CAR_Public/181218.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, December 18, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 252

                            Headlines

AFO BOSS: Mendoza Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Overtime Wages
ALL PLUMBING: Standridge Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
ALLIED UNIVERSAL: Douglas Seeks Prelim. Nod of Class Settlement
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Dismisses Mulvey Suit Without Prejudice
AM RETAIL GROUP: Faces Nixon Suit Asserting ADA Violation

ANTHEM: Data Breach Victims Get Class Action Settlement Money
APPTIO INC: Faces Scarantino Class Action over Merger Deal
ASCENA RETAIL: Seeks Reimbursement in Settling Rougvie Suit
ASSETCARE LLC: Faces Yanaway Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
AT&T MOBILITY: Court Allows K. Hills to Add Class Claims

BEST BUY: Oral Argument in IBEW Local Suit Set for Jan. 11
BETHESDA: Class Action Mulled Over Unpaid Fallout 76 Refunds
BLUE WP: Rios Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
BMW: Faces Class Action Over N63 Engine Oil Consumption Issues
BOEING COMPANY: Faces Ostroff Securities Suit Over 737 Crash

BOIRON INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Jury Verdict in Class Action
CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces 3 Class Suits in New Jersey
CANADA: 60s Scoop Class Action, Information Sessions to Start
CANADA: Young Quebecers File Class Action Over Climate Change
CANARY CONNECT: Reifman Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices

CAPTIVA MVP: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in I.T. Tsao's Suit
CHEMOURS CO: Area Leaders, Lawyers React to GenX Agreement
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Rael Class Action Remains Stayed
CHRISTUS SANTA: Gomez Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
CLIENT SERVICES: Violates FDCPA, Shapiro Suit Asserts

CLOUDERA INC: Named as Defendant in Plumley Class Action
COMPASS GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Hidden Credit Card Fees
COOK COUNTY, IL: Bennett Moves for Certification of Inmates Class
CYAN INC: Shearman & Sterling Discusses Class Action Ruling
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Denies Campus Sexual Misconduct Charges

DELL TECHNOLOGIES: City of Pontiac Employee's Class Suit Ongoing
DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Hallandale Beach Retirement Plan Sues D&Os
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Arbitration Ruling in Collins Suit Affirmed
DIVERSIFIED I: Puerta Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces Gomez Class Suit in Penn.

EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Barnes Files Suit Over False Company Reports
ELITE HOTELS: Honeywell Files Suit Under ADA in S.D. Florida
EMAN CORP: Inga Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
EXPEDITORS INC: Protective Order on Class Notice in Lewis Entered
EXPRESS MESSENGER: Arbitration Ruling in Ege Labor Suit Affirmed

FASHION INSTITUTE: Sullivan Files ADA Class Action in Texas
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Appeal in N.Y. Class Action Underway
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Consolidated Class Suit in Missouri Ongoing
FGF BRANDS: Friend Sues Over Mislabeled Naan Products
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Taubenfliegel Sues Debt Collector Under FDCPA

FLY JAMAICA: Faces Class Action Over Flight OJ256 Crash
FLYWHEEL SPORTS: Fantis Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
FOCUS FINANCIAL: Sued Over Abusive Debt Collection Practices
FOH ONLINE CORP: Damiano Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
FULTON COUNTY, GA: Class Action Over Jail Release Policy Okayed

GC SERVICES: Garita Files Suit Under FDCPA in New York
GENERAL ASSEMBLY: Court Enters Final Judgment in Marin FLSA Suit
GREENSTAR AGRICULTURAL: March 26 Claims Filing Deadline Set
H&R BLOCK: Faces Class Action Over No-Poach Agreements
HARRY'S NURSES: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Orders in Gayle Suit

HASTINGS COLLEGE: Sullivan Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
HAYES BEER: Ill. App. Affirms Reversal of Byrne Suit Dismissal
I3 VERTICALS: Settlement in Expert Auto Suits Receives No Objection
IDG COMMUNICATIONS: Sullivan Suit Asserts ADA Violation
IDT CORP: Appeal in JDS1 LLC Class Suit Still Pending

IDT CORP: Bid to Dismiss Dennis Class Suit Denied
INFILAW CORP: Plaintiffs Challenge Class Action Settlement
IVARI: Court Says Reasonable to Seek Direct Notice Program
JANSSEN RESEARCH: Haugen Sues Over Xarelto Side Effects
JOE MACHENS: Mo. App. Flips Arbitration Bid Denial in Fogelsong

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over Opioid-related Insurance Coverage
KESOKI PAINTING: Limonta Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
KIRKLAND'S INC: Continues to Defend Miles Class Action
KIRKLAND'S INC: Still Awaits 3rd Cir. Decision in Kamal v. J. Crew
LA JOLLA: Failed to Properly Pay Signature Gatherers, Wilson Claims

LA OFICINA: Rosa Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Pay
LIBERTY TAX: Class Action Parties Fail to Reach Accord
LMB MORTGAGE: Sued by Pickett for Illegally Sending Advertisement
LTD FINANCIAL: 11th Cir. Affirms Judgment in Baez FDCPA Suit
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Still Defends Gathmann-Landini Suit

LVMH MOET HENNESSY: Faces Nixon ADA Class Action in NY
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Oakes Sues Over Stolen Personal info
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Reynolds Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
MATSU CORP: Zhu Moves for Class Certification and Notification
MDL 2741: Calkins Suit v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MDL 2741: Monares Suit v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Potter Suit v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MENARD INC: Class in Astarita FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified
MERCHANT FUNDING: Fabricant Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
MEREDITH CORP: Nixon Files Suit under ADA in E.D. New York

MGM RESORTS: Settlement in Hanson EFTA Suit Has Final Approval
MOBILOIL FEDERAL: Whittington Appeals Order in Overdraft Fee Suit
MOMENTA PHARMA: Court Narrows Claims in Antitrust Suit
MONSANTO COMPANY: Nash-Boulden Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Ploof Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Shapiros Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MOTHERISK: Court Upholds Dismissal of Hair Test Class Action
MOUNT IDA: Former Students File Privacy Violation Class Action
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Chung Files Consumer Credit Class Suit
NATURAL LIVING: Yates Files Class Action for Fraud

NCAA: Faces Concussion Class Action in Indiana
NEIMAN MARCUS: Continues to Defend Lopez Class Action
NEIMAN MARCUS: Cyber-Attack Class Suits Ongoing
NEIMAN MARCUS: Final Approval Hearing on Attia Settlement in Feb.
NEIMAN MARCUS: NLRB Proceedings Over Class Action Waiver Ongoing

NEIMAN MARCUS: Plan Beneficiary's Suit Dismissed
NEIMAN MARCUS: Settlement in Rubenstein Suit Already Final
NEW YORK: Aliyev Sues ACS for Negligence Over Child's Death
NEW YORK: Parker Prisoners Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
NHS PENNSYLVANIA: Brown Seeks Certification of Specialists Class

NUCOR CORP: Court Denies Roane's Bid to Opt-Out in Brown Settlement
NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: SCOTUS Hears Arguments in Cobra Case
NUVASIVE INC: Mauss Securities Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
OOMA INC: Discovery Ongoing in Barnett Consolidated Class Suit
OOMA INC: Dolemba Class Action Ongoing

PARFUMS DE COEUR: Okoe Sues Over Misleading Product Ads
PATTERSON COS: Executes Settlement Pact in Dental Supplies Suit
PATTERSON COS: Faces Kramer Class Action in California
PATTERSON COS: Still Defends Plymouth County Retirement Suit
PAY-O-MATIC CHECK: Accused by Luyando of Violating FLSA and NYLL

PEKIN, IL: Berardi Files Suit under Disabilities Act
PERMANENT WORKERS: Portillo Appeals W.D. La. Ruling to 5th Cir.
PORT RESOURCES: First Circuit Appeal Filed in Giguere Suit
PPDAI GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT: Faces Lowenbien Class Suit for FDCPA Breach

RCKC CORPORATION: Does not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Says
RESULTS COMPANIES: Gibbs Seeks Wages for Off-the-Clock Work
RISTORANTE LA BUCA: Wright Seeks to Certify Tipped Workers Class
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Mercado Suit Over False Ads
SANTA CLARA, CA: Consent Decree in Cole Has Prelim OK

SENDGRID INC: Faces Rosenblait Suit Over Sale to Twilio Inc.
SIGNET JEWELERS: Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Consolidated Suit Denied
SIGNET JEWELERS: Still Awaits Court Decision on Claimants' Appeal
SK 1448 INC: Maldonado Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Forbes Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations

SRC ENERGY: Schneider Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages
ST JUDE: Third-Party Funding Agreement Gets Conditional Approval
STEEL WORLD: Hernandez Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
STERN & STERN: Faces Liantonio Suit Under FDCA in E.D. New York
STITCH FIX: 3 TV Advertising Class Suits Filed in California

SUTTELL & HAMMER: Duffer Disputes Collection Letter
TEXAS: Abbott Appeals Decision in M.D. Suit to Fifth Circuit
TEXAS: Rodriguez Sues Over License Suspension Scheme
TILLY'S INC: Awaits Written Opinion in Ward Class Action
TILLY'S INC: De Minimis Amount of Settlement Coupons Redeemed

TIME WARNER: 2nd Amended Sims Allowed to Substitute Named Plaintiff
TRANS UNION: Norman Suit Alleges FCRA Violation
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Maurice Blackburn Widens Class Action
UNITED NATURAL: Appeal in Class Suit v. SUPERVALU Underway
UNITED NATURAL: Customer Data Security Breach v. SUPERVALU Ongoing

UT SOUTHWESTERN: Hospital Faces Class Action for ADA Violation
VERINT SYSTEMS: Mediation Underway in Tel Aviv Suit
VILLAGE OF FOX LAKE: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss Willoughby Suit
VIRGINIA: DHHR Averts Class Action Over IDD Waiver
VIRTUOSO SOURCING: Faces Consumer Credit Class Action in NJ

VOLKSWAGEN: German Motorists Invited to Join New Class Action
WATERSTONE MORTGAGE: Kilpatrick Townsend Attorneys Discuss Ruling
WRIGHT BROS PIZZA: Shortchanges Workers' Wages, Honaker Says
XO GROUP: Agreement Reached in Merger-Related Class Suits
XPO LOGISTICS: McNiven Suit Removed to S.D. Florida

XTO ENERGY: McCollum Seeks to Certify Drilling Consultants Class
ZIMMER BIOMET: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in Karl FLSA Suit
ZOCDOC INC: 2d Cir. Revives Junk Fax Class Action
ZUMIEZ INC: Oral Argument in Herrera Class Suit Set for Feb. 4
ZURICH AMERICAN: Sued Over Failure to Fulfill Duties to Enrollees

ZWILLING J.A. HENCKELS: Faces Nixon Suit in NY for ADA Violation
[*] Reed Smith Attorney Discusses Several Class Action Rulings
[*] Switzerland Proposes New Class Action Procedure

                            *********

AFO BOSS: Mendoza Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Emmanuel S. Mendoza, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AFO Boss, LLC, Brenon Young, individually,
AND Richard Lee, individually, Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-00221
(W.D. Tx., December 4, 2018) is a collective action seeking to
recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees,
litigation expenses, costs of court, and pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest under the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

Defendants willfully committed violations of the FLSA by failing to
pay overtime premiums to their employees for hours worked in excess
of forty hours per week, says the complaint. Instead of paying
their operators overtime premiums for all hours worked over forty
in a workweek, Defendants treated all hours as having been worked
over the course of two weeks, in an attempt to minimize/eliminate
their obligation to pay overtime premiums. As such, Mr. Mendoza and
the putative class are owed a half-time premium for all hours
worked above forty per pay period, minus whatever hours were
properly paid at time and one-half.

Plaintiff Emmanuel Mendoza is an individual residing in New
Mexico.

AFO Boss, LLC has not registered with the Texas Secretary of
State's office, although it lists itself as the employer on
Mendoza's paychecks.

Brenon Young and Richard Lee were employers of Plaintiff and those
similarly situated.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
     Moreland Verrett, PC
     2901 Bee Cave Rd, Box L
     Austin, TX 78746
     Phone: (512) 782-0567
     Fax: (512) 782-0605
     Email: doug@morelandlaw.com


ALL PLUMBING: Standridge Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Standridge, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. All Plumbing Plus Inc., Clarence
Harbour, and Laura Butler, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-01265 (E.D.
Ark., December 5, 2018) is an action against Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act, and the Arkansas "Last Paycheck" law.

Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including a
reasonable attorney's fee, within the applicable statutory
limitations period, as a result of Defendants' failure to pay
proper minimum wage and overtime compensation under the FLSA and
the AMWA, Defendants' failure to properly pay to Plaintiff his
wages earned prior to his discharge from employment after Plaintiff
made lawful demand upon Defendants for payment to which he is owed,
and Defendants' receipt of services performed by Plaintiff and
money to which Plaintiff is entitled for which Defendants knowingly
and maliciously provided no benefit or consideration in exchange,
despite knowing that Plaintiff performed such services with the
anticipation of receiving compensation, says the complaint.

James Standridge is a citizen of the United States and a resident
of and domiciled in the State of Arkansas. Plaintiff was employed
by Defendants as an hourly-paid employee for Defendants' plumbing
and electrical business in Russellville.

All Plumbing Plus Inc., is a domestic for-profit corporation,
organized and conducting business under the laws of the State of
Arkansas. Defendant operates a plumbing business providing plumbing
and electrical services in and around the area of Russellville,
Arkansas.

Clarence Harbour is an individual and resident of Pope County.

Laura Butler is an individual and resident of Pope County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher Burks, Esq.
     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
     Email: chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
            josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


ALLIED UNIVERSAL: Douglas Seeks Prelim. Nod of Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled KIRK DOUGLAS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALLIED UNIVERSAL
SECURITY SERVICES ALLIED BARTON SECURITY SERVICES LLC and ALLIED
SECURITY HOLDING LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-6093 (E.D.N.Y.), asks the
Court to preliminary approve the settlement reached by the parties
in this action as embodied in their Settlement Agreement.

The Plaintiff also seeks an order:

   (1) provisionally certifying this settlement class under
       Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in
       connection with the settlement process:

       all present and former persons employed as Airport
       Security Agents, Operation Assistants, or Tour Supervisors
       at JFK by Defendants at any time between September 1, 2013
       and the date of preliminary approval of the settlement or
       180 days from execution of this Agreement, whichever
       occurs first;

   (2) provisionally certifying this settlement class under the
       Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), in
       connection with the settlement process:

       all present and former persons employed as Airport
       Security Agents, Operation Assistants, or Tour Supervisors
       at JFK by Defendants at any time between October 18, 2014
       and the date of preliminary approval of the settlement or
       180 days from execution of this Agreement, whichever
       occurs first;

   (3) approving the proposed Notice to Plaintiffs attached to
       the Settlement Agreement;

   (4) appointing The Law Office of Christopher Q. Davis, PLLC,
       as Class Counsel;

   (5) appointing RG2 Claims Administration as the Administrator;
       and

   (6) approving the Parties' proposed schedule for final
       settlement approval.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Q. Davis, Esq.
          Rachel M. Haskell, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS, PPLC
          225 Broadway, Suite 1803
          New York, New York 10007
          Telephone: (646) 430-7932
          E-mail: cdavis@workingsolutionsnyc.com
                  rhaskell@workingsolutionsnyc.com


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Dismisses Mulvey Suit Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ed Kinkeade of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, dismissed without prejudice the
case, AARON MULVEY, Individually and on Behalf of Himself, and all
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE
COMPANY, ALLSTATE TEXAS LLOYDS, INC., and Doe Individuals and
Corporations 1-100 Inclusive, Defendants, Civil Action No.
3:18-CV-1271-K (N.D. Tex.).

Mulley filed the lawsuit as a class action on May 17, 2018 in the
Court.  In his Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges Defendants Allstate
Insurance and Allstate Texas obtained the motor vehicle records of
Texas drivers for impermissible purposes under the Driver's Privacy
Protection Act of 1994 ("DPPA").  As a result, he alleges he and
the other class members suffered harm to their privacy interests
codified in the DPPA and subsequently filed this lawsuit.

The Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss.  They argue
that the case must be dismissed because: (1) the Plaintiff lacks
standing to bring the suit; and (2) the Plaintiff failed to state a
claim for relief.  More specifically, as to standing, they assert
that the Plaintiff has not alleged any facts suggesting or
specifying that his own information was obtained for impermissible
purposes thereby violating the DPPA.

The Plaintiff responds that Congress created a right under the DPPA
to protect the privacy of drivers, there is recognized harm to the
Plaintiffs whose information was improperly obtained by Defendants,
and, even though the harm may be intangible, it is still concrete,
so the Plaintiff has standing.  

In their reply, the Defendants contend that the Plaintiff fails to
allege or otherwise indicate that his own information was actually
obtained and, as a result, he does not and cannot allege a
particularized and concrete injury, a required element of
standing.

Judge Kinkeade agrees with the Defendants.  The Plaintiff fails to
allege he suffered an injuryin-fact which is the first and
foremost' of standing's three elements.  To establish an
injury-in-fact in the case, the Plaintiff was required to allege
that his own information was knowingly obtained by the Defendant
for an impermissible purpose.  His Class Action Complaint, in which
his allegations regarding the Defendants' conduct reference other
potential class members, does not clearly allege that his own
personal information was obtained by the Defendant.  Merely
alleging that the Defendants obtained drivers' information without
consent and without a permissible purpose does not satisfy the
Plaintiff's burden to allege facts demonstrating the particularized
and concrete injury-in-fact requirement of standing.  

Therefore, the Judge concludes that the Plaintiff cannot meet his
burden to allege or establish he suffered an injury-in-fact which
is the first and foremost of the required elements of standing.
Accordingly, because Mulvey did not have standing at the time the
lawsuit was filed, the case must be dismissed without prejudice
because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.  The Judge
granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 4, 2018 Memorandum Opinion an
Order is available at https://is.gd/R8BdYO from Leagle.com.

Aaron Mulvey, individually, and on behalf of a himself and all
others similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by
Joseph Hanson Malley, Law Offices of Joseph H Malley PC.

Allstate Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth
Marie Dulong Scott -- edscott@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer & Feld LLP, Kathryn E. Deal -- kdeal@akingump.com -- Akin
Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren Elisabeth York
-- lyork@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP,
Michelle A. Reed -- mreed@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &
Feld & Roger D. Higgins -- rhiggins@thompsoncoe.com -- Thompson Coe
Cousins & Irons LLP.

Allstate Texas Lloyd's Inc, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth
Marie Dulong Scott, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Kathryn E.
Deal, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren
Elisabeth York, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP & Michelle A.
Reed, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.


AM RETAIL GROUP: Faces Nixon Suit Asserting ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AM Retail Group Inc.
The case is styled as Donald Nixon, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AM Retail Group Inc,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06918 (E.D. N.Y., December 5, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

AM Retail Group Inc. operates retail stores in the United States.
Its stores offer men and women outerwear, as well as fashion
accessories, such as handbags, briefcases, and travel items;
handcrafted shoe; and women’s athletic and performance wear. The
company was incorporated in 2008 and is based in Brooklyn Park,
Minnesota. AM Retail Group Inc. operates as a subsidiary of G-III
Apparel Group, Ltd.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
   Shalom Law, PLLC.
   124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
   Kew Gardens, NY 11374
   Tel: (718) 971-9474
   Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


ANTHEM: Data Breach Victims Get Class Action Settlement Money
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Behnken, writing for WFLA, reports that some victims of the
largest health data breach in history are receiving payouts.

Anthem tells 8 On Your Side it has reached a settlement in a class
action lawsuit.

This comes after the company announced in 2015 that the personal
information of 80 million customers was hacked.

Those who joined the suit should receive an email about their $50
payout. In addition, $15 million was set aside for customers'
out-of-pocket expenses.

Among the personal information compromised was social security
numbers, street addresses and birth dates.

It's everything a con artist needs to become you, on paper, and
steal your identity.

In fact, some victims first discovered a problem when they tried to
file taxes and learned someone else already filed in their name.

At the time, the company offered free credit monitoring and many
signed up for the class action lawsuit.

As part of that settlement, Anthem agreed to shell out $115
million.

An Athem spokeswoman confirmed some class members are receiving
emails about their settlement and money is being deposited into
PayPal accounts for customers. Others will receive checks.

Anthem sent this statement to 8 On Your Side:    

"Anthem does not admit any wrongdoing or acknowledge that any
individuals were harmed as a result of the cyber attack.
Nevertheless we are pleased to be putting this litigation behind
us."   

If you think you should have received money and didn't, you can
contact the settlement administrator at 1-855-636-6136 or at
www.anthemfacts.com/cyber-attack. [GN]


APPTIO INC: Faces Scarantino Class Action over Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
Apptio, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filed on December 10, 2018, that it has
been named as defendant in a class action suit entitled, Scarantino
v. Apptio, Inc. et al.

On November 9, 2018, Apptio, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Apptio"
or the "Company"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
(the "Merger Agreement") with Bellevue Parent, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company ("Parent"), and Bellevue Merger Sub,
Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Parent
("Merger Sub"), providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and
into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the
Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.

On December 6, 2018, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
captioned Scarantino v. Apptio, Inc. et. al., Case No.
1:18-cv-01938, was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware against the Company and its directors.

The lawsuit alleges, generally, that the Company and its directors
violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"), and Rule 14a-9 thereunder by purportedly omitting
material information from the proxy statement issued in connection
with the Merger. The lawsuit also purports to allege violations of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company's directors.


The lawsuit seeks, among other things, equitable relief that would
enjoin the consummation of the proposed Merger, rescission of the
proposed Merger to the extent it is consummated, and attorneys'
fees and costs. Additional similar lawsuits may be filed in the
future.

The Company believes that the plaintiff's allegations lack merit
and will vigorously defend against this and any subsequently filed
similar actions.

Apptio, Inc. provides cloud-based technology business management
(TBM) solutions to enterprises. Its cloud-based platform and SaaS
applications enable IT leaders to analyze, optimize, and plan
technology investments, as well as to benchmark financial and
operational performance against peers. The company operates in the
United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark, the
Netherlands, Australia, Canada, France, Singapore, and Italy.
Apptio, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Bellevue,
Washington.


ASCENA RETAIL: Seeks Reimbursement in Settling Rougvie Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended November 3, 2018, that the Company has
filed a motion seeking reimbursement for a limited portion of the
settlement fund attributable to vouchers redeemed by class members
that had been self-funded by the Company.

The Company is a defendant in class action lawsuits that allege
that Justice's promotional practices violated state comparative
pricing and other laws.

On September 24, 2015, a formal settlement agreement was signed
with the plaintiffs in the Rougvie case to settle the lawsuit on a
class basis for the period of January 1, 2012 through February 28,
2015 for approximately $51 million, including payments to members
of the class and payment of legal fees and expenses of settlement
administration.

On July 29, 2016, the Court granted the parties' joint motion for
final approval of settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.
After an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit was dismissed, distributions to class members pursuant to
the settlement took place in the fall of 2017.

The redemption period for all vouchers distributed to the class
members has now ended.

The Company filed a motion at the end of November 2018 seeking
reimbursement for a limited portion of the settlement fund
attributable to vouchers redeemed by class members that had been
self-funded by the Company.

Ascena Retail Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a
specialty retailer of apparel, shoes, and accessories for women and
tween girls in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. The
company operates through four segments: Premium Fashion, Value
Fashion, Plus Fashion, and Kids Fashion. The company was formerly
known as Dress Barn, Inc. and changed its name to Ascena Retail
Group, Inc. in January 2011. Ascena Retail Group, Inc. was founded
in 1962 and is based in Mahwah, New Jersey.


ASSETCARE LLC: Faces Yanaway Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AssetCare LLC. The
case is styled as Ryan Yanaway, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AssetCare LLC, CF Medical
LLC and John Does, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-04557 (S.D. Tex.,
December 3, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

AssetCare LLC offers debt consolidation services in Sherman,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Francis Richard Greene, Esq.
   Stern Thomasson LLP
   150 Morris St
   2nd Floor
   Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
   Tel: (973) 379-7500
   Email: francis@sternthomasson.com

      - and –

   Philip David Stern, Esq.
   Stern Thomasson LLP
   150 Morris Ave
   2nd Floor
   Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
   Tel: (973) 379-7500
   Email: philip@sternthomasson.com

      - and –

   Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
   Stern Thomasson LLP
   150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
   Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
   Tel: (973) 379-7500
   Fax: (973) 532-5868
   Email: andrew@sternthomasson.com


AT&T MOBILITY: Court Allows K. Hills to Add Class Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KATIA HILLS, Plaintiff, v. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES,
LLC, a/k/a AT&T Mobility LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-556-JD-MGG (N.D. Ind.), Magistrate Judge Michael G. Gotsch,
Sr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, South Bend Division, (i) granted in part and denied in
part Hills' Motion for Leave to Add New Party and Class Action
Allegations to Second Amended Complaint; and (ii) denied her
Conditional Motion to Transfer Venue.

On May 14, 2018, Hills filed her Motion for Leave.  She seeks the
Court's permission to add Cynthia Allen as an additional named
Plaintiff in her putative class action.  On the same day, Hills
also filed a Motion to Transfer.  She asks the Court to transfer
the case to the Northern District of Georgia in the event she is
not granted permission to add Allen as a Plaintiff in the action.

The action arises from AT&T's alleged violations of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), the American with
Disabilities Act, and the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") related
to Hills' employment with an AT&T Mobility retail store in Indiana,
between April 2014 and July 2015.  Hills filed her original
complaint with the Court on July 14, 2017, alleging disparate
treatment based on sex arising from her pregnancy as well as claims
of sexual harassment under Title VII; failure to provide a
reasonable accommodation under the ADA; and interference and
retaliation under the FMLA.

In support, Hills alleged discrimination in AT&T's application of
its "Sales Attendance Guidance" policy ("SAG") under which
employees accrue "points" or fractions thereof for unexcused
absences and tardiness.  Points can be avoided if an absence
qualifies as "excused" under SAG.  SAG delineates 13 categories of
excused absences, none of which explicitly relate to pregnancy.
Hills was terminated after accruing points under SAG for a series
of unexcused absences arising from her pregnancy.

Hills alleges that AT&T applied SAG more strictly against her than
against male or non-pregnant employees; that her store manager was
hostile toward her pregnancy; and that her FMLA request related to
her pregnancy was denied improperly.  On Feb. 6, 2018, however,
Hills filed her First Amended Complaint -- the current operative
complaint -- raising only the FMLA claims.

Meanwhile, Hills had filed an Amended Charge of Discrimination with
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") adding claims
that similarly situated employees were being treated like her.
Cynthia Allen also had a similar Charge pending before the EEOC.
Allen, an AT&T Mobility employee in two New York stores and one
Nevada store from December 2012 through April 2017, had received
excused leave for her pregnancy-related medical needs for her two
pregnancies in New York but was terminated in Nevada after
accumulating points during her third pregnancy and while tending to
her newborn child.  

In her EEOC Charge, Allen alleged that she was unable to secure
excused absences and faced hostility from her Nevada store manager,
without help from an area manager, when seeking assistance with her
FMLA requests under SAG.

Both EEOC Charges explained that AT&T amended SAG in the spring of
2015, in the middle of both Hills's and Allen's tenure with AT&T
Mobility.  Hills outlined the changes to the point accrual policy,
including but not limited to, a shift in who was authorized to make
exceptions in the application of SAG.  She reported that the old
policy allowed exceptions to SAG in an employee's supervisor's
discretion while the new policy allowed SAG exceptions at the
company's discretion.

After Hills informed the Court of the pending status of both hers
and Allen's EEOC Charges through a motion to stay and a subsequent
status repor, the Court directed her to request a Right to Sue
letter from the EEOC to keep this case progressing.  Having timely
made that request, Hills filed the Motion for Leave to Amended
Complaint.  Hills' proposed Second Amended Complaint adds Allen as
a named Plaintiff and presents class action allegations focused on
the alleged creation, implementation, and enforcement of SAG by a
corporate level committee rather than by local managers.

AT&T does not object to the addition of class action allegations,
but argues that Allen cannot be joined because (1) her claims do
not arise out of the same transactions or occurrences as required
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20, (2) Allen's and Hills' claims turn on
disparate evidence and witnesses, and (3) the proposed joinder
would be futile because this Court does not have personal
jurisdiction over AT&T with respect to Allen's claims.  AT&T also
objects to Hills' alternative motion for transfer contending that
(1) Hills is attempting improper forum shopping by seeking
transfer, (2) Georgia is neither a proper nor convenient forum
given the location of key witnesses in Indiana not Georgia, and (3)
the interests of justice related to judicial efficiencies favor
this forum.

Hills, on the other hand, argues that the interests of justice
warrant transfer -- in the event Allen is not added as a Plaintiff
in the action -- to prevent inconsistent results between her
putative class action here and the Allen putative class action
already filed in Georgia.

Magistrate Judge Gostch finds that despite any connection to a
common corporate policy, Hills' and Allen's claims are inextricably
intertwined with the unique circumstances of their pregnancies, the
recommendations of their supervisors, and their FMLA applications.
Even corporate decisions to award attendance points, to refuse to
excuse attendance points, or to terminate Hills' and Allen's
employment would be dependent on highly personalized transactions
or occurrences at different times and places.  Notably, Hills and
Allen allege that the discrimination against them occurred because
of disparate treatment of the SAG policy.  Thus, they have made
their own personal interactions with the policy, rather the policy
alone, the focus of the lawsuits.  In so doing, they are not
presenting claims arising from related transactions or occurrences
let alone the "same" transaction or occurrence required under Rule
20.

Next, he finds that Hills has established neither general nor
specific jurisdiction in this Court over AT&T Mobility or AT&T
Services for Allen's putative class action claims.  Without such
jurisdiction, Allen's claims are futile such that adding her as a
Plaintiff in the action is not warranted.  Hills' reply brief
related to her motion to amend and her conditional motion for
transfer imply that she was concerned about the jurisdictional
issue, but she raised no explicit argument that personal
jurisdiction for Allen's claims existed in the Court.  Instead,
Hills turned her attention to her alternative request for transfer
in the interest of advancing hers and Allen's claims in a single
litigation, rather than piecemeal.  Unable to grant Hills's motion
to amend to add Allen as a Plaintiff, the Judge now considers
Hills' alternative motion to transfer.

He finds that Hills has not established proper venue pursuant to
Section 1391(b) for both the Court and the Northern District of
Georgia as required for transfer under Section 1404(a).  Hills
cannot argue that there is no district other than the Northern
District of Georgia in which she could have otherwise brought her
claims.  Her claims are clearly properly venued here in the
Northern District.  Having failed to establish proper venue in the
Northern District of Georgia, transfer is not warranted.

Moreover, the corporate AT&T witnesses would probably have greater
resources to accommodate any necessary travel as part of this
litigation compared to those available to Hills and the individual
witnesses in Indiana.  Therefore, the convenience of witnesses
factor might favor litigation in the Court, but is probably of
greater benefit to neither party.  

Finally, both courts are equally familiar with the relevant law.
And once again, the controversy in inextricably linked to events in
Indiana.  Hills has not shown that valid interest is greater than
Indiana's valid interest in the claims growing out of employment
issues in its State.  Therefore, the interests of justice do not
justify transfer.

For the reasons discussed, Magistrate Judge Gostch denied in part
Hills' motion to amend the complaint to add Allen as a Plaintiff,
and granted in part her motion to amend to add class allegations.
He denied Hills' alternative conditional motion to transfer.

The Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint, including the
relevant class allegations incorporated into her proposed second
amended complaint related to the instant motion to amend, by Dec.
11, 2018.  The Magistarte directed the Clerk to seal the proposed
amended complaint accompanying Hills' instant motion to amend to
avoid confusion on the docket going forward.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 4, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/vjNyqB from Leagle.com.

Katia Hills, Plaintiff, represented by Gillian L. Thomas, American
Civil Liberties Union, pro hac vice, Joseph M. Sellers --
jsellers@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, pro
hac vice, Kalpana Kotagal -- kkotagal@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll, pro hac vice, Lynn A. Toops --
LTOOPS@COHENANDMALAD.COM -- Cohen & Malad LLP & Miriam R. Nemeth --
mnemeth@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, pro hac
vice.

AT&T Mobility Services LLC, also known as AT&T Mobility LLC & AT&T
Services, Inc., Defendants, represented by Alexander J. Maturi --
alexmaturi@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP, pro hac vice,
Alison M. Lewandoski, Paul Hastings LLP, pro hac vice, Brian M.
Hayes -- brianhayes@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP, pro hac
vice & Kenneth W. Gage -- kennethgage@paulhastings.com -- Paul
Hastings LLP, pro hac vice.


BEST BUY: Oral Argument in IBEW Local Suit Set for Jan. 11
----------------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended November 3, 2018, that on January 11, 2019,
the District Court Judge in the case entitled, IBEW Local 98
Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., is scheduled to hear
argument on the Best Buy motion for summary judgment on the
remaining claims.

In February 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned, IBEW
Local 98 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed against
the company and certain of its executive officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

This federal court action alleges, among other things, that the
company and the officers named in the complaint violated Sections
10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange
Act in connection with press releases and other statements relating
to our fiscal 2011 earnings guidance that had been made available
to the public.

Additionally, in March 2011, a similar purported class action was
filed by a single shareholder, Rene LeBlanc, against the company
and certain of its executive officers in the same court. In July
2011, after consolidation of the IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund and
Rene LeBlanc actions, a consolidated complaint captioned, IBEW
Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed and
served.

Following discovery and motion practice Plaintiffs moved to certify
the purported class. By Order filed August 6, 2014, the court
certified a class of persons or entities who acquired Best Buy
common stock between 10:00 a.m. EDT on September 14, 2010, and
December 13, 2010, and who were damaged by the alleged violations
of law.

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the company's request for
interlocutory appeal. On April 12, 2016, the 8th Circuit held the
trial court misapplied the law and reversed the class certification
order. IBEW petitioned the 8th Circuit for a rehearing en banc,
which was denied on June 1, 2016. On June 23, 2017, the trial court
denied plaintiff's request to file a new Motion for Class
Certification.

On October 30, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
second amended class action complaint which the Magistrate Judge
denied on July 11, 2018. On August 24, 2018, the District Court
Judge overruled plaintiff's objections to that ruling, affirming
the Magistrate Judge's denial of leave to amend.

On January 11, 2019, the District Court Judge is scheduled to hear
argument on the Best Buy motion for summary judgment on the
remaining claims.

Best Buy said, "We continue to believe that the remaining
individual plaintiff's allegations are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend our company in this matter."

Best Buy Co., Inc. operates as a retailer of technology products,
services, and solutions in the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
The company operates in two segments, Domestic and International.
The company was formerly known as Sound of Music, Inc. Best Buy
Co., Inc. was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Richfield,
Minnesota.


BETHESDA: Class Action Mulled Over Unpaid Fallout 76 Refunds
------------------------------------------------------------
Pingal Pratyush, writing for Spiel Times, reports that US-based
Migliaccio & Rathod LLP is currently investigating Bethesda's
deceptive trade practices regarding Fallout 76 and the controversy
that has shaped around refund demands.

Spiel Times reported on Sunday, November 25th, that one of many
Reddit users posted their experience with the Bethesda Support team
and how they denied the refund request after promising to "begin
processing the refund" as soon as they can.

Many Fallout 76 players demanding refunds for the game were denied
as they downloaded "digital content within the 30-day cancelation
period", so they must "must agree to waive your cancelation
rights."

"Migliaccio & Rathod LLP is currently investigating Bethesda Game
Studios for releasing a heavily-glitched game, Fallout 76, and
refusing to issue refunds for PC purchasers of the game who found
it to be unplayable because of its technical problems."

The attorney firm is also open to speaking with players who
demanded a refund for the online-survival RPG.

"Gamers who have tried to receive a refund because of the game's
myriad glitches have been unable to do so since they downloaded the
game, leaving them to deal with an unplayable experience until
patches bring it back to a playable state."

Things are going awry for Bethesda. First, the horrendous review
scores, then the massive drop in price, innumerable complaints and
now, a legal battle. [GN]


BLUE WP: Rios Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Alberto Rios Lopez and Jesus Rios Lopez, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Blue
WP, Inc. (d/b/a Graziella's Italian Bistro), WP Burger, Inc. (d/b/a
Westchester Burger Company in White Plains, New York), WP Burger
II, Inc. (d/b/a Westchester Burger Company in Rye Brook, New York),
WP Burger III, Inc. (d/b/a Westchester Burger Company in Mount
Kisco, New York), WP Burger V, Inc. (d/b/a Westchester Burger
Company in Stamford, Connecticut), Grace DiFeo, Angelo DiFeo, Sandy
DiFeo, and Vincent Corso, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01931-UNA
(S.D. N.Y., December 5, 2018) was brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law for Defendants' failure to
pay all wages due including minimum wages, overtime compensation,
unlawful retention of gratuities, uniform-related expenses, and
spread-of-hours pay, and for violations of recordkeeping
requirements.

Plaintiffs, who worked an average of 66-70 hours per week, were
regularly required to perform many jobs at Graziella's and the
Westchester Burger Company locations ("WBC") but were improperly
and unfairly compensated at less than the appropriate minimum wage,
asserts the complaint.

Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiffs and the similarly
situated class and collective action members, who, upon information
and belief, include non-tipped workers, overtime premiums for
working over 40 hours per week. Defendants rarely scheduled or
permitted rest or meal breaks, even though meals were deducted from
the paychecks of Plaintiffs and the similarly situated class and
collective action members, who, upon information and belief,
include non-tipped workers. When business was slow, Defendants sent
home Plaintiffs and the similarly situated class and collective
action members who, upon information and belief, include non-tipped
workers, without paying them tips for the day or wages earned for
the hours they worked before being sent home, the complaint adds.

Plaintiffs seek damages on their own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and injunctive relief to ensure that
Defendants' pervasive pattern of unlawful conduct does not
continue, notes the complaint.

Jose Alberto Rios Lopez is an adult individual who resides in White
Plains, New York. Plaintiff Jose was employed by Graziella's from
2006 until April 15, 2018.

Jesus Rios Lopez is an adult individual who resides in White
Plains, New York. Jesus was employed by Graziella's from
approximately April 2007 until February 2018.

Blue WP, Inc. is a domestic corporation organized under the laws of
the State of New York. Blue WP, Inc. does business as Graziella's
Italian Bistro. Graziella's is located at 99 Church Street, White
Plains, New York 10601.

WP Burger, Inc. is a domestic corporation organized under the laws
of the State of New York. WP Burger, Inc. does business as
Westchester Burger Company. The White Plains location of
Westchester Burger Company is located at 106 Westchester Avenue,
White Plains, New York 10601.

WP Burger II, Inc. is a domestic corporation organized under the
laws of the State of New York. WP Burger II, Inc. does business as
Westchester Burger Company. The Rye Brook location of Westchester
Burger Company is located at 275 South Ridge Street, Rye Brook, New
York 10573.

WP Burger III, Inc. is a domestic corporation organized under the
laws of the State of New York. WP Burger III, Inc. does business as
Westchester Burger Company. The Mt. Kisco location of Westchester
Burger Company is located at 353 North Bedford Road, Mt. Kisco, New
York 10549.

WP Burger IV, Inc. is a domestic corporation organized under the
laws of the State of New York. WP Burger IV, Inc. does business as
Westchester Burger Company. The Stamford location of Westchester
Burger Company is located at 1980 West Main Street, Stamford,
Connecticut 06902.

Graziella's and WBC are owned by the Defendant Family, and
Defendants' operations are interrelated and unified. Graziella's
and WBC shared common management and were centrally controlled by
the same people -- Defendant Family.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
     Alexis H. Castillo, Esq.
     KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
     Two International Drive, Suite 350
     Rye Brook, NY 10573
     Phone: (914) 934-9200
     Fax: (914) 934-9220
     Email: Fran@klafterolsen.com
            Alexis.Castillo@klafterolsen.com

          - and –

     Sarah Leberstein, Esq.
     MAKE THE ROAD NEW YORK
     46 Waller Avenue
     White Plains, NY 10605
     Phone: (914) 948-8466
     Email: sarah.leberstein@maketheroadny.org


BMW: Faces Class Action Over N63 Engine Oil Consumption Issues
--------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a BMW
oil consumption class-action lawsuit alleges multiple models
require excessive amounts of oil, sometimes using one quart every
750 miles.

The 2009-2014 vehicles included in the class-action are equipped
with V8 twin-turbocharged N63 engines:

   -- BMW 7 Series Sedan (Manufactured 3/2009 to 6/2012)
   -- BMW Active Hybrid 7 (Manufactured 4/2010 to 6/2012)
   -- BMW Gran Turismo (Manufactured 9/2009 to 6/2012)
   -- BMW 5 Series Sedan (Manufactured 3/2010 to 7/2013)
   -- BMW 6 Series Convertible (Manufactured 3/2011 to 7/2012)
   -- BMW 6 Series Coupe (Manufactured 7/2011 to 7/2012)
   -- BMW X5 (Manufactured 3/2010 to 6/2013)
   -- BMW X6 (Manufactured 7/2008 to 6/2014)
   -- BMW ActiveHybrid X6 (Manufactured 9/2009 to 9/2011)

Plaintiff Jerry Moore purchased a used 2011 BMW 750i that allegedly
consumed a quart of oil every 1,600 miles, well before the
recommended oil change intervals.

Moore notified a BMW dealer about the problem but was allegedly
told there had been an oil leak that was now repaired. However, the
plaintiff says the oil consumption problem only grew worse.

In March 2015, a BMW dealer performed a "N63 Customer Care Package"
and replaced the injectors and vacuum pump, but Moore says the
vehicle continued to use too much oil. He says he was adding one
quart of oil every 1,000 miles, so he again contacted the BMW
dealership that told him the oil consumption was normal.

The plaintiff claims he was told, "that's just how BMW's are --
you'll always need oil in between services."

Moore says he constantly had to add oil to the vehicle to prevent
the engine from damage, even though the frequency was well beyond
the recommended oil change intervals.

The N63 Customer Care Package (bulletin B001314) referenced by the
plaintiff allegedly doesn't help to correct the oil consumption
problems but works more to mask the problems.

Technicians are told to check the timing chains, fuel injectors,
mass air flow sensors, crankcase vent lines, batteries, engine
vacuum pumps and low pressure fuel sensors, replacing the parts if
needed. The work is done for free even if the vehicles are no
longer covered under warranty.

BMW also created the "N63 Customer Loyalty Offer" for discounts on
new vehicles, and the "N63 Customer Appreciation Program" which
gives customers $50 worth of BMW merchandise or accessories.

According to the lawsuit, BMW owners blame the problems on the
turbochargers placed between the cylinder heads and inside of the
engine V, rather than outside of the V and therefore away from
components.

The class-action lawsuit alleges technical service bulletins (TSBs)
issued by BMW to dealerships appear to conceal the oil consumption
defects by telling dealers the issues are normal for turbocharged
cars.

TSB SIB-11-03-13 begins by telling technicians to ignore oil
consumption complaints about engines with less than 6,000 miles
because the engines are expected to use more oil.

"[T]he internal engine components are not fully seated (break-in).
Therefore, engine oil consumption complaints received prior to
6,000 miles cannot be considered."

Then the bulletin says engines "equipped with a turbocharger(s)
will consume more engine oil than normally aspirated engines
(non-turbocharged). The additional engine oil consumption of a
turbocharged engine, as compared to a normally aspirated engine, is
normal and not a defect."

The plaintiffs say the N63 engines would eat nearly 20 quarts of
oil between the recommended 15,000-mile oil change intervals if the
TSB information was true.

Another BMW bulletin, SIB-11-01-13, allegedly changed the N63 oil
consumption specifications and instructed technicians to add two
quarts of oil to a vehicle when the original instructions called
for one quart to be added.

"While BMW did not address the underlying problem, it likely
reduced the number of complaints because the engine oil level in
the subject vehicles would now be overfilled, a condition that can
cause the engine oil to become aeriated, resulting in potential oil
starvation and reduced oil pressure." - Oil consumption lawsuit

According to the class-action, BMW's own instructions prove there
is nothing normal about vehicles consuming as much oil as they do.
In addition, the plaintiffs claim they had no way of knowing about
the oil consumption issues, but if they would have known they would
not have purchased the vehicles.

The BMW oil consumption class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia - Moore, et
al., v. BMW of North America, LLC, et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by Lemberg Law. [GN]


BOEING COMPANY: Faces Ostroff Securities Suit Over 737 Crash
------------------------------------------------------------
JEFF OSTROFF, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. THE BOEING COMPANY, DENNIS A. MUILENBURG, and GREGORY
D. SMITH, Case No. 1:18-cv-07853 (N.D. Ill., November 28, 2018),
seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendants' alleged
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
Company's new 737 MAX automated stall-prevention system was
susceptible to deadly malfunctions; (ii) Boeing maintained
inadequate internal controls to ensure the timely reporting and
dissemination of such malfunctions; and (iii) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On October 29, 2018, a Boeing 737 aircraft operated by the
Indonesian airline Lion Air crashed shortly after takeoff, killing
all passengers and crew.

On November 12, 2018, post-market, The Wall Street Journal
published an article entitled "Boeing Withheld Information on 737
Model, According to Safety Experts and Others."  Citing "safety
experts involved in the investigation, as well as midlevel [Federal
Aviation Administration] officials," the article reported that
Boeing "withheld information about potential hazards associated
with a new flight-control feature suspected of playing a role in
last month's fatal Lion Air jet crash."  Following this news,
Boeing's stock price fell, the Plaintiff relates.

Boeing is a Delaware corporation.  Boeing was founded in 1916 and
is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.  Dennis A. Muilenburg has
served at all relevant times as the Chief Executive Officer of
Boeing.  Gregory D. Smith has served at all relevant times as the
Chief Financial Officer of Boeing.

Boeing designs, develops, manufactures, sales, services, and
supports commercial jetliners, military aircraft, satellites,
missile defense, human space flight, and launch systems and
services worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


BOIRON INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Jury Verdict in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence I Weinstein, Esq. -- lweinstein@proskauer.com -- and
Tiffany Woo, Esq. -- twoo@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose LLP,
in an article for The National Law Review, report that on November
8, 2018, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict in a consumer
class action deceptive advertising case in favor of Defendants
Boiron Inc. and Boiron USA, Inc. (together, "Boiron"), the sellers
of a homeopathic treatment for flu-like symptoms called
Oscillococcinum ("Oscillo").  Although the Ninth Circuit's
memorandum decision is marked "Not for Publication" and therefore
is non-precedential under Ninth Circuit rules, the decision is
still worth noting, as jury verdicts in class action false
advertising cases are rare.

According to the appellate briefs, Oscillo's active ingredient is a
compound (extracted from the heart and liver of the Muscovy duck
for those foodies in our readership) that is subjected to a
homeopathic dilution process.  The diluted compound is then sprayed
onto specially-manufactured granules.  Plaintiff argued that, due
to the homeopathic dilution process, Oscillo was essentially "water
sprayed on sugar," which could not provide the relief from flu-like
symptoms that Boiron advertised.  Plaintiff claimed that Boiron had
therefore violated two California deceptive advertising statutes,
the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and Consumers Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA").

At the conclusion of a one-week trial in the Central District of
California, the jury found in Boiron's favor that its
representations that Oscillo relieves flu-like symptoms were not
false.  On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding that the
jury verdict did not constitute plain error because Boiron
presented sufficient evidence from which the jury could have
concluded that Oscillo actually works against flu-like symptoms.
This was a "battle of the experts" for the jury, the court wrote,
that could not be relitigated on appeal.  And the jury appeared to
have believed Boiron's expert, clinical studies, and anecdotal
evidence more than it believed the plaintiff's expert, according to
the court.

The Ninth Circuit further noted that in explicitly finding that
Boiron's claim that Oscillo treated flu-like symptoms was not
false, the jury must have implicitly rejected Plaintiff's argument
that Oscillo was merely a sugar pill or water sprayed on sugar.
Nor did Plaintiff offer a theory of how Boiron's representations
could be false if the product did indeed treat flu symptoms.

The case is Christopher Lewert v. Boiron Inc., et al., No. 17-56607
in the Ninth Circuit. [GN]


CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces 3 Class Suits in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------
Campbell Soup Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended October 28, 2018, that the company has been
named as defendant in three class actions suits in New Jersey.

Three purported shareholder class action lawsuits (collectively,
the Actions) have been filed in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey against the company, Denise Morrison
(the company's former Chief Executive Officer), and Anthony
DiSilvestro (the company's Chief Financial Officer).

The Actions, captioned Marisa Marder et al v. Campbell Soup Company
et al., Civ. No. 1:18-cv-14385-NLH-JS, Michael Bankalter et al. v.
Campbell Soup Company et al., Civ. No. 1:18-cv-15694-NLH-JS, and
Charles W. Clayton et al. v. Campbell Soup Company et al., Civ. No.
1:18-cv-16476, were filed on September 28, 2018, November 5, 2018,
and November 27, 2018, respectively.  

The complaints in the Marder and Bankalter actions allege that, in
public statements between August 31, 2017, and May 18, 2018, the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose material information about the company's
business, operations, prospects and/or compliance policies,
specifically with regard to the Campbell Fresh segment. The
complaint in the Clayton action asserts similar allegations
regarding public statements made between February 17, 2017 and May
18, 2018. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.

Campbell Soup said, "We intend to vigorously defend against the
Actions."

Campbell Soup Company, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures
and markets branded food and beverage products. It operates through
three segments: Americas Simple Meals and Beverages, Global
Biscuits and Snacks, and Campbell Fresh.


CANADA: 60s Scoop Class Action, Information Sessions to Start
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Sixties Scoop Class Action has been Settled.  To be eligible,
you must be a registered Indian, or, a person eligible to be
registered, or, an Inuit person, who was adopted or made a
permanent ward and was placed in the care of non-Indigenous foster
or adoptive parents in Canada between January 1, 1951 and December
31, 1991, which resulted in the loss of cultural identity.

Eligible class members will receive compensation between $25,000
and $50,000 depending on the overall number of eligible members.

Collectiva, the Claims Administrator, along with its First Nations'
partners, will be travelling across the country beginning in
December 2018 to provide information to class members. They will
hold 21 information sessions in 21 different cities across Canada
where class members will receive support and guidance in preparing
their claim forms and attend presentations on financial literacy
provided by AFOA Canada. A qualified staff member from Collectiva
along with other First Nations' professionals will be on hand to
answer class members' questions.

The list of the next information sessions and communities is as
follows:

December 17, 2018

Vancouver

Vancouver Aboriginal Friendship Centre
Theatre Room, 1607 East Hastings Street
Vancouver (BC) V5L 1S7

December 18, 2018

Thunder Bay

Victoria Inn Thunder Bay
555 West Arthur Street
Thunder Bay (ON)  P7E 5R5

December 21, 2018

Toronto

Toronto Council Fire Native Cultural Centre
439 Dundas St East
Toronto (ON) M5A 2B1

The full list of communities to be visited is available at:

                      https://is.gd/9w5llL

If you are a Sixties Scoop class member
To make a claim for compensation, you must complete a claim form
and send it to the Claims Administrator, Collectiva, no later than
August 30, 2019. A copy of the claim form is available at
https://is.gd/ct2TAE

To receive more information or assistance you may:

Visit the Settlement website: https://sixtiesscoopsettlement.info
Call 1 844 287-4270
Send an e-mail request to sixtiesscoop@collectiva.ca. [GN]


CANADA: Young Quebecers File Class Action Over Climate Change
-------------------------------------------------------------
Montreal Gazette reports that young Quebecers have launched a
class-action lawsuit against the Canadian government for failing to
protect them from the devastating effects of climate change.

ENvironnement JEUnesse filed the action on Nov. 26 in Quebec
Superior Court on behalf of all Quebecers under the age of 35. The
suit argues that even though the federal government recognizes the
harm of global warming and is a signatory of the Paris Accord on
fighting climate change, it is showing gross negligence by setting
emissions reductions targets that are too low to begin with and is
even failing to reach those insufficient goals.

Inspired by similar legal actions in the Netherlands and the United
States, the class action is a Canadian first. [GN]


CANARY CONNECT: Reifman Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Berg, Julie Harley, Jeffrey Reifman, Arline Van Gessel,
Connor Van Gessel, and Miguel Moreno, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Canary Connect, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11365 (S.D. N.Y., December 5, 2018) is
a consumer protection class action against Canary based on Canary's
unfair and deceptive business practices with respect to the
marketing and sale of its Canary All-in-One, Canary View, and
Canary Flex products.

The Products are home security systems, offering video and audio
recordings which consumers may watch and control from Canary's
software application on their cellular or Wi-Fi enabled devices
Prior to October 3, 2017. Consumers who purchased the Products
could access nearly all of the Products' key features via the
Canary App with just one cost, the Products' purchase price. Canary
advertised and marketed the Products with these features, leading
consumers to reasonably believe that these features would remain
with the Products at no additional charge.

However, on or around October 3, 2017, Canary unilaterally changed
the Products' characteristics, removing three key features and
re-offering them to consumers under Canary's Membership Fee paywall
of $9.99 per month. Consumers who purchased the Products prior to
October 3, 2017 were not exempt from these changes.

Specifically, Canary removed the ability to (1) view full-length
videos of motion detected activities captured by the Products; (2)
receive alerts of motion-detected activities when users are at home
during the day-time with the Products disarmed; (3) changed video
retention of intrusions from unlimited to 10 seconds and finally to
30 seconds; (4) removed the ability to download recordings; (5)
have access to any videos for more than 24 hours; and (6) receive
alerts of motion-detected activities when users are at home and
asleep, based on their customized sleep schedule. These changes
drastically altered the efficacy of the Products as a home security
device. Additionally, Canary removed the ability to view clips more
than a few days old and deleted previously stored content with no
way to retrieve the lost content.

Plaintiffs and other consumers purchased the Products reasonably
believing that all key features included with their initial
purchase would remain available without any future cost. Had
Plaintiffs and other consumers known that Canary would remove the
Product's features and place them behind a paywall, they would not
have purchased the Products or would have paid significantly less
for the Products. Therefore, Plaintiffs and consumers have suffered
injury in fact as a result of Canary's unfair and deceptive
practices, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Jonathan Berg is a Pennsylvania citizen, residing in
Allentown, Pennsylvania.

Plaintiff Julie Harley is an Ohio citizen, residing in Toledo,
Ohio.

Plaintiff Jeffrey Reifman is a Washington citizen, residing in
Seattle, Washington.

Plaintiffs Arline and Connor Van Gessel are California and Illinois
citizens, respectively. Plaintiff Arline Van Gessel resides in San
Rafael, California. Plaintiff Connor Van Gessel resides in Chicago,
Illinois.
Plaintiff Miguel Moreno is an Illinois citizen, residing in
Chicago, Illinois.

Canary Connect, Inc. is incorporated in New York, with its
principal place of business in New York, New York. Canary, directly
and/or through its agents, manufactures, markets, distributes, and
sells the Products in New York. Canary has maintained substantial
distribution and sales in this District.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Nina Varindani, Esq.
     685 Third Avenue, 26th Fl.
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: 212-983-9330
     Fax: 212-983-9331
     Email: nvarindani@faruqilaw.com

          - and –

     Timothy J. Peter, Esq.
     1617 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1550
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 277-5770
     Fax: (215) 277-5771
     Email: tpeter@faruqilaw.com

          - and –

     Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
     WALSH PLLC
     1561 Long Haul Road
     Grangeville, ID 83530
     Phone: (541) 359-2827
     Facsimile: (866) 503-8206
     Email: bonner@walshpllc.com

          - and –

     Michael Fuller, Esq.
     OlsenDaines, P.C.
     US Bancorp Tower
     111 SW 5th Ave., 31st Fl.
     Portland, OR 97204
     Phone: 503-201-4570
     Email: michael@underdoglawyer.com

          - and –

     Kelly Donovan Jones
     819 SE Morrison St Ste 255
     Portland, OR 97214
     Phone: 503-847-4329
     Email: kellydonovanjones@gmail.com


CAPTIVA MVP: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in I.T. Tsao's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff I Tan Tsao filed an appeal from a court ruling in his
lawsuit titled I Tan Tsao v. Captiva MVP Restaurant Partners, LLC,
Case No. 8:18-cv-01606-WFJ-SPF, in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.

The appellate case is captioned as I Tan Tsao v. Captiva MVP
Restaurant Partners, LLC, Case No. 18-14959, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 22, 2018, the
District Court granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint in the Plaintiff's data breach
lawsuit against Captiva MVP Restaurant Partners, LLC, doing
business as PDQ.

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

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

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

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

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

   -- The appellant's brief is due on or before January 8, 2019;

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

   -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons due on or
      before December 13, 2018, as to Appellant I Tan Tsao;

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons due on or
      before December 27, 2018, as to Appellee Captiva MVP
      Restaurant Partners, LLC.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant I TAN TSAO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Francis J. Flynn, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR.
          6220 W 3rd, Suite 115
          Los Angeles, CA 90036-3169
          Telephone: (314) 662-2836
          E-mail: francisflynn@gmail.com

               - and -

          James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
          CAREY, DANIS & LOWE
          8235 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100
          St Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 725-7700
          E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com

               - and -

          Steven William Teppler, Esq.
          ABBOTT LAW FIRM, PA
          2929 Plummer Cove Rd.
          Jacksonville, FL 32223-6672
          Telephone: (904) 292-1111
          E-mail: steppler@abbottlawpa.com

Defendant-Appellee CAPTIVA MVP RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC, a Florida
Limited Liability Company doing business as PDQ, is represented
by:

          Marie A. Borland, Esq.
          Robert A. Shimberg, Esq.
          HILL WARD HENDERSON, PA
          101 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 3700
          PO Box 2231
          Tampa, FL 33601-2231
          Telephone: (813) 221-3900
          E-mail: marie.borland@hwhlaw.com
                  robert.shimberg@hwhlaw.com


CHEMOURS CO: Area Leaders, Lawyers React to GenX Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------
Christina Haley O'Neal, writing for Wilmington Biz, reports that
area leaders and lawyers representing a potential class-action
lawsuit against The Chemours Co., recently reacted to the proposed
consent order requiring the company to pay the largest fine ever
levied by North Carolina environmental regulators.

The agreement is a step in the right direction for addressing
concerns that have been raised by Chemours' release of GenX
compounds into the Cape Fear River, Wilmington Mayor Bill Saffo and
New Hanover County Commissioner Rob Zapple said on Nov. 26 when
asked about the news.

Late on Nov. 21, the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ) issued a news release that stated the Southern
Environmental Law Center, on behalf of Cape Fear River Watch and
NCDEQ, signed a proposed consent order with Chemours that requires
the company to fix pollution in the Cape Fear River caused from
per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances.

The order laid out several potential requirements for the company,
including short- and long-term cleanup efforts, a 92 percent
reduction of GenX emissions by the end of the year, funding of
health studies for the PFAS and payment of a civil penalty of $12
million to the state, as well as $1 million for investigative
costs.

The suit, however, "really addresses issues happening around the
plant," Mr. Zapple said on Nov. 26 of the order that is aimed to
fix issues with Chemours' operations at the Fayetteville Works site
in Bladen County.

"We have issues here at our local plant that have been caused by
emerging contaminants that have been put into our water from
Fayetteville Works that this settlement does not really address,"
Mr. Zapple said.

In addition, Mr. Zapple said he hopes that Chemours would also be
held financially responsible for "whatever filtration system or
process that is necessary to guarantee that we will have clean
water now and in the future."

Mr. Saffo had a similar opinion, saying that he hopes some of that
$12 million in civil penalties would flow to Wilmington's water
utility, Cape Fear Public Utility Authority, for funding the
upgrades needed at its water treatment plant to filter GenX and
other emerging contaminants still being studied.

"I would like to know what they are going to do with the $12
million fine. I would like to see some of that money down here to
help offset those costs for CFPUA to put that filtration in,"
Mr. Saffo said, adding that Chemours should be fronting the costs
to take some of the burden off ratepayers.

In a statement released on Nov. 26 afternoon, CFPUA officials said
that the proposed agreement "fails to provide a solution for the
citizens of New Hanover County who continue to be exposed to PFAS
compounds . . ."

In addition, officials also pointed out that the agreement does not
address river sediment contaminants, or remediation solutions, as
well as groundwater contamination in New Hanover County.

The water utility also addressed its February resolution that
requested the state agency to "stop all operations at the Chemours
site involving emerging contaminants."

"CFPUA believes this should happen until Chemours has installed
technology at the site that will capture air emissions and until we
fully understand how PFAS compounds find their way into our water
source," officials said in the release.

The utility is still pursuing its ongoing lawsuit against Chemours
and Dupont, officials said, adding that ratepayers should not be
responsible for the cost of additional treatment for PFAS
compounds.

CFPUA services about 200,000 customers in New Hanover County,
according to the release.

"The big concern moving forward is what other compounds and
chemicals are out there we do not know about, where they are coming
from or what they are," Mr. Saffo said.

In addition, Mr. Saffo said he supports Gov. Roy Cooper's efforts
for more support for the state environmental regulating agency.

"Cape Fear River Watch has done a wonderful job in moving this
forward, working on the legal side with Southern Environmental Law
Center to finally getting some admission from Chemours," Zapple
said on Nov. 26.

"This is just the beginning, I think, of what I hope will be a
number of actions taken . . . to hold Chemours responsible for
cleaning up our water," Zapple added.

The order is now in a 30-day comment period before it goes before
Bladen County Superior Court for approval, according to NCDEQ's
release.

The proposed consent order, if accepted by the court, will resolve
NCDEQ's pending lawsuit against Chemours for violating state water
quality laws, according to the agency's release. In addition, Cape
Fear River Watch agreed to dismiss its lawsuit against Chemours for
violations of the Clean Water Act and Toxic Substances Control
Act.

A proposed class-action lawsuit, however, is still pending in
federal court. One of the lead attorneys for the class action case,
which has several named defendants including a Wilmington resident,
issued a statement on Nov. 26 regarding the order.

While the proposed agreement is a "good step forward" in addressing
contamination issues in the state, there is still a large
population of North Carolina residents who are not touched by the
move, Ted Leopold -- tleopold@cohenmilstein.com -- partner at Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll and co-lead counsel in the federal
class-action case, said on Nov. 26.

"The settlement that The Chemours Company reached with the state
represents a small but encouraging step toward addressing its role
in dumping harmful chemicals into the Cape Fear River and releasing
them into the air and the harm that conduct has caused North
Carolinians," Mr. Leopold said in a news release.

"Because the relief in this tentative agreement is largely limited
to just the tiny percentage of well-water properties, it leaves
unaddressed the needs of hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians
harmed by contaminated public drinking water, and all those harmed
by Chemours' actions, and so we will continue the aggressive
pursuit of our class action lawsuit to secure broader relief," he
added. [GN]


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Rael Class Action Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------
The Children's Place, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended November 3, 2018, that the purported class
action suit entitled,  Rael v. The Children's Place, Inc., is still
stayed.

The Company is a defendant in Rael v. The Children's Place, Inc., a
purported class action, pending in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of California. In the initial complaint filed in
February 2016, the plaintiff alleged that the Company falsely
advertised discount prices in violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in April 2016, adding
allegations of violations of other state consumer protection laws.
In August 2016, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
adding an additional plaintiff and removing the other state law
claims. The plaintiffs' second amended complaint seeks to represent
a class of California purchasers and seeks, among other items,
injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company engaged in mediation proceedings with the plaintiffs in
December 2016 and April 2017. The parties reached an agreement in
principle in April 2017, and signed a definitive settlement
agreement in November 2017, to settle the matter on a class basis
with all individuals in the U.S. who made a qualifying purchase at
The Children's Place from February 11, 2012 through the date of
preliminary approval by the court of the settlement.

The settlement is subject to court approval and provides for
merchandise vouchers for class members who submit valid claims, as
well as payment of legal fees and expenses and claims
administration expenses. The court has stayed the matter, pending
an appellate court ruling in another lawsuit to which the Company
is not a party.

The Children's Place said, "The settlement, if ultimately approved
by the court, will result in the dismissal of all claims through
the date of the court's preliminary approval of the settlement.
However, if the settlement is rejected by the court, the parties
will likely return to litigation, and in such event, no assurance
can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter. In
connection with the proposed settlement, the Company recorded a
reserve for $5.0 million in its consolidated financial statements
in the first quarter of 2017."

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

The Children's Place, Inc. operates as a children's specialty
apparel retailer. The company operates in two segments, The
Children's Place U.S. and The Children’s Place International. The
company was formerly known as The Children's Place Retail Stores,
Inc. and changed its name to The Children's Place, Inc. in June
2014. The Children's Place, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is
headquartered in Secaucus, New Jersey.


CHRISTUS SANTA: Gomez Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe Gomez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Christus Santa Rosa Health Care Corporation dba
Christus Santa Rosa Health System, et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-01197
(W.D. Tex., November 16, 2018), is brought against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that during at least the last five years,
Defendant has had a payroll policy of not compensating hourly-paid
nurses for work performed during their meal periods, subjecting
them to interruptions and requiring them to remain on duty during
those meal periods.

The Plaintiff Guadalupe Gomez is an individual residing in Bexar
County, Texas. The Plaintiff was employed as a nurse by Defendant
in San Antonio at The Children's Hospital of San Antonio in San
Antonio, Texas from approximately August 2013 to April 2017.

The Defendant Christus Santa Rosa Health Care Corporation is a
domestic, non-profit corporation that operates four full-service
hospitals with a combined total of over 600 licensed beds
throughout its hospital system. Defendant's hospitals are located
throughout San Antonio, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
      4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
      Houston, TX 77006
      Tel: (713) 523-0001
      Fax: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: gkennedy@KennedyHodges.com


CLIENT SERVICES: Violates FDCPA, Shapiro Suit Asserts
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc.
The case is styled as Larisa Shapiro, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Client Services, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06857 (E.D. N.Y., December 3, 2018).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Client Services, Inc. operates as a customer relationship
management company that offers a suite of accounts receivable
management, business processing outsourcing (BPO), and healthcare
solutions. It provides customer care, technical support, customer
acquisition, cross sell/up-sell, customer retention,
product/account activation, appointment setting/reminders, disaster
support, first notice of loss, market research, customer
satisfaction surveys, and multi-channel interaction management
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West
   12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: dan@cml.legal


CLOUDERA INC: Named as Defendant in Plumley Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Cloudera, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2018, that the company is facing
a purported class action lawsuit entitled, Plumley v. Hortonworks,
Inc., et al.

On November 20, 2018, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware,
entitled Plumley v. Hortonworks, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-01845-UNA.

The complaint names as defendants Hortonworks, the members of the
Hortonworks board of directors and Cloudera, and purports to assert
claims on behalf of Hortonworks stockholders under Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint
alleges that the registration statement on Form S-4 filed on
November 5, 2018 contains material misstatements and omissions
relating to the proposed merger between Hortonworks and Cloudera,
the respective companies' financial projections, and the sale
process leading up to the proposed merger.  

Cloudera is sued as an alleged "controlling person" of Hortonworks.
The suit seeks, among other things, to enjoin defendants from
proceeding with the proposed merger, as well as unspecified damages
and attorneys' fees and costs.

Cloudera, Inc. provides platform for machine learning and analytics
in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The company operates
through two segments, Subscription and Services. Cloudera, Inc. was
founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California.


COMPASS GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Hidden Credit Card Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Jed, writing for Vending Times, reports that vending patron
Anthony Oliver has filed a class action lawsuit against Canteen
parent Compass Group USA Inc. for allegedly tacking on hidden
credit card fees without giving customers the option to decline
them before making a purchase.

The suit claims that Compass Group's customers at vending machines
located in Illinois and other parts of the country are only made
aware of the credit card surcharge after they have swiped their
credit card and the transaction is processed -- at which point it
is too late to cancel the transaction.

According to the complaint, Mr. Oliver purchased several beverages
at Canteen vending machines located in Chicago, IL, last April,
which, based on the price displayed on the machine should have cost
$1.25 each.

However, when he later checked his online bank statement, Oliver
discovered that he was actually charged $1.35 for each drink
product -- 10¢ more than the price that was displayed on the
vending machine.

"Nowhere on the machine, or at any point during the purchase
process, did Defendant disclose that credit card users would be
charged an additional surcharge or that Plaintiff would be charged
$1.35 rather than $1.25," the complaint alleges. "Plaintiff and the
other members of the class would not have purchased the products
that they bought, or would have chosen a different payment method,
had they known that

The lawsuit seeks class certification and restitution to anyone who
has purchased beverages from Compass Group vending machines in
Illinois four years preceding the filing of the lawsuit and four
years afterward. It also seeks to extend the class action to all
U.S. states.

The suit also seeks injunctive relief to stop Compass Group to
require the company to put notifications on every vending machine
specifying the surcharge.

"While we don't comment on pending litigation, we are confident
that our business practices are compliant with state and federal
law," said Ann Sheridan, director, Canteen Communications. [GN]


COOK COUNTY, IL: Bennett Moves for Certification of Inmates Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled Preston Bennett, individually
and for a class v. Thomas Dart, Sheriff of Cook County, and Cook
County, Illinois, Case No. 1:18-cv-04268 (N.D. Ill.), moves the
Court to order that this case may proceed as a class action under
Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for:

     All inmates housed in Division 10 at the Cook County
     Department of Corrections from June 27, 2016 to the date of
     entry of judgment, who were prescribed either a walker,
     crutch, or cane by the medical staff and were denied an
     accommodation for toileting and showering.

Mr. Bennett alleges the Sheriff and County violated his rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act by
assigning him to Division 10 without elements that satisfy the ADA
Structural Standards and by failing to provide reasonable
accommodations to overcome the structural noncompliance.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick W. Morrissey, Esq.
          Thomas G. Morrissey, Esq.
          THOMAS G. MORRISSEY, LTD.
          10150 S. Western Ave.
          Chicago, IL 60643
          Telephone: (773) 233-7900
          E-mail: patrickmorrissey1920@gmail.com


CYAN INC: Shearman & Sterling Discusses Class Action Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on
September 5, 2018, Judge Marie Weiner of California Superior Court,
San Mateo County, granted defendants' motion to stay a putative
class action on grounds of forum non conveniens in order for
plaintiff to pursue the action in New York.  Plaintiff asserted
claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act") against an early childhood education
service provider in the People's Republic of China (the "Company"),
several of its officers and directors, and the underwriters based
on the Company's initial public offering of American Depository
Shares ("ADSs").  Relying largely on a mandatory forum selection
clause contained in a deposit agreement that set the terms for the
deposit of the non-U.S. securities so that they could be traded on
the New York Stock Exchange as ADS, the Court held New York was a
more convenient forum and stayed the action in California.

The Court initially noted that where, as here, there is a mandatory
forum selection clause, "the test" for determining whether the
plaintiff's chosen forum is convenient "is simply whether
application of the clause is unfair or unreasonable, and the clause
is usually given effect."  In this case, plaintiff's claims arose
out of their ADS holdings.  An ADS is a security that represents a
share of a non-U.S. company that has been deposited with a U.S.
bank.  The terms of the ADS are governed by a deposit agreement,
typically among the company and a deposit bank.  Here, the Deposit
Agreement between the Company and its deposit bank contained a
mandatory forum selection clause (referenced in the Registration
Statement for the IPO): "[b]y holding an ADS or an interest
therein, you irrevocably agree that any legal suit, action or
proceeding against or involving . . . ADSs or ADRs, may only be
instituted in a state or federal court in the City of New York, and
you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of such courts
with respect to any such suit, action or proceeding."  The Court
held it would honor this forum selection clause so long as the
clause was neither unfair nor unreasonable, noting that "[m]ere
inconvenience or additional expense" did not render a forum
selection clause unreasonable.  In this particular action,
plaintiff had first filed the action in New York federal court and
later voluntarily dismissed it.  In light of that procedural
history, the Court found plaintiff could not argue reasonably that
the forum selection clause was unfair or unreasonable.

Plaintiff also argued that the case should not be dismissed in
favor of New York because the other defendants were not parties to
the Deposit Agreement.  The Court accordingly also considered other
aspects of the forum non conveniens analysis, including the private
interests of the litigants and the interests of the public in
maintaining the action in California.  The Court found that the
balance of interests favored New York because some of the
underwriters' headquarters and the majority of their employees who
worked on the IPO were located there.  Meanwhile, the registration
statement signatories were Chinese and/or Hong Kong residents.
Indeed, the only witness and documents located in California were
plaintiff's.  The Court thus held it was clear that more of the
evidence would be located in New York, and that it would be
substantially less burdensome to litigate the case in New York.
The Court stayed the California action, subject to application to
lift the stay if the claims are not able to be adjudicated against
all defendants in New York.

In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver
County Employees Retirement Fund, 583 U.S. __ (2018), that
Securities Act class actions can be brought in state court,
companies have considered various responses, including adopting
provisions in their articles of incorporation or bylaws requiring
securities lawsuits to be brought in a particular forum.  Although
this decision rested on a forum selection clause contained in a
deposit agreement, it suggests these or similar efforts to limit
the impact of the holding in Cyan ultimately might prove
successful. [GN]


DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Denies Campus Sexual Misconduct Charges
----------------------------------------------------------
Kirk Carapezza, writing for WGBH, reports that from her very first
day as a graduate student at Dartmouth, Sasha Brietzke thought that
things were "strange" in the school's psychology department. The
26-year-old recalled how the first question one of her mentors
asked was if she had a boyfriend.

"I encountered a lot of demeaning and sexualizing comments,
gendered harassment, throughout my first year," Ms. Brietzke said.

In March 2017, Ms. Brietzke attended an academic conference in Los
Angeles. One night, a group of students and researchers went to a
karaoke bar, where, she says, one of her professors showed up
drunk.

"He sat down and summoned me over to talk to him," she said. "I
went over, and he groped me and put me in his lap in front of a
roomful of people who I'd just met and who were instrumental for my
career, so I felt extremely humiliated and angry."

In November, Ms. Brietzke and six other women filed a federal class
action lawsuit in New Hampshire claiming three former tenured
psychology professors groped and harassed them. One of the
professors is accused of raping two students. They charged that
Dartmouth administrators knew for years about the department's
"Animal House" culture, but ignored several sexual misconduct
complaints for more than a decade.

Dartmouth has denied the charges and, in a statement, strongly
disagreed with the characterization of its response to the
allegations. All three professors have either retired or resigned.

The lawsuit comes as the Trump administration has proposed new
regulations on how colleges handle sexual misconduct claims.
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has said the draft rules, released
Nov. 6, enhance fairness by adding protections for the accused.
Advocates for survivors have condemned the move as a step backwards
because they narrow the definition of sexual harassment and require
colleges like Dartmouth to act only if the alleged misconduct
appears to be severe and also pervasive.

"What she's proposing is extremely dangerous and is going to
present huge new risk to women on campus, because now campuses are
going to be given this free reign to do nothing," said Wendy
Murphy, a professor at New England Law-Boston who has also
represented survivors of sexual assault in court.

While the proposed changes would affect how colleges handle sexual
assault cases, Murphy said she doesn't think they will have any
impact on the outcome of the Dartmouth case.

"You can't sue in court and win unless you show that the behavior
was severe and pervasive and interfered with your access to
education," Ms. Murphy said.

If finalized, the new rules would prohibit the use of a single
investigator to resolve sexual misconduct complaints. Instead,
colleges would be required to hold adversarial hearings.

Janet Halley, a Harvard Law School professor, has pushed for the
Education Department to revise Obama-era guidelines on how colleges
are to respond to sexual harassment and assault. In 2017, she and
other Harvard law professors urged the department to rescind a
letter that contained the guidelines.

"Students would be forced to be interviewed or show up to hearings
with no notice of what the charges against them were," said Ms.
Halley, who welcomes the proposed changes that give greater
protections to the accused.

"The fact that the Trump administration is proposing fairness is
one of the great paradoxes of our time," Ms. Halley said. "But
fairness is fairness. Notice, opportunity to be heard, the use of a
hearing so that both parties can hear the evidence in real-time
from each other and from the witnesses. These are traditional
advocacy points of the ACLU, of the left, of progressives."

Still, Ms. Halley called the proposed redefinition of sexual
harassment too narrow.

"It requires that the unwelcome conduct be severe and pervasive and
objectively offensive," she said. "The vast majority of Supreme
Court cases don't use that formula. They say severe or pervasive."

Ms. Brietzke said her harassment at Dartmouth was so pervasive that
she felt overwhelmed and didn't file a formal complaint until
nearly 30 other students reported sexual misconduct.

"It shouldn't take 27 people to have to come forward for some sort
of meaningful action to take place," Ms. Brietzke said. "The system
isn't set up for individual complaints to be taken seriously."

Ms. Brietzke, who worked in a research lab, said science is in
trouble if colleges don't deal better with sexual harassment and
assault.

"Women face so many kinds of headwinds in the STEM professions and
they're being driven out at a systematic level from the field," she
said.

At stake, Ms. Brietzke and her six co-plaintiffs argue, is
scientific discovery. [GN]


DELL TECHNOLOGIES: City of Pontiac Employee's Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dell Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended November 2, 2018, that the company continues
to defend a securities class action suit entitled, City of Pontiac
Employee Retirement System vs. Dell Inc. et. al.

On May 22, 2014, a securities class action seeking compensatory
damages was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned the City of Pontiac
Employee Retirement System vs. Dell Inc. et. al. (Case No.
1:14-cv-03644).  

The action names as defendants Dell Inc. and certain current and
former executive officers, and alleges that Dell made false and
misleading statements about Dell's business operations and products
between February 22, 2012 and May 22, 2012, which resulted in
artificially inflated stock prices.

The case was transferred to the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas, where the defendants filed a motion
to dismiss. On September 16, 2016, the Court denied the motion to
dismiss and the case is proceeding with discovery.

Dell Technologies said, "The defendants believe the claims asserted
are without merit and the risk of material loss is remote."

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

Dell Technologies Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, markets,
sells, and supports information technology (IT) products and
services worldwide. It operates through three segments: Client
Solutions Group (CSG), Infrastructure Solutions Group (ISG), and
VMware. The company was formerly known as Denali Holding Inc. and
changed its name to Dell Technologies Inc. in August 2016. Dell
Technologies Inc. was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Round
Rock, Texas.


DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Hallandale Beach Retirement Plan Sues D&Os
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dell Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended November 2, 2018, that the company's
directors have been named as defendants in a class action lawsuit
entitled, Hallandale Beach Police and Fire Retirement Plan v.
Michael Dell, et al.

On November 8, 2018, Hallandale Beach Police and Fire Retirement
Plan filed a putative stockholder class action lawsuit against the
company's directors and Michael S. Dell, a separate property trust
for the benefit of Mr. Dell's wife, investment funds affiliated
with Silver Lake Partners, and investment funds affiliated with MSD
Partners, L.P. in Delaware Chancery Court, alleging, among other
things, that the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary
duties to holders of the Class V Common Stock in connection with
the Class V transaction, because, among other things, the Class V
transaction is allegedly financially unfair and coercive to holders
of the Class V Common Stock and there were various conflicts of
interest (Hallandale Beach Police and Fire Retirement Plan v.
Michael Dell, et al., No. 2018-0816-JTL (Del. Ch. filed November 8,
2018)).

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, a judicial declaration that
that defendants breached their fiduciary duties and an award of
damages, fees and costs.

Dell Technologies Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, markets,
sells, and supports information technology (IT) products and
services worldwide. It operates through three segments: Client
Solutions Group (CSG), Infrastructure Solutions Group (ISG), and
VMware. The company was formerly known as Denali Holding Inc. and
changed its name to Dell Technologies Inc. in August 2016. Dell
Technologies Inc. was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Round
Rock, Texas.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Arbitration Ruling in Collins Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paula Xinis of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland denied the Plaintiffs' motion to alter the Court's
judgment compelling arbitration in the case, ASANTI T. COLLINS, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. DISCOVER FINANCIAL SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. PX-17-03011 (D. Md.).

Plaintiffs Collins and Bradley Clayton both have Discover Card
accounts.  They initially filed the suit as a class action
complaint in Montgomery County Circuit Court, alleging that various
practices of and among the Defendants when seeking to collect on
delinquent accounts are illegal under Maryland and federal consumer
protection laws, and that the Defendants violated certain other
applicable Maryland regulations.

The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief (Counts I and
II) and bring claims under various federal and state consumer
protection and licensing statutes (Counts III-IX), for unjust
enrichment (Count X), and for other ancillary relief (Count XI).
The Defendants removed the action to the Court based on federal
question jurisdiction.

The Defendants then moved to compel individual arbitration as
provided in the Plaintiffs' cardmember agreements.  In pertinent
part, the agreements include arbitration provisions that permit
either party to the agreement to elect to resolve any dispute
arising from the use of the Plaintiffs' Discover accounts through
binding arbitration.  The agreements also include a class action
waiver, a mechanism for either party to reject proceeding by
arbitration, a provision making clear that the Federal Arbitration
Act ("FAA") applies to any applicable arbitration proceedings and
that arbitration will proceed with the American Arbitration
Association ("AAA") or JAMS, in accordance with each institution's
respective rules.

The Plaintiffs opposed arbitration, arguing that the Court should
apply Maryland law rather than the FAA and find that the Defendants
waived the right to arbitrate by previously initiating collection
actions against the Plaintiffs in Maryland courts.  The Court was
left to decide whether the cardmember agreements that the
Plaintiffs signed, which expressly provided for arbitration in lieu
of litigation, required the Plaintiffs to submit to individual
arbitration under the FAA.

The Court analyzed the case under the FAA, found that the
cardmember agreements compelled individual arbitration and ordered
Plaintiffs to engage in arbitration in accordance with the
arbitration clauses in their agreements.  It declined to dismiss
the complaint, ordering instead that the case be stayed pending
arbitration.  The Plaintiffs thereafter timely moved for
reconsideration, arguing that the Court should have first
determined whether the claims raised by the Plaintiffs were within
the scope of the arbitration agreement.

Judge Xinis finds that where the agreements explicitly incorporate
JAMS or AAA rules, such provisions constitute clear and
unmistakable evidence of intent to arbitrate arbitrability.
Collins and Clayton agreed to just that.  The Plaintiffs' only
retort to the plain language of their arbitration provisions is
that the clauses do not reflect an intention to arbitrate
arbitrability because their cardmember agreements were not
commercial contracts between sophisticated parties.  The Judge is
not persuaded.

As a general principle, parties to a contract are to be bound by
its plain terms.  The cardmember agreements include AAA and JAMS
rules which clearly state that issues of arbitrability to be
determined by the arbitrator.  The Plaintiffs give no sound basis
for the Court to find that certain of the provisions in the
cardmember agreements are sufficiently plain to bind them, yet
others are not.  Accordingly, the Judge concludes that the
Plaintiffs have provided the Court no reason to find otherwise.
This determination is consistent with courts reaching similar
questions involving "unsophisticated" parties.

Finally, the Judge defers the question of scope to the arbitrator,
and expresses no opinion as to whether the claims brought by the
Plaintiffs have a "significant relationship" to the cardmember
agreements.

For these reasons, Judge Xinis denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 7, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/a6JuyB from Leagle.com.

Asanti T. Collins, Individually on Behalf of Themselves and all
Others Similarly Situated & Bradley Clayton, Individually on Behalf
of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Douglas Neil Gottron -- dgottron@morrispalerm.com --
Morris Palerm LLC & Terry Morris -- tmorris@morrispalerm.com --
Morris Palerm LLC.

Discover Financial Services, Discover Bank, Discovery Products,
Inc., Individually and as Successor by Merger Together with DB
Servicing Corporation & U.S. Bank National Association, As Trustee
for the Discover Card Master Trust I, Defendants, represented by
Jessica Hepburn Sadler -- sadlerjh@ballardspahr.com -- Ballard
Spahr LLP, John Darren Sadler -- sadlerj@ballardspahr.com --
Ballard Spahr LLP & Daniel McKenna, Ballard Spahr LLP, pro hac
vice.


DIVERSIFIED I: Puerta Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA PUERTA, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DIVERSIFIED I, INC., a Florida Profit
Corporation, and LAILA SABRY, individually Defendant, Case No.
6:18-cv-02091 (M.D. Fla., December 5, 2018) is an action against
the Defendant for unpaid overtime compensation, under the Fair
Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff was a "driver" and performed related activities for
Defendant in Orlando, Florida (Orange County). Plaintiff worked for
Defendant from approximately September 2017 to present. During
Plaintiff's employment, Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 per work
week during one or more work weeks. Specifically, Plaintiff would
work over 70 hours per week. However, Plaintiff was not paid
overtime compensation of one and a half times her regular rate of
pay per hour for overtime hours worked, notes the complaint.

Plaintiff was paid per vehicle delivered and not based on the
number of hours she worked. As a result, Plaintiff should have
received compensation at time and one half her calculated regular
rate of pay for all hours worked beyond the 40 hours per week.
Defendant's failure and/or refusal to properly compensate Plaintiff
at the rates and amounts required by the FLSA were willful, the
complaint asserts.

Plaintiff, MARIA PUERTA, was an employee of the Defendant within
the last 3 years for Defendant in Orlando, Florida (Orange
County).

DIVERSIFIED, is a private company which provides vehicle
transportation services throughout Florida.

SABRY is the acting manager and registered agent of Defendant
DIVERSIFIED.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
     The Leach Firm, P.A.
     1950 Lee Rd., Suite 213
     Winter Park, FL 32789
     Phone: (407) 574-4999
     Facsimile: (833) 423-5864
     Email: cleach@theleachfirm.com


DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces Gomez Class Suit in Penn.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dollar General
Corporation doing business as: Dollar General. The case is styled
as Fernando Gomez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Dollar General Corporation doing business
as: Dollar General and Dolgencorp, LLC doing business as: Dollar
General, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01624-PJP (W.D. Penn.,
December 5, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Dollar General Corporation is an American chain of variety stores
headquartered in Goodlettsville, Tennessee. As of July 2018, Dollar
General operates 15,000 stores in 45 of the 48 contiguous United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
   Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP
   1133 Penn Avenue
   5th Floor
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 322-9243
   Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com



EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Barnes Files Suit Over False Company Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------
Glen Barnes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Edison International, Southern California Edison
Company, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-09690 (C.D. Calif., November 16,
2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons
and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Edison securities
between February 23, 2016, and November 12, 2018, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against
the Company and certain of its top officials. The Plaintiff alleged
that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies.

The Plaintiff acquired Edison Securities during the Class Period.

Edison International supplies electricity primarily to residential,
commercial, industrial, agricultural, and other customers, as well
as public authorities through transmission and distribution
networks. Its transmission facilities consist of lines ranging from
33 kV to 500 kV and substations; and distribution system comprises
approximately 53,000 line miles of overhead lines, 38,000 line
miles of underground  lines, and 800 substations located in
California. The Company serves approximately 5 million customers.
The Defendant Edison International is a California corporation with
its principal executive offices located at 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue
(P.O. Box 976), Rosemead, California 91770. Edison International's
common stock trades in an efficient market on the New York Stock
Exchange under the ticker symbol "EIX."

The Individual Defendants are top officers of Edison International.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      468 North Camden Drive
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Tel: (818) 532-6499
      E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com


ELITE HOTELS: Honeywell Files Suit Under ADA in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elite Hotels, LLC.
The case is styled as Cheri Honeywell, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Elite Hotels, LLC
a Florida limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
0:18-cv-62930-RLR (S.D. Fla., December 3, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Elite Hospitality LLC was founded in 2008. The company's line of
business includes operating public hotels and motels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
   Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
   200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 282-1858
   Fax: (844) 786-3694
   Email: service@advocacypa.com


EMAN CORP: Inga Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------
Justo Enrique Inga, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Eman Corp., Mohammed El-Sloufi and Aiman
Goda, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-11039 (S.D. N.Y., November 27,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and unpaid
"spread of hours" premium pursuant to New York Labor Law and the
New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act.

In or about 2009, Defendants hired Plaintiff to work as a
non-exempt cook and porter at their restaurant, Big Arc Chicken. He
claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per week without being
paid overtime wages. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel. (212) 209-3933
      Fax. (212) 209-7102
      Email: info@jcpclaw.com


EXPEDITORS INC: Protective Order on Class Notice in Lewis Entered
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KIANI LEWIS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated and aggrieved, Plaintiff, v. EXPEDITORS, INC.,
EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL, EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL OF WASHINGTON,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02871-VAP-(PJWx) (C.D. Cal.),
Judge Aptrick J. Walsh of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Western Division, has issued an amended
stipulated protective order regarding notice to the putative
class.

The Plaintiff filed a class-action complaint in the Superior Court
of California, County of Los Angeles on Feb. 26, 2018.  The
Defendant filed a Notice of Removal of Civil Action on April 6,
2018, in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California.
The Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on May 4,
2018, and the Defendants answered on May 18, 2018.

The Parties agree that to ensure that third-parties' private
contact information is adequately protected, the Parties choose to
follow the notice process sanctioned by Central District of
California in York v. Starbucks Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92274,
*4-5, 2009 WL 3177605 (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2009).

Therefore, they stipulated that the protections of the Stipulation
and Order are in addition to the general protections the Parties
agreed to under the Parties' Stipulated Protective Order, entered
by the Court on Oct. 17, 2018.  The contact information for the
putative class is protected by the employees' right to privacy, and
it will be designated as "confidential" as defined by Paragraphs
4a. of the Parties' Protective Order before being produced to the
Plaintiff's Counsel.

At the outset of the Plaintiff's Counsel's (or their designees')
first contact with each current or former employee, the
Plaintiff's Counsel (or their designee) will inform each contacted
individual that (a) the individual has the right not to talk with
the Plaintiff's Counsel (or their designee) and (b) that, if he or
she elects not to talk to the Counsel (or their designee), the
Counsel (or their designee) will terminate the contact and not
contact them again.

They further stipulated that the Plaintiff's Counsel (or their
designee) will also inform each individual that his or her refusal
to speak with counsel will not prejudice his or her rights as a
putative class member should the Court certifies the class.  The
Plaintiff's Counsel (or their designee) will keep a list of all
individuals contacted and all individuals who make it known that
they do not want to be contacted and preserve that list for the
Court.  The contact information will be used only for the purposes
of the action, and it will not be disseminated to anyone who is not
necessary to the prosecution of the case.

A Party who seeks to file under seal any contact information for
the putative class will comply with Local Rule 79-5.  Said contact
information may only be filed under seal pursuant to a court order
authorizing the sealing of the specific contact information at
issue.  If a Party's request to file said contact information is
denied by the Court, then the Party may file the contact
information in the public record unless otherwise instructed by the
Court.

Upon review of the Parties' Stipulated Protective Order Regarding
Notice to the Putative Class and upon a finding of good cause,
Judge Walsh ordered that the foregoing Stipulated Protective Order
Regarding Notice to the Putative Class is approved and the Parties
are ordered to act in compliance therewith.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 7, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/UJDwrI from Leagle.com.

Kiani Lewis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
and aggrieved, Plaintiff, represented by Carney R. Shegerian --
cshegerian@shegerianlaw.com -- Shegerian and Associates Inc,
Anthony Nguyen -- anguyen@shegerianlaw.com -- Shegerian and
Associates Inc & Cheryl Ann Kenner, Shegerian and Associates Inc.

Expeditors, Inc., Defendant, represented by Helene J. Wasserman --
hwasserman@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC, Allan G. King,
Littler Mendelson PC, pro hac vice & Miranda Alona Mossavar --
mmossavar@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC.

Expeditors International, Defendant, represented by Helene J.
Wasserman , Littler Mendelson PC, Allan G. King, Littler Mendelson
PC, pro hac vice, Britney Noelle Torres -- btorres@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson PC & Miranda Alona Mossavar, Littler Mendelson
PC.

Expeditors International of Washington, Inc., Erroneously Sued As
Expeditors, Inc. Erroneously Sued As Expeditors International,
Defendant, represented by Allan G. King, Littler Mendelson PC, pro
hac vice, Britney Noelle Torres, Littler Mendelson PC, Helene J.
Wasserman, Littler Mendelson PC, Miranda Alona Mossavar, Littler
Mendelson PC & Tara L. Presnell -- tpresnell@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson PC.


EXPRESS MESSENGER: Arbitration Ruling in Ege Labor Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ABDIRIZAQ EGE, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS INC., DBA
OnTrac, a Delaware corporation and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-35123 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
dismissal of the Appellants' complaint in favor of arbitration.

On July 29, 2015, Appellant Ege filed a class action complaint
against Express Messenger, a transportation broker.  Ege asserted
state law claims for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages,
failure to provide rest and meal breaks, failure to timely pay
wages upon termination and willful refusal to pay wages on behalf
of a proposed class of current and former delivery drivers who
worked for OnTrac in Washington from July 29, 2012 to present.  The
complaint alleged that OnTrac intentionally misclassified Appellant
Ege and the putative class members as contractors rather than
employees, and failed to provide benefits such as overtime, meal
and rest breaks to which certain employees are entitled under state
law.  On July 8, 2016, Ege filed an Amended Complaint adding Farah
and Hassan as additional Plaintiffs.  OnTrac removed the matter to
federal court on July 28, 2016.

On Aug. 4, 2016, OnTrac filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the
Alternative to Stay Proceedings and Compel Arbitration.  OnTrac
asserted that the Appellants were required to submit their claims
to arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, because
OnTrac was a third-party beneficiary to the Owner/Operator
agreements between appellants and SCI, a third party administrator,
and the agreements contained arbitration provisions.

On Jan. 10, 2017, the district court granted OnTrac's Motion to
Dismiss.  It concluded that OnTrac was a third-party beneficiary to
the Owner/Operator agreements, the Appellants' claims were
arbitrable and arbitration was the proper forum in which to
adjudicate the claims.  The Appellants did not challenge the
validity of the Owner/Operator agreements in the district court.

The Appellate Court concludes that the Appellants' performance
under the agreements necessarily and directly benefitted OnTrac,
and therefore OnTrac was a third-party beneficiary.  As the
district court noted, the Appellants' work under the agreement --
delivering parcels -- was an integral part of OnTrac's business,
and the agreements obligated appellants to indemnify logistics
company customers, grant customers the right to subrogate claims
and notify customers within four hours of any accidents.

The Appellants argue for the first time on appeal that the
Owner/Operator agreements contain multiple substantively
unconscionable provisions.  The Appellate Court does not consider
the unconscionability arguments because they were not raised in the
district court.  It concludes that the district court properly
dismissed the Appellants' complaint in favor of arbitration.
Accordingly, the district court's dismissal of their complaint in
favor of arbitration is affirmed.  The Appellants' Motion to Stay
Appeal pending the Supreme Court's decision in New Prime, Inc. v.
Oliveira, No. 17-340, is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 7, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/BHY7Dw from Leagle.com.


FASHION INSTITUTE: Sullivan Files ADA Class Action in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fashion Institute of
Design & Merchandising. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan,
Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11248 (S.D. N.Y., December 3, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising is a for-profit
college in California. It offers courses in fashion, entertainment,
beauty, interior design, and graphic design. The college was
founded in 1969 by Tonian Hohberg, who is its president and
CEO.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Appeal in N.Y. Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2018, that the appeal in the
securities class action lawsuits filed in New York is ongoing.

Ferrellgas has been named, along with several current and former
officers, in several class action lawsuits alleging violations of
certain securities laws based on alleged materially false and
misleading statements in certain of the Company's public
disclosures.

The lawsuits, the first of which was filed on October 6, 2016 in
the Southern District of New York, seek unspecified compensatory
damages.

Derivative lawsuits with similar allegations have been filed naming
Ferrellgas and several current and former officers and directors as
defendants.

On April 2, 2018, the securities class action lawsuits were
dismissed with prejudice. On April 30, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit and the parties are preparing appellate briefs.  

Ferrellgas Partners said, "At this time the derivative lawsuits
remain stayed by agreement. Ferrellgas believes that it has
defenses and will vigorously defend these cases. Ferrellgas does
not believe loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time
related to the putative class action lawsuits or the derivative
actions."

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

Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. distributes and sells propane and related
equipment and supplies. The company transports propane to propane
distribution locations, tanks on customers' premises, or to
portable propane tanks delivered to retailers. Ferrellgas Partners,
L.P. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Overland Park,
Kansas.


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Consolidated Class Suit in Missouri Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend itself from a consolidated class action lawsuit in the
Western District of Missouri.

Ferrellgas has been named as a defendant, along with a competitor,
in putative class action lawsuits filed in multiple jurisdictions.
The lawsuits, which were consolidated in the Western District of
Missouri on October 16, 2014, allege that Ferrellgas and a
competitor coordinated in 2008 to reduce the fill level in barbeque
cylinders and combined to persuade a common customer to accept that
fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to direct
customers and end-user customers in violation of federal and
certain state antitrust laws.

The lawsuits seek treble damages, attorneys' fees, injunctive
relief and costs on behalf of the putative class.

These lawsuits have been consolidated into one case by a
multidistrict litigation panel. The Federal Court for the Western
District of Missouri initially dismissed all claims brought by
direct and indirect customers other than state law claims of
indirect customers under Wisconsin, Maine and Vermont law.

The direct customer plaintiffs filed an appeal, which resulted in a
reversal of the district court's dismissal.

The company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari which was
denied. An appeal by the indirect customer plaintiffs resulted in
the court of appeals affirming the dismissal of the federal claims
and remanding the case to the district court to decide whether to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claims.

Ferrellgas believes it has strong defenses to the claims and
intends to vigorously defend against the consolidated case.
Ferrellgas does not believe loss is probable or reasonably
estimable at this time related to the putative class action
lawsuit.

Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. distributes and sells propane and related
equipment and supplies. The company transports propane to propane
distribution locations, tanks on customers' premises, or to
portable propane tanks delivered to retailers. Ferrellgas Partners,
L.P. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Overland Park,
Kansas.


FGF BRANDS: Friend Sues Over Mislabeled Naan Products
-----------------------------------------------------
Emily Friend, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. FGF Brands (USA) Inc., and FGF Brands,
Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-07644 (N.D. Ill., November 16, 2018), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

The Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint against the
Defendants for their negligent, reckless, and intentional practice
of misrepresenting that several of their naan products sold
throughout the United States are baked in a tandoor oven, when in
reality they are not. The Plaintiff seeks both injunctive and
monetary relief on behalf of the proposed Classes, including
requiring full disclosure of the actual baking processes and ovens
used to bake their naan, correction of Defendants' marketing,
advertising, and labeling, and the restoration of monies to the
members of the proposed Classes.

The Plaintiff Emily Friend is, and at all times relevant hereto has
been, a citizen of the state of Illinois.  Plaintiff has routinely
purchased the Mislabeled Naan, including the Stonefire Original
Naan and Stonefire Original Mini naan, from several stores,
including Jewel and Mariano's.

The Defendant FGF Brands, Inc., is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its
principal place of business located at 16500 Collins Ave., Unit
952, Sunny Isles, FL 33160.  

The Defendant FGF Brands, Inc. is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of Ontario, Canada, with its principal
place of business located at 2600 Drew Road, Mississauga, Ontario
L4T 3m5.

The Defendants formulate, develop, manufacture, label, distribute,
market, advertise, and sell the Mislabeled Naan throughout the
United States, including in this District, beginning in 2005 and
continuing through present. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Katrina Carroll, Esq.
      Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
      Nicholas R. Lange, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      111 W. Washington Street, Ste 1240
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 750-1265
      E-mail: KCarroll@LiteDePalma.com
              KShamberg@LiteDePalma.com
              NLange@LiteDePalam.com

          - and -

      Richard R. Gordon, Esq.
      GORDON LAW OFFICES, LTD
      111 W. Washington Street, Ste 1240
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 332-5200
      E-mail: RRG@GordonLawChicago.com


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Taubenfliegel Sues Debt Collector Under FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Recovery
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Menachem Taubenfliegel and
Elizabeth Taubenfliegel, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated consumers, Plaintiffs v. Financial Recovery
Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06930 (E.D. N.Y.,
December 5, 2018).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to Fair Debt Collection Act.

Financial Recovery Services, Inc. provides debt collection services
to consumer creditors, finance companies, and debt buyers. It
serves bank and retail credit card, installment loan and DDA,
payday loans, purchased debt service contracts, and utility
markets. The company was founded in 1996 and is based in Edina,
Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
   Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
   735 Central Avenue
   Woodmere, NY 11598
   Tel: (516) 668-6945
   Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com



FLY JAMAICA: Faces Class Action Over Flight OJ256 Crash
-------------------------------------------------------
On November 23, 2018, Howie, Sacks & Henry LLP and Camp Fiorante
Matthews Mogerman LLP filed a Class Action lawsuit with the
Superior Court of Ontario against Fly Jamaica for injuries and
losses sustained on Flight OJ256 on November 9, 2018.

On November 9, 2018, Fly Jamaica Flight OJ256 left Guyana's Cheddi
Jagan International Airport headed for Toronto shortly after 1:00
am EST. The Boeing 757, carrying 84 Canadian passengers, was forced
to return to the airport 20 minutes into the flight after
experiencing hydraulic problems. The plane overshot the runway and
crash landed; several of the plane's tires blew out and its right
engine became dislodged from its wing as the plane came to a stop
metres from a deep embankment.

Passengers suffered a variety of injuries, and lost belongings that
were left on the plane after evacuating, such as jewellery, cash
and electronics. Passengers also had to reportedly arrange and pay
for their transportation home. The class action will seek to obtain
appropriate compensation for the damage caused to the passengers.

John and Tulsidai Somwar are the Representative Plaintiffs for the
Proposed Class Action.

"I am honoured to have the opportunity to work with Camp Fiorante
in representing this proposed class. We will hopefully be able to
assist this group of people in finding answers surrounding the
accident and help them recover their losses," says HSH partner Paul
Miller -- PMiller@hshlawyers.com.  "He was previously co-lead
counsel with Camp Fiorante for the victims of the 2005 Air France
crash at Toronto's Pearson airport; HSH associate Valerie Lord, a
passenger on that flight whose experience seeking compensation
prompted her interest in pursuing a legal career, are members of
our team who are pursuing this class action.

About Howie, Sacks & Henry LLP (HSH)

Formed in 2000, HSH -- http://www.hshlawyers.com-- is consistently
ranked as one of Canada's top personal injury law firms.  With a
mission to handle serious personal injury cases with compassion and
professionalism, HSH strives to ensure its clients receive adequate
compensation for their pain, suffering, damages and future needs.

HSH advances mass tort claims and class actions on behalf of people
injured by dangerous products, pharmaceuticals and medical devices,
representing their interests and advocates for their needs as they
fight for justice.

           About Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman LLP

With over 100 years collective experience, Camp Fiorante represents
victims or families of victims who have been seriously injured or
killed by product malfunctions, including complex products like
aircraft, or who have suffered loss or injury due to individual
negligence or systems failures. [GN]


FLYWHEEL SPORTS: Fantis Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
-------------------------------------------------------
Christie Fantis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Flywheel Sports, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-24934 (S.D. Fla., November 27, 2018), seeks to secure redress
for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, injunctive
relief and statutory damages.

Flywheel Sports is a company that provides stadium cycling and
precision training services. To promote its services, It engages in
unsolicited SMS marketing sent en masse. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


FOCUS FINANCIAL: Sued Over Abusive Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Weinberg, Successor-In-Interest to Decedent Jeanne
Weinberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Focus Financial Assn, LLC, and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-10157 (C.D. Cal., December 6, 2018) is a class action
against Defendant, under the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, both of
which were enacted to eliminate abusive debt collection practices
by debt collectors, and to prohibit debt collectors from engaging
in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the collection of
consumer debts.

This case arises as a result of false, deceptive, and unfair debt
collection practices promulgated nationwide by Defendant in its
collection letter campaigns wherein Defendant misrepresents
consumer and debtor rights.
The Defendant attempted to collect debts from Plaintiff and other
consumers and debtors by systematically sending them mail based
collection correspondence that overshadow the disclosure
requirements under Federal and State statutes and making material
misrepresentations that are inconsistent with the disclosure
requirements aforementioned in violation of the FDCPA, says the
complaint.

The Defendant's acts and omissions were intentional, and resulted
from Defendant's desire to mislead debtors and consumers into
making payments without apprising them of their rights under both
Federal and State laws, adds the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Ventura County, State of
California who is allegedly obligated to pay a debt, and from whom
a debt collector seeks to collect a consumer debt which is alleged
to be due and owing.

Defendant is a company that uses any instrumentality of interstate
commerce or the mails in its business, the principal purpose of
which is the collection of any debts; it also regularly collects or
attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or
asserted to be owed or due another.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FOH ONLINE CORP: Damiano Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
--------------------------------------------------------
Joanna Damiano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FOH Online Corp., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-03060 (E.D. Cal., November 27, 2018),
seeks actual and statutory damages, an injunction requiring
Defendant to cease all text messaging activity and to honor opt-out
requests, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such further and
other relief the Court deems reasonable and just under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

FOH is an online retailer of women's lingerie selling products
through its website www.fredericks.com. It also has a mobile
application that allows consumers to sign up for FOH text messages
and promotions and send text message en masse to thousands of
cellular telephone numbers throughout the United States. Plaintiff
expressly "opted-out" or requested not to receive text messages by
responding "STOP" or with similar commands.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rebecca Davis, Esq.
      Richard T. Drury, Esq.
      LOZEAU DRURY LLP
      410 12th Street, Suite 250
      Oakland, CA 94607
      Telephone: (510) 836-4200
      Facsimile: (510) 836-4205
      Email: richard@lozeaudrury.com
             rebecca@lozeaudrury.com


FULTON COUNTY, GA: Class Action Over Jail Release Policy Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has approved
class action status for a lawsuit challenging the release policy of
a jail in Atlanta.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported the ruling by U.S.
District Judge Michael L. Brown in November means others can join
the lawsuit challenging the Fulton County jail policy.

A number of people sued, saying they were held more than 24 hours
after they should have been released. The lawsuit says Fulton
County requires deputies to look up detainees in a state database
before they're released. The lawsuit says there is no state or
federal requirement for the checks.

The lawsuit says when the database was down several days in 2014,
the sheriff's office waited until the system was online before
releasing people.

Sheriff Ted Jackson's office wouldn't comment on the lawsuit. [GN]


GC SERVICES: Garita Files Suit Under FDCPA in New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Services Limited
Partnership. The case is styled as Ana Garita, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GC Services Limited
Partnership, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06866 (E.D. N.Y., December
3, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West
   12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: dan@cml.legal



GENERAL ASSEMBLY: Court Enters Final Judgment in Marin FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge S. James Otero of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California has issued final judgment in the case, JOHN
MARIN and KEYAN BAGHERI, individuals; on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL ASSEMBLY
SPACE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-CV-05449-SJO-KSx (C.D.
Cal.).

A Fairness Hearing was held on Nov. 26, 2018.  Having considered
the evidence submitted and argued by the Parties, and any
objections to the Settlement submitted, the Judge granted final
approval of the Settlement, and entered final judgment and order of
dismissal of the case.

He certified the Settlement Class in the Action defined as all
current and former instructors engaged by General Assembly Space
Inc. as independent contractor instructors, whether hired as a
business entity or as an individual, including without limitation
all immersive course instructors, part time course instructors,
classes and workshop instructors, and assistant or associate
instructors, in California from July 24, 2013, through the date
preliminary approval is granted, or June 30, 2018, whichever is
sooner.

The action is dismissed with prejudice, and without costs to any
party, except as provided for in the Settlement Agreement and in
the Final Judgment.

The Parties have so agreed, good cause appearing, and there being
no just reason for delay, Judge James expressly directed that the
Final Judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice be, and is,
entered as a final and appealable order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 4, 2018 Final Judgment is
available at https://is.gd/1sioh8 from Leagle.com.

John Marin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian S. Kabateck --
bsk@kbklawyers.com -- Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, Charles L.
Murray, III, Charles Murray Law Offices, Cheryl Ann Kenner --
ckenner@shegerianlaw.com -- Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP & Shant
Arthur Karnikian -- sk@kbklawyers.com -- Kabateck Brown Kellner
LLP.

Keyan Bagheri, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles L. Murray, III, Charles
Murray Law Offices, Cheryl Ann Kenner, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP,
Jamin Samuel Soderstrom -- jamin@soderstromlawfirm.com --
Soderstrom Law PC & Shant Arthur Karnikian, Kabateck Brown Kellner
LLP.

General Assembly Space, Inc., Defendant, represented by Consuelo
Beatrice Nunez-Bellamy -- beatricenunezbellamy@dwt.com -- Davis
Wright Tremaine LLP, Janet Lynn Grumer -- janetgrumer@dwt.com --
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP & Kathryn S. Rosen -- katierosen@dwt.com
-- David Wright Tremaine LLP.


GREENSTAR AGRICULTURAL: March 26 Claims Filing Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
IF YOU ACQUIRED SECURITIES OF GREENSTAR AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION
BETWEEN MAY 31, 2011 AND JUNE 3, 2014, Read this notice carefully
as it may affect your legal rights

On October 20, 2014, an action styled Partridge v GreenStar
Agricultural Corporation, et al was commenced in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice (Toronto Region) against GreenStar
Agricultural Corporation [TSXV Delisted: GRE, CUSIP: 39573T101,
ISIN: CA 39573T1012], certain of its former directors and executive
officers and its former auditor. The Plaintiff alleged that certain
disclosure and offering documents released by GRE on and after May
30, 2012 were materially misleading. The Plaintiff alleged this
resulted in damage to GRE shareholders who acquired GRE securities
during the period from and including May 31, 2011 to and including
the cessation of trading in GRE common shares on June 3, 2014 (the
"Class Period", "Class Members" and the "Action").

A settlement of the Action with G. Michael Newman, Brian J. Knebel,
Francesco Galati, Michael Lam and Schwartz Levitsky Feldman LLP
("Settling Defendants" and "Settlement") has been approved by the
Court (the "Settlement"). The Settlement resolves the Action
entirely, including as against GRE and its director and CEO, Guan
Lianyun, who did not defend the Action. The Settlement provides for
settlement funds of $500,000.00 (CDN), to be paid for the benefit
of the Class Members before deductions for legal fees and expenses
to administer the Settlement. The Settlement is a compromise of
disputed claims and is not an admission of liability, wrongdoing or
fault on the part of the Settling Defendants, all of whom have
denied and continue to deny the allegations made against them in
the Action.

If you acquired GRE common shares during the Class Period, you may
be eligible for compensation. In order to recover any such
compensation, you must submit an electronic or paper claim to
Analytics Consulting LLC no later than March 26, 2019.

NOTE: If you do not timely submit a claim, you will not be entitled
to any compensation; and, unless you have previously opted out, you
will not be entitled to pursue any other action in respect of those
claims.

For more information about the Settlement, your rights and how to
exercise them, including how to make a claim, please contact the
Claims Administrator at:

         GreenStar Securities Settlement
         c/o Analytics Consulting LLC
         P.O. Box 2002
         Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317-2002
         USA
         Website: https://www.collectiveaction.io/greenstar/
         Email: GreenstarLitigation@noticeadministrator.com

For more information about the Settlement please also consult the
long-form notice or contact Class Counsel at:

         Siskinds LLP
         Nicholas Baker
         680 Waterloo Street
         London Ontario N6A 3V8
         Tel:  1-800-461-6166 x7868
         nicholas.baker@siskinds.com   
         www.siskinds.com and www.classaction.ca [GN]


H&R BLOCK: Faces Class Action Over No-Poach Agreements
------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg Law reports that H&R Block Inc. suppressed employee wages
and restricted worker mobility by forcing no-poach agreements on
its franchisees and company-owned stores, a new class action
complaint alleges.

The tax preparation giant is accused of requiring its franchisees
to sign agreements blocking them from soliciting employees of H&R
Block or any of its franchises. The company allegedly follows a
parallel policy in its company-owned stores. These no-poach
agreements inhibit competition, restrict employee movement, and
depress wages in violation of federal antitrust laws, according to
the Nov. 23 lawsuit.

The specialized nature of H&R Block's business -- which requires
thousands of seasonal workers who've undergone extensive,
company-specific training—should lead to a "robust" competition
for qualified workers, the lawsuit claims. Instead, the company's
anticompetitive conduct kept wages low: H&R Block's seasonal tax
preparers earn, on average, $10.86 per hour, while the Bureau of
Labor Statistics lists an average hourly wage of $22.67 for tax
preparers, according to the lawsuit.

The complaint follows a July 2018 announcement by 11 state
attorneys general into no-poach agreements in fast-food industry
franchise contracts. "Within days" of this announcement, H&R Block
announced that it would stop including and enforcing no-poach
agreements in its franchise contracts, the complaint alleges.

H&R Block employed more than 70,000 workers at the height of 2018
tax season, with franchise locations employing as many as 30,000
more, according to the complaint. The proposed class contains tens
of thousands of members, the lawsuit alleges.

An H&R Block spokeswoman said the company is reviewing the
complaint and doesn't comment on pending litigation.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri by Paul LLP and Hartley LLP.

The case is Ramsey v. H&R Block, Inc., W.D. Mo., No.
4:18-cv-00933-ODS, complaint 11/23/18. [GN]


HARRY'S NURSES: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Orders in Gayle Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Harry Dorvilien and Harry's Nurses Registry filed an
appeal from the District Court's orders dated September 30, 2018,
and November 6, 2018, issued in the lawsuit titled Gayle, et al. v.
Harry's Nurses Registry, et al., Case No. 07-cv-4672, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Gayle, et al. v. Harry's Nurses
Registry, et al., Case No. 18-3472, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Defendants-Appellants Harry's Nurses Registry and Harry Dorvilien,
of Jamaica, New York, appear pro se.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Claudia Gayle, Individually, On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated and as Class Representative, et al., are
represented by:

          Jonathan Adam Bernstein, Esq.
          LEVY DAVIS & MAHER LLP
          39 Broadway
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 371-0033
          E-mail: jbernstein@levydavis.com


HASTINGS COLLEGE: Sullivan Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hastings College. The
case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hastings College,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11249 (S.D. N.Y., December 3, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Hastings College is a private, church-related, residential liberal
arts college in Hastings, Nebraska.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HAYES BEER: Ill. App. Affirms Reversal of Byrne Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael B. Hyman of the Appellate Court of Illinois for the
First District, Second Division, affirmed the circuit court's order
(i) reversing the Illinois Department of Labor's dismissal of the
case, JAMES BYRNE, on Behalf of Himself and All Employees of Hayes
Beer Distribution Company, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. HAYES BEER
DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 1-17-2612 (Ill.
App.), and (ii) remanding for additional proceedings.

Hayes supplies beer and other beverages to retail stores.  It
adopted a policy of deducting money from its delivery drivers'
Commissions for beer that stayed on the shelf too long and became
stale.  Byrne, a delivery driver, filed a complaint with the
Illinois Department of Labor arguing that Hayes's "stale beer"
policy violates section 9 of the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act, which requires that employees agree to any wage
deductions in writing at the time the deduction is made.

Hayes and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Union No. 703
entered into a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") covering
delivery drivers.   Article 12 of the CBA describes the drivers'
commission pay structure.  Hayes says its policy of deducting
commission for stale beer is a reasonable measure to comply with
the Illinois Liquor Control Commission regulations, which are
intended to ensure "the health, safety, and welfare of the People
of the State of Illinois."  It also contends stale beer deductions
are rare and average between 1 to 2% of a driver's gross wages,
with an average charge of $15 per case.

According to Hayes, drivers are aware of the amounts deducted, and
the CBA contains a grievance procedure should an employee not agree
with the deduction policy or a deduction.  Nothing in the CBA
directly addresses adjustments for stale beer, and nothing in the
record shows that Byrne or other drivers consented to Hayes
deducting money from their pay for the cost of the stale beer.
Hayes does not claim that drivers signed a valid assignment or wage
deduction order or otherwise voluntarily consented to the pay
deductions.

The Department notified Hayes it had received a complaint that
Hayes was not complying with the Minimum Wage Law and that the
Department would be investigating Hayes' pay practices.  The
complaint, which had been filed by Teamsters Local No. 703, alleged
that Hayes' deductions from drivers' commissions, especially the
deduction for stale beer, often resulted in hourly income for
drivers of less than that required by the Minimum Wage Law.

Thereafter, the Department notified Hayes' attorney it had
transferred the investigation to the wage claim specialist in the
Fair Labor Standards Division.  About a week later, Byrne, a
delivery driver for Hayes, filed a separate claim with the
Department on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees,
alleging Hayes's practice of deducting money from employees' pay
for stale beer violated section 9 of the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act, which requires employees agree to a wage deduction
in writing at the time of the deduction.

A notice of noncompliance with the Minimum Wage Law ordered Hayes
to pay $64,451.65 in wages, the stale beer deductions.  Hayes
requested a review arguing (i) it paid drivers covered by the audit
above the minimum wage, even after stale beer deductions, (ii) the
motor vehicle exemption of the Minimum Wage Law exempts its
drivers, and (iii) section 301 of the LMRA preempts application of
the Minimum Wage Law to the deduction practice.

An administrative law judge's order held Hayes had not violated the
Minimum Wage Law and dismissed the investigation, making Hayes'
request for review moot.  The order stated, however, that the
question of whether Hayes may make deductions for stale beer, which
contains a unionized atmosphere and is governed by a collective
bargaining agreement remained open and would move forward under the
Wage Act.

The Department then dismissed Byrne's Wage Act claim, finding that
the Department did not have jurisdiction to determine whether
drivers gave a voluntary deduction because doing so would require
interpreting the CBA, thereby intruding into an area preempted by
section 301 of the federal Labor Management Relations Act
("LMRA").

Byrne filed a complaint for administrative review of the
Department's dismissal of his claim, which the circuit court
granted, remanding for further proceedings before the Department.
The court acknowledged the principle stated in Atchley v. Heritage
Cable Vision Associates, that Section 301 preempts claims directly
founded on or substantially dependent on analysis of a
collective-bargaining agreement.  The court concluded that it is
plainly not such a case.  It also observed that even if it was to
interpret the CBA, it could not ignore the employees' alleged
statutory right to consent to pay deductions.  The claim is not
founded upon the parties' collective bargaining agreement, and the
same needs not be interpreted to resolve the matter.  

Hayes filed a petition for leave to file an interlocutory appeal
under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(6).  It argues (i) that
Byrne's wage claim does not require interpretation of the CBA, and
(ii) that the Illinois law allows employees to contract around the
no-deduction provision in the Wage Act.

Judge Hyman agrees with the circuit court.  He finds that the CBA
describes the drivers' duties to rotate product to maintain
freshness but does not describe how that provision will be enforced
and whether Hayes can deduct from drivers' compensation for stale
beer.  In short, because Byrne's claim arises under section 9 of
the Wage Act and nothing in the CBA addresses the consequences of
failing to rotate the beer, there is nothing requiring
interpretation of the CBA.

He also finds that the CBA does not expressly permit Hayes to make
deductions for stale beer, and the language of section 9 of the
Wage Act, unlike the language of the One Day Rest in Seven Act, is
mandatory, not permissive.  Moreover, courts have generally held
that parties to a labor agreement may not contract for something
that is illegal under state law.  He notes that, although the
parties could not have contracted around the requirements of the
Wage Act, they could have included a provision in the CBA detailing
procedures for handling stale beer.  

The Judge holds that CBA provides that drivers must rotate the beer
to ensure freshness but fails to specify the consequences, if any,
if the beer goes stale.  The parties could have negotiated
penalties for drivers for failing to timely remove stale beer from
shelves, and that provision could have been made part of the CBA.
Instead, Hayes unilaterally adopted a policy of deducting wages
without the driver's written consent in violation of section 9 of
the Wage Act.

For these reasons, Judge Hyman affirmed the circuit court's
decision to reverse the Department's dismissal and remanded for
further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 4, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/aZzdL1 from Leagle.com.


I3 VERTICALS: Settlement in Expert Auto Suits Receives No Objection
-------------------------------------------------------------------
i3 Verticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, that no class member opted
out or filed an objection to the settlement in the Expert Auto
Litigation, before the deadline.

On June 14, 2016, Expert Auto Repair, Inc., for itself and on
behalf of a class of additional plaintiffs, and Jeff Straight
initiated a class action lawsuit against the Company, as alleged
successor to Merchant Processing Solutions, LLC, in the Los Angeles
County Superior Court of California, seeking damages, restitution
and declaratory and injunctive relief (the "Expert Auto
Litigation").

The plaintiffs alleged that Merchant Processing Solutions, LLC, the
Company's alleged predecessor, engaged in unfair business practices
in the merchant services sector including unfairly inducing
merchants to obtain credit and debit card processing services and
thereafter assessing them with improper fees.

Subject to final court approval, the Company has entered into a
settlement agreement to settle the plaintiffs' claims for $995. On
April 10, 2018, the Court granted conditional class certification
and preliminary approval of the agreed settlement and scheduled the
final fairness hearing and final approval of the settlement in
December 2018.

Notice was provided to all class members and they were given an
opportunity to either file a claim, opt-out, file an objection or
do nothing (in which case they would be included in the class
settlement). The deadline for class members to take one of these
four actions was November 8, 2018. No class member opted out or
filed an objection to the settlement before that deadline.

i3 Verticals said, "The reserved amount is reflected in accrued
expenses and other current liabilities as of September 30, 2018.
The amount was included in general and administrative expenses in
the consolidated statement of operations for the year ended
September 30, 2017."

i3 Verticals, Inc. provides integrated payment and software
solutions to small- and medium-sized businesses and organizations
in education, non-profit, public sector, property management, and
healthcare markets in the United States. The company was founded in
2012 and is headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee.


IDG COMMUNICATIONS: Sullivan Suit Asserts ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
IDG Communications, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IDG Communications, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11254 (S.D. N.Y., December 3, 2018).

IDG Communications Inc. is a technology media company, that engages
in print and online publishing. The company was founded in 1967 and
is based in Framingham, Massachusetts. IDG Communications Inc.
operates as a subsidiary of International Data Group Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IDT CORP: Appeal in JDS1 LLC Class Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
IDT Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2018, that thr appeal in the
consolidated class action initiated by JDS1, LLC, is still
pending.

On July 31, 2013, the Company completed a pro rata distribution of
the common stock of the Company's subsidiary Straight Path
Communications Inc. ("Straight Path") to the Company's stockholders
of record as of the close of business on July 25, 2013 (the
"Straight Path Spin-Off").

On July 5, 2017, plaintiff JDS1, LLC, on behalf of itself and all
other similarly situated stockholders of Straight Path, and
derivatively on behalf of Straight Path as nominal defendant, filed
a putative class action and derivative complaint in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, The Patrick
Henry Trust (a trust formed by Howard S. Jonas that held record and
beneficial ownership of certain shares of Straight Path he formerly
held), Howard S. Jonas, and each of Straight Path's directors.

The complaint alleges that the Company aided and abetted Straight
Path Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Davidi
Jonas, and Howard S. Jonas in his capacity as controlling
stockholder of Straight Path, in breaching their fiduciary duties
to Straight Path in connection with the settlement of claims
between Straight Path and the Company related to potential
indemnification claims concerning Straight Path's obligations under
the Consent Decree it entered into with the FCC, as well as the
sale of Straight Path's subsidiary Straight Path IP Group, Inc. to
the Company in connection with that settlement.

That action was consolidated with a similar action that was
initiated by The Arbitrage Fund. The Plaintiffs are seeking, among
other things, (i) a declaration that the action may be maintained
as a class action or in the alternative, that demand on the
Straight Path Board is excused; (ii) that the term sheet is
invalid; (iii) awarding damages for the unfair price stockholders
received in the merger between Straight Path and Verizon
Communications Inc. for their shares of Straight Path's Class B
common stock; and (iv) ordering Howard S. Jonas, Davidi Jonas, and
the Company to disgorge any profits for the benefit of the class
Plaintiffs. On August 28, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint.

On September 24, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On November 20, 2017, the Delaware Chancery
Court issued an order staying the case pending the closing of the
transaction between Verizon and Straight Path on the grounds that
the claims were not ripe. That transaction closed on February 28,
2018 and the Court was so notified. The motion to dismiss was
denied.

On July 13, 2018, the Company filed a motion for an interlocutory
appeal with the Delaware Chancery Court. The Chancery Court granted
the motion and the Delaware Supreme Court accepted the appeal. On
September 5, 2018, the Company filed the appeal with the Delaware
Supreme Court. On October 5, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed their
Answering Brief to the appeal.

IDT  said, "In the three months ended October 31, 2018 and 2017,
the Company incurred legal fees of $0.2 million and $0.8 million,
respectively, related to this putative class action, which is
included in "Other operating expense" in the accompanying
consolidated statements of operations. At this stage, the Company
is unable to estimate its potential liability, if any."

IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and
payment industries in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and
net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT Corporation was
founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


IDT CORP: Bid to Dismiss Dennis Class Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------
IDT Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2018, that the motion to dismiss
the putative class action suit filed by Erik Dennis has been
denied.

On May 21, 2018, Erik Dennis filed a putative class action against
IDT Telecom and the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia alleging violations of Do Not Call
Regulations promulgated by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. The
Company is evaluating the claim, and at this stage, is unable to
estimate its potential liability, if any.

On August 13, 2018, IDT Telecom and the Company filed a motion to
dismiss or in the alternative to strike class allegations. The
plaintiff opposed the motion. The motion to dismiss was denied.

IDT Telecom and the Company intend to vigorously defend this
matter.

IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and
payment industries in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and
net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT Corporation was
founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


INFILAW CORP: Plaintiffs Challenge Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Karen Sloan, writing for Law.com, reports that a proposed class
action settlement between the owner of the now-closed Charlotte
School of Law and former students is facing sharp opposition from
some plaintiffs who say defendant InfiLaw Corp. hasn't offered
enough financial evidence to justify a relatively low $2.65 million
settlement amount.

Judge Graham Mullen of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina preliminarily approved the settlement in
September, but the objectors claim that attorneys representing the
settling plaintiffs merely took InfiLaw at its word that its
coffers have largely been depleted and that very little money
remains from its insurance policy with which to pay former
students, who claim they were misled about Charlotte's
accreditation status with the American Bar Association.

"The point is that we don't know anything for sure," said Kyle
Nutt, an attorney with Wilmington, North Carolina, firm Shipman &
Wright who is representing 24 former Charlotte students who are
objecting to the settlement. "Their CFO submitted an affidavit that
said, 'We can't pay more than $150,000 and we have the depleted
remains of this insurance policy -- that's all we can ever pay. And
here are some financials to support that.' The forensic accountant
looked at those financials and said, 'They don't establish what you
said they establish.'"

In a memorandum of opposition filed on Nov. 26, the 24 objectors
represented by Nutt asked the court to deny final approval of the
settlement. Nov. 26 was the deadline for opponents to file notice
with the court.

Anthony Majestro, among the attorneys representing the settling
plaintiffs, did not respond to requests for comment on the mounting
opposition on Nov. 27. But he said in an interview in September
that although the settlement amount is low and cannot make the
estimated 2,500 class members whole, it's the best opposition
because prolonged litigation will further deplete the InfiLaw's
remaining insurance funds. David Mills -- dmills@cooley.com -- an
attorney with Cooley who is representing InfiLaw, did not respond
to requests for comment on Nov. 27.

If approved, the settlement would end four federal suits and 90
state court suits brought against the school by former Charlotte
students who claim they should have been informed that the school
had run afoul of the ABA's accreditation standards back in 2014.
The school's accreditation woes weren't disclosed publicly until
the fall of 2016 when the ABA put the school on probation. Shortly
thereafter, the U.S. Department of Education booted the for-profit
law school from the federal student loan program, and Charlotte
eventually closed in August of 2017.

InfiLaw and several firms representing the student plaintiffs met
for a settlement conference in April, but Mr. Nutt's memorandum
claims his group of plaintiffs were excluded from further
conversations after they raised concerns about the
constitutionality of the proposal, which must meet strict
requirements because the so-called "limited fund" settlement does
not allow class members to opt out and bring their own actions
against InfiLaw.

The objecting plaintiffs allege that not only has there been no due
diligence on the amount of financial resources that remain at
InfiLaw -- attorneys for the settling plaintiffs have taken no
depositions, they note -- but that the proposed class is over
inclusive. It includes students who attended Charlotte as far back
as 2013. (The objectors represented by Nutt attended in the
school's final year of operations.)

"Here, there are students who attended [Charlotte] both before and
after the first finding that [Charlotte] was officially out of
compliance with ABA Standards," the memorandum reads. "Many of the
class members were able to graduate, pass the bar, and obtain
gainful employment; others transferred with a substantial amount of
their earned credits intact. The question of damages is thus not as
simple or broad as merely identifying the total tuition paid during
the relevant period as Defendants have suggested."

Under the proposal, InfiLaw would contribute $150,000 to the
settlement fund, with another $2.5 million from its insurance
policy. That's far less than the estimated $105 million needed to
repay a single year of tuition for the 2,500 class members,
according to the settlement motion. InfiLaw would also pay a
portion of any proceeds from its three pending lawsuits against the
ABA brought on behalf of its schools—Charlotte; Arizona Summit
Law School; and Florida Coastal School of Law.

But even that provision is problematic, according to the objectors,
because it would allow InfiLaw to use any lawsuit proceeds to first
settle other liabilities before contributing to the settlement
fund.

"The Supreme Court has made it clear that these mandatory, non-opt
out settlements in a class action context are rare and have to be
very closely scrutinized because they implicate the constitutional
rights of class members to a right to trial by jury and due
process," Mr. Nutt said. "We don't believe that what has been
presented satisfies what the Supreme Court indicates what must be
satisfied in a case like this." [GN]


IVARI: Court Says Reasonable to Seek Direct Notice Program
----------------------------------------------------------
Law Times reports that in the case Fantl v. ivari (2018), 2018
CarswellOnt 11870, 2018 ONSC 4443, Perell J. (Ont. S.C.J.), it was
reasonable to seek direct notice program in national class action
where substantial number of class members resided outside Ontario
Defendant was successor to insurance and investment company that
was subject of proposed national class action in Ontario. Action
involved two distinct and discrete claims, with one relating to
management fee overcharges, and other relating to alleged
underperformance of particular insurance investment fund. Action
was settled in relation to management fee claim, and certification
was granted for underperformance claim. Parties agreed about
content of notice to class members, but defendant was not satisfied
with proposed notice program for sending notice to class members.
Parties made submissions on notice program requirements. More
robust notice program proposed by defendant was approved, with cost
of program to be shared one-third by plaintiff and two-thirds by
defendant. Notice program was to involve: (a) direct mail notice to
class members based on list of class members provided by defendant;
(b) bad-address resolution protocol; (c) posting of notice or link
to notice on class counsel's website; (d) posting of notice or link
to notice on defendant's website; and (e) class counsel issuing
press release about certification of action and indicating that
formal notice was available through its website. Plaintiff's notice
program would have been adequate for purpose of giving class
members notice of right to opt out, but defendant's concern was
whether courts in other provinces would recognize Ontario judgment
if notice program was not more robust. It was reasonable for
defendant to seek direct notice program in national class action
where substantial number of class members resided outside Ontario.
Since defendant was predominant beneficiary of robust notice
program at this juncture, it should bear greater proportion of
costs of notice program. [GN]


JANSSEN RESEARCH: Haugen Sues Over Xarelto Side Effects
-------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Haugen, individually and on behalf of the estate of Howard
Haugen, deceased Plaintiff, v. Janssen Research & Development LLC
(f/k/a Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development
LLC), Johnson and Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (f/k/a
Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc. and Ortho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.), Janssen Ortho LLC, Bayer Healthcare
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bayer Pharma AG (f/k/a Bayer Schering Pharma
AG), Bayer Corporation, Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer Healthcare AG,
Bayer AG and John Does 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-11587 (E.D.
La., November 27, 2018), seeks to recover damages with interest,
costs and attorney's fees as well as all such other relief
resulting from negligence, breach of express and implied warranty,
fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment,
negligent misrepresentation and for violation of the Colorado
Consumer Protection Laws.

Xarelto (rivaroxaban) is an anti-coagulant primarily used to reduce
the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation, to treat deep vein thrombosis and
to treat pulmonary embolisms. The Janssen Group is the holder of
the approved New Drug Application for Xarelto (R) while Johnson and
Johnson and Bayer were engaged in the business of designing,
developing, manufacturing, testing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, distributing, labeling, and/or selling Xarelto.

Howard Haugen experienced bleeding while on Xarelto and on November
27, 2016 was hospitalized for gastrointestinal bleed and was
transfused with packed red blood cells. He suffered bleeding as a
direct result of his ingestion of Xarelto, says the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
      Timothy E. Jackson, Esq.
      WEXLER WALLACE LLP
      55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
      Chicago, Illinois 60603
      Tel: 312-346-2222
      Fax: 312-346-0022


JOE MACHENS: Mo. App. Flips Arbitration Bid Denial in Fogelsong
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TINA AND PAUL FOGELSONG, ET AL., Respondents, v. JOE
MACHENS AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., ET AL., Appellants, Case No.
WD81202 (Mo. App.), Judge Gary D. Witt of the Court of Appeals of
Missouri for the Western District reversed the Circuit Court of
Boone County, Missouri's denial of Joe Machens' Motion to Stay
Proceedings and Compel Arbitration.

On Nov. 3, 2015, Tina and Paul Fogelsong, Patrick Bonnot, and Carol
Benna, filed a class action suit against Joe Machens alleging that
Joe Machens fraudulently sold to the Plaintiffs vehicles marketed
as "brand new."  But, the Plaintiffs allege that their vehicles had
previously sustained hail damage which Joe Machens fixed but did
not disclose prior to sale.

Joe Machens moved to compel arbitration and stay the action pending
the outcome of arbitration.  Its Motion alleged that the Plaintiffs
had agreed to binding arbitration in conjunction with their vehicle
purchases.  At the time of purchase, each of the Plaintiffs entered
into a "Retail Buyers Order" which contained an agreement to
arbitrate any dispute arising out of or related to the purchase of
their vehicle.

The Retail Buyers Orders signed by the Plaintiffs required the
parties to sign twice.  Additionally, they were required to sign a
separate box containing the Arbitration Agreement itself.

The parties conducted limited discovery on the Motion.  On Aug. 31,
2017, the circuit court held a hearing on the Motion.  It, on Oct.
17, 2017, denied Joe Machens's Motion finding that the Arbitration
Agreements were unconscionable.  The circuit court found that the
Arbitration Agreements were unenforceable because they were
unconscionable.

The appeal followed.  Joe Machens raises three allegations of error
on appeal.  In its first point on appeal, it alleges that the
circuit court erred in denying its Motion because the Arbitration
Agreements delegate the question of arbitrability to the
arbitrator.  It contends that the Court needs not decide whether
the circuit court was correct in its finding of unconscionability
because, under Missouri law as it currently exists, the Arbitration
Agreements reserve that threshold question for determination by an
arbitrator.  This issue was not presented to the circuit court.
Thus, Judge Witt must address whether such a claim is properly
before the Court before he can address the merits of the argument.

The Judge is persuaded that it would be unfair to Joe Machens to
hold that it waived its right to argue that the Arbitration
Agreements contained a valid delegation provision by reference to
the AAA rules when such an argument was directly contrary to the
law as it existed at the time of the proceedings.  Joe Machens
should be given the benefit of the new avenue of defense created by
State ex rel. Pinkerton v. Fahnestock.  This is the rare case in
which, during the course of the pendency of the appeal, the
applicable law was not just clarified or distinguished, but the law
actually changed to such an extent that the Supreme Court expressly
overruled the existing cases upon which a party had relied in
making its arguments below.

Granting to Joe Machens the right to now argue application of the
delegation provision should not, however, come at the cost of the
Plaintiffs being foreclosed from responding to any arguments raised
by Joe Machens and bringing any additional challenges to such a
provision.  Even if there is a delegation provision contained in an
arbitration agreement, the Court may still decide any challenges
raised to the validity of that provision before ordering the
proceedings stayed pending arbitration.  Thus, the Judge holds that
the case must be remanded to give both parties an equal opportunity
to argue the validity of the delegation provision to the circuit
court following the Supreme Court's recent decision in Pinkerton.

Given the disposition of Point I, the Judge holds he needs not
address Joe Machens's Points II and III.  The case presents the
rare situation in which the law fundamentally changed following the
circuit court's ruling and the Court's opinion on appeal.  While
the circuit court may not have erred at the time it denied Joe
Machens' Motion, under these circumstances, the Judge finds that he
cannot allow an erroneous interpretation of the law to stand
despite the argument not being raised before the lower court.  He
also cannot allow the Plaintiffs to be unfairly prejudiced by not
allowing an opportunity to challenge the validity of the newly
incorporated provision under Pinkerton.

For these reasons, Judge Witt reversed and remanded the case to
give all parties the opportunity to litigate the applicability of
the delegation provision post Pinkerton and to give the trial court
full opportunity to consider and rule on such arguments.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 4, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/EBV9Gl from Leagle.com.

Blake Green -- blake.greene@dechert.com -- North Kansas City, MO,
for respondents.

T. Michael Ward -- mward@bjpc.com -- St. Louis, MO, for
appellants.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over Opioid-related Insurance Coverage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Enriquez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Johnson & Johnson, Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Actavis Pharma, Inc., Actavis, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. CAM-L-004584-18 (N.J. Super. Ct., Camden Cty.,
December 6, 2018) seeks to hold Defendants accountable for the
economic harm they have imposed on New Jersey purchasers of private
health insurance.

According to the complaint, Defendants manufacture, market, and
sell prescription opioids, which are powerful, highly addictive
narcotic painkillers. The Defendants have engaged in a cunning and
deceptive marketing scheme to encourage doctors and patients to use
opioids to treat chronic pain. In doing so, the Defendants falsely
minimized the risks of opioids, overstated their benefits, and
generated far more opioid prescriptions than there should have
been.

The complaint asserts that Defendants knew that their
misrepresentations about the risks and benefits of opioids were not
supported by, and sometimes were directly contrary to, the
scientific evidence. Certain opioid manufacturers, including Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Purdue Pharma L.P., have entered
agreements prohibiting them from making misrepresentations
identified in this Complaint in other jurisdictions. Nonetheless,
the Defendants continue to misrepresent the risks and benefits of
long term opioid use in New Jersey, and they have not corrected
their past misrepresentations. The Defendants' false and misleading
statements deceived doctors and patients about the risks and
benefits of opioids and convinced them that opioids were not only
appropriate, but necessary to treat chronic pain. Defendants'
conduct has fueled skyrocketing opioid addiction and opioid-related
deaths and emergency treatments, and has generated huge sales of
opioids at inflated prices.

The direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' misconduct is
that every New Jersey purchaser of private health insurance paid
higher premiums, co-payments, and deductibles, notes the complaint.
Insurance companies have considerable market power and pass onto
their insureds the expected cost of future care -- including
opioid-related coverage. Accordingly, insurance companies factored
in the unwarranted and exorbitant healthcare costs of
opioid-related coverage caused by Defendants and charged that back
to insureds in the form of higher premiums, deductibles, and
co-payments, the complaint asserts.

Plaintiff, Matthew Enriquez, is a natural person and resident and
citizen of the State of New Jersey, residing at 476 Covered Bridge
Road, Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08034.

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with
its principal place of business in New Jersey and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. Defendant Johnson & Johnson is a
New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in New
Jersey.

Actavis Pharma, Inc. (f/k/a Actavis, Inc.) is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey, and
was formerly known as Watson Pharma, Inc. Actavis LLC is a Delaware
limited liability company with its principal place of business in
New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kyle N. Thompson, Esq.
     Joshua M. Neuman, Esq.
     KILCOYNE & NESBITT, LLC
     925 Harvest Drive, Suite 200
     Blue Bell, PA 19422
     Phone: 610.825.2833
     Fax: 610.825.3222
     Email: kthompson@kilcoynelaw.com
            jneuman@kilcoynelaw.com

          - and -

     William S. Consovoy, Esq.
     Thomas R. McCarthy, Esq.
     CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC
     3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700
     Arlington, VA 22201
     Phone: 703.243.9423
     Email: will@consovoymccarthy.com
            tom@consovoymccarthy.com

          - and -

     Michael H. Park, Esq.
     CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC
     745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
     New York, NY 10151
     Phone: 212.247.8006
     Email: park@consovoymccarthy.com

          - and -

     Ashley Keller, Esq.
     Travis Lenkner, Esq.
     Seth Meyer, Esq.
     KELLER LENKNER LLC
     150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 5100
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone: 312.506.5641
     Email: ack@kellerlenkner.com
            tdl@kellerlenkner.com
            sam@kellerlenkner.com


KESOKI PAINTING: Limonta Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Limonta, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C
206(B), Plaintiff, v. Kesoki Painting, LLC, a Florida Corporation,
Monica Patricia Verduci, individually, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-10157 (S.D. Fla., December 6, 2018) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid overtime wage compensation, as well as an
additional amount as liquidated damages, costs and reasonable
attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff routinely worked for Kesoki Painting from Monday through
Friday, and over 40 regular hours a week. Specifically, Plaintiff
worked an average of 8 hours of overtime per week. Notwithstanding,
Kesoki Painting willfully and intentionally failed/refused to pay
to Plaintiff the federally required overtime rate for the overtime
hours he worked, asserts the complaint.

The Defendants knew of the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and yet it willfully, intentionally, and recklessly
failed to investigate whether their payroll practices were in
accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.  As a result,
Plaintiff has suffered damages and is entitled to receive overtime
compensation, says the complaint.

Plaintiff regularly utilized and handled materials, equipment and
goods manufactured and purchased from outside the state of Florida
and regularly used the instrumentalities of interstate commerce in
their world. Limonta, is sui juris and a resident of Miami County,
Florida.

Kesoki is, and was, a Florida corporation, authorized to conduct
and conducting business in Miami County, Florida.

Verduci is sui juris and a resident of Miami County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Monica Espino, Esq.
     Espino Law
     2655 S. Le Jeune Road, Suite 802
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: 305.704.3172
     Fax: 305.722.7378
     Email: me@espino-law.com
     Secondary: legal@espino-law.com


KIRKLAND'S INC: Continues to Defend Miles Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Kirkland's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended November 3, 2018, that the Court in Miles v.
Kirkland's Stores, Inc., has issued a notice of intent to issue a
scheduling order on January 10, 2019.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a putative class
action filed in May 2018 in the Superior Court of California, Miles
v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc.

The case has been removed to Federal Court, Central District of
California, and trial is not yet set.

The complaint alleges, on behalf of Miles and all other hourly
Kirkland's employees in California, various wage and hour
violations. Kirkland's denies the material allegations in the
complaint and believes that its employment policies are generally
compliant with California law.

The parties have tentatively agreed to an early mediation with
minimal exchange of discovery. To date, the parties have exchanged
the court mandated initial disclosures, and the Court has issued a
notice of intent to issue a scheduling order on January 10, 2019.

The Company believes the case is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against the allegations.

Kirkland's, Inc. operates as a specialty retailer of home décor in
the United States. The company's stores provide various
merchandise, including holiday decor, framed arts, furniture,
ornamental wall decor, fragrance and accessories, mirrors, lamps,
decorative accessories, textiles, housewares, gifts, artificial
floral products, frames, clocks, and outdoor living items.
Kirkland's, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is based in Brentwood,
Tennessee.


KIRKLAND'S INC: Still Awaits 3rd Cir. Decision in Kamal v. J. Crew
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirkland's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended November 3, 2018, that the company still
awaits the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit in a class action appeal.

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
filed in April 2017 in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, Gennock v. Kirkland's, Inc. Kamal
v. J. Crew Group, Inc.  The complaint alleges that the Company, in
violation of federal law, published more than the last five digits
of a credit or debit card number on customers' receipts. The
Company denies the material allegations of the complaint.

On January 9, 2018, the District Court denied the Company's motion
to dismiss the matter. On January 31, 2018, the Court granted the
Company's motion to stay the proceedings in its case pending the
Third Circuit's decision in Kamal v. J. Crew Group, Inc., No.
17-2345 (3d. Cir.).

The J. Crew case presents the exact same standing issues as the
Company's case, but in J. Crew the defendant was granted its motion
to dismiss at the trial court level. On appeal, the Third Circuit
heard oral argument in the J. Crew case on February 8, 2018, and a
decision is expected this year.

The Company continues to believe that the case is without merit and
intends to continue to vigorously defend itself against the
allegations.

The matter is covered by insurance, and the Company does not
believe that the case will have a material adverse effect on its
consolidated financial condition, operating results or cash flows.

Kirkland's, Inc. operates as a specialty retailer of home decor in
the United States. The company's stores provide various
merchandise, including holiday decor, framed arts, furniture,
ornamental wall decor, fragrance and accessories, mirrors, lamps,
decorative accessories, textiles, housewares, gifts, artificial
floral products, frames, clocks, and outdoor living items.
Kirkland's, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is based in Brentwood,
Tennessee.


LA JOLLA: Failed to Properly Pay Signature Gatherers, Wilson Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MOSANTHONY WILSON and NANCY URSCHEL, individuals, on behalf of
aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act
("PAGA") v. THE LA JOLLA GROUP, a California Corporation; and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 37-2018-00059999-CU-OE-CTL (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., November 28, 2018), alleges that La
Jolla fails to pay the Plaintiffs and other signature gatherers
proper minimum wage and overtime compensation because it classifies
them as independent contractors, not employees.

The La Jolla Group is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the state of California.  The true names and capacities
of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiffs.

La Jolla is a for-profit petition drive management firm.  The usual
course of its business is collecting signatures from registered
voters so a proposed initiative can qualify for placement on the
election ballot.

To accomplish this task, La Jolla hires "signature gatherers,"
which it classifies as independent contractors.  These signature
gatherers are paid for each valid signature they collect.  The
amount they are paid depends on the initiative they are gathering
signatures for.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          R. Rex Parris, Esq.
          Kitty K. Szeto, Esq.
          John M. Bickford, Esq.
          Ryan A. Crist, Esq.
          PARRIS LAW FIRM
          43364 10th Street West
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Telephone: (661)949-2595
          Facsimile: (661)949-7524
          E-mail: rparris@parrislawyers.com
                  kszeto@parrislawyers.com
                  jbickford@parrislawyers.com
                  rcrist@parrislawyers.com


LA OFICINA: Rosa Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Rosa, Eduardo Romero Barron, and Doniqua Essamond Phinazee, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. La Oficina Of Queens, Inc., Heavens Entertainment, Inc., Angels
of the World Inc., George Stoupas, and Gus "Doe" Last name being
fictitious and unknown, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06915 (E.D.
N.Y., December 5, 2018) seeks to bring this suit to recover minimum
wages, overtime compensation, and liquidated damages from
Defendants under the applicable provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants are involved in the adult entertainment industry in
that they own and operate three gentlemen's clubs in Queens, New
York. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as either
entertainers, bartenders, and busboys.

The Defendants are liable under the FLSA for, inter alia, failing
to properly compensate the Plaintiff and the putative FLSA
Collective Members. Consistent with Defendants' policy and pattern
or practice, the Plaintiffs and the Collective Members have not
been paid the proper statutory minimum wage for all hours worked up
to 40 in a given week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are adult individuals who are residents of New York.
At all times herein pertinent, and in the course of their duties,
the Plaintiffs regularly handled products which had been moved in
commerce.

Stoupas and Gus jointly own and operate the Corporate Defendants as
a single integrated enterprise.

La Oficina was and is a domestic business corporation whose
principal place of business is located at 39-20 104 Street, Corona,
New York 11368.

Heavens was and is a domestic business corporation whose principal
place of business is located at 28-26 Steinway Street, Astoria, New
York 11103.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Amit Kumar, Esq
     39th 108 West, Street, Suite 602
     New York, NY 10018
     Phone: (212)583-7400
     Email: AKumar@.Cafaroesg.com


LIBERTY TAX: Class Action Parties Fail to Reach Accord
------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Tax, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2018, that a mediation has taken
place in the case entitled, In Re Liberty Tax, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 27 CV 07327, but did not result in a
resolution.

Rose Mauro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Liberty Tax, Inc., Edward L. Brunot, John T. Hewitt,
and Kathleen E. Donovan, filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York on January 12, 2018, Case No.
18 CV 245.

Plaintiff filed a securities class action asserting violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants and a
second count for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the individual defendants.

According to the complaint, throughout the class period, the
Company allegedly issued materially false and misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Hewitt created an inappropriate
tone at the top; (2) the inappropriate tone at the top led to
ineffective entity level controls over the organization; and (3) as
a result, defendants' statements about the operations and prospects
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.

Patrick Beland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated vs. Liberty Tax, Inc., Edward L. Brunot, John T. Hewitt,
and Kathleen E. Donovan, filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York on December 15, 2017, case
number 17 CV 7327.

Plaintiff filed a securities class action asserting violations of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all
defendants and a second count for violations of Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act against the individual defendants.

According to the complaint, throughout the class period, the
Company allegedly issued materially false and misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Hewitt created an inappropriate
tone at the top; (2) the inappropriate tone at the top led to
ineffective entity level controls over the organization; and (3) as
a result, defendants' statements about the business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

These actions were consolidated with the caption In Re Liberty Tax,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 27 CV 07327 and IBEW Local 98
Pension Fund was appointed the Lead Plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff").

On June 12, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed its Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint, which removed Brunot as a defendant, and
added additional securities claim based on Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rules 14a-3 and 14a-9.

The Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, among other
things, asserts that the Company's SEC filings over a multi-year
period failed to disclose the alleged misconduct of the individual
defendants and that disclosure of the alleged misconduct caused the
Company's stock price to drop and, thereby harm the purported class
of shareholders.

The Class Period is alleged to be October 1, 2013 through February
23, 2018. The defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on September 17, 2018.
Lead Plaintiff served their opposition on November 1, 2018 and the
defendants filed their reply brief on November 27, 2018.  Mediation
took place on November 12, 2018 but did not result in a
resolution.

Liberty Tax, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides tax
preparation services in the United States and Canada. The company
also facilitates refund-based tax settlement financial products,
such as refund transfer products and personal income tax refund
discounting, as well as provides an online digital Do-It-Yourself
tax program in the United States. The company was formerly known as
JTH Holding, Inc. and changed its name to Liberty Tax, Inc. in July
2014. Liberty Tax, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in
Virginia Beach, Virginia.


LMB MORTGAGE: Sued by Pickett for Illegally Sending Advertisement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMBER PICKETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LMB MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., d/b/a LOWERMYBILLS.COM,
Case No. 2:18-cv-09946 (C.D. Cal., November 28, 2018), arises from
the illegal actions of LMB in transmitting SMS text message
advertisements to the Plaintiff's cellular device and the cellular
devices of millions of others across the country, without "prior
express written consent" within the meaning of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

LMB Mortgage Services, Inc., doing business as LowerMyBills.com, is
a loan marketing and computerized matching company headquartered in
Los Angeles, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          David W. Hall, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 766-3534
          Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
                  dhall@hedinhall.com


LTD FINANCIAL: 11th Cir. Affirms Judgment in Baez FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LIZNELIA BAEZ, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES,
L.P., a Texas Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 17-13842
(11th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of Baez.

Baez received a letter from LTD concerning credit-card debt that
had been referred to LTD for collection. The letter explained, in
part, that the law limits how long she can be sued on a debt and
that because of the age of her account, she will not be sued.  But
the letter also made an offer to settle the debt for a reduced
amount if Baez made a series of partial payments pursuant to a
payment plan.  Attached to the letter was a payment coupon that the
recipient was to include with any partial payment made on her
account.

Baez brought a class-action suit alleging violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  In her complaint, she
claimed that under Florida law, paying even a small amount on a
time-barred debt could 'revive' the debt such that LTD could sue
for the entire balance.  Because LTD's collection letter failed to
disclose that fact, Baez's theory went, the letter was misleading,
unfair, and deceptive such that it ran afoul of the FDCPA.

The trouble arose when, in her complaint, Baez seemed to conflate
the two statutory provisions and assert that a partial payment,
without more, could revive a time-barred debt.  That's not quite
right, as LTD points out.  Even so, the record shows that LTD had
timely notice, before trial began, both of the fact that Baez was
proceeding under Section 95.04 and of Baez's theory of the case.
Furthermore, LTD has to this date been unable to point to any
prejudice that it suffered as a result of Baez's inartful
pleading.

When the district court denied LTD's pretrial motion for
reconsideration of its order converting LTD's motion for judgment
on the pleadings to a motion for summary judgment, the court held
that Baez made a clear and consistent enunciation of her legal
theory of liability from the beginning of her case under Section
95.04, notwithstanding her complaint's mistaken reference to a case
under Section 95.051.

In denying LTD's reconsideration motion, the district court noted
that Section 95.04 underlay Baez's case and that both parties had
relied on a line of Section 95.04 cases in their arguments at
summary judgment.  Addressing the same argument that the Appellate
Court is now confronted with -- that Baez was traveling under an
incorrect legal theory -- the court concluded that LTD's position
was "untenable" and declined to enter summary judgment in its favor
due to Baez's singular mis-citation of legal authority.

LTD asks the Court to reverse a jury verdict rendered in favor of
Baez.  In essence, it contends that Baez's legal theory did not
match the Florida law that underlay her federal FDCPA claim.

First, the Appellate Court finds that the district court did not
err when it denied LTD's motion for judgment on the pleadings, nor
did it err when it converted that motion into a motion for summary
judgment.  Second, the district court did not err by giving the
jury an accurate statement of Florida law in a jury instruction.
Third, the district court also did not err in denying LTD's Rule 50
motion.  Finally, LTD presents a number of contentions under the
class-certification umbrella which the Court cannot say that the
district court abused its discretion in certifying the class.

In sum, the Court finds no basis for upsetting the jury's verdict.
LTD had timely notice of both the applicable law and Baez's legal
theory of the case, and it cannot point to any prejudice that it
suffered as a result of any supposed mismatch between the
applicable law and Baez's theory.  It therefore affirmed the
judgment of the district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 7, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/eeHomT from Leagle.com.

Janet R. Varnell -- jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Brian W. Warwick -- bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Dale Thomas Golden -- dgolden@gsgfirm.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.

Michael Tierney -- michael@tierneylaw.us -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Joseph C. Proulx -- jproulx@gsgfirm.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.

David Kevin Lietz -- dlietz@varnellandwarwick.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Still Defends Gathmann-Landini Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
lululemon athletica inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended October 28, 2018, that the company continues
to defend itself against a class action suit entitled, Rebecca
Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA inc.

On October 9, 2015, certain current and former hourly employees of
the Company filed a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of
New York entitled Rebecca Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA
inc.

On December 2, 2015, the case was moved to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The lawsuit
alleges that the Company violated various New York labor codes by
failing to pay all earned wages, including overtime compensation.
The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.

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

lululemon athletica inc., an athletic apparel company, together
with its subsidiaries, designs, distributes, and retails athletic
apparel and accessories for women, men, and female youth. It
operates through two segments, Company-Operated Stores and Direct
to Consumer.  lululemon athletica inc. was founded in 1998 and is
based in Vancouver, Canada.


LVMH MOET HENNESSY: Faces Nixon ADA Class Action in NY
------------------------------------------------------
LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc. is facing a class action
lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is styled as Donald Nixon, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06891 (E.D. N.Y., December 4,
2018).

LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc. manufactures and markets
luxury goods such as perfumes, jewelry, and leather goods. LVMH
Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc. was incorporated in 1980 and is
based in New York, New York. LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc.
operates as a subsidiary of LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton
S.E.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
   Shalom Law, PLLC.
   124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
   Kew Gardens, NY 11374
   Tel: (718) 971-9474
   Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Oakes Sues Over Stolen Personal info
------------------------------------------------------------
Luther B. Oakes, M.D., individually and as representatives of the
class, Plaintiff, v. Marriott International Inc., and Starwoods
Hotel and Resorts Worldwide, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
8:18-cv-03738-GLS (D. Md., December 4, 2018) seeks redress
individually, and on behalf of those similarly-situated, for the
injuries that he and class members sustained as a result of the
defendants' negligent and intentional violations of law.

This case is about one of the largest data security breaches in
history, affecting millions of consumers who have booked hotel
reservations with the defendants, Marriott and Starwood. As a
result of this breach, plaintiff Oakes and the class members whose
personal information was not safeguarded now face substantial risk
of further injury from identity theft, credit and reputational
injury, false tax claims, or even extortion, says the complaint.

The data security breach, which was ongoing over a period of
four-years, disclosed the personal information of approximately 500
million hotel guests from Starwood's guest reservation database.
The information stolen in the breach includes names, mailing
addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, passport numbers,
Starwood Preferred Guest account information, dates of birth,
gender, arrival and departure information, reservation dates, and
communication preferences. For some, the information also included
payment card numbers and payment card expiration dates.

As a result of the defendants' failure to protect its guests'
sensitive information, Plaintiff Oakes and class members have been
exposed to fraud, identity theft, and financial harm, and are
subject to a heightened, imminent risk of such harm in the future,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff Oakes is a Mississippi citizen residing in Washington
County, Mississippi. His personal information was compromised in
the data breach after providing it to the defendants in connection
with hotel stays at Marriott/Starwood properties.

Marriott is a global lodging and hospitality company with more than
6,700 properties across 130 countries and territories, reporting
revenues greater than $22 billion in fiscal year 2017. Marriott
maintains hotel brands including Marriott, Courtyard, Fairfield,
and Ritz-Carlton, among others. Marriott is incorporated in
Delaware, with its principal place of business in Bethesda,
Maryland.

Starwood was acquired by Marriott in September 2016, and is
Marriott's subsidiary. Starwood hotel brands include W, St. Regis,
Sheraton, and Westin, among others. The Marriott-Starwood
acquisition created the world's largest hotel conglomerate.
Starwood is incorporated in Maryland, with its principal place of
business in Stamford, Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher T. Nace, Esq.
     PAULSON & NACE, PLLC
     1025 Thomas Jefferson St. NW, Suite 810
     Washington, DC 20007
     Phone: (202) 851-9899
     Fax: (202) 223-6824
     Email: ctnace@paulsonandnace.com

          - and -

     W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
     Archie I. Grubb, II, Esq.
     AndrewW E. Brashier, Esq.
     Leslie L. Pescia, Esq.
     BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
     218 Commerce Street
     Montgomery, AL 36104
     Phone: (334) 269-2343
     Fax: (334) 954-7555
     Email: Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
            Archie.Grubb@BeasleyAllen.com
            Andrew.Brashier@BeasleyAllen.com
            Leslie.Pescia@BeasleyAllen.com

          - and -

     C.W. "Bill" Walker, III, Esq.
     C.W. Walker III, LLC
     512 Main Street
     Greenville, MS 38702
     Phone: (662) 580-0070
     Fax: (662) 550-4773
     Email: bill@bill-walker.com


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Reynolds Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert G. Reynolds, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Marriott International, Inc., Defendant
Case No. 8:18-cv-03746-GJH (D. Md., December 5, 2018) is an action
against Marriott for failure to secure and safeguard Plaintiff's
information including the names, birthdates, addresses, locations,
email addresses, payment card information and passport information,
including passport numbers, collectively referred to herein as
Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") that Marriott required
customers to provide when they made reservations, checked-in to
hotels, used one of its loyalty programs, or made purchases at
dining or retail operations within its hotels. Marriott also failed
to adequately notify Plaintiffs and Class members in a timely
manner that their PII had been stolen.

On November 30, 2018, Marriott announced that it had experienced a
data breach due to a flaw in Marriott's reservation system and
database systems dating back to 2014, which allowed hackers to
access the guest reservation system and steal the PII of 500
million guests. For approximately 327 million of these guests, the
information includes some combination of 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 communication
preferences. For some, the information also includes payment card
numbers and payment card expiration dates.

The risk of a data breach was reasonably foreseeable given that
numerous other hotel chains in the hospitality industry, including
Starwood on a previous occasion, have been the targets of data
breaches. However, Marriott failed to take adequate and reasonable
measures to secure customer PII collected in transactions and
stored on its databases, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Robert G. Reynolds is a resident and citizen of
Pennsylvania. Plaintiff Reynolds has been a member of the Starwood
Preferred Guest Program and stayed at Marriott properties and
hotels for at least the last four years, entrusting Marriott with
and aggregating PII for this time period.

Marriott, Inc., is a corporation with its principal executive
offices located at 10400 Fernwood Rd, Bethesda, Maryland 20817
(Montgomery County).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Timothy F. Maloney, Esq.
     Steven M. Pavsner, Esq.
     JOSEPH GREENWALD &LAAKE, PA
     6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
     Greenbelt, MD 20770
     Phone: 240-553-1211
     Fax: 240-553-1735
     Email: spavsner@jgllaw.com

          - and –

     Gary E. Mason, Esq.
     WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
     5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
     Washington, DC 20016
     Phone: 202-640-1168
     Fax: 202-429-2294
     Email: Gmason@wbmllp.com

          - and –

     Jonathan Shub, Esq.
     Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
     KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
     1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: 215-238-1700
     Email: jshub@kohnswift.com
            klaukaitis@kohnswift.com

          - and –

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

          - and –

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



MATSU CORP: Zhu Moves for Class Certification and Notification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled GUI ZHEN ZHU, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. MATSU CORP d/b/a Matsu,
MATSU GRILL CO. LLC d/b/a Matsuri, KIMMING MARTY CHENG, and ZIQIAO
CAO a/k/a Michael Cao, Case No. 3:18-cv-00203-CSH (D. Conn.), moves
the Court for an order:

   (1) certifying this action as a class action pursuant to
       Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

   (2) appointing Plaintiff Gui Zhen Zhu as class representative;

   (3) appointing Troy Law, PLLC, as class counsel; and

   (4) permitting the Plaintiff to circulate a class action
       notice to the class members by the method(s) laid out in
       the Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Gary Phelan, Esq.
          MITCHELL & SHEAHAN, P.C.
          80 Ferry Boulevard, Suite 216
          Stratford, CT 06615
          Telephone: (203) 873-0240
          E-mail: gphelan@mitchellandsheahan.com


MDL 2741: Calkins Suit v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled DENNIS CALKINS and MARY CALKINS,
the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-01828 (Filed Oct. 26, 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-07318-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 Calkins 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
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MDL 2741: Monares Suit v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled ALFRED MONARES, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01865 (Filed Oct. 31,
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-07319-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 Monares 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. vCarnduff, 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: Potter Suit v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled CATHERINE POTTER, the Plaintiffs,
v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01870 (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-07320-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 Potter 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. vCarnduff, 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


MENARD INC: Class in Astarita FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALBERT J. ASTARITA, DIANA M. OWENS, Plaintiffs, v.
MENARD, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:17-06151-CV-RK (W.D. Mo.),
Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri. St. Joseph Division, granted Owens'
Amended Motion for Conditional Certification of Class Claims Under
29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

Owens brings the collective action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") alleging that, pursuant to its company-wide policies
and procedures, Menard failed to pay her and other similarly
situated employees overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a
single workweek.  She challenges an unpaid training policy and
procedure that Menard applied to all hourly, non-exempt employees
who worked at its home improvement stores nationwide.
Specifically, Menard failed to pay its employees for the time they
spent participating in Menard's In-Home Training Program.  Owens
further alleges that Menard acted in willful violation of the FLSA.


Owens seeks conditional certification of the class within the
three-year period preceding a ruling on the Motion defined as all
persons currently and formerly employed by Menard in hourly
positions within the United States who participated in Menard's
In-Home Training Program at any time during the last three years.

Judge Ketchmark finds that at this stage of the litigation, Owens
has established a colorable basis for her claim that the putative
class members were the victims of a single decision, policy, or
plan by Menard.  Specifically, Owens' allegations and evidence
indicate Menard may have implemented an unpaid training policy that
uniformly results in certain hourly employees being paid for fewer
hours than actually worked in violation of the FLSA.

Therefore, the Judge conditionally certified the collective, under
29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), of all present and former hourly
employees who worked or are working at Menard's retail home
improvement stores and/or distribution centers throughout the
United States at any time from Dec. 21, 2014 to the present, and
participated in the In-Home Training Program without compensation,
who worked 40 or more hours per workweek including any time spent
in in-home training, and whose employment agreement does not
contain a class or collective action waiver.

Owens is appointed as the class representative and her counsel,
McClelland Law Firm, as the class counsel.  

Within three days of the Order, Menard will provide Owens with the
last known contact information for each member of the approximately
12,837 putative class members in a Microsoft Excel document.  This
list is identical to the list provided to the class counsel in
Griffith, et al. v. Menard, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-02074, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Western Division.

Within 21 days of the Order, the Notice of Collective Action and
Consent Form shall be mailed via first-class mail to all putative
class members by Analytics Consulting, LLC, a third-party class
action administrator retained by Owens' counsel.

Finally, all Consent Forms must be returned by putative class
members pursuant to the Notice of Collective Action within 45 days
of the mailing date in order for them to participate in the
action.


MERCHANT FUNDING: Fabricant Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Merchant Funding Solutions, LLC, and Does 1 through 10,
Case No. 2:18-cv-09681 (C.D. Calif., November 16, 2018), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is seeking damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting
the Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the
TCPA and related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call
provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

The Plaintiff, Terry Fabricant, is a natural person residing in Los
Angeles, California.

The Defendant Merchant Funding Solutions, LLC is a small business
loan company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      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
      Tel: (323) 306-4234
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
              abacon@toddflaw.com
              mgeorge@toddflaw.com
              twheeler@toddflaw.com


MEREDITH CORP: Nixon Files Suit under ADA in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Meredith Corp. The
case is styled as Donald Nixon, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Meredith Corp., Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-06917 (E.D. N.Y., December 5, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Meredith Corporation is a diversified media company primarily
focuses on publishing and broadcasting. The Company's publishing
segment includes magazine and book publishing, marketing,
interactive media, licensing, and other related operations.
Meredith operates network-affiliated television stations and
develops syndicated television programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
   Shalom Law, PLLC.
   124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
   Kew Gardens, NY 11374
   Tel: (718) 971-9474
   Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


MGM RESORTS: Settlement in Hanson EFTA Suit Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID HANSON, individually and on behalf of the
settlement class, Plaintiff, v. MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, a
Delaware corporation, and COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01661 RAJ (W.D. Wash.),
Judge Richard A. Jones of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, granted (i) the Plaintiff's Motion
and Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Reasonable
Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Incentive Award, and (ii) the
Plaintiff's Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

The Judge confirmed certification, for purposes of settlement only,
of the Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3), defined as all individuals in the United States who, from
Oct. 24, 2010 to the date of Preliminary Approval of the
settlement, purchased an MGM Gift Card and were assessed an
inactivity fee that was deducted from the balance of funds
remaining on the Gift Card.

He finally approved the Settlement in all respects, and the Parties
and their counsel are directed to implement and consummate the
Settlement Agreement according to its terms and provisions.  The
Settlement Agreement is incorporated into the Final Judgment in
full and will have the full force of an Order of the Court.

The Judge dismissed the Litigation, as identified in the Settlement
Agreement, on the merits and with prejudice.  He adjudged that the
payment of $37,500 in attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of
$1,666.53 is fair and reasonable.  He further adjudged that the
payment of an incentive award in the amount of $5,000. to Mr.
Hanson to compensate him for his efforts and commitment on behalf
of the Settlement Class is fair, reasonable, and justified under
the circumstances of the case.  Such payments will be made pursuant
to and in the manner provided by the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.

Except as otherwise set forth in the Order, the Parties will bear
their own costs and attorneys' fees.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 4, 2018 Final Judgment Order
is available at https://is.gd/8aaIM5 from Leagle.com.

David Hanson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eve-Lynn Rapp --
erapp@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice.

David Hanson, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Arnold Bay --
kbay@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, Kim D. Stephens --
kstephens@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS & Stewart R.
Pollock -- spollock@riker.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice.

MGM Resorts International, a Delaware corporation & Costco
Wholesale Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Defendants,
represented by Aravind Swaminathan -- aswaminathan@orrick.com --
ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP & Melanie D. Phillips --
mphillips@orrick.com -- ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP.


MOBILOIL FEDERAL: Whittington Appeals Order in Overdraft Fee Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jillian L. Whittington filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Jillian Whittington v. Mobiloil
Federal Credit Union, Case No. 1:16-CV-482, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that Mobiloil Federal Credit Union manipulates transactions
to "fleece" members of millions of dollars in overdraft fees.

Mobiloil is a financial institution with more than 40,000 members
and assets of $575 Million as of 2015.  Mobiloil promotes itself as
"Not for Profit, Not for Charity, but for Service," and provides
this purported Service "by the latest technology."  The lawsuit
alleges that Mobiloil has used a corruption of such "latest
technology" to fleece thousands of loyal customers out of millions
of dollars through illicit Overdraft Fees.

The appellate case is captioned as Jillian Whittington v. Mobiloil
Federal Credit Union, Case No. 18-41101, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JILLIAN L. WHITTINGTON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          William Craft Hughes, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, L.L.P.
          2700 Post Oak Boulevard
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 322-6387
          E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com
                  craft@hughesellzey.com

Defendant-Appellee MOBILOIL FEDERAL CREDIT UNION is represented
by:

          Andrew J. Demko, Esq.
          Stuart M. Richter, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN, L.L.P.
          2029 Centru Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 788-4400
          E-mail: andrew.demko@kattenlaw.com
                  stuart.richter@kattenlaw.com

               - and -

          Emily Lauren Rochy, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN, L.L.P.
          1301 McKinney Street
          Houston, TX 77001
          Telephone: (713) 270-3446
          E-mail: emily.rochy@kattenlaw.com


MOMENTA PHARMA: Court Narrows Claims in Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THE HOSPITAL AUTHORTIY OF METOPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF
NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, d/b/a NASHVILLE GENERAL
HOSPITAL and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICPAL
EMPLOYEES DISTRICT COUNCIL 37 HEALTH & SECURITY PLAN, Plaintiffs,
v. MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and SANDOZ INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:15-cv-01100 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. of
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee,
Nashville Division, (i) granted Momenta and Sandoz's Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2);
(ii) denied their Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and (iii) granted in part and denied in
part their Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Nashville General Hospital ("NGH") is a metropolitan charity
hospital that purchases certain drugs it administers, including the
generic anticoagulant enoxaparin.  American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health &
Security Plan is a non-profit health and welfare benefit plan
covering public sector employees, retirees and their families.  The
Plaintiffs allege that they have, and will continue to, indirectly
purchase and/or provide reimbursement for Lovenox® and
enoxaparin.

On Oct. 14, 2015, NGH filed its initial complaint against the
Defendants, alleging four separate counts under the Sherman
Antitrust Act.  It sought damages, as well as declaratory and
injunctive relief.  NGH brought its claims on behalf of itself and
a nationwide class of persons and entities, pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA") and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and
(b).  The alleged Sherman Act violations centered on the role that
the Defendants played in a conspiracy to monopolize the production
and distribution of enoxaparin, a generic version of the drug
Lovenox®.

In response to the complaint, the Defendants filed a motion to
transfer the case to the District of Massachusetts and a motion to
dismiss.  Momenta additionally filed a separate motion to dismiss
or transfer for improper venue.  On Sept. 29, 2016, Magistrate
Judge Barbara Holmes entered a Report and Recommendation
recommending that the motions be denied.

The Defendants filed joint and separate objections to the Report
and Recommendation.  On March 21, 2017, the Court issued a
Memorandum Opinion that adopted in part and declined to adopt in
part the Report and Recommendation.  It dismissed NGH's Sherman Act
claims, to the extent that NGH sought damages in connection with
those claims.  It found that NGH did not have standing to seek
damages for its Sherman Act claims under the indirect purchaser
rule.  However, NGH's Sherman Act claims were permitted to proceed
on declaratory and injunctive theories of relief.

Thereafter, NGH filed a motion for leave to file an amended
complaint.  The amended complaint contained three primary changes:
(1) the addition of DC 37 as a new representative Plaintiff; (2)
the addition of various state antitrust and consumer protection
claims; and (3) the addition of new substantive allegations
pertaining to the Defendants' alleged anticompetitive conduct.

The Defendants filed a response in opposition.  Ultimately,
Magistrate Judge Holmes granted the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to
file an amended complaint, and the Plaintiffs filed their amended
complaint on Dec. 21, 2017.  The Defendants then filed the instant
motions to dismiss.

The Defendants first filed a Motion to Dismiss Under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction).
Their primary argument is that the Plaintiffs lack Article III
standing to pursue their Sherman Act claims for injunctive and
declaratory relief.

Judge Crenshaw concludes that Plaintiffs have not made a sufficient
threshold demonstration that they have Article III standing to
pursue their Sherman Act claims for injunctive and declaratory
relief.  To be sure, the Plaintiffs have detailed a host of factual
allegations regarding prior injuries that the Defendants have
allegedly inflicted.  However, these prior injuries are
insufficient to demonstrate the threat of an impending future
injury.  Accordingly, because their theory of prospective harm
relies on a string of actions, the occurrence of any of which is
speculative, their Sherman Act claims do not reach the level of
imminency required to confer standing on a plaintiff seeking
injunctive and declaratory relief in federal court.  The Judge will
grant the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, and the
Plaintiffs' Sherman Acts claims will be dismissed.

In their second motion to dismiss, the Defendants contend that the
Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them regarding the
Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims.  The Judge finds that the
Defendants' activities with regard to sales of generic enoxaparin
have allegedly damaged the Plaintiffs, including within Tennessee,
and, therefore, the Plaintiffs may bring not only their Tennessee
claims, but their various other state law claims as well.  He
therefore concludes that the Court has specific personal
jurisdiction over the Defendants regarding the Plaintiffs'
remaining state law claims.  Accordingly, he will deny the
Defendants' Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint
for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The Defendants' final motion to dismiss, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6),
advances a host of arguments, all of which are aimed at the
Plaintiffs' various state law claims.  The Judge finds that because
the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants wrongfully sold them
enoxaparin at supracompetitive prices until at least 2014, and each
sale restarted the five year statute of limitations, the continuing
violation doctrine extended the statute of limitations period.  The
Plaintiffs' state law claims are timely.

He also finds that waiting until the class certification stage will
enable the Court to most properly analyze complex issues of
standing.  Accordingly, he will defer deciding whether the
Plaintiffs have standing to assert their various state law claims
until the class certification stage.

He will also not decide the statutory standing issue with regard to
the Plaintiffs' Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, and Vermont
consumer protection claims, as the Defendants' argument again
centers on whether the Plaintiffs' have standing to pursue those
claims.  Accordingly, the Judge will not dismiss said claims at
this juncture.

Next, he finds that the Plaintiffs' set forth facts sufficient at
the pleading stage, identifying the relevant jurisdictions and the
effect on competition in each of these jurisdictions, to allege the
requisite intrastate effects.  For these same reasons, the
Plaintiffs' intrastate nexus allegations are also sufficient to
state a claim under the consumer protection statutes of California,
New York, and North Carolina.

Finally, he finds that because the Plaintiffs did not plead absence
of a legal remedy, their unjust enrichment claims under the laws of
Arizona, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Tennessee will be
dismissed.  Moreover, with regard to the Plaintiffs' California
unjust enrichment claim, California does not recognize unjust
enrichment, and, therefore, the claim is also dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Crenshaw (i) denied the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction); (ii) granted
the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) (Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction) will
be granted; and (iii) granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).  The case will proceed on the remaining
state law claims.  An appropriate order will enter.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 5, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/5CBRsw from Leagle.com.

The Hospital Authority of Metropolitan Government of Nashville and
Davidson County, Tennessee, doing business as Nashville General
Hospital, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Gitlin , Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Brendan P. Glackin --
bglackin@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
Bruce W. Leppla -- bleppla@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Dean M. Harvey -- dharvey@lchb.com -- Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, John Tate Spragens --
jspragens@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
Katherine C. Lubin -- klubin@lchb.com --  Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann
& Bernstein, LLP & Mark P. Chalos -- mchalos@lchb.com -- Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
District Council 37 Health & Security Plan, Plaintiff, represented
by Adam Gitlin -- agitlin@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, John Tate Spragens -- jspragens@lchb.com -- Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Katherine C. Lubin --
kbenson@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP &
Brendan P. Glackin -- bglackin@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann
& Bernstein, LLP.

Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley D.
Justus -- bjustus@axinn.com -- Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider, LLP,
Daniel K. Oakes -- doakes@axinn.com -- Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider,
LLP, Jason T. Murata -- jmurata@axinn.com --, Axinn, Veltrop &
Harkrider, LLP, Jeremy Lowe -- jlowe@axinn.com -- Axinn, Veltrop &
Harkrider, LLP, Michael L. Keeley -- mkeeley@axinn.com --  Axinn,
Veltrop & Harkrider, LLP, Richard B. Dagen -- rdagen@axinn.com --
Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider, LLP, Robert Dale Grimes --
dgrimes@bassberry.com -- Bass, Berry & Sims, Thomas Rohback --
trohback@axinn.com -- Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider, LLP & Virginia M.
Yetter, Bass, Berry & Sims.

Sandoz, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Hatchett --
andrew.hatchett@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, Liz Broadway Brown
-- liz.brown@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, Matthew Kent --
matthew.kent@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, Michael P. Kenny
-- mike.kenny@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, Teresa T. Bonder --
teresa.bonder@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP & Timothy L. Warnock
-- twarnock@rwjplc.com --  Riley, Warnock & Jacobson.

Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, Interested Party, represented by Jeffrey
W. Melcher -- jeffrey.melcher@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser,
Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Nash-Boulden Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN STANLEY NASH-BOULDEN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02028 (E.D. Mo., Dec. 5, 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:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Ploof Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL PLOOF, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-02029 (E.D. Mo., Dec. 5, 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:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Shapiros Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY B. SHAPIRO and DEBORA SHAPIRO, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02030 (E.D. Mo., Dec. 5,
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

MOTHERISK: Court Upholds Dismissal of Hair Test Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Mendleson, writing for Toronto Star, reports that despite
the "knee-jerk denials" of Motherisk experts and the Hospital for
Sick Children, it wouldn't be hard to prove in court that the lab's
drug and alcohol hair tests were broadly unreliable. However,
establishing this fact wouldn't advance individual cases enough to
make a national class-action lawsuit the right approach for
thousands of families seeking compensation.

That is the finding of a Toronto Divisional Court, which has upheld
the decision of a Superior Court judge not to certify the
class-action lawsuit because of the highly individualistic nature
of the claims by those who say they lost their children or were
wrongly convicted due to the flawed testing.

"In this case, the class members were not harmed by the tests being
systemically unreliable. Rather, only class members who can show
that they received a false test result and that the false test
result caused them to suffer an adverse outcome in legal
proceedings will have compensable claims," Justice Fred Myers wrote
in a unanimous decision, which makes clear that Motherisk victims
face a "very difficult" road.

But the battle is not over for the plaintiff, a Toronto mother who
claims access to her son was limited for several years because of
Motherisk's faulty testing. The testing was deemed "inadequate and
unreliable" for use in court from 2005 to 2015 in a
government-commissioned review by retired judge Susan Lang,
following a Star investigation.

"The people who were harmed by the Motherisk laboratory deserved
better than this," said the plaintiff's lawyer, Kirk Baert. "This
isn't the last word by any means. We will be seeking leave to
appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal and I am confident we will
obtain it."

Sick Kids made millions from Motherisk's hair tests, which were
used for decades in a handful of criminal cases and thousands of
child protection cases, primarily by child welfare agencies as
proof of parental substance abuse. In many of these cases,
satisfying the criteria for compensation the Divisional Court has
outlined will be challenging, because Motherisk did not follow
proper chain-of-custody procedures and did not have a records
retention policy from 2005 to 2010. [GN]


MOUNT IDA: Former Students File Privacy Violation Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael P. Norton, writing for State House News Service, reports
that before its sudden April 6 announcement that it would be sold
to UMass Amherst, Mount Ida College illegally provided sensitive
student information to the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth,
according to a new federal lawsuit against the closed institution
and its former overseers.

Higher education philanthropist Bob Hildreth is funding the
lawsuit, which alleges fraud, negligent representation and
violations of the Massachusetts Right of Privacy Act and the
federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.

The suit is seeking $40 million.

"The sudden closure of Mount Ida deprived enrolled and prospective
students of their ability to meaningfully consider alternate
schools, and Mount Ida knew this," according to the lawsuit. "It
was exactly when the students were most vulnerable when Mount Ida
released its students' private information to UMass Dartmouth,
allowing UMass Dartmouth to approach each individual student armed
with knowledge of their specific finances, grades, awards, and
majors. In effect, Mount Ida sold its students, at a discount, to
UMass Dartmouth, as an incentive in the land transaction."

One of the plaintiffs, Madeline McClain of New Jersey, said she was
accepted to six different colleges but chose Mount Ida because of
its veterinary curriculum and its offer of a "near 100 percent
tuition-free education." She learned on April 5 that Admitted
Students Day had been cancelled and soon found out the school was
closing.

"I had nowhere to go because most of the schools I was accepted to
had either closed our their acceptances or had little to no money
to award any financial aid," she said in a statement on  Nov. 26.

In a statement, Mount Ida and its Board of Trustees said:

The allegations by three former students, which rely upon incorrect
information published erroneously in old media stories and
statements twisted out of context, are meritless and will be
vigorously defended by the College, its former officers, and its
trustees, all of whom worked compassionately and tirelessly to
provide realistic transition opportunities for all students
following the College's closure, and fully cooperated with the
Attorney General's investigation. [GN]


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Chung Files Consumer Credit Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit,
Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Chung, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nationwide Credit,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-06904 (E.D. N.Y., December 4,
2018).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Nationwide Credit, Inc., a collection agency, provides customer
relationship and accounts receivable management services. The
company specializes in collecting delinquent and defaulted
accounts. Its customer relationship management services include
inbound/outbound customer care and back office services; and
accounts receivable management services comprise pre charge-off
collections, post charge-off recoveries, charge-off mortgage
collections, and an attorney network. Nationwide Credit serves
customers in automotive, banking and credit card, healthcare,
insurance, mortgage, retail, telecommunication, and utilities
industries worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Sanders Law, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com



NATURAL LIVING: Yates Files Class Action for Fraud
--------------------------------------------------
Natural Living, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed for
fraud. The case is styled as Rebecca Yates, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. California
Natural Living, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01415-GLS-TWD
(N.D. N.Y., December 5, 2018).

Natural Living, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical provider,
manufactures and distributes herbal pharmaceutical products. The
company is based in Bronx, New York. As of 02/02/2004, Natural
Living, Inc. is a subsidiary of BioScrip Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq.
   Bursor & Fisher, P.A.-NY Office
   888 Seventh Avenue
   New York, NY 10019
   Tel: (646) 837-7150
   Email: pfraietta@bursor.com


NCAA: Faces Concussion Class Action in Indiana
----------------------------------------------
Ryan Boysen, writing for Law360, reports that the National
Collegiate Athletic Association and its Missouri Valley Conference
have been hit with a proposed concussion class action in Indiana
federal court claiming the organizations "sacrificed player
safety." [GN]


NEIMAN MARCUS: Continues to Defend Lopez Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended October 27, 2018, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action lawsuit by Victor Lopez.

On October 27, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed
against Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., The Neiman Marcus Group LLC, and
Bergdorf Goodman, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York by Victor Lopez, an allegedly
visually-impaired and legally blind individual, in connection with
his visits to Bergdorf Goodman, Inc.'s website.

Mr. Lopez alleges, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, that Bergdorf Goodman, Inc.'s website is not fully and
equally accessible to legally blind individuals, resulting in
denial of access to the equal enjoyment of goods and services, in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York
State and City Human Rights Laws. The defendant Companies have
filed a joint answer denying the claims.

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC operates as a luxury omni-channel
retailer. It sells its products through stores and online sales
channels under the Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, MyTheresa, Last
Call, and Horchow brand names. The company is headquartered in
Dallas, Texas. Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a subsidiary of
Mariposa Intermediate Holdings Llc.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Cyber-Attack Class Suits Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended October 27, 2018, that the company continues
to defend against the Cyber-Attack Class Actions Litigation.

In January 2014, three class actions relating to a cyber-attack on
the company's computer systems in 2013 (the "Cyber-Attack") were
filed and later voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs between
February and April 2014. The plaintiffs had alleged negligence and
other claims in connection with their purchases by payment cards
and sought monetary and injunctive relief.

Three additional putative class actions relating to the
Cyber-Attack were filed in March and April 2014, also alleging
negligence and other claims in connection with plaintiffs'
purchases by payment cards. Two of the cases were voluntarily
dismissed.

The third case, Hilary Remijas v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, was
filed on March 12, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. On June 2, 2014, an amended complaint in the
Remijas case was filed, which added three plaintiffs (Debbie
Farnoush and Joanne Kao, California residents; and Melissa Frank, a
New York resident) and asserted claims for negligence, implied
contract, unjust enrichment, violation of various consumer
protection statutes, invasion of privacy and violation of state
data breach laws.

The Company moved to dismiss the Remijas amended complaint, and the
court granted the Company's motion on the grounds that the
plaintiffs lacked standing due to their failure to demonstrate an
actionable injury.

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's order dismissing the case
to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals reversed the district court's ruling, remanding
the case back to the district court.

The Company filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied. The Company filed a motion
for dismissal on other grounds, which the court denied.

The parties jointly requested, and the court granted, an extension
of time for filing a responsive pleading, which was due on December
28, 2016. On February 9, 2017, the court denied the parties'
request for another extension of time, dismissed the case without
prejudice, and stated that plaintiffs could file a motion to
reinstate. On March 8, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion to
reinstate, which the court granted on March 16, 2017.

On March 17, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking preliminary
approval of a class action settlement resolving this action, which
the court granted on June 21, 2017. On August 21, 2017, plaintiffs
moved for final approval of the proposed settlement.

In September 2017, purported settlement class members filed two
objections to the settlement, and plaintiffs and the Company filed
responses to the objections on October 19, 2017. At the fairness
hearing on October 26, 2017, the Court ordered supplemental
briefing on the objections.

Objectors filed a supplemental brief in support of their objections
on November 9, 2017, and plaintiffs and the Company filed their
supplemental responses to the objections on November 21, 2017.

On January 16, 2018, an order was issued by the District Court
reassigning the case to Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman due to the
prior judge's retirement. On September 17, 2018, Judge Coleman
denied final approval of the proposed settlement and decertified
the settlement class.

Judge Coleman has set a status conference for this matter for
December 10, 2018.

Neiman Marcus said, "At this point, we are unable to predict the
developments in, outcome of or other consequences related to this
matter."

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC operates as a luxury omni-channel
retailer. It sells its products through stores and online sales
channels under the Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, MyTheresa, Last
Call, and Horchow brand names. The company is headquartered in
Dallas, Texas. Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a subsidiary of
Mariposa Intermediate Holdings Llc.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Final Approval Hearing on Attia Settlement in Feb.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended October 27, 2018, that the final approval
hearing in the class action suit initated by Holly Attia, is
scheduled for February 25, 2019.

The Company has several wage and hour putative class action matters
pending in California. The earliest, filed in December 2015 and
amended in February 2016, was filed against The Neiman Marcus
Group, Inc. by Holly Attia and seven other named plaintiffs,
seeking to certify a class of non-exempt employees for alleged
violations for failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide
meal and rest breaks, failure to reimburse business expenses,
failure to timely pay wages due at termination and failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements.

Plaintiffs also allege derivative claims for restitution under
California unfair competition law and a representative claim for
penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General
Act ("PAGA"), and all related damages for alleged violations
(restitution, statutory penalties under PAGA, and attorneys' fees,
interest and costs of suit).

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California in March 2016, and the Company filed a
motion to compel arbitration and requested to stay the PAGA claim.
In June 2016, the court granted the motion and compelled
arbitration of the individual claims. The court retained
jurisdiction of the PAGA claim and stayed that claim pending the
outcome of arbitration.

In October 2016, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of the arbitration decision based on a recent
decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Morris v. Ernst &
Young, LLP, and reversed its order compelling arbitration. The
Company appealed.

The parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this case,
subject to court approval. The motion for preliminary approval of
the settlement was filed with the court on July 24, 2018. On
September 5, 2018, the district court preliminarily approved the
settlement, and the final approval hearing is scheduled for
February 25, 2019.

The associated appeal has been administratively closed due to the
pending settlement of the underlying action. A PAGA representative
action filed by Xuan Hien Nguyen asserting the same factual
allegations as the plaintiff in Attia will be resolved in
connection with the Attia settlement, as Nguyen and her claims have
been amended into Attia.

A PAGA representative action filed by Milca Connolly asserting
substantially identical claims and a putative class and
representative action filed by Ondrea Roces and Sophia Ahmed
seeking to certify a class of current and former sales associates
for alleged failure to pay wages for all hours worked,
recordkeeping and wage statement violations, and failure to timely
pay wages due at termination have been stayed pending the
settlement approval process in Attia.

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC operates as a luxury omni-channel
retailer. It sells its products through stores and online sales
channels under the Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, MyTheresa, Last
Call, and Horchow brand names. The company is headquartered in
Dallas, Texas. Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a subsidiary of
Mariposa Intermediate Holdings Llc.


NEIMAN MARCUS: NLRB Proceedings Over Class Action Waiver Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended October 27, 2018, that the remanded portion
of the case related to the Company's Arbitration Agreement and
class action waiver is still pending before the National Labor
Relations Board.

In August 2015, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB")
affirmed an administrative law judge's recommended decision and
order finding that the Company's Arbitration Agreement and class
action waiver violated the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA").

The company filed its petition for review of the NLRB's order with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. This case has been
stayed while another similar case has been pending before the U.S.
Supreme Court, which was decided on May 21, 2018 and held that
class action waivers in arbitration agreements are lawful under the
NLRA and must be enforced under the Federal Arbitration Act.

On June 1, 2018, the NLRB filed a motion to remove this case from
abeyance, grant the company's petition for review regarding the
class action waiver issue consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision, and remand the remainder of the case to the NLRB. On June
11, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted
the NLRB's motion, and the remanded portion of the case is pending
before the NLRB.

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

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC operates as a luxury omni-channel
retailer. It sells its products through stores and online sales
channels under the Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, MyTheresa, Last
Call, and Horchow brand names. The company is headquartered in
Dallas, Texas. Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a subsidiary of
Mariposa Intermediate Holdings Llc.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Plan Beneficiary's Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended October 27, 2018, that the court has
dismissed a plan beneficiary's claims with prejudice and the claims
of the putative class members without prejudice.

On October 24, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed
against The Neiman Marcus Group LLC and the Company's Health and
Welfare Benefit Plan in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington by a plan beneficiary alleging violations of
the Federal Mental Health Parity Act and the Affordable Care Act
through the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") in connection with the alleged failure to cover
particular treatments for developmental health conditions.

The parties have agreed to a settlement with the named plaintiffs,
in which they have agreed not to pursue their class claims.

On November 6, 2018, the court dismissed the named plaintiffs'
claims with prejudice and the claims of the putative class members
without prejudice.

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC operates as a luxury omni-channel
retailer. It sells its products through stores and online sales
channels under the Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, MyTheresa, Last
Call, and Horchow brand names. The company is headquartered in
Dallas, Texas. Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a subsidiary of
Mariposa Intermediate Holdings LLC.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Settlement in Rubenstein Suit Already Final
----------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended October 27, 2018, that the deadline to
appeal the judgment expired with no appeals, and thus the
settlement in the putative class action suit filed by Linda
Rubenstein is final.

On August 7, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against The Neiman Marcus Group LLC in Los Angeles County Superior
Court by a customer, Linda Rubenstein, in connection with the
Company's Last Call stores in California.

Ms. Rubenstein alleges that the Company has violated various
California consumer protection statutes by implementing a marketing
and pricing strategy that suggests that clothing sold at Last Call
stores in California was originally offered for sale at full-line
Neiman Marcus stores when allegedly, it was not, and that the
Company lacks adequate information to support its comparative
pricing labels.

In September 2014, the company removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California. After
dismissing Ms. Rubenstein's original and first amended complaint,
the court dismissed her second amended complaint in its entirety in
May 2015, without leave to amend, and Ms. Rubenstein appealed.

In April 2017, the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Ms.
Rubenstein's allegations were sufficient to proceed past the
pleadings stage of litigation. The case was transferred back to the
district court. On September 7, 2017, the district court issued an
order permitting Ms. Rubenstein to file a proposed Third Amended
Complaint, which modifies the putative class period. Additionally,
Ms. Rubenstein filed a motion for class certification, which was
fully briefed by both parties. The parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle the case, subject to court approval.

A notice of settlement was filed, and the hearing on Ms.
Rubenstein's motion for class certification was vacated.

On October 1, 2018, the court granted final approval of the
settlement and entered judgment accordingly. The deadline to appeal
the judgment expired with no appeals, and thus the settlement is
final.

As of October 27, 2018, our recorded reserve related to this matter
represents the remaining settlement liability paid in November
2018.

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC operates as a luxury omni-channel
retailer. It sells its products through stores and online sales
channels under the Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, MyTheresa, Last
Call, and Horchow brand names. The company is headquartered in
Dallas, Texas. Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a subsidiary of
Mariposa Intermediate Holdings Llc.


NEW YORK: Aliyev Sues ACS for Negligence Over Child's Death
-----------------------------------------------------------
Guseyn Aliyev, as administrator of the Estate of J.J., infant
decedent, and Guseyn Aliyev, individually, and on behalf of all
other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. City of New
York and Administration of Childrens' Services (ACS), ACS Case
Worker "Does" #1-100 and Supervisor "Does" #1-100, Defendants, Case
No. 523770/2018, (N.Y. Sup., November 27, 2018), seeks to recover
all actual, compensatory, consequential, special, punitive and
other damages awardable with interest, attorney's fees, costs,
taxed costs, and fees, and for such other, different, and further
relief resulting from negligence and pursuant to the doctrine of
"respondeat superior."

Between November 26 to 28, 2016, J.J. was left in the care and
custody of a certain Salvatore Lucchesse in 2161 West 5th Street,
Brooklyn, New York 11223. The latter physically assaulted, battered
and tortured J.J., delivering multiple blows to his head, face,
neck, torso, upper and lower extremities. The three-year old J.J.
went into a coma and died on December 2, 2016.

Aliyev alleges that ACS' poor response to the incident resulted
from inadequate staffing, case practice, supervision and training
within the unit, as well as inconsistent, confusing and
contradictory policies.

The Administration of Childrens' Services is an agency of the City
of New York charged with the responsibility of protecting the
City's children from abuse and neglect.

Aliyev, is the biological father of the infant decedent, J.J. [BN]

Defendant is represented by:

      Paul J. Edelstein, Esq.
      THE EDELSTEINS, FAEGENBURG & BROWN, LLP
      26 Broadway, Suite 901
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel. (212) 425-1999
      Email: paul@efbpilaw.com


NEW YORK: Parker Prisoners Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROY PARKER et al. on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW YORK,
Defendant, Case No. 15 CV 6733 (CLP) (E.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge
Cheryl L. Pollak of the District Court for the Eastern District of
New York granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the
Settlement.

On Dec. 11, 2017, the Court entered an Order granting preliminary
approval of the Class Settlement, preliminarily certifying the
Settlement Class, appointing a Claims Administrator, and directing
the Administrator to disseminate notice of the proposed settlement.
The Notice was sent to the Class beginning on Jan. 25, 2018, and
following a period for objections, the Plaintiffs moved on July 31,
2018, for final approval of the Settlement Agreement.  On Sept. 10,
2018, the Court held a fairness hearing.

On Nov. 23, 2015, Parker, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, filed a class action Complaint against the City
of New York, claiming that the New York City Department of
Corrections ("NYCDOC") had violated the Constitution by holding
pretrial detainees in solitary confinement or punitive segregation
("PSEG") without providing them with due process and for no
legitimate purpose.  Following the filing of the Complaint on Nov.
23, 2015, the City filed an Answer on April 21, 2016.  The
Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint was thereafter filed on Nov.
12, 2016, adding Rajab Asep, Christopher Chandler, Jamal Coleman,
Allana Dixon, Chauncey Miranda, and Cesar Rivera as the named
Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs allege that for many years, NYCDOC pretrial
detainees had been placed in PSEG for no reason except for the fact
that the detainee had previously been found to have violated a
disciplinary rule while incarcerated on another occasion, but had
been released from custody prior to serving the entirety of the
disciplinary sentence.  They allege that if the detainee were later
returned to NYCDOC custody, the City would require the detainee to
serve the remainder of his "old" solitary confinement time.  They
allege that this explicit policy of the City, referred to as the
"Old Time Policy," violated their constitutional rights because the
Defendant never provided these detainees with a hearing or any
other process.

While the City claimed that placement in PSEG was necessary to
ensure the safe operation of the detention facility, the Plaintiffs
allege that it was simply to punish pretrial detainees who may not
be punished until a formal adjudication of guilt has been made in
accordance with due process.  In seeking compensatory damages for
the time spent in PSEG as a result of the Old Time Policy, the
Plaintiffs allege that because pretrial detainees may not be
punished until the government has secured a formal adjudication of
guilt in accordance with due process of law, and because they may
not be deprived of their liberty without adequate process, the
Defendant's policy violates the substantive and procedural due
process rights of pretrial detainees.

The Court supervised discovery in the case and engaged in
approximately 15 settlement discussions with the parties over an
18-month period, culminating in the execution of the Settlement
Stipulation on Aug. 11, 2017.

As set forth in the Court's Order of Dec. 11, 2017, the Class is
defined in the Stipulation as the named Plaintiffs and all people
who were confined in PSEG while a pretrial detainee based on the
Old Time Policy at any time between Nov. 23, 2012 and Sept. 16,
2015.  As part of the Settlement, the Class Members will receive
minimum compensation of $175 for each day spent in PSEG while a
pretrial detainee, as a result of the Old Time Policy.  The Class
Members who were diagnosed as having a serious mental illness or
who were juveniles under the age of 18 when they served PSEG time
due to the Old Time Policy will receive $200 per day spent in PSEG
as part of the Settlement. The Stipulation further provides for
modest service awards to the named Plaintiffs of no more than $500
per person.

Following the Court's preliminary approval of the Class Settlement,
notice was disseminated to 471 identified Class Members for whom
addresses could be located.  Additionally, summaries of the
settlement terms were posted in NYCDOC and Department of Probation
facilities.  As of the date of the final fairness hearing held, 129
individuals had filed challenges seeking to be included in the
Class.  Of those challenges, 36 individuals were found to be
members of the Settlement Class, with claims amounting to more than
$400,000.  

After the final fairness hearing, two additional individuals filed
challenges seeking to be included in the Class.  The parties
initially disputed whether the two additional individuals should be
included in the Class, and have since determined between themselves
that one person is a member of the Class and one person is not.
Having considered the rationale offered by the counsel, Magistrate
Judge Pollak approved of the resolution.

Having considered the parties' submissions and presentations during
the fairness hearing, and having considered all potential
challenges and objections to the proposed Settlement, the
Magistrate finds that proposed Class Settlement is fair, reasonable
and adequate under the applicable standards.  She granted the
Plaintiffs' motions to certify the proposed Settlement Class under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), granted final approval of
the Settlement Stipulation, and appointed the Plaintiffs' counsel
as the Class Counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 4, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/v5hawl from Leagle.com.

Roy Parker, Rajab Asep, Christopher Chandler, Jamal Coleman, Allana
Dixon, Chauncey Miranda & Cesar Rivera, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Alexander
A. Reinert -- areinert@yu.edu -- c/o Benjamin N. Cardozo School of
Law, Daniel Erik Mullkoff -- dmullkoff@chwllp.com -- Cuti Hecker
Wang LLP & Eric Jason Hecker -- ehecker@chwllp.com -- Cuti Hecker
Wang LLP.

City of New York, Defendant, represented by Martin John Bowe, The
City of New York & Ryan Budhu, New York City Law Department.


NHS PENNSYLVANIA: Brown Seeks Certification of Specialists Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled CHRISTOPHER BROWN, SR., on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees v. NHS
PENNSYLVANIA, INC., a Foreign For-Profit Corporation, Case No.
2:18-cv-01617-MLCF-JVM (E.D. La.), seeks entry of an order
permitting conditional certification of a collective action.

The putative class, to which the Plaintiff seeks to facilitate
notice, consists of individuals defined as:

     All Substance Abuse Specialists, Employment Specialists,
     Housing Specialists, Peer Support Specialists, Forensic
     Specialists, Registered Nurses, and Licensed Practitioner
     Nurses who worked for Defendant's ACT/FACT teams within the
     state of Louisiana or Pennsylvania within the last three
     years.

As stated in his complaint, the Plaintiff was an hourly paid
employee (in this case, a "Specialist") employed by the Defendant
and is authorized by the Fair Labor Standards Act to sue in his own
name on behalf of himself and other employees similarly situated.
Mr. Brown alleges that as a result of the Defendant's unlawful
compensation practices, each class member did not receive full and
proper payment of time and one half of their regular rate of pay
for all hours worked over 40 in one or more workweeks.

Mr. Brown also asks the Court to: (1) direct the Defendant to
produce to him a list of all similarly situated class members
within the last three years, (2) allow the sending of the proposed
"Notification" letter to all similarly situated employees
nationwide; and (3) allow the sending of proposed "Notice of
Consent to Join" form, which similarly situated employees can
complete, sign, and file with the Court.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
          1950 Lee Road, Suite 213
          Winter Park, FL 32789
          Telephone: (321) 287-6021
          Facsimile: (833) 423-5864
          E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com

               - and -

          Craig B. Mitchell, Esq.
          Kendale J. Thompson, Esq.
          MITCHELL & ASSOCIATES, APLC
          615 Baronne Street, Suite 300
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 527-6433
          Facsimile: (504) 527-6450
          E-mail: cbmitchell@mitchellaplc.com
                  kthompson@mitchellaplc.com


NUCOR CORP: Court Denies Roane's Bid to Opt-Out in Brown Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David C. Norton of the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina, Charleston Division, denied Ramon Roane's
request to proceed with his claims as a named individual and for
exclusion from the settlement in the case, QUINTON BROWN, ALVIN
SIMMONS, SHELDON SINGLETARY, GERALD WHITE, JASON GUY, and JACOB
RAVENELL, individually and on behalf of the class they seek to
represent, Plaintiffs, v. NUCOR CORPORATION and NUCOR STEEL
BERKELEY, Defendants, Civil No. 2:04-cv-22005-DCN (D. S.C.).

On Dec. 8, 2003, 13 Plaintiffs filed a nationwide class action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 and Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas against Nucor.  On Aug. 24, 2004, the
Plaintiffs' claims were severed into four separate cases, and each
case was transferred to the judicial district in which the unlawful
employment practices allegedly occurred.  Accordingly, the case was
transferred to the District of South Carolina.

The Plaintiffs in the instant case (Quinton Brown, Jason Guy, Alvin
Simmons, Sheldon Singletary, Gerald White, and Jacob Ravenell) are
African-Americans who are current or former employees of Nucor.
The class of African-American workers brought allegations of
endemic racial discrimination at the Huger, South Carolina location
of the Nucor steel plant.  The Plaintiffs claimed that Nucor
engaged in systemic racial discrimination in its selection
procedures, in creating racially hostile working conditions, and
having unequal terms and conditions of employment for its
African-American workers.

There are two classes in the case -- (1) the promotions class,
involving disparate treatment and disparate impact claims; and (2)
the hostile work environment class.  The class is defined as all
African-Americans who are, as of the date of the order (April 27,
2011), or were employed by Nucor Corp. or Nucor Steel Berkeley at
the Nucor Berkeley manufacturing plant in Huger, South Carolina at
any time between Dec. 2, 1999, and the date of the order (April 27,
2011), in the beam mill, hot mill, cold mill, melting, maintenance,
and shipping departments, and who may have been discriminated
against because of Nucor's challenged practices.

The parties entered into a settlement on Feb. 22, 2018.  The lone
class member who filed an objection to the settlement was Roane,
who was previously a named class representative.  Roane has had a
complicated history with the complicated case, including being the
target of a motion for sanctions for making public statements
accusing the court system of systemic racism.  However, Roane's
statements are not at the heart of the issue -- the matter is
essentially before the Court on whether Roane should be allowed to
opt out of the class at this late stage.

In short, Judge Norton finds that the Court certified the class in
the case after two trips to the Fourth Circuit and the intervening
case of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), which
laid out what was required for class certification.  After the case
was certified, Roane posted a number of videos which contained
negative statements about the litigation, the judge, and the
parties involved.  Nucor brought a motion for sanctions based on
those videos, and Roane resigned as a class representative.  He
remained, however, a class member.  At no point did Roane opt out
of the class.

The Judge holds that it is undisputable that Roane's individual
claims as a named party Plaintiff were subsumed by the class
claims.  By sheer virtue of Roane being a named class
representative, this must be true.  While Roane was no longer a
named Plaintiff representing class members, he was a class member
represented by the named Plaintiffs.  Accordingly, under
established class action principles, he was bound by the judgment
entered in the class action as a party, so long as he was
adequately represented, had fair notice of his class membership,
and declined to opt out of the class.  All of these factors are
fulfilled in the case.

The Class Notice gave Roane adequate notice of his opportunity to
opt out of the class.  He declined to do so.  Roane was required to
opt out in January 2017 when the class notice was sent.

Roane next argues that the Court should grant relief from the class
opt-out deadline.  If the Court granted an extension to one class
member, other members would be incentivized to seek similar relief.
Roane, as a former named class representative, was well aware of
how to reach out to the class counsel in the event that he had
questions about how to interpret the class notice, and for some
reason he chose not to do so.  Importantly, Roane objects to the
settlement not on the basis of the fairness of the settlement
entered in this case but on the basis that he wants to "proceed to
trial."

Judge Norton concludes that it would be a waste of judicial
resource to allow Roane a second opportunity to opt out and proceed
to trial in the case.  He was bound by the January 2017 opt-out
deadline set forth in the class notice.  And after weighing the
Pioneer Investment factors, the Judge refused Roane relief from the
opt-out deadline as no "excusable neglect" supports his request to
opt out late.  Therefore, he denied the motion for late opt out.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 7, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/1uTgF9 from Leagle.com.

Quinton Brown, Jason Guy, Alvin Simmons & Gerald White, Plaintiffs,
represented by Armand Georges Derfner -- aderfner@derfneraltman.com
-- Derfner Altman and Wilborn, Peter Kent Spriggs --
kspriggs@spriggslawfirm.com -- Spriggs Law Firm, pro hac vice,
Peter Wilborn -- info@wilborn.law -- Law Office of Peter Wilborn,
Ray Pratt McClain , Ray McClain Law Firm, Ann Korns Wiggins --
awiggins@wigginschilds.com -- Wiggins Childs Quinn and Pantazis,
pro hac vice & Robert L. Wiggins, Jr. -- wiggins@wigginschilds.com
-- Wiggins Childs Quinn and Pantazis, pro hac vice.

Sheldon Singletary, Plaintiff, represented by Armand Georges
Derfner, Derfner Altman and Wilborn, Peter Kent Spriggs, Spriggs
Law Firm, pro hac vice, Peter Wilborn, Law Office of Peter Wilborn,
Ray Pratt McClain, Ray McClain Law Firm & Ann Korns Wiggins,
Wiggins Childs Quinn and Pantazis, pro hac vice.

Jacob Ravenell, Plaintiff, represented by Armand Georges Derfner,
Derfner Altman and Wilborn, Peter Kent Spriggs, Spriggs Law Firm,
pro hac vice & Peter Wilborn, Law Office of Peter Wilborn.

Nucor Corporation & Nucor Steel Berkeley, Defendants, represented
by Gabriel E. Gore -- ggore@dowdbennett.com -- Dowd Bennett, pro
hac vice, James Forest Bennett -- jbennett@dowdbennett.com -- Dowd
Bennett, pro hac vice, Jennifer S. Kingston --
jkingston@dowdbennett.com -- Dowd Bennett, pro hac vice, John Smith
Wilkerson, III -- JWILKERSON@TURNERPADGET.COM -- Turner Padget
Graham and Laney, Sheena R. Hamilton -- shamilton@dowdbennett.com
-- Dowd Bennett, pro hac vice, Cary Andrew Farris --
cfarris@winstead.com -- Winstead PC, pro hac vice, James Shannon
Gatlin -- gatlin@mdjwlaw.com -- Alaniz and Schraeder, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey S. Mayes -- jeff.mayes@ogletree.com -- Alaniz and
Schraeder, pro hac vice, John K. Linker -- jlinker@winstead.com --
Winstead PC, pro hac vice, Michael J. Kuhn -- mkuhn@dowdbennett.com
-- Dowd Bennett LLP, pro hac vice, Richard D. Alaniz --
ralaniz@cruickshank.attorney.com -- Alaniz and Schraeder & Terry E.
Schraeder -- tschraeder@alaniz-schraeder.com -- Alaniz and
Schraeder.


NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: SCOTUS Hears Arguments in Cobra Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Florko, writing for STAT, reports that they aren't the
type of words that usually show up in Supreme Court briefs, but on
Nov. 27, they would be there just the same: Cobra Sexual Energy.

The court was set to hear oral arguments in Nutraceutical Corp. v.
Lambert, the latest flash point in a five-year spat between
unsatisfied California men and Nutraceutical Corp., a supplement
company that sells a dietary supplement called "Cobra Sexual
Energy" that contains a mix of horny goat weed, yohimbe, and
potency wood, and that the company boasts will help with "animal
magnetism."

The justices would focus more on the "class action" status of the
case than the eyebrow-raising merits of the lawsuit. But the case
points to the limited role of the Food and Drug Administration in
policing the supplement industry. Dietary supplements, which
include everything from vitamin C tablets to workout stimulants,
are used by 75 percent of Americans, according to a recent survey
from an industry trade group, the Council for Responsible
Nutrition.

Because the FDA has limited power to police the industry, consumers
are increasingly turning to class-action lawsuits to hold
manufacturers accountable.

"FDA-regulated industries have seen an enormous amount of class
action litigation over the last 10 years," Anthony Anscombe, a
partner at the law firm Steptoe & Johnson, who focuses on
class-action defense, told STAT.

The class-action case the Supreme Court was set to weigh on
Nov. 27 began in California, in 2013. Troy Lambert, who's from Long
Beach, is the named plaintiff. The crux of his lawsuit argues that
Nutraceutical Corp.  ran afoul of California's unfair competition
laws by misleading consumers.

Among the plaintiffs' complaints: "that Defendants' conduct is
immoral, unscrupulous, and offends public policy by seeking to
profit from male vulnerability to false or deceptive virility or
aphrodisiac claims."

For Mr. Lambert, it all started with an otherwise ordinary trip to
the Rite Aid convenience store in Long Beach. He wasn't in the
market for a sexual enhancer, but the photo of a cobra emblazoned
on Cobra Sexual Energy's bright red box caught his eye, according
to the complaint.

The product's promises are thin. The box proclaims consumers will
"Perform Your Best With Animal Magnetism," but that's as explicit
as the product's label gets. Lambert hoped the pills would help him
have sex for longer.

He saw no effect, even after he polished off the first bottle of 60
capsules. Nonetheless, he kept up hope the product would build up
in his system over time. So he bought it a handful more times over
the next couple of months, shelling out between $16 and $18 each
time and keeping the purchases a secret from his wife.

Mr. Lambert's lawsuit is seeking $210,000, most of which would be
split among the men who took the product.

Nutraceutical contends that its claims about the product were
"non-actionable puffery."

"They are suggestive hyperbole that are inherently subjective,
non-quantifiable, and 'so exaggerated as to preclude reliance by
consumers,'" Nutraceutical writes in a court filing.

It's not clear how many people tried Cobra Sexual Energy. But
Nutraceutical is well-established in the dietary supplement market.
The company has more than 50 product lines -- most of which have
nothing to do with sex -- and the company had over $230 million in
net sales in 2016, according to the company's most recent financial
filings.

Target, Rite Aid, and CVS all sold Cobra Sexual Energy back in
2012. And while the product has been pulled from the shelves at all
three chains, it is still available online — as is a female
version packaged in a bubble gum pink box.

Nutraceutical declined to comment for this story. But Daniel
Fabricant, who heads a dietary supplement lobbying association, the
Natural Products Association, called the Cobra Sexual Energy
lawsuit "a shakedown."

"The plaintiff bar looks at the product and says, 'OK, this is a
reputable manufacturer, they're going to settle,'" Mr. Fabricant
said. "Well, these guys decided not to settle."

Mr. Fabricant said the lawsuit is on flimsy ground.

"They don't have data to show that the public was misled by the
claim and furthermore they don't have any data that shows there was
any sort of public health harm. So I'm a bit confused as to what
exactly we're protecting consumers from," Mr. Fabricant told STAT.

The case highlights a unique fact of U.S. food and drug law: The
FDA has jurisdiction over every prescription drug sold here, as
well as some authority to oversee over-the-counter products like
Tylenol or hydrocortisone cream. The agency has less authority over
vitamins or dietary supplements.

Under a 1994 law called the Dietary Supplement Health and Education
Act, the FDA can't review dietary supplements before they hit the
market to ensure they are safe and actually do what they say they
will, like it can for new drugs. Instead, the FDA begins monitoring
supplements' safety after they're on the market and the agency
reviews substantiation for claims "as resources permit."

The FDA can only swiftly step in when supplements actually contain
FDA-approved drugs. Sexual enhancers are the worst offenders,
according to a recent study published in the Journal of the
American Medical Association. In the past year, FDA has alerted
consumers to avoid products like "XXXPlosion Ultra," "Rhino 69
Extreme 50000" and "Best Leopard Miracle of Honey," all of which
included the active ingredient used in the drugs Viagra and
Cialis.

And that has some advocates pushing for Congress to expand the
FDA's regulatory authority. They say the agency doesn't have the
resources to adequately monitor the market, and that unsafe and
deceptive products often slip through the cracks.

They say Congress should beef up what the agency can and can't do.

"People being misled is extremely common," Dr. Peter Lurie, head of
the Center for Science in the Public Interest, told STAT. "In the
commonsense understanding of whether or not people are induced to
have higher hopes than they ought to, I think that's as common as
snow in Alaska."

Dr. Lurie, who previously served as associate commissioner for
public health strategy and analysis at the FDA, places part of the
blame on Congress for "shackling the FDA with a statute that
doesn't give it the authority that it needs to police this
marketplace." His organization, CSPI, files class-action lawsuits
on behalf of consumers.

"The agency itself is hopelessly underfunded in the dietary
supplement area," he added. "The size and the nimbleness of the
dietary supplement market is such that it's very difficult for
their staff to stay on top of this."

The dietary supplement industry, on the other hand, says the FDA
already has the authority to pull products off the market if they
are unsafe. Fabricant saw the agency do just that when he led FDA's
office of dietary supplements as it forced workout enhancers Jack3d
and OxyElite Pro off the market in 2013.

The FDA did not respond to request for comment.

In the void, however, class-action lawsuits have become an
increasingly popular tool for regulating the market.

Industry groups have said increase in class actions is the
byproduct of money-hungry class-action attorneys.

"It's been one of the biggest burdens for the natural products
industry for the past 25 years," Fabricant said.

Mr. Anscombe acknowledged that the expectation of a payout is one
of the motivating factors for filing these cases.

"If Plaintiffs did not see money to be won, they wouldn't bring
lawsuits," he wrote in an email to STAT.

The Supreme Court isn't likely to solve these hot-button FDA issues
-- it is actually weighing an issue related to the cases' "class
action" status.

The case was dealt a major setback in 2015 when the district court
decertified the class in the case, effectively killing the class
action. Mr. Lambert's attorney appealed this decision but missed a
key deadline. The Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit nonetheless
gave Lambert and his attorney a pass. On Nov. 27, the Supreme Court
will decide whether the 9th Circuit got that decision to extend the
deadline right.

"Neither side has much interest in the larger question, sure. But
each side has a strong interest in winning this dispute,"
Dan Epps, associate professor of law at Washington University and
co-host of the Supreme Court podcast "First Mondays," said. "So
each side is highly motivated to fight tooth and nail over every
point, and here there ended up being this interesting question
about equitable extensions for appeal deadlines."

The justices, then, won't have to weigh the merits of the complaint
-- giving them the chance to sidestep something of an age-old
dilemma. As Mr. Lambert's brief before the appeals court described
it, after all, "the fraudulent sale of fake, snake oil, 'herbal'
aphrodisiacs is an ancient problem." [GN]


NUVASIVE INC: Mauss Securities Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRAD MAUSS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NUVASIVE, INC.; ALEXIS V.
LUKIANOV; and MICHAEL J. LAMBERT, Defendants, Case No. 13cv2005 JM
(JLB) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Jeffrey T. Miller of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California (i) granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement, and (ii)
granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for an award of attorneys'
fees, reimbursement of expenses, and award for the Plaintiffs.

The case is a federal securities class action for violations of
Section 20(a) and 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on
behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Defendant
NuVasive's securities.

Lead Plaintiff Mauss and Plaintiff Daniel Popov initiated the
action on behalf of themselves and those individuals who purchased
NuVasive, Inc. securities between Oct. 22, 2008 and July 30, 2013.
NuVasive designs, develops, and markets products for the surgical
treatment of spine disorders.  Lukianov was NuVasive's CEO and
Chairman of the Board of Directors at all relevant times.  Lambert
has been CFO since November 2009.

The Plaintiffs' sixth amended complaint ("6AC") asserts two claims,
for (1) securities fraud, in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, against all the
Defendants; and (2) control-person liability under Section 20(a) of
the Securities and Exchange Act, against Defendants Lukianov, and
Lambert.  The Plaintiffs allege, in sum, that the Defendants
engaged in illegal sales, marketing, and billing practices that
exposed the company to an increased risk of regulatory liability
under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the False Claims Act,
but they did not disclose that risk to investors, who bought their
shares at an inflated price and were harmed when the concealed risk
materialized.

After filing their 6AC, four rounds of Rule 12(b)(6) motions, and
several other motions, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification
on Oct. 28, 2016.  On March 22, 2017, the Court granted the motion
for class certification and appointed Brad Mauss and Daniel Popov
as the class representatives.  Pomerantz LLP was appointed as the
Lead Counsel and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP was appointed as the
Liaison Counsel.  The Court certified the class of all persons
other than defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired NuVasive,
Inc. common stock between Oct. 22, 2008 and July 30, 2013.

On Sept. 8, 2017, the Defendants filed both a motion for summary
judgment on the issue of loss causation and a motion to exclude the
testimony of the Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Zachary Nye. The court
denied both motions.  

The parties participated in two private mediation sessions.
Thereafter, on March 6, 2018, the parties filed a Notice of
Settlement.  On March 23, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.  The Court granted
that motion and set a final approval hearing for Nov. 19, 2018.

The Stipulation of Settlement provides for a $7.9 million
settlement fund.  The Defendants are to transfer these funds to an
escrow agent, who will invest the funds.  The escrow agent will
reinvest the proceeds of these instruments as they mature in
similar instruments at their then-current market rates.  Thus, the
total settlement fund is $7.9 million plus later accrued interest.
The payments will be made to class members after a final judgment
is entered and no longer appealable.

The balance of the settlement fund will be distributed to class
members according to the Plan of Allocation after deduction of any
court-awarded attorneys' fees and expenses, notice and
administration expenses authorized by the stipulation, taxes, and
any court award to the Plaintiffs.  The Plan of Allocation provides
for a pro rata distribution of the remaining settlement funds based
on a formula described in detail in the notice.

The class counsel move for an award of attorneys' fees in the
amount of 30% of the settlement fund ($2.37 million, plus accrued
interest at the time of payment) and reimbursement for $802,695.08
in expenses.  Plaintiffs Brad Mauss and Daniel Popov request awards
of $7,500 each.  The Settlement administration costs are not to
exceed $250,000.  All of these amounts are to be paid from the
settlement fund.

Pursuant to the Court's order granting preliminary approval, the
claims administrator took a number of actions to provide notice of
the settlement to the proposed class.  No class member objected to
the proposed settlement, Plan of Allocation, or any other aspect of
the settlement.  There were no requests for exclusion from the
settlement.  In total, the claims administrator received 25,380
claim forms.

The Plaintiffs move the Court for final approval of a class action
settlement and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.  The
Defendants do not oppose either motion.  On Nov. 19, 2018, the
Court held a final approval hearing.

Judge Miller approved Settlement as fair, reasonable, adequate, and
in the best interests of the Class.  All of the claims asserted in
the Complaint or the Action against the Defendants are dismissed
with prejudice.  Without further order of the Court, the Settling
Parties may agree to reasonable extensions of time to carry out any
of the provisions in the Stipulation.  The Clerk of Court is
directed to enter Final Judgment and close the file.

The Judge awarded the Lead Counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of
30% of the Settlement Fund, together with the interest earned
thereon for the same time period and at the same rate as that
earned on the Settlement Fund until paid, and expenses in an amount
of $745,426.71.  He also awarded Lead Plaintiff Brad Mauss a
compensatory award for his efforts on behalf of the Class in the
amount of $7,500 and Plaintiff Daniel Popov a compensatory award
for his efforts on behalf of the Class in the amount of $7,500.
The Lead Counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses, as awarded by the
Court, will be paid within 10 days of the award by the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 5, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/AgNgCK from Leagle.com.

Brad Mauss, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam G. Kurtz --
agkurtz@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Emma Gilmore --
egilmore@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer Pafiti
-- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Justin Solomon Nematzadeh
-- jnematzadeh@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Lionel Z.
Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
Louis Ludwig -- lcludwig@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael M. Goldberg , Goldberg Law PC, Michele S. Carino --
mcarino@carinolaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP &Jeremy A. Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice.

Nuvasive, Inc. & Michael J. Lambert, Defendants, represented by
Kellin Maurine Chatfield -- kellin.chatfield@dlapiper.com -- DLA
Piper LLP, Robert W. Brownlie --robert.brownlie@dlapiper.com -- DLA
Piper LLP & Noah A. Katsell -- noah.katsell@dlapiper.com -- DLA
Piper LLP.

Alexis V. Lukianov, Defendant, represented by Christopher Harold
McGrath -- chrismcgrath@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP &
Raymond Winters Stockstill -- beaustockstill@paulhastings.com --
Paul Hastings LLP.

Carole Lyn Zeleny, Miscellaneous Party, represented by Jeffrey M.
Haber -- jhaber@fhnylaw.com -- Law Office of Jeffrey M. Haber, pro
hac vice.


OOMA INC: Discovery Ongoing in Barnett Consolidated Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ooma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2018, that the parties in the consolidated
class action suit initiated by Michael Barnett are now engaged in
the discovery phase of the litigation.

On January 14, 2016, Michael Barnett filed a purported stockholder
class action in the San Mateo County Superior Court of the State of
California (Case No. CIV536959) against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and certain of the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering (IPO) on July 17, 2015.

Since that time two additional purported class actions making
substantially the same allegations against the same defendants were
filed, and on May 18, 2016, all three complaints were combined into
a "consolidated complaint" filed in the same court (the "Securities
Litigation").

The consolidated complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all
persons who purchased shares of common stock in the Company's IPO
in reliance upon the Registration Statement and Prospectus the
Company filed with the SEC. The consolidated complaint alleges that
the Company and the other defendants violated the Securities Act of
1933, as amended (the "Securities Act") by issuing the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, which the plaintiffs allege contained
material misstatements and omissions in violation of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, rescission or a rescissory measure of
damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief, and such other relief
as the court may deem proper.

On November 29, 2017, the Superior Court dismissed the claims that
were based on Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act with
prejudice, but denied the Company's motion to stay the case pending
the United States Supreme Court's decision in Cyan v. Beaver Cnty.
Emp. Ret.' Fund.

On March 20, 2018, the United States Supreme Court published its
decision in the Cyan case, holding that state courts have subject
matter jurisdiction to hear claims brought under the Securities
Act, such as the claims alleging violations of Section 11 of the
Securities Act (the only remaining claims in the Securities
Litigation) brought against the Company in the Superior Court.  The
parties are now engaged in the discovery phase of the litigation.

The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
the Company is vigorously defending against the Securities
Litigation and will continue to do so.

Ooma said, "However, litigation is unpredictable and there can be
no assurances that the Company will obtain a favorable final
outcome or that it will be able to avoid unfavorable preliminary or
interim rulings in the course of litigation that may significantly
add to the expense of its defense and could result in substantial
costs and diversion of resources."  

Based on the Company's current knowledge, the Company has
determined that the amount of any material loss or range of any
losses that is reasonably possible to result from the Securities
Litigation is not estimable.

Ooma, Inc. provides communications solutions and other connected
services to small business, home, and mobile users in the United
States and Canadian markets. Ooma, Inc. was incorporated in 2003
and is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California.


OOMA INC: Dolemba Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------
Ooma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2018, that the the company continues to
defend itself against a class action lawsuit initiated by Scott
Dolemba.

On September 4, 2018, plaintiff Scott Dolemba filed a putative
class action complaint against the Company in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and
the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.  The complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages, costs, attorneys' fees and other appropriate
relief.

Ooma said, "Based on the Company's current knowledge, the Company
has determined that the amount of any estimated loss resulting from
the Dolemba Litigation is not material."

Ooma, Inc. provides communications solutions and other connected
services to small business, home, and mobile users in the United
States and Canadian markets. Ooma, Inc. was incorporated in 2003
and is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California.


PARFUMS DE COEUR: Okoe Sues Over Misleading Product Ads
-------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Okoe, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Parfums De Coeurs Ltd., Defendant, Case No.
5:18-cv-01979 (D. Conn., December 5, 2018) is a consumer protection
class action arising from PDC's deceptive practices in the
marketing, advertising, and promotion of its Dr. Teal's Epsom Salt
products.

Through an extensive, widespread, comprehensive, and uniform
nationwide marketing campaign, Defendant represents that its Epsom
salts offer various non-existent health benefits, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff OKOE purchased this in reliance on the label
representation that the Product "cleanses away body's impurities"
and "eases aches and soreness from muscle pains." However,
Plaintiff OKOE used the Product as directed and did not experience
any of its promised benefits. As a result of his purchase,
Plaintiff OKOE was denied the benefit of his bargain. He was
financially injured when his spent money on a product that did not
deliver what it promised and indeed delivered nothing at all. Since
using the Product in no way added to the ordinary experience of
taking a bath, he was injured in the amount of the full purchase
price, the complaint relates.

Plaintiff OKOE seeks to end Defendant's dissemination of its false
and misleading advertising, correct the false and misleading
perception it has created in the minds of consumers, and obtain
redress for those who have purchased the Products, adds the
complaint.

Plaintiff Daniel Okoe is a citizen of the State of New York and a
resident of New York County.

Parfums De Coeurs is a company organized under the laws of the
State of Connecticut with its principal place of business at 6 High
Ridge Park, Floor C2, Stamford, Connecticut 06905. It manufactures,
markets, and sells beauty, personal care, and wellness products
throughout the United States, including numerous versions of its
Dr. Teal's Epsom Salt, which is sold at a wide variety of retail
and online outlets throughout America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212-465-1188
     Fax: 212-465-1181
     Email: cklee@leelitigation.com

          - and -

     Stephen M. Bourtin, Esq.
     THE BOYD LAW GROUP, PLLC
     Stephen M. Bourtin, Esq.
     68 Southfield Avenue, Two Stamford Landing, Suite 100
     Stamford, CT 06902
     Phone: 203-921-0322
     Email: sbourtin@theboydlawgroup.com



PATTERSON COS: Executes Settlement Pact in Dental Supplies Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended October 27, 2018, that the parties in the
case entitled, In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, Civil
Action No. 1:16-CV-00696-BMC-GRB, executed a settlement agreement
that proposes a full and final settlement of the lawsuit on a
class-wide basis, subject to court approval.

Beginning in January 2016, purported antitrust class action
complaints were filed against defendants Henry Schein, Inc., Benco
Dental Supply Company and Patterson Companies, Inc.

Although there were factual and legal variations among these
complaints, each alleged that defendants conspired to foreclose and
exclude competitors by boycotting manufacturers, state dental
associations, and others that deal with defendants' competitors.

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

Subject to certain exclusions, the putative class representatives
seek to represent all private dental practices and laboratories who
purchased dental supplies or equipment in the U.S. directly from
any of the defendants, during the period beginning August 31, 2008
until March 31, 2016.

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

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

Patterson Companies said, "Related to this settlement, we recorded
a charge of $28,263 in our first quarter 2019 results in our
Corporate segment."

Patterson Companies, Inc. distributes and sells dental and animal
health products in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through Dental and Animal Health segments. The
company was formerly known as Patterson Dental Company and changed
its name to Patterson Companies, Inc. in June 2004. Patterson
Companies, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is headquartered in St.
Paul, Minnesota.


PATTERSON COS: Faces Kramer Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended October 27, 2018, that the company faces a
purported class action suit filed by Nathaniel Kramer.

On October 9, 2018, Nathaniel Kramer filed indirect purchaser
litigation against Patterson Companies, Inc., Henry Schein, Inc.
and Benco Dental Supply Company in the United States District Court
for the District of Northern District of California.

The purported class action complaint asserts violations of the
California Cartwright Act and the California Unfair Competition Act
based on an alleged agreement between Schein, Benco, and Patterson
(and unnamed co-conspirators) not to compete as to price and
margins.

Plaintiff alleges that the agreement allowed the defendants to
charge higher prices to dental practices for dental supplies and
that the dental practices passed on all, or part of, the increased
prices to the consumers of dental services.

Subject to certain exclusions, the complaint defines the class as
all persons residing in California purchasing and/or reimbursing
for dental services from California dental practices.

The complaint seeks a permanent injunction, actual damages to be
determined at trial, trebled, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
and pre- and post-judgment interest.

Patterson Companies said, "While the outcome of litigation is
inherently uncertain, we believe that the derivative complaint is
without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this
litigation."

Patterson Companies, Inc. distributes and sells dental and animal
health products in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through Dental and Animal Health segments. The
company was formerly known as Patterson Dental Company and changed
its name to Patterson Companies, Inc. in June 2004. Patterson
Companies, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is headquartered in St.
Paul, Minnesota.


PATTERSON COS: Still Defends Plymouth County Retirement Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended October 27, 2018, that the company continues
to defend a federal securities class action suit entitled, Plymouth
County Retirement System v. Patterson Companies, Inc., Scott P.
Anderson and Ann B. Gugino.

On March 28, 2018, Plymouth County Retirement System ("Plymouth")
filed a federal securities class action complaint against Patterson
Companies, Inc. and its former CEO Scott P. Anderson and former CFO
Ann B. Gugino in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota in a case captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v.
Patterson Companies, Inc., Scott P. Anderson and Ann B. Gugino,
Case No. 0:18-cv-00871 MJD/SER.

On November 9, 2018, the complaint was amended to add former CEO
James W. Wiltz and former CFO R. Stephen Armstrong as individual
defendants.

Under the amended complaint, on behalf of all persons or entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Patterson's common stock
between June 26, 2013 and February 28, 2018, Plymouth alleges that
Patterson violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose
that Patterson's revenue and earnings were "artificially inflated
by Defendants' illicit, anti-competitive scheme with its purported
competitors, Benco and Schein, to prevent the formation of buying
groups that would allow its customers who were office-based
practitioners to take advantage of pricing arrangements identical
or comparable to those enjoyed by large-group customers."

In its class action complaint, Plymouth asserts one count against
Patterson for violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and a second,
related count against the individual defendants for violating
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

Plymouth seeks compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest and reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' witness fees
and costs.  

On August 30, 2018, Gwinnett County Public Employees Retirement
System and Plymouth County Retirement System, Pembroke Pines
Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers, Central Laborers
Pension Fund were appointed lead plaintiffs.  

Patterson Companies said, "While the outcome of litigation is
inherently uncertain, we believe that the class action complaint is
without merit, and we are vigorously defending ourselves in this
litigation. We do not anticipate that this matter will have a
material adverse effect on our financial statements. Patterson has
also received requests under Minnesota Business Corporation Act
Section 302A.461 to inspect corporate books and records relating to
the issues raised in the securities class action and the antitrust
matters."

Patterson Companies, Inc. distributes and sells dental and animal
health products in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through Dental and Animal Health segments. The
company was formerly known as Patterson Dental Company and changed
its name to Patterson Companies, Inc. in June 2004. Patterson
Companies, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is headquartered in St.
Paul, Minnesota.


PAY-O-MATIC CHECK: Accused by Luyando of Violating FLSA and NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Luyando, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. PAY-O-MATIC CHECK CASHING CORP., THE
PAY-O-MATIC CORP., and JOHN and JANE DOES 1-100, Case No.
1:18-cv-11114 (S.D.N.Y., November 28, 2018), accuses the Defendants
of violating the:

   (1) the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair
       Labor Standards Act;

   (2) the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the New York
       Labor Laws;

   (3) the wage statement and notice requirements of the NYLL;
       and

   (4) any other claim(s) that can be fairly inferred from the
       facts set forth in the complaint.

Pay-O-Matic Check Cashing Corporation and The Pay-O-Matic
Corporation are Domestic Business Corporations and existing under
the laws of the state of New York and list their principal
corporate office and address for service of process as 160 Oak
Drive, in Syosset, New York.  The Doe Defendants are the
individuals, who are and/or were in active control and management
of the Company.

The Pay-O-Matic Corporation provides check cashing, money transfer,
and bill payment services.  The Company offers prepaid card, direct
deposit, prepaid, money order, deposit/withdrawal, and other
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin D. Weisenberg, Esq.
          THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C.
          401 Park Avenue South
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 571-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0505
          E-mail: benjamin@ottingerlaw.com


PEKIN, IL: Berardi Files Suit under Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------
The City of Pekin, Illinois is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Patricia Berardi, Robert Chriswell, Alice Rose Mary Ortiz,
Austin Calloway, Ellen Sunderland and Lisa Lynch, as the parent and
next friend of Maygen Lynch, a minor child, individually on behalf
of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. City of Pekin, Illinois, a municipal corporation, Mark Rother,
not individually, but in his official capacity as the Pekin City
Manager, John McCabe, John P. Abel, Michael Garrison, Mark Luft,
Lloyd Orrick, Michael Ritchason and Jim Schramm, not individually,
but in their official capacities as Council Members for the City of
Pekin, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01438-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill.,
December 5, 2018).

Pekin is a city in and the county seat of Tazewell County in the
U.S. state of Illinois. Located on the Illinois River, Pekin is the
largest city of Tazewell County and the second most populous
municipality of the Peoria metropolitan area, after Peoria itself.
As of the 2010 census, its population is 34,094. A small portion of
the city limits extend into Peoria County. Pekin is the 13th-most
populous city in Illinois outside the Chicago Metropolitan Area. It
is the most populous municipality in the United States with the
name Pekin.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Andres J Gallegos, Esq.
   ROBBINS SALOMON & PATT LTD
   180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3300
   Chicago, IL 60601
   Tel: (312) 456-0381
   Fax: (312) 782-6690
   Email: agallegos@rsplaw.com

      - and –

   Jennifer Lundy Sender, Esq.
   ROBBINS SALOMON & PATT LTD
   180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3300
   Chicago, IL 60601
   Tel: (312) 782-9000
   Fax: (312) 782-6690
   Email: jsender@rsplaw.com


PERMANENT WORKERS: Portillo Appeals W.D. La. Ruling to 5th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Javier Portillo filed an appeal from a court ruling in
his lawsuit entitled Javier Portillo v. Permanent Workers, L.L.C.,
et al., Case No. 6:15-CV-1048, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Portillo
sued his former employers for alleged unpaid overtime wages in a
collective action suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  He
sought unpaid wages, interest, liquidated damages, and attorney
fees.

The appellate case is captioned as Javier Portillo v. Permanent
Workers, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 18-31238, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JAVIER PORTILLO, on behalf of himself or other
persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          COSTALES LAW OFFICE
          3801 Canal Street
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 914-1048
          E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com

Defendants-Appellees PERMANENT WORKERS, L.L.C., and DANNY CEPERO
are represented by:

          Murphy J. Foster, III, Esq.
          Melissa Morse Shirley, Esq.
          BREAZEALE, SACHSE & WILSON, L.L.P.
          301 Main Street
          1 American Place
          Baton Rouge, LA 70801
          Telephone: (225) 387-4000
          E-mail: murphy.foster@bswllp.com
                  melissa.shirley@bswllp.com

Defendant-Appellee CONRAD INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, is represented
by:

          Greg Guidry, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          603 Silverstone Road
          Lafayette, LA 70508
          Telephone: (337) 769-6583
          E-mail: greg.guidry@ogletreedeakins.com


PORT RESOURCES: First Circuit Appeal Filed in Giguere Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff David Giguere filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Giguere v. Port Resources Inc., Case No.
2:16-cv-00058-NT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maine, Portland.

The appellate case is captioned as Giguere v. Port Resources Inc.,
Case No. 18-2163, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 5, 2018, Port
Resources filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit.  That
appellate case is entitled Giguere v. Port Resources Inc., Case No.
18-2073.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Maine labor laws guaranteeing prompt payment of
wages.

Port Resources manages and provides staffing for 24 group homes and
supervised apartments serving nearly 100 clients in residential
neighborhoods across southern Maine.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Appearance
form, Docketing Statement, and Transcript Report/Order form were
due on December 12, 2018.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant DAVID GIGUERE, on his own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Peter Mancuso, Esq.
          Andrew Arthur Schmidt, Esq.
          ANDREW SCHMIDT LAW PLLC
          997 India Street
          Portland, ME 04101-0000
          Telephone: (207) 619-0884
          E-mail: peter@maineworkerjustice.com
                  andy@maineworkerjustice.com

               - and -

          Howard T. Reben, Esq.
          REBEN, BENJAMIN & MARCH
          97 India St.
          P.O. Box 7060
          Portland, ME 04112-0000
          Telephone: (207) 772-5496
          E-mail: hreben@rbmlawoffice.com

Defendant-Appellee PORT RESOURCES INC. is represented by:

          Graydon Stevens, Esq.
          KELLY REMMEL & ZIMMERMAN
          53 Exchange St.
          PO Box 597
          Portland, ME 04112-0597
          Telephone: (207) 775-1020
          E-mail: gstevens@krz.com


PPDAI GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Nov. 27
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of PPDAI Group Inc. (NYSE: PPDF)
pursuant and/or traceable to PPDAI's November 2017 Initial Public
Offering ("IPO"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for PPDAI
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the PPDAI class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1419.html or call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) PPDAI was engaged in predatory lending practices that
saddled subprime borrowers and those with poor or limited credit
histories with high interest rate debt they could not repay; (2)
many of PPDAI's customers were using PPDAI-provided loans to repay
existing loans they otherwise could not afford to repay, thereby
inflating PPDAI's revenues and active borrower numbers and
increasing the likelihood of defaults; (3) PPDAI was experiencing
increasing delinquency rates, negatively affecting PPDAI's
reserves; (4) PPDAI's purported "rapid growth" in the number and
amount of loans had materially dropped off; (5) PPDAI was providing
online loans to college students despite a government ban on the
practice; (6) PPDAI was engaged in overly aggressive and improper
collection practices; and (7) as a result of its improper lending,
underwriting, and collection practices, PPDAI was subject to
heightened risk of adverse actions by Chinese regulators. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January
25, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1419.html or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll
free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors
throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm
was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number
of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. [GN]


PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT: Faces Lowenbien Class Suit for FDCPA Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Account
Management, LLC. The case is styled as Yosef Lowenbien, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Professional Account Management, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-06938 (E.D. N.Y., December 5, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Professional Account Management LLC provides data processing,
payment, and collection services to municipalities and financial
institutions. The company was founded in 1988 and is based in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. As of October 24, 2005, Professional Account
Management LLC operates as a subsidiary of Reino International Pty
Ltd.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
   Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
   735 Central Avenue
   Woodmere, NY 11598
   Tel: (516) 668-6945
   Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com



RCKC CORPORATION: Does not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Norma Marquez, individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RCKC Corporation, d/b/a
McDonalds 47th & Cicero; RKMK Corp., d/b/a McDonald's Crete;
Kenzcon Corp., d/b/a McDonald's South Holland; Konnz Corp., d/b/a
McDonald's Burbank; Connz Corp.; R.K. Kenzie Corp., d/b/a
McDonald's 64th & Cicero; Zeeken Corp., d/b/a McDonald's Evergreen
Park; Conn Group Inc.; Jacmar Corp.; Randy Conn; McDonald's USA,
LLC; and McDonald's Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07977
(N.D. Ill., December 04, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid wages,
unpaid straight time and overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
statutory penalties, attorneys' fees, and costs from Defendants,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law.

The Defendants have employed Plaintiffs to perform work for
Defendants, as "non-exempt" hourly employees. Plaintiffs were hired
by and employed by Defendants with the agreement between them that
Plaintiffs will be paid an agreed upon hourly rate of pay for all
time worked for Defendants.

However, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs, and all other
non-exempt hourly employees, for all of the time Plaintiffs spent
working for Defendants, even though such time was required and/or
permitted by Defendants, says the complaint. Specifically, the
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs for time worked prior to the
start time of the scheduled shift of each employee, notwithstanding
that Plaintiffs were required to and in fact did work for
Defendants for up to an hour of time (and sometimes more), prior to
their scheduled shift start time, each day they were assigned to
work; and, in addition, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs for
time worked following their scheduled shift.

The Defendants also often failed to provide Plaintiffs with two
fifteen minute breaks during their daily shifts, at least two to
three times per week. Plaintiffs often worked more than seven and
one-half continuous hours for Defendants during their shifts; and
did so without any break permitted by Defendants. The Defendants
likewise failed to provide Plaintiffs with a full meal break during
many of Plaintiffs' shifts, even though Plaintiffs worked more than
seven and a half continuous hours. The Defendants only recorded the
time worked by Plaintiffs by recording the time when their
scheduled shift began and ended; and frequently failed to record
all of that time worked, adds the complaint.

As a result of Defendants' practices, the Defendants benefited from
reduced labor and payroll costs which, in turn, increased the
earnings of Defendant Randy Conn and of all other Defendants,
asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff Norma Marquez is a resident and citizen of Chicago,
Illinois and is an employee of Defendants.

All of the Franchisee Defendants are active domestic Illinois
corporations, and are, upon information and belief, owned by
Defendant Randy Conn, who is also the president of and registered
agent for each Franchisee Defendant.

Jacmar Corp. is the managing entity of the Franchisee Defendants,
and manages and acts as the parent organization of each of the
Franchisee Defendants. Jacmar Corp. is also owned by Defendant
Randy Conn, who is also its president.

Randy Conn is a resident of Homewood, Illinois, within the Northern
District of Illinois.

McDonald's Corporation is a Delaware corporation, registered to do
business in Illinois as a foreign corporation.

McDonald's USA, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company,
registered to do business in Illinois as a foreign limited
liability company, managed by approximately 106 individuals, and,
upon information and belief, operates as both a franchisor and
owner-operator of McDonald's restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Glen J. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
     Glen J. Dunn & Associates, Ltd.
     221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Phone: 312-546-5056

          - and -

     Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq.
     Jeffrey Grant Brown, P.C.
     221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Phone: 312-789-9700


RESULTS COMPANIES: Gibbs Seeks Wages for Off-the-Clock Work
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Gibbs and Bobbi Kazmierczak, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Results Companies,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00170, (N.D. Tex., November 27,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, unpaid wages,
interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is an international business processing outsourcing
services provider that manages and operates call centers in more
than 28 worldwide locations. Plaintiffs were employed by Results as
hourly-paid Customer Service Representatives/Customer Advocates at
its Wichita Falls, TX call center. They claim overtime for
post-shift and pre-shift activities that were not captured by their
time-keeping system. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles W. Branham, III, Esq.
      DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP
      302 N. Market St., Suite 300
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 722-5990
      Fax: (214) 722-5991
      Email: tbranham@dobllp.com

             - and -

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      BROWN, LLC
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Tel: (877) 561-0000
      Fax: (855) 582-5297
      Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


RISTORANTE LA BUCA: Wright Seeks to Certify Tipped Workers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned NICHOLAS J. WRIGHT, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. RISTORANTE
LA BUCA INC. d/b/a RISTORANTE LA BUCA; JEANIE GIULIANI; ANTHONY
GIULIANI; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Case No. 2:18-cv-02207-MAK (E.D.
Pa.), renews his motion to certify class pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The proposed class consists of:

     All current and former Tipped Employees who have worked for
     Defendant in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at any point
     from May 25, 2015 through the present.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
          Stephen E. Connolly, Esq.
          CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
          2200 Renaissance Boulevard, Suite 275
          King of Prussia, PA 19406
          Telephone: (610) 822-3700
          Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
          E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com
                  sconnolly@cwglaw.com

               - and -

          Eric Rayz, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ, LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Unit 102
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364-5030
          E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Mercado Suit Over False Ads
------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Mercado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Digital
River, Inc. dba Global Commerce CE; and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case
No. 5:18-cv-02557 (C.D. Cal., December 6, 2018) is brought against
the Defendant to stop Defendant's practice of falsely advertising
its products and payment services, and to obtain redress for a
class of consumers who changed position, within the applicable
statute of limitations period, as a result of Defendant's false and
misleading advertisements.

The Defendants represents that products purchased on the website,
Samsung.com, will charge consumers a certain price, when this is in
fact false, says the complaint. Defendants' misrepresentations to
Plaintiff and others similarly situated caused them to purchase or
attempt to purchase the electronic products from Defendants'
website, which Plaintiff and others similarly situated would not
have purchased or attempted to purchase absent these
misrepresentations by Defendant and its employees. In so doing,
Defendant has violated California consumer protection statutes,
including the Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act,
it says.

Plaintiff, Jacob Mercado, is a natural person residing in San
Bernardino County in the state of California, and is a "consumer".

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is a company engaged in the
business of producing and selling electronics products and services
to consumers.

Digital River, Inc. dba Global Commerce CE, is a company engaged in
the business of providing payment transactional services to
consumers and businesses.

Doe 1 through 20, inclusive, are currently unknown to Plaintiff,
who therefore sues such Defendants by fictitious names.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SANTA CLARA, CA: Consent Decree in Cole Has Prelim OK
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID COLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SANTA
CLARA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-06594-LHK (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, granted the parties'
Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Notice
to the Class.

The parties have entered into a Consent Decree that was filed with
their Joint Motion on Nov. 13, 2018, which would settle all claims
in the case.  The parties also submitted a proposed Notice to the
class attached to the Consent Decree.

On Dec. 6, 2018, the Court held a Preliminary Approval hearing.  On
the same day, the Defendant filed a declaration affirming that it
provided the requisite Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") of 2005
notice.  On Dec. 7, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a declaration that
attached as Exhibit 1 a corrected version of the Consent Decree
that fixed the typographical error.  Additionally, the corrected
Consent Decree included as Exhibit B the revised Notice that
updated the original proposed Notice to require that objectors
include their name, address, and signature in any objections and
added language that the Court may only approve or deny the Consent
Decree and cannot change the terms of the Consent Decree.  The
corrected Consent Decree and the revised Notice are the operative
documents that the Court approves.

After reviewing all of the pleadings, records, and papers on file,
Judge Koh finds that the action is determined to be properly
maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The Court has already certified
a class defined as all individuals with mobility disabilities who
are now, or will be in the future, incarcerated in the Santa Clara
County Jails, which consist of three facilities: (1) the Santa
Clara County Main Jail Complex ("Main Jail"), consisting of Main
Jail North and Main Jail South, in San Jose, California; (2)
facilities for male inmates at the Elmwood Correctional Complex in
Milpitas, California; and (3) the Elmwood Complex Women's Facility
in Milpitas, California.

She also finds that the corrected Consent Decree falls within the
range of possible approval and is sufficiently fair to warrant the
dissemination of notice to the class members apprising them of the
settlement.  She granted the corrected Consent Decree preliminary
approval.

The Judge directed that by Jan. 22, 2019, the revised Notice will
be disseminated to the Class.  The revised Notice and corrected
Consent Decree will be made available on the Class Counsel's
websites for 30 days.  A copy of the corrected Consent Decree will
be available in all intake, housing, and programming units of the
Jails in English and will be made available upon request in Spanish
and Vietnamese.  The inmates may request a copy of the corrected
Consent Decree by completing an Inmate Request Form and Custody
Staff will provide the inmate with a copy within three days of the
request.

The expense of giving notice to the class members will be paid by
the County.  The dissemination of the revised Notice as provided is
authorized and approved.  The County must file and serve on Class
Counsel a declaration affirming that notice was published as
required in the order.

Any member of the class may object to the corrected Consent Decree
by Feb. 28, 2019, more than 35 days after the Jan. 22, 2019
deadline for posting of notice at the Jails and on the Class
Counsel's webpage.  The class Counsel and/or the County, as
appropriate, will respond to any timely-filed objections not later
than March 14, 2019.

Judge Koh will consider objections when deciding whether to approve
the corrected Consent Decree.  Objections must be postmarked no
later than Feb. 28, 2019, and sent to the following address: Clerk
of the Court United States District Court Northern District of
California 280 South 1st Street San Jose, CA 95113

A final approval hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e), Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, is set for March 21, 2019 at 1:30 p.m.  The motion
for final approval and the motion for attorneys' fees and costs
will be filed by Jan. 14, 2019, and the replies in support of final
approval and of attorney's fees and costs will be filed by March
14, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 7, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/bbZBZ2 from Leagle.com.

David Cole, Leroy Benjamin, Erasmo Flores, Jr., Robert Phillips &
Brandon Williams, Plaintiffs, represented by Gay Crosthwait
Grunfeld -- ggrunfeld@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld
LLP, Kara Jane Janssen -- kjanssen@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan &
Grunfeld, Lisa Adrienne Ells -- lells@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan
& Grunfeld LLP, Marc J. Shinn-Krantz, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld,
LLP & Michelle Brooke Iorio -- miorio@dralegal.org -- Disability
Rights Advocates.

County of Santa Clara, Defendant, represented by Aryn Paige Harris
-- aryn.harris@cco.sccgov.org -- Office of County Cousel, Santa
Clara, Douglas Michael Press, Office of the County Counsel & Emily
L. Fedman, Office of the County Counsel.


SENDGRID INC: Faces Rosenblait Suit Over Sale to Twilio Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Rosenblait, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SendGrid Inc., Warren Adelman,
Ajay Agarwal, Fred Ball, Byron Deeter, Sameer Dholakia, Anne
Raimondi, Hilary Schneider, Sri Viswanath, Twilio Inc., and Topaz
Merger Subsidiary, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01931-UNA (D.
Del., December 5, 2018) is a complaint asserting violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on October
15, 2018, pursuant to which SendGrid, Inc. will be acquired by
Twilio Inc. and Topaz Merger Subsidiary, Inc.

On October 15, 2018, SendGrid's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Twilio.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, SendGrid's
stockholders will receive 0.485 shares of Parent common stock for
each share of SendGrid they own. On November 21, 2018, defendants
filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction.

The Registration Statement omits material information with respect
to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration
Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges that
defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the Registration Statement, says the complaint.

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

SendGrid is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices at 1801 California Street, Suite 500, Denver,
Colorado 80202. SendGrid's common stock is traded on the NYSE under
the ticker symbol "SEND".

Warren Adelman, Ajay Agarwal, Fred Ball, Byron Deeter, Sameer
Dholakia, Anne Raimondi, Hilary Schneider, and Sri Viswanath 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


SIGNET JEWELERS: Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Consolidated Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended November 3, 2018, that the court overseeing
the consolidated New York class action lawsuit has denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss.

In August 2016, two alleged Company shareholders each filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its
then-current Chief Executive Officer and current Chief Financial
Officer (Nos. 16-cv-6728 and 16-cv-6861, the "S.D.N.Y. cases").

On September 16, 2016, the Court consolidated the S.D.N.Y. cases
under case number 16-cv-6728. On April 3, 2017, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of persons
that acquired the Company's securities on or between August 29,
2013, and February 27, 2017, naming as defendants the Company, its
then-current and former Chief Executive Officers, and its current
and former Chief Financial Officers.

The second amended complaint alleged that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by,
among other things, misrepresenting the Company's business and
earnings by (i) failing to disclose that the Company was allegedly
having issues ensuring the safety of customers' jewelry while in
the Company's custody for repairs, which allegedly damaged customer
confidence; (ii) making misleading statements about the Company's
credit portfolio; and (iii) failing to disclose reports of sexual
harassment allegations that were raised by claimants in an ongoing
pay and promotion gender discrimination class arbitration (the
"Arbitration").

The second amended complaint alleged that the Company's share price
was artificially inflated as a result of the alleged
misrepresentations and sought unspecified compensatory damages and
costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees.

In March 2017, two other alleged Company shareholders each filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas against the Company and its
then-current and former Chief Executive Officers (Nos. 17-cv-875
and 17-cv-923, the "N.D. Tex. cases").

Those complaints were nearly identical to each other and alleged
that the defendants' statements concerning the Arbitration violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The N.D. Tex. cases were subsequently transferred to the Southern
District of New York and consolidated with the S.D.N.Y. cases (the
"Consolidated Action").

On July 27, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel in the Consolidated Action. On August 3, 2017,
the Court ordered the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action to
file a third amended complaint by September 29, 2017. On September
29, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a third amended complaint that
covered a putative class period of August 29, 2013, through May 24,
2017, and that asserted substantially similar claims to the second
amended complaint, except that it omitted the claim based on
defendants' alleged misstatements concerning the security of
customers' jewelry while in the Company's custody for repairs.

The defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on
December 1, 2017. On December 4, 2017, the Court entered an order
permitting the lead plaintiff to amend its complaint as of right by
December 22, 2017, and providing that the lead plaintiff would not
be given any further opportunity to amend its complaint to address
the issues raised in the defendants' motion to dismiss.

On December 15, 2017, Nebil Aydin filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and its current Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (No. 17-cv-9853).

The Aydin complaint alleged that the defendants made misleading
statements regarding the Company's credit portfolio between August
24, 2017, and November 21, 2017, in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and sought
unspecified compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including
attorneys' and experts' fees. On January 7, 2018, the Aydin case
was consolidated into the Consolidated Action.

On December 22, 2017, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action
filed its fourth amended complaint, which asserted substantially
the same claims as its third amended complaint for an expanded
class period of August 28, 2013, through December 1, 2017. On
January 26, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the fourth
amended complaint. This motion was fully briefed as of March 9,
2018.

On March 20, 2018, the Court granted the lead plaintiff leave to
file a fifth amended complaint. On March 22, 2018, the lead
plaintiff in the Consolidated Action filed its fifth amended
complaint which asserts substantially the same claims as its fourth
amended complaint for an expanded class period of August 29, 2013,
through March 13, 2018. The prior motion to dismiss was denied as
moot.
On November 26, 2018, the Court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss.

Signet Jewelers Limited engages in the retail sale of diamond
jewelry, watches, and other products in the United States, Canada,
the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, and the Channel
Islands. Signet Jewelers Limited was founded in 1950 and is based
in Hamilton, Bermuda.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Still Awaits Court Decision on Claimants' Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended November 3, 2018, that Signet Jewelers,
Inc., a company subsidiary, still awaits the decision of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on claimants' class action
appeal.

In March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the "Claimants")
filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against SJI,
a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging that US store-level employment
practices are discriminatory as to compensation and promotional
activities with respect to gender.

In June 2008, the District Court referred the matter to private
arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide
basis. The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and SJI
opposed the motion.  

On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination
Award in which she certified for a class-wide hearing Claimants'
disparate impact declaratory and injunctive relief class claim
under Title VII, with a class period of July 22, 2004 through date
of trial for the Claimants' compensation claims and December 7,
2004 through date of trial for Claimants' promotion claims.

The arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants' motion to certify a
disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a
disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII,
and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay
Act.

On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To
Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For Corrective
Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants' emergency motion on
February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on February 18, 2015.

Claimants' motion was granted in part and denied in part in an
order issued on March 16, 2015. Claimants filed a Motion for
Reconsideration Regarding Title VII Claims for Disparate Treatment
in Compensation on February 11, 2015, which SJI opposed. April 27,
2015, the arbitrator issued an order denying the Claimants' Motion.


SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of
New York a Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification
Award on March 3, 2015, which Claimants opposed. On November 16,
2015, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted SJI's Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator’s Class
Certification Award in part and denied it in part.

On December 3, 2015, SJI filed with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit SJI's Notice of Appeal of the
District Court's November 16, 2015 Opinion and Order. On November
25, 2015, SJI filed a Motion to Stay the AAA Proceedings while SJI
appeals the decision of the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, which Claimants opposed.

The arbitrator issued an order denying SJI's Motion to Stay on
February 22, 2016.SJI filed its Brief and Special Appendix with the
Second Circuit on March 16, 2016. The matter was fully briefed and
oral argument was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit on November 2, 2016.

On April 6, 2015, Claimants filed in the AAA Claimants' Motion for
Clarification or in the Alternative Motion for Stay of the Effect
of the Class Certification Award as to the Individual Intentional
Discrimination Claims, which SJI opposed.

On June 15, 2015, the arbitrator granted the Claimants' motion. On
March 6, 2017, Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for Conditional
Certification of Claimants’ Equal Pay Act Claims and
Authorization of Notice, which SJI opposed The arbitrator heard
oral argument on Claimants' Motion on December 18, 2015 and, on
February 29, 2016, issued an Equal Pay Act Collective Action
Conditional Certification Award and Order Re Claimants' Motion For
Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period, conditionally certifying
Claimants' Equal Pay Act claims as a collective action, and tolling
the statute of limitations on EPA claims to October 16, 2003 to
ninety days after notice issues to the putative members of the
collective action.

SJI filed in the AAA a Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The
District Court's Consideration Of Respondent's Motion To Vacate
Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional
Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of
EPA Limitations Period on March 10, 2016.

SJI filed in the AAA a Renewed Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending
The District Court's Resolution Of Sterling's Motion To Vacate
Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional
Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of
EPA Limitations Period on March 31, 2016, which Claimants opposed.
On April 5, 2016, the arbitrator denied SJI's Motion.

On March 23, 2016 SJI filed with the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York a Motion To Vacate The Arbitrator's
Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And
Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period,
which Claimants opposed. SJI's Motion was denied on May 22, 2016.

On May 31, 2016, SJI filed a Notice Of Appeal of Judge Rakoff's
opinion and order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which
Claimant's opposed. On June 1, 2017, the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals dismissed SJI's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Claimants filed a Motion For Amended Class Determination Award on
November 18, 2015, and on March 31, 2016 the arbitrator entered an
order amending the Title VII class certification award to preclude
class members from requesting exclusion from the injunctive and
declaratory relief class certified in the arbitration.

The arbitrator issued a Bifurcated Case Management Plan on April 5,
2016, and ordered into effect the parties' Stipulation Regarding
Notice Of Equal Pay Act Collective Action And Related Notice
Administrative Procedures on April 7, 2016.

SJI filed in the AAA a Motion For Protective Order on May 2, 2016,
which Claimants opposed. The matter was fully briefed and oral
argument was heard on July 22, 2016. The motion was granted in part
on January 27, 2017. Notice to EPA collective action members was
issued on May 3, 2016, and the opt-in period for these notice
recipients closed on August 1, 2016.

Approximately, 10,314 current and former employees submitted
consent forms to opt in to the collective action; however, some
have withdrawn their consents. The number of valid consents is
disputed and yet to be determined.

SJI believes the number of valid consents to be approximately
9,124. On July 24, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit issued its unanimous Summary Order that held that
the absent class members "never consented" to the Arbitrator
determining the permissibility of class arbitration under the
agreements, and remanded the matter to the District Court to
determine whether the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by
certifying the Title VII class that contained absent class members
who had not opted in the litigation.

On August 7, 2017, SJI filed its Renewed Motion to Vacate the Class
Determination Award relative to absent class members with the
District Court. The matter was fully briefed and an oral argument
was heard on October 16, 2017. On January 15, 2018, District Court
granted SJI's Motion finding that the Arbitrator exceeded her
authority by binding non-parties (absent class members) to the
Title VII claim.

The District Court further held that the RESOLVE Agreement does not
permit class action procedures, thereby, reducing the Claimants in
the Title VII matter from 70,000 to 254. Claimants dispute that the
number of claimants in the Title VII is 254. On January 18, 2018,
the Claimants filed a Notice of Appeal with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal was fully briefed and
oral argument before the Second Circuit occurred on May 7, 2018.

SJI currently awaits the Second Circuit's decision on this appeal.


On November 10, 2017, SJI filed in the arbitration motions for
summary judgment, and for decertification, of Claimants' Equal Pay
Act and Title VII promotions claims. On January 30, 2018, oral
argument on SJI's motions was heard.

On January 26, 2018, SJI filed a Motion to Vacate The Equal Pay Act
Collective Action Award And Tolling Order asserting that the
Arbitrator exceeded her authority by conditionally certifying the
Equal Pay Act claim and allowing the absent claimants to opt-in the
litigation.

On March 12, 2018, the Arbitrator denied SJI's Motion to Vacate The
Equal Pay Act Collective Action Award and Tolling Order. SJI still
has a pending motion seeking decertification of the EPA Collective
Action before the Arbitrator. On March 19, 2018, the Arbitrator
issued an Order partially granting SJI's Motion to Amend the
Arbitrator's November 2, 2017, Bifurcated Seventh Amended Case
Management Plan resulting in a continuance of the May 14, 2018
trial date. A new trial date has not been set.

SJI denies the allegations of the Claimants and has been defending
the case vigorously. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or
range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be
estimated.

Signet Jewelers Limited engages in the retail sale of diamond
jewelry, watches, and other products in the United States, Canada,
the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, and the Channel
Islands. Signet Jewelers Limited was founded in 1950 and is based
in Hamilton, Bermuda.


SK 1448 INC: Maldonado Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Angel Maldonado, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SK 1448 Inc. (d/b/a Namaste),
Parminderjit Singh, John Doe (a.k.a. Lino), and Ahmed Doe,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-10157 (S.D. N.Y., December 6, 2018)
seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law and
the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commissioner of Labor including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff Maldonado was employed by Defendants as a delivery
worker. However, he was required to spend a considerable part of
his work day performing non-tipped duties, including but not
limited to dishwashing. Plaintiff Maldonado 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, the complaint asserts.

The Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiff Maldonado appropriately for
any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. The Defendants also failed to pay
Plaintiff Maldonado the required "spread of hours" pay for any day
in which he had to work over 10 hours a day; and Defendants
repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiff Maldonado wages on a timely
basis, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Miguel Angel Maldonado is an adult individual residing in
Bronx County, New York. Plaintiff Maldonado is a former employee of
Defendants SK 1448 Inc. (d/b/a Namaste), Parminderjit Singh, John
Doe (a.k.a. Lino), and Ahmed Doe. Plaintiff Maldonado was employed
by Defendants at Namaste from approximately May 2018 until on or
about November 21, 2018.

SK 1448 Inc. (d/b/a Namaste) is a domestic corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of New York. Upon
information and belief, it maintains its principal place of
business at 1448 1st Avenue, New York, NY 10021.

Parminderjit Singh is an individual engaging (or who was engaged)
in business in this judicial district during the relevant time
period. Defendant Parminderjit Singh is sued individually in his
capacity as owner, officer and/or agent of Defendant Corporation.

John Doe (a.k.a. Lino) is an individual engaging (or who was
engaged) in business in this judicial district during the relevant
time period. John Doe is sued individually in his capacity as
owner, officer and/or agent of Defendant Corporation.

Ahmed Doe is an individual engaging (or who was engaged) in
business in this judicial district during the relevant time period.
Defendant Ahmed Doe is sued individually in his capacity as a
manager of Defendant Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 317-1200
     Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


SPECIALIZED LOAN: Forbes Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Carlton Forbes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-06561
(E.D. N.Y., November 17, 2018), is brought against the Defendant
for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant made false, deceptive and
misleading statement that the Defendant may report the Plaintiff's
account to credit bureaus.

The Plaintiff is a resident in the District of New York and owes a
financial obligation.

The Defendant is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Novlette R. Kidd, Esq.
      FAGENSON & PUGLISI, PLLC
      450 Sevent Avenue, Suite 704
      New York, NY 10123
      Tel: (212) 268-2128
      E-mail: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com


SRC ENERGY: Schneider Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Larry Schneider, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SRC Energy, Inc., Defendant, Case No
1:18-cv-03117-STV (D. Colo., December 4, 2018) is a collective
action seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation owed to
Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all current and former
day-rate workers, who performed work for Defendant associated with
monitoring and maintaining oil and gas wells throughout the United
States during the three-year period before the filing of this
Complaint up to the date the court authorizes notice.

The Defendant required Plaintiff Larry Schneider to work more than
40 hours in a workweek as a drilling consultant. Plaintiff is a
day-rate employee who provides on-site consulting services at oil
and gas wells. Defendant misclassified Plaintiff as an independent
contractor and as such failed to pay him overtime at the mandated
one and one-half times his regular rate, says the complaint.  The
Defendant's conduct violates the Fair Labor Standards Act, which
requires non-exempt employees to be compensated for all hours in
excess of 40 in a workweek at one and one-half times their regular
rate, it adds.

Plaintiff Larry Schneider is an individual residing in Weld County,
Colorado. Plaintiff performed work for Defendant in Colorado for
almost a year and a half.

SRC Energy, Inc. is a domestic corporation doing business
throughout the United States including Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
     KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
     4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: (713) 523-0001
     Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
     Email: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com


ST JUDE: Third-Party Funding Agreement Gets Conditional Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Lockwood, Esq. -- clockwood@osler.com -- and Vinayak Mishra,
Esq. -- vmishra@osler.com -- of Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, in an
article for Lexology, report that the Ontario Divisional Court in
Houle v. St. Jude Medical Inc. marks yet another development in the
emerging law surrounding the role of third party…

The Ontario Divisional Court in Houle v. St. Jude Medical Inc.
marks yet another development in the emerging law surrounding the
role of third party litigation funding agreements in Canadian class
proceedings. In the case, the Divisional Court upheld Justice
Perell's qualified approval of a novel third party litigation
funding agreement, which included the following:

   -- Approval of the third party funder's recovery of 10% of the
plaintiff's award (if any),

   -- Amendment of the agreement to provide that the third party
had to seek court approval after the end of the case for any
further compensation, and

   -- Deletion of parts of the agreement that permitted the third
party funder to withdraw its funding.

The Divisional Court's ruling represents a further evolution in the
developing battle ground surrounding third party funding agreements
in the context of class proceedings, in respect of which we have
previously written (in addition to our commentary from a
defendant's perspective, found here and here).

Background
In 2017, the plaintiffs, Shirley and Roland Houle brought a class
action against the defendants, St Jude Medical Canada, Inc. and St
Jude Medical Inc. alleging they negligently designed and
manufactured cardiac defibrillator devices that were surgically
implanted in the proposed class members.

Prior to applying for class certification, the plaintiffs asked the
court to approve its third party funding agreement with Bentham IMF
Capital Limited.

Unlike many third party funding agreements, Bentham agreed to pay
50% of the plaintiff's counsels' fee on a real time basis
throughout the case. The agreement also stipulated that Bentham
would receive 20%-25% of the plaintiff's recovery. This is much
more than the typical 10% often seen in these types of agreements.

On August 29, 2017, Justice Perell approved the litigation funding
agreement subject to certain key amendments.

The danger of potential overcompensation
The Divisional Court accepted Justice Perell's decision to
pre-approve Bentham's recovery of 10% of the plaintiff's potential
recovery, but to wait until the end of the case before determining
if Bentham should be paid any additional amount (i.e., the
additional 10-15% recovery contemplated by the terms of the
original agreement).

In so doing, the Divisional Court expressed concern that Bentham's
compensation would be uncapped and not subject to any further court
scrutiny. In this regard, it was noted that the eventual fee could
prove to be unfair in the event that:

1. The parties overestimated the risk that the plaintiffs would not
succeed, and

2. The plaintiffs or class counsel caved to Bentham's pressure to
settle.

Bentham argued that parties who receive the benefit of independent
legal advice should be able to make commercial decisions. However,
the Divisional Court reasoned that the protection of the interests
of the 8,000 other class members trumped any such right. Similarly,
the Divisional Court rejected the argument that Bentham needed
certainty on its return, given the high level of uncertainty
throughout the agreement.

Removal of Bentham's right to unilaterally terminate
The Divisional Court also accepted Justice Perell's decision to
remove Bentham's right to withdraw funding without court approval.

The Divisional Court was concerned with the various litigation
covenants which stated that the plaintiffs and class counsel would
pursue an efficient, affordable, and proportionate resolution of
the proceedings. The Divisional Court worried that Bentham could
threaten to withdraw its funding based on a perceived breach of any
of these types of covenants. Rather than remove these terms,
Justice Perell limited Bentham's termination rights.

Justice Perell did note that these type of covenants may be
preferable where the representative plaintiff has "little or no
skin in the action" and is really only motivated by money. However,
this was not such a case.

Take-aways
The decision illustrates the uncertainty that continues to surround
the nature and scope of third party funding agreements in the
context of class proceedings, and demonstrates the courts'
willingness to engage in a detailed review of any such agreement
before approving its terms. [GN]


STEEL WORLD: Hernandez Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Alonso Ramirez Hernandez and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiffs, vs. The Steel World Corp., Jose L
Villela and Onel Hernandez, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-24930, (S.D.
Fla., November 27, 2018), Defendants, requests compensatory and
liquidated damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest and any and all other
relief.

Hernandez worked for Steel World as a welder from on or about June
10, 2018 through on or about November 25, 2018. He worked an
average of 10 unpaid overtime hours a week, loading and unloading
tools and equipment on and off trucks and travelling from different
jobsites. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      Email: zabogado@aol.com


STERN & STERN: Faces Liantonio Suit Under FDCA in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A debt collection law firm is facing a class action lawsuit under
Fair Debt Collection Act. The case is styled as Nicola Liantonio,
on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers,
Plaintiff v. Stern & Stern, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06876
(E.D. N.Y., December 3, 2018).

STERN & STERN P.C. is a debt collection law firm in Wantagh, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
   Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
   735 Central Avenue
   Woodmere, NY 11598
   Tel: (516) 668-6945
   Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


STITCH FIX: 3 TV Advertising Class Suits Filed in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Stitch Fix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended October 27, 2018, that the company has been
named as defendant in three putative class action suits in the
Northern District of California and expects the three lawsuits to
be consolidated into one.

Three putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the
federal securities laws were filed on October 11 and 26, and
November 16, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, naming as defendants the Company and
certain of its officers.  Stitch Fix said, "The three lawsuits make
the same allegations of violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by us and our officers for allegedly making materially
false and misleading statements regarding our active client growth
and strategy with respect to television advertising between June
2018 and October 2018."

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
The company expects the three lawsuits to be consolidated into one.


Stitch Fix said, "There have been no other material changes to our
commitments and contingencies as disclosed in our 2018 Annual
Report."

Stitch Fix, Inc. sells a range of apparel, shoes, and accessories
through its Website and mobile app in the United States. It offers
denim, dresses, blouses, skirts, shoes, jewelry, and handbags for
men, women, and kids under the Stitch Fix brand. The company was
formerly known as rack habit inc. and changed its name to Stitch
Fix, Inc. in October 2011. Stitch Fix, Inc. was founded in 2011 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


SUTTELL & HAMMER: Duffer Disputes Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------
Wayne Duffer, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Suttell & Hammer, P.S. and Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00366 (E.D. Wash., November 27, 2018),
seeks to pursue remedies under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, Washington Collection Agency Act and the Consumer Protection
Act.

Defendant is a collection agency that regularly conducts business
in Eastern Washington. It attempted to collect a debt, via
collection letter, that Duffer incurred on a Capital One credit
card. However, it omitted any reference to the original account
creditor, other than the last four digits of a sixteen-digit
account number which Duffer did not recognize. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kirk D. Miller, Esq.
      KIRK D. MILLER, P.S.
      421 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 660
      Spokane, WA 99201
      Tel: (509)413-1494
      Fax: (509)413-1724


TEXAS: Abbott Appeals Decision in M.D. Suit to Fifth Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Greg Abbott, Courtney Phillips and Henry Whitman, Jr.,
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled M.D., et
al. v. Greg Abbott, et al., Case No. 2:11-CV-84, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi.

The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.

The appellate case is captioned as M.D., et al. v. Greg Abbott, et
al., Case No. 18-41108, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees M. D., by next friend Sarah R. Stukenberg; Z.
H., by next friend Carla B. Morrison; S. A., by next friend Javier
Solis; A. M., by next friend Jennifer Talley; J. S., by next friend
Anna J. Ricker; H. V., by next friend Anna J. Ricker; L. H., by
next friend Estela C. Vasquez; C. H., by next friend Estela C.
Vasquez; and A. R., by next friend Tom McKenzie, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated, are represented by:

          Michael Kenneth Bartosz, Esq.
          Sara Michelle Bartosz, Esq.
          Stephen Andrew Dixon, Esq.
          Christina Wilson Remlin, Esq.
          CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INCORPORATED
          88 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 683-2210
          E-mail: sbartosz@childrensrights.org
                  sdixon@childrensrights.org
                  cremlin@childrensrights.org

               - and -

          Dori Kornfeld Goldman, Esq.
          Lonny Jacob Hoffman, Esq.
          Reagan William Simpson, Esq.
          Christian J. Ward, Esq.
          Richard Paul Yetter, Esq.
          YETTER COLEMAN, L.L.P.
          811 Main Street
          2 Houston Center
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 632-8027
          E-mail: dgoldman@yettercoleman.com
                  lhoffman@yettercoleman.com
                  rsimpson@yettercoleman.com
                  cward@yettercoleman.com
                  pyetter@yettercoleman.com

               - and -

          Marcia Lowry, Esq.
          A BETTER CHILDHOOD
          1095 Hardscrabble Road
          Chappaqua, NY 10514
          Telephone: (844) 422-2425
          E-mail: mlowry@childrensrights.org

               - and -

          Barry Frank McNeil, Esq.
          HAYNES & BOONE, L.L.P.
          2323 Victory Avenue
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 651-5580
          E-mail: barry.mcneil@haynesboone.com

Defendants-Appellants GREG ABBOTT, in his official capacity as
Governor of the State of Texas; COURTNEY PHILLIPS, in her official
capacity as Executive Commissioner of the Health and Human Services
Commission of Texas; and HENRY WHITMAN, JR., in his official
capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Family and Protective
Services of the State of Texas, are represented by:

          Thomas A. Albright, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          P.O. Box 12548
          Capitol Station
          Austin, TX 78711-2548
          Telephone: (512) 463-2798
          E-mail: thomas.albright@texasattorneygeneral.gov

               - and -

          Andrew Bowman Stephens, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          300 W. 15th Street
          William P. Clements Building
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 463-2120
          E-mail: andrew.stephens@texasattorneygeneral.gov


TEXAS: Rodriguez Sues Over License Suspension Scheme
----------------------------------------------------
Graciela Rodriguez, Charles Stevens, Khalid Salahuddin, and Nathan
Alexander, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Steven Mach, in his official capacity as Chairman of
the Texas Department of Public Safety Commission; Steven McCraw, in
his official capacity as Director of the Texas Department of Public
Safety; Sklyor Hearn, in his official capacity as Deputy Director
of Administration and Services of the Texas Department of Public
Safety; Amanda Arriaga, in her official capacity as Division
Director of the Driver License Division of the Texas Department of
Public Safety, and Greg Abbot, in his official capacity as Governor
of Texas, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-01265 (W.D. Tex., December
5, 2018) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants
in their official capacities to end an unconstitutional license
suspension scheme.

This case is about the Texas Department of Public Safety operating
a wealth-based driver's license suspension scheme that traps the
state's most vulnerable people in a cycle of debt and hardship. As
a source of revenue, Texas targets individuals with certain traffic
infractions through the "Driver Responsibility Program," which
imposes hundreds or thousands of dollars in "surcharges" each year
for a period of three years following a single offense. Failure to
pay these additional and punitive surcharges results in an
automatic license suspension, even if the individual cannot afford
to pay.

Under the Driver Responsibility Program ("DRP"), Defendants
automatically impose surcharge fees in addition to any punishment
and fines already imposed for an individual's underlying traffic
offense. Individuals are therefore responsible for their original
fines, license reinstatement fees, and any related costs before
they must try to pay off hundreds or thousands of dollars in
surcharges to keep their licenses. Those who cannot afford their
surcharges will have their licenses suspended indefinitely until
they can resolve their surcharge debts.

Many Texans never receive any notice whatsoever about the surcharge
program itself or the fees they owe. For those who do, the notice
sent by Defendants offers only three options to avoid license
suspension: pay the required three years of surcharge fees in
advance; pay this year's full amount in advance; or pay the full
amount in monthly installments at a non-adjustable rate
predetermined by the state.

Suspensions for nonpayment of surcharges under the DRP are
automatic; Defendants conduct no inquiry into an individual's
ability to pay or whether the nonpayment was willful. Defendants
offer no meaningful or accessible opportunities for impoverished
individuals to avoid suspension of their licenses simply because
they cannot afford the punitive surcharges.

Because many individuals never receive notice that their licenses
are suspended under the DRP, indebted individuals can easily (and
unknowingly) accrue criminal charges for Driving While License
Invalid (DWLI). Impoverished individuals struggling to pay off a
suspended license can also accrue DWLI charges if they drive during
an emergency or while carrying out necessary daily activities for
their family or their health, says the complaint.

Graciela Rodriguez is a 76-year-old resident of San Antonio, Texas,
whose driver's license is suspended for unpaid DRP surcharges.

Charles Stevens is a 40-year-old Navy veteran and resident of San
Antonio, Texas, whose driver's license is suspended for unpaid DRP
surcharges.

Khalid Salahuddin is a 40-year-old disabled Navy veteran and
resident of San Antonio, Texas, whose driver's license is suspended
for unpaid DRP surcharges.

Nathan Alexander is a 35-year-old resident of San Antonio, Texas,
and whose driver's license is suspended for unpaid DRP surcharges.

Steven Mach is the Chair of the Texas Public Safety Commission,
which "controls" the Department of Public Safety and oversees its
actions and functions.

Steven McCraw is the Director of the Texas Department of Public
Safety (DPS). Defendant McCraw oversees and is ultimately
responsible for all actions of DPS, which has exclusive authority
over administration of the "Driver Responsibility Program" and
assesses and collects surcharges from holders of Texas drivers'
licenses pursuant to that program.

Sklyor Hearn is the Deputy Director of Administration and Services
of the Texas Department of Public Safety. Mr. Hearn oversees and is
responsible for seven of the Department of Public Safety's
subdivisions, including the Driver License Division.

Amanda Arriaga is the Division Director of the Driver License
Division of the Texas Department of Public Safety. Ms. Arriaga
oversees and is responsible for the actions of the Driver License
Division, which handles DRP license suspensions.

Greg Abbott is the Governor of the State of Texas. As Governor, Mr.
Abbott is the head of the executive branch of the Texas state
government and is responsible for enforcing state law, including
the DRP program. He oversees and appoints the members of the Public
Safety Commission, which controls the Department of Public
Safety.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Phil Telfeyan, Esq.
     Marissa K. Hatton, Esq.
     Equal Justice Under Law
     400 7th Street NW, Suite 602
     Washington, DC 20004
     Phone: (202) 505-2058
     Email: ptelfeyan@equaljusticeunderlaw.org
            mhatton@equaljusticeunderlaw.org

          - and –

     Brian McGiverin, Esq.
     Austin Community Law Center
     2221 Hancock Drive
     Austin, TX 78756
     Phone: (512) 596-0226
     Fax: (512) 597-0805
     Email: brian@austincommunitylawcenter.org


TILLY'S INC: Awaits Written Opinion in Ward Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended November 3, 2018, that the company is
awaiting a written opinion to be issued in Skylar Ward, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly's, Inc.,
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No.
BC595405.  

In September 2015, the plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the company alleging, among other things, various
violations of California's wage and hour laws. The complaint sought
class certification, unspecified damages, unpaid wages, penalties,
restitution, and attorneys' fees.  

In June 2016, the court granted the company's demurrer to the
plaintiff's complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to
state a cause of action against Tilly's and dismissed the
complaint. Specifically, the court agreed with the company that the
plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay fails as a
matter of law as the plaintiff and other putative class members did
not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which the
plaintiff's claims are based.

In November 2016, the court entered a written order sustaining the
company's demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint and dismissing all
of plaintiff’s causes of action with prejudice. In January 2017,
the plaintiff filed an appeal of the order to the California Court
of Appeal. In October 2017, the plaintiff filed her opening
appellate brief, and the company's responding appellate brief was
filed in December 2017.

In May 2018, the plaintiff filed her reply appellate brief. Later
in May 2018, an amicus brief was filed by Abercrombie & Fitch
Stores, Inc., in support of Tilly's position in this appeal.

Tilly's said, "Oral argument was heard by the California Court of
Appeal in November 2018, and we are awaiting its written opinion.
We have defended this case vigorously, and will continue to do
so."

Tilly's, Inc. retails casual apparel, footwear, and accessories for
young men and women, and boys and girls in the United States. Its
apparel merchandise includes tops, outerwear, bottoms, and dresses;
and accessories merchandise comprises backpacks, hats, sunglasses,
headphones, handbags, watches, jewelry, and others. Tilly's,
Inc.was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Irvine,
California.


TILLY'S INC: De Minimis Amount of Settlement Coupons Redeemed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended November 3, 2018, that as of November 3,
2018, less than 1% of the non-transferable discount coupons had
been redeemed, representing less than one quarter of 1% of total
sale transactions since the coupons were issued.

On January 30, 2017, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the company, alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA").  The case is
captioned, Lauren Minniti, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, v. Tilly's, Inc., United States District Court,
Southern District of Florida, Case No. 0:17-cv-60237-FAM.

Specifically, the complaint asserted a violation of the TCPA for
allegedly sending unsolicited automated messages to the cellular
telephones of the plaintiff and others.  The complaint sought class
certification and damages of $500 per violation plus treble damages
under the TCPA.  

In March 2017, the company filed its initial response to the matter
with the court. In June 2017, the parties attended a mediation. In
July 2017, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle
the matter, subject to court approval, and the company recorded an
estimated loss provision of $6.2 million in connection with the
proposed settlement during the second quarter of fiscal 2017.

In March 2018, the parties executed a settlement agreement, subject
to final court approval. In April 2018, the court preliminarily
approved the settlement agreement and certified a class for
settlement purposes. In May 2018, the class members were sent
notice of the settlement and in August 2018, the court granted
final approval of the settlement.

As a result, the company recorded a $1.5 million reduction in its
original accrual estimate to reflect the final required cash
payments to be made as part of this settlement which were
subsequently paid in October 2018.

Additionally, the company was required to issue non-transferable
discount coupons to approximately 612,000 existing Tillys customers
not covered by the cash payments in early September 2018. These
coupons entitle the recipient to a one-time 50% discount on a
single purchase transaction of up to $1,000. Any unused coupons
will expire on September 4, 2019.

As of November 3, 2018, less than one percent of these coupons had
been redeemed, representing less than one quarter of one percent of
total sale transactions since the coupons were issued.
Consequently, these coupons had no material impact on the company's
fiscal 2018 third quarter comparable store net sales or operating
results as a whole.

Tilly's said, "On a transactional basis, redemption transactions
have produced an average sale that is approximately three times
larger than non-redemption transactions during this same time
period, but with a significantly lower margin rate. The net result
has been an increase in net margin dollars produced per redemption
transaction that is approximately 20 percent higher than
non-redemption transactions. There can be no assurances that these
results, or the level of redemptions, will remain consistent
through the redemption period, particularly during the 2018 holiday
season. Although redemption activity has been low during the first
two months of the redemption period, the potential impact through
September 4, 2019 could be material and could adversely affect our
financial condition and results of operations."

Tilly's, Inc. retails casual apparel, footwear, and accessories for
young men and women, and boys and girls in the United States. Its
apparel merchandise includes tops, outerwear, bottoms, and dresses;
and accessories merchandise comprises backpacks, hats, sunglasses,
headphones, handbags, watches, jewelry, and others. Tilly's,
Inc.was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Irvine,
California.


TIME WARNER: 2nd Amended Sims Allowed to Substitute Named Plaintiff
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARKIA SIMS, Plaintiff, v. TIME WARNER CABLE INC., et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-631 (S.D. Ohio),
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted the
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint to
Substitute Named Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff brings claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and Ohio law for failure to compensate her and others
similarly situated, for time spent logging into the Defendants'
systems before their shifts began and for failure to pay overtime
Sims, proceeding as an individual Plaintiff, filed an initial
complaint in the Northern District of Ohio on May 4, 2017.  She
filed a First Amended Complaint on May 5, 2017, to bring a
collective action suit under the FLSA and a class action under Ohio
law.

Roughly six months earlier, Daylon Howard and Tracy Dewald filed a
virtually identical lawsuit in the Southern District of Ohio.  Sims
and all but one of the Plaintiffs who have opted in to the instant
case also initially opted in to the Howard litigation.

The Howard litigation alleges the same basis for relief as the
Plaintiff alleges in the intant case.  The Defendants in Howard,
however, filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and
compel arbitration, arguing that Howard signed an arbitration
agreement that governed his claims for relief.  The Court stayed
discovery in Howard pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss.

The Defendants later filed a summary judgment motion, arguing that
Dewald was exempt from the FLSA and similar provisions of Ohio law.
While the stay was in place, Sims filed the suit in the Northern
District of Ohio, and she and other Plaintiffs involved in the suit
opted out of the class in Howard.

Relevant to the instant motion, on Dec. 4, 2017, the day before
Sims' scheduled deposition, the Defendants sent a letter to the
Plaintiff's counsel accusing Sims of inappropriately retaining
documents that contained confidential personally identifiable
information of the Defendants' customers.  In this letter, the
Defendants stated their intent to pursue any and all legal remedies
against Sims, which may include notifying law enforcement
authorities and the appropriate states' Attorneys Generals, to
ensure all Company property and personally identifiable information
is returned and not retained in any form by Sims.

On July 20, 2017, the Northern District of Ohio transferred the
case to the Court.  On Feb. 21, 2018, the Court administratively
closed the case pending the Supreme Court's decision in Ernst &
Young LLP et al. v. Morris.  On May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court
decided Morris, and on May 30, 2018, the Court reopened Sims and
directed the parties to re-file any motions they wished the Court
to consider.  On June 18, 2018, Defendants filed a Renewed Motion
to Dismiss and for Sanctions, which Judge Marbley denied on Nov.
27, 2018.

On July 12, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave
to Amend.  She seeks leave to amend her complaint under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a)(2) to substitute opt-in Plaintiff, Leslie A. Wood, as
the Representative Plaintiff in the case.  In support, the
Plaintiff asserts that amendment is necessary because the
Defendants, based on the criminal law issues they have raised, may
challenge Sims' fitness as an appropriate class representative.

The Defendants oppose amendment, asserting as "most critical," that
the Plaintiff's motion is futile in light of the then-pending
motion to dismiss and the fact that, in the Defendants' view, the
case is duplicative of Howard.  In support, the Defendants rely on
Judge Lioi's finding, prior to her transfer of the case, that the
case is duplicative of Howard and that the Plaintiff's conduct, and
the conduct of their counsel was inappropriate.

At this stage of the litigation, the Court is charged with
determining whether the futility of an amendment is so obvious that
it should be disallowed.  Magistrate Judge Jolson finds that the
amended complaint here meets this low bar.  Accordingly,
notwithstanding the Defendants' credibility allegations, an
amendment to substitute Wood as the representative Plaintiff is not
obviously futile.

The Defendants contend that they have already incurred extensive
fees and costs as a result of Sims serving as the named
Plaintiff/class representative for a duplicative lawsuit and that
redeposing a new named Plaintiff/class representative comes with
additional time and preparation that Defendants should not have to
expend.  None of these arguments persuade the Magistrate under the
liberal amendment standard, to deny leave to amend, especially in
light of the Court's dispositive ruling.  While she acknowledges
the potential cost and inconveniences associated with deposing
Wood, the Magistrate does not find undue prejudice.

In light of these, the Magistrate Judge finds that the Plaintiff
has satisfied the Rule 15(a)(2) standard for leave to amend and is
permitted to amend her complaint to substitute Wood for Sims as the
named Representative.

Finally, the Defendants in their opposition request that the Court
award them costs associated with the defense of this lawsuit as
deemed appropriate by the Court.  The Magistrate finds that the
Defendants have not set forth facts regarding the Plaintiff's
conduct that would warrant an award of costs.  Indeed, in denying
the Defendants' motion to dismiss, Judge Marbley also denied their
motion for sanctions to reimburse them for unnecessary attorneys'
fees and costs associated with the lawsuit.

For these reasons, Magistarte Jolson granted the Plaintiff's Motion
for Leave to Amend.  The Clerk will file Doc. 69 as the Second
Amended Complaint and amend the case caption accordingly.  Further,
the parties are directed to meet and confer and file a proposed
scheduling order with the Court within seven days of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 7, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/Af60NK from Leagle.com.

Leslie A. Wood, Plaintiff, represented by Chastity Lynn Christy,
Anthony J. Lazzaro & Lori M. Griffin, Lazzaro Law Firm, LLC.

Time Warner Cable Inc., Charter Communications, LLC & TWC
Administration LLC, Defendants, represented by James Edward
Davidson -- james.davidson@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP,
Catherine L. Strauss -- catherine.strauss@icemiller.com -- Ice
Miller LLP, Laura M. Jordan -- LJordan@ThompsonCoburn.com --
Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac vice, R. Nelson Williams --
rwilliams@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac vice &
Stephen Cody Reinberg, Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac vice.


TRANS UNION: Norman Suit Alleges FCRA Violation
-----------------------------------------------
Duane E. Norman, Sr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Trans Union, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-05225 (E.D. Penn., December 5, 2018) seeks redress of
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act by Defendant Trans
Union, LLC, a consumer reporting agency ("CRA").

This case is about Trans Union's failure to fulfill its statutory
duties with respect to consumer disputes of inquiry information.
Trans Union does not reinvestigate disputed inquiries; does not
notify the source of the disputed inquiry about the consumers'
disputes of the information; does not provide the source with all
the relevant information about the dispute; and does not delete
disputed inquiries that it cannot verify, says the complaint.
Moreover, rather than complying with the FCRA, Trans Union attempts
to steer consumers who dispute inquiry information toward its
proprietary identity theft protection products from which Trans
Union derives substantive profits.

These failures not only violate consumers' FCRA rights to dispute,
they also undermine the accuracy of information within consumer
reports because consumers often notice inaccurate information of
which the reporting CRA is unaware, asserts the complaint. The
FCRA's dispute procedure is the singular method (outside of
litigation) by which consumers can correct errors in their credit
files.

The complaint says Trans Union has violated the requirements of
FCRA by failing to reinvestigate disputed inquiries and failing to
notify the source of the inquiry about the consumer's dispute. As a
result, Trans Union harmed Plaintiff and thousands like him across
the United States, and undercut the healthy functioning of the
consumer credit system by providing inaccurate and misleading
credit history information about consumers to potential creditors
and service providers, adds the complaint.

Plaintiff Duane E. Norman, Sr. is a natural person who resides in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Defendant Trans Union is a limited liability company that regularly
conducts substantial business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
and which has a place of business in Crum Lynne, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James A. Francis, Esq.
     John Soumilas, Esq.
     FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
     1600 Market Street, 25th Floor
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: 215-735-8600
     Fax: 215-940-8000
     Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
            jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com

          - and –

     Cary L. Flitter, Esq.
     Andrew M. Milz, Esq.
     FLITTER MILZ, P.C.
     450 N. Narberth Ave., Suite 101
     Narberth, PA 19072
     Phone: 610-266-7863
     Fax: 610-667-0552
     Email: cflitter@consumerslaw.com
            amilz@consumerslaw.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Maurice Blackburn Widens Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Timna Jacks, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that a
major class action against Uber will be opened up to another three
states, which could make it the largest class action in Australian
history.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn is widening its Victorian lawsuit
against Uber to thousands of taxi and hire-car drivers, operators
and licence holders in NSW, Queensland and Western Australia.

Lawyers will allege the ride-sharing company engaged in conspiracy
by unlawful means, causing harm to drivers and operators in the
industry.

The case, which will be heard in the Victorian Supreme Court, has
1200 people registered in Victoria so far.

Tens of thousands more people are expected to register, with the
law firm counting nearly 40,000 drivers and nearly 22,000 taxi and
hire-car licence owners across the four states.

Maurice Blackburn senior associate Elizabeth O'Shea believes that
if the class action is successful, Uber could be forced to pay
"hundreds of millions of dollars".

She said the settlement could be bigger than the largest class
action in the country's history -- a Maurice Blackburn case in 2014
that won thousands of Black Saturday bushfire victims in Victoria
$700 million in compensation.

"It's reasonable to think that the settlement will be higher than
the largest settlement that has been achieved so far," Ms O'Shea
said.

In the case against Uber, lawyers will seek compensation for the
loss of driver income between the time of Uber entering the market
in early 2014, and the taxi industry being deregulated.

Lawyers will also seek compensation for the devaluing of taxi and
hire car licence plates since 2014.

Ms O'Shea said Uber should not be allowed to "come in and not
comply with the rules and get an advantage".

"It's quite clear that they managed to obtain market share and
build their business by operating unlawfully," she said.

The firm expects to file the case by late this year or early next
year and was confident it would be successful, Ms O'Shea said.

"We are working with a team of very senior barristers who have
confirmed the conclusion that we have come to ourselves," she said.
"We think we have a good legal argument."

The case is being backed by UK litigation funder, Harbour.

NSW Taxi Council's chief executive Martin Rogers said the state
government's $250 million "industry adjustment package", which paid
taxi licence plate owners $20,000 per plate – an arrangement that
was capped at two plates – had left a "majority" of people out of
pocket.

"This has left people devastated, they have lost over $200,000 on
an asset that for many was their superannuation," Mr Rogers said.

"They're struggling to make ends meet and they've passed the age of
working so the only option is to go on the pension."

This has left people devastated, they have lost over $200,000 on an
asset that for many was their superannuation.

Martin Rogers, NSW Taxi Council
Cabs2000's managing director Shane Holley in Queensland said taxi
drivers were significantly disadvantaged when Uber entered the
market.

"The damage was massive and it was almost instantaneous," he said.

"We lost revenue through our customers. They had a big push to gain
market share and it had a flow-on effect."

Licence plate owners lost "80 per cent of the value" under the
assistance package offered in Queensland that mirrored the
arrangements in NSW, he said.

"There are families out there who have lost their homes and their
future investments."

An Uber spokeswoman said despite a number of media stories about
the case, the company had "not received any notification of a class
action".

"We are focusing our efforts on delivering a great service to
riders and drivers in the cities where we operate," she said. [GN]


UNITED NATURAL: Appeal in Class Suit v. SUPERVALU Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
United Natural Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended October 27, 2018, that a New England
plaintiff has taken an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit from a district court's grant of summary judgment
and Daubert motion in a class action lawsuit involving SUPERVALU
Inc.

In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against
Supervalu alleging that a 2003 transaction between Supervalu and
C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy to restrain
trade and allocate markets.

In the 2003 transaction, Supervalu purchased certain assets of the
Fleming Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy
proceedings and sold certain of Supervalu's assets to C&S that were
located in New England.

Three other retailers filed similar complaints in other
jurisdictions and the cases were consolidated and are proceeding in
the United States District Court in Minnesota. The complaints
alleged that the conspiracy was concealed and continued through the
use of non-compete and non-solicitation agreements and the closing
down of the distribution facilities that Supervalu and C&S
purchased from each other.

Plaintiffs are divided into Midwest plaintiffs and a New England
plaintiff and are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and
attorney's fees.

At a mediation on May 25, 2017, Supervalu reached a settlement with
the non-arbitration Champaign distribution center class, which was
the one Midwest class suing Supervalu. The court granted final
approval of the settlement on November 17, 2017.

The material terms of the settlement include: (1) denial of
wrongdoing and liability by Supervalu; (2) release of all Midwest
plaintiffs’ claims against Supervalu related to the allegations
and transactions at issue in the litigation that were raised or
could have been raised by the non-arbitration Champaign
distribution center class; and (3) payment by Supervalu of $9
million. The New England plaintiff is not a party to the settlement
and is pursuing its individual claims and potential class action
claims against Supervalu, which at this time are determined as
remote.

On February 15, 2018, Supervalu filed a summary judgment and
Daubert motion and the New England plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification and on July 27, 2018, the District Court
granted Supervalu's motions. The New England plaintiff appealed to
the 8th Circuit on August 15, 2018.

United Natural Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
distributes natural, organic, and specialty foods and non-food
products in the United States and Canada. The company operates
through three divisions: Wholesale, Retail, and Manufacturing and
Branded Products. United Natural Foods, Inc. was founded in 1976
and is headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island.

United Natural Foods acquired all of the outstanding equity
securities of SUPERVALU INC. on October 22, 2018.

UNITED NATURAL: Customer Data Security Breach v. SUPERVALU Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
United Natural Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended October 27, 2018, that the customer data
security breach suit against SUPERVALU INC. is ongoing.

On October 22, 2018, the Company acquired all of the outstanding
equity securities of SUPERVALU INC.

In August and November 2014, four class action complaints were
filed against Supervalu relating to the criminal intrusion into
Supervalu's computer network that were previously announced by
Supervalu in its fiscal 2015.

The cases were centralized in the Federal District Court for the
District of Minnesota under the caption In Re: SUPERVALU Inc.
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. On June 26, 2015, the
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

Supervalu filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint and the hearing took place on November 3, 2015. On
January 7, 2016, the District Court granted the Motion to Dismiss
and dismissed the case without prejudice, holding that the
plaintiffs did not have standing to sue as they had not met their
burden of showing any compensable damages.

On February 4, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the
District Court's dismissal of the complaint or in the alternative
to conduct discovery and file an amended complaint, and Supervalu
filed its response in opposition on March 4, 2016. On April 20,
2016, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate the
District Court's dismissal or in the alternative to amend the
complaint. On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs appealed to the 8th Circuit
and on May 31, 2016, Supervalu filed a cross-appeal to preserve its
additional arguments for dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint.

On August 30, 2017, the 8th Circuit affirmed the dismissal for 14
out of the 15 plaintiffs finding they had no standing. The 8th
Circuit did not consider Supervalu's cross-appeal and remanded the
case back for consideration of Supervalu's additional arguments for
dismissal against the one remaining plaintiff.

On October 30, 2017, Supervalu filed a motion to dismiss the
remaining plaintiff and on November 7, 2017, the plaintiff filed a
motion to amend its complaint.

The court held a hearing on the motions on December 14, 2017, and
on March 7, 2018, the District Court denied plaintiff's motion to
amend and granted Supervalu's motion to dismiss. On March 14, 2018,
plaintiff appealed to the 8th Circuit.

Supervalu had $50 million of cyber threat insurance above a per
incident deductible of $1 million at the time of the Criminal
Intrusion, which the Company believes should cover any potential
loss related to this litigation.

United Natural Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
distributes natural, organic, and specialty foods and non-food
products in the United States and Canada. The company operates
through three divisions: Wholesale, Retail, and Manufacturing and
Branded Products. United Natural Foods, Inc. was founded in 1976
and is headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island.


UT SOUTHWESTERN: Hospital Faces Class Action for ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
A hospital in Dallas-Fort Worth is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UT Southwestern Health
Systems, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11252  (S.D. N.Y., December 3,
2018).

UT Southwestern Health Systems provides education, research, and
patient care services. The Company offers medical and graduate
school, flow cytometry core, live cell imaging, veripath
laboratories, and hospital and clinic services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VERINT SYSTEMS: Mediation Underway in Tel Aviv Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Verint Systems said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2018, that mediation is still
ongoing in the consolidated class action suit pending in the Tel
Aviv District Court.

On March 26, 2009, legal actions were commenced by Ms. Orit
Deutsch, a former employee of the company's subsidiary, Verint
Systems Limited ("VSL"), against VSL in the Tel Aviv Regional Labor
Court (Case Number 4186/09) (the "Deutsch Labor Action") and
against CTI in the Tel Aviv District Court (Case Number 1335/09)
(the "Deutsch District Action").

In the Deutsch Labor Action, Ms. Deutsch filed a motion to approve
a class action lawsuit on the grounds that she purported to
represent a class of the company's employees and former employees
who were granted Verint and CTI stock options and were allegedly
damaged as a result of the suspension of option exercises during
the period from March 2006 through March 2010, during which the
company did not make periodic filings with the SEC as a result of
certain internal and external investigations and reviews of
accounting matters discussed in the company's prior public filings.


In the Deutsch District Action, in addition to a small amount of
individual damages, Ms. Deutsch was seeking to certify a class of
plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to
exercise Verint and CTI stock options as a result of alleged
negligence by CTI in its financial reporting. The class
certification motions did not specify an amount of damages. On
February 8, 2010, the Deutsch Labor Action was dismissed for lack
of material jurisdiction and was transferred to the Tel Aviv
District Court and consolidated with the Deutsch District Action.

On March 16, 2009 and March 26, 2009, respectively, legal actions
were commenced by Ms. Roni Katriel, a former employee of CTI"s
former subsidiary, Comverse Limited, against Comverse Limited in
the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court (Case Number 3444/09) (the
"Katriel Labor Action") and against CTI in the Tel Aviv District
Court (Case Number 1334/09) (the "Katriel District Action").

In the Katriel Labor Action, Ms. Katriel was seeking to certify a
class of plaintiffs who were granted CTI stock options and were
allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension of option exercises
during an extended filing delay period affecting CTI's periodic
reporting discussed in CTI's historical SEC filings.

In the Katriel District Action, in addition to a small amount of
individual damages, Ms. Katriel was seeking to certify a class of
plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to
exercise CTI stock options as a result of alleged negligence by CTI
in its financial reporting. The class certification motions did not
specify an amount of damages. On March 2, 2010, the Katriel Labor
Action was transferred to the Tel Aviv District Court, based on an
agreed motion filed by the parties requesting such transfer.

On April 4, 2012, Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel filed an uncontested
motion to consolidate and amend their claims and on June 7, 2012,
the District Court allowed Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel to file the
consolidated class certification motion and an amended consolidated
complaint against VSL, CTI, and Comverse Limited.

Following CTI's announcement of its intention to effect the
distribution of all of the issued and outstanding shares of capital
stock of its former subsidiary, Comverse, Inc. (the "Comverse Share
Distribution"), on July 12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion
requesting that the District Court order CTI to set aside up to
$150.0 million in assets to secure any future judgment.

The District Court ruled at such time that it would not decide this
motion until the Deutsch and Katriel class certification motion was
heard. Plaintiffs initially filed a motion to appeal this ruling in
August 2012, but subsequently withdrew it in July 2014.

Prior to the consummation of the Comverse Share Distribution, CTI
either sold or transferred substantially all of its business
operations and assets (other than its equity ownership interests in
us and its then-subsidiary, Comverse, Inc.) to Comverse, Inc. or
unaffiliated third parties. On October 31, 2012, CTI completed the
Comverse Share Distribution, in which it distributed all of the
outstanding shares of common stock of Comverse, Inc. to CTI's
shareholders.

As a result of the Comverse Share Distribution, Comverse, Inc.
became an independent company and ceased to be a wholly owned
subsidiary of CTI, and CTI ceased to have any material assets other
than its equity interest in the company. As of February 28, 2017,
Mavenir Inc. became successor-in-interest to Comverse, Inc.

On February 4, 2013, the company merged with CTI. As a result of
the merger, the company have assumed certain rights and liabilities
of CTI, including any liability of CTI arising out of the Deutsch
District Action and the Katriel District Action. However, under the
terms of the Distribution Agreement between CTI and Comverse, Inc.
relating to the Comverse share distribution, the company, as
successor to CTI, are entitled to indemnification from Comverse,
Inc. (now Mavenir) for any losses the Company suffers in its
capacity as successor-in-interest to CTI in connection with the
Deutsch District Action and the Katriel District Action.

Following an unsuccessful mediation process, the proceeding before
the District Court resumed. On August 28, 2016, the District Court
(i) denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the suit as a class
action with respect to all claims relating to Verint stock options
and (ii) approved the plaintiffs' motion to certify the suit as a
class action with respect to claims of current or former employees
of Comverse Limited (now Mavenir) or VSL who held unexercised CTI
stock options at the time CTI suspended option exercises. The court
also ruled that the merits of the case and any calculation of
damages would be evaluated under New York law.

On December 15, 2016, CTI filed with the Supreme Court a motion for
leave to appeal the District Court's August 28, 2016 ruling. The
plaintiffs did not file an appeal of the District Court's August
28, 2016 ruling. On February 5, 2017, the District Court approved
the plaintiffs’ motion to appoint a new representative plaintiff,
Mr. David Vaaknin, for the current or former employees of VSL who
held unexercised CTI stock options at the time CTI suspended option
exercises in replacement of Ms. Deutsch.

On August 8, 2017, the Supreme Court partially allowed CTI's appeal
and ordered the case to be returned to the District Court to
determine whether a cause of action exists in this case under New
York law, based on CTI's previously submitted expert opinion and
the opinion of any expert the plaintiffs elect to introduce.

On November 28, 2017, the plaintiffs submitted an expert opinion
regarding New York law. On January 3, 2018, CTI filed a motion to
dismiss the motion to certify the class action on the basis that
the New York law opinion submitted by the plaintiffs did not
directly address the causes of action in question, or
alternatively, to dismiss the portions of the opinion that did not
specifically relate to CTI's expert opinion.

On January 22, 2018, the court ruled that the plaintiffs should
submit a motion to amend their class certification motion and that
CTI's motion to dismiss would remain pending.

Based on input from the court, the parties have agreed to enter
into a further round of mediation in an effort to settle the
matter, which remains ongoing.

Verint Systems Inc. provides actionable intelligence solutions and
value-added services worldwide. The company was founded in 1994 and
is headquartered in Melville, New York.


VILLAGE OF FOX LAKE: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss Willoughby Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAYMOND WILLOUGHBY and DAMIEN WARD, Plaintiffs, v.
VILLAGE OF FOX LAKE, OFFICERS ATHA HUNT #9640 and THOMAS JONITES,
INVESTIGATORS BRAD SCHROEDER and LUIS RIVERA, SERGEANT THOMAS,
LIEUTENANT NIELSEN, and JOHN DOES, Defendants, Case No. 17 CV 2800
(N.D. Ill.), Judge Ronald A. Guzman of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the
motions to dismiss Defendants Schroeder, Rivera, and Hunt are
denied.

In the action, the Plaintiffs allege that their Fourth Amendment
rights were violated when they were arrested and detained in
conjunction with the investigation that occurred after the death of
Charles Joseph Gliniewicz, who was a police lieutenant for the
Village of Fox Lake, Illinois.  It was later revealed that
Gliniewicz had staged his suicide to look like a homicide.  It is
alleged that prior to taking his own life, Gliniewicz sent a radio
transmission to the Village police department in which he falsely
stated that he was pursuing three individuals, two "male whites"
and one "male black."

Defendants Schroeder, Rivera, and Hunt move separately under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Section
1983 claims asserted against them on the ground that they are
barred by the statute of limitations.  

On July 26, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint
("FAC") in which Schroeder, Rivera, and Hunt were named as the
Defendants for the first time in the action.  They subsequently
amended their pleadings to assert the same claims previously
asserted, dropping and adding certain Defendants who are not
pertinent to the instant motions.

In response to Defendants' motions, Willoughby contends that,
because the action was originally filed as a class action, the
statute of limitations was tolled from April 13, 2017 until June 6,
2018, the date the Court entered an order denying the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  Willoughby says that 19 months
passed between his arrest and the filing of the complaint; the
statute of limitations was then tolled until June 2018, which would
leave about 5 months until the expiration of the limitations period
in November 2018; and the July 2018 amendment adding the new
defendants was therefore within the limitations period.

The Defendants, in reply, direct the Court to decisions in which
courts held that a putative class action against one defendant does
not toll the statute of limitations on claims against a different
defendant.

Judge Guzman finds that in the original complaint, the Plaintiffs
complained that they had been wrongfully arrested and detained in
conjunction with the Gliniewicz investigation, and they named John
Doe police officers as the Defendants.  In Count I, they alleged
that there was no probable cause to arrest or detain them and that
they suffered damages by reason of the described acts of the
Defendant Officers.  The acts of which Willoughby complained were
that John Doe Police Officers arrested him and held him on the
scene for one or two hours; transported him to the Round Lake
Police Department, where he was held for several more hours; and,
when he requested and tried to leave, told him that he could not do
so because he was in custody.

It appears from the original complaint that Willoughby intended to
sue the officers who were involved in arresting him, taking him
into custody, and holding him at the Round Lake Police Department.
Under Rule 15(c)(1)(C)(ii), the Judge holds that the proper inquiry
is whether the newly-added Defendants knew or should have known
that but for Willoughby's inability to discover their identities,
they would have been named as the Defendants.  On the current
record, the Judge is unable to resolve this issue in the
Defendants' favor.

For these reasons, Judge Guzman denied the Defendants' motions
without prejudice to the issue being raised later in the
proceedings after the record has been developed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 4, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/Qr8pP8 from Leagle.com.

Raymond Willoughby & Damien Ward, Plaintiffs, represented by
Gregory E. Kulis, Gregory E. Kulis and Associates, Ltd., Brian M.
Orozco, Gregory E. Kulis & Associates, Ltd. & Monica Ghosh, Gregory
E. Kulis & Associates, Ltd.

Village of Fox Lake, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Benjamin Matthew Jacobi -- bjacobi@okgc.com --
O'Halloran Kosoff Geitner & Cook, LLC, Clifford Gary Kosoff --
ckosoff@okgc.com -- O'Halloran, Kosoff, Helander & Geitner, P.C. &
Gail Lynne Reich -- greich@okgc.com -- O'Halloran Kosoff Geitner &
Cook, LLC.

Atha Hunt #9640, Defendant, represented by Stephen Gregory Goins,
Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corp., Thomas Joseph
Platt, Metra, Julie Ann Daily, Metra Law Department, Russal John
Anderson, NIRC/Metra Railroad & Sue-Ann Rosen, NIRC/Metra
Railroad.

Inv. Brad Schroeder & Inv. Luis Rivera, Defendants, represented by
Ellen Kornichuk Emery -- eemery@ancelglink.com -- Ancel, Glink,
Diamond, Bush, DiCianni & Krafthefer, P.C. & Kathleen Margaret
Kunkle -- kkunkle@ancelglink.com -- Ancel Glink Diamond Bush
DiCianni & Krafthefer PC.


VIRGINIA: DHHR Averts Class Action Over IDD Waiver
--------------------------------------------------
David Beard, writing for The Dominion Post, reports that a federal
judge has ruled in favor of the state in a lawsuit filed on behalf
of Medicaid clients with intellectual and developmental
disabilities, but the story may not be over yet.

Mountain State Justice filed the suit in July 2015 on behalf of
five Medicaid Title XIX Intellectual/Developmental Disability (IDD)
Waiver clients, and later expanded it to a class action suit
covering all 4,684 people enrolled.

The Department of Health and Human Resources' Bureau for Medical
Services operates the program. In 2014 realized that it had been
running the program in the red and ordered the contractor that
calculated client budgets to stop approving requests for additional
funding.

Since contractor APS/Kepro had been routinely approving these
requests -- because its formula routinely lowballed actual client
needs -- this order amounted to client budget cuts.

Mountain State Justice sued, alleging the contractor's budget
process was secret and arbitrary. In 2016, District Judge Thomas E.
Johnston agreed that contractor Kepro's formula violated due
process and was unconstitutional.

In response, DHHR devised a new process that began April 1. It
includes interviews with the client and the client's guardians and
care team, and some paperwork. From that, a base budget is
calculated based on a "highly individualized" actuarial model DHHR
says in 95 percent accurate. Add-ons are available based on four
criteria and a new appeal process is established.

Mountain State Justice argued that the new process is not better:
It still denies them equal access to needed care as required by the
Americans with Disabilities Act; and budget caps and other problems
prevent their clients and family members from getting the care they
need and prevent families from getting the support they need, they
say in statements filed to support the case.

DHHR argued, in return, that the plaintiffs failed to amend their
complaint to address the particulars of the new process, and that
the allegations are moot because the new process has started.

In his ruling dismissing the case, Judge Johnston agreed with DHHR.
He noted his March ruling that said the former due process
injustices are not repeated in the new system.

Lydia Milnes, a Morgantown-based Mountain State Justice attorney
who worked on the case, said the judge hasn't issued his final
judgment order yet, which would trigger the appeal period. "We are
still considering options."

Those options could include appeal to federal district court, or
filing a new suit regarding the new process. "We are obviously
disappointed. . . . Until we make that decision, I don't want to
say too much."

Discussing the reasoning behind his siding with DHHR, Judge
Johnston says, "Virtually every aspect of the system has been
amended . . . and some waiver recipients already seem to be
benefiting from it."

He says that while Mountain State Justice alleges the new system is
equally problematic, it failed to amend its earlier complaint to
directly address the new one; its complaint addresses a system that
no longer exists.  And they haven't demonstrated that any waiver
clients have exhausted the system's appeal process for their new
budgets.

But Judge Johnston keeps a door open: "Nothing in this opinion
should be construed to hold that the legality of DHHR's new
authorization system is immune from challenge."

The Dominion Post asked DHHR for comments on the case and the
problem of the budget caps, and what's next for its new system.

Spokeswoman Allison Adler said in an email exchange, "The DHHR
believes the case was appropriately dismissed as moot, as a new
budget determination process was put in place."

Mountain State Justice and many waiver client caregivers complain
that budget caps -- which limit the number of service hours for
such things as respite -- put undue burdens on the caregivers and
don't allow the clients to use their full budgets, which needlessly
ties up money.

Ms. Adler said, "Caps were first instituted in July 2010 and were
modified in July 2015, so were in place prior the litigation which
recently settled.  Also notably, the dismissed lawsuit did not
involve caps.  The DHHR believes caps are necessary to maintain
financial soundness of the program to ensure new members can join
from the waiting list as quickly as possible."

Regarding what's ahead, she said, "The new process has been in
place, applying to anchor dates on or after July 1.  The DHHR
believes the new process creates appropriate budgets for IDD/W
members, as it is a transparent methodology and utilizes the
member's current circumstances to create the budget.

"Specifically, the budget is determined based on the setting in
which the member lives, and the member's functionality. This budget
is not a limit on the services available to waiver members, as
members are able to exceed their budget through an exceptions
process administered by the Bureau of Medical Services." [GN]


VIRTUOSO SOURCING: Faces Consumer Credit Class Action in NJ
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Virtuoso Sourcing
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Chana Gottesman, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Virtuoso
Sourcing Group, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-16759 (D. N.J., December 3, 2018).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to Fair Debt Collection Act.

Virtuoso Sourcing Group LLC provides payment portal services for
making online payments. Virtuoso Sourcing Group serves customers in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Yaakov Saks, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext 101
   Fax: (201) 282-6501
   Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


VOLKSWAGEN: German Motorists Invited to Join New Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Xinhua News Agency reports that motorists in Germany who have
purchased diesel vehicles from Volkswagen were invited by the
Federation of German Consumer Organizations (vzbv) on Nov. 27 to
join a new form of class-action lawsuit against the Wolfsburg-based
company.

Speaking in Berlin, vzbv president Klaus Mueller explained that
joining the registry of plaintiffs in the case was particularly
interesting for those Volkswagen customers who had so far refrained
from making any individual claims against the carmaker in the
diesel emissions scandal.

The so-called "template lawsuits", in which several plaintiffs
unite to press charges collectively and resolve key questions to
set a legal precedent, were only recently enabled by federal
legislation passed in response to revelations of emissions-cheating
practices by the automotive industry.

Through the new class-action suit, the consumer protection group is
seeking to obtain compensation from Volkswagen for the depreciation
of vehicles sold to customers which have been caused by the diesel
emissions scandal. Volkswagen rejects these financial claims and
has argued that all of the cars delivered to drivers were approved
by regulatory authorities -- technically safe and fully
operational.

An actual trial in the case will only open when at least 50
plaintiffs sign up to the registry opened by Vzbv on Nov. 27 within
two months. At least on a rhetorical level, the legal action has
already won the support of the General German Automobile Club
(ADAC) which is the largest of its kind in Europe.

"It is important to us that the diesel scandal is clarified and
finally concluded in the interest of our members," ADAC president
August Markl said. He expressed hope that such closure could also
bring an end to "interest guided" badmouthing of diesel as a
propulsion technology and the automotive sector as a whole.

Since the first revelations of the installation of illicit diesel
motor software by Volkswagen became public in 2015, the company has
been forced to recall a total of 2.5 million vehicles. Vzbv's
attorneys estimate that tens of thousands of diesel drivers in
Germany will join its class-action suit. [GN]


WATERSTONE MORTGAGE: Kilpatrick Townsend Attorneys Discuss Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James F. Bogan III, Esq. -- jbogan@kilpatricktownsend.com -- and C.
Allen Garrett Jr., Esq. -- agarrett@kilpatricktownsend.com -- of
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, in an article for Lexology,
report that in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's continued
vigorous enforcement of class action waivers, more and more
corporate parties can be expected to include broad class action
waivers in their contracts with consumers and employees. But many
of these agreements also will include (sometimes unwittingly)
delegation clauses broadly sending any "arbitrability" issues to
the arbitrator. Among other things, the agreements may incorporate
rules such as those of the American Arbitration Association, which
explicitly authorize arbitrators to resolve questions of
"arbitrability." See AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules, R-7(a).
Where an arbitration agreement contains both an unambiguous class
action waiver and a delegation clause, must a district court send
the class action arbitrability issue to the arbitrator? A recent
Seventh Circuit decision presented with these facts held that the
court, and not the arbitrator, must determine the availability of
class arbitration. Although the Court of Appeals did not address
the interplay between a delegation clause and a class action
waiver, its holding finds support in both class arbitration
decisions and general judicial policies against engaging in futile
acts.

Background of the Herrington case

In Herrington v. Waterstone Mortgage Corp., 907 F.3d 502 (7th Cir.
2018), an employee (Ms. Herrington) sued her employer (Waterstone)
for wage and hour violations, asserting both a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and a breach of contract class
action under Federal Rule 23. Waterstone moved to compel
arbitration, relying on an arbitration agreement that both (1)
provided for the arbitration to be conducted "in accordance with
the rules of the American Arbitration Association applicable to
employment claims" and (2) prohibited that arbitration from being
"joined with or join or include any claims by any persons not party
to this Agreement." Id. at 504.

Ms. Herrington responded by challenging the enforceability of the
entire arbitration agreement as imposing excessive costs, and also
by challenging the class action waiver in particular as violative
of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Id. at 504-05. At the
time the district court ruled on this issue, the National Labor
Relations Board had ruled that the NLRA protected the right to
pursue legal claims collectively; that employers who require
employees to sign class action waivers violate the NLRA; and that
class action waivers were unenforceable under the NLRA. Relying on
the Board's decision, the district court struck the class action
waiver and sent the parties to arbitration, instructing the
arbitrator that Ms. Herrington "must be allowed to join other
employees to her case." Id. at 505. Ultimately, the arbitrator
conducted a collective proceeding in arbitration, awarding over $10
million in damages and fees to Herrington and 174 other claimants
who had opted in to the arbitration proceeding. Id. at 505-06. The
district court confirmed the arbitrator's award, and Waterstone
appealed. Id. at 506.

During the pendency of Waterstone's appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court
decided Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018). In
Epic, the Supreme Court reversed an earlier Seventh Circuit
decision and held that an arbitration agreement does not violate
the NLRA. 138 S. Ct. at 1624-29. Thus, the Court of Appeals
reversed the district court's decision to invalidate the class
action waiver based on the NLRA. Herrington, 907 F.3d at 506.

The Seventh Circuit's decision

The Seventh Circuit then turned to what it characterized as "the
hard part," specifically, "what happens next?" Id. Although the
Court of Appeals viewed the validity of the class action waiver to
be incontestable, it still had to decide whether the district court
or the arbitrator would be tasked "to interpret the arbitration
agreement -- this time, including the waiver -- to determine
whether it authorized the collective action that occurred." Id.
Notably, until the Supreme Court's decision in Epic, Ms. Herrington
herself "assumed that this waiver, if enforceable, would require
her to proceed in a bilateral arbitration." Id. & n.1 (discussing
employee's failure below to argue in the alternative that the
arbitration agreement permitted class arbitration even if class
action waiver found enforceable).

The Seventh Circuit then joined every other circuit to have
addressed the issue (the Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh
Circuits) in holding that the availability of class arbitration
constitutes a gateway issue of arbitrability presumptively for a
court to decide. Id. at 507-11. In a footnote, it recognized that
"parties can agree to delegate to an arbitrator the question
whether an agreement authorizes class or collective arbitration,"
but stated that such an agreement must "'clearly and unmistakably
provide' for such delegation." Id. 507 n.3 (citation omitted). But
the Court of Appeals did not further address the delegation issue.

After reviewing the policies and doctrines supporting the view that
class arbitration is a gateway issue of arbitrability presumptively
reserved for a court -- including the "most important" rule that
class arbitration constitutes a "fundamental" change to "the norm
of bilateral arbitration" (see id. at 509) -- the Herrington court
concluded its decision as follows: "On remand, the district court
should conduct the threshold inquiry regarding class or collective
arbitrability to determine whether Herrington's agreement with
Waterstone authorizes the kind of arbitration that took place. If
the district court determines that the agreement allows such an
arbitration, our decision leaves the district court free to confirm
the award. If, however, the district court determines that
Herrington's agreement with Waterstone requires single-plaintiff
arbitration, it should vacate the award and send the dispute to the
arbitrator for a new proceeding." Id. at 511.

This disposition tracks the Seventh Circuit's introduction, where
it described its ruling as holding "the district court, rather than
the arbitrator, must evaluate Herrington's contract with Waterstone
to determine whether it permits class or collective arbitration."
Id. at 504.

Reading between the lines of Herrington: displacement of delegation
by an unambiguous class action waiver and the judiciary's
unwillingness to require a futile act

The Herrington court did not address explicitly the relationship
between a class action waiver and a delegation clause. But it
acknowledged that the parties' arbitration agreement contained a
delegation clause, as well as the normal rule that such a clause
will be enforced as long as it "clearly and unmistakably" delegated
the arbitrability issue to the arbitrator. 907 F.3d at 507 n.3. And
it unambiguously said -- twice -- that the district court, rather
than the arbitrator, had to address the enforceability of the class
action waiver. Id. at 504, 511. A district court presented with
this mandate would be hard-pressed to interpret it as requiring
anything other than a prompt determination as to whether the class
action waiver should be enforced and the attendant disposition
(confirmation or vacatur) of the arbitrator's prior class
arbitration award.

At least two different rationales support a straightforward
application of the Seventh Circuit's mandate. First, an unambiguous
class action waiver displaces a general delegation provision, by
eliminating any reasonable interpretative issue about the
availability of class arbitration. In other words, if the parties
unambiguously have agreed that an arbitration cannot proceed on a
class-wide or collective basis, then no reasonable interpretative
issue as to the availability of class arbitration remains for
delegation to the arbitrator. The Herrington court strongly
suggested that the class action waiver before it – together with
Ms. Herrington's own position, pre-Epic, that the waiver mandated
individual arbitration – unambiguously foreclosed class
arbitration, thereby obviating any need for a reasonable
interpretative dispute on this point to be submitted to the
arbitrator. See id. at 506 & n.2 (asking how the availability of
class arbitration "reasonably" could be in dispute, given the
language of the class action waiver and the employee's position in
the court below, and characterizing any argument to the contrary as
"implausible").

Second, courts do not "require the doing of a futile act." Ohio v.
Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 74 (1980), abrogated on other grounds by
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004); Wisconsin Res. Prot.
Council v. Flambeau Mining Co., 727 F.3d 700, 710 (7th Cir. 2013)
(same, quoting Roberts); Cross v. Hardy, 632 F.3d 356, 361 (7th
Cir. 2011). Given the Supreme Court's recent series of rulings
upholding class action waivers (including Epic), any decision by an
arbitrator refusing to enforce an unambiguous class action waiver
would be subject to vacatur as exceeding the arbitrator's authority
under the parties' arbitration agreement. See Herrington, 907 F.3d
at 509 n.8 (noting party's ability to seek vacatur of an award
where the arbitrators "exceeded their powers"). If the district
court would have no choice but to vacate an arbitral award refusing
to enforce the class action waiver, then no value would be served
by forcing the district court and the arbitrator to engage in that
futile exercise.

The failure of the Herrington court to address the precise grounds
for its holding may reflect the unique procedural posture of the
case before it, in which the only issue originally presented on
appeal -- the claimed invalidity of the class action waiver under
the NLRA -- has been resolved by the Supreme Court's intervening
ruling in Epic. But the Seventh Circuit's holding could provide a
critical piece of the class arbitration puzzle as corporate
defendants endeavor to shut down potential class arbitrations.
Where an arbitration agreement contains an unambiguous class action
waiver, defendants can argue that no reasonable interpretation
issue remains to be delegated to the arbitrator and that any
delegation of the class arbitration issue to the arbitrator would
be a futile act. [GN]


WRIGHT BROS PIZZA: Shortchanges Workers' Wages, Honaker Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Honaker and Rhonda Honaker, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wright Bros. Pizza, Inc. and
Thomas Wright, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01528, (S.D. Ohio,
November 27, 2018), seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory and
equitable relief for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Constitution and
the Ohio Minimum Wage Fairness Act.

Defendants operate 5 Domino's Pizza franchises in Ohio. They
allegedly failed to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their
delivery-related expenses. Scott and Rhonda Honaker worked for
Defendants as delivery drivers and sometimes as managers at
Defendants' Pickerington, Lancaster, Canal Winchester, Potaskula
and Marysville locations, working more than 40 hours in one or more
workweeks. As a result of unreimbursed automobile expenses and
tip-credits, their pay was reduced to below the minimum wages rate,
says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Biller, Esq.
      Andrew Kimble, Esq.
      Philip Krzeski, Esq.
      MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
      3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
      Rookwood Exchange
      Cincinnati, OH 45209
      Tel: (513) 651-3700
      Fax: (513) 665-0219
      Email: abiller@msdlegal.com
             akimble@msdlegal.com
             pkrzeski@msdlegal.com
      Website: www.msdlegal.com


XO GROUP: Agreement Reached in Merger-Related Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
XO Group Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filed on December 7, 2018, 2018, 2018, that
XO Group reached an agreement with the plaintiffs in evy v. Steib
et al., Scarantino v. XO Group, Inc. et al., and Driscoll v. XO
Group, Inc. et al.

On November 6, 2018, a purported XO Group stockholder commenced a
putative class action lawsuit, captioned Levy v. Steib et al., No.
614999/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 6, 2018) (the "Levy Action"), in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

The complaint names XO Group and the members of XO Group's board of
directors as defendants. The complaint alleges, among other things,
that the directors of the company breached fiduciary duties owed to
the company's public stockholders in approving the proposed merger,
including by allegedly omitting material information from the Proxy
Statement.

Plaintiff seeks, among other things, an order requiring the
disclosure of additional information in XO Group's proxy materials,
damages, and an award of attorneys' fees.

On November 19, 2018, plaintiff petitioned the Court for an Order
to Show Cause setting a briefing schedule and argument on his
request to enjoin XO Group from closing its December 18, 2018
stockholder meeting until additional disclosure is made by XO
Group.

On November 26, 2018, the Court set a schedule permitting
defendants to submit an opposition brief by December 13, 2018 and
scheduling argument on plaintiff’s request for December 14,
2018.

On November 21, 2018, a purported XO Group stockholder commenced a
putative class action lawsuit, captioned Scarantino v. XO Group,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01814 (D. Del.) (the "Scarantino
Action"), in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware.

The complaint names XO Group and the members of XO Group's board of
directors as defendants. The complaint alleges, among other things,
that in connection with the proposed merger, the defendants
provided or supervised the providing of allegedly misleading and
incomplete disclosures in the Proxy Statement.

The complaint seeks to recover under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") for the
alleged misstatements and omissions.

The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief (including
enjoining defendants from proceeding with the XO stockholder vote
on the proposed merger or, if the proposed merger has already been
implemented, rescinding the transaction and awarding rescissory
damages), an order directing defendants to file additional
disclosures, and an award of attorneys' and experts' fees.

On November 21, 2018, a purported XO Group stockholder commenced a
putative class action lawsuit, captioned Driscoll v. XO Group, Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-10909 (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Driscoll Action,"
and collectively with the Levy Action and Scarantino Action, the
"Actions"), in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The complaint names XO Group and the members of XO Group's board of
directors as defendants. The complaint alleges, among other things,
that in connection with the proposed merger, the defendants
provided or supervised the providing of allegedly misleading and
incomplete disclosures in the Proxy Statement.

The complaint seeks to recover under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act for the alleged misstatements and omissions. The
complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief (including
enjoining defendants from proceeding with the XO stockholder vote
on the proposed merger or, if the proposed merger has already been
implemented, rescinding the transaction and awarding rescissory
damages), monetary damages, and an award of attorneys' and experts'
fees.

On December 7, 2018, XO Group reached agreement with plaintiffs to
resolve the Actions. In connection with the resolution of the
Actions, XO Group has agreed to make the following amended and
supplemental disclosures (the "Amended and Supplemental
Disclosures") to the Proxy Statement.

The Amended and Supplemental Disclosures should be read in
conjunction with the Proxy Statement, which should be read in its
entirety. Defined terms used but not defined herein have the
meanings set forth in the Proxy Statement. Plaintiffs have agreed
that, following the filing of this Current Report on Form 8-K (this
"Report"), they will dismiss the Actions in their entirety, with
prejudice as to the named plaintiffs only and without prejudice to
all other members of the putative class.

The resolution of the Actions will not affect the timing of the
special meeting of XO Group shareholders, which is scheduled to be
held on December 18, 2018, or the amount of the consideration to be
paid to XO Group shareholders in connection with the proposed
merger.

The resolution of the Actions is not, and should not be construed
as, an admission of wrongdoing or liability by any defendant.
Likewise, defendants do not believe that any further disclosure
regarding the proposed merger is required under applicable laws
other than that which has already been provided in the Proxy
Statement.

Furthermore, nothing in this Report or the resolution of the Action
shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality
of any of the disclosures set forth in this Report. However, to
avoid the risk of the Actions delaying or adversely affecting the
proposed merger, to minimize the substantial expense, burden,
distraction and inconvenience of continued litigation and to
resolve plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Actions, XO Group has
agreed to make these amended and supplemental disclosures to the
Proxy Statement.

A copy of the Supplements to the Proxy Statement is available at
https://goo.gl/1vdKzf.

XO Group Inc. provides multiplatform media and marketplace services
to the wedding, pregnancy and parenting, and local entertainment
markets primarily in the United States. The company was formerly
known as The Knot, Inc. and changed its name to XO Group Inc. in
June 2011. XO Group Inc. was founded in 1996 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


XPO LOGISTICS: McNiven Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Robert McNiven, and Similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. XPO Logistics Freight, Inc., A Foreign
Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. CACE-18-025439 was removed
from the Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Florida to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
on December 4, 2018, and assigned Case No. 0:18-cv-62941-WPD.

The District Court has original jurisdiction over this action
because it involves a claim alleging violation of federal law, the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Plaintiff Robert McNiven commenced this civil action against
Defendant on October 29, 2018, in the Circuit Court of the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
     Max L. Horowitz, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
     Courthouse Tower
     44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Phone: (305) 416-5000
     Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
     Email: agp@rgpattorneys.com
            mhorowitz@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants is represnetd by:

     Mendy Halberstam, Esq.
     Brandon U. Campbell, Esq.
     JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
     One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500
     Two South Biscayne Boulevard
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: (305) 577-7651
     Facsimile: (305) 373-4466
     Email: mendy.halberstam@jacksonlewis.com
            Brandon.campbell@jacksonlewis.com


XTO ENERGY: McCollum Seeks to Certify Drilling Consultants Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled GARY McCOLLUM and RONNIE BAZE,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. XTO
ENERGY, INC., Case No. 5:18-cv-00080-HE (W.D. Okla.), ask the Court
to conditionally certify this class under the Fair Labor Standards
Act:

     All Drilling and/or Completions Consultants who worked for
     XTO Energy, Inc., anywhere in the United States, at any time
     during the preceding three years through the present and
     were not paid overtime.

Gary McCollum and Ronnie Baze, individually and on behalf of all
members of the putative class, filed this collective action lawsuit
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover the unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs owed
to them.  The Plaintiffs allege that XTO's failure to pay their
Drilling and Completions Consultants the overtime premium required
by the law was (and continues to be) improper under the FLSA.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to (1) order that a judicially
approved notice be sent to all FLSA Collective Members by mail and
e-mail; (2) approve the form and content of the Plaintiffs'
proposed judicial notice and reminder notice; (3) order XTO to
produce to the Plaintiffs' counsel the name, last known address,
phone number, e-mail address and dates of employment for each of
the FLSA Collective Members in a usable electronic format; and (4)
authorize a 60-day notice period for the FLSA Collective Members to
join the case.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Lauren Braddy, Esq.
          Austin Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 North Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com

               - and -

          Noble K. McIntyre, Esq.
          MCINTYRE LAW, P.C.
          8601 S. Western Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73139
          Telephone: (405) 917-5250
          Facsimile: (405) 917-5405
          E-mail: noble@mcintyrelaw.com


ZIMMER BIOMET: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in Karl FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., et al., filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled JAMES KARL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
ZIMMER BIOMET HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; ZIMMER US,
INC., a Delaware corporation; BIOMET U.S. RECONSTRUCTION, LLC, an
Indiana limited liability company; BIOMET BIOLOGICS, LLC, an
Indiana limited liability company; and BIOMET, INC., an Indiana
corporation, Case No. 3:18-cv-04176-WHA, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 30, 2018, Judge
William Alsup denied the Defendants' motions to transfer venue,
dismiss and/or strike.

Mr. Karl is a resident of Novato, California.  He alleges that the
Defendants misclassified him and other sales representatives as
independent contractors.  Based on this, he raises claims for
relief for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Order 4-2001, the California Labor Code for
unpaid wages and overtime premiums, and related California Labor
Code claims including: meal and rest period violations, failure to
provide itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse business
expenses, and related civil and statutory penalties.

The appellate case is captioned as Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., et
al. v. USDC-CASF, Case No. 18-73216, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Real Party in Interest JAMES KARL, on behalf of himself,
and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Alec Segarich, Esq.
          LOHR RIPAMONTI & SEGARICH LLP
          140 Geary Street, 4th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 683-7945
          E-mail: alec.segarich@lrllp.com

Defendants-Petitioners ZIMMER BIOMET HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; ZIMMER US, INC., a Delaware Corporation; BIOMET INC.,
an Indiana Corporation; BIOMET U.S. RECONSTRUCTION, LLC, an Indiana
limited liability company; and BIOMET BIOLOGICS, LLC, an Indiana
limited liability company, are represented by:

          Andrea L. Fellion, Esq.
          Eric Meckley, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market Street
          Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-1000
          E-mail: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com
                  andrea.fellion@morganlewis.com


ZOCDOC INC: 2d Cir. Revives Junk Fax Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
BloombergLaw reports that ZocDoc Inc. failed a second time to
convince the Second Circuit that its offer to settle with the named
plaintiff in a junk fax class action should moot the whole case.

The ruling cuts off yet another defense attempt to exploit
perceived loopholes in the U.S. Supreme Court's Campbell-Ewald Co.
v. Gomez ruling. There the court held that rejecting a defendant's
offer of full relief doesn't moot a plaintiff's individual or class
claims.

Radha Geismann M.D. P.C. sued ZocDoc. [GN]


ZUMIEZ INC: Oral Argument in Herrera Class Suit Set for Feb. 4
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zumiez Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended November 3, 2018, that the date of oral argument in
the putative class action entitled, Alexia Herrera, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated, v. Zumiez Inc., has been
scheduled for February 4, 2019.

A putative class action, Alexia Herrera, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated, v. Zumiez Inc., was filed against the
company in the Eastern District Count of California, Sacramento
Division under case number 2:16-cv-01802-SB in August 2016.  

Alexandra Bernal filed the initial complaint and then in October
2016 added Alexia Herrera as a named plaintiff and Alexandra Bernal
left the case.  

The putative class action lawsuit against the company alleges,
among other things, various violations of California's wage and
hour laws, including alleged violations of failure to pay reporting
time.  

In May 2017 the company moved for judgment on the pleadings in that
plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay should fail as a
matter of law as the plaintiff and the other putative class members
did not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which
the plaintiff's claims are based.

In August 2017, the court denied the motion. However, in October
2017 the district court certified the order denying the motion for
judgment on the pleadings for immediate interlocutory review by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  

The company then filed a petition for permission to appeal the
order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which
petition was then granted in January 2018.  

The company's opening appellate brief was filed on June 6, 2018 and
the plaintiff's answering appellate brief was filed August 6, 2018.
The company's reply brief to the Plaintiff's answering appellate
brief was filed on September 26, 2018 and the date of oral argument
has been scheduled for February 4, 2019.  

Zumiez  said, "Given the current status of this case, we are unable
to express a view regarding the ultimate outcome or, if the outcome
is adverse, to estimate an amount, or range, of reasonably possible
loss. We have defended this case vigorously and will continue to do
so."

Zumiez Inc., founded in 1978, is a mall-based specialty retailer
providing sports-related apparel, footwear, equipment, and
accessories. It also sells miscellaneous novelties and dvds aimed
at young men and women between the ages of 12 and 24 and
private-label apparel. The company is based in Everett,
Washington.


ZURICH AMERICAN: Sued Over Failure to Fulfill Duties to Enrollees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware entity, and SERIES
16-08-483, a series of MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. ZURICH
AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York corporation, Case No.
1:18-cv-07849 (N.D. Ill., November 28, 2018), is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated alleging
violations of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act arising from the
Defendant's alleged systematic and uniform failure to do two
things:

   * Defendant has failed to fulfill its statutory duties as a
     "no-fault" insurer; and

   * Defendant has failed to fulfill its statutory duties upon
     entering into settlements with Medicare beneficiaries
     enrolled under Part C of the Medicare Act ("Enrollees").

Zurich American Insurance Company is a New York corporation.
Zurich is an insurance company headquartered in Schaumburg,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eduardo E. Bertran, Esq.
          Francesco Zincone, Esq.
          ARMAS BERTRAN PIERI
          4960 S.W. 72nd Avenue
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 461-5100
          E-mail: ebertran@armaslaw.com
                  fzincone@armaslaw.com


ZWILLING J.A. HENCKELS: Faces Nixon Suit in NY for ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zwilling J.A.
Henckels, LLC. The case is styled as Donald Nixon, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Zwilling
J.A. Henckels, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06920 (E.D. N.Y.,
December 5, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Zwilling J.A. Henckels, LLC wholesales cutlery products. The
Company offers cookwares, and scissors. Zwilling J.A. Henckels
operates worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
   Shalom Law, PLLC.
   124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
   Kew Gardens, NY 11374
   Tel: (718) 971-9474
   Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com



[*] Reed Smith Attorney Discusses Several Class Action Rulings
--------------------------------------------------------------
James M. Beck, Esq. -- jmbeck@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith LLP,
in an article for Lexology, reports that we maintain a number of
"scorecards" on legal issues where we judge the defense advantage
is sufficiently great that including all cases, even if adverse,
does not violate our injunction against doing the other side's
research for them.  Three of the scorecards -- PMA preemption,
generic preemption, and innovator liability, pretty much update
themselves from the results of the case alerts we run.

The fourth -- cross-jurisdictional class action tolling -- is
different.  That's something we've been interested in since the
Bone Screw litigation.  Back in the early 1990s, the idea of class
actions in product liability/personal injury hadn't become nearly
as risible as it is today.  The Bone Screw plaintiffs filed a
purported nationwide class action, which lingered in the MDL a
while before certification was denied.  See In re Orthopedic Bone
Screw Products Liability Litigation, 1995 WL 273597 (E.D. Pa. Feb.
22, 1995) (in our federal class action denial cheat sheet).
Plaintiffs then claimed that this bogus class action tolled the
statute of limitations of every state in the country.  That set off
a nationwide fight over cross-jurisdictional class action tolling,
culminating in victories in Maestas v. Sofamor Danek Group, Inc.,
33 S.W.3d 805 (Tenn. 2000), and Wade v. Danek Medical, Inc., 182
F.3d 281 (4th Cir. 1999) (applying Virginia law); amicus victories
in Portwood v. Ford Motor Co., 701 N.E.2d 1102 (Ill. 1998), and
Ravitch v. Pricewaterhouse, 793 A.2d 939 (Pa. Super. 2002), and a
loss (by a different Bone Screw defendant) in Vaccariello v. Smith
& Nephew Richards, Inc., 763 N.E.2d 160 (Ohio 2002).

Since cross-jurisdictional class action tolling involves many kinds
of litigation -- not just prescription medical product liability
litigation -- it requires a special effort to update.  We did that
the other day for the last couple of years, and in so doing we
discovered the hijacking effort against the New York statute of
limitations mentioned in the title of this post.  As is obvious
from the scorecard, for many years New York courts have considered,
and rejected, cross-jurisdictional class action tolling in
decisions involving state law (federal law involves the execrable
American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974)
decision).

The first New York case to consider if there should be
cross-jurisdictional class action tolling in state-law actions was
Singer v. Eli Lilly & Co., 549 N.Y.S.2d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990),
in which plaintiffs relied on prior, never-certified class actions
to extend a special one-year statutory revival of time-barred DES
cases.   Singer relied on Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 751 P.2d 923
(Cal. 1988), to reject cross-jurisdictional tolling. Class action
tolling "must not be regarded as encouragement to lawyers in a case
of this kind to frame their pleadings as a class action,
intentionally, to attract and save members of the purported class
who have slept on their rights."  Singer, 549 N.Y.S.2d at 660
(citation and quotation marks omitted).

Plaintiffs, like the plaintiff in Jolly, had ample opportunity to
assert timely claims, but did not. . . .  [T]he mere commencement
of the [other] class action did not alert defendants as to the kind
of claims alleged by plaintiffs here.  Thus, whether viewed as a
failure to give the requisite notice or to satisfy the class
membership requirement of the earlier action, the American Pipe
tolling doctrine should not be applied here.

Id. (discussion of Jolly omitted).

Likewise, in New York Hormone Replacement Therapy Litigation
(Ansley), 2009 WL 4905232 (N.Y. Sup. Nov. 30, 2009), an
unsuccessful West Virginia class action could not toll the New York
statute of limitations.

[T]his court finds defendants' arguments persuasive to conclude
that the tolling remedy authorized under the American Pipe doctrine
is inapplicable here and does so relying on case law from the
federal courts sitting in New York.  As defendants note, American
Pipe . . . involve[s] limitations periods derived from federal
statutes, whereas here only New York law is implicated. . . .  The
wisdom of adopting the American Pipe rule in mass tort cases is, to
say the least, highly debatable.

Id. at *? (citations and quotation marks omitted).  New York
Hormone relied on prior New York precedent involving other state's
statutes of limitations.  See In re Agent Orange Products Liability
Litigation, 818 F.2d 210, 213 (2d Cir. 1987) (no
cross-jurisdictional class action tolling under Hawaii law); In re
Rezulin Products Liability Litigation, 2005 WL 26867, at *3
(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2005) (same, applying New Mexico law).  See
Kaufman v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., 980 N.Y.S.2d 276 (table), 2013 WL
5429364, at *4 (N.Y. Sup. Sept. 17, 2013) ("well established that
American Pipe did not affect state law"; rejecting several
arguments for class action tolling under state law) (state court
decision).

Soward v. Deutsch Bank AG, 814 F. Supp.2d 272 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), was
the first of a string of federal court decisions likewise declining
to extend class action tolling to unsuccessful state law class
actions brought in other jurisdictions.  Soward -- a non-personal
injury case -- recognized that "the question of ‘whether, and to
what extent, the statute of limitations should be tolled by the
filing of a putative class action in another jurisdiction' is
purely a question of state law."  Id. at 281 (quoting Casey v.
Merck & Co., 653 F.3d 95, 100 (2d Cir. 2011) (applying Virginia
law)).  Finding no basis to "import" an expansion of tort law into
New York jurisprudence, Soward held:

Predicting how New York courts would rule on the issue of
cross-jurisdictional tolling would be difficult.  The few states
that have considered the issue have been split in both their
acceptance of cross-jurisdictional tolling and the rationale for
their decision.  Furthermore, little authority exists as to how a
federal court in this Circuit decides whether a state would allow
cross-jurisdictional tolling when that state has not addressed the
issue.  Of the federal courts that have considered this issue, most
have refused to extend the doctrine into a state that has yet to
consider it. . . .  In the face of these overwhelming precedents, I
cannot say that New York would adopt cross-jurisdictional tolling
and decline to import the doctrine into New York's law.  This Court
will therefore not toll New York's statute of limitations for the
period when the . . . class certification status was pending.

Id. at 281-82 (citations and footnotes omitted).

In Adams v. Deutsche Bank AG & Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., 2012
WL 12884365 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2012), meritless class actions
failed to toll the New York statute of limitations on the strength
of Soward and the lack of any contrary New York precedent:

Neither party has identified any decision in which a court applying
New York law has applied cross-jurisdictional tolling.  However, in
a thorough and comprehensive survey of the issue, [Soward] recently
declined to import the doctrine of cross-jurisdictional tolling
into New York law because it is unclear whether New York courts
would adopt this principle Significantly, Plaintiffs acknowledge
the decision in Soward, and provide absolutely no argument as to
why the Court should apply cross-jurisdictional tolling to the
facts of this case or why New York courts would adopt this theory.
Therefore, the Court declines to import this novel and complex
feature into New York law, and finds that Plaintiffs are not
entitled to tolling of the limitations period based on either [of]
the . . . Class Actions.

Id. at *5 (citation omitted).

Similarly, in In re Bear Stearns Cos. Securities, Derivative, &
ERISA Litigation, 995 F. Supp.2d 291 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), the court
extensively discussed cross-jurisdictional class action tolling in
concluding that no such thing was recognized under New York law:

[Plaintiff's] common law fraud claims are not tolled by the
pendency of the Class Action as a matter of New York law.  American
Pipe tolling does not apply to [plaintiff's] state claims because
it only applies to federal law causes of action.  In certain
circumstances, a New York statute of limitations may be tolled by
the pendency of a class action, but New York currently does not
recognized tolling where that class action is filed outside New
York state court (so-called "cross-jurisdictional tolling").
Cross-jurisdictional tolling is at issue whenever a court considers
the timeliness of state law claims originally filed outside that
state's courts.

Judges in this district have declined to recognize
cross-jurisdictional tolling under state law, because such tolling
can be applied only if it is clearly recognized by authoritative
state court decisions.

Id. at 311 (citations omitted).  Bear Stearns agreed with the
"compelling policy reasons against such tolling" expressed in
Vincent v. Money Store, 915 F. Supp.2d 553, 569-70 (S.D.N.Y. 2013),
a case applying California law:

[U]nless all states simultaneously adopt the rule of
cross-jurisdictional class action tolling, any state which
independently does so will invite into its courts a
disproportionate share of suits which the federal courts have
refused to certify as class actions after the statute of
limitations has run.

995 F. Supp.2d at 312 (quoting Vincent, 915 F.Supp.2d at 569-70).
"[M]ost [federal courts] have refused to extend the doctrine into a
state that has yet to consider it."  Id. (quoting Soward, 814 F.
Supp.2d at 281-82).  With no dispute that "New York courts have not
yet spoken authoritatively on this issue," the Bear Stearns court
refused to expand the scope of New York tort law by permitting
cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  995 F. Supp.2d at 312.
Bear Stearns was ultimately affirmed, but without any discussion of
cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  SRM Global Master Fund
Limited Partnership v. Bear Stearns Cos., 829 F.3d 173 (2d Cir.
2016).

In Gould v. Helen of Troy Ltd., 2017 WL 1319810 (S.D.N.Y. March 30,
2017), the plaintiff attempted to argue that American Pipe tolled a
New York state-law class action by pointing to prior unsuccessful
class actions in other states.  Id. at *4.  The Court responded
with Kaufman's observation that "[i]t is well established that
American Pipe did not affect state law."  With no New York law
supporting cross-jurisdictional tolling, "[p]laintiff's New York .
. . claims are not tolled by American Pipe.  Id.

Several non-New York courts have likewise recognized that state's
rejection of cross-jurisdictional class action tolling. See In re
Cathode Ray Tube CRT Antitrust Litigation, 27 F. Supp.3d 1015, 1022
(N.D. Cal. 2014) ("the Court follows the Southern District of New
York in declining to import American Pipe into New York state law";
citing Soward); Romig v. Pella Corp., 2014 WL 7264388, at *5-6
(D.S.C. Dec. 18, 2014) ("there is no indication that New York
recognizes cross-jurisdictional class action tolling and the court
declines to establish such a rule in the first instance"); Coe v.
Philips Oral Healthcare Inc., 2014 WL 5162912, at *5 (W.D. Wash.
Oct. 14, 2014) ("Cross-jurisdictional tolling may be permitted
where a class action is filed in New York and makes claims under
New York state law; it is not, however, permitted where the class
action was filed outside of New York and make no New York
claims.").

But after 2014, the attempted hijacking begins.  It occurred in the
context of parallel state class action antitrust claims in the
LIBOR MDL litigation – demonstrating once again why defendants
quite rightly hate MDLs because transferee judges contort the law
to expand liability as a tool to force settlement.  There are two
LIBOR decisions that recklessly predict that many states – even
those with contrary appellate precedent – would allow
cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  See In re LIBOR-Based
Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation, 2015 WL 6243526
(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2015) ("LIBOR II"); In re LIBOR-Based Financial
Instruments Antitrust Litigation, 2015 WL 4634541 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4,
2015) ("LIBOR I").

Contrary to what prior New York decisions held, LIBOR I stated that
"States generally recognize some form of class-action tolling."
2015 WL 4634541, at *127.  That's simply false, as our scorecard
amply demonstrates.  LIBOR I purported to conduct a perfunctory
"Erie analysis" without any focus on prior New York law, concluding
generally that:

Absent state-specific considerations, we believe the best
prediction is that a state would recognize cross-jurisdictional
tolling.  The most salient consideration is that the reasoning of
American Pipe and analogous state-court cases applies with equal
force regardless of whether a class action is filed in the same
jurisdiction as the subsequent individual action or in a different
jurisdiction.

Some federal courts seem to have applied a presumption against
cross-jurisdictional tolling out of a concern over federal
interference with state policy.  But a proper respect for state
judiciaries does not require such timidity.

2015 WL 4634541, at 129-30, citing nothing supportive of these
propositions, omitting citations to Erie decision LIBOR I refused
to follow.  The same Erie "analysis," if it can be called that, was
followed, verbatim, in LIBOR II.  See 2015 WL 6243526, at *139-40.
As a result, these blatantly result oriented opinions simply
refused to follow prior New York precedent on cross-jurisdictional
class action tolling:

Soward . . . concluded, "I cannot say that New York would adopt
cross-jurisdictional tolling and decline to import the doctrine
into New York's law."  Relying on Soward (and on other federal
cases dealing with non-New York law), Judge Sweet more recently
found "compelling" the concern that a state "will invite into its
courts a disproportionate share of suits which the federal courts
have refused to certify as class actions" by accepting
cross-jurisdictional tolling.

We respectfully disagree with our fellow judges' predictions of New
York law.  Specifically, we disagree with our colleagues'
prediction that New York would reject cross-jurisdictional tolling
to the extent that those decisions are predicated on floodgate
concerns.

LIBOR I, 2015 WL 4634541, at *133-34; LIBOR II, 2015 WL 6243526, at
*145 (citations omitted).

The LIBOR decisions thus violated the most fundamental aspect of
Erie -- that "[a] federal court in diversity is not free to engraft
onto those state rules exceptions or modifications which may
commend themselves to the federal court, but which have not
commended themselves to the State in which the federal court sits."
Day & Zimmerman, Inc. v. Challoner, 423 U.S. 3, 4 (1975).  The
Second Circuit in particular has long cautioned:

[T]he proper function of this Court is to ascertain what New York
law is, and not to speculate about what it will be, or in Learned
Hand's felicitous phrase, "to embrace the exhilarating opportunity
of anticipating a doctrine which may be in the womb of time, but
whose birth is distant." Spector Motor Service v. Walsh, 139 F.2d
809, 823 (2d Cir. 1943) (dissent), vacated 323 U.S. 101 (1944).  It
is certainly not our function to apply the rule we think better or
wiser.

Garland v. Herrin, 724 F.2d 16, 17 (2d Cir. 1983) (emphasis added).
In more modern terms, this same inherent Erie conservatism has
been expressed as an admonition that "we are mindful that our role
as a federal court sitting in diversity is not to adopt innovative
theories that may distort established state law."  Travelers
Insurance Co. v. Carpenter, 411 F.3d 323, 329 (2d Cir. 2005)
(citation and quotation marks omitted).

Thus the current attempt to hijack the New York statute of
limitations through cross-jurisdictional class action tolling began
with two essentially identical decisions that ignored prior
precedent and made an Erie prediction while turning Erie on its
head.

The hijacking continued in Famular v. Whirlpool Corp., 2017 WL
2470844 (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2017), a purported economic loss class
action.  First, the court in Famular claimed "not [to be] aware of
a New York state court that has addressed whether New York
recognizes tolling based on a case filed outside New York."  Id. at
*7.  Well, we've cited three such decisions in this blogpost –
Singer, New York Hormone, and Kaufman – so somebody didn't look
very hard.  Second, Famular opted to follow LIBOR, including its
subversion of the Erie doctrine:

[Defendant] argues the Court should follow a line of federal cases
refusing to apply cross-jurisdictional tolling because New York
courts have not recognized cross-jurisdictional tolling. . . .
[T]he bulk of the contrary authority relies on a presumption
against cross-jurisdictional tolling.  But the reasoning underlying
this presumption is unpersuasive.

First, some courts have suggested that a federal court should not
impose a legal doctrine where the state courts have not determined
an uncertain issue.  This is sometimes explained by "a concern over
federal interference with state policy."  But this reasoning is
unsound because it ignores the federal courts' duty in these cases.
As the Second Circuit has repeatedly instructed, when New York's
courts have not decided an issue of state law, it is the federal
court's "job to predict how the New York Court of Appeals would
decide the issue[]". . . .  Thus, the Court would be ignoring its
duty by adopting a presumption against imposing a legal rule the
state courts have not addressed without a reasoned basis for doing
so.

Second, [defendant] argues the Court should not recognize
cross-jurisdictional tolling based on docket-control concerns.  In
[LIBOR], the court convincingly explains that the justification for
rejecting cross-jurisdictional tolling -- namely, "a risk that a
state will attract individual out-of-state plaintiffs after a
failed federal class action" -- is unpersuasive, at least in New
York.

Id. at *7-8 (citations omitted).

That rationale simply not the law -- it's the opposite of the law.
Erie does not give federal courts applying state law a blank check
to write on a blank slate.  So we thought we'd take a look at what
courts in the Second Circuit have actually "repeatedly instructed."
For example, how often has the injunction in Travelers v.
Carpenter against Erie predictions of "innovative" liability
theories been cited?  How about:

[W]e must apply the statute as it has been interpreted and applied
by New York's highest court.  As we have previously explained, "our
role as a federal court sitting in diversity is not to adopt
innovative theories that may distort established state law.
Instead we must carefully predict how the state's highest court
would resolve the uncertainties that we have identified."

Runner v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 568 F.3d 383, 386 (2d Cir.
2009) (citations omitted); accord National Union Fire Insurance Co.
v. Stroh Cos., 265 F.3d 97, 106 (2d Cir. 2001); City of Johnstown,
N.Y. v. Bankers Standard Ins. Co., 877 F.2d 1146, 1153 (2d Cir.
1989); Avedisian v. Quinnipiac University, 387 F. Appx. 59, 60 (2d
Cir. 2010); Shillingford v. Astra Home Care, Inc., 293 F. Supp.3d
401, 416 (S.D.N.Y. 2018); In re General Motors LLC Ignition Switch
Litigation, 2016 WL 3996243, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2016);
Versatile Housewares & Gardening Systems, Inc. v. Thill Logistics,
Inc., 819 F. Supp.2d 230, 236 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); In re Methyl
Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products Liability Litigation, 274
F.R.D. 106, 112 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); Empire City Capital Corp. v.
Citibank, N.A., 2011 WL 4484453, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2011);
Musaji v. Banco do Brasil, 2011 WL 2507712, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June
21, 2011); Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. Dormitory Authority,
735 F. Supp.2d 42, 88 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); Liddle & Robinson, LLP v.
Garrett, 720 F. Supp.2d 417, 424 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); Hunt v. Enzo
Biochem, Inc., 471 F. Supp.2d 390, 412 n.140 (S.D.N.Y. 2006);
Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Agway, Inc., 987 F. Supp. 92, 104
(N.D.N.Y. 1997) (adding, "this Court will not create or extend New
York law to recognize such a novel duty; that is the bailiwick of
New York's courts and legislature"). That's five Second Circuit
cases and twice that number of New York district court cases.

And before that formulation, we had the more colorful version
originally penned by Judge Learned Hand, and quoted, above, in
Garland, 724 F.2d at 17.  The distinctive language makes that
proposition particularly easy to search for.  Several additional
Second Circuit and New York District Courts have used Judge Hand's
terminology to embrace the principle that Erie precludes the sort
of expansive predictions of state law consciously engaged in by the
courts in LIBOR and Famular.  See, in addition to Garland:  Hausman
v. Buckley, 299 F.2d 696, 704 (2d Cir. 1962); Katt v. City of New
York, 151 F. Supp.2d 313, 335 n.17 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), aff'd in
pertinent part, 372 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2004); Levesque v. Kelly
Communications, Inc., 1993 WL 22113, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25,
1993); Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Whitelawn Dairies, Inc., 284 F. Supp.
987, 993 (S.D.N.Y. 1968).

But on the question of cross-jurisdictional class action tolling
under New York law, the hijacking of the New York statute of
limitations by federal courts determined to facilitate class
actions has proceeded apace in 2018.  Chavez v. Occidental Chemical
Corp., 300 F. Supp.3d 517, 530 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), reconsideration
denied, 2018 WL 620488 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2018), became the first
case purporting to apply cross-jurisdictional class action tolling
in a personal injury action.  Perhaps emboldened by current
political practices, Chavez falsely stated that "Courts in this
District have split, 2–2, on in their predictions as to whether
the New York Court of Appeals would apply cross-jurisdictional
tolling as a matter of New York law."  Id. at 530 (omitting Gould
and Adams decisions discussed above).

Fake precedent!

Chavez then followed the Erie error that LIBOR began, also
characterizing the refusal to predict "expand[ing]" state-law
liability -- the position embraced in the seven Second Circuit
cases just discussed -- as "timidity."  Id.  "[L]argely for the
reason stated in LIBOR" Chavez predicted that that an unsuccessful
class action, filed anywhere (the plaintiffs weren't even
Americans), would trump the New York statute of limitations even
though more than 17 years had elapsed.  Id. at 532.  At least
Chavez agreed to certify the issue to the Second Circuit.  Id. at
538 ("Whether New York law permits cross-jurisdictional class
action tolling is both a disputed question of law in this District
and an issue whose resolution in plaintiffs' favor is a necessary
predicate to the continued survival of this complex and important
multi-national litigation").  That appeal is pending.  See Chavez
v. Occidental Chemical Corp., No. 18-1120 (2d Cir.).

Most recently, Hart v. BHH, LLC, 323 F. Supp.3d 560 (S.D.N.Y.
2018), reconsideration denied, 2018 WL 5729294 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 2,
2018), described Chavez as "the most recent and persuasive case law
in this District."  Id. at 556.  Following Chavez, Hart needed only
one paragraph to conclude that cross-jurisdictional class action
tolling, arising from failed Ohio class action, trumped the New
York statute of limitations in a warranty class action brought in
New York.  Id.

We can only hope that the Second Circuit continues its decades of
insistence on Erie conservatism in the Chavez appeal.  However,
there's a possibility that the court won't even have to reach the
question -- and for the best of reasons.  In June of this year,
while the Chavez appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided that
American Pipe tolling does not allow stacking of one class action
after another.  See China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, 138 S. Ct. 1800,
1811 (2018) ("the Rules do not offer . . . a reason to permit
plaintiffs to exhume failed class actions by filing new, untimely
class claims").  Without ever having to consider state law, the
Court rejected the perverse practice of seriatim class actions, all
based on American Pipe, tolling statute of limitations effectively
forever:

[Plaintiffs'] proposed reading would allow the statute of
limitations to be extended time and again; as each class is denied
certification, a new named plaintiff could file a class complaint
that resuscitates the litigation. . . .  [T]he time for filing
successive class suits, if tolling were allowed, could be
limitless. . . .  Most statutory schemes provide for a single
limitation period without any outer limit to safeguard against
serial relitigation.  Endless tolling of a statute of limitations
is not a result envisioned by American Pipe.

Id. at 1808-09 (citations and footnotes omitted).

All of the recent New York Erie-offending cross-jurisdictional
class action tolling decisions -- LIBOR, Famular, Chavez, and Hart
-- were, like China Agritech, class actions seeking to take
advantage of the purported tolling effect of an earlier,
unsuccessful class action (or, in Chavez, multiple, successive
failed class actions).  Thus, they should all independently fall
under China Agritech -- unless the purveyors of class actions are
now going to argue that hypothetical New York cross-jurisdictional
class action tolling (not affirmatively recognized by any New York
court) is even broader than the federal American Pipe doctrine.  A
fortiori, we don't think that any possible reading of New York law
would extend American Pipe to this absurd extreme.  With class
action stacking now prohibited under the American Pipe doctrine,
assertion of cross-jurisdictional class action tolling on the same
theory should decrease considerably.

Finally, the fact that all recent New York cross-jurisdictional
class action tolling decisions (including the favorable Bear
Stearns and Gould decisions) have involved plaintiffs attempting to
stack one class action on another in contravention of American
Pipe, should open the eyes of those courts that tend to exhibit
almost blind faith in the class action mechanism and seek to extend
it in various and sundry ways. This includes similar, concurrent
attempts being made to carve out class actions from constitutional
Due Process constraints on personal jurisdiction under
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017)
(most recently discussed), as well as proponents of cy pres
distributions.

Frankly, class actions, at least those seeking money damages, are
no longer (if they ever were) instruments for pursuit of social
good.  Rather they are tools that the lawyers bringing them use for
personal enrichment.  They can bring big, scary-looking lawsuits
without even the bother of dealing with real clients.  Rather than
benefiting society, they extort huge fees for themselves, and
little if anything for the supposed classes, by bringing litigation
that, without class actions, would be too trivial for anybody to
bother with.  This kind of bottom-feeding litigation is of no
benefit to anyone but lawyers.  The kind of "enforcement" these
class actions purport to pursue, if needed, can be brought far more
efficiently and equitably by law enforcement and/or administrative
agencies.  The abusive litigation and legal gamesmanship on a grand
scale that Rule 23, and similar state rules, have engendered is why
we believe that Rule 23(b) should simply be done away with, and
that Congress and other legislative bodies should decide whether
(and under what standards) any particular statute, or common-law
claim, should support representative litigation. [GN]


[*] Switzerland Proposes New Class Action Procedure
---------------------------------------------------
Urs Feller, Esq. -- urs.feller@prager-dreifuss.com -- and Nina Lim,
Esq. -- nina.lim@prager-dreifuss.com -- of Prager Dreifuss, in an
article for Mondaq, report that a proposed new class action
procedure should allow companies to make a 'clean break' while
facilitating a more efficient dispute resolution process overall.

In Switzerland, typical class actions as known in many other
jurisdictions are not available. However, 'Dieselgate' and similar
cases also affect consumers in Switzerland. If a large number of
people suffer the same or similar damage, each has to file their
claim individually. While total damages are usually large the
individual claims may be relatively small, which means many
individuals do not assert their claims because of the
disproportionate risk-benefit relationship.

Under current Swiss law, only associations are allowed to bring
group actions in their own name for a violation of the personality
of their members, provided the articles of association authorise
these associations to do so. The Swiss Federal Council (government)
now proposes to allow group actions not only for the violation of
personal rights but for all claims under Swiss private law,
including financial claims. Furthermore, it proposes to introduce a
dispute resolution mechanism that would allow companies to find a
collective settlement for mass claims for all affected parties.

Group actions
Since the introduction of the Swiss Civil Procedure Code in 2011,
not a single group action has been filed by an association or
organisation. By revising the law on group actions, the Federal
Council intends to introduce more suitable legal tools to this area
of dispute resolution.

As before, only associations and other organisations of national or
regional importance are allowed to bring group actions. These
associations and organisations may not be profit-oriented and must
be found fit to protect the interests of their group. They can
assert group actions and damaged parties can participate in the
claim by an 'opt-in' concept. To ensure all parties are aware of
proceedings, the organisations have to notify those parties known
to them and also inform the public by means of media releases such
as newspapers or online advertisements.

Damaged parties who have already filed an individual claim can join
the group action by simultaneously declaring withdrawal of their
own action.

Collective settlement procedures
Besides extending the scope for group actions, the Swiss Federal
Council also proposes to introduce a new procedure to collectively
settle mass disputes. A company causing damage to a substantial
number of possible claimants can agree on a settlement with one or
more of the organisations that represent the damaged parties and
can act on their behalf and in their interest. This offers the
defendant the possibility of settling the dispute outside the
courtroom, which can be advantageous for reputational reasons.

The settlement agreement has to be submitted to the Cantonal High
Court for approval by the defendant and the claimants. Once the
settlement agreement has been presented for approval, the court
will invite the parties to a public hearing and order them to
inform third parties potentially affected about the content of the
agreement and the possibility of participating in the proceedings.
The court will then review the settlement agreement with regard to
its appropriateness. If the court confirms the agreement, it will
declare it binding for all damaged parties who did not declare
their withdrawal within a certain period (the 'opt-out' concept).
If a damaged party opts out, the settlement agreement does not
become binding for them and they may file an individual claim.

Implications of the changes
The proposals by the Federal Council are a step towards
strengthening collective redress in Switzerland. By extending the
scope of group actions and introducing the collective settlement
procedure, the Federal Council hopes to break down barriers of
access to the courts for damaged parties.

The new collective settlement procedure should allow a company to
make a clean break, while facilitating more efficient dispute
resolution by enabling courts to resolve a number of similar cases
in a single proceeding.

The consultation phase for interested parties on the proposals
ended on 11 June 2018. It is expected that the Federal Council will
present a draft law to parliament for consideration as the next
step. [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  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 ***