accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material
changes to the Company's internal controls over financial
reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud. On November 30, 2018,
before market hours, Marriott reported a potential data breach
involving the personal information of 500 million guests. According
to the release, there had been unauthorized access to the Starwood
network since 2014. On this news, shares in Marriott's stock fell
$6.81 or over 5.5% to close at $115.03
per share on November 30, 2018, damaging investors. As a result of
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff
and other Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages, the lawsuit says.

Marriott operates, franchises, and licenses hotel, residential, and
timeshare properties worldwide.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  sshepardson@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com



MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Perkins Sues over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
DALLAS PERKINS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and
STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-12477 (D. Mass., Nov. 30, 2018), seeks to redress
Marriott's unlawful and negligent disclosure of millions of
consumers' confidential personal identifying information ("PII"),
including their names, addresses, passport details, phone numbers,
email addresses, dates of birth, gender, and credit card numbers
with expiration dates in violation of Massachusetts’ consumer
protection law, MASS. GEN. LAWS 93A section 1, the consumer
protection laws of states with materially identical terms, and
common law.

According to the complaint, Marriott failed to fulfill its legal
duty to protect consumers' PII which was stored in its systems.
Marriott's willful, reckless, and negligent disregard for its
obligations to safeguard individuals' PII resulted in a massive
data breach that has been occurring since at least 2014, exposing
hundreds of millions of consumers' PII ("Data Breach" or
"Breach").

Marriott is the largest hotel chain in the world, with more than
6,500 properties located in 127 countries and territories globally.
Marriott owns and operates a variety of hotel, lodging, and
hospitality brands, including hotels under its Starwood brands,
which include W Hotels, St. Regis, Sheraton Hotels & Resorts,
Westin Hotels & Resorts, Element Hotels, Aloft Hotels, The Luxury
Collection, Tribute Portfolio, Le Meridien Hotels & Resorts, Four
Points by Sheraton, and Design Hotels. Hundreds of millions of
customers have made reservations and stayed at Marriott properties
around the globe. When booking reservations at a Marriott property,
including its Starwood brand properties, customers provide Marriott
with sensitive PII, including their names, addresses, passport
numbers and details, phone numbers, email addresses, dates of
birth, gender, and credit card numbers with expiration dates.
Booking hotel reservations, and thus, collecting the PII of its
customers, is therefore at the heart of Marriott’s business.
Despite promises that it is committed to safeguarding guests' PII,
in a November 30, 2018 statement, Marriott revealed that data for
approximately 500 million guests was exposed in a hack that has
allowed unauthorized access to its Starwood Hotels reservation
database since 2014, and that hackers have actively copied and
encrypted information from this database, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Classes:

          D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP,
            FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP.
          445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298-3281
          Facsimile: (914) 908-6709
          E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel S. Robinson, Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288
          Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
          E-mail: drobinson@robinsonfirm.com

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Raab Sues over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------
SUSAN GOLDFINE RAAB, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. and
STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-08007 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 5, 2018), alleges that Marriott and
Starwood failed to secure and safeguard its guests' names, phone
numbers, email addresses, passport numbers, dates of birth, credit
card numbers and credit card expiration dates (Personal Identifying
Information).

According to the complaint, Starwood collected Plaintiff and Class
Members' Personal Identifying Information at the time guests
registered on its website, checked-in to one of its hotels,
enrolled in its loyalty program (SPG Loyalty Program), and used a
dining or retail service within its property. Beginning in 2014 (or
perhaps even earlier) and continuing through November 2018, cyber
criminals exploited vulnerabilities in Marriott and Starwood's
network and stole guests' Personal Identifying Information (Data
Breach). On November 30, 2018, Marriott disclosed that the massive
Data Breach potentially exposed the personal data of 500 million
guests. It is the second biggest corporate data breach in history.
Despite the staggering magnitude of this breach, Marriott claimed
it did not discover it until November 19, 2018. Cyber criminals
have had four full years of unencumbered access to personal and
confidential information of hundreds of millions of guests before
Marriott even notified its guests.

Marriott has publicly acknowledged that the Data Breach resulted,
at least in part, from vulnerabilities in a database containing
sensitive information it gleaned from guests at its
Starwood-branded hotels, noting in an 8-K filed on November 30,
2018 that it was "devoting the resources necessary to phase out
Starwood systems and accelerate the ongoing security enhancements
to [its] network." The opportunities that any such faults created
for cyber criminals were greatly enhanced by Marriott's systemic
incompetence and uninterested approach to data security. Indeed,
Marriott failed to employ sufficient security measures to avoid the
Data Breach despite the fact that Starwood -- which Marriott
acquired in 2016 and whose database it admitted to have been
compromised in the Data Breach -- had reported a data breach
relating to 54 of its hotels in November of 2015. Despite this data
breach, as well as numerous other high-profile data breaches at
other major American corporations (including Equifax and Target)
during the four years between the initial breach and its discovery,
Marriott took no steps to assure that its systems were secure, the
lawsuit says.

Marriott is a worldwide operator, franchisor, and licensor of
hotel, residential, and timeshare properties under numerous brand
names at different price and service points. On September 23, 2016,
Marriott completed the acquisition of Starwood through a series of
transactions, after which Starwood became an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of Marriott. Through Starwood, Marriott operates hotels
and/or resorts as well as other timeshare properties under the
following brands: Westin, Sheraton, Luxury Collection, Four Points
by Sheraton, W Hotels, St. Regis, Le Meridien, Aloft, Element,
Tribute Portfolio and Design Hotels.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michael J. Freed, Esq.
          Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
          Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
          Brian M. Hogan, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
          E-mail: mfreed@fklmlaw.com
                  skanner@fklmlaw.com
                  dmillen@fklmlaw.com
                  bhogan@fklmlaw.com

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sciascia et al. Sue over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
JOELY SCIASCIA, 9340 Lake Serena Dr. Boca Raton, FL 33496; MICHELE
EMANUELE, 1065 2 ND Ave. New York, NY 10022; and MICHELLE PLOTSKER,
27 Preston Drive Livingston, NJ 07039, Individually and on Behalf
of all others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL, INC. 10400 Fernwood Rd. Bethesda, MD 20817 (Resident
of Montgomery County, Maryland); and STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS
WORLDWIDE, LLC, 10400 Fernwood Rd. Department 955.23 Bethesda, MD
20817 (Resident of Montgomery County, Maryland), the Defendants,
Case No. 8:18-cv-03773-PWG (D. Md., Dec. 7, 2018), alleges that
Defendants failed to secure and safeguard the personally
identifiable information ("PII") of up to approximately 500 million
of their customers, including passport numbers of up to 327 million
of these customers which Marriott's Starwood division collected and
maintained.

According to the complaint, the Defendants maintain and operate a
customer reservation and rewards database which they refer to as
the "Starwood guest reservation database." This is separate from
the guest reservation system Marriott uses for guest reservations
for its non-Starwood properties. Starwood used the "Starwood guest
reservation database" as its guest reservation system before
Starwood was acquired by Marriott in 2016, and it continued to be
used after the acquisition. On November 30, 2018, Marriott
disclosed that it had suffered an extremely significant data
breach. It stated that "on September 8, 2018, it received an alert
from an internal security tool regarding an attempt to access the
Starwood guest reservation database in the United States." Marriott
learned during the investigation "that there had been unauthorized
access to the Starwood network since 2014" and discovered that an
unauthorized party had copied and encrypted PII.  On November 19,
2018, Marriott was able to decrypt the PII and determined that the
contents were from the Starwood guest reservation database.

Marriott, in its announcement of November 30, stated that it
believed the corrupted data base had information on up to
approximately 500 million guests who made a reservation at a
Starwood property. For approximately 327 million of these guests,
the PII includes some combination of name, mailing address, phone
number, email address, passport number, Starwood Preferred Guest
(SPG) account information, date of birth, gender, arrival and
departure information, and reservation date. The PII of the
Plaintiffs, and the other customers who used Starwood's reservation
system they seek to represent was compromised due to Defendants'
acts and omissions and their failure to properly protect their
customer's PII. Defendants could have prevented this Data Breach.
The Defendants disregarded the rights of Plaintiffs and the other
Nationwide Class and Subclass members by intentionally, willfully,
recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable
measures to ensure that the Starwood data systems were protected,
failing to disclose to their customers the material fact that
Starwood and/or Marriott did not have adequate security practices
to safeguard the PII that Starwood customers had disclosed to
Defendants with the understanding they would be secure; failing to
take available steps to prevent and stop the breach from ever
happening; and failing to monitor and detect the breach on a timely
basis. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiffs and the other
Nationwide Class and Subclass members have been exposed, in all
likelihood, to criminals for misuse of their PII, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Adam L. Van Grack, Esq.
          Theodore B. Kiviat, Esq.
          Robb A. Longman, Esq.
          LONGMAN & VAN GRACK, LLC
          10411 Motor City Drive, Suite 750
          Bethesda, MD 20817
          Telephone: (301) 291-5027
          Facsimile: (301) 291-5028
          E-mail: avangrack@lvglawfirm.com
                  tkiviat@lvglawfirm.com
                  rlongman@lvglawfirm.com

               - and -

          Mark Levine, Esq.
          Howard Longman, Esq.
          Melissa R. Emert, Esq
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45 th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687-7230
          Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
          E-mail: mlevine@ssbny.com
                  hlongman@ssbny.com
                  memert@ssbny.com

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sisbarro Sues Over Massive Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Sisbarro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Marriot International, Inc. and Starwood
Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
8:18-cv-03727-GJH (D. Md., December 3, 2018) arises out of a
massive data breach in which Marriott breached its duty to secure
and safeguard its customers' sensitive personal, demographic, and
financial data—including, but not limited to, names, addresses,
phone numbers, email addresses, passport numbers, hotel reward
account information, dates of birth, information regarding arrival
and departure, reservation dates, communication preferences, and
credit card numbers and expiration dates and failed to provide
clear, conspicuous, and timely notice to Plaintiff and the other
members of the Class and Subclasses that their information had been
compromised.

On November 30, 2018, more than ten weeks after it had "received an
alert from an internal security tool" regarding an unauthorized
attempt to access the guest reservation database for certain
Marriott affiliated hotels in the United States, Marriott disclosed
to the public that its systems were subject to one of the largest
data breaches in the nation's history. Shockingly, Marriott's
investigation of the Data Breach revealed that the unauthorized
access began occurring over four years ago in 2014 and had remained
undetected and unaddressed until November 2018.

During the approximately four-year period between the initial
breach and its discovery, a hacker or hackers took advantage of
glaring weaknesses and vulnerabilities in Marriott's systems to
steal the Personal Information of approximately 500 million
individuals who had stayed at certain Marriot-affiliated hotels
during that period, says the complaint. For approximately four
years, Marriott failed to detect the hackers' presence, notice the
massive amounts of data that were being exfiltrated from its
database, or take any steps to investigate the numerous red flags
that should have warned the Company about what was happening, it
adds.

Accordingly, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other
members of the proposed Nationwide Class, asserts claims against
Marriott for negligence, negligence per se, violation of Maryland's
consumer protection statute, unjust enrichment, and for a
declaratory judgment. Plaintiff also asserts claims on behalf of
himself and various Subclasses for violation of numerous state
statutes relating to consumer protection, data security, and data
breach notification. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of each
of the other members of the Class and Subclasses, seeks injunctive
relief, declaratory relief, monetary and statutory damages,
attorneys' fees, and all other relief as may be just and proper as
provided under law or by equity.

Plaintiff Justin Sisbarro is a resident and citizen of Baltimore,
Maryland. Plaintiff has stayed at Marriott properties and hotels at
least twenty times in the last four years.

Marriott is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters at 10400
Fernwood Road, Bethesda, Maryland. Marriott is a worldwide
operator, franchisor, and licensor of hotel, residential, and
timeshare properties under numerous brand names at different price
and service points. One of the largest hotel chains on the planet,
it operates approximately 6,520 properties worldwide, including
4,839 properties in North America alone. On September 23, 2016,
Marriott completed the acquisition of Starwood Hotels & Resorts
Worldwide, LLC, formerly known as Starwood Hotels & Resorts
Worldwide, Inc.

Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC, which has its principal
place of business in Connecticut, is an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of Marriott, formerly known as Starwood Hotels & Resorts
Worldwide, Inc., which Marriott acquired in September of 2016.
Starwood Hotels operated by Marriott include: W Hotels, St. Regis,
Sheraton Hotels & Resorts, Westin Hotels & Resorts, Element Hotels,
Aloft Hotels, The Luxury Collection, Tribute Portfolio, Le
Méridien Hotels & Resorts, Four Points by Sheraton and Design
Hotels, as well as Starwood-branded timeshare properties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
     Kyle J. McGee, Esq.
     Michael D. Bell, Esq.
     GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
     123 Justison Street
     Wilmington, DE
     Phone: 302-622-7000
     Fax: 302-622-7100
     Email: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com
            kmcgee@gelaw.com
            mbell@gelaw.com

          - and -

     Martin E. Wolf, Esq.
     Richard S. Gordon, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Carney, Esq.
     GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY CHTD.
     100 W. Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 100
     Towson, MD 21204
     Phone: 410-825-2300
     Fax: 410-825-0066
     Email: mwolf@GWCfirm.com
            rgordon@GWCfirm.com
            bcarney@GWCfirm.com


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sprowl et al Sue over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
JAMES SPROWL and PHILIP S. FRIEDMAN, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL, INC., the Defendant,Case No. 8:18-cv-03691-PJM (D.
Md., Nov. 30, 2018), seeks equitable relief and damages resulting
from Defendant's failure to adequately protect customers' personal
identification information.

According to the complaint, on or about November 30, 2018, Marriott
revealed publicly that its reservations database for Starwood
properties, which include Sheraton, Westin and St. Regis hotels,
among others, had been hacked and that up to 500 million guests
could be affected. According to Marriott, an unauthorized party had
accessed the database since 2014 and the breach included names,
email addresses, phone numbers, passport numbers, birthdays, and
payment information.

The Plaintiffs have made reservations with Starwood properties
during the relevant time period, and upon information and belief
have had their personal identification information ("PII" or
"Private Information") stolen. According to Marriott, it received
an alert on September 8, 2018 from an internal security tool that
there had been an unauthorized attempt to access its Starwood guest
reservation database. Marriott subsequently learned through
investigation that there had been unauthorized access to the
Starwood network since 2014, and that an unauthorized party has
copied and encrypted information, and taken steps towards removing


On November 19, 2018, Marriott decrypted the information and
determined that the contents were from the Starwood guest
reservation database. That database contains reservation
information for W Hotels, St. Regis, Sheraton Hotels & Resorts,
Westin Hotels & Resorts, Element Hotels, Aloft Hotels, The Luxury
Collection, Tribute Portfolio, Le Meridien Hotels & Resorts, Four
Points by Sheraton, and Design Hotels that participate in the
Starwood Preferred Guest (SPG) program. Starwood branded timeshare
properties are also included.  Although its investigation is
ongoing, Marriott believes that the Breach involved information on
up to approximately 500 million guests who made a reservation at a
Starwood property.

According to Marriott, for approximately 327 million of these
guests, the information included some combination of name, mailing
address, phone number, email address, passport number, Starwood
Preferred Guest (SPG) account information, date of birth, gender,
arrival and departure information, reservation date, and
communication preferences, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW | Ste 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: 202-640-1168
          Facsimile: 202-429-2294
          E-mail: Gmason@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
          One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: 513-345-8297
          Facsimile: 513-345-8294
          E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: 215-592-1500
          Facsimile: 215-592-4663
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sundius-Rose Sues over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
MARY ANN SUNDIUS-ROSE, 39 Birchwood Lane Boonton Township, New
Jersey 07005; NANCY MOLESWORTH 220 Riverside Blvd., Apt 5F New
York, NY 10069, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC., 10400
Fenwood Road Bethesda, Maryland 20817, Case No. 8:18-cv-03696-PX
(D. Md., Nov. 30, 2018), seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive
relief requiring Defendant to, inter alia, implement and maintain
reasonable and effective security practices.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is a global provider of
lodging with more than 6,700 properties across 130 countries and
territories. In 2016, Defendant finalized its merger with Starwood
Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, LLC, another global hotel chain
including brands such as Westin Hotels and Resorts and Sheraton. In
merging Starwood into Defendant's Marriott brand, Defendant
continued to maintain separate guest reservation databases for
Marriott and Starwood hotels. When making reservations with
Starwood-branded hotels, customers are required to provide
extensive Sensitive Personal Information (SPI). On November 30,
2018, Defendant announced that it had discovered that there had
been unauthorized access to the Starwood guest reservation
database, which contains information on approximately 500 million
of guests, since 2014. The Defendant also announced that a forensic
investigation of the Data Breach showed that SPI for approximately
327 million guests, including names, mailing addresses, phone
numbers, email addresses, passport numbers, Starwood Preferred
Guest account information, dates of birth, gender, arrival and
departure information, reservation dates, communication preferences
and payment card numbers and expiration dates, had been copied and
encrypted.

The SPI of Plaintiffs and the other members of the Classes which
Defendant failed to protect and allowed to be accessed and taken by
thieves can be and is used to perform identify theft, make
fraudulent charges, and open unauthorized new accounts, Defendant
also admitted in its announcement that breach on September 8, 2018,
though it was first alerted to this data it delayed informing its
customers of the breach for over 80 days until November 30, 2018.
The Defendant has made public statements apologizing for the Data
Breach but has not made any effort to assist or recompense affected
customers apart from offering a one-year subscription to
"WebWatcher," which Defendant claims monitors internet sites where
SPI is shared and generates an alert for subscribers if evidence of
their personal information is found. The Plaintiffs are individuals
who provided their SPI to Defendant as part of their purchase of
lodging, and whose SPI has been compromised as a result of the
Defendant's failure to maintain reasonable and adequate security
measures to safeguard their SPI, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          John B. Isbister, Esq.
          Daniel S. Katz, Esq.
          TYDINGS & ROSENBERG LLP
          One East Pratt Street, Suite 901
          E-mail: jisbister@tydingslaw.com
                  dkatz@tydingslaw.com

               - and -

          Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
          Michael Liskow, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
          351 w. 54th St., Suite lC
          New York, New York 10019
          Telephone: (212) 969-7810
          Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
          E-mail: liskowm@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                  pollackj @thesultzerlawgroup. com

               - and -

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          Erich P. Schork, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
          Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
          BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 621-2000
          Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
          E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
                  e.schork@b arnowlaw.com
                  j.blake@barnowlaw.com
                  aparkhill@barnowlaw.com

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Taylor Sues Over Data Security Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS TAYLOR, KAREN MARKUS-HANDIS, and KIRK HUDDLES, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03724-GJH
(D. Md., December 3, 2018) arises from one of the largest data
security breaches in U.S. history. On November 30, 2018, Marriott
announced that an unauthorized party had gained access to its
Starwood Guest Reservation Database and copied the name, mailing
address, phone number, email address, passport number, Starwood
Preferred Guest account information, date of birth, gender, arrival
and departure information, reservation date, and payment card
numbers and expiration of 500 million guests.

Shockingly, Marriott's announcement revealed that the unauthorized
access to its Database began in 2014 and, thus, had gone on
(allegedly) undetected for four years. The Data Breach affects all
guests who stayed at a Starwood property, which includes W Hotels,
St. Regis, Sheraton Hotels & Resorts, Westin Hotels & Resorts,
Element Hotels, Aloft Hotels, The Luxury Collection, Tribute
Portfolio, Le Meridien Hotels & Resorts, Four Points by Sheraton
and Design Hotels, and even Starwood-branded timeshare properties.
And the victims of the Breach are not limited to those customers
enrolled in Marriott's SPG program. According to Marriott,
"regardless of whether you are an SPG member, if you made a
reservation on or before September 10, 2018 for a Starwood
property, information you provided may have been involved". Again,
the scope of the Data Breach cannot be understated: there are half
a billion victims of Marriott's security failures.

As the result of Marriott's failure to reasonably secure its
Database, cybercriminals obtained the Personal Information of 500
million customers, including Plaintiffs and the other Class
members, exposing them to an increased risk of fraud and identity
theft, and causing them injuries and damages, including, but not
limited to, the lost value of their Personal Information, and the
lost time and expense necessary to protect themselves against the
foreseeable fraud and identity theft that Marriott's conduct
caused. Plaintiffs and Class members are further damaged as their
Personal Information remains in Marriott's possession, without
adequate protection, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Chris Taylor resides in Baltimore, Maryland and is a
citizen of the state of Maryland. Plaintiff is a Starwood Preferred
Guest whose American Express credit card is linked to his Starwood
Preferred Guest account. Plaintiff has stayed at Starwood
properties throughout the Class Period.

Plaintiff Chris Taylor resides in Baltimore, Maryland and is a
citizen of the state of Maryland. Plaintiff is a Starwood Preferred
Guest whose American Express credit card is linked to his Starwood
Preferred Guest account. Plaintiff has stayed at Starwood
properties throughout the Class Period.

Kirk Huddles resides in Baltimore, Maryland and is a citizen of the
state of Maryland. Plaintiff is a Starwood Preferred Guest whose
American Express credit card is linked to his Starwood Preferred
Guest account. Plaintiff has stayed at Starwood properties
throughout the Class Period.

Marriott International, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principle place of business at 10400 Fernwood Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817. Marriott's securities trade on the NASDAQ under the
ticker symbol "MAR".[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     STEVEN D. SILVERMAN, Esq.
     JOSEPH F. MURPHY, JR., Esq.
     ANDREW C. WHITE, Esq.
     WILLIAM N. SINCLAIR, Esq.
     SILVERMAN THOMPSON SLUTKIN & WHITE LLC
     201 N. Charles Street, 26th Floor
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Telephone: 410/385-2225
     Fax: 410/547-2432
     Email: ssilverman@mdattorney.com
            jmurphy@mdattorney.com
            awhite@mdattorney.com
            bsinclair@mdattorney.com

          - and -
     
     STUART A. DAVIDSON, Esq.
     CHRISTOPHER C. GOLD, Esq.
     DORY P. ANTULLIS, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
     Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Telephone: 561/750-3000
     Fax: 561/750-3364
     Email: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
            cgold@rgrdlaw.com
            dantullis@rgrdlaw.com

          - and -

     SAMUEL H. RUDMAN, Esq.
     WILLIAM J. GEDDISH, Esq.
     MARK S. REICH, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     58 South Service Road, Suite 200
     Melville, NY 11747
     Phone: 631/367-7100
     Fax: 631/367-1173
     Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
            mreich@rgrdlaw.com
            wgeddish@rgrdlaw.com


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Trager Sues over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
JOSIAH TRAGER, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-03745 (D. Md., Dec. 5, 2018), alleges that
Marriott failed to secure and safeguard its guests' names, phone
numbers, email addresses, passport numbers, dates of birth, credit
card numbers and credit card expiration dates (Personal Identifying
Information).

According to the complaint, on November 30, 2018, Marriott
disclosed that the massive Data Breach potentially exposed the
personal data of 500 million guests. It is the second biggest
corporate data breach in history. Despite the staggering magnitude
of this breach, Marriott claimed it did not discover it until
November 19, 2018. Cyber criminals have had four full years of
unencumbered access to personal and confidential information of
hundreds of millions of guests before Marriott even notified its
guests.

Marriott has publicly acknowledged that the Data Breach resulted,
at least in part, from vulnerabilities in a database containing
sensitive information it gleaned from guests at its
Starwood-branded hotels, noting in an 8-K filed on November 30,
2018 that it was "devoting the resources necessary to phase out
Starwood systems and accelerate the ongoing security enhancements
to [its] network." The opportunities that any such faults created
for cyber criminals were greatly enhanced by Marriott's systemic
incompetence and uninterested approach to data security. Indeed,
Marriott failed to employ sufficient security measures to avoid the
Data Breach despite the fact that Starwood -- which Marriott
acquired in 2016 and whose database it admitted to have been
compromised in the Data Breach -- had reported a data breach
relating to 54 of its hotels in November of 2015. Despite this data
breach, as well as numerous other high-profile data breaches at
other major American corporations (including Equifax and Target)
during the four years between the initial breach and its discovery,
Marriott took no steps to assure that its systems were secure, the
lawsuit says.

Marriott is a worldwide operator, franchisor, and licensor of
hotel, residential, and timeshare properties under numerous brand
names at different price and service points. On September 23, 2016,
Marriott completed the acquisition of Starwood through a series of
transactions, after which Starwood became an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of Marriott. Through Starwood, Marriott operates hotels
and/or resorts as well as other timeshare properties under the
following brands: Westin, Sheraton, Luxury Collection, Four Points
by Sheraton, W Hotels, St. Regis, Le Meridien, Aloft, Element,
Tribute Portfolio and Design Hotels.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and Putative Class:

          Andrew D. Freeman, Esq.
          Neel K. Lalchandani, Esq.
          BROWN, GOLDSTEIN & LEVY, LLP
          120 E Baltimore Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 962 1030
          Facsimile: (410) 385 0869
          E-mail: adf@browngold.com
                  nlalchandani@browngold.com

               - and -

          Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
          Katrina Carroll. Esq
          Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC
          111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
                  bgreenberg@litedepalma.com
                  kshamberg@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Joseph LoPiccolo, Esq.
          John N. Poulos, Esq.
          POULOS LOPICCOLO PC
          1305 South Roller Road
          Ocean, New Jersey 07712
          Telephone: lipiccolo@pllawfirm.com
          Facsimile: poulos@pllawfirm.com

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Turner Sues over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
HOPE TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL and STARWOOD
HOTELS AND RESORTS WORLDWIDE, LLC, INC., Case No. 8:18-cv-03763-RWT
(D. Md., Dec. 6, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants from engaging in
further negligent, deceptive, unfair, and unlawful business
practices.

According to the complaint, on November 30, 2018, Marriott, parent
company of Starwood, announced a massive data breach compromising
the personal information of a half billion people whose information
Defendants stored in the Starwood guest reservation database. The
information taken includes names, phone numbers, mailing and e-mail
addresses, passport numbers, Starwood Preferred Guest account data,
dates of birth, gender, arrival and departure information,
reservation dates, and communication preferences. For some, the
information taken also includes payment card numbers and expiration
dates.

That Defendants failed to detect or prevent this data breach is
particularly astonishing, Plaintiff contends. According to
Marriott, the hackers first accessed Starwood's systems in 2014 and
Defendants did not detect them until September 2018. During that
same period, Starwood failed to prevent numerous breaches,
including a payment card data breach at approximately 100 of its
properties. Despite these obvious danger signs, the Defendants
still failed to adequately secure the Starwood reservation system,
a massive database that should have been protected by the most
sophisticated security controls available. As a result of
Defendants' failure to protect the customer information they
hoarded, Plaintiff and others already have suffered fraud, identity
theft, and financial harm, and many millions more now are subject
to a heightened, imminent risk of such harm, the lawsuit says.

Marriott is a global hotel conglomerate. According to its 2017
Annual Report, Marriott owns 1,959 properties and operates another
4,432 franchised and licensed properties, for a combined total of
over 1,200,000 rooms in its portfolio. Marriott hotels include
well-known brands such as Marriott, Ritz-Carlton, Courtyard, and
Residence Inn.[BN]

Attorneys for  Plaintiff:

          William H. Murphy III, Esq.
          Jessica H. Meeder, Esq.
          MURPHY, FALCON & MURPHY, P.A.
          One South Street, 23rd Floor
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 951-8744
          Facsimile: (410) 539-6599
          E-mail: hassan.murphy@murphyfalcon.com
                  jessica.meeder@murphyfalcon.com

               - and -

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          David M. Berger, Esq.
          Amanda Karl, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
                  dmb@classlawgroup.com
                  amk@classlawgroup.com

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Van Dam Sues over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
MACKENZIE VAN DAM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-03725 (D. Md., Dec. 3, 2018),
seeks to recover damages arising out of a security breach of
Marriott's reservation database for its Starwood properties.  This
action is brought on behalf of all persons residing in the United
States whose personal information was compromised or stolen as a
result of the Data Breach.

According to an official statement by Marriott released on November
30, 2018, the Data Breach began in or around 2014 and may have
compromised the personal information of as many as 500 million
customers, including their names, email addresses, phone numbers,
passport numbers, birthdays, and payment information. The Plaintiff
has made reservations and stayed at Starwood properties during the
relevant time period, and has had her personal and financial
information compromised and possibly stolen. Despite a heightened
awareness of the threat of such a data breach following numerous
similar large-scale events in recent years, Marriott failed to take
reasonable measures to protect the personal and financial
information of Plaintiff and the Proposed Class, allowing hackers
to take over guests' accounts for unlawful purposes.

Marriott is a worldwide operator of hotel properties. In September
2016, Marriott completed a merger with Starwood in which Starwood
became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Marriott. On November 30, 2018,
Marriott, for the first time, disclosed that its Starwood guest
reservation database had been hacked. In its statement on the
incident, Marriott reported that it received an alert from an
internal security tool on September 8, 2018, which revealed an
"attempt to access" the Starwood guest reservation database in the
United States. Marriott further stated that, after investigating
this alert, it determined on November 19, 2018, that some third
parties had gained unauthorized access to the Starwood database and
all of the information stored. Marriott further reported that its
investigation revealed that the unauthorized access to the Starwood
database may have first occurred in 2014, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Cary Joshi, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1054 31 st Street, NW Suite 230
          Washington DC 20007
          Telephone: 202-436-2101
          Facsimile: 202-463-2103
          E-mail: CJoshi@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Robert G. Rikard, Esq.
          RIKARD & PROTOPAPAS LLC
          1329 Blanding Street
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 978-6111
          Facsimile: (803) 978-6112
          E-mail: rgr@rplegalgroup.com

               - and -

          Joseph C. Peiffer, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE
          A Professional Law Corporation
          201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 4610
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 523-2434
          Facsimile: (504) 523-2464
          E-mail: jpeiffer@pwcklegal.com

MAXHOME, LLC: Vail Seeks Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------
KATHERYN VAIL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the PLAINTIFF, vs. MAXHOME, LLC, the DEFENDANT, Case No.
4:18-cv-04631 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 7, 2018), seeks declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, as a
result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other
hourly-paid employees lawful overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has willfully and
intentionally committed violations of the FLSA. The Defendant
violated the FLSA by not including the non-discretionary bonuses or
commissions of Plaintiff and other Rehashes in their regular rate
when calculating their overtime pay the lawsuit says.

MaxHome is a home improvement company serving residents throughout
the Houston, New Orleans, and Baton Rouge areas.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

MDL 2617: Arnold Wants Suit to Be Included in Data Breach MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marie Arnold asks the Court to consolidate her lawsuit captioned
MARIE ARNOLD v. ANTHEM INC., Case No. 5:18-CV-02981 LHK (N.D.
Cal.), to the multidistrict litigation entitled In re Anthem, Inc.
Data Breach Litigation, MDL No. 5:15-md-02617-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

Anthem was cyber attacked and breached on January 29, 2015, which
resulted in the compromise of around 80 million customers' personal
information, health record, SSN, address, and etc.  The Plaintiff
alleges that she and her family were harmed and they suffered
emotional distress, and public humiliation and defamation from the
breach.

The Court will commence a hearing on January 3, 2019, at 1:30 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

Marie Arnold of San Ramon, California, appears pro se.[CC]


MDL 2741: Anderson Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled BRENDA ANDERSON, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01827, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) on Dec. 4, 2018. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-07317-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

MDL 2741: Barbour Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled WILLIAM BARBOUR, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01871 (Filed Nov. 1,
2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on Dec. 4, 2018. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-07321-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
          Joseph B. Carnduff, Esq.
          GORI JULIAN LAW
          156 N. Main St.
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 659-9833
          Facsimile: (618) 659-9834
          E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com
                  jcarnduff@gorijulianlaw.com


MDL 2741: Hiatt Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jan Hiatt, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-01879, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Nov. 30, 2018.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-07273-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Eric Davis Holland, Esq.
          HOLLAND, GROVES, SCHNELLER AND STOLZE
          300 North Tucker Blvd., Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          Telephone: (314) 241-8111
          Facsimile: (314) 241-5554
          E-mail: eholland@allfela.com

               - and -

          Jessica L. Richman, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          6 Harbor Park Drive
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Telephone (516) 723-4627
          Facsimile (516) 723-4727
          E-mail: jrichman@yourlawyer.com


MDL 2741: Hogan Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MARTHA HOGAN, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.  4:18-cv-01822, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) on Nov. 20, 2018. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-07060-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

MDL 2741: Kruppa Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled ALEXANDER KRUPPA and DINAH KRUPPA,
the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-01825, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Dec. 3 2018. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-07310-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

MDL 2741: Lis Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled WILLIAM LIS, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01920 (Filed Nov. 13,
2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on Dec. 6, 2018. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-07369-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
          9500 Nall Ave., Suite 400
          Overland Park, KS 66207-2950
          Telephone: (913) 451-3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839-0567
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com

MDL 2741: Riordan Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled VICKIE RIORDAN, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01920 (Filed Nov. 13,
2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on Dec. 6, 2018. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:18-cv-01918 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
          9500 Nall Ave., Suite 400
          Overland Park, KS 66207-2950
          Telephone: (913) 451-3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839-0567
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com

MDL 2741: Strong Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MARIE STRONG, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01824, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) on Dec. 3, 2018. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-07309-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

MDL 2804: Eiland vs. Purdue Pharma over Opiates Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Amel Eiland individually and behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Purdue Dharma LIP., Purdue
Dharma Inc.; Cephalic Inc.; Neva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.;
Neva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Jansen Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Johnson & Johnson; Aramco Inc.; Or tho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Jansen Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Jansen Pharmaceutical Inc., now known as Jansen Pharmaceuticals
Inc.; Undo Health Solutions Inc.; Undo Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Allergen PL, formerly known as: Activist PL; Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Activist Inc.; Watson
Laboratories Inc.; Activist Dharma, Inc., formerly known as: Watson
Dharma, Inc.; Activist LLC; Maeterlinck PL; Maeterlinck LLC;
McPherson Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.; Counterinsurgency Drug
Corporation; and Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., the Defendants,
Case No.  1:18-cv-02894, was transferred from the US. District
Court for the District of Colorado, to the US. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on Nov. 30, 2018. The
Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:18-op-46283-DAP to the proceeding.

The Eiland case is being consolidated with ML 2804 in re: NATIONAL
PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION. The ML was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multi district Litigation on
December 5, 2017. These cases concern the alleged improper
marketing of and inappropriate distribution of various prescription
opiate medications into cities, states and towns across the
country. Responding plaintiffs' positions on centralization vary
considerably. Plaintiffs in over 40 actions or potential tag-along
actions support centralization. Plaintiffs in 15 actions or
potential tag-along actions oppose centralization altogether or
oppose transfer of their action. In addition to opposing transfer,
the State of West Virginia suggests that the ML Panel delay
transferring its case until the Southern District of West Virginia
court decides its motion to remand to state court. Third party
payer plaintiffs in an Eastern District of Pennsylvania potential
tag-along action (Philadelphia Teachers Health and Welfare Fund)
oppose centralization of third participatory actions. Western
District of Washington plaintiff City of Everett opposes
centralization and, alternatively, requests exclusion of its case.
Northern District of Illinois tag-along Plaintiff City of Chicago
asks the Panel to defer transfer of its action until document
discovery is completed. The Presiding Judge in the ML is Sarah S.
Vance, United States District Judge. The lead case is
1:17-MD-02804-PAD.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Colleen Therese Calandra, Esq.
          RAMOS LAW, LLC
          3000 Youngfield Street, Suite 200
          Wheat Ridge, CO 80215
          Telephone: (303) 733-6353
          Facsimile: (303) 865-5666
          E-mail: Colleen@ramoslaw.com

MDL 2871: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 2 Crop Insurance Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: DRY BEAN REVENUE PROTECTION CROP INSURANCE
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2871, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied the Plaintiff's motion for
centralization of two actions.

These two actions are:

   * In the Eastern District of Michigan - ACKERMAN, ET AL. v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ET AL., C.A. No.
1:17-11779; and

   * In the District of Minnesota - ELBERT, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ET AL., C.A. No. 0:18-01574.

Plaintiffs in the two actions listed on Schedule A move under 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this
litigation in the Eastern District of Michigan.  This litigation
consists of two actions pending in the Eastern District of Michigan
and the District of Minnesota, as listed on Schedule A.  Responding
defendants support centralization in the Eastern District of
Michigan.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance concludes
that Section 1407 centralization would not serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct
of this litigation.  Both of the actions share common factual
questions arising out of allegations that actions by the federal
defendants precluded plaintiffs from presenting recoverable claims
under the Dry Bean Revenue Endorsement of their crop insurance for
the year 2015.  In identical complaints, plaintiffs seek review of
the federal defendants' actions under the Administrative Procedure
Act and, in fact, all plaintiffs' claims originally were pending in
a single action in the Eastern District of Michigan.  But she finds
proponents have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating the
need for centralization.  Just two actions are pending in this
litigation, and the parties are represented by common counsel in
each.  The Panel has held that "centralization under Section 1407
should be the last solution after considered review of all other
options." The parties have not addressed whether they have
considered alternatives to Section 1407 centralization, and it
appears feasible for the involved parties and courts to cooperate
informally to coordinate any overlap in pretrial proceedings and
minimize the potential for inconsistent rulings.

Additionally, the resolution of these actions will involve only
very limited pretrial proceedings.  Discovery, if any, will be
limited, as these cases will be decided on the administrative
record, and motion practice will consist of motions regarding that
record and dispositive motions.  While plaintiffs have sought to
supplement the record, any overlap in additional discovery can be
coordinated among the limited number of counsel, parties, and
courts.  In these circumstances, the Judge does not find that
centralization is warranted.

For these reasons, Judge Vance denied the motion for centralization
of the two actions.

A full-text copy of the Court's December 6, 2018 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2La5uoV



MEDLEY CAPITAL: RICO Suits in Virginia & Pennsylvania Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medley Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2018,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend class action suits in Virginia and Pennsylvania
alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, and various other claims arising out of the
alleged payday lending activities of American Web Loan.

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

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

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

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

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

The claims against Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC,
Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group,
LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube (in Class Action 1, as amended);
Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation (in
Class Action 2 and Class Action 3); and Medley Opportunity Fund II
LP (in the Pennsylvania Class Action), allege that those defendants
in each respective action exercised control over, or improperly
derived income from, and/or obtained an improper interest in,
American Web Loan's payday lending activities as a result of a loan
to American Web Loan.

The loan was made by Medley Opportunity Fund II LP in 2011.
American Web Loan repaid the loan from Medley Opportunity Fund II
LP in full in February of 2015, more than 1 year and 10 months
prior to any of the loans allegedly made by American Web Loan to
the alleged class plaintiff representatives in Class Action 1. In
Class Action 2, the alleged class plaintiff representatives have
not alleged when they received any loans from American Web Loan. In
Class Action 3, the alleged class plaintiff representatives claim
to have received loans from American Web Loan at various times from
February 2015 through April 2018. In the Pennsylvania Class Action,
the alleged class plaintiff representatives claim to have received
loans from American Web Loan in 2017.

By orders dated August 7, 2018 and September 17, 2018, the Court
presiding over the Virginia Class Actions consolidated those cases
for all purposes. On October 12, 2018, Plaintiffs in Class Action 3
filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of their claims, without
prejudice, against Medley Opportunity Fund II, LP and Medley
Capital Corporation. On October 22, 2018, the parties to Class
Action 2 settled.

On October 29, 2018, the plaintiffs in Class Action 2 stipulated to
the dismissal of their claims against all defendants in Class
Action 2 (including Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley
Capital Corporation), with prejudice. Medley LLC, Medley Capital
Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook
Taube, and Seth Taube never made any loans or provided financing
to, or had any other relationship with, American Web Loan. The
Company, Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, MDLY, Medley
Group, LLC, Brook Taube, Seth Taube are seeking indemnification
from American Web Loan, various affiliates, and other parties with
respect to the claims in the Class Action Complaints.

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

Medley Capital Corporation is a business development company. The
fund seeks to invest in privately negotiated debt and equity
securities of small and middle market companies. The company is
based in New York, New York.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Koch Moves to Certify Michigan Class Under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned DANIEL M. KOCH, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-14038-TGB-EAS (E.D. Mich.), asks
the Court to certify this class:

     All persons with a Michigan address, whom Midland Credit
     Management, Inc., sent between December 15, 2016 and
     January 5, 2018, and they received a letter that included
     the language, "The law limits how long you can be sued on
     the debt.  Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue
     you for it.  If you do not pay the debt, we may continue to
     report it to the credit reporting agencies as unpaid."

Mr. Koch, individually and on behalf of a proposed class of 20,462
Michigan persons, has alleged that omissions in the Defendant's
form letter seeking to collect a time barred debt, violated
provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Mr. Koch also asks the Court to appoint him as class representative
and to appoint Curtis C. Warner, Esq., as class counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
          WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC
          350 S. Northwest Hwy., Suite 300
          Park Ridge, IL 60068
          Telephone: (847) 701-5290
          E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joseph N. Tucker, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
          101 South Fifth Street, Suite 2500
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 540-2360
          E-mail: joseph.tucker@dinsmore.com

               - and -

          Jason M. Renner, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
          900 Wilshire Drive, Suite 300
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (248) 203-1632
          E-mail: jason.renner@dinsmore.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Samaniego Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
---------------------------------------------------------------
GRACIELA SAMANIEGO, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02018 (E.D. Mo., Nov. 30, 2018), seeks
to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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



MONSANTO COMPANY: Stadter Brothers Sues over Xtend Crop System
--------------------------------------------------------------
STADTER BROTHERS PARTNERS, EUGENE STADTER AND RICHARD STADTER, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
vs. MONSANTO COMPANY; BASF CORPORATION; BAST SE, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:18-cv-02155 (S.D. Ill., Dec. 7, 2018), alleges that
Defendants conspired to and did inadequately warn, and to omit and
conceal the risks, especially volatility, from the public, weed
scientists, and persons who would be using the Xtend Crop System,
in order to and with the intent of increasing damage to
non-resistant crops and driving up fear-based demand for
dicamba-resistant seed and correspondingly, more dicamba
herbicides.

According to the complaint, the action is brought by farmers who
have suffered damage as a result of the design, development,
promotion, and sale of a genetically engineered trait conferring
resistance to dicamba expressly for the purpose of spraying dicamba
herbicide over the top of growing plants as part ofa dicamba-based
crop system. Defendants knew that dicamba, highly volatile and
prone to drift, is ruinous to susceptible non-dicamba resistant
plants and crops. Not only did Defendants release their dangerous
system onto the market, creating high risk of harm, but everything
they did and failed to do increased that risk, all but ensuring
damage to non-dicamba resistant plants and crops. That damage in
fact served Defendants' purpose of pressuring farmers to purchase
dicamba-resistant seed out of self-protection. Defendants created
and carried out a scheme ecological disaster for their financial
gain and to the detriment of the very persons they knew would be
harmed, the lawsuit says.

Monsanto designs, develops, manufactures, licenses, and sells
biotechnology, chemicals, and other agricultural products,
including herbicides and seed genetically modified to produce crops
resistant thereto. These include Roundup Ready 2 Xtend Soybean
("Xtend soybeans"), Bollgard II XtendFlex Cotton ("Xtend cotton")
and a herbicide known as XtendiMax with VaporGrip Technology@
("XtendiMax"). Along with BASF SE and BASF Corporation, Monsanto
developed, and also licenses and sells a genetically engineered
trait in soybean and cotton seed, and seed containing that trait,
for intended use with dicamba herbicide, marketed and sold in
states including those alleged in this action.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Don M. Downing, Esq.
          GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C.
          701 Market Street, Suite 800
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: 314 241-5620
          Facsimile: 314 241-4140
          E-mail: dclowning@grgpc.com

NATION WASTE: Sued by Johnson for Not Paying Drivers Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL JOHNSON, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NATION WASTE, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-04476 (S.D. Tex.,
November 27, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiff and other waste
disposal drivers were not paid for all hours worked or the proper
amount of overtime for all hours worked over 40 hours each
workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Nation Waste, Inc., is a Texas for-profit company, licensed to and
doing business in Texas.  The Company's registered agent for
services of process is Maria Rios of Houston, Texas.

NWI provides roll-off containers (dumpsters) in multiple
capacities, as well as portable restrooms, and compactors and
balers for virtually any waste, refuse, and recycling requirements
for the Greater Houston and Austin area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
          Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
          George Schimmel, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-128
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com
                  cgordon@a2xlaw.com
                  carter@a2xlaw.com
                  geordie@a2xlaw.com


NATIONAL ACCREDITING: Meaders Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
DONNA K. MEADERS , on behalf of herself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL
ACCREDITING AGENCY FOR CLINICAL LABORATORY SERVICE, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-07928 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 30, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law.

The Plaintiff is a current employee who performs accreditation
coordinator duties that include collecting data and paperwork from
universities and hospitals and serving as a liaison between those
seeking accreditation and the accreditors, and who was compensated
as a salary-exempt employee and denied overtime compensation for
hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. All other unnamed
Plaintiff known and unknown , are past or present employees who
work or worked for Defendant and were improperly classified as
salary exempt and denied overtime for work in excess of 40 hours in
a work week, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant provides accreditation and evaluation services to
hospital and university research programs.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff, and all other Plaintiffs similarly
situated, known or unknown:

          John William Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450

NORTH 6TH PLACE: Mendez Sues over Job Related Injuries
------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR MENDEZ, the Plaintiff, vs. NORTH 6TH PLACE PROPERTY OWNER
LLC, the Defendants, Case No.: 524154/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 3,
2018, seeks damages, including compensatory damages, against the
Defendant in a sum of money having a present value which exceeds
the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise
have jurisdiction in this matter.

According to the complaint, on September 1, 2017, while the
Plaintiff, was lawfully upon Defendant's premise's in connection
with his employment with RCM Construction he was caused to sustain
serious, severe and permanent personal injuries as a result of the
carelessness, recklessness and negligence of the defendants. That
it was the duty of the defendants to furnish the plaintiff with a
reasonably safe place within which to do and perform the work
required of him upon said building and to provide him with suitable
and proper safety equipment.

The defendants breached their non­-delegable duty to furnish the
plaintiff with safe laddering and safety devices as required by the
labor law of the State of New York and more particularly sections
200, 240 and 241 of the New York State labor law. The conduct of
the defendants as aforesaid was wanton, willful and with conscious
disregard for the rights, safety and wellbeing of the Plaintiff and
others similarly situated.

The plaintiff contends that the his action falls within one or more
of the exceptions enumerated by Section 1602 of the CPLR. The
plaintiff was seriously injured and disabled; he suffered severe,
painful and permanent injuries to various parts of his person; he
continues to be seriously injured and disabled; he will continue to
be seriously injured and disabled for a long time to come; and will
he was required to receive hospital and medical treatment and
attention for his injuries and was unable to and shall continue to
be unable to pursue his usual pursuits, activities and employment
all to his damage, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michael Caliguird, Esq.
          BADER & YAKAITIS LLP
          1430 Broadway, Suite 1802
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 465-1110

NUTS' N MORE: Faces Morrison Class Suit in NY for  Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nuts' N More LLC. The
case is styled as Aurora Morrison on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nuts' N More LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-11192 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 30, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Nuts' N More LLC is a peanut butter company that manufactures
peanut butter from the finest nuts and protein.[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


OLAM SPICES: Beltran et al. Suit Moved to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, Thomas Beltran, Mario Martinez, Maria Claudia Obesto
Cota, Juan Rivera, Mariana Ramirez, and Alexander Solorio
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Olam Spices and Vegetables,
Inc. also known as: Olam West Coast, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.:
15CECG02993, was removed from the Fresno County Superior Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California –
(Fresno) on Dec 10, 2018. The Eastern District of California Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-01676-LJO-SAB to the proceeding.
The suit alleges Fair Labor Standards Act violation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill.

Olam Spices & Vegetables Inc. processes and supplies vegetables and
spices. The company offers fresh, dehydrated, frozen, and pureed
products.[BN]

Attorneys for Thomas Beltran, Mario Martinez, Juan Rivera, Mariana
Ramirez:

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

Attorneys for Maria Claudia Obesto Cota and Alexander Solorio:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP
          8889 Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Susan K. Hatmaker, Esq.
          HATMAKER LAW GROUP
          7522 N. Colonial Ave., Ste. 105
          Fresno, CA 93711
          Telephone: (559) 374-0077
          Fax: (559) 374-0078
          E-mail: susan@hatmakerlaw.com

OLNICK ORGANIZATION: Violates Disabilities Act, Olsen Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Olnick
Organization, Inc. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. The Olnick Organization, Inc. doing business as: Lenox
Terrace, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11202 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 2,
2018).

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

The Olnick Organization, Inc. owns, develops, and manages
residential, retail, office, and hotel properties in New York. It
also offers residential renting and buying services. The company's
retail portfolio includes retail spaces, parking garages, club
facilities, and stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10017-6705
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Butts Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Erskine Butts individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07922 (N.D.
Ill., Nov. 30, 2018).

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

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, also known as Anchor
Receivables Management, manages past-due accounts. It serves
customers through account representatives. The company was
incorporated in 1996 and is based in Norfolk, Virginia. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC operates as a subsidiary of PRA Group,
Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alexander James Taylor, Esq.
     Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
     2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
     Lombard, IL 60148
     Phone: (630) 575-8181
     Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com

          - and -

     Marwan R. Daher, Esq.
     Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
     2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
     Lombard, IL 60148
     Phone: (630) 575-8181
     Email: mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com

          - and -

     Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq.
     Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
     2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
     Lombard, IL 60148
     Phone: (630) 575-8181
     Email: osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com

          - and -

     James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
     Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
     2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
     Lombard, IL 60148
     Phone: (630) 575-8181
     Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


PUERTO MADERO: Souyris Seeks Overtime Pay for Servers
-----------------------------------------------------
JEAN C. SOUYRIS, and other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff(s), vs. PUERTO MADERO INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, d/b/a PM
FISH & STEAK HOUSE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-25036-RNS
(S.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2018), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, PM Fish & Steak House is an Argentinian
restaurant located at 1453 S. Miami Avenue, Miami, FL 33130. The
Plaintiff was hired to work as a server. For the relevant time of
employment, the Plaintiff was paid at the approximate rate $11.37
an hour plus tips. While employed by Defendant, the Plaintiff
worked more than 40 hours every week period. Nevertheless, he was
not paid for overtime hours, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

RAYDON CORP: Sued over Employee Stock Ownership Plan Losses
-----------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE WOZNICKI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RAYDON CORPORATION, DONALD K. ARIEL,
DAVID P. DONOVAN, THE ESOP COMMITTEE OF THE RAYDON CORPORATION
EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, LUBBOCK NATIONAL BANK, the
Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-02090-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla., Dec. 5,
2018), seeks to restore losses to Employee Stock Ownership Plan
(ESOP), disgorge any profits through the use of Plan assets, and to
obtain other remedial and appropriate equitable relief in order to
redress violations and enforce the provisions of Title I of
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The Plaintiff's claims arise out of a transaction on September 30,
2015 in which Defendants sold 100% of the stock of Raydon
Corporation to the ESOP for $60,500,000, and subsequent breaches by
the fiduciaries of the ESOP. The Transaction was not designed to be
in the best interests of the ESOP participants; the selling
shareholders failed to disclose material information to the
Trustee, Defendant Lubbock National Bank; and Defendant Lubbock
National Bank failed to perform adequate due diligence and caused
the ESOP to pay in excess of fair market value. As a result of
violations of ERISA's fiduciary rules by the fiduciaries entrusted
with their Plan, Plaintiff and the Class have not received all of
the hard-earned retirement benefits or the loyal and prudent
management of the ESOP to which they are entitled, the lawsuit
says.

Raydon Corporation develops and manufactures simulation training
products and solutions. It specializes in gunnery, maneuver, and
critical task training.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Sam J. Smith, Esq.
          Loren B. Donnell, Esq.
          BURR & SMITH, LLP
          111 2nd Avenue N.E., Suite 1100
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (813) 253-2010
          E-mail: ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com
                  ldonnell@burrandsmith.com

               - and -

          Daniel Feinberg, Esq.
          FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP
          2030 Addison Street, Suite 500
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 269-7998
          E-mail: dan@feinbergjackson.com

               - and -

          R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          1735 20th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 734-7046
          E-mail: joe@blockesq.com

RH INC: Appeal in California Securities Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
RH said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 4, 2018, for the fiscal year ended
October 30, 2018, that the company filed a petition with the U.S.
Court Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to appeal the grant of class
certification in the case entitled, In re RH, Inc. Securities
Litigation.

On February 2, 2017, City of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation
Employees’ Retirement Trust filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court, Northern District of California,
against the Company, Gary Friedman, and Karen Boone.

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 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 "Exchange Act").

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.

On February 26, 2018, the Court filed an order denying the
Company's motion to dismiss the complaint and the case is in
discovery. On October 11, 2018, the court certified the class. On
October 25, 2018, the Company filed a petition with the Ninth
Circuit to appeal the grant of class certification.

RH said, "While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain,
the Company and its officers intend to vigorously defend the claims
and believe the complaint lacks merit."

RH, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a retailer in the
home furnishings. It offers products in various categories,
including furniture, lighting, textiles, bath ware, décor, outdoor
and garden, tableware, and child and teen furnishings. RH was
founded in 1979 and is headquartered in Corte Madera, California.


RICH'S CAR WASH: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Rosales Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Barry W. Ashe denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit captioned DIXON
ROSALES v. RICH'S CAR WASH, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-03104-BWA-JCW
(E.D. La.).

Considering that a Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is
premised on the allegations contained in the amended complaint,
which has been dismissed and is thus no longer the operative
complaint in this action, and is not supported by evidence in the
record at this juncture, the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification is denied as premature without prejudice to refiling
with supporting evidence gained through class-related discovery,
according to the Court's order.

The Court finds that there is good cause to extend the deadline for
seeking class certification established by Local Rule 23.1(B) and
will fix such a deadline after reviewing the parties' status
reports.

Judge Ashe ordered the counsel for each party to electronically
file by December 7, 2018, a status report not to exceed five pages
in length, double-spaced, and should: (1) provide the status of
discovery; (2) discuss when the plaintiff will be ready to re-file
his motion for class certification with supporting evidence gained
through discovery; (3) identify anticipated motions (other than
motions in limine); (4) provide the parties' views about when the
case will be ready for trial; (5) explain the status of settlement
negotiations; and (6) identify any non-routine issue to be
addressed.[CC]


ROADRUNNER TRANS: Faces Gomez Suit in California State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roadrunner
Transportation Services, Inc. The case is styled as Fernando Gomez,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc. a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. CGC18571755 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 3,
2018).

Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. provides asset-right
transportation and asset-light logistics services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
   249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
   Long Beach, CA 90802
   Tel: (562) 590-5550
   Fax: (562) 590-8400
   Email: info@mahoney-law.net


SAN DIEGO CORP: Leyva Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeronimo Leyva, Jose Hernandez, and Miguel Leyva, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. San Diego
Corp. d/b/a Extra Supermarket and John Does #1-10, Case No.
2:18-cv-16488 (D.N.J., November 28, 2018), alleges that pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiffs and the class are
entitled to:

    (i) unpaid wages from the Defendants for overtime work for
        which they did not receive overtime premium pay as
        required by law; and

   (ii) liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA because the
        Defendants' violations lacked a good faith basis.

San Diego Corp., doing business as Extra Supermarket, is a New
Jersey corporation with a principal place of business in Newark,
New Jersey.  The Doe Defendants represent the owners, officers,
directors, members, or managing agents of Extra Supermarket.

The Defendants owned and operated a supermarket under the name
Extra Supermarket located at 327 Lyons Avenue, in Newark, New
Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Stein, Esq.
          David Nieporent, Esq.
          SAMUEL & STEIN
          38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 563-9884
          E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com
                  dnieporent@samuelandstein.com


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Removed Reid Case to District of Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Inc. removes case captioned as Amanda Reid
individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Santander Consumer USA Inc., the
Defendant, Case (not provided), to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (Boston) on Nov. 30, 2018. The District
of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-12470-WGY to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William G.
Young.

Santander Consumer specializes in automotive financing for dealers
and consumers.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 338-9400
          E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com

Attorneys for Defendant Santander Consumer USA Inc.:

          Michael T. Grant, Esq.
          LeClair Ryan, P.C.
          60 State Street, 23rd Flr.
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 502-5728
          Facsimile: (617) 502-5738
          E-mail: michael.grant@leclairryan.com

SEIKO EPSON: Allegedly Disabled Printers through Firmware Update
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN SUMMER on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION and EPSON
AMERICA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06837 (E.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 30, 2018), asserts that the Defendants allegedly disabled
printers through firmware update, causing damage to the printers in
violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. section
1030.

The lawsuit also contends that Epson's conduct violates Section 2
of the Sherman Antitrust Act, because Epson has monopoly power over
the Epson printer ink market and monopolized -- or attempted to
monopolize with a dangerous probability of success -- this market
through its restriction on the use of third-party ink cartridges.
Epson also violated New York State's deceptive practices act, N.Y.
Gen. Bus. Law section 349, and common law trespass to chattels. All
of these actions have impacted consumers across the country who
purchased Epson printers and installed the firmware update.

According to the complaint, Epson sells their own brand of ink
cartridges to use with Epson-branded printers and encourages
consumers to purchase Epson's brand of ink. Other companies also
compete to sell ink cartridges to these same consumers, often
selling the same Epson-brand ink cartridges refilled with new ink
but at substantially lower prices. For example, Epson-brand ink for
the Epson Expression XP-630 Small-in-One Printer (the
"EpsonXP-630") sells for about $19 for a single XL capacity
cartridge on Epson's website. Meanwhile, other companies sell
compatible third-party ink for as little as $21 for three XL
capacity cartridges. Consumers such as Plaintiff have preferred to
use third-party ink with their Epson printers due to the lower cost
and have successfully done so for years. However, Epson decided to
prevent consumers from using third-party ink. As early as the end
of 2016, Epson started informing users that they needed to update
their printer's firmware. Surprisingly, this firmware update
actually made their printers less functional: printers that
successfully used third-party ink before the update now began
displaying an error message that the "Ink cartridge is not
recognized. Please replace the cartridge," preventing consumers
from printing anything.  The Plaintiff and other consumers have now
been injured because their printers have been purposefully disabled
to the use of third-party ink. If Plaintiff and other consumers
want to continue using their Epson printers, they have no choice
after installing the firmware update but to purchase the
more-expensive Epson-brand ink, the lawsuit says.

Epson, is a Japanese electronics company and one of the world's
largest manufacturers of computer printers, and information and
imaging related equipment, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
          Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Esq.
          Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
          Sean M. Zaroogian, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600

               - and -

          Richard J. Vita, Esq.
          VITA LAW OFFICES PC
          100 State Street, 9th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: 617-426-6566
          Facsimile: 617-249-2119
          E-mail: rjv@vitalaw.com

SEMPER BLUE: Seeks Unpaid Wages and Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA SPRINGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SEMPER BLUE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00968-BP (W.D. Mo., Dec. 7,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid wage and overtime compensation, and
related penalties and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant's policy and practice is to
deny minimum wages and overtime pay to security staff at its
various locations. Defendant's failure to pay employees their
earned wages and overtime compensation violates the FLSA. Plaintiff
previously worked at Defendant's place of business in Kansas City,
Missouri, from approximately October 2014 to October 2018. Semper
Blue provided security services to third parties throughout the
Kansas City metropolitan area and other metropolitan areas
throughout the country, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Andrew B. Protzman, Esq.
          Ben Stelter-Embry, Esq.
          PROTZMAN LAW FIRM , LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2430
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 421-5100
          Facsimile: (816) 421-5101
          E-mail: andy@protzmanlaw.com
                  ben@protzmanlaw.com

SKC ENTERPRISES: Conditional Certification Bid in Davis Suit Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned CINDY DAVIS, Individually and
on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. SKC
ENTERPRISES INC., dba RENT ONE, the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-00036-DPM (E.D.  Ark.), the Hon. Judge Marshall Jr.,
entered an order on Nov. 13, 2018 denying Davis' motion for
conditional certification without prejudice as premature.[CC]

SMITH DEBNAM: Faces Cavin FDCPA Suit in North Carolina
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smith Debnam Narron
Drake Saintsing & Myers, LLP. The case is styled as Donna Cavin
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Smith Debnam Narron Drake Saintsing & Myers, LLP, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00995 (M.D. N.C., Nov. 30, 2018).

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

Smith Debnam Narron Drake Saintsing & Myers, LLP, established in
1972, is a midsize North and South Carolina law firm with its main
office in Raleigh, NC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Josef C. Culik, Esq.
     FAIRVIEW LAW
     6000 Fairview Rd., Ste. 1200
     Charlotte, NC 28210
     Phone: (980) 999-3557
     Fax: (980) 999-3537
     Email: jc@fairview-law.com


SODEXO INC: Rivera Suit Moved to Central District of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Estevan Rivera, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. Sodexo,
Inc., a Delaware Corporation; SDH Education West LLC, a Delaware
LLC; and SDH Education West LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
18STCV00292, was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior
Court, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Southern Division - Santa Ana) on Nov. 30, 2018. The
Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:18-cv-02130 to the proceeding. The suit alleges labor related
violation.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          101 California Street 48th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 856-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 856-7100
          E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com

STATE-OWNED ASSETS: Cole Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Lori Cole and Shawn Cole et al individually and behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. State-Owned
Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State
Council, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00562, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Norther District of Oklahoma,
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(New Orleans) on Nov. 30, 2018. The Eastern District of Louisiana
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-11407-EEF-JCW to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Eldon E.
Fallon.

The State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of
the State Council is a special commission of the People's Republic
of China, directly under the State Council. It was founded in 2003
through the consolidation of various other industry-specific
ministries.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Arnold Levin, Esq.
          LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut St., Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: alevin@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Darren M. Tawwater, Esq.
          Larry A. Tawwater, Esq.
          TAWWATER LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Leadership Square
          211 N. Robinson, Ste. 1950
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 319-7300
          E-mail: dtaw@tawlaw.com

               - and -

          James Victor Doyle , Jr., Esq.
          DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
          2100 Southbridge Parkway, Suite 650
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 533-9500
          Facsimile: (205) 332-1362
          E-mail: jimmy@doylefirm.com

               - and -

          Russ M. Herman, Esq.
          HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
          820 O'Keefe Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 581-4892
          E-mail: rherman@hhklawfirm.com

STOYANOV & HYMAS: Fabricant Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. STOYANOV & HYMAS d/b/a 411 LOCALS, and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-10045 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 30, 2018), seeks damages
and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from
the illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or
willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby
invading Plaintiff's privacy and causing him to incur unnecessary
and unwanted expenses.

According to the complaint, beginning in or around August 2018,
Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number ending in -0058, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to
purchase Defendant's services. The Defendant used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1)
to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The
Defendant contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff from
telephone number (805) 979-4398 confirmed to be Defendant's number.
Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency
purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A).

The Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent"
to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant
to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). Further, Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number ending in -0058 was added to the National
Do-Not-Call Registry on or about June 2008. The Defendant placed
multiple calls soliciting its business to Plaintiff on his cellular
telephone ending in -0058 in or around August 2018. 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 Plaintiff received numerous solicitation calls from
Defendant within a 12-month period. The Defendant continued to call
Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: 323 306-4234
          Facsimile: 866 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com
                 abacon@ toddflaw.com
                 mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                 twheeler@toddflaw.com

STRAX WELLNESS: Carnevali Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY CARNEVALI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. STRAX WELLNESS CENTER, LLC
d/b/a STRAX REJUVENATION, a Florida limited liability company, the
Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-62985-WPD (S.D. Fla., Dec. 6, 2018),
seeks to stop Defendant's  practice of sending unsolicited text
messages promoting its plastic surgery services, and to obtain
redress for all persons similarly injured by its conduct under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Strax Rejuvenation is a plastic surgery
clinic that performs breast augmentation, breast lift, breast
reduction, liposuction, fat transfer, tummy tuck, facelift, eyelid,
brachioplasty, thigh lift, hair graft, vaginal rejuvenation, and
mommy makeover surgeries. To increase its sales, Strax Rejuvenation
markets its surgery services by sending unsolicited text messages
to consumers, including to consumers registered on the National Do
Not Call Registry. Strax Rejuvenation does not attempt to obtain
consent from consumers before texting them regarding its surgery
services using an automatic telephone dialing system. And that is
precisely what happened to Plaintiff, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff Brittany Carnevali and all others similarly
situated:

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com

TD BANK: Perks Sues over Multiple Non-Sufficient Funds Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARY JENNIFER PERKS, an individual, on behalf of herself, and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TD BANK, N.A., the
Defendant, Case 1:18-cv-11176-DAB (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2018),
concerns TD Bank's unlawful business practice of imposing multiple
Non-Sufficient Funds Fees ("NSF Fee") on a single consumer
transaction.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff brings this action on
behalf of herself and all similarly situated consumers against TD
Bank arising from a specific fee generation practice that violates
the Bank's contracts and/or is deceptive. The Deposit Account
Agreement permits TD Bank to charge a $35 NSF Fee when it
determines a customer's account contains insufficient funds to pay
a transaction and it rejects the charge.

According to the complaint, through the imposition of NSF Fees the
Bank makes hundreds of millions of dollars annually. TD Bank NSF
Fees fall disproportionately on racial and ethnic minorities, the
elderly, and the young, many of whom regularly carry low bank
account balances. Ms. Perks does not dispute the Bank’s right to
reject a transaction and charge a single NSF Fee, but TD Bank
unlawfully maximizes its already profitable NSF Fees with deceptive
practices that also violate its contract. Specifically, TD Bank
unlawfully assesses multiple NSF Fees on a single Automated
Clearing House (ACH) transaction or check transaction. ACH
transactions require the party making a payment or money transfer
to provide the party's account number and TD Bank's routing number.
In TD Bank's sole and undisclosed view, each time the Bank
unilaterally resubmits an ACH transaction or check for payment
after a having been rejected for insufficient funds, it becomes a
new, unique item that is subject to another NSF Fee. But TD Bank's
Deposit Agreement never even hints that this counterintuitive
result could be possible. Moreover, the premise is far from obvious
as a matter of common sense and becomes even less so when one
considers that TD Bank's own bank statements refer to the
re-attempted items as "RETRY PAYMENTS" -- i.e., mere iterations of
the same initial item, not items ex nihilo. TD Bank's Deposit
Agreement and Personal Fee Schedule indicate that only a single NSF
Fee will be charged per "item," however many times the request for
payment is resubmitted. An electronic item resubmitted after an
initial return for insufficient funds cannot and does not fairly
become a new, unique item for fee assessment purposes.

TD Bank also breaches its duty of good faith and fair dealing when
it charges multiple NSF Fees on a single transaction. Specifically,
TD Bank abuses its contractual discretion by (a) resubmitting
transactions when it knows full well that a customer's account
lacks sufficient funds, and (b) charging NSF Fees upon
resubmission. This practice not only violates TD Bank's contracts
and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing but is also unfair
and deceptive under the consumer protection law of New York (where
Ms. Perks is a citizen and resides and banks with TD Bank). Ms.
Perks and other TD Bank customers have been injured by these
practices. On behalf of herself and the Classes, Ms. Perks seeks
damages, restitution and injunctive relief for TD Bank's breach of
contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
unjust enrichment, and violations of the New York consumer
protection statute.

TD Bank, N.A., is a U.S. national bank and subsidiary of the
Canadian multinational Toronto-Dominion Bank.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Classes:

          James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 558-5500
          E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, 10 th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20009
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielpllc.com

               - and -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
          FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  streisfeld@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          Vess A. Miller, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
          E-mail: rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
                  ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
                  vmiller@cohenandmalad.com

TOA USA: McCracken Seeks Overtime Pay for Servers
-------------------------------------------------
MEGAN MCCRACKEN and CHRISTOPHER J. LAILIOS, individually and on
behalf of all other plaintiffs similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
vs. TOA USA CORP d/b/a T.O.A. HUNTINGTON TOA GROUP LLC d/b/a T.O.A.
FARMINGDALE, TOA SAYVILLE LLC, d/b/a T.O.A.  SAYVILLE, and FAN
CHEN, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06819 (E.D.N.Y, Nov. 30,
2018), seeks to recover minimum pay and overtime pay under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Ms. McCracken was hired by Defendants
on or around May 29, 2018 as a server. She was a non-exempt
employee who is entitled to premium  pay for hours worked in excess
for 40 per week. As such, McCracken was paid at a rate of $7.50 per
hour. Further, she was paid at a rate of $13.00 per hour for every
hour worked in excess of 40 per week – a rate below proper
overtime rate, the lawsuit says.

TOA (USA), LLC was founded in 2000. The company's line of business
includes the manufacturing of motor vehicle parts and
accessories.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

          Saul D. Zabelle, Esq.
          ZABELL & COLLOTTA P.C.
          Bohemia NY 11716
          Telephone: (631) 589-7242
          Facsimile: (631) 563 7475
          E-mail: Szabelle@laborlawsny.com

TOYOTA MOTOR: Cuts Support for Entune Audio System, Auyeung Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND AUYEUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC. a
California Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH15221 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Dec. 6, 2018), is a class action complaint on
behalf of Plaintiff and other consumers who purchased vehicles
equipped with an Entune Premium Audio System from Defendant. The
Plaintiff and other Class members purchased the Entune Premium
System at the time they purchased vehicles from Toyota with the
promise that they would be able to use specific software
applications including Pandora, OpenTable, and Facebook Places.
However, Defendant unfairly discontinued and ceased supporting the
Applications after Plaintiff and the Class specifically paid for a
system that would allow them to use such Applications and after
they relied on Defendant's representations that they would be able
to utilize the Applications, resulting in concrete harms to
Plaintiff and the Class, the lawsuit says.

Toyota is a manufacturer and seller of automobiles and associated
technologies and services. In an effort to further increase its
profitability, Toyota offers consumers various optional premium
upgrades at the time it sells its vehicles, directly marketing and
warranting such upgrades to consumers.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
          David L. Gerbie, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 West Wacker Drive, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60601
          E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com

TRANSPORTATION MEDIA: Failed to Pay Sales Reps OT Pay, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COLIN W. MURRAY, individually & on behalf of all similarly situated
v. TRANSPORTATION MEDIA, INC. d/b/a BENCH CRAFT COMPANY, Case No.
1:18-cv-03036 (D. Colo., November 27, 2018), alleges claims under
the Fair Labor Standards Act arising from the Defendant's alleged
failure to pay the Plaintiff him and all similarly situated sales
representatives proper overtime.

Transportation Media, Inc., doing business as Bench Craft Company,
is an Oregon company.  The Company is registered with the Colorado
Secretary of State as a foreign company doing business in the
State.  The Defendant operates throughout the United States and
Canada and has principal place of business in Denver, Colorado.

The Defendant is an advertising company.  Specifically, the
Defendant is in the business of selling advertising at golf
courses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. John Gadd, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF W. JOHN GADD, P.A.
          2727 Ulmerton Rd., Suite 250
          Clearwater, FL 33762
          Telephone: (727) 524-6300
          E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com


TRAVELEX CURRENCY: Website not Accessible to Blind, Nixon Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD NIXON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. TRAVELEX CURRENCY SERVICES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06919 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2018), seeks to
put an end to systemic civil rights violations committed by
Defendant, against sight-impaired, disabled individuals, as is
under Title III of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), within
the State of New York and across the United States.

According to the complaint, the 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.

Travelex Currency Services, Inc. provides foreign currency exchange
services. The company was incorporated in 1983 and is based in New
York, New York.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC
          124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 971-9474
          Facsimile: (718) 865-0943
          E-mail: Jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com

TREMONT CONSTRUCTION: Mt Hawley Files Insurance-related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tremont Construction
Company, Inc et al. The case is styled as Mt Hawley Insurance
Company, Plaintiff v. Tremont Construction Company Inc., Windward
Point at Seaside Farm Owners Association Inc., Doris Hughes
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Bill
Donovan individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-03240-RMG (D. S.C., Nov. 30,
2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.

Tremont Construction Company Inc was founded in 1983. The company's
line of business includes the construction of single-family homes.

Windward Point is a 3 story luxury condominium just minutes away
from the beach. The property is located just off the Isle of Palms
Connector right in the center of Seaside Farms.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Blake Terence Williams, Esq.
     Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP (Cola)
     Meridian Building
     17th Floor
     1320 Main Street
     Columbia, SC 29201
     Phone: (803) 255-9597
     Email: blake.williams@nelsonmullins.com

          - and -

     C Mitchell Brown, Esq.
     Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough
     PO Box 11070
     Columbia, SC 29211
     Phone: (803) 799-2000
     Fax: (803) 256-7500
     Email: mitch.brown@nelsonmullins.com

          - and -

     Charles R Norris, Esq.
     Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough
     PO Box 1806
     Charleston, SC 29402
     Phone: (843) 720-4303
     Fax: (843) 720-4352
     Email: charles.norris@nelsonmullins.com

          - and -

     Robert W Whelan, Esq.
     Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough (Ch)
     151 Meeting Street
     Sixth Floor
     Charleston, SC 29401
     Phone: (843) 853-5200
     Email: robert.whelan@nelsonmullins.com


UNITED STATES: S.M.S.R Sues Over Asylum Eligibility Policy
----------------------------------------------------------
S.M.S.R and R.S.P.S., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Capital Area Immigrants' Rights Coalition,
Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services,
Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as
President of the United States, Matthew Whitaker, in his official
capacity as Acting Attorney General of the United States, Kirstjen
M. Nielsen, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland
Security, Lee Francis Cissna, in his official capacity as Director
of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Kevin K. McAleenan,
in his official capacity as Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, Ronald D. Vitiello, in his official capacity as Acting
Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, James McHenry, in
his official capacity as Director of Executive Office for
Immigration Review, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-02828-RDM (D.D.C., December 3, 2018) seeks to
challenge the Government's categorical bar on asylum eligibility
for individuals and families entering the United States outside
approved ports of entry along the southern border.

According to the complaint, the immigration laws, consistent with
the United States' international agreements, reflect Congress's
commitment to aid persons fleeing persecution regardless of their
point of entry: "any alien who is physically present in the United
States or who arrives in the United States," "whether or not a
designated port of arrival" and "irrespective of such alien's
status," has the right to apply for asylum.

On November 9, 2018, directly countermanding that and and without
using the notice and comment procedures required by the
Administrative Procedure Act, the Acting Attorney General and
Secretary of Homeland Security issued an interim final rule
providing that any individuals, subject to a presidential
proclamation, is restricted entry through the southern border
pursuant to the Immigrations and Nationality Act. The next day, the
President signed a Proclamation suspending the entry of all
entering the United States without inspection at the southern
border with Mexico.

Taken together, the Rule and Proclamation create an unlawful
"mandatory bar on eligibility for asylum," that operated against
many of those who need it most: migrants fleeing prosecution and
violence across the southern border of the United States. Such
asylum seekers are disproportionately compromised of women,
children, LGBT individuals, and other vulnerable populations at
risk of violence in their home countries, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs ask the Court to issue an order declaring that the Rule
Proclamation violate the INA, the APA, and the Constitution, and
enjoining their enforcement and implementation across the United
States. Because Plaintiffs S.M.S.R and R.S.P.S. are at risk of
deportation, and Plaintiffs RAICES and CAIR coalition also will
suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction against the Rule,
Plaintiffs are moving for a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction contemporaneous with filling this
Complaint.

Plaintiff S.M.S.R. is a young mother from Honduras seeking asylum
in the United States.

Plaintiff R.S.P.S., the minor son of S.M.S.R., is a boy from
Honduras seeking asylum in the United States.

CAIR Coalition is a nonprofit legal services and advocacy
organization with its principal place of business in the District
of Columbia. CAIR Coalition provides direct legal services to
migrant men, women, and children at risk of detention and
deportation in the Washington, DC metropolitan area and beyond,
including with respect to the credible fear interviews in the
course removal procedures, asylum application, and adversarial
proceedings in immigration courts.

RAICES is a nonprofit legal services and advocacy organization with
offices in San Antonio, Austin, Corpus Christi, Dallas, Fort Worth
and Houston, Texas. Founded in 1986 as the Refugee Aid Project,
RAICES has grown to become the largest immigration legal services
provider in Texas.

Donald J. Trump is the President of the United States. On November
9, 2018, he issued the Proclamation. He is sued in his official
capacity.

Matthew Whitaker is sued in his official capacity as the putative
Acting Attorney General of the United States.

Kirstjen M. Nielsen is sued in her official capacity as the
Secretary of Homeland Security.

Lee Francis Cissna is sued in his official capacity as the Director
of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Kevin K. McAleenan, is sued in his official capacity as the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection.

Ronald D. Vitiello, is sued in his official capacity as the Acting
Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

James McHenry is sued in his official capacity as the Director of
Executive Office for Immigration Review.

U.S. Department of Justice is a cabinet-level department of the
federal government responsible for enforcement of the laws of the
United States.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security is a cabinet-level department
of the federal government responsible for enforcing the immigration
laws of the United States.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is the sub-agency of DHS
responsible for conducting interviews of asylum applicants through
its asylum officers.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is the sub-agency of DHS
responsible for the initial processing and detention of noncitizens
who are apprehended at or near U.S. borders.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is the sub-agency of DHS
responsible for carrying out removal orders and overseeing
immigration detention in the United States.

Executive Office for Immigration Review is the sub-agency of DOJ.
It is responsible for conducting limited review of negative
credible fear determinations made.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Neal K. Katyal, Esq.
     T. Clark Weymouth, Esq.
     Craig A. Hoover, Esq.
     Justin W. Bernick, Esq.
     Coleen Roh Sinzdak, Esq.
     Zachary W. H. Best, Esq.
     Mitchell P. Reich, Esq.
     Elizabeth Hagerty, Esq.
     Kaitlin Welborn, Esq.
     HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
     555 Thirteenth Street, NW
     Washington, DC 2004
     Phone: (202) 637-5600
     Facsimile: (202) 637-5910
     Email: neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com
            t.weymouth@hoganlovells.com
            craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com
            justin.bernick@hoganlovells.com
            coleen.sinzdak@hoganlovells.com
            zachary.best@hoganlovells.com
            mitchell.reich@hoganlovells.com
            elizabeth.hagerty@hoganlovells.com
            kaitlin.welborn@hoganlovells.com

          - and -

     Manoj Govindaiah, Esq.
     Curtis F.J. Doebbler, Esq.
     1305 N. Flored Street
     San Antonio, TX 78212
     Phone: (210) 222-0964
     Facsimile: (210) 212-4856
     Email: manoj.govindaiah@raicestexas.org
            curtis.doebbler@raicestexas.org


WELLS FARGO: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Varga Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Linda Moravec Varga filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit titled Linda Varga v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et
al., Case No. 2:16-cv-09650-DMG-KS, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint
alleges that Wells Fargo intentionally violated its duties under a
provision in its own standard loan documents known as Section 4(F).
Section 4(F) requires the bank to deliver certain mandatory
consumer protections, including the phone number and title of a
"single point of contact", who can answer any questions from a
borrower, before the effective date of any increases in the
interest rates or payments on such ARM's.  The purpose of the
provision is to provide borrowers with personnel who can assist
them with alternatives to foreclosure.

The complaint alleges that Wells Fargo intentionally did not comply
with the provision 4(F) that Wells Fargo itself drafted, so that it
could thwart the consumer protections contained in such provision.
Such an alleged intentional non-compliance by Wells Fargo,
according to the complaint, resulted in the illegal collection by
Wells Fargo of many millions or billions of dollars, and the loss
of thousands of borrowers' homes, which may have been saved had
they received the consumer protection benefits intended to be
afforded by Section 4(F) and its "single point of contact"
requirement.

The appellate case is captioned as LINDA MORAVEC VARGA, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant
v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a National Association; DOES, 2-10,
inclusive, Defendants-Appellees, and WELLS FARGO AND COMPANY, a
Delaware corporation, Case No. Case No. 18-56572, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- January 25, 2019 -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts
      of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and
      9th Cir. R. 31-2.1;

   -- February 25, 2019 -- Appellees' answering brief and
      excerpts of record shall be served and filed pursuant to
      FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1; and

   -- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
      served within 21 days of service of the appellees' brief,
      pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1.[BN]


WELLTOWER INC: Hoffman Plaintiffs Agree to Dismiss Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Welltower Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filed on December 4, 2018, that the
plaintiffs in Allyn Hoffman, et al. v. Mark S. Ordan, et al., have
agreed to dismiss their complaint with prejudice as moot and the
Company has also agreed to a negotiated payment in full.

On July 26, 2018, the company completed the acquisition of Quality
Care Properties Inc. ("QCP"), pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), dated as of April 25, 2018, by and
among the Company, Potomac Acquisition LLC ("Potomac"), a Delaware
limited liability company and subsidiary of the Company, QCP, and
certain of QCP's subsidiaries.

In accordance with the Merger Agreement, the company acquired all
of the outstanding shares of QCP common stock in an all-cash merger
(the "Merger"), with QCP shareholders receiving $20.75 of cash for
each share of QCP common stock, and all existing QCP debt was
repaid upon closing.

In connection with the Merger, on July 19, 2018, a putative class
action lawsuit captioned Allyn Hoffman, et al. v. Mark S. Ordan, et
al. was filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland
against the members of QCP's Board of Directors (the "Litigation").


The complaint alleges that the members of QCP's Board of Directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger. The
complaint seeks injunctive relief, damages, and an order declaring
invalid and unenforceable, and enjoining QCP from enforcing,
Article XIV of QCP's Amended and Restated Bylaws, which designates
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, or, if that Court
does not have jurisdiction, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, Baltimore Division, as the sole and exclusive
forum for, among other actions, any action asserting a claim for
breach of any duty owed by any director or officer or other
employee of QCP to QCP or to the stockholders of QCP or any
standard of conduct applicable to the directors of QCP (the
"Exclusive Forum Bylaw").

The company believes that the claims asserted in the Litigation are
without merit. However, in order to minimize the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, the Company has determined that it will
cause QCP and any former QCP officers or directors to enforce the
Exclusive Forum Bylaw only to the extent that it designates the
Maryland Circuit Courts, or, if those Courts do not have
jurisdiction, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland,
Baltimore Division, as the sole and exclusive forum for actions
subject to the Exclusive Forum Bylaw ("Covered Actions"), and not
to the extent that it requires Covered Actions to be filed in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland.

Welltower said, "In exchange for the Company's agreement to cause
QCP not to enforce the Exclusive Forum Bylaw to require the filing
of Covered Actions in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland, plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss their complaint with
prejudice as moot and the Company has also agreed to a negotiated
payment in full satisfaction of any claim for attorneys' fees and
expenses that plaintiffs and their counsel might otherwise have.
This payment is not material to the business or financial condition
of the Company."

Welltower Inc., an S&P 500 company headquartered in Toledo, Ohio,
is driving the transformation of health care infrastructure. The
company invests with leading seniors housing operators, post-acute
providers and health systems to fund the real estate infrastructure
needed to scale innovative care delivery models and improve
people's wellness and overall health care experience.


WHITE CASTLE FOOD: Cothron Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LATRINA COTHRON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WHITE CASTLE FOOD PRODUCTS, LLC D/B/A
WHITE CASTLE, and CROSS MATCH TECHNOLOGIES, INC., the Defendants,
Case No.: 2018CH15233 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Dec. 6, 2018),
seeks to redress and curtail Defendants' unlawful collection, use,
storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs sensitive biometric data.

According to the complaint, when White Castle hires an employee, he
or she is enrolled in its DigitalPersona employee database using a
scan of his or her fingerprint. White Castle uses the
DigitalPersona employee database to distribute their employees'
paystubs on a weekly basis. While many employers use conventional
methods for payroll (direct deposit or paper check), White Castle's
employees are required to have their fingerprints scanned by a
biometric device to retrieve their paystubs.

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 authenticators, and into consumer products,
including such ubiquitous consumer products as checking accounts
and cell phones. Unlike ID badges -- which can be changed or
replaced if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are unique,
permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This
exposes White Castle's employees to serious and irreversible
privacy risks. For example, if a database containing fingerprints
or other sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked, breached,
or otherwise exposed -- like in the recent Yahoo, eBay, Equifax,
Uber, 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, the
lawsuit says.

White Castle Food Products, LLC is a food retailer that processes
and distributes fast food products in retail stores and restaurants
nationally. Cross Match Technologies, Inc. is a technology company
that provides software and hardware that tracks and monitors
employees' biometric data to companies worldwide.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Andrew C. Ficzko, 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

WS ENERGY: Medina Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------
MANUEL MEDINA, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly Situated
Persons, the Plaintiff, vs. WS ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00431 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 3, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's
fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Mr. Manuel Medina worked for Defendant as an operator from February
17, 2018 until October 4, 2018. Medina's duties included, but were
not limited to, running operations in the torque and test division,
testing stresses on pipes and other machinery, and related duties.
Mr. Medina carried out the same work done by the other individuals
who were on his crew and actually participated frequently in the
field work being done. Mr. Medina spent the majority of his time
working outside and in the field. During his tenure with the
Defendant, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per
week. The Plaintiff is and was paid in various ways. Initially,
Plaintiff was paid on a pure salary basis for the first five months
of work. After that time, Plaintiff was paid a salary and a bonus.
Plaintiff was not paid time and one half for hours worked over
forty at any time. There was no clear mutual understanding that
Defendant was paying Plaintiff for all hours worked on a
fluctuating basis, the lawsuit says.

WS Energy Services was founded in 2010. The company's line of
business includes providing oil and gas services.[BN]

Attorney for Manuel Medina:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, Texas 77018
          Telephone: 713 868-3388
          Facsimile: 713 683-9940
          E-mail: tpadgettlaw@gmail.com

YETI COOLERS: Sued over Deceptive Rambler Colster Product
---------------------------------------------------------
LANCE PEROUTKA, NIKKI PRIBOW and OTIS FUNG, individually on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
vs. Yeti Coolers, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06827
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2018), seeks to remedy deceptive and misleading
business practices of Defendant with respect to the marketing and
sales of the Yeti Rambler Colster product throughout the States of
Wisconsin and New York, and throughout the United States.

According to the complaint, the Product is purportedly designed and
marketed as a drastic improvement over standard can and bottle
coolers that keep consumers' drinks cold. Defendant claims that the
Product keeps drinks cold "so long that you'll have to re-think
your understanding of a few natural laws." The Defendant
manufactures, sells, and distributes the Product using a marketing
and advertising campaign centered around claims that widely appeal
to outdoorsmen and women, fishermen and hunters alike. It claims
the Product's so-called "Load-and-Lock Gasket" technology secures
drinks in place and fits cans and bottles "like a glove -- a glove
with double-wall vacuum insulation," and that its "No Sweat Design
keeps your hands dry while your drink stays cold." However,
Defendant's advertising and marketing campaign is false, deceptive,
and misleading because the Product does not in fact fit cans and
bottles "like a glove." Rather, the Product's design actually
permits cans and bottles to easily slip out of the casing while
consumers attempt to drink.

The friction created when the Load-and-Lock technology is used with
certain aluminum cans produces metal shavings which can be ingested
by the consumer and/or produce a metallic taste. The Plaintiffs and
those similarly situated relied on Defendant's misrepresentations
that the Product would fit standard 12 oz. cans and bottles without
slipping out of the Product when purchasing the Product. The
Plaintiffs and Class Members paid a premium for the Product over
and above comparable cooler products that purport to keep beverages
cold. Given that Plaintiffs and Class Members paid a premium for
the Product based on Defendant's misrepresentations, Plaintiffs and
Class Members suffered an injury in the amount of the premium
paid.

Defendant's conduct violated and continues to violate, inter alia,
Wisconsin Statute section 100.18, New York General Business Law
sections 349 and 350, the consumer protection statutes of all 50
states, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Defendant breached and
continues to breach its express and implied warranties regarding
the Product. Defendant has been and continues to be unjustly
enriched through its continued marketing and sale of the Product.
Despite the Product having the problems, Defendant markets it as a
significant improvement in holding cans and bottles, the lawsuit
says.

Yeti is an Austin, Texas-based manufacturer of outdoor lifestyle
products such as ice chests, vacuum-insulated stainless-steel
drinkware, soft coolers, and related accessories.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Jacob E. Miota, Esq.
          MIOTA LAW LLC
          1400 E. Olive Street
          Milwaukee, WI 53211-1828
          Telephone: 414 973.9305
          Facsimile: 414 386.4675
          E-mail: jmiota@miotalaw.com

               - and -

          Michael C. Lueder, Esq.
          HANSEN REYNOLDS LLC
          301 N Broadway, Suite 400
          Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
          Telephone: 414 455 7676
          Facsimile: 414 273 8476
          E-mail: mlueder@hansenreynolds.com

YORK RISK: Oliver Sues over Unauthorized Text Message Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY OLIVER, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP,
INC., a New York corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH14581
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Nov. 26, 2018), seeks to stop
Defendant's practice of making unauthorized text message calls to
consumer's cellular telephones, and to obtain redress for all
persons injured by its conduct.

According to the complaint, in an attempt to streamline its claim
management services, Defendant, an insurance adjustment and claims
agency, engaged in an invasive and unlawful form of communication
through the transmission of unauthorized text message calls to the
cellular telephones of consumers throughout the nation. By
effectuating these unauthorized text message calls, the Defendant
and its agents have violated the called parties' statutory rights
and have caused consumers actual harm, not only because consumers
were subjected to the aggravation and invasion of privacy that
necessarily accompanies unauthorized automated text messages, but
also because consumers, like Plaintiff, must frequently pay their
cell phone service providers or incur a usage allocation deduction
from their calling plans for the receipt of such messages,
notwithstanding that the text messages were made in violation of
specific legislation on the subject, the lawsuit says.

York Risk Services Group, Inc. provides claims and risk management
services in the United States and internationally.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

YORKVILLE MANSION: Elena Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
ERIC RIVERA ELENA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. YORKVILLE MANSION INC. (D/B/A THE
MANSION), JOHN PHILIPS, PHILIP PHILIPS, JOHN DOE, and FRANKLIN
GUERRERO (A.K.A. FRANK), the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10862
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards and the New
York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a former employee of
Defendants. The Defendants own, operate, or control an American
restaurant, located at 1634 York Ave, New York, NY 10028. The
Plaintiff was employed as a delivery worker at the restaurant.
However, he was required to spend a considerable part of his work
day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to
bringing up products from the basement to the kitchen for the
cooks, organizing and stocking big inventory orders such as
vegetables, peeling potatoes and onions, cleaning the bathroom,
cleaning the kitchen, wiping down surfaces, mopping and sweeping
the kitchen, taking out trash and taking construction materials
upstairs into the building (non-tipped duties).

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours
compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and
failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either
at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.
Further, 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 lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          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: failace@employmentcompliance.com

ZALE DELAWARE: Lovette Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit captioned Gordon Henry Lovette individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
Zale Delaware, Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No.: 37-02018-00055549-CU-NP-CTL, was moved from the Superior Court
of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California (San Diego) on Dec. 3, 2018.
The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.:
3:18-cv-02727-L-RBB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge M. James Lorenz. The suit alleges violations related to
Contract Product Liability claims.

Zale Delaware, Inc., doing business as Piercing Pagoda, operates a
network of jewelry retail kiosks in various shopping malls in the
United States and Puerto Rico.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (323) 306-4234
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Dhruv Mohan Sharma, Esq.
          McGlinchey Stafford
          18201 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 350
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 381-5900
          Facsimile: (949) 271-4040
          E-mail: dsharma@mcglinchey.com


                            *********

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 ***