CAR_Public/181219.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, December 19, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 253

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Anderson et al. Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
3UP INC: Santos Files Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
ADVANTAGE SALES: Foster Suit Seeks Missed Breaks Premium, Overtime
ALABAMA SPACE: State Supreme Court Issues Opinion on Class Action
ALASKA AIRLINES: Sued over Denial of Employment Benefits

ALLEY 41: Yin Seeks Unpaid Wages and Overtime Pay
ALLSTATE FIRE: Banks et al. Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
ANKER INNOVATIONS: Faces Brady Suit for Breach of Contract
APPLE INC: Lee Sues Over Sales Promo Sham, False Advertising
ARIZONA: Miranda Sues BOR Over Bias Against Female Professors

ARTEX RISK SOLUTIONS: Phoenix 2010 Revocable Trust Files Suit under
ASTHA LAXMI: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Paris Suit Says
BATTELLE MEMORIAL: Rothe Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay
BERKS COUNTY, PA: Victory Seeks to Certify Class of Female Inmates
BIRD RIDES: Faces Lautemann Suit in Central District of California

BLACK BOX CORP: Franchi Sues Over Sale to AGC, Seeks Financials
BLUE BOTTLE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Garey Alleges
BLUE CROSS: Sued for Improperly Denying Mental Health Claims
BLUE LINE: Judge Tosses Motion to Dismiss Class Action
BOEING COMPANY: Jan. 28 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set

BOFI HOLDING: 2nd Amended Mandalevy Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
BOJANGLES INC: Kasper Balks at Merger Deal with Durational Capital
BOMBARDIER MASS: Maintenance Workers Seek Unpaid Wages
CAVALLO'S OF CHELSEA: Sued by Mendoza for Not Paying Overtime Wages
CBS INTERACTIVE: Faces Sullivan ADA Suit in New York

CHULA VISTA: Sold Discounted Access to Condo Units, Suit Claims
COMMERCIAL TRADE: Bid to Dismiss Schnorrbusch FDCPA Suit Denied
CONTINENTAL HALL: Gomes Hit Misclassification, Seeks Unpaid Wages
CORNERSTONE FITNESS: Abbott Files Suit for Breach of Contract
CREE INC: Nguyen Sues Over LED Lightbulbs' False Ad

CSI ELECTRICAL: Underpays Electricians, Ramirez Suit Alleges
DELI ORGANIC: Faces Lopez Class Suit Over Unpaid Wages
DIRECTV LLC: Appeals Decision in Cordoba Suit to 11th Circuit
DOMINOS PIZZA: Silva Suit Moved to Central District of California
DOUGHBOYS: Faces Valencia Suit Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

DURST ORGANIZATION: Olsen Faces Suit under ADA
ELECTRO SCIENTIFIC: Morris Suit Challenges Merger With MKS
FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces Demarco Consumer Credit Class Action
FOUNTAIN GROUP: Zanazzi Seeks Overtime Premium
FOXSCO INC: McShane et al. Seek Unpaid Wages

FRANKLIN FIRST: Feller Seeks Final Pay, Benefits Under WARN Act
FULTON ENTERPRISES: Illegally Retains Gratuities, Oviedo Claims
GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC: Dismissal of Kleen Antitrust Suit Affirmed
GHC OF SAC-SNF: Faces Abella Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
GLOBAL SECURITY: Matthews Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

GOLDEN CAKES: Knight et al. Seek OT & Minimum Wages for Servers
GRADIANT ENERGY: Jenkins Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
GRANDISON MANAGEMENT: Can Compel Arbitration in Zendon Labor Suit
GREAT CLIPS: Fischler Files Suit Under ADA in New York
GREATBANC TRUST: Sued for Selling MS Shares Below Fair Market Value

HERTZ CORPORATION: Lee et al. Sue over Applicant Screening Policy
HOOVESTOL INC: $100K Settlement in Terry Suit Has Prelim Approval
IC SYSTEM: Class Certified in Delgado Suit; Jan. 3 Hearing Set
IDT TELECOM: Tejada Sues over Unwanted Text Message Calls
INGRAM DISTRIBUTION: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Perryman Says

INSURANCE NATION: Henry Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads
INTEGRATED DEVICE: Neeld Suit Seeks to Enjoin Sale to Renesas
JAYKAY INC: Underpays Clinical Laboratory Specialists, Ogogo Says
JP MORGAN: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss McShannock UCL Suit
KELLOGG CO: Kien Sues Over Misleading, Deceptive Product Ads

KINGSWAY AMIGO: MSPA Appeals S.D. Florida Ruling to 11th Circuit
KRASDALE FOODS: Denied Paying Workers OT Wages, Jordan Suit Says
MAISON KAYSER: Lieble Hits Tip Pool, Missed Breaks, No Pay Slips
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Kim Sues Over Data Breach
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Kim Sues over Data Breach

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Notley Sues Over Data Security Breach
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Disclosure of Confidential PII
MDL 2804: Granville Council Addresses Class Action Involvement
MDL 2804: Kenaitze vs. Purdue Pharma over Opiates Consolidated
MDL 2804: Moore et al vs. Purdue Pharma over Opiates Consolidated

MDL 2804: Shaffer et al vs. Purdue over Opiate Sales Consolidated
MDL 2848: Bern Suit vs. Merck over Zostavax Moved to E.D. Pa.
MEDICAL BUSINESS: Faces Milligan Suit in District of New Jersey
MON CHER LLC: Marcelino Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
MONSANTO COMPANY: Anglins Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Hatmakers Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Jameses Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: McDaniel Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Scott Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Whitmire Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MOVE4ALL INC: Courtney White Seeks Overtime Pay
MOVEMENT MORTGAGE: Hoober Sues Over Unfair Pay Claw back Policy
NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Davidson Seeks to Certify PCOs and PCOSs Class
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Fennell Moves for Certification of TCPA Class
NETBRANDS MEDIA: Krick Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls

NORTH AMERICAN DENTAL: Weisgarber Seeks OT Pay for Office Managers
NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Supreme Court Likely to Derail Class Action
NZONE GUIDANCE: Hiser Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
OHIO: Ct. Won't Review Certified Class Definition in P. Ball Suit
ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Lewis Sues over Inaccurate Credit Report

ONKAR FOOD CORP: Underpays Waiters, Rodriguez et al. Allege
PRBA CORP: Logan Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Evans Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
R & R COLLECTION: Faces Holland Suit Over FDCPA/FCRA Violations
RALPH'S GROCERY: Faces Olivares Suit in California Superior Court

REAL TIME: O'Boyle FDCPA Suit Dismissal w/o Leave to Amend Affirmed
RHODE ISLAND: Parents Sue School System for Lack of Civics Classes
RUAY THAI: Delivery Staff Hit Tip Credit Deductions
SAKI AT PALM HARBOR: Santiago Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Overtime Wages
SENIOR HEALTH: Settlement in Caballero ADA Suit Has Final Approval

SODEXO INC: Rivera Suit Moved to Central District of California
STATE FARM: Sued over Improper Valuation of Vehicle Insurance
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Suit Over Defective Screen Panels
SUNRISE SUPERMARKET: Denied Diaz Overtime Pay for Hours Over 40
T & J SUBWAY: Faces Anthony Labor Suit in S.D. Mississippi

TIGER BRANDS: Listeriosis Class Action Nears Certification
UNITED CEREBRAL: Underpays Healthcare Workers, Cauley et al. Say
UNITED STATES: Court Affirms Denial of BBJC's Cy Pres Funding
WESTERN BEEF: Henry Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
WOZ U EDUCATION: Greenberg Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads

YOGURT TECHNOLOGIES: Watkins Seeks Overtime Wages
YOURWAY TRANSPORT: Gayle Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages
ZIA TAQUERIA: Frechette Sues Over Illegal Tip Credit Deduction
[*] California Issues Guidance on Class Action Settlements

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Anderson et al. Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against 3M Company, Tyco Fire Products and
other companies over Aqueous Film Forming Foam ("AFFF") (D. Del.
Case No. 1:18-cv-00769, filed May 18, 2018), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware to the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina (Charleston) on
Dec. 11, 2018. The District of South Carolina assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-03334-RMG to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Richard M Gergel. The lead case is 2:18-mn-02873-RMG.

According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured and
distributed the Aqueous Film Forming Foam ("AFFF"), knowing that
the inclusion of perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS") to AFFF presented an
unreasonable risk to human health and the environment and was
inherently dangerous. The Defendants also knew that PFOA and PFOS
were highly soluble and mobile in water, highly likely to
contaminate water supplies and other sensitive receptors, were
persistent in the environment, and would bio-accumulate in humans
and cause serious health affects.

According to the complaint, the Defendants marketed and sold their
products with knowledge that large quantities of AFFF, containing
toxic six perfluorinated compounds, would be used in training
exercises and in emergency situations at military bases and
airports, including the New Castle County Airport, in such a manner
that PFOA and PFOS would contaminate the air, soil and groundwater.
The Defendants marketed and sold their products with knowledge that
large quantities of AFFF, containing toxic PFCs, would be stored in
fire suppressant systems and tanks on USAF Bases and at airports
and that such systems and storage were used and maintained in such
a manner that dangerous chemicals would be released into the air,
soil and groundwater. The Defendants failed in their duty to warn
users, bystanders and sensitive receptors of the inherently
dangerous properties of their AFFF. The Putative Class represents
the over 4,700 residents of New Castle County who were exposed to
drinking water contaminated with PFOA and PFOS from the CNCMSC and
Artesian, which obtain groundwater from municipal wells, the
lawsuit says.

The case is captioned as, EARL ANDERSON, SHAFIQ AYYUBI,
individually and as the natural guardian of J.A., ALFREDO CLEMENTE,
RENEE CRAWFORD, DESIREE HUDSON, JOHN JESTER, HEATHER KERAMADI,
ROBERT LEASURE, BELINDA McLAURIN, ANDREW MILNER, LIZA NICHOLS,
BETTY OWENS, TASHIKA OWENS, ERNEST OWENS, NIKIMA OWENS, CAROLYN
OWENS, ALFRED AND ADEDOLAPO PHILLIPS, TEKESS PIERCE, and MICHAEL
REILLY, For themselves and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing, Co.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., successor
in interest to THE ANSUL COMPANY; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.;
CHEMGUARD; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC., f/k/a
CHUBB NATIONAL FOAM, INC., f/k/a NATIONAL FOAM, INC., individually
and as successor in interest to NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE PLC,
INC., f/k/a WILLIAMS US INC., f/k/a WILLIAMS HOLDINGS, INC.,
individually and as successor in interest to NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and as successor in interest to
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC., f/k/a GE INTERLOGIX, INC., individually and as successor in
interest to NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC., f/k/a
NATIONAL FOAM INC., individually and as successor in interest to
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC., f/k/a WILLIAMS US INC., f/k/a
WILLIAMS HOLDINGS, INC., individually and as successor in interest
to NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and as
successor in interest to NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC., f/k/a GE INTERLOGIX, INC.; and ENTERRA
CORPORATION, the Defendants.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          R. Joseph Hrubiec, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, LLC
          919 North Market Street, Suite 1801
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 330-8025
          Facsimile: (302) 295-4801
          E-mail: rhrubiec@napolilaw.com

Attorneys for defendant, The 3M Company:

          Kelly E. Farnan, Esq.
          Laura R. Hammargren, Esq.
          Tyler D. Alfermann, Esq.
          RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, PA
          One Rodney Square, Suite 600
          920 N. King Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 651-7705
          E-mail: farnan@rlf.com
                  lhammargren@mayerbrown.com
                  talfermann@mayerbrown.com

Attorneys for defendant, Tyco Fire Products LP and Chemguard:

          David Ellis Moore, Esq.
          Stephanie E. O'Byrne, Esq.
          POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON, LLP
          1313 N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, 6th Flr.
          P.O. Box 951
          Wilmington, DE 19899-0951
          Telephone: (302) 984-6000
          E-mail: dmoore@potteranderson.com
                  sobyrne@potteranderson.com

               - and -

          Erin Leffler, Esq.
          Joseph Blum, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
          Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market St., Suite 3000
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215 278 2555
          Facsimile: 215 278 2594
          E-mail: eleffler@shb.com
                  jblum@shb.com

Attorneys for defendant, Buckeye Fire Equipment Company

          Joshua D. Scheets, Esq.
          MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN
          1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 600
          P.O. Box 8888
          Wilmington, DE 19899-8888
          Telephone: (302) 552-4344
          Facsimile: (302) 552-4340
          E-mail: jdscheets@mdwcg.com

Attorneys for Defendant, National Foam Inc.:

          Samuel Lee Moultrie, Esq.
          Steven T. Margolin, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          The Nemours Building
          1007 North Orange Street, Suite 1200
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 661-7000
          Facsimile: (302) 661-7360
          E-mail: moultries@gtlaw.com
                  margolins@gtlaw.com

3UP INC: Santos Files Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------
Daniel Santos, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. 3UP Inc., d/b/a Palace of Japan, and
Eson Chen, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-11384 (S.D. N.Y., December
6, 2018) seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid wages at the
minimum wage rate, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, "spread
of hours" pay, statutory penalties, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with
a policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated
individuals' wages for the hours actually worked at the minimum
wage rate in violation of the FLSA and NYLL and the supporting
Federal and New York State Department of Labor Regulations, the
complaint asserts. Plaintiff and other similarly situated
individuals have been substantially damaged by the Defendants'
wrongful conduct, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is an adult resident of Bronx, New York.

3UP Inc., d/b/a Palace of Japan, is a domestic business
corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of
New York, with a place of business located at 3505 Johnson Ave,
Bronx, NY 10463.

Eson Chen, is an owner, officer, director and/or managing agent of
Defendant 3UP Inc., d/b/a Palace of Japan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James F. Sullivan, Esq.
     Law Offices of James F. Sullivan, P.C.
     52 Duane Street, 7th Floor
     New York, NY 10007
     Phone: (202) 374-0009
     Fax: (202) 374-9931


ADVANTAGE SALES: Foster Suit Seeks Missed Breaks Premium, Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilma Foster, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Advantage Sales and Marketing, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-07205, (N.D. Cal., November 28, 2018),
seeks redress for Defendant's failure to pay overtime and minimum
wages, failure to provide proper wage statements and failure to pay
earned wages upon discharge including waiting time penalties under
Unfair Business Practices statures of the California Business and
Professions Code, the California Labor Code and Welfare Commission
Orders.

Advantage operates a retail delivery and management service through
which it delivers the consumer products of its clients to retail
stores. Foster worked as a Customer Development Manager covering
multiple locations in the area of Hayward, California. She worked
hours well in excess of 40 per week without any compensation for
hours beyond forty per week and over eight hours in a day, notes
the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laura L. Ho, Esq.
      Byron Goldstein, Esq.
      GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
      300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Tel: (510) 763-9800
      Fax: (510) 835-1417
      Email: lho@gbdhlegal.com
             brgoldstein@gbdhlegal.com

             - and -

      Bruce C. Fox, Esq.
      Jeffrey B. Cadle, Esq.
      Andrew J. Horowitz, Esq.
      OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP
      500 Grant Street, Ste. 5240
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Tel.: (412) 566-1500
      Email: bruce.fox@obermayer.com
             jeffrey.cadle@obermayer.com
             andrew.horowitz@obermayer.com


ALABAMA SPACE: State Supreme Court Issues Opinion on Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WHNT19 News reports that the Alabama Supreme Court issued an
opinion on November 21 regarding a class action lawsuit against
Alabama Space Science Exhibit Commission members. The commission
oversees the U.S. Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville.

The lawsuit, originally filed in 2014, alleges the commission
failed to pay Rocket Center employees the correct amount of annual
longevity bonus and improperly compensated those who worked on
certain state holidays. Three former employees filed the suit,
saying the center did not comply with paid state holiday
regulations because it observed fewer state holidays than it was
required to. Therefore, it alleges the employees did not receive
the compensation they are due.

Meanwhile, the Commission argues it has immunity from lawsuits as a
state entity. It asked for the case to be dismissed, later arguing
that a class certification is inappropriate. It attempted to
prevent the class from being certified, saying the class claims
don't meet the statute of limitations and citing concerns that the
employees no longer work for the commission.

Now, the Alabama Supreme Court is weighing into the appeal, and the
class action will move forward.

The court unanimously upheld, in a 52-page opinion, that the
plaintiffs' attorneys can create the class in preparation to make
the suit a class-action.

"It means we can represent all the employees of the U.S. Space and
Rocket Center," said attorney Eric Artrip. "We have filed this as a
class action and now the Alabama Supreme Court said we can continue
to pursue the case altogether as a class action."

The Supreme Court also dismissed defendants' claim that the
Commission was immune from lawsuits because of "state immunity."

The U.S. Space and Rocket Center's Director of Communications,
Patricia Ammons, issued a statement to WHNT News 19 saying, "The
Alabama Space Science Exhibit Commission greatly values the service
of its employees and is committed to ensuring that they are
properly compensated for the dedicated support of our on-going
mission. The Commission is pleased that the Alabama Supreme Court
recognized that the Commission officials are employees of the State
of Alabama and should not be parties to this lawsuit.  The
Commission continues to maintain that it has properly compensated
all of its past and present employees and has routinely relied upon
the advice of legal counsel to ensure that the Commission complies
with all applicable state laws."

The initial lawsuit came about after a Department of Examiners of
Public Accounts released an audit of the commission in 2014. The
report revealed eight noncompliance items that varied in topic,
from longevity payments for employees to failure to comply with the
Alabama Open Meetings Act.

At the time, U.S. Space & Rocket Center's spokesman had said the
state agency was complying with the audit's findings.

"It looked at the way they were paying their employees and told
them, you are not doing it right, you need to do it properly," Mr.
Artrip said of the DEPA audit. "Even having received this
information, the folks at the Space and Rocket Center refused."

Now, Mr. Artrip said he is preparing to send notice to the
employees and former employees who are eligible to be a part of the
class.

"Ultimately, we want to go try this case to a Madison County jury
and let them determine whether they think the decision not to pay
the employees according to state law was justified," he said.

He said nearly 100 people have already reached out to his office,
asking to be represented in the case. Mr. Artrip told WHNT News 19
the class would include employees from the past 4 years. [GN]


ALASKA AIRLINES: Sued over Denial of Employment Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------
LEO SYNORACKI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., an Alaska
corporation, ALASKA AIR GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, and
DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:18-cv-01784 (W.D. Wash., Dec. 12, 2018),
alleges that Alaska Airlines knowingly and willfully violated The
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994,
among other ways, by discriminating against Plaintiff and the Class
members, and by denying them employment benefits "on the basis of"
their "obligation to perform service in a uniformed service."

As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Alaska
Airlines, the Plaintiff and the Class have suffered injuries and
damages including but not limited to loss of past and future
benefits, with damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

Alaska Airlines is a major United States airline headquartered in
SeaTac, Washington, within the Seattle metropolitan area of the
state of Washington. It is the fifth-largest airline in the United
States when measured by fleet size, scheduled passengers carried,
and number of destinations served.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Putative Classes:

          Daniel Kalish, Esq.
          Donald W. Heyrich, Esq.
          HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
          600 Stewart Street, Suite 901
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: 206-838-2504
          E-mail: dkalish@hkm.com
                  dheyrich@hkm.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Lawler, Esq.
          PILOT LAW, P.C.
          850 Beech Street, Suite 713
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-255-2398
          E-mail: blawler@pilotlawcorp.com

               - and -

          Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
          Crystal L. Matter, Esq.
          STONEBARGER LAW, APC
          75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: 916-235-7140
          E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com
                  cmatter@stonebargerlaw.com

               - and -

          Charles M. Billy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES M. BILLY, APC
          22706 Aspan Street, Suite 305
          Lake Forest, CA 92630
          Telephone: 949-357-9636
          E-mail: cbilly@cmblawcorp.com

ALLEY 41: Yin Seeks Unpaid Wages and Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
YU HUA YIN, Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ALLEY 41 INC. d/b/a Alley 41, SHU
XIANG, INC. d/b/a Alley 41, SZECHUAN SPICY HOUSE N.Y. INC. d/b/a
Alley 41, HUA YAO, and XIN HUI TANG, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-07078 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 12, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
wages and minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and
costs under the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL
by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their
employees, including Plaintiff, compensation for all hours worked,
minimum wage, and overtime compensation for all hours worked over
40 each workweek. The FLSA allows employers of "tipped employees"
to pay their tipped employees at a rate below the federal and state
minimum wages, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Rui Ma, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
          136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: 718-353-8588
          Facsimile: 718-353-6288
          E-mail: rma@hanglaw.com


ALLSTATE FIRE: Banks et al. Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, JANINE BANKS and SPINE SURGERY ASSOCIATES and AMBULATORY
SURGICAL CENTER OF SOMERSET, individually and as Class
representative on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs. vs. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No.:
SSX-L-000521-18 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Sussex County, tob the  U.S. District Court District for the
District of New Jersey (Newark) on Dec. 12, 2018. The District of
New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No.: 2:18-cv-17117 to the
proceeding. The lawsuit alleges violation of insurance contract.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Melissa Brill, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR PC
          45 Broadway Suite 1600
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 908-1257
          Facsimile: (866) 825-3144
          E-mail: mbrill@cozen.com

ANKER INNOVATIONS: Faces Brady Suit for Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anker Innovations
Limited. The case is styled as Philip Brady and Duncan Smith,
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs v. Anker Innovations Limited, Anker Technology
Corporation, Power Mobile Life, LLC and Fantasia Trading, LLC doing
business as: Anker Direct, Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-11396 (S.D.
N.Y., December 6, 2018).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as breach of
contract.

Anker Technology Co. Limited designs and develops consumer
electronics and accessories. It offers portable chargers; USB
chargers; car chargers; cables; audio devices including speakers,
headphones, audio cables, and Bluetooth receivers; cases, screen
protectors, stands, selfie sticks, and armbands; connectivity
products, such as USB data hubs and USB adapters; appliances
including LED lamps, oil diffuser, and vacuums; interface devices
such as keyboards and mice; and batteries. The company was founded
in 2009 and is based in California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Douglas Gregory Blankinship, Esq.
   Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei- Pearson & Garber, LLP
   445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605
   White Plains, NY 10601
   Tel: (914) 298-3281
   Fax: (914) 824-1561
   Email: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com


APPLE INC: Lee Sues Over Sales Promo Sham, False Advertising
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Apple Inc., Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-07235, (N.D. Cal., November 29, 2018), seeks redress for
violations Of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California
Business and Professions Code, the California False Advertising Law
and for breach of express and implied warranty, common law fraud
and quasi-contract/restitution.

Apple held a four-day long special holiday sales event which lasted
from November 23 to 26, 2018 where it advertised and marketed a
series of its products that purportedly came with an Apple Store
Gift Card ranging from $25-200, depending on the product. After
clicking three layers of terms and conditions would consumers
realize that it contained statements that cryptically indicate that
certain Apple products might have been excluded from the Apple
Holiday Sale despite the fact that such products were included in
the Apple Shopping Event link and were represented throughout the
App as being eligible for the Gift Card offer. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel A. Reisman, Esq.
      Erin Reisman, Esq.
      REISMAN & REISMAN
      5900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2600
      Los Angeles, CA 90036-5013
      Telephone: (323) 330-0580
      Facsimile: (323) 389-0694
      Email: dreisman@reismanlawoffices.com
             ereisman@reismanlawoffices.com

             - and -

      Eliot J. Rushovich, Esq.
      RISE LAW FIRM, PC
      5900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2600
      Los Angeles, CA 90036-5013
      Telephone: (310) 728-6588
      Facsimile: (310) 728-6560
      Email: eliot@riselawfirm.com


ARIZONA: Miranda Sues BOR Over Bias Against Female Professors
-------------------------------------------------------------
Katrina Miranda, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Arizona Board of Regents, Case No. 4:18-cv-00576-LAB
(D. Ariz., November 29, 2018), arises out of the University of
Arizona's alleged systematic discriminatory treatment of its female
professors on the basis of their gender.

The University discriminates against female Professors in the
College of Science through its policies, practices, and procedures
with respect to compensation, in violation of the Equal Pay Act of
1963 and compensation and promotion in violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Ms. Miranda alleges.

Ms. Miranda, a tenured Associate Professor in the Department of
Chemistry and Biochemistry in the College at the University,
contends that female science professors are routinely paid
significantly less than their male counterparts, with men typically
earning higher salaries.  She adds that women are
disproportionality concentrated at the Assistant and Associate
Professor levels and denied promotions to Professor.

Headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, the Arizona Board of Regents is
a corporate entity created by state law for the purpose of
administering Arizona's public universities.  The University of
Arizona, a public university located in Tucson, Arizona, is a legal
subdivision of ABOR.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Merle Joy Turchik, Esq.
          TURCHIK LAW FIRM, P.C.
          2205 E. Speedway Blvd.
          Tucson, AZ 85719
          Telephone: (520) 882-7070
          Facsimile: (520) 203-0175
          E-mail: merle@turchiklawfirm.com

               - and -

          David Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          700 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20003
          Telephone: (202) 499-5201
          Facsimile: (202) 499-5199
          E-mail: dsanford@sanfordheisler.com

               - and -

          Andrew Melzer, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 402-5657
          Facsimile: (646) 402-5651
          E-mail: amelzer@sanfordheisler.com

               - and -

          Kate Mueting, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          700 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20003
          Telephone: (202) 499-5206
          Facsimile: (202) 499-5199
          E-mail: kmueting@sanfordheisler.com

               - and -

          Christopher Yandel, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          111 Sutter Street, Suite 975
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 795-2014
          Facsimile: (415) 795-2021
          E-mail: cyandel@sanfordheisler.com


ARTEX RISK SOLUTIONS: Phoenix 2010 Revocable Trust Files Suit under
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Artex Risk Solutions
Incorporated. The case is styled as Phoenix 2010 Revocable Trust,
Vassil Zhivkov, Kristina Tsonev, Spectra Services Incorporated, DVS
Holdings LLC, Robert C Miller, Brenda Mae Miller, Bruce G Robinson,
Sara Van Alstyne Robinson, Symphony Homes LLC, Symphony Development
Corporation, Keith Butler, Rebecca M Butler, Eric K Wilke, Julie T
Wilke, John Linder, Nina Linder, Affilion of Cobre Valley LLC,
Affilion of Huntsville PLLC, Affilion of Texas PLLC, Taylor-Wilke
Holdings LLC, Traditions Emergency Medicine PA, Treadstone Equity
Group LLC, UTA Investments LLC, Boomerang WB LLC, AZ Storage 1 LLC,
AZ Storage 2 LLC, Boomerang Sonoran LLC, RV Storage LLC, Stone
Haven Lodge LLC, UTA Holdings LLC, Wilke Medical Direction PLLC, 5T
Capital Fund II LLC, 5T Capital Holdings LLC, 5T Capital LLC,
Ingenuity Auto Leasing LLC, Ingenuity Auto Aviation LLC, Ingenuity
Equity Group II LLC, Ingenuity Equity Group III LLC, Ingenuity
Equity Group LLC, Ingenuity Leasing Company II LLC, Ingenuity
Leasing Company LLC, Ingenuity Matrix Incorporated, Ingenuity
Professional Services PLLC, Bourne Tempe Land LLC, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Artex
Risk Solutions Incorporated formerly known as: Tribeca Strategic
Advisors LLC, TSA Holdings LLC, TBS LLC doing business as: PRS
Insurance, Karl Huish, Jeremy Huish, Jim Tehero, Arthur J.
Gallagher & Company, Debbie Inman, Epsilon Actuarial Solutions LLC,
Julie A Ekdom, AmeRisk Consulting LLC and Provincial Insurance PCC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04514-GMS (D. Ariz., December 6,
2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Racketeering (RICO) Act.

Artex Risk Solutions Incorporated is formerly known as: Tribeca
Strategic Advisors LLC offers captive management and alternative
risk transfer services. It offers captive formation, captive
basics, growth of captives, types of captives, domicile selection,
insured risk, self-insured risk, insurance risk, risk distribution
and shifting, economic family ruling, safe harbor trilogy, third
party risk, group captives, cell captives, private letter ruling,
and legal information services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   David R Deary, Esq.
   Loewinsohn Flegle Deary Simon LLP
   12377 Merit Dr., Ste. 900
   Dallas, TX 75251
   Tel: (214) 572-1700
   Fax: (214) 572-1717

      - and –

   Donna Lee, Esq.
   Loewinsohn Flegle Deary Simon LLP
   12377 Merit Dr., Ste. 900
   Dallas, TX 75251
   Tel: (214) 572-1700
   Fax: (214) 572-1717

      - and –

   Jeffrey R Finley, Esq.
   Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP
   8501 N Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 270
   Scottsdale, AZ 85253
   Tel: (480) 315-3840
   Fax: (866) 505-8036
   Email: jfinley@schneiderwallace.com

      - and –

   Jim L Flegle, Esq.
   Loewinsohn Flegle Deary Simon LLP
   12377 Merit Dr., Ste. 900
   Dallas, TX 75251
   Tel: (214) 572-1700
   Fax: (214) 572-1717
   Email: jimf@lfdlaw.com

      - and –

   John McKenzie, Esq.
   Loewinsohn Flegle Deary Simon LLP
   12377 Merit Dr., Ste. 900
   Dallas, TX 75251
   Tel: (214) 572-1700
   Fax: (214) 572-1717

      - and –

   W Ralph Canada , Jr., Esq.
   Loewinsohn Flegle Deary Simon LLP
   12377 Merit Dr., Ste. 900
   Dallas, TX 75251
   Tel: (214) 572-1700
   Fax: (214) 572-1717

      - and –

   Wilson E Wray , Jr., Esq.
   Loewinsohn Flegle Deary Simon LLP
   12377 Merit Dr., Ste. 900
   Dallas, TX 75251
   Tel: (214) 572-1700
   Fax: (214) 572-1717
   Email: wilsonw@lfdlaw.com


ASTHA LAXMI: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Paris Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Wilma Paris, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Astha
Laxmi LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, d/b/a Quality Inn,
and Piyush J. Patel, an individual, jointly and severally,
Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00561-RH-MJF (N.D. Fla., December 6,
2018) is a collective action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, to recover unpaid overtime wages on behalf
of Plaintiff and all others similarly-situated to her who were
formerly, or are currently, employed as hourly paid employees by
Defendants.

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages or pre-judgment
interest, post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs from
Defendants.

The Defendants employed Paris as an hourly paid front desk clerk.
During the Liability Period, Paris and all other similarly situated
hourly paid employees, were required to work more than 40 hours per
week, but would only receive straight time pay for all hours.
During the Liability Period, Paris, and all other similarly
situated hourly paid employees, complained to her supervisors about
not receiving overtime compensation, but nothing was ever done to
remedy the problem, says the complaint.

Paris was, at all material times, a resident of Leon County,
Florida. Paris, at all material times, was a covered, non-exempt
employee of Defendants within the meaning of the FLSA.

Astha Laxmi LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company located in
Tallahassee, Florida and is an enterprise engaged in an industry
affecting commerce, and is an employer. Defendants have owned and
operated a hotel known as Quality Inn, located at 3090 N. Monroe
Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32303, within the Northern District of
Florida.

Defendant Patel acted and acts directly in the interests of
Defendant Astha Laxmi LLC, in relation to its employees as he hired
Plaintiff, set Plaintiff's pay, set Plaintiff's work schedule, and
generally controlled all aspects of Plaintiff's employment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert S. Norell, Esq.
     ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
     70th 300 N.W Avenue, Suite 305
     Plantation, FL 33317
     Phone: (954) 617-6017
     Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
     Email: rob@floridawagelaw.com


BATTELLE MEMORIAL: Rothe Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
JASON ROTHE, CARLOS MARTINEZ, and ANDREW BRYANT Individually and
On Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE, A Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-03179-KMT (D. Colo., Dec. 12, 2018), seeks unpaid wages,
including unpaid overtime compensation and interest, liquidated
damages and other penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act,the Colorado Wage Act, and the Colorado Wage and Hour
Law.

The case is about employees who work or worked for Battelle and are
not or were not paid wages and overtime for certain hours that the
employees worked. These unpaid work hours were periods that the
employees were at the Battelle work site and performing duties that
were for the benefit of Battelle, but said hours were not recorded
as work hours on the time clock or time sheets from which payroll
is calculated (off-the-clock hours), the lawsuit says.

Battelle Memorial Institute is a private nonprofit applied science
and technology development company headquartered in Columbus,
Ohio.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

          Sharon Preston, Esq.
          PRESTON & BRAR, LLC
          670 East 3900 South, Suite 101
          Salt Lake City, UT 84107
          Telephone: (801) 269-9541
          Facsimile: (801) 269-9581
          E-mail: sharon@prestonbrar.com

BERKS COUNTY, PA: Victory Seeks to Certify Class of Female Inmates
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned THERESA VICTORY v. BERKS
COUNTY, BERK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS KEVIN S. BARNHARDT, CHRISTIAN Y.
LEINBACH AND MARK C. SCOTT, ESQ., WARDEN JANINE L. QUIGLEY, DEPUTY
WARDEN STEPHANIE SMITH, CAPTAIN CASTRO, LIEUTENANT WEBER,
LIEUTENANT SPOTTS, CORRECTIONS OFFICER (C.O.) DROZACK, C.O.
REICHART, C.O. ZERR, C.O. BROWN, C.O. BAUER, JOANNA BROWN, JOHN DOE
CORRECTIONAL SERGEANT, Case No. 5:18-cv-05170-MAK (E.D. Pa.), moves
to certify this class:

     All current and future female inmates committed to the Berks
     County Jail System who have the Trusty custody-level
     classification and/or Work Release status but have been
     denied assignment to the Community Reentry Center ("CRC")
     and denied access to the privileges, services, and programs
     available to men assigned to the CRC.

Ms. Victory also asks the Court to designate her as the class
representative.  She contends that the Court should exercise its
broad discretion in favor of certifying a class, with her as class
representative, so that she and the Proposed Class can enjoin the
Defendants from continuing their alleged discriminatory policy and
practice, which deprives the Proposed Class members of their
constitutionally guaranteed rights.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Su Ming Yeh, Esq.
          Angus Love, Esq.
          Jim Davy, Esq.
          Matthew A. Feldman, Esq.
          PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT
          718 Arch St., Suite 304S
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 925-2966
          E-mail: smyeh@pailp.org
                  alove@pailp.org
                  jdavy@pailp.org
                  mfeldman@pailp.org


BIRD RIDES: Faces Lautemann Suit in Central District of California
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bird Rides, Inc. The
lawsuit is captioned John E. Lautemann, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Bird Rides,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO (C.D. Cal., Nov.
30, 2018). The suit alleges torts to land violation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson.

Bird Rides, Inc. provides software solutions. The company offers
application for electric vehicle sharing to find nearby
transportation.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
          Kevin F. Ruf, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY AND MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com
                  kruf@glancylaw.com

BLACK BOX CORP: Franchi Sues Over Sale to AGC, Seeks Financials
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Franchi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, plaintiff, v. Black Box Corporation, Joel T. Trammell,
Richard L. Crouch, Cynthia J. Comparin, Richard C. Elias, Thomas G.
Greig, John S. Heller, AGC Networks Pte Ltd., BBX Main Inc., BBX
Inc., and Host Merger Sub Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01890
(D. Del., November 29, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all
persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating or closing the acquisition of Black Box Corporation by
affiliates of AGC Networks Ltd., rescinding it in the event
defendants consummate the merger, rescissory damages, costs of this
action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys'
and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

AGC will purchase all outstanding shares of Black Box common stock
for $1.08 per share in cash.

The complaint says the solicitation statement filed in connection
with the transaction omitted material information regarding Black
Box's financial projections and the analyses performed by its
financial advisor, Raymond James & Associates, Inc. including the
potential conflicts of interest that Raymond James has with regards
to the compensation it received.

Black Box is a digital solutions provider that helps customers
design, build, manage, and secure their IT infrastructure. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


BLUE BOTTLE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Garey Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN GAREY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE BOTTLE COFFEE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-10517 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018) is an action against
the Defendants' failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate
its website, www.bluebottlecoffee.com, to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Blue Bottle Coffee, Inc. operates a network of cafes in the San
Francisco bay area, New York, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and
Japan. The company also offers its coffee products through
wholesale partners. It serves its customers in Australia, Canada,
Germany, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand,
Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The company
was founded in 2002 and is based in Oakland, California. As of
September 14, 2017, Blue Bottle Coffee, Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Nestle S.A. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLUE CROSS: Sued for Improperly Denying Mental Health Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Open Minds reports that on October 31, 2018, a group of people
covered under a Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts (BCBSMA)
employer-sponsored health plan sued the insurer alleging that it
systematically denied member claims for residential mental health
treatment. The complaint, Steve C, Kelly W. & Jane Doe, et al., v.
Blue Cross Blue Shield Massachusetts, was filed as a class action.
No hearing date has been set.

The plaintiffs allege that BCBSMA violated the terms of its
insurance policies and self-funded medical benefit plans by denying
claims for inpatient intermediate mental health residential
treatment. [GN]


BLUE LINE: Judge Tosses Motion to Dismiss Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Vindicator reports that a Trumbull County Common Pleas Court
judge denied Blue Line Solutions and the city of Girard's motion to
dismiss a class-action lawsuit against them.

Judge Andrew Logan ruled that four of the claims in the complaint
against the two entities are valid, including accusations that the
entities violated the plaintiffs' due process rights and were
engaged in civil conspiracy.

The litigation against BLS and the city revolves around the
contested speed limit on a portion of Interstate 80 between Dec. 7,
2017, and Jan. 8, 2018, after construction ended.

The city enforced the temporary lower speed limit because the Ohio
Department of Transportation hadn't changed the speed limit signs
until Jan. 8.

The lawsuit was filed by Atty. Marc Dann on behalf of drivers who
were ticketed during that period.

Two of the plaintiffs' arguments -- that the entities violated the
Consumers Sales Practices Act and were involved in negligent
misrepresentation -- were not valid because it determined the
issued citations can't be classified as a business transaction.

The judge also denied the plaintiffs' motion to strike a new
argument made by the city of Girard.

There will be a status conference on the matter late in January.
[GN]


BOEING COMPANY: Jan. 28 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Nov. 28 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against The Boeing Company ("Boeing" or the "Company")
(NYSE: BA) and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed
in United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, and
indexed under 18-cv-07853, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities, other than Defendants and their
affiliates, who purchased or otherwise, acquired Boeing common
stock between February 8, 2017, and November 13, 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 Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Boeing securities between
February 8, 2017, and November 13, 2018, both dates inclusive, you
have until January 28, 2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact
Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

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

Boeing operates in four business segments: Commercial Airplanes;
Defense, Space & Security; Global Services; and Boeing Capital.
The Commercial Airplanes segment provides commercial jet aircraft
for passenger and cargo requirements, and fleet support services,
principally to the commercial airline industry. This segment is a
leading producer of commercial aircraft and offers a family of
commercial jetliners designed to meet a broad spectrum of global
passenger and cargo requirements of airlines. This family of
commercial jet aircraft in production includes the 737 narrow-body
model and the 747, 767, 777 and 787 wide-body models.  Development
continues on the 787-10 and certain 737 MAX derivatives and the
777X program.

The first 737 MAX 8 was delivered to customers in May 2017.  The
737 MAX included a new automated stall-prevention system, designed
to assist cockpit crews to avoid mistakenly raising a plane's nose
dangerously high.  Upon delivery, Boeing touted the 737 MAX as
"chang[ing] the face of the single-aisle market".

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

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) 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 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
the fatal Lion Air jet crash."

Following this news, Boeing's stock price fell $12.31 per share
over the following two trading sessions, or roughly 3.4%, to close
at $344.72 per share on November 14, 2018.  Over the 11 days
following the publication of the Wall Street Journal article,
Boeing's stock price fell a total of $44.71 per share, or roughly
12.5%, to close at $312.32 per share on November 23, 2018.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. [GN]


BOFI HOLDING: 2nd Amended Mandalevy Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BAR MANDALEVY, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. BOFI HOLDING, INC.,
GREGORY GARRABTRANTS, ANDREW J. MICHELETTI, ESHEL BAR-ADON and PAUL
J. GRINBERG, Defendants, Case No. 17cv667-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal.),
Judge of Gonzalo P. Curiel the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiffs claim that BofI and its executives made numerous
false representations in public statements, which misled investors.
When the truth of these misrepresentations were revealed in media
reports, BofI's share price dropped.  On April 3, 2017, the
Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint against the Defendants
which asserted a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act by way of violation of the SEC's Rule 10b-5.  They
also alleged a count for violation of Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act.  The Plaintiffs claimed that the
Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) by making
misrepresentations about BofI's loans to criminals and government
investigations.

The Defendants countered with a Motion to Dismiss.  They contended
that the Plaintiffs failed to plead particularized facts showing
that the Defendants made misstatements and that the Plaintiffs
failed to plead loss causation.

On June 19, 2018, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
The order addressed Garrabrants' assertion during the Aug. 2, 2016
conference call that BofI had not received any inquiry that would
require the filing of an 8-K or that would be material.  The Court
observed that Garrabrants did not deny that BofI was in contact
with regulators; in fact, he stated that BofI was in constant
dialogue with regulators, including the OCC, SEC, FDIC, and the
Federal Reserve.  

The issue before the Court was whether it was misleading for
Garrabrants to say that in the course of constant dialogue with
regulators, BofI was informed that the SEC investigation had
reached a point that triggered a duty to disclose the investigation
in a Form 8-K.  The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs did not
offer any reason why that was the case.

However, the Court found that the Plaintiffs adequately pleaded
that it was false for BofI to state in its April 18, 2016 press
release that Erhart's allegations are disconnected from reality.
The Plaintiffs had also adequately demonstrated the falsity of
Garrabrants' statement during the Oct. 27, 2016 earnings conference
call denying that BofI had any interest credit exposure ownership
of any loan to Galanis.  The Complaint also demonstrated that it
was false for BofI to issue a press release on March 31, 2017,
saying that it has received no indication of and has no knowledge
regarding the money laundering investigation

With these three false statements in mind, the Court next addressed
whether the Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged loss causation.  The
Court first considered the statement that Erhart's allegations were
disconnected from reality.  The Plaintiffs claimed that this
statement was revealed to be false through the Seeking Alpha
article.  The Court noted that the information relied upon by the
article's author was already public, and found that the author did
not engage in any kind of specialized analysis.

With respect to the Oct. 27, 2016 denial of any loans to Galanis,
the Court noted that the Plaintiffs had failed to allege a
corrective disclosure that occurred after the statement was made.
Finally, the Court addressed the March 31, 2017 press release in
which BoI denied receiving any indication or having any knowledge
of the money laundering investigation.  The Plaintiffs identified
the corrective disclosure of this statement as the Oct. 25, 2017
New York Post article stating that BofI had been under SEC
investigation.  The Court found that this article did not disclose
any previously nonpublic information.  Because the Probes Reporter
obtained its information through a FOIA request, the Court found
information to be publicly available.

The Plaintiffs have now filed a Second Amended Complaint, hoping to
cure the previous deficiencies.  The Plaintiffs again bring claims
for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The
Defendants move to dismiss the SAC, contending that the new
allegations in the SAC do not 'cure the deficiencies' in the CAC
identified in the Court's order granting the Defendants' motion to
dismiss.

Judge Curiel concludes that the Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint fails to state a claim for violation of sections 10(b) or
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.  This was Plaintiff's third
iteration of its complaint, and the Plaintiffs have not requested
leave to file a third amended complaint.  Moreover, it appears that
any further amendment would not survive another motion to dismiss.
He concludes that another opportunity to amend is not warranted.
As a result, he granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and
dismissed the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 7, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/dzz9UY from Leagle.com.

Bar Mandalevy, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy A. Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice.

David Grigsby, Plaintiff, represented by Brenda Szydlo --
bszydlo@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer Pafiti,
Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Adam C. McCall -- amccall@zlk.com --
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.

wJoseph Shepard, Plaintiff, represented by Brenda Szydlo, Pomerantz
LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy A.
Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice.

BofI Holding, Inc., Gregory Garrabrants, Andrew J. Micheletti,
Eshel Bar-Adon & Paul J. Grinberg, Defendants, represented by John
P. Stigi, III -- jstigi@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton.

BOFI Investors Group, Movant, represented by John P. Stigi, III,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton & Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Kirby
McInerney LLP.

Vickie Siebert & Chao Wang, Movants, represented by Jennifer
Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP.

Larry Dooley, Linda Ostermann & Philip Ricciardi, Movants,
represented by Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Kirby McInerney LLP.


BOJANGLES INC: Kasper Balks at Merger Deal with Durational Capital
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHARON KASPER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BOJANGLES', INC., WILLIAM A. KUSSELL,
STEVEN J. COLLINS, JOHN E. CURRIE, CHRISTOPHER J. DOUBRAVA, TOMMY
L. HADDOCK, ROBERT F. HULL, JR., STARLETTER JOHNSON, JAMES R.
KIBLER, MARK A. ROWAN, and STEVEN M. TADLER, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-01961-UNA (D. Del. Dec. 12, 2018), seeks to enjoin the
Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing a proposed transaction
,and in the event the Defendants consummate the proposed
transaction, rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding
rescissory damages, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on November
6, 2018 pursuant to which Bojangles', Inc. will be acquired by
affiliates of Durational Capital Management LP and The Jordan
Company, L.P.  On November 6, 2018, Bojangles' Board of Directors
caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger
with Walker Parent, Inc. and Walker Merger Sub, Inc.  Pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement, Bojangles' stockholders will
receive $16.10 cash per share of Bojangles'. On December 10, 2018,
the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with the
Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement, which scheduled a
stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction for January 10, 2019,
omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading, the lawsuit says.

Bojangles' Inc. is a Southeastern United States regional chain of
fast food restaurants, specializing in cajun seasoning, fried
chicken, and buttermilk biscuits. The company was founded in
Charlotte, North Carolina in 1977 by Jack Fulk and Richard
Thomas.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

BOMBARDIER MASS: Maintenance Workers Seek Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Dino Minter, Bobby Baker, Caesar Jiminez, James Adcock and Mark
Norem, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
and on behalf of the general public. Plaintiffs, vs. Bombardier
Mass Transit Corporation, North County Transit District (NCTD) and
Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00059972
(S.D. Cal., November 28, 2018), seeks redress for Defendants'
failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, failure to provide
proper wage statements and failure to pay earned wages upon
discharge including waiting time penalties under Unfair Business
Practices statures of the California Business and Professions Code,
the California Labor Code and Welfare Commission Orders.

Bombardier Mass Transit Corp. operates and maintains the Coaster
and Sprinter Commuter Trains in San Diego County where Minter and
Baker worked in the Maintenance of Signals Department, Jiminez and
Adcock in the Maintenance of Way Department and Norem worked in the
Maintenance of Equipment Department. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clarice J. Letizia, Esq.
      LETIZIA LAW FIRM
      4560 Avenida Privado
      Oceanside, CA 92057
      Tel: (760) 231-6545
      Fax: (760) 231-6784
      Email: clariceletizia@att.net


CAVALLO'S OF CHELSEA: Sued by Mendoza for Not Paying Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SEVERIANO MENDOZA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CAVALLO'S OF CHELSEA, INC. (D/B/A CLAUDIO PIZZERIA),
SALVATORE NAIMO, and ANTONIO COPPOLA, Case No. 1:18-cv-11147
(S.D.N.Y., November 29, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiff worked
for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours
compensation for the hours that he worked.

Cavallo's of Chelsea, Inc., doing business as Claudio Pizzeria, is
a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
state of New York.  The Company maintains its principal place of
business in New York City.  Salvatore Naimo and Antonio Coppola
serve or served as owners, managers, principals, or agents of the
Defendant Corporation.

The Defendants own, operate, or control an Italian
restaurant/pizzeria under the name "Claudio Pizzeria," which is
located at 334 8th Avenue, in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CBS INTERACTIVE: Faces Sullivan ADA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CBS Interactive Inc.
The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CBS Interactive
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11397 (S.D. N.Y., December 6,
2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

CBS Interactive Inc. operates an online content network for
information and entertainment. It operates CBS.COM, an online
television network; Metacritic for gamers, music, and entertainment
fans, with reviews on the games, music, TV, and movies; CHOW that
includes videos, reliable recipes, and community discussion on
food; and TV.COM, an online destination for TV fans, with episode
clips, show guides, and fan-driven discussion boards. The company
offers its services in the areas of games, music, news, sports,
technology, and international. In addition, it offers advertising
services. CBS Interactive Inc. was formerly known as CBS Digital
Media Group.

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



CHULA VISTA: Sold Discounted Access to Condo Units, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH SARTIN, KENNETH RICHE, TONY EDWARDS, ROBERT SILBERMAN, and
SCOTT WILLOCK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CHULA VISTA, INC., CVR MANAGEMENT,
LLC, MICHAEL KAMINSKI, MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH, LLP, and NANCY
HAGGERTY, ESQ., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01890-JPS (E.D.
Wisc., Nov. 30, 2018), seeks to hold Defendants liable for their
operation of and participation in an unlawful scheme.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in a scheme
to take financial advantage of condominium unit owners at the Chula
Vista Resort & Waterpark. Defendants' scheme includes, but is not
limited to: (i) the unlawful conversion of the Plaintiffs' property
without paying the Plaintiffs due consideration; (ii) requiring the
Plaintiffs to pay inflated condominium assessments, which are used
for the Defendants' exclusive benefit; and (iii) fraudulently
overcharging the Plaintiffs for maintenance, repair, and
miscellaneous improvements. The Plaintiffs, and the Class they seek
to represent, are owners of condominium units at Chula Vista.

The Plaintiffs tell the Court they purchased their condominium
units for two primary purposes: (i) as income-generating rental
properties; and (ii) for their own vacation use. The Chula Vista
Defendants operate the Chula Vista resort and oversee rental of the
condominium units. Rather than operate the resort in Plaintiffs'
best interests, as they are legally obligated to do, the Chula
Vista Defendants use Plaintiffs' condominium units for their own
personal and pecuniary gain. Most insidiously, the Chula Vista
Defendants sell "Club" memberships to the general public, which
allow Club members to receive massive rental discounts on
Plaintiffs' condominium units.

While the Chula Vista Defendants collect millions of dollars in
Club membership fees and dues by selling discounted access to
Plaintiffs' condominium units, they do not give Plaintiffs any
portion of the Club membership fees and dues. The Plaintiffs never
authorized the Chula Vista Defendants to sell discounted access to
their condominium units through The Club program, nor did
Plaintiffs authorize the Chula Vista Defendants to keep all
proceeds therefrom. Additionally, the Chula Vista Defendants force
Plaintiffs to pay inflated assessments on their condominium units,
for which Plaintiffs receive minimal, if any, benefit. Instead, the
Chula Vista Defendants use the money from these inflated
assessments for their own financial gain.

The Chula Vista Defendants also profit off of Plaintiffs by
fraudulently overcharging them for routine maintenance, repair, and
miscellaneous improvements in their condominium units. Rather than
enjoy the expected rental income on their condominium units, the
Plaintiffs have lost substantial amounts of money as a direct
result of the Defendants' unlawful activity. As a direct and
proximate result of one or more of the above wrongful acts,
Defendants have already caused and will continue to cause
Plaintiffs significant damage in the form of past and future lost
net rental income and declining property values, the lawsuit says.

Chula Vista is a southwestern-themed waterpark resort in Wisconsin
Dells, Wisconsin. Originally, the Berry Family purchased a home on
the Wisconsin River and built Berry's Coldwater Canyon Hotel and
Berry's Dells Golf Course. In 1952, Joe and Vera Kaminski were
innkeepers at the hotel and later purchased the entire complex from
the Berry Family. Over the years, Chula Vista has been owned and
operated by various the Descendants and relatives of Joe and Vera
Kaminski.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

COMMERCIAL TRADE: Bid to Dismiss Schnorrbusch FDCPA Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AMANDA SCHNORRBUSCH, Plaintiff, v. COMMERCIAL TRADE,
INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:18-CV-1850-G (N.D. Tex.), Judge
A. Joe Fish of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, denied CTI's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim.

Schnorrbusch, a natural person who resides in Texas, is a consumer
within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA").  CTI is a California corporation with its corporate
headquarters located in Bakersfield, California engaged in the
business of collecting debts and qualifies as a debt collector as
defined by the FDCPA.

On Oct. 20, 2017, CTI sent Schnorrbusch a collection letter for a
debt of $100.31.  Schnorrbusch received the collection letter on or
about the same date.  The language "Reference: Payne Richards &
Associates" was placed at both the top and bottom of the letter.
CTI also included the file number associated with the amount owed
in the same locations.

Months after receiving the letter, on July 18, 2018, Schnorrbusch
filed the suit against CTI alleging violations of FDCPA.  In
particular, Schnorrbusch maintains that CTI's letter failed to
identify the creditor to whom the subject debt was owed.  By
failing to identify the creditor, Schnorrbusch alleges, CTI
violated Sections 1692g, 1692e, 1692d, and 1692f of the FDCPA,
which caused her injury and damages including but not limited to,
fear, stress, mental anguish, emotional stress and acute
embarrassment.
Shortly after Schnorrbusch filed her complaint, on Aug. 9, 2018,
CTI filed a motion to dismiss Schnorrbusch's complaint for failure
to state a claim.  In its briefing, CTI argues that Schnorrbusch
has failed to make any plausible claims under the FDCPA, because
the language CTI used in its letter sufficiently identified Payne
Richards & Associates as the creditor to whom the debt is owed and
[explained] the relationship between Payne Richards & Associates
and CTI.

Schnorrbusch filed a response to CTI's motion on Aug. 24, 2018, in
which she reiterates the basis of her claims and argues that the
cases cited by CTI do not support dismissal and instead support
Schnorrbusch's position.  The Plaintiff's Response to the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).  On Sept.
7, 2018, CTI filed a reply that recapitulates its position on the
motion and stresses that when the collection letter is read as a
whole there is no dispute as to the identity of Schnorrbusch's
creditor.  The Defendant's Reply Brief in Support of its Motion to
Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Judge Fish finds that because an unsophisticated consumer could be
confused as to the identity of Schnorrbusch's creditor after
reading CTI's letter as a whole, this court concludes that
Schnorrbusch's pleadings state a plausible claim that CTI violated
15 U.S.C. Section 1962g(a)(2).  To put it simply, the Judge finds
that Schnorrbusch's allegations in conjunction with the contents of
CTI's letter nudge Schnorrbusch's claims against CTI across the
line from conceivable to plausible.  Accordingly, CTI's motion to
dismiss Schnorrbusch's case for failure to state a claim is denied
with respect to Schonrrbusch's first cause of action.

Because the Judge already determined that Schnorrbusch sufficiently
states a claim arising under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(2) by
alleging that CTI failed to identify Schnorrbusch's current
creditor, Schnorrbusch's allegations are also sufficient to state a
claim against CTI arising under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e.
Therefore, CTI's motion to dismiss Schnorrbusch's case for failure
to state a claim is denied as to her second cause of action.

Finally, because the court has already determined that Schnorrbusch
sufficiently states a claim arising under 15 U.S.C. Section
1692g(a)(2) by alleging that CTI failed to identify Schnorrbusch's
current creditor, the Judge concludes that Schnorrbusch's
allegations are also sufficient to state claims against CTI arising
under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692d and Section 1692f.  Therefore, CTI's
motion to dismiss Schnorrbusch's case for failure to state a claim
is denied as to her third cause of action.

For the reasons stated, Judge Fish denied CTI's motion to dismiss
Schnorrbusch's FDCPA claims against it.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 7, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/w5fHUt from Leagle.com.

Amanda Schnorrbusch, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Spencer
Halvorsen -- joel@hklawstl.com -- Halvorsen Klote & Chris R.
Miltenberger -- chris@crmlawpractice.com -- The Law Office of Chris
R Miltenberger PLLC.

Commercial Trade Inc, Defendant, represented by Jason Ray Jobe --
jjobe@thompsoncoe.com -- Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons LLP.


CONTINENTAL HALL: Gomes Hit Misclassification, Seeks Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Gomes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Continental Hall and Continental Caterers
and Yanki Hirsch, in his official and individual capacity, and Does
1–100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-06788 (E.D. N.Y.,
November 29, 2018), seeks unpaid minimum wages, overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, unpaid spread-of-hours and split-shift premiums for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

Continental operates a catering and event hall business where Gomez
was primarily responsible for food preparation, serving, and other
incidentals necessary for the operation of the banquet hall, such
as cleaning and dishwashing. Defendant allegedly misclassified him
as independent contractors to evade paying minimum wage and
overtime compensation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Weisenberg, Esq.
      THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C.
      401 Park Avenue South
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 571-2000
      Fax: (212) 571-0505
      Email: benjamin@ottingerlaw.com


CORNERSTONE FITNESS: Abbott Files Suit for Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cornerstone Fitness
Waterfront, LLC. The case is styled as Valerie Abbott,
individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Cornerstone Fitness Waterfront, LLC doing business as: Crunch
Waterfront, New Evolution Ventures, LLC, Crunch, LLC and Crunch
Fitness International, Inc, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01637-CB
(W.D. Penn., December 6, 2018).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as breach of
contract.

Crunch is a gym that believes in making serious exercise fun by
fusing fitness and entertainment and holding true to a philosophy
of No Judgments. Headquartered in New York City, Crunch serves over
200,000 members with both corporately owned and franchised
locations in cities throughout the U.S. and in Australia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
   Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C.
   707 Grant Street, Suite 2500
   Pittsburgh, PA 15219
   Tel: (412) 281-7229
   Fax: (412) 281-4229
   Email: arihn@peircelaw.com


CREE INC: Nguyen Sues Over LED Lightbulbs' False Ad
---------------------------------------------------
DON NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CREE INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-02097-SB (D. Ore., December 6, 2018) seeks damages and
declaratory relief. This class action is brought by Plaintiff to
remedy violations of law in connection with Cree's unfair and
deceptive practice of, among other things, promising consumers that
its LED lightbulbs will last for particularly long periods of time
up to 35,000 hours. These longevity representations are prominently
made on the principal display panel of the Lightbulbs and are
viewed by every consumer at the point of purchase. In reliance on
those representations, consumers paid and continue to pay a premium
for the LED Lightbulbs.

Plaintiff and the Class members all paid money for the Products.
However, Plaintiff and the Class members did not obtain the full
value of the advertised Products due to Defendant's
misrepresentations and omissions, notes the complaint. Plaintiff
and the Class members purchased, purchased more of, and/or paid
more for, the Products than they would have had they known the
truth about the Products. Consequently, Plaintiff and the Class
members have suffered injury in fact and lost money as a result of
Defendant's wrongful conduct, the complaint asserts.

Cree's customers across the nation have been cheated out of
millions of dollars based on false promises, which have caused
damages to Plaintiff and the members of the Class. Plaintiff seeks
recovery for Defendant's unfair practices, as well as its breach of
warranty, and, alternatively, assumpsit and common counts, the
complaint relates.

Plaintiff Don Nguyen is a resident of Clackamas County, Oregon and
is a consumer.

Cree is an organization incorporated in North Carolina, with its
principal place of business at 4600 Silicon Drive, Durham, in
Durham County, North Carolina. Defendant transacts or has
transacted business in Oregon and within this district, as well as
throughout the United States. The Defendant has advertised,
marketed, distributed, or sold the LED Lightbulbs to consumers
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steve D. Larson, Esq.
     STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.
     209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
     Portland, OR 97204
     Phone: (503) 227-1600
     Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
     Email: slarson@stollberne.com

          - and -

     Michael McShane, Esq.
     S. Clinton Woods, Esq
     AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
     711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
     San Francisco, CA 94102-3275
     Phone: (415) 568-2555
     Facsimile: (415) 568 2556
     Email: mmcshane@audetlaw.com
            cwoods@audetlaw.com


CSI ELECTRICAL: Underpays Electricians, Ramirez Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
NATCHO RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CSI ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18CECG04150 (Cal.
Super., Fresno Cty., Nov. 9, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Ramirez was employed by the Defendants as
electrician.

CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc., an electrical contractor,
provides electrical design and construction services in the United
States. The company was founded in 1990 and is based in Santa Fe
Springs, California with additional offices in Palmdale and San
Jose. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Christina M. Lucio, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  christina@jameshawkinsaplc.com


DELI ORGANIC: Faces Lopez Class Suit Over Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Lopez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Deli Organic Coffee Shop Corp. (d/b/a Deli
Organic Coffee Shop), Phung T Tran (a.k.a. Selena), Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06986 (E.D. N.Y., December 7, 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.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff Lopez 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.  Rather, Defendants failed to
maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to
pay Plaintiff Lopez appropriately for any hours worked, either at
the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.
Furthermore, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Lopez the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10
hours a day. Defendants also repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiff
Lopez wages on a timely basis. Defendants' conduct extended beyond
Plaintiff Lopez to all other similarly situated employees.

Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff
Lopez and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week
without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation
required by federal and state law and regulations, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Fernando Lopez is an adult individual residing in Bronx
County, New York. Plaintiff Lopez was employed by Defendants at
Deli Organic Coffee Shop from approximately July 2017 until on or
about August 2018.

Deli Organic Coffee Shop Corp. (d/b/a Deli Organic Coffee Shop) 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 103-15 Roosevelt Ave., Corona, New
York, 11368. Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a deli,
located at 103-15 Roosevelt Ave., Corona, New York, 11368 under the
name "Deli Organic Coffee Shop".

Phung T Tran (a.k.a. Selena) is an individual engaging (or who was
engaged) in business in this judicial district during the relevant
time period. Defendant Phung T Tran (a.k.a. Selena) is sued
individually in her capacity as owner, officer and/or agent 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


DIRECTV LLC: Appeals Decision in Cordoba Suit to 11th Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant DirecTV, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Sebastian Cordoba, et al. v. DIRECTV, LLC, Case
No. 1:15-cv-03755-MHC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

The appellate case is captioned as Sebastian Cordoba, et al. v.
DIRECTV, LLC, Case No. 18-14832, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, DirecTV filed
an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate case
is styled Sebastian Cordoba v. DIRECTV, LLC, Case No. 18-12077.

The class action accuses DirecTV of making illegal telemarketing
calls to names on the National Do Not Call Registry.  In an order,
Judge Mark H. Cohen held that unsolicited telephone calls are an
invasion of privacy under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
that constitute a concrete injury necessary to demonstrate Article
III standing, noting that an injury can be intangible and still be
considered "concrete."[BN]

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

   -- The appellant's brief is due on or before December 31,
      2018;

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

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
      before December 17, 2018, as to Appellee Sebastian Cordoba.

Plaintiffs-Appellees SEBASTIAN CORDOBA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, and RENE ROMERO, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Michael Joseph Boyle, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
          MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
          1320 Dublin Rd., Suite 100
          Columbus, OH 43215-1187
          Telephone: (614) 224-6000
          Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
          E-mail: mboyle@meyerwilson.com
                  mwilson@meyerwilson.com

               - and -

          Douglas I. Cuthbertson, Esq.
          Daniel Morris Hutchinson, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery St., Floor 29
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          E-mail: dcuthbertson@lchb.com
                  dhutchinson@lchb.com
                  jselbin@lchb.com

               - and -

          Jonathan David Grunberg, Esq.
          Nicole Jennings Wade, Esq.
          George Taylor Wilson, Esq.
          L. Lin Wood, Esq.
          L. LIN WOOD, PC
          1180 West Peachtree Street, Ste. 2400
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 891-1402
          Facsimile: (404) 506-9111
          E-mail: jgrunberg@linwoodlaw.com
                  nwade@linwoodlaw.com
                  twilson@linwoodlaw.com
                  lwood@linwoodlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew M. Wilkins, Esq.
          Stephen A. Yaklin, Esq.
          KING & YAKLIN, LLP
          192 Anderson Street, Suite 125
          Marietta, GA 30060
          Telephone: (770) 424-9235
          Facsimile: (770) 424-9239
          E-mail: mwilkins@kingyaklin.com
                  syaklin@kingyaklin.com

Defendant-Appellant DIRECTV, LLC, individually and as successor
through merger to DIRECTV, Inc. successor by merger with DIRECTV,
Inc., is represented by:

          Ava J. Conger, Esq.
          John P. Jett, Esq.
          KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP
          1100 Peachtree St., Suite 2800
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 815-6500
          E-mail: aconger@kilpatricktownsend.com
                  jjett@kilpatricktownsend.com

               - and -

          Hans J. Germann, Esq.
          Kyle J. Steinmetz, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          71 S Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-4637
          Telephone: (312) 782-0600
          E-mail: hgermann@mayerbrown.com
                  ksteinmetz@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          John E. Muench, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          1999 K St. NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3000
          Facsimile: (202) 263-5220
          E-mail: jmuench@mayerbrown.com


DOMINOS PIZZA: Silva Suit Moved to Central District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Eddie Silva, On behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. Does 1-10 and Dominos Pizza LLC, a Michigan
Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 30-02018-01027517-CU-OE-CXC,
was removed from the California Superior Court for the County of
Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Southern Division - Santa Ana). The Central District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No.: 8:18-cv-02145-JVS-JDE to
the proceeding. The suit alleges employment discrimination
violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge James V. Selna.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Aashish Y. Desai, Esq.
          Maria Adrianne De Castro, Esq.
          DESAI LAW FIRM PC
          3200 Bristol Street Suite 650
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 614-5830
          Facsimile: (949) 271-4190
          E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com
                  adrianne@desai-law.com

Attorneys for Dominos Pizza LLC:

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

DOUGHBOYS: Faces Valencia Suit Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Nepomuceno Valencia and Juan Carlos Venancio Neoponuceno,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Doughboys of 3rd Ave, Inc. (d/b/a Dough Boys Pizza),
Dough Boys Pizza of NYC Inc. (d/b/a Dough Boys Pizza), Van
Selvarajah, Marcus Loren, Dushanta N. Lakshani Kannangara, Veni
Doe, and Infas Doe., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-11385 (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.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a pizzeria, located at 451
3rd Avenue, New York, NY 10016 under the name "Dough Boys Pizza".
Plaintiffs have ostensibly been employed as delivery workers.
However, they have been required to spend a considerable part of
their work day performing non-tipped duties, the complaint asserts.

Plaintiffs have worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that they have worked, the
complaint adds.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and have failed to pay
Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium;
Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiffs the required "spread of
hours" pay for any day in which they have had to work over 10 hours
a day; Defendants have repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiffs wages on
a timely basis; and the Defendants have employed and accounted for
Plaintiffs as delivery workers in their payroll, but in actuality
their duties have required a significant amount of time spent
performing the non-tipped duties alleged above.

The complaint contends that Defendants have employed the policy and
practice of disguising Plaintiffs' actual duties in payroll records
by designating them as delivery workers instead of non-tipped
employees. This has allowed Defendants to avoid paying Plaintiffs
at the minimum wage rate and has enabled them to pay them at the
tip-credit rate (which they still have failed to do). In addition,
Defendants have maintained a policy and practice of unlawfully
appropriating Plaintiffs' and other tipped employees' tips and have
made unlawful deductions from these Plaintiffs' and other tipped
employees' wages.

Plaintiff Miguel Nepomuceno Valencia is an adult individual
residing in Bronx County, New York. Plaintiff Nepomuceno was
employed by Defendants from approximately February 2017 until on or
about March 2017 and from approximately April 2017 until on or
about November 4, 2018.

Plaintiff Juan Carlos Venancio Neoponuceno is an adult individual
residing in Queens County, New York. Plaintiff Venancio has been
employed by Defendants at Dough Boys Pizza from approximately
December 2017 until on or about February 2018 and from
approximately June 2018 until the present date.

Doughboys of 3rd Ave, Inc. (d/b/a Dough Boys Pizza) 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 451 3rd Avenue, New York, NY 10016.

Dough Boys Pizza of NYC Inc. (d/b/a Dough Boys Pizza) is a domestic
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
New York. It maintains its principal place of business at 451 3rd
Avenue New York, NY 10016.

Van Selvarajah is an individual engaging (or who was engaged) in
business in this judicial district during the relevant time period.
Defendant Van Selvarajah is sued individually in his capacity as
owner, officer and/or agent of Defendant Corporations.

Marcus Loren is an individual engaging (or who was engaged) in
business in this judicial district during the relevant time period.
Defendant Marcus Loren is sued individually in his capacity as
owner, officer and/or agent of Defendant Corporations.

Dushanta N. Lakshani Kannangara is an individual engaging (or who
was engaged) in business in this judicial district during the
relevant time period. Defendant Dushanta N. Lakshani Kannangara is
sued individually in his capacity as a manager of Defendant
Corporations.

Veni Doe is an individual engaging (or who was engaged) in business
in this judicial district during the relevant time period.
Defendant Veni Doe is sued individually in his capacity as a
manager of Defendant Corporations.

Infas Doe is an individual engaging (or who was engaged) in
business in this judicial district during the relevant time period.
Defendant Infas Doe is sued individually in his capacity as a
manager of Defendant Corporations.[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


DURST ORGANIZATION: Olsen Faces Suit under ADA
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Durst
Organization Inc. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. The Durst Organization Inc. doing business as: Via 57
West, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11379 (S.D. N.Y., December 6,
2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

VIA 57 West is the name of a residential building designed by the
Danish architecture firm Bjarke Ingels Group. The pyramid shaped
tower block or "tetrahedron" rises 467 ft and 35 stories tall and
is located on West 57th Street in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan, New
York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ELECTRO SCIENTIFIC: Morris Suit Challenges Merger With MKS
----------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN MORRIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ELECTRO SCIENTIFIC INDUSTRIES, INC., RICHARD H. WILLS,
MICHAEL D. BURGER, FREDERICK A. BALL, LYNNE J. CAMP, LAURENCE E.
CRAMER, and RAYMOND A. LINK, Case No. 3:18-cv-02064-MO (D. Ore.,
November 29, 2018), accuses the Defendants of violating the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed
merger of ESI and MKS Instruments, Inc.

On October 29, 2018, the Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which ESI
shareholders will receive $30 in cash for each share of ESI common
stock they hold (the "Merger Consideration").

Mr. Morris alleges that the Proxy Statement filed in connection
with the Merger contains materially incomplete and misleading
information concerning ESI's financial projections, which were
developed by the Company's management and relied on by the Board to
recommend the Proposed Transaction.

ESI is an Oregon corporation and maintains its principal executive
offices in Portland, Oregon.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

ESI supplies laser-based microfabrication solutions for the
microtechnology industry worldwide.  The Company provides printed
circuit board laser drilling products, including laser via drilling
systems for electrical interconnect applications that require
dimensions to create electrical connections between layers in
flexible circuits, high-density circuit boards, and interconnect
packages; micro via drilling technology that addresses the changing
applications in interconnect packages, multichip modules, and high
density interconnect circuit boards; and ultraviolet laser
processing systems that employ technology in lasers, optics, and
motion control.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Ross, Esq.
          ROSS LAW OFFICE
          9999 SW Wilshire St, Suite 101
          Portland, OR 97225
          Telephone: (503) 222-7915
          E-mail: ross.attorney@gmail.com

               - and -

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com


FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces Demarco Consumer Credit Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus,
LLP. The case is styled as Mara J Demarco, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster & Garbus, LLP,
Mark A. Garbus and Ronald Forster, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-06958 (E.D. N.Y., December 6, 2018).

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

Forster & Garbus LLP provides legal services. The Company
specializes in collecting debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


FOUNTAIN GROUP: Zanazzi Seeks Overtime Premium
----------------------------------------------
VICTOR ZANAZZI, on behalf of himself, and those similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. THE FOUNTAIN GROUP LLC, a Florida profit
company, the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-02924-WFJ-JSS (M.D. Fla.,
Dec. 3, 2018), seeks overtime premium under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was an employee of
Defendant from approximately November 2009 to October 15, 2018. The
Defendant hired the Plaintiff as a "recruiter" in November 2009. In
2011, Defendant promoted the Plaintiff to the position of Account
Manager, a position which he held with Defendant until October 4,
2016. On or about October 4, 2016, the Defendant transferred the
Plaintiff back to the position of "recruiter." From October 4, 2016
through October 15, 2018, the Defendant compensated the Plaintiff
on an hourly basis and a commission-basis, concurrently.

The Defendant directed or permitted Plaintiff to work in excess of
40 hours within a workweek and was obligated to pay the Plaintiff
the applicable overtime premium. During the statutory period,
Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff the proper overtime premium
for all applicable overtime hours worked. During the statutory
period, the Defendant directed or permitted one or more of the
similarly situated employees to work in excess of 40 hours within a
workweek but failed to pay such employees at least the applicable
overtime rate for all such overtime hours worked, the lawsuit
says.

The Fountain Group is a professional staffing firm specializing in
providing contingent workforce solutions for a wide array of
industries.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Trenton H. Cotney, Esq.
          Benjamin S. Briggs, Esq.
          COTNEY CONSTRUCTION LAW, LLP
          3110 Cherry Palm Drive, Suite 290
          Tampa, FL 33619
          Telephone: 813 579-3278
          Facsimile: 813 902-7612
          E-mail: tcotney@cotneycl.com
                  bbriggs@cotneycl.com
                  courtfilings@cotneycl.com

FOXSCO INC: McShane et al. Seek Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------
LORETTA MCSHANE and THOMAS GIAMBRUNO, individually and on behalf of
other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. FOXSCO INC.
d/b/a CANTERBURY ALES OYSTER BAR AND GRILL; MARK FOX ; PAULA FOX;
and/or any other related entities, the Defendants, Case No.:
607129/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 11, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages, unlawfully retained gratuities, and spread of hours
compensation under the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have maintained a policy
and practice of failing to pay all wages and gratuities owed to
Named Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees in
violation of NYLL.

Foxsco Inc. is in the family restaurants business.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class

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

FRANKLIN FIRST: Feller Seeks Final Pay, Benefits Under WARN Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Orozco Feller on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Franklin First Financial, LTD, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-06772 (E.D. N.Y., November 28, 2018), seeks damages
in the amount of 60 days' pay and benefits under the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988.

Feller was an employee of Franklin First until she was terminated
as part of a mass layoff and/or plant closing sometime November
2018 without being given at least 60 days' advance written notice
of termination and 90 days advance written notice as required by
New York Law. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
     LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
     132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100
     New York, NY 10038
     Tel: (212) 581-5005
     Fax: (212) 581-2122

            - and -

     Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
     M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
     THE GARDNER FIRM, PC
     210 S. Washington Ave.
     Mobile, AL 36602
     Tel: (251) 433-8100
     Fax: (251) 433-8181

            - and -

     THE NLG MAURICE AND JANE SUGAR LAW CENTER FOR ECONOMIC
     AND SOCIAL JUSTICE
     4605 Cass Ave.
     Detroit, MI 48201
     Tel: (313) 993-4505


FULTON ENTERPRISES: Illegally Retains Gratuities, Oviedo Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA OVIEDO, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. FULTON ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a LIBERTY WAREHOUSE, LIBERTY EVENTS,
LLC and MICHAEL "BUZZY" O'KEEFFE, Case No. 523957/2018 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Kings Cty., November 29, 2018), seeks to recover alleged
unlawfully retained gratuities owed to the Plaintiff and others,
who are presently or were formerly employed by the Defendants at
the Liberty Warehouse catering venue in Brooklyn, New York.

Fulton, also known as Liberty Warehouse, is a domestic company
organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York and
is authorized to do business in New York.  Fulton is engaged in the
hospitality industry.  Defendant O'Keeffe is the CEO of Fulton.

Fulton maintains Liberty Warehouse, which is a catering venue and
event space located at 260 Conover St., in Brooklyn, New York.
Fulton offers catering services at Liberty Warehouse for a wide
range of social events, corporate events, and weddings.  Liberty
Warehouse is located on the edge of New York Harbor in Red Hook,
Brooklyn, and can accommodate events up to 400 people for sit-down
dinner and 1200 people for cocktails.

Liberty Events is a New York domestic limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York and
is authorized to do business in New York, with its headquarters and
principal place located in Kings County.  Liberty Events is engaged
in the hospitality industry and operates in furtherance of the
Defendants' business, including the operation of Liberty
Warehouse.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
          Daniel B. Rehns, Esq.
          John A. Blyth, Esq.
          Hillary M. Nappi, Esq.
          HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
          112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 213-8311
          Facsimile: (212) 779-0028
          E-mail: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com
                  drehns@hrsclaw.com
                  jb@hachroselaw.com
                  HNappi@hrsclaw.com


GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC: Dismissal of Kleen Antitrust Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Diane Wood of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing the case,
KLEEN PRODUCTS LLC, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC and WESTROCK CP, LLC, Defendants-Appellees,
Case No. 17-2808 (7th Cir.).

Oligopolies have always posed problems for conventional antitrust
law: without something that can be called an agreement, they elude
scrutiny under section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1,
and yet no individual firm has enough market power to be subject to
Sherman Act section 2.  Tacit collusion is easy in those markets
and firms have little incentive to compete on the basis of price,
preferring to share the profits rather than to fight with each
other.

The appeal concerns the fine line between agreement and tacit
collusion, or, put another way, conscious parallelism.  Direct
purchasers of containerboard charged multiple manufacturers with
conspiring to increase prices and reduce output between 2004 and
2010.

During the early 2000s, prices for containerboard were low.  But
from February 2004 to November 2010, they rose dramatically.  The
original Defendants attempted to institute price increases on 15
different occasions. The pattern was a common one.  After one
company announced that it would raise its prices for
containerboard, the rest followed suit with identical or comparable
increases in the ensuing hours, days, or weeks.  Such efforts took
place from time to time.

During this period, the Defendants were in regular communication.
Company executives and other employees spoke by phone and at trade
association meetings every few days.  The record does not reveal
the contents of all these conversations, but at least some dealt
with the timing and pricing of interfirm trading of containerboard
-- a common practice.

In September 2010, the Purchasers filed a putative class action
alleging violations of section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The district
court consolidated the suit with similar actions and denied several
motions to dismiss.  Then in March 2015, the district court granted
the Purchasers' motion for class certification under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23.

It defined the class as all persons that purchased Containerboard
Products directly from any of the Defendants or their subsidiaries
or affiliates for use or delivery in the United States from at
least as early as Feb. 15, 2004 through Nov. 8, 2010.

Back in the district court, the litigation rolled onward.  The
court largely denied the parties' cross-motions to exclude each
other's experts.  Both sides moved for summary judgment.  Before
the court acted on those motions, some of the Defendants settled
with the Purchasers.  The district court granted the remaining
Defendants, Georgia-Pacific, LLC and WestRock CP, LLC, summary
judgment.  

In a lengthy opinion that delved deeply into the Purchasers'
evidence, the court concluded that the record, viewed holistically
in the light most favorable to the Purchasers, did not tend to rule
out that the Defendants had acted independently.  With only the
final approval of settlement agreements pending, the district court
entered partial final judgment for the remaining Defendants under
Rule 54(b).

The Purchasers ask the Court to revisit that ruling.

Judge Wood affirmed the certification decision while making clear
that she wasn't addressing the merits.  She concludes that the
outcome of the case flows directly from both the limitation in
section 1 of the Sherman Act to anticompetitive agreements and the
Supreme Court's cautions against interfering with individual firm
behavior in ways that could inadvertently distort incentives to
compete.  In Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., the
Court warned against mistaken inferences that chill the very
conduct the antitrust laws are designed to protect.

Scholars, lawmakers, and courts have yet to agree on a regulatory
regime that can address oligopolistic behavior that leads to higher
prices and reduced consumer choice, without stifling normal
business activity.  For now, the Judge follows established law to
the effect that conscious parallelism has not yet read conspiracy
out of the Sherman Act entirely.

Because the evidence proffered by the Purchasers does not tend to
exclude the possibility that Georgia-Pacific and WestRock engaged
only in tacit collusion, she 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/3Zqghf from Leagle.com.

David Marx -- marx.david@dorsey.com -- for Defendant.

Andrew S. Marovitz -- amarovitz@mayerbrown.com -- for Defendant.

James Timothy McKeown -- jmckeown@foley.com -- for Defendant.

Scott M. Mendel -- scott.mendel@klgates.com -- for Defendant.

Daniel J. Mogin -- dmogin@moginrubin.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Steven A. Kanner, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Margaret H. Warner -- mwarner@mwe.com -- for Defendant.

Michael J. Freed -- mfreed@fklmlaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Catherine E. Stetson -- cate.stetson@hoganlovells.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

James Franklin Herbison -- jherbiso@winston.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Michael P. Mayer -- mmayer@winston.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Elizabeth Petrela Papez -- epapez@winston.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Aaron Martin Panner, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Robert J. Wozniak -- rwozniak@fklmlaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jodie M. Williams -- jwilliams@moginrubin.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Beth Wilkinson -- bwilkinson@wilkinsonwalsh.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Rakesh Nageswar Kilaru -- rkilaru@wilkinsonwalsh.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Eugene Alexis Sokoloff, for Defendant-Appellee.


GHC OF SAC-SNF: Faces Abella Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GHC of Sac-SNF LLC.
The case is styled as Tanya Abella and on behalf of all similarly
situated and aggrieved employees of Defendants in the State of
California, Plaintiff v. GHC of Sac-SNF LLC, Life Generations
Healthcare LLC and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
34-2018-00245953-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., December 6, 2018).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Employment
Suit.

GHC OF SAC-SNF, LLC is a healthcare provider in Sacramento, CA. The
provider is a skilled nursing facility or distinct part of an
institution whose primary function is to provide medical,
continuous nursing, and other health and social services to
patients who are not in an acute phase of illness requiring
services in a hospital, but who require primary restorative or
skilled nursing services on an inpatient basis above the level of
intermediate or custodial care in order to reach a degree of body
functioning to permit self care in essential daily living. It
provides non-acute medical and skilled nursing care services,
therapy and social services under the supervision of a licensed
registered nurse on a 24-hour basis. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Graham S P Hollis, Esq.
   3555 Fifth Ave, San Diego
   CA 92103, USA
   Tel: 619-906-4017
   Fax: 619-692-0822
   Email: ghollis@gracehollis.com


GLOBAL SECURITY: Matthews Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Vince Matthews individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Global Security Group, Corp., and MONTAGUE
A HALL as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-08080 (N.D.
Ill., December 9, 2018) is a cause of action against Defendants
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law
820, Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance (CMWO) Illinois Wage Payment
and Collection Act.

Plaintiff alleges individually and on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated current, former and future employees of the
Defendant, that he, under both federal and state wage laws, is
entitled to be paid for all hours worked and to receive minimum
wage for all hours worked and/or receive time and half for all
hours worked over 40 hours per week and/or paid for time and half
at the proper rate of pay.

Plaintiff, Vince Matthews, is a resident of the State of Illinois.

Global Security Group Corp., is a corporation or business which
does business in Illinois. Global operates a large private security
business in Illinois and New York. Defendant employs a staff of
approximately 200 employees.

MONTAGUE A HALL is the owner and/or operator of Global.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John C. Ireland, Esq.
     The Law Office Of John C. Ireland
     636 Spruce Street
     South Elgin, IL 60177
     Phone: 630-464-9675
     Facsimile 630-206-0889


GOLDEN CAKES: Knight et al. Seek OT & Minimum Wages for Servers
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEMETRIUS KNIGHT, MISHAN MULLINS and TAMMY BOGGS, Each Individually
and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
GOLDEN CAKES, INC., and MARTIN GUNACA, the Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-00921-SWW (E.D. Ark., Dec. 12, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime and minimum wages resulting from Defendants'
actions, including but not limited to: artificially lowering the
number of recorded hours Plaintiffs worked in a week, directing and
requiring servers to claim tips that they did not receive, and
requiring servers to work at a tipped minimum wage when performing
non-tipped work, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were hourly paid
employees at IHOP in Conway. They were paid $2.63 per hour plus
tips when working as a server, and $8.50 when working as a cook.
The Plaintiffs and other servers spent more than 20% of their time
performing non-tipped duties for Defendants such as taking phone
orders, preparing food, stocking the salad bar, cleaning, making
tea, and rolling silverware. Because Plaintiffs and other servers
spent more than 20% of their time performing non-tipped duties for
Defendants, Defendants were required to pay Plaintiffs and their
other servers at least $7.25 per hour under federal law and $8.50
under state law. The Plaintiffs were additionally made to work
hours for which they were not paid and were made to claim tip
credits on their paychecks for more money than they actually made
in tips, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Golden Cakes Inc. is a professional restaurant management company.
[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

GRADIANT ENERGY: Jenkins Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
LEO JENKINS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. GRADIANT ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 7:18-cv-00215
(W.D. Tex., November 30, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Gradiant Energy Services, Inc., is a Massachusetts corporation with
a registered agent in Austin, Texas.  Gradiant is an oilfield
services company providing water treatment services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          Bridget Davidson, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Center
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
          E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
                  curt@mooreandassociates.net
                  bridget@mooreandassociates.net


GRANDISON MANAGEMENT: Can Compel Arbitration in Zendon Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Allyne R. Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York granted the Grandison Management's motion to
compel arbitration in the case, DIANNAH ANNE ZENDON, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. GRANDISON MANAGEMENT, INC., REHAB SYNERGY PT, P.C., and BASILIO
E. LOPEZ, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-4545 (ARR) (JO) (E.D.N.Y.).

Zendon, a physical therapist, is seeking relief against the
Defendants, her employers, for violations of the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act ("TVPA"), Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), as well for breach of the parties'
employment contract.  Grandison has moved the Court to compel the
arbitration of the Plaintiff's claims pursuant to the parties' 2015
Employment Agreement.

In 2015, the Plaintiff entered into an employment agreement with
Grandison, a healthcare staffing firm that places its employees in
healthcare jobs across the United States, to perform
physical-therapy services.  The 2015 Agreement contains a $30,000
liquidated-damages clause that applies in certain instances of
employment termination, and a two-year noncompete provision.  It
also includes the following arbitration clause.

In 2017, the parties entered into a second employment agreement,
which also includes a liquidated damages clause.  The 2017
Agreement makes no mention of arbitration or dispute resolution and
states that it is governed by the laws of the State of New York.

On Aug. 11, 2018, Zendon filed a class-action complaint alleging
violations of the TVPA, FLSA, and NYLL, as well as breach of
contract.  On Oct. 31, 2018, Grandison moved this court to compel
the Plaintiff to arbitrate her claims, arguing that the Federal
Arbitration Act ("FAA") mandates the enforcement of arbitration
pursuant to the 2015 Agreement.

The Plaintiff opposes this motion on the grounds that the second
employment agreement, which does not contain any arbitration
provision, substitutes or supersedes the first agreement.  She also
argues that Grandison waived its right to demand arbitration by
filing a breach-of-contracts action against her in New York Supreme
Court.

Judge Ross finds that because the 2017 Agreement does not
specifically preclude arbitration and can be read as complementary
to the 2015 Agreement's arbitration provision, the parties'
agreement to arbitrate remains valid.  And because the parties'
arbitration agreement is valid and encompasses the claims at issue
in the Plaintiff's complaint, mandatory arbitration under the FAA
is appropriate.  The Judge agrees with Grandison that the filing
and withdrawal of the state court action does not constitute
protracted litigation that prejudiced Plaintiff.  Thus, the
Defendant has not waived its right to arbitration.

For these reasons, Judge Ross granted the Defendant's motion to
compel arbitration.  Further, while Defendants Rehab Synergy PT,
P.C. and Basilio Lopez are not parties to the arbitration
agreement, because Plaintiff's claims against the remaining
Defendants are related to her claims against Grandison, the entire
case will be stayed pending the arbitration between Zendon and
Grandison.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 7, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/p7W3M1 from Leagle.com.

Diannah Anne Zendon, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Manuel B.
Quintal -- quintallaw@aol.com -- Manuel B. Quintal, Esq. & Felix Q.
Vinluan -- fqvinluan@yahoo.com -- Lw Office of Felix Q. Vinkuan.

Grandison Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sami Asaad --
sasaad@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English LLP.

Rehab Synergy PT, P.C. & Basilio E. Lopez, Defendants, represented
by Demetrios Adamis, Demetrios Adamis, PC.


GREAT CLIPS: Fischler Files Suit Under ADA in New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Great Clips, Inc. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Great Clips, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06975 (E.D. N.Y., December 6, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Great Clips, Inc. operates a chain of salons in the United States
and Canada. It offers an online check-in service, which enables
customers to add their name to the wait list of a Great Clips salon
before they arrive. The company offers daily care and styling
products for men, women, and kids. The company also provides hair
care products, including conditioners, detanglers, gels, hair
sprays/spritzes, mousses/foams, shampoos, shines,
smoothing/straightening products, texturizers, specialty products,
thermal protectants, hair treatments, and volumizers; and body care
products. It franchises its business. Great Clips, Inc. was founded
in 1982 and is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GREATBANC TRUST: Sued for Selling MS Shares Below Fair Market Value
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY GODFREY and JEFFREY SHELDON, on behalf of the MCBRIDE & SON
EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, and on behalf of a class of all
other persons similarly situated v. GREATBANC TRUST COMPANY,
McBRIDE & SON MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, JOHN F. EILERMANN, JR.,
MICHAEL D. ARRI, ANDREA TEMPLETON, JOHN DOES 1-10, and McBRIDE &
SON CAPITAL INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-07918 (N.D. Ill., November 30,
2018), is brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 for alleged losses suffered by the Plan caused by the
Defendants when they caused the Plan to sell shares of McBride &
Son Capital, Inc., at below fair market value to the detriment of
the Plan's participants and beneficiaries.

The Plaintiffs are participants in the Plan, who held vested shares
of MS Capital in their accounts in the Plan from before 2015 until
the shares were sold by the fiduciary Defendants on November 30,
2017, according to the complaint.  The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants did so to benefit some or all of the Defendants and
other McBride & Son insiders at the expense of the Plan and its
participants and beneficiaries.

Headquartered in Lisle, Illinois, GreatBanc Trust Company is the
Plan's Trustee and a "fiduciary" of the Plan.  GreatBanc is a
subsidiary of U.S. Fiduciary Services, Inc., which is also
headquartered in Lisle.

McBride & Son Management Company, LLC, is the "plan sponsor" to the
Plan and a party in interest to the Plan.  MS Management Co is also
the "named fiduciary" and "plan administrator" of the Plan.
McBride & Son Capital, Inc. ("MS Capital") is a party in interest
to the Plan.  The Plan Administrator has declared MS Capital a
party in interest to the Plan.

The Individual Defendants are officers or agents of MS Management
Co. and MS Capital.  The Individual Defendants are fiduciaries of
the Plan.  The Plaintiffs are currently unaware of the additional
identities and capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          8012 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 300
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 863-5446
          Facsimile: (314) 863-5483
          E-mail: mboyko@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Patrick O. Muench, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          3930 N. Lowell Ave.
          Chicago, IL 60641
          Telephone: (847) 899-1646
          Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
          E-mail: pmuench@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
          Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463-2101
          Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
          E-mail: rjenny@baileyglasser.com
                  gporter@baileyglasser.com


HERTZ CORPORATION: Lee et al. Sue over Applicant Screening Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PETER LEE and LATONYA CAMPBELL, on behalf of themselves and 20 all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE HERTZ
CORPORATION, and DOLLAR THRIFTY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:18-cv-07481 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2018), seeks to enjoin
Hertz from engaging in unlawful policies, practices, customs and
usages in connection to employment opportunities for all Class
members who would be eligible under application of the Uniform
Guidelines for Employee Selection Procedures.

According to the complaint, Hertz, one of the largest rental car
companies in the United States, has used and continues to use a job
applicant screening process that systematically rejects hundreds or
thousands of qualified African Americans and Latinos from job
opportunities based on their race or national origin. Specifically,
Hertz asks applicants for information about their past interactions
with law enforcement and the criminal justice system and uses that
information to make hiring decisions, despite the fact that the
information is not job-related. This practice imports the gross
racial disparities from the criminal justice system into the
employment context by using discriminatory outcomes from the
criminal justice system as bases for making hiring decisions,
despite the fact that those discriminatory outcomes are not
relevant to the hiring decisions being made.

As part of that procedure Hertz maintains a series of categorical
bans to employment for individuals with certain convictions or
pending charges regardless of when they occurred and without
distinguishing between felonies and misdemeanors. Hertz's policy
has no time restriction limit for this ban. For example, Hertz's
Screening Policy disqualifies all applicants with any history of a
conviction or a prosecution pending for a crime, felony or
misdemeanor involving assault, violence, sale of controlled
substances or theft. Hertz's policy is unrelated to legitimate
business necessity, and has significant detrimental real world
impact on hundreds or thousands of African Americans and Latinos,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and proposed Class Members:

          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          Relic Sun, Esq.
          Christopher McNerney, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One California Street, 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638-8800
          Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
          E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
                  rsun@outtengolden.com
                  cmcnerney@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Elisa Della-Piana, Esq.
          Keith Wurster, Esq.
          LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
          OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
          131 Steuart Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 543-9444
          Facsimile: (415) 543-0296
          E-mail: edellapiana@lccr.com
                  kwurster@lccr.com

HOOVESTOL INC: $100K Settlement in Terry Suit Has Prelim Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD TERRY, Plaintiff, v. HOOVESTOL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-05183-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted the Plaintiff's renewed motion for preliminary approval of
a class action settlement and provisional certification of the
class.

Terry is a former truck driver for Hoovestol.  Hoovestol hauls bulk
mail for the United States Postal Service ("USPS") and employs
truck drivers in California.

Terry brings the putative wage and hour class action for violations
of California Labor Code Sections 226(b), 226.7, 510, 512, 515,
558, and 1194 as well as California Code of Regulations Title 8
Section 11090.  He alleges causes of action for: failure to pay all
straight time wages; failure to pay overtime; failure to provide
meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest periods; knowing
and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage
statement provisions; failure to pay all wages due at the time of
termination of employment; and violation of Unfair Competition
Law.

Terry filed the initial complaint in the action in the Alameda
County Superior Court on July 20, 2016.  On Sept. 8, 2016,
Hoovestol removed the case to the Court pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  On Feb. 2, 2018, Terry filed a
motion for class certification, proposing seven subclasses.  

After the exchange of discovery, mediation, and continued
negotiation following mediation, the parties reached a proposed
class action settlement.  On June 14, 2018, Terry moved for
preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement
including conditional certification of the settlement class.
Terry's motions for class certification and to strike were
terminated as moot on June 18, 2018 in light of the this motion.
The Court denied Terry's motion for preliminary approval and
identified four obvious deficiencies in the proposed class action
settlement: lack of a driving nexus between the Plaintiff class and
proposed cy pres beneficiaries; an overbroad release provision; a
too-short opt-out period; and lack of any provision for a second
distribution of unredeemed checks.

Terry now renews his motion for preliminary settlement approval and
provisional class certification.  Pursuant to CAFA, Hoovestol sent
notice of the proposed settlement to the United States Attorney
General and the Attorney General of the State of California on Oct.
5, 2018.  No Attorney General has submitted a statement of interest
or objection in response to these notices.

Terry requests that the Court provisionally certify the class for
settlement purposes, a request Hoovestol does not oppose.  The
Settlement Agreement defines the class as all persons who are or
have been employed by the Defendant in the State of California as
hourly truck drivers at any time between July 20, 2012, to the date
the Court issues an order granting preliminary approval of the
settlement and who did not execute an individual release of the
claims.

Terry explains that, because he did not sign an individual release,
it is unclear whether he would be considered an adequate and
typical representative of those who did; thus, those employees are
excluded from the class.

Under the terms of the agreement, the Defendant agrees to pay no
more than $100,000 as a gross settlement amount, without admitting
liability.  This amount includes the Plaintiff's attorneys' fees
and costs, the cost of class notice and settlement administration,
the class representative's enhancement award, and employer/employee
payroll taxes on the portion of the settlement payments deemed
wages.  The Plaintiff's counsel will seek $25,000 in attorneys'
fees and no more than $20,000 in litigation costs.  The gross
settlement amount includes $3,000 for settlement administration
costs.  In addition, Terry will be paid an enhancement award of
$2,500 in exchange for the general release of all his claims
against Hoovestol.  After these deductions from the gross
settlement amount, approximately $49,500 will remain to be
distributed among the participating class members.

Each participating class member will receive a proportion of the
amount equal to (i) the number of weeks he or she worked for
Hoovestol in California divided by (ii) the total number of weeks
worked by all Participating Class Members.  Sixty percent of each
individual's share is intended to settle claims for unpaid wages
and 40% is intended to settle claims for interest and penalties.
The portion for unpaid wages will be reduced by applicable payroll
tax withholdings and deductions.

The Class members who wish to object must mail a written objection
to the court no later than 60 days after the settlement
administrator mails the class notices.  Ninety days after the
reminder notice is mailed, funds from any unredeemed checks will be
paid to the United Way of California.

Judge Tigar oncludes that the proposed class satisfies the
requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3).  Accordingly, he
finds that provisional certification of the proposed class is
appropriate for the purposes of settlement.

Turning to the settlement, the Judge finds that the Court's order
on Terry's earlier motion preliminarily approved of the proposed
settlement in many respects.  The Court concluded: that the
negotiations and agreement were non-collusive and likely to benefit
the class; that resolution through settlement was appropriate in
light of the risks inherent in further litigation; that the gross
settlement amount, attorneys' fees, costs, and enhancement award
were all within the range of possible approval; that the parties
conducted sufficient discovery to make an informed decision about
the settlement; that the class counsel's views of the settlement
agreement weighed in favor of approval; that the settlement
agreement did not provide improper preferential treatment to any
class member; and that the proposed notice procedure met the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B).  The
provisions upon which the Court based these conclusions remain
unchanged, as do the Court's corresponding conclusions.

The Court Judge addresses only those portions of the proposed
settlement agreement that the parties have modified to remedy the
deficiencies previously identified by the Court.  He concludes
those defects have been corrected and accordingly, will grant
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement.

Because Terry's renewed motion for preliminary approval and
provisional certification corrects the deficiencies addressed in
the Court's earlier order, Judge Tigard granted the motion.  He
provisionally certified Ge the proposed class for the purposes of
settlement.  He granted preliminary approval of the settlement and
approved of the proposed notice procedure and form.  The Court will
hold a final approval hearing on May 9, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., as
requested by the parties.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 7, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Kw0QUP from Leagle.com.

Richard Terry, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff,
represented by Jill Marie Vecchi -- jvecchi@turleylawfirm.com --
The Turley & Mara Law Firm, APLC, David Thomas Mara --
dmara@turleylawfirm.com -- The Turley Law Firm, APLC, Gwendolyne
Nicole Ousdahl, The Turley & Mara Law Firm, Matthew Evan Crawford
-- mcrawford@turleylawfirm.com -- The Turley and Mara Law Firm &
William David Turley -- bturley@turleylawfirm.com -- The Turley Law
Firm, APLC.

Hoovestol, Inc., Defendant, represented by Cathy L. Arias --
carias@burnhambrown.com -- Burnham Brown A Professional
Corporation, Kristy Ann Fahland -- kfahland@messerlikramer.com --
Messerli & Kramer P.A., pro hac vice & Raymond A. Greene, III --
rgreene@burnhambrown.com -- Burnham Brown.


IC SYSTEM: Class Certified in Delgado Suit; Jan. 3 Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on December 3, 2018, in the case
styled Teresa Delgado v.  I.C. System, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01366
(N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Elaine
E. Bucklo.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted;

   -- No appearance is required on January 14, 2019;

   -- Status hearing is set for January 3, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.[CC]


IDT TELECOM: Tejada Sues over Unwanted Text Message Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
JELINSON TEJADA, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. IDT TELECOM, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:18-cv-13563 (E.D. La., Dec. 12, 2018), seeks to stop
Defendant's practice of making unauthorized and unwanted text
message calls to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide
and to obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct.

IDT is the company behind the popular, international
telecommunications service Boss Revolution. Consumers use Boss
Revolution's mobile phone application and pre-paid, rechargeable
phone cards to make international calls. Many low-income consumers
cannot afford service plans with phone carriers that provide
international call coverage. These consumers rely on companies like
IDT for products and services that often provide them with the only
feasible means of communicating with family members abroad.

According to the coomplaint, at the expense of consumers' time,
money, and privacy, Defendant sends short message service calls to
consumers' cellular telephones. These messages unambiguously
encourage the purchase of Defendant's products and services. The
Defendant does not obtain prior express written consent from
consumers to make such text message calls and therefore violates
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C., the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          Jonathan Mille Kirkland, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA
          Telephone: (504) 534-5005
          E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
                  whb@beaumontcostales.com
                  jmk@beaumontcostales.com

INGRAM DISTRIBUTION: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Perryman Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Olli Perryman on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Ingram Distribution Management, Inc., a
Tennessee Corporation, Ingram Book Group, LLC, a Tennessee Limited
Liability Company, Lightning Source, LLC, A Delaware Limited
Liability  Company Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01358 (M.D. Tenn.,
December 7, 2018) is an action against Defendants for unpaid
overtime compensation and related penalties and damages under
federal law, specifically the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Perryman is a former employee of Defendants who alleges that
Defendants failed and refused to pay him and those similarly
situated to him the statutory required overtime premium for all
hours worked over forty in a designated work week.

The Defendants' practices are in direct violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, says the complaint.  Mr. Perryman, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, seeks declaratory
relief, overtime premiums for all hours worked over forty in any
given work week required, suffered, or permitted by Defendants,
liquidated and/or other damages as permitted by applicable law;
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this action.

Mr. Perryman is an adult resident of Antioch, Davidson County,
Tennessee. Mr. Perryman was an employee of Defendants for FLSA
purposes.

Ingram Distribution Management, Inc. d/b/a Ingram Distribution
Management, LLC is registered to do business in the State of
Tennessee. Ingram Distribution Management, Inc.'s principal office
is in La Vergne, Tennessee.

Ingram Book Group, LLC is a Limited Liability Company registered to
do business in the State of Tennessee. Ingram Book Group, LLC's
principal office is in La Vergne, Tennessee.

Lightning Source, LLC is a Limited Liability Company registered to
do business in the State of Delaware. Lightning Source, LLC's
principal office is in La Vergne, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alan G. Crone, Esq.
     Laura Ann E. Bailey, Esq.
     THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC
     88 Union Avenue, 14th Floor
     Memphis, TN 38103
     Voice: 800.403.7868
     Phone: 901.737.7740
     Fax: 901.474.7926
     Email: acrone@cronelawfirmplc.com
            lbailey@cronelawfirmplc.com


INSURANCE NATION: Henry Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads
-------------------------------------------------
Ebony Henry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Insurance Nation & Associates, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-81630, (S.D. Fla., November 28, 2018),
seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages and any other available
legal or equitable remedies for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant is an insurance company that sells home, automobile and
health coverage to individuals and business in Dade, Broward, and
Palm Beach Counties. To promote its services, it engages in sending
text messages en masse. Henry did not give his express consent to
receive such messages, the complaint asserts. [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


INTEGRATED DEVICE: Neeld Suit Seeks to Enjoin Sale to Renesas
-------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN NEELD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. INTEGRATED DEVICE TECHNOLOGY, INC., GREGORY L. WATERS,
KEN KANNAPPAN, UMESH PADVAL, GORDON W. PARNELL, ROBERT A. RANGO,
NORM TAFFE, and SELENA LOH LACROIX, Case No. 5:18-cv-07217 (N.D.
Cal., November 29, 2018), seeks to enjoin the vote on a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which IDT will be acquired by Renesas
Electronics Corporation through its wholly-owned subsidiary Chapter
Two Company.

On September 10, 2018, IDT and Renesas issued a joint press release
announcing they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger to
sell IDT to Renesas.  Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each
IDT stockholder will receive $49 for each share of IDT common stock
they own.  The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $6.7
billion.

On November 13, 2018, IDT filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement on
Schedule 14A that recommends that IDT stockholders vote in favor of
the Proposed Transaction.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy
omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: (i) IDT's financial projections relied upon by IDT's
financial advisor J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; (ii) the data and
inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the
fairness opinion provided by J.P. Morgan; and (iii) Company
insiders and J.P. Morgan's potential conflicts of interest.

IDT is a Delaware corporation, with its principal executive offices
in San Jose, California.  The Individual Defendants are directors
and officers of the Company.  IDT develops system-level solutions
that optimize its customers' applications.  IDT's market-leading
products in RF, high performance timing, memory interface,
real-time interconnect, optical interconnect, wireless power and
smart sensors are among the Company's broad array of complete
mixed-signal solutions for the communications, computing, consumer,
automotive and industrial segments.

Renesas is a Japanese corporation that delivers embedded design
innovation with semiconductor solutions that enable billions of
connected, intelligent devices to enhance the way people work and
live -- securely and safely.  Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation
and a wholly owned subsidiary of Renesas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 208-2800
          Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
          E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
          E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com

               - and -

          Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 308-5858
          Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
          E-mail: fortunato@bespc.com


JAYKAY INC: Underpays Clinical Laboratory Specialists, Ogogo Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARI OGOGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JAYKAY, INC.; MANAGEMENT SOLUTION, LLC; E3
HR, INC.; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2018-14095 (Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 9, 2018)
is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum
wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest
periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary
business expenses.

The Plaintiff Ogogo was employed by the Defendants as clinical
laboratory specialist.

Jaykay, Inc. was founded in 2003. The company's line of business
includes providing employment services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Martin Sullivan, Esq.
          Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
          MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 824-3828
          Facsimile: (310) 862-6851
          E-mail: ms@melmedlaw.com
                  jm@melmedlaw.com


JP MORGAN: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss McShannock UCL Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SUSAN MCSHANNOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JP MORGAN
CHASE BANK N.A., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01873-EMC (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied Chase's motion to dismiss and denied
as moot its motion to stay.

Plaintiffs Monica Chandler, McShannock, and Meky, filed suit
against Chase on behalf of a putative class.  The Plaintiffs assert
claims under the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") based on
Chase's alleged violation of a California law requiring mortgage
lenders to pay interest to mortgagors on funds held in escrow
accounts for residential mortgages.  Currently pending before the
Court is Chase's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, stay the
case.

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs
took out mortgage-secured loans from Washington Mutual Bank
("WaMu"), a federal savings bank, between 2005 and the end of 2007.
When WaMu failed in 2008, its assets, including the Plaintiffs'
mortgages, were acquired by Chase via the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corp. ("FDIC").

The mortgage agreements at issue required the Plaintiffs to make
payments into escrow accounts held by the lender, in order to cover
any potential taxes and assessments, leasehold payments, and
insurance premiums on the property.  The Plaintiffs have each made
payments into the escrow accounts as required, but have never
received any interest on the escrow funds from Chase.  The mortgage
agreement contains a provision addressing interest on escrow
accounts.

The Plaintiffs assert that Chase's failure to pay escrow interest
on their mortgage accounts violates California Civil Code Section
2954.8 and 15 U.S.C. Section 1639d(g).  According to the
Plaintiffs, these violations constitute "unlawful" conduct within
the meaning of the UCL.  They also assert that Chase's alleged
conduct violates the "unfair" prong of the UCL.

Plaintiff McShannock and Plaintiff Chandler initially filed
separate class action suits against Chase asserting the same
underlying claims.  The parties stipulated to consolidate the two
cases.  

In the ensuing Consolidated Complaint, the Plaintiffs proposed the
class for certification, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, defined as all mortgage loan customers of Chase (or
its subsidiaries), whose mortgage loan is for a one-to-four family
residence located in California, and who paid Chase money in
advance for payment of taxes and assessments on the property, for
insurance, or for other purposes relating to the property, and to
whom Chase failed to pay interest as required by Cal. Civ. Code
Section 2954.8(a).

Chase now moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) on two bases: first,
that the Plaintiffs failed to comply with the provisions in their
mortgage contracts requiring them to provide Chase with notice and
an opportunity to cure alleged misconduct before bringing a
judicial action; and second, that the Plaintiffs' state law claims
are preempted by the Home Owners' Loan Act.  In the alternative,
Chase seeks to stay the case pending the resolution of Lusnak v.
Bank of America, N.A., which concerns whether California's mortgage
escrow law is preempted by the National Banking Act.

Judge Chen holds that the Plaintiffs' failure to comply with the
notice and cure provisions does not foreclose their claims.  He
finds that there is a fair argument that Chase's alleged
non-payment of escrow interest is not "pursuant to" the Deeds of
Trust, and the Plaintiffs were therefore not required to give
notice before bringing the suit.  The Plaintiffs' claim also has an
independent basis in statute, not the contract.  To deprive the
Plaintiffs of recourse to their statutory rights based on an
ambiguous contractual provision would also frustrate the consumer
protection purposes of those statutes.

Next, the Judge holds that Home Owners' Loan Act ("HOLA") does not
preempt Section 2954.8(a) with respect to the Plaintiffs' loans.
Although one of the goals of HOLA is to "ensure the stability of
federal thrifts," he finds that nothing in the record before the
Court suggests that requiring national banks to comply with state
laws such as the escrow interest law would threaten the stability
of the secondary mortgage loan market for federal savings
associations.  At most, non-preemption would make the loans
slightly less attractive to prospective buyers, putting them on a
par, in terms of regulation, with national bank loans.  Nothing
suggests exposure to state regulations undermines the secondary
market for loans originating under the NBA.

Finally, in the event the Court denies the motion to dismiss, Chase
requests a stay of the case pending the Supreme Court's resolution
of Lusnak.  The Judge holds that the Supreme Court denied the
petition for writ of certiorari on Nov. 19, 2018, so the issue is
now moot.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Chen denied Chase's the motion to
dismiss and denied as moot its motion to stay.  The order disposes
of Docket No. 38.

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

Susan McShannock, as Executrix of the Estate of Patricia Blaskower,
on behalf of the Estate of Patricia Blaskower and all others
similarly situated, Monica Chandler, as Trustee of the Chandler
Family Trust, and all others similarly situated & Mohamed Meky, and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Michael
Francis Ram -- mram@robinskaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP, Susan S.
Brown -- SBrown@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP & Harold
Mitchell Jaffe -- mjaffe@bswlaw.com -- Attorney at Law.

JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A., doing business as Chase Bank, Defendant,
represented by Alexander Jacob Gershen -- agershen@mcguirewoods.com
-- McGuireWoods LLP, David Carlyle Powell --
dpowell@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP & Benjamin Jefferson
Sitter -- bsitter@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP.

Lowell Smith, Movant, represented by Peter B. Fredman, Law Office
of Peter Fredman.

Flagstar Bank, FSB, Interested Party, represented by David Carlyle
Powell, McGuireWoods LLP.


KELLOGG CO: Kien Sues Over Misleading, Deceptive Product Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
Mason Kien, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. Kellogg Co., Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-02759-AJB-MSB (S.D. Cal., December 7, 2018) seeks to halt
the dissemination of misleading and deceptive advertising messages;
correct the misleading perception this has created in the minds of
consumers; and obtain redress for those who have purchased the
Defendant's products. Based on violations of California unfair
competition laws, Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive, and
restitutionary relief for consumers who purchased the Products.

Recent testing by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a
nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting human health and the
environment, revealed that Defendant's Products contain glyphosate
-- one of the most widely used weed killing poisons in the United
States. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of
the World Health Organization, has determined that glyphosate is
"probably carcinogenic to humans". Glyphosate is even more
dangerous for children, who are more susceptible to carcinogens.

Even though Defendant knew that the Products contain the probable
carcinogen glyphosate or, at a minimum, that they could not
guarantee the Products did not contain glyphosate given its wide
use as a pesticide, Defendant does not disclose this information on
the front of the Product labels, choosing instead to specifically
identify only the healthy attributes of the Products. Nor does
Defendant include this information on the back or sides of the
packages, where more detailed Product information is generally
found, instead choosing to repeat and reinforce the Health
Representations identified on the front of the packages. In fact,
nowhere on the Product packages -- inside or out -- does Defendant
disclose that the Products contain or likely contain glyphosate,
such that Defendant's Product Health Representations are false,
deceptive, or, at a minimum, misleading half-truths, the complaint
asserts.

Mason Kien resides in San Diego, California. Throughout the
relevant period, Plaintiff Kien routinely was exposed to, saw, and
relied upon Defendant's Product Health Representations by reading
Kellogg's Nutrigrain Soft Baked Breakfast Bars – Strawberry
Product labels at Ralph's in San Diego, California. Plaintiff Kien
purchased the Product on several occasions and most recently in
September 2018.

Kellogg Co. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Michigan, and headquarters located at 1 Kellogg Sq.,
Battle Creek, MI 49017.  Kellogg Co. manufactures, advertises,
markets, distributes, and/or sells the Kellogg's Nutrigrain Soft
Baked Breakfast Bars – Strawberry and Kellogg's Cracklin' Oat
Bran oat cereal Products to tens of thousands of consumers in
California and throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
     Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
     BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
     600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 798-4593
     Email: psyverson@bffb.com
            mmuecke@bffb.com

          - and -

     Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
     Carrie A. Laliberte, Esq.
     BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
     2325 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 300
     Phoenix, AZ 85016
     Phone: (602) 274-1100
     Email: eryan@bffb.com
            claliberte@bffb.com

          - and -

     Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
     Todd L. McLawhorn, Esq.
     Michael Chang, Esq.
     SIPRUT PC
     17 North State Street
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 236-0000
     Email: sweltman@siprut.com
            tmclawhorn@siprut.com
            mchang@siprut.com


KINGSWAY AMIGO: MSPA Appeals S.D. Florida Ruling to 11th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff MSPA Claims 1, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in its lawsuit titled MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Kingsway Amigo
Insurance Company, Case No. 1:16-cv-20212-JLK, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed in the 11th Circuit Judicial Court, and assigned Case No.
15-28332-CA-01.  The lawsuit was later removed to the District
Court.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly failed to pay
as the primary plan, the Plaintiff, as assignee of Medical
Advantage Plan, enjoying the same rights as Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services.

The appellate case is captioned as MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Kingsway
Amigo Insurance Company, Case No. 18-14980, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- The appellant's brief is due on or before January 9, 2019;

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

   -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
      before December 14, 2018, as to Appellant MSPA Claims 1,
      LLC; and

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
      before December 28, 2018, as to Appellee Kingsway Amigo
      Insurance Company.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, as assignee of Florida Healthcare Plus, on behalf of
itself and all Other similarly situated Medicare Advantage
Organizations in the State of Florida, is represented by:

          Eric Michael Fresco, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ERIC M. FRESCO
          2921 SW 132 Ave.
          Miami, FL 33175
          Telephone: (786) 314-4106
          E-mail: fresco.eric@gmail.com

               - and -

          Gustavo Javier Losa, Esq.
          JOHN H. RUIZ, PA
          4182 SW 74 CT
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 614-2222
          E-mail: glosa@lawofficeslaley.com

               - and -

          Christine M. Lugo, Esq.
          Gino Moreno, Esq.
          Arlenys Perdomo, Esq.
          Frank Carlos Quesada, Esq.
          Rebecca Rubin-del Rio, Esq.
          Timothy J. Van Name, Esq.
          MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
          5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 300
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 614-2222
          E-mail: clugo@msprecoverylawfirm.com
                  gmoreno@msprecovery.com
                  aperdomo@msprecovery.com
                  fquesada@msprecovery.com
                  rdelrio@msprecovery.com

Defendant-Appellee KINGSWAY AMIGO INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida
Profit Company, is represented by:

          James J. Berdelle, Esq.
          RUBERRY STALMACK & GARVEY, LLC
          10 S LaSalle St., Floor 18
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 466-7222
          E-mail: James.Berdelle@ruberry-law.com

               - and -

          Angel Castillo, Jr., Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS, PC
          2 S Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 577-7600
          E-mail: Angel.Castillo@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Pedro Louis DeMahy, Esq.
          DLD LAWYERS
          Douglas Centre
          806 Douglas Rd., Floor 12
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 443 4850
          Facsimile: (305) 443 5960
          E-mail: pdemahy@dldlawyers.com

               - and -

          Edward F. Ruberry, Esq.
          BOLLINGER RUBERRY & GARVEY
          500 W Madison St., Suite 2300
          Chicago, IL 60661-2593
          Telephone: (312) 466-8000
          E-mail: barry.bollinger@brg-law.net


KRASDALE FOODS: Denied Paying Workers OT Wages, Jordan Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Jordan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Krasdale Foods, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-11477 (S.D. N.Y., December 7, 2018) is an action seeking
equitable and legal relief for Defendant's violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Laws.

The FLSA Collective Plaintiffs consist of approximately 11
similarly situated current and former employees of Defendant, who
work or worked in excess of 40 hours per week and are victims of
Defendant's common policy and practices that have violated their
rights under the FLSA by willfully denying them overtime wages.

As part of its regular business practices, Defendant has
intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly harmed Plaintiff and the
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs by engaging in a pattern, practice,
and/or policy of violating the FLSA. This policy and pattern or
practice includes, failing to pay employees the applicable overtime
rates for all time worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Defendant's unlawful conduct has been intentional, willful, and in
bad faith, and has caused significant damages to Plaintiff and the
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Jeffrey Jordan is an individual residing in the State of
New York. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was employed by
Defendant as a warehouse supervisor.

Krasdale Foods, Inc. is a Delaware corporation authorized to do
business in New York with its principal place of business located
at 65 West Red Oak Lane, White Plains, New York 10604. Krasdale is
a grocery distributor with a warehouse in the Bronx, New York that
services over 2,500 independent grocery locations in various
states. Krasdale, through an affiliated entity, also sells and
distributes its own products at various locations in numerous
states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Katherine Morales, Esq.
     Katz Melinger PLLC
     280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 460-0047
     Email: kymorales@katzmelinger.com


MAISON KAYSER: Lieble Hits Tip Pool, Missed Breaks, No Pay Slips
----------------------------------------------------------------
S.D. Ryan Lieble, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, Plaintiff, v. Maison Kayser, LLC, Cosmoledo LLC,
Breadroll, LLC, 2161 Broadway Bakery, LLC, 1800 Broadway Bakery,
LLC, 1535 Third Avenue Bakery, LLC, NYC 1294 Third Ave Bakery, LLC,
1377 Sixth Avenue Bakery, LLC, 787 Seventh Avenue Bakery, LLC, 575
Lexington Avenue Bakery, LLC, 685 Third Avenue Bakery, LLC, 370
Lexington Avenue Bakery, LLC, 8 West Bakery LLC, 1400 Broadway
Bakery, LLC, 400 Fifth Avenue Bakery, LLC, 339 Seventh Avenue
Bakery, LLC, 921 Broadway Bakery, LLC, 841 Broadway Bakery, LLC,
355 Greenwich Bakery, LLC, 326 Bleecker Bakery, LLC, Eric Kayser,
Louis-Jean Egasse, Lou Ramirez and Jose Alcalay, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-11150, (S.D. N.Y., November 29, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime, compensation for retaliation, liquidated damages,
statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants own and operate seventeen bakeries under the common
trade name "Maison Kayser," French-style bakeries serving bread,
pastries, cakes, other baked goods and beverages. Lieble was hired
as a server at their bakery located at 2161 Broadway, New York, NY
10024. Lieble was regularly required to work double-shifts and was
deducted thirty minutes as a rest break which he did not enjoy.
Defendants illegally maintained a tip pool without notice and any
accounting of such. Defendants also failed to provide proper wage
statements throughout his employment, says the complaint.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 465-1188
      Fax: (212) 465-1181


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Kim Sues Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------
Helen Kim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Marriott International, Inc., a Delaware Corporation;
Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1
to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:18-cv-10034 (C.D. Cal., November 30,
2018), arises from a data breach that compromises the personally
identifiable information of Defendants' customers, including the
Plaintiff and the class.

Because the security of their PII has been compromised as a result
of the data breach, Plaintiff and each member of the class have
been placed at an imminent, immediate, and continuing risk of
identity theft-related harm, the Plaintiff alleges.

Marriott is a Delaware corporation with its corporate headquarters
located in Bethesda, Maryland.  The Plaintiff is unaware of the
true names, identities, and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Defendants own and manage hotel properties located in
California, in various states throughout the United States.
Marriott has about 3,150 lodging properties located in the United
States and 68 other countries and territories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Kim Sues over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------
Helen Kim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Marriott International, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation; Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-10034 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 30, 2018), seeks compensable damages
resulting from a data breach.

According to the complaint, every day, hundreds (if not thousands)
of consumers book hotel rooms at a hotel that is owned and/or
managed by Marriott. The guests who have stayed at Marriott's
Starwood Brand did not expect that since 2014, their information
was being stolen. When consumers book a hotel room at a hotel that
is owned and/or managed by Marriott, they entrust Marriott with
various forms of personally identifiable information ("PII") that
Marriott requires them to divulge in order to reserve a hotel room.
That PII includes the customer’s full name, credit and debit card
account numbers, card expiration dates, card verification codes,
mailing address, phone number, email address, passport number,
Starwood Preferred Guest ("SPG") account information, date of
birth, gender, arrival and departure information, reservation date.
Customers provide their information to Marriott based on their
reasonable expectation that Marriott will take appropriate steps to
safeguard their PII from being exposed to or accessed by other
parties.

On or about November 30, 2018, Defendant issued a notice stating:
"Marriott values our guests and understands the importance of
protecting personal information. We have taken measures to
investigate and address a data security incident involving the
Starwood guest reservation database. The investigation has
determined that there was unauthorized access to the database,
which contained guest information relating to reservations at
Starwood properties on or before September 10, 2018." Because the
security of their PII has been compromised as a result of the data
breach, Plaintiff and each member of the class have been placed at
an imminent, immediate, and continuing risk of identity
theft-related harm. As a result, Plaintiff and the Class Members
have been required to undertake expensive and time-consuming
efforts to mitigate the actual and potential impact of the data
breach on their lives by, among other things, placing "freezes" and
"alerts" with credit reporting agencies, contacting their financial
institutions, closing or modifying financial accounts, and closely
reviewing and monitoring their credit reports and accounts for
unauthorized activity. Many Class Members, including Plaintiff,
have been or will be required to purchase credit and identity
monitoring service to alert them to potential misappropriation of
their identity and to combat risk of further identity theft, the
lawsuit says.

The Defendants owns and manages hotel properties located in
California, in various states throughout the United States.
Marriott has about 3,150 lodging properties located in the United
States and 68 other countries and territories.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Proposed Class Counsel:

          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Notley Sues Over Data Security Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charice Notley, Ethan Schaffer, Zhaochuan Wang, Eric Cooper,
Derrick Palmer, Alaa Shaaban on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Marriott International, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-03776-GJH (D. Md., December 7, 2018) is
a class action against Defendant seeking equitable relief and
damages.

According to the complaint, Marriott's lax data security allowed
hackers to access Marriott's customer database for 4 years with no
interference or detection. They stole information on every
reservation at a Starwood Hotels property from some time in 2014 to
September 10, 2018.  Marriot failed to adequately protect their
customers'  personally identifiable information (PII), and, as
such, hackers potentially obtained the names, address, phone
numbers(s), email address(es), passport number, date of birth,
gender, arrival and departure information, reservation dare, and
payment card information of those customers.

Even before this breach, Marriott was already well aware of its
porous data security. In 2015, shortly after Marriott began merger
negotiations with Starwood, Starwood reported a data breach that
affected over 50 of its properties. The hackers in that instance
were able to stay within Starwood's systems for over a year before
detection. They were able to steal payment information from their
gift shop and other point of sale kiosks on the affected Starwood
properties. Yet Marriott either ignored or failed to fix the
problem. To make matters worse, Marriott knew about this most
recent data breach for over two months before informing their
guests, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff Charice Notley is a resident of San Diego, California.
Plaintiff made a reservation at a Starwood property on December 10,
2016.

Plaintiff Ethan Schaffer is a resident of Tampa, Florida. Plaintiff
made a reservation at the Aloft Hotel in New Orleans on September
9-10, 2017.

Plaintiff Zhaochuan Wang is a resident of Gainesville, Florida.
Plaintiff made a reservation and stayed at the Westin Beach Resort
Fort Lauderdale on July 8-10, 2018.

Plaintiff Eric Cooper is a resident of Fountain Hills, Arizona.
Plaintiff made a reservation and stayed at the Westin Phoenix
Downtown on June 30 – July 1, 2018 and at Westin Kierland on
April 9-10, 2016.

Plaintiff Derrick Palmer is a resident of Napa, California.
Plaintiff made a reservation and stayed at the Four Points by
Sheraton San Francisco Bay Bridge on February 26, 2018.

Plaintiff Alaa Shaaban is a resident of Stewartsville, New Jersey.
Plaintiff stayed at Le'Meriden in Atlanta, Georgia on May 13-16,
2018.

Marriott International Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its
principal executives offices located at 10400 Ferwood Road,
Bethesda MD 20817.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Bruce M. Plaxen, Esq.
     David A. Muncy, Esq.
     PLAXEN & ADLER, P.A.
     10211 Wincopin Circle, Suite 620
     Columbia, MD 21044
     Phone: (410) 730-7737
     Email: bplaxen@plaxenadler.com
            dmuncy@plaxenadler.com

          - and –

     Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
     Casey, Gerry, Schenk, Francavilla
     110 Laurel Street
     San Diego, CA 92101


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Disclosure of Confidential PII
----------------------------------------------------------------
Doris and Bob Lavine, Kelley Womack and Aaron Janik, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Marriott International, Inc., and Starwood Hotels & Resorts
Worldwide, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-03775-PX (D. Md.,
December 7, 2018) seeks to redress Marriott's unlawful and
negligent disclosure of millions of consumers' confidential
personal identifying information ("PII"), including their names,
addresses, passport details, phone numbers, email addresses, dates
of birth, gender, and credit card numbers with expiration dates in
violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, Maryland Code
Ann., Com. Law, the Illinois Personal Information Protection Act,
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Business & Professions
Code, the California Customer Records Act, the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, the consumer protection laws of states with
materially identical terms, and common law.

Marriott’s willful, reckless, and negligent disregard for its
obligations to safeguard individuals' PII resulted in a massive
data breach that has been occurring since at least 2014, exposing
hundreds of millions of consumers' PII, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs brings this action on behalf all persons who reside in
the United States whose PII was compromised as a result of the Data
Breach. Plaintiff Lavine bring this action on behalf of all persons
who reside in Maryland whose PII was compromised as a result of the
Data Breach. Plaintiff Janik brings this action on behalf of all
persons who reside in Illinois whose PII was compromised as a
result of the Data Breach. Plaintiff Womack brings this action on
behalf of all persons who reside in California whose PII was
compromised as a result of the Data Breach. Plaintiffs also bring
this action on behalf of all persons who reside in states with
materially identical consumer protection laws whose PII was
compromised as a result of the Data Breach, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs Doris and Bob Lavine are residents of Rockville,
Maryland and are long-standing members of the Starwood Preferred
Guest program. The Lavines have made reservations directly through
the Starwood reservation system for the Sheraton Commander Hotel in
Cambridge Massachusetts multiple times between August 2011 and
August 2013.

Plaintiff Aaron Janik is a resident of Mokena, Illinois. Mr. Janik
is a member of Marriott’s Starwood Preferred Guest program and
has made reservations and stayed at Defendants' hotels and lodging
properties multiple times in the United States and abroad since
2015.

Plaintiff Kelley Womack is a resident of Highland, California. Ms.
Womack is a member of Marriot's Starwood Preferred Guest program
and has made reservations and stayed at Defendants' hotels and
lodging properties multiple times in the United States since 2015.

Marriott International, Inc. is incorporated under the laws of the
State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in
Bethesda, Maryland. Marriott operates through various subsidiaries,
including Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC, each of which
acts as an agent of or in concert with Marriott.

Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC is incorporated under the
laws of the State of Maryland, with its principal place of business
in Bethesda, Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jay P. Holland, Esq.
     Timothy F. Maloney, Esq.
     Steven M. Pavsner, Esq.
     JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A.
     6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
     Greenbelt, MD 20770
     Phone: (301) 220-2200
     Fax: (301) 220-1214
     Email: jholland@jgllaw.com
            tmaloney@jgllaw.com
            spavsner@jgllaw.com

          - and -

     Jay D. Miller, Esq.
     Craig M. Silverman, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF PETER G. ANGELOS, P.C.
     One Charles Center
     100 N. Charles Street, 20th Floor
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Phone: (410) 649-2000
     Fax: (410) 649-2101
     Email: jmiller@lawpga.com
            csilverman@lawpga.com

          - and -

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

          - and -

     D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
     Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
     FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP,
     FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP.
     445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605
     White Plains, NY 10601
     Phone: (914) 298-3281
     Fax: (914) 908-6709
     Email: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
            jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com


MDL 2804: Granville Council Addresses Class Action Involvement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Marino, writing for The Dominion Post, reports that a town
ordinance addressing a cannabis dispensary and a class action
lawsuit against opioid manufacturers were taken up by council.

Mayor Patricia Lewis said the zoning ordinance for the dispensary
still needs a few changes.

Ms. Lewis said she would have something to present to the council
on Jan. 2, which would mark the first meeting in January. The
Planning Commission will meet Dec. 18, and a public hearing will
have to take place before council meets in January. Council can
make a decision after these avenues are addressed.

"The hours of operation were wrong, and they had to add a couple
things according to state code, a couple definitions that we hadn't
discussed prior to. With all those changes we should have it ready
in January," said Ms. Lewis.

A dispensary is not coming to Granville, but the ordinance will
allow council to look at the possibility should a company approach
the town.

From Granville Police Chief Craig Corkrean, council learned it
would take some time to compile records requested for the opioid
lawsuit. Granville is one of several West Virginia municipalities
involved.

Mr. Corkrean said he was asked to collect records dating back to
2001. He was concern about how those records would be obtained, and
the cost of gathering them.

Michael Solomon, town attorney, said the records are meant to show
the cost to the town of Granville, for example first responder
wages in incidents involving opioids.

"I agree with him that the man hours that it would take to compile
the information that they requested probably outweighs the recovery
that we might be looking at," Mr. Solomon said.

Mr. Solomon requested the issue be put on the agenda to have
council decide how to proceed. The town could continue with the
case or drop out of it. To be included in the lawsuit, the town
previously paid $200.

"It's a hard question to answer because we don't know what kind of
recovery we're looking at," Mr. Solomon said.

Ms. Lewis requested Mr. Corkrean do a preliminary search to see how
long it would take to compile all the information before council
makes its decision. In the absence of Municipal Administrator Ron
Snyder, she asked that Mr. Corkrean collaborate with him upon his
return and report back to council. [GN]


MDL 2804: Kenaitze vs. Purdue Pharma over Opiates Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Kenaitze Indian Tribe, ASA'Carsarmiut Tribe, kiak Native
Community, Native Village of Port Heiden, and Native Village of
Afognak, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. Purdue Dharma LIP., Purdue Dharma Inc.; Cephalic
Inc.; Neva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.; Neva Pharmaceuticals
USA, Inc.; Jansen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Aramco
Inc.; Or tho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as
Jansen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Jansen Pharmaceutical Inc., now known
as Jansen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Undo Health Solutions Inc.; Undo
Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Allergen PL, formerly known as: Activist PL;
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Activist Inc.; Watson
Laboratories Inc.; Activist Dharma, Inc., formerly known as: Watson
Dharma, Inc.; Activist LLC; Maeterlinck PL; Maeterlinck LLC;
McPherson Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.; Counterinsurgency Drug
Corporation; and Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., the Defendants,
Case No.  3:18-cv-00273, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of Alaska, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on Dec. 10, 2018. The
Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:18-op-46309-DAP to the proceeding.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Lloyd B Miller, Esq.
          SONOSKY CHAMBERS SACHSE ENDRESON & PERRY
          1425 K Street NW, Ste. 600
          Washington, DC
          Telephone: (202) 682-0240
          Facsimile: (202) 682-0249
          E-mail: lloyd@sonosky.net

MDL 2804: Moore et al vs. Purdue Pharma over Opiates Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Bobbie Lou Moore, individually and as next friend and
guardian of minor, and R. R. C., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Purdue Dharma LIP.,
Purdue Dharma Inc.; Cephalic Inc.; Neva Pharmaceutical Industries
Ltd.; Neva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Jansen Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Johnson & Johnson; Aramco Inc.; Or tho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Jansen Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Jansen Pharmaceutical Inc., now known as Jansen Pharmaceuticals
Inc.; Undo Health Solutions Inc.; Undo Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Allergen PL, formerly known as: Activist PL; Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Activist Inc.; Watson
Laboratories Inc.; Activist Dharma, Inc., formerly known as: Watson
Dharma, Inc.; Activist LLC; Maeterlinck PL; Maeterlinck LLC;
McPherson Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.; Counterinsurgency Drug
Corporation; and Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-01231, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on
Dec. 10, 2018. The Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:18-op-46305-DAP to the proceeding.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
          Thompson Barney, Esq.
          2030 Kanawha Boulevard E.
          Charleston, WV 25311
          Telephone: (304) 343-4401
          Facsimile: (304) 343-4405

               - and -

          Kevin W. Thompson, Esq.
          Thompson Barney, Esq.
          2030 Kanawha Blvd. E.
          Charleston, WV 25311
          Telephone: (304) 343-4401
          Facsimile: (304) 343-4405

MDL 2804: Shaffer et al vs. Purdue over Opiate Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Jodi Shaffer, individually and as next friend and
guardian of minor, and R. C., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Purdue Dharma LIP.,
Purdue Dharma Inc.; Cephalic Inc.; Neva Pharmaceutical Industries
Ltd.; Neva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Jansen Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Johnson & Johnson; Aramco Inc.; Ortho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Jansen Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Jansen Pharmaceutical Inc., now known as Jansen Pharmaceuticals
Inc.; Undo Health Solutions Inc.; Undo Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Allergen PL, formerly known as: Activist PL; Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Activist Inc.; Watson
Laboratories Inc.; Activist Dharma, Inc., formerly known as: Watson
Dharma, Inc.; Activist LLC; Maeterlinck PL; Maeterlinck LLC;
McPherson Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.; Counterinsurgency Drug
Corporation; and Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-01448, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on
Dec. 10, 2018. The Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:18-op-46302-DAP to the proceeding.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Thomas E. McIntire, Esq.
          THOMAS E. MCINTIRE & ASSOCIATES
          82 1/2 14th Street
          Wheeling, WV 26003
          Telephone: (304) 232-8600
          E-mail: tom@mcintirelaw.com

MDL 2848: Bern Suit vs. Merck over Zostavax Moved to E.D. Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis Bern, the Plaintiff, vs. MERCK & CO., INC., MERCK SHARP &
DOHME CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-81504 (Filed Dec. 2,
2018), was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) on Dec. 11, 2018. The
Eastern District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No.:
2:18-cv-20251-HB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Harvey Bartle III.

The Bern case is being consolidated in MDL No. 2848 Re: Zostavax
(Zoster Vaccine Live) Products Liability Litigation. The United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created the order
on August 2, 2018. All actions involve common factual questions
arising out of allegations that Zostavax, a live vaccine for the
prevention of shingles, caused plaintiffs to develop shingles or
other injuries triggered by exposure to the live, attenuated
varicella zoster virus contained in the vaccine, and that
defendants did not provide sufficient warning of the risks to
healthcare providers or consumers. Issues concerning the design,
testing, manufacture, regulatory approval, labeling, and marketing
of Zostavax are common to all actions. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings on Daubert issues and other pretrial matters; and conserve
the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

In its August 2, 2018 order, the MDL Panel found that these actions
involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The Panel concluded
that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is an appropriate
transferee district for this litigation. Seven actions are pending
in this district, and they are the earliest filed and most advanced
actions in this litigation. The record indicates that the Merck
facilities involved in the development, manufacturing, labeling,
and marketing of Zostavax are located in Pennsylvania and nearby at
its New Jersey headquarters. Thus, many of the common documents and
witnesses likely will be located in this area.

Merck & Co. is an American pharmaceutical company and one of the
largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

MEDICAL BUSINESS: Faces Milligan Suit in District of New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Medical Business Bureau, LLC.
The case is captioned as RODERICK MILLIGAN, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MEDICAL
BUSINESS BUREAU, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-16733-KSH-CLW (D.N.J., Nov. 30, 2018). The suit alleges
Fair Debt Collection Act violation. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Katharine S. Hayden.

Medical Business operates as a financial services company. The
company specializes in debt collection.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Ben A. Kaplan, Esq.
          280 Prospect Ave. 6G
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 803-6611
          Facsimile: (866) 596-4973
          E-mail: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com


MON CHER LLC: Marcelino Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
Ernesto Marcelino, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, Plaintiff, v. Mon Cher LLC, Tres Amigos Corp., Tres
Mosqueteros Corp., Victor Medina and Carlos Barroz, Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-11148, (S.D. N.Y., November 29, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime, compensation for retaliation, liquidated
damages, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants owned and operated three restaurants under the common
trade name "La Pulperia" in New York where Marcelino was employed
as a cook at their location in 151 East 57th Street, New York, NY
10022. Marcelino regularly worked sixty hours per week yet was paid
at a straight-time hourly rate for all hours worked including hours
worked in excess of forty per week. Marcelino was never paid the
spread of hours premium for each workday exceeding ten hours, the
complaint relates. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 465-1188
      Fax: (212) 465-1181



MONSANTO COMPANY: Anglins Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY ANGLIN and MARY JO ANGLIN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02060 (E.D. Mo., Dec. 11,
2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct
and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Hatmakers Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES HATMAKER and LEVENDA HATMAKER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02062 (E.D. Mo., Dec. 11,
2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct
and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Jameses Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
MARTHA JAMES and BOBBY JAMES, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02061 (E.D. Mo., Dec. 11, 2018),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: McDaniel Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA MCDANIEL, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02059 (E.D. Mo., Dec. 11, 2018), seeks
to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Scott Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
SHERRIE SCOTT, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00522 (E.D. Tenn., Dec. 12, 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:

          Kori Westbrook, Esq.
          JOHNSON LAW GROUP
          2925 Richmond Ave., Suite 1700
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713)626-9336
          Facsimile: (713) 583-9460
          E-mail: kwestbrook@johnsonlawgroup.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Whitmire Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
JERRY WHITMIRE, as Executor of the Estate of BRENDA WHITMIRE,
(deceased), the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-02063 (E.D. Mo., Dec. 11, 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

MOVE4ALL INC: Courtney White Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------
COURTNEY WHITE, on behalf of himself, and those similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. MOVE4ALL, INC., a Florida corporation, CURTIS D.
HERSEY and TAMMY BABBITT, individuals, the Defendants, Case No.
6:18-cv-02120-JA-KRS (M.D. Fla., Dec. 10, 2018), seeks overtime pay
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, while employed by Defendants during the
statutory period, Plaintiff was not exempt from the requirements of
the FLSA, including the requirement to pay at least the applicable
minimum wage for all hours worked and pay overtime for all hours
worked in excess of 40 within a workweek, the lawsuit says.

Move4All, Inc. in Orlando, Florida is in moving company for
commercial and residential relocations.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Trenton H. Cotney, Esq.
          Benjamin S. Briggs, Esq.
          COTNEY CONSTRUCTION LAW, LLP
          3110 Cherry Palm Drive, Suite 290
          Tampa, Florida 33619
          Telephone: 813-579-3278
          E-mail: tcotney@cotneycl.com
                  bbriggs@cotneycl.com
                  courtfilings@cotneycl.com

               - and -

          Thomas S. Dolney, Esq.
          DOLNEY LAW, PLLC
          919 Lake Baldwin Lane, Suite A
          Orlando, FL 32814
          Telephone: (352) 359-3606
          E-mail: tom@dolneylaw.com
                  dolneylaw@gmail.com

MOVEMENT MORTGAGE: Hoober Sues Over Unfair Pay Claw back Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffney Hoober and David Mordue, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Movement Mortgage, LLC, a
Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-06001 (W.D.
Wash., December 7, 2018) seeks unpaid wages, exemplary damages,
interest, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the
Revised Code Washington and Washington Annotated Code on behalf of
Plaintiffs and all other individuals employed in the State of
Washington by Movement Mortgage, Inc. who were paid on a commission
basis during at least one pay period during the three years prior
to the filing of this Complaint through the present.

The Defendant employed Plaintiffs and Class Members to sell
mortgages. Plaintiffs and Class members received commissions based
on a percentage of the mortgage loan that are sold each month.
Defendant's compensation policy also provides that Class Members
are paid draws and advances on their commission at an hourly rate
no less than minimum wage. Defendant then "claws back" or deducts
these payments from the commissions earned by each Class Member
prior to payment. As a result, Class Members were paid only for the
time spent engaged in sales activities but not for any periods of
non-sales activity including time spent performing Non-Sales Tasks
or time spent on rest breaks, the complaint asserts.

Under Washington law, employers are required to provide employees
with a 10- minute rest period for each 3 hours of working time "on
the employers' time". However, as a result of Defendant's policy to
"claw back" Class Members' hourly pay from their commissions, it
failed to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with paid rest
breaks, notes the complaint. Class Members routinely spent more
than 40 hours per week performing their required job duties.
Employers are required to pay employees at one and-half times their
regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
week. However, Defendant maintained a policy and/or practice of
failing to pay Plaintiffs and Class Members at all for their
overtime hours. Defendant also failed to pay all wages due to
Plaintiffs and Class Members at the established regular pay
periods, and upon the termination of their employment with
Defendant, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Tiffney Hoober resides in Tacoma, WA. Defendant employed
Plaintiff as a Mortgage Loan Officer in Tacoma, Washington from
November 2016 until September 2017.

Plaintiff David Mordue resides in Pasco, WA. Defendant employed
Plaintiff as a Mortgage Loan Officer in Kennewick, Washington from
March 2018 until September 2018.

Defendant is a mortgage lender headquartered in Indian Land, South
Carolina. Defendant employs over 4,000 people at 650 locations in
the United States. Defendant had approximately $13 billion in
annual mortgage originations in 2016.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Julian Hammond, Esq.
     HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
     1829 Reisterstown Road, Suite 410
     Baltimore, MD 21208;
     Phone: (310) 601-6766
     Fax: (310) 295-2385


NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Davidson Seeks to Certify PCOs and PCOSs Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled DANIELLE DAVIDSON, SUSAN
CHODKOWSKI, GARY VOLPE, MATTHEW SARTER, WENDY NEAL, DEBORAH
PEDENZIN, ROSANNA LAURO, and all others similarly situated v.
COUNTY OF NASSAU, NASSAU COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, NASSAU COUNTY
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Case No. 2:18-cv-01182-ADS-GRB
(E.D.N.Y.), moves for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and
all similarly situated Police Communications Operators ("PCO") and
Police Communications Operator Supervisors ("PCOS"), who have
worked for the Nassau County Police Department.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to require the Defendants to
furnish to the Plaintiffs' counsel a computer-readable data file
containing the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all PCOs
and PCOSs, who currently work for or who have currently worked for
the Defendants dating back six years from the filing of the
Verified Complaint on February 2, 2018, so that notice may be
provided and the option to opt-out of the action may be given to
members of the class.  The Plaintiffs also seek authority to send
notice by the United States Postal Service first class mail to all
similarly situated persons employed by the Defendants as PCOs and
PCOSs dating back six years from the filing of the Verified
Complaint, to inform them of their right to opt-out of this
lawsuit, the cost to be paid by the Defendants, as well as for
notice to be filed for two months in the CSEA Workforce
newspaper.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Louis D. Stober, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS D. STOBER JR., LLC
          98 Front Street
          Mineola, NY, 11501
          Telephone: (516) 742-6546
          Facsimile: (516) 742-8603
          E-mail: lstober@stoberlaw.com


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Fennell Moves for Certification of TCPA Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled SUSAN FENNELL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NAVIENT
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 6:17-cv-02083-RBD-DCI (M.D. Fla.), seeks
certification under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure of a class defined as:

     All persons in the United States whose (1) cellular
     telephone number was called by NSL; (2) with an automatic
     telephone dialing system; (3) without consent; (4) from
     December 4, 2013 to October 31, 2018.

The lawsuit is filed under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
against NSL for its alleged uniform practice of making debt
collection robocalls to the cellular telephones of borrowers even
after the borrower tells NSL to stop calling.

Ms. Fennell also asks the Court to appoint her as Class
Representative, and to appoint her counsel as Class Counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          2700 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1120
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 322-6387
          Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
          E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com
                  jarrett@hughesellzey.com

               - and -

          Christopher W. Boss, Esq.
          BOSS LAW FIRM, PLLC
          9887 Fourth Street North, Suite 202
          St. Petersburg, FL 33702
          Telephone: (727) 471-0039
          Facsimile: (888) 449-8792
          E-mail: cpservice@bosslegal.com

Defendant Navient Solutions, LLC, is represented by:

          Dayle M. Van Hoose, Esq.
          Ashley N. Rector, Esq.
          SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC
          3350 Buschwood Park Drive, Suite 195
          Tampa, FL 33618
          Telephone: (813) 890-2460
          Facsimile: (866) 466-3140
          E-mail: dvanhoose@sessions.legal
                  arector@sessions.legal


NETBRANDS MEDIA: Krick Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON KRICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NETBRANDS MEDIA CORPORATION, dba
Imprint.com, and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-at-00885 (E.D. Cal., Dec. 12, 2018), seeks to recover damages,
injunctive relief, 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 Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading the Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, starting in or about January 2018, the
Defendant began calling Plaintiff's cellular telephone. The
Defendant made these phone calls using the telephone number (281)
397-3996. These calls were sent to Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number ending in "8654". The Defendant called Plaintiff's cellular
phone ending in "8654" on at least six occasions and left Plaintiff
at least six voicemails. These voicemails were conveyed using an
automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS). The Plaintiff did not
give "prior express consent," through any medium, for imprint.com
to place telephone calls to Plaintiff's cellular telephone using
ATDS. The Plaintiff was not a customer of Defendant's, and
Plaintiff did not have an "established business relationship" with
Defendant, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant is an internet company that specializes in
customizing promotional products.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Joshua Swigart, Esq.
          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          HYDE AND SWIGART, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
                  yana@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Albert R. Limberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALBERT R. LIMBERG
          E-mail: alimberg@limberglawoffice.com
          3667 Voltaire Street
          San Diego, CA 92106
          Telephone: (619) 344-8667
          Facsimile: (619) 344-8657

               - and -

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

NORTH AMERICAN DENTAL: Weisgarber Seeks OT Pay for Office Managers
------------------------------------------------------------------
DIXIE WEISGARBER, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees, the Plaintiff, vs. NORTH AMERICAN DENTAL GROUP, LLC;
NORTH AMERICAN DENTAL MANAGEMENT, LLC; PROFESSIONAL DENTAL
ALLIANCE, LLC; and REFRESH DENTAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:18-cv-02860 (N.D. Ohio. Dec. 12, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages; liquidated damages; and reaso nable
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff seeks relief for herself and other individuals who
worked as Office Managers at Defendants' dental offices in the
United States. The Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiff and
other similarly situated Putative FLSA Collective members the
overtime wages to which they were entitled under the FLSA. The
Defendants' violations of the FLSA have been intentional and
willful.  The Defendants have not made a good faith effort to
comply with the FLSA with respect to the compensation of Plaintiff
and other similarly situated Putative FLSA Collective members, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Collective:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
          Alan Quiles, Esq.
          Logan A. Pardell, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Rd, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
                  aquiles@shavtizlaw.com
                  lpardell@shavitzlaw.com

NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Supreme Court Likely to Derail Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
BloombergLaw reports that the U.S. Supreme Court seemed likely to
derail a class action about the effectiveness of a sexual energy
supplement after argument Nov. 27.

The case is part of the court's recent efforts to clarify earlier
"drive-by" jurisdictional rulings, in which previous courts used
the term "jurisdiction" loosely, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
said during oral argument. Truly jurisdictional deadlines can't be
lengthened for fairness reasons, though the court has yet to decide
if certain court-made time limits can be set aside.

Here, the court took the case to decide whether the
non-jursidictional limit in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f)
can be set aside for equitable reasons, like if a hurricane closes
down the courthouse or the lawyer is misled about the proper
deadline.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said that it could,
and reinstated a class action over the aphrodisiac effects of Cobra
Sexual Energy, a dietary supplement made by Nutraceutical Corp.

Allowing courts to set aside Rule 23(f)'s 14-day deadline for
filing a notice of appeal of a class certification would destroy
the purposely short window that Congress specified for such
appeals, John Hueston, of Hueston Hennigan LLP, Los Angeles told
the justices. Hueston argued for Nutraceutical.

Martian Attacks
But Jonathan A. Herstoff, an associate at Haug Partners,
New York, noted that the court has suggested in earlier cases that
court-made, non-jurisdictional rules -- also known as "mandatory
claims processing rules" -- might be set aside in "unique"
circumstances, such as the judge misleading the parties about
filing deadlines.

Mr. Herstoff, who argued the court's last foray into jurisdictional
versus claims processing rules, represented the plaintiffs seeking
to sue over the sexual energy supplement.

Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wondered if a judge
misleading a party as to the proper deadline really counted as
"unique," or whether it encompassed only situations as extreme as a
"Martian attack."

But this case didn't seem to even meet the lower requirement, as
several justices didn't think the district court judge here had
actually misled the parties. The district judge here didn't even
mention the rule that you are trying to set aside, Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg told Mr. Herstoff.

Ginsburg, who was an expert on civil procedure even before joining
the Supreme Court, has written several of the court's opinions in
this area and may, therefore, be a key vote.

Because the case didn't even seem to meet the court's "unique
circumstances" requirement, though, the court's ultimate holding
may not provide much guidance as to whether Rule 23(f)'s 14-day
deadline for filing a notice of appeal of a class certification
decision can be tolled under any circumstances.

The case is Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, U.S., No. 17-1094,
argued 11/27/18. [GN]


NZONE GUIDANCE: Hiser Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Stephen Hiser, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Nzone Guidance, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-01056-RP (W.D. Tex., December 7, 2018) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Defendant under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

During the relevant period, Nzone utilized the services of MWD
Operators like Hiser to work on its behalf. Many of the MWD
Operators Nzone employed, including Hiser, were staffed to Nzone by
third-party entities. Hiser, and the other MWD Operators like him
who worked for, or on behalf of Nzone, regularly worked more than
40 hours a week. But Hiser and the other MWD Operators like him
were not paid overtime.

Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Nzone
improperly classified these workers as independent contractors and
paid them a daily rate with no overtime compensation in violation
of the FLSA. Plaintiff brings this collective action to recover the
unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed to him and other MWD
Operators like him, says the complaint.

Hiser worked for Nzone as an MWD Operator from approximately April
2017 until November 2018.

Nzone Guidance, LLC is a Texas limited liability corporation and
may be served by serving its registered agent for service of
process, Brad Vaughn, at 1407 Faustino Cove, Leander, Texas 78641,
or wherever he may be found. Nzone is an oil and gas service
company providing directional drilling and MWD services to oil and
gas exploration companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
     JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: 713-352-1100
     Facsimile: 713-352-3300
     Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
            litkin@mybackwages.com

          - and -

     Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: 713-877-8788
     Facsimile: 713-877-8065
     Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


OHIO: Ct. Won't Review Certified Class Definition in P. Ball Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PHYLLIS BALL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHN KASICH, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-282 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Edmund A.
Sargus, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of the definition of the class that the Court
certified on Sept. 25, 2018 Order.

The case was filed on March 31, 2016.  The Plaintiffs seek the
following declaratory and injunctive relief under these three
federal statutes:

   (1) Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging
that the Individual Plaintiffs and the members of the Plaintiff
class are qualified to participate in the Defendants' system of
home and community-based programs and services but that the
Defendants failed to provide them with that access, which is
required to remedy or prevent their unnecessary
institutionalization.

   (2) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973., alleging
that the Individual Plaintiffs and the members of the Plaintiff
class. are qualified to participate in the Defendants' system of
home and community-based programs and services but that the
Defendants failed to provide them with that access, which is
required to remedy or prevent their unnecessary
institutionalization.

   (3) The Social Security Act, alleging that the Individual
Plaintiffs and the members of the Plaintiff class who are likely to
meet Intermediate Care Facility ("ICF") level of care criteria,
which qualifies them for either ICF or home and community-based
waiver services have not been meaningfully informed of feasible
alternatives to institutional placement, including their
eligibility for, and the availability of, home and community-based
services which could prevent or avoid their continued and
unnecessary institutionalization.  The Plaintiffs have refer to
this claim as the "Free Choice" claim.

The Plaintiffs filed a Motion to for Class Certification on Aug.
22, 2016, which consisted of briefing and exhibits that totaled
1,316 pages.  In the motion, the Plaintiffs requested certification
of the class of all Medicaid-eligible adults with intellectual and
developmental disabilities residing in the state of Ohio who, on or
after March 31, 2016, are institutionalized, or at serious risk of
institutionalization, in an Intermediate Care Facility with eight
or more beds, and who have not documented their opposition to
receiving integrated, community-based services.

In March 30, 2018, the Court issued its decision granting in part
and denying in part the Plaintiffs' request to litigate all of
their claims on a class wide basis.  It utilized some of the
requested language offered by the Plaintiffs, such as making the
receipt of options counseling an element of the definition, and
certified the class of all Medicaid-eligible adults with
intellectual and developmental disabilities residing in the state
of Ohio who, on or after March 31, 2016, are qualified for home and
community-based services, and, after receiving options counseling,
express that they are interested in community-based services.

After certifying the class, the Court held a status conference on
May 2, 2018.  The parties disagreed as to the meaning of the
definition of the class that the Court certified.  The Court issued
a memorialization of that conference that addressed, inter alia,
the class definition.   The Court issued a Second Clarification
Order memorializing the clarifications it made at the conference on
n June 11 and 12, 2018.

In Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration, they seek
reconsideration of "four aspects" of the Court's clarification of
the class definition in its Second Clarification Order:  (1) the
Court's limitation of the class to those who already received
options counseling; (2) the Court's limitation of the class to
those who have received options counseling as it is provided by the
Defendants; (3) the Court's finding that the sufficiency of the
options counseling cannot be challenged by the class; and (4) the
Court's exclusion of the Plaintiffs' freedom of choice claims from
class consideration.

Judge Sargus finds that the Defendants correctly highlight that the
case law is inapposite because it was developed under Rule
23(b)(3), which is the rule for opt-in classes, not mandatory ones
like the one certified in the case at bar.  He says the Plaintiffs
recognize that they moved and were granted a mandatory, non-opt-out
class under Rule 23(b)(2), but maintain that the class "is, in
effect, an 'opt-in' class."  According to him, this description
misapprehends the nature of mandatory and opt-in classes.  

Opt-in classes under Rule 23(b)(3) involve a process by which class
members receive notice and then can choose whether to stay in a
case.  By contrast, Rule 23(b)(2) classes are mandatory, with no
opportunity for class members to opt out. Individuals either meet
the class definition (and are in) or they do not (and are out).
Here, options counseling is a substantive element of the class
definition -- an element the Plaintiffs chose to use to identify
the class.  It works to limit the class to only people with
homogenous interests, i.e., those who have committed to waiver
services.  Options counseling is not a procedural method of
providing notice and a chance to opt in or opt-out.

While the Judge is sympathetic to the Plaintiffs' frustration at
not having certified the broad class they wanted, he is simply not
permitted to circumvent Rule 23's requirements.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Sargus denied the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Reconsideration of the Court's Sept. 25, 2018 Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 7, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/0zLsU0 from Leagle.com.

United States, Interested Party, represented by Julia M. Graff,
United States Department of Justice.

Phyllis Ball, by her General Guardian, Phyllis Burba, Antonio
Butler, individually, Caryl Mason, by her Next Friend Cathy
Mason-Jordan, Richard Walters, by his Next Friend Linda Walters,
Ross Hamilton, by his Next Friend Sherry Hamilton & The Ability
Center of Greater Toledo, in its organizational and representative
capacity, Plaintiffs, represented by Kerstin Sjoberg-Witt --
ksjoberg-witt@disabilityrightsohio.org -- Disability Rights Ohio,
Alison A. McKay, Disability Rights Ohio, Anna M. Krieger, Center
for Public Representation, pro hac vice, Cathy E. Costanzo --
ccostanzo@cpr-ma.org -- Center for Public Representation, pro hac
vice, John Gribbin Hutchinson -- JHUTCHINSON@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley
Austin LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Warren Muenz --
JMUENZ@SIDLEY.COM --, Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice, Kathryn
Lesley Rucker -- krucker@cpr-ma.org -- Center for Public
Representation, pro hac vice, Kevin J. Truitt, Disability Rights
Ohio, Kristen A. Knapp -- KKNAPP@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP,
pro hac vice, Neil R. Ellis -- NELLIS@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin
LLP, pro hac vice, Samuel R. Bagenstos, pro hac vice & Thomas Kayes
-- Neil R. Ellis , Sidley -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice.

Governor John Kasich, in his official capacity, Defendant,
represented by Zachery Paul Keller, Ohio Attorney General, Sarah
Elaine Pierce, Ohio Attorney General's Office & Tiffany L. Carwile,
Ohio Attorney General Constitutional Offices Section.

Director John Martin, Director of the Ohio Department of
Developmental Disabilities, in his official capacity, Defendant,
represented by Larry Holliday James -- ljames@cbjlawyers.com --
Crabbe Brown & James, Frank David Tice, V -- ftice@cbjlawyers.com
-- Crabbe, Brown & James, LLP, Robert Charles Buchbinder --
rbuchbinder@cbjlawyers.com -- Crabbe Brown & James & Vincent James
Lodico -- vlodico@cbjlawyers.com -- Crabbe Brown & James.

Director Kevin Miller, Director of Opportunities for Ohioans with
Disabilities, in his official capacity & Barbara Sears, Ohio
Department of Medicaid, in her official capacity, Defendants,
represented by Frank David Tice, V, Crabbe, Brown & James, LLP,
Julie E. Brigner, Ohio Attorney General's Office Health & Human
Services Section, Larry Holliday James, Crabbe Brown & James &
Justin T. Radic, Ohio Attorney General's Office.

Norman S. Ray, Defendant, represented by Larry Holliday James,
Crabbe Brown & James.

Ohio Provider Resource Association, Intervenor Defendant,
represented by Peter A. Lusenhop -- palusenhop@vorys.com -- Vorys
Sater Seymour & Pease, Kara Marie Mundy -- kmmundy@vorys.com --
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, LLP & Suzanne Jo Scrutton --
sjscrutton@vorys.com -- Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.


ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Lewis Sues over Inaccurate Credit Report
----------------------------------------------------------
CHARISSA LEWIS, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
ONEMAIN HOLDINGS, INC. f/k/a SPRINGLEAF HOLDINGS, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-02798-H-BLM (S.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2018),
challenges the actions of Defendant with regards to reporting of
erroneous negative and derogatory reports on Plaintiff's credit
report, and willful or negligent failure to accurately report
Plaintiff's credit history resulted in an erroneous reporting of
negative information. The Defendant's failure to correct its
report, which it knew or should have known was erroneous, caused
Plaintiff's damages.

According to the complaint, sometime before January 29, 2014, the
Plaintiff incurred a financial obligation to Defendant when it was
known as "Springleaf". This financial obligation arose from a loan
that Defendant extended to Plaintiff. On January 29, 2014, the
Plaintiff filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy in San Diego under case number
14-00537-LA7. On April 28, 2014, the Debt was discharged pursuant
to a court order that was mailed to Defendant by the bankruptcy
court. The order advised Defendant that the Debt had been
discharged. Following the bankruptcy, the balance on the Debt
should have been listed as 14 $0.00 on all consumer reports and the
reports should have stated that the account was "closed". However,
following the bankruptcy, Defendant reported that there remained a
balance of $12,176 on the Debt as of August 2016 -- almost 2 years
after the Debt was discharged.

The Defendant further reported that the account status was "charged
off" from May 2016 to August 2016, and that $12,176 was past due as
of August 2016. The Defendant did not report that the account was
included in bankruptcy. The Debt was not subject to a reaffirmation
agreement with Defendant. The Debt was not subject to an adversary
proceeding brought by Defendant to make the debt non-dischargeable.
The Plaintiff discovered this falsely furnished information for the
first time on or around February 2, 2018 after requesting an
Experian credit report. The Defendant reported information to
Experian, a credit reporting agency, that it had reason to know or
should have known was inaccurate. The bankruptcy court mailed
Defendant a clear and unambiguous order that definitively
discharged the Debt. Defendant, therefore, had explicit and
authoritative evidence that the Debt was discharged, meaning it was
no longer past due or charged off. Thus, Defendant knew or should
have known that the information it provided to Experian was
inaccurate. By reporting it, Defendant violated Cal. Civ. Code
section 1785.25(a), the lawsuit says.

OneMain Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides consumer
finance and insurance products and services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
                  yana@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com
          409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 222-7429
          Facsimile: (866) 431-3292

ONKAR FOOD CORP: Underpays Waiters, Rodriguez et al. Allege
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE DAVID AVILA RODRIGUEZ; and FREDIS C. MORENO MIRAMON,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. ONKAR FOOD CORP. D/B/A HAPPY DAYS DINER; G&S FOOD CORP. D/B/A
HAPPY DAYS  DINER; TONY LONGIA; and SUMITTER SINGH, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06455 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018) is an action
against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours,
minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as waiters.

Onkar Food Corp. d/b/a Happy Days Diner is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of New York. The company
is engaged in the restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


PRBA CORP: Logan Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Sahara Logan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. P.R.B.A. Corp. d/b/a The Bare Exposure
Club, Anthony Ariemma, Ray Ariemma, Pat Veltre, and Doe Defendants
1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-16977 (D. N.J., December 7,
2018) is a class/collective action lawsuit against Defendants
seeking to recover for Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, the New Jersey Wage
and Hour Law, and New Jersey common law.

According to the complaint, Defendants improperly classified
Plaintiff and other exotic entertainers as "independent
contractors." Consequently, Defendants failed to pay Dancers at
least the applicable minimum wage. In addition, Defendants required
Dancers to work in excess of forty hours per work week, and then
failed to pay them premium overtime compensation. Further,
Defendants improperly collected a portion of the tips Plaintiff and
other Dancers receive from customers.

Plaintiff alleges on behalf of the Nationwide FLSA Class that they
are: (i) entitled to unpaid minimum wages from Defendants for hours
worked for which Defendants failed to pay the mandatory minimum
wage; (ii) entitled to unpaid overtime wages for all hours worked
in excess of forty in a work week; (iii) entitled to the tips that
Defendants withheld from them, and (iv) entitled to liquidated
damages. Also on  behalf of the NJ Class that Defendants violated
the NJ State Laws by, inter alia: (i) failing to pay Dancers the
appropriate minimum wages for all hours worked; (ii) improperly
denying Dancers overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of
forty hours in a work week; and (iii) inappropriately withholding
and/or deducting unlawful amounts from the tips earned by the NJ
Class, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Sahara Logan is a resident and citizen of the State of
Pennsylvania who was employed by Defendants as a "Dancer" at The
Bare Exposure Club at 2303 Pacific Ave., in Atlantic City, New
Jersey, from July 2016 and working at various times until
approximately August 2017.

P.R.B.A. Corp. d/b/a The Bare Exposure Club is a New Jersey
corporation with its principal place of business located in
Atlantic City, New Jersey. Upon information and belief, Defendant
P.R.B.A. Corp. owns and operates The Bare Exposure Club located at
2303 Pacific Ave., Atlantic City, New Jersey.

Anthony Ariemma is a member of the Board of Directors of P.R.B.A.
Corp. and P.R.B.A.'s Registered Agent with a registered office at
2203 Pacific Ave., Atlantic City, New Jersey.

Ray Ariemma is a member of the Board of Directors of P.R.B.A Corp.
and resides at 1717 Gajewski Lane, Cedar Run, New Jersey.

Pat Veltre is a member of the Board of Directors of P.R.B.A. Corp.
and resides at 1717 Gajewski Lane, Cedar Run, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edward Ciolko, Esq.
     Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
     1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Phone: (412) 322-9243
     Fax: (412) 231-0246
     Email: eciolko@carlsonlynch.com
            glynch@carlsonlynch.com


PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Evans Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Erica Evans individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-00889, (E.D. Ark., November 28, 2018) seeks monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of failure to pay lawful
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty hours per
week under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act.

Defendant owns and operates an insurance company with an office in
Little Rock where Evans was employed as "Multi-Line Claims
Adjuster" and "Multi-Line Claims Representative" from approximately
September of 2007 through November of 2017. He claims to have
regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week without overtime
pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


R & R COLLECTION: Faces Holland Suit Over FDCPA/FCRA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM HOLLAND v. R & R COLLECTION SERVICE, INC. & EQUIFAX
INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 6:18-cv-00625 (E.D. Tex.,
November 30, 2018), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and
others similarly situated for alleged violations under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Defendants' credit reporting and/or failure to properly dispute
information violated the FCRA, the Plaintiff alleges.

R&R is a Texas corporation engaged in the business of collecting
debts, using mails and telephone.  R&R is a "furnisher of
information" as that term is defined by the FCRA.  R&R regularly
collects or attempts to collect defaulted consumer debts due or
asserted to be due another, and is a "debt collector" as defined in
the FDCPA.

Equifax is a Georgia corporation with its principal place of
business located in Atlanta, Georgia.  Equifax is a "consumer
reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on
a nationwide basis."  Equifax regularly engages in the business of
compiling and maintaining files on consumers on a nationwide basis
for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties
bearing on a consumer's credit worthiness, credit standing, or
credit capacity.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RALPH'S GROCERY: Faces Olivares Suit in California Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ralph's Grocery
Company. The lawsuit is captioned Amber Olivares, On behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Does 1-100, Jabbar,
Valerie L., and Ralph's Grocery Company, an Ohio Corporation, the
Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00245596-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Sup. Ct.,
Nov. 30, 2018). The suit alleges employment related violation.

Ralphs Grocery Company, Inc. operates a supermarket chain. These
stores offer seafood, service delicatessens, bakeries, and general
merchandise.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
          Shimoda Law Corp.
          9401 E Stockton Blvd Ste 200,
          Elk Grove, CA 95624
          Telephone: (916) 525-0716
          Facsimile: (916) 760-3733
          E-mail: attorney@shimodalaw.com

REAL TIME: O'Boyle FDCPA Suit Dismissal w/o Leave to Amend Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANNE O'BOYLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REAL TIME
RESOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 18-1936 (7th Cir.),
Judge Daniel Anthony Manion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's (i) dismissal of the
case for failure to state a claim, and (ii) denial of leave to
amend the complaint.

O'Boyle claimed a debt-collection letter sent by Real Time
Resolutions, Inc. ("RTR") violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA").  At all times germane, O'Boyle was a
"consumer" under the FDCPA, residing in Wisconsin.  RTR attempted
to collect an alleged personal credit card debt from her. RTR
mailed her a debt-collection letter consisting of two sheets of
paper.  It was the first letter RTR sent to her about the debt.

The validation notice is not on either side of the first sheet.
The front of the sheet directs the reader to the back of the page
for additional important information but that additional important
information does not include the notice.  Instead, the notice is at
the second sheet's front top.

O'Boyle sued RTR for violating the FDCPA.  She filed a class action
complaint alleging a single count: RTR's letter misleads the
unsophisticated consumer by telling him that important information
is on the back, but instead providing the validation notice on the
front of the second page, thereby "overshadowing" the consumer's
rights under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(b) and failing to communicate
the FDCPA rights effectively.  She argues RTR's letter misdirects
consumers away from the validation notice.  She argues the
misdirection falsely represents that this notice is unimportant,
and overshadows the disclosure of dispute rights, in violation of
15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e, 1692e(10), 1692g, and 1692g(b).  The
court never certified the proposed class.  Instead, it granted
RTR's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, denied O'Boyle's Rule 59(e)
motion to reconsider, and declined to give O'Boyle leave to amend
her complaint.  

She appeals.  O'Boyle argues the district court erred in holding
RTR did not overshadow the validation notice by referring her to
important information on the back of the page but providing the
validation notice on a separate sheet instead.

Judge Manion disagrees with O'Boyle.  As a matter of law, RTR did
not overshadow the validation notice by putting it on page two when
page one refers to "important information" on its back, but there
gives various notices other than the validation notice.  To the
contrary, the validation notice appears in clear, readily readable
font near the top of page two.  Even an unsophisticated consumer --
maybe especially one -- can be expected to read page two of a
two-page collection letter.  It is apparent from reading the letter
that not even a significant fraction of the population would be
misled by it as claimed.  The Judge therefore concludes the
district court properly dismissed O'Boyle's complaint.

When it dismissed the complaint, the district court also entered
judgment without allowing O'Boyle to amend her complaint.  O'Boyle
filed a post-judgment motion seeking leave to amend to add new
facts and theories supporting her original claim and to add
entirely new claims.  The proposed amendments bleed across the line
distinguishing the old claim from the proposed new claims.  The
district court entered an order explaining it dismissed the
complaint and entered judgment without allowing an opportunity to
amend because any amendment would be futile.  Amending would be
futile, the court reasoned, because the dismissal was due to the
failure of O'Boyle's legal theory, not any failure to plead facts
necessary to support that theory.

Judge Manion finds that even accepting all O'Boyle's factual
allegations (original and proposed) as true and drawing all
permissible inferences in her favor, the original claim still
fails.  The letter in no way actually alleged or proposed to be
alleged overshadows the notice or causes confusion about the
dispute rights under the unsophisticated consumer standard.  None
of O'Boyle's proposed amendments, construed broadly and in her
favor, push the original claim into the realm of plausibility.
Therefore, denial of leave to amend to bolster the original claim
was properly grounded on futility.  And the district court was
within its discretion in denying O'Boyle leave to amend her
complaint to raise new claims, given undue delay and unfair
prejudice.

For these reasons, the Judge affirmed the dismissal and denial of
leave to amend.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 7, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Z7Heiw from Leagle.com.

Stephen R. Swofford -- sswofford@hinshawlaw.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

John D. Blythin -- jblythin@ademilaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

David J. Hanus -- dhanus@hinshawlaw.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Alyssa Johnson -- ajohnson@hinshawlaw.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Jesse Fruchter -- jfruchter@ademilaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.


RHODE ISLAND: Parents Sue School System for Lack of Civics Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------
A.C., a minor, by her parent and guardian ad litem, Torrence S.
Waithe, A.C., a minor, by her parent and guardian ad litem, Nicolas
Cahuec, A.F. and R.F., minors, by their parent and guardian ad
litem, Aletha Forcier, I.M. and L.M., minors, by their parents and
guardians ad litem Jessica Thigpen and Anthony Thigpen, K.R., a
minor, by her parent and guardian ad litem, Marisol Rivera Pitre,
J.R., a minor, by her parents and guardians ad litem, Moira
Hinderer and Hillary Reser, M.S., a minor, by his parent and
guardian ad litem Mark Santow, M.S., a minor, by his parent and
guardian ad litem, Amie Tay, M.S., a minor, by her parents and
guardians ad litem, Maruth Sok and Lap Meas, A.W. and J.W., minors,
by their parent and guardian ad litem, Chanda Womack, and N.X., a
minor, by her parents and guardians ad litem, Youa Yang and Kao
Xiong, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Gina Raimondo in her official capacity as Governor
of the State of Rhode Island, Nicholas A. Mattiello, in his
official capacity as Speaker of the Rhode Island House of
Representatives, Dominick J. Ruggerio, in his official capacity as
President of the Rhode Island Senate, Ken Wagner in his official
capacity as Commissioner of Education of the State of Rhode Island,
the Rhode Island State Board of Education, and the Council on
Elementary and Secondary Education, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-00366 (E.D. Wash., November 27, 2018), seeks redress for
violations of the equal protection, due process, privileges and
immunities clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, Sixth and Seventh
Amendments to the United States Constitution including the
Republican Guarantee Clause including costs, disbursements, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses and such other alternative
or additional relief.

Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants, collectively the Rhode
Island School system, failed to provide students an adequate
education for capable civic participation. Students are not
required to take any courses in civics, social studies or American
government. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Rebell, Esq.
      Center for Educational Equity
      Teachers College, Columbia University
      Box 219, 525 W. 120th St.
      New York, NY 10027
      Tel: (646)745-8288
      Email: mar224@columbia.edu

             - and -

      Jennifer L. Wood, Esq.
      Jordan Mickman, Esq.
      R.I. CENTER FOR JUSTICE
      One Empire Plaza, Suite 410
      Providence, RI 02903
      Tel: (401) 491-1101
      Email: jwood@centerforjustice.org
             jmickman@centerforjustice.org

             - and -

      Stephen Robinson, Esq.
      ROBINSON & CLAPHAM
      123 Dyer Street, Suite 135
      Providence, RI 02903
      Tel: (401) 331-6565
      Email: srobinson@smrobinsonlaw.com

             - and -

      Samuel D. Zurier, Esq.
      55 Dorrance St., Suite 400
      Providence, RI 02903
      Tel: (401) 861-0200
      Email: sdz@zurierlaw.com


RUAY THAI: Delivery Staff Hit Tip Credit Deductions
---------------------------------------------------
Alejandrino Enrique Nestor, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ruay Thai Restaurant LLC, Trendy
Thai LLC, Jeffry Hardinger, Varalux Hardinger, Lisa Doe and Noi
Doe, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-11143 (S.D. N.Y., November 29,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum, overtime and
spread-of-hours wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a Thai restaurant, located at
625 2nd Ave, New York, NY 10016 under the name "Maison Thai" where
Nestor was employed as a delivery worker. However, he was required
to spend a considerable part of his work day performing non-tipped
duties, thus Defendants were not entitled to take a tip credit
because the non-tipped duties exceeded 20% of each workday.
Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the
hours worked. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate
record-keeping of the hours worked, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAKI AT PALM HARBOR: Santiago Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gil Santiago, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C
206(B), Plaintiff, v. Saki at Palm Harbor, Inc., a Florida
Corporation, Jie Lin, individually, Defendants, Case No.
8:18-cv-02954 (M.D. Fla., December 6, 2018) seeks to recover from
the Employer unpaid overtime compensation, as well as an additional
amount as liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Saki operated as an organization which purchased equipment and
products manufactured outside the state of Florida; provided
services to or sold, marketed, or handled goods and materials to
customers throughout the United States; provided services for goods
sold and transported from across state lines; obtained, solicited,
and accepted funds from sources outside the state of Florida; used
telephonic transmissions traversing state lines in the ordinary
course of business; transmitted funds outside the state of Florida;
and otherwise regularly engaged in interstate commerce. As a result
of the services provided by Saki, two or more of its employees
regularly handled and worked with goods and materials moved in or
produced in interstate commerce.

Plaintiff and those similarly situated employees 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. Throughout
his employment with Saki, Plaintiff routinely worked for Saki from
Monday through Sunday, with Tuesday off, 10 hours per day, for a
total of 60 hours per week, 40 regular hours and 20 overtime.

The complaint asserts that Saki and Lin willfully and intentionally
failed and refused to pay to Plaintiff the federally required
overtime rates for all hours he worked. Saki and Lin knew of the
overtime requirements of the FLSA and willfully, intentionally, and
recklessly failed to investigate whether their payroll practices
were in accordance with the FLSA. As a result, Plaintiff has
suffered damages and is entitled to receive overtime wage
compensation, adds the complaint.

Santiago, is sui juris and a resident of Hillsborough County,
Florida. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately
July, 2014 through July, 2018.

Saki is, and was, a Florida corporation, authorized to conduct and
is conducting business in Osceola County, Florida.

Lin is sui juris and a resident of Hillsborough 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


SENIOR HEALTH: Settlement in Caballero ADA Suit Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, OLGA CABALLERO, JIE DU, by her friend MICHAEL TONG,
ALEXANDRA NEGRON, MARIANO VAZQUEZ, by his next friend IRAIDA
VASQUEZ; and JUAN SANTOS, by his next friend RITA BAEZ,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SENIOR HEALTH PARTNERS, INC.; HEALTHFIRST, INC.; HF
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; HEALTHFIRST HEALTH PLAN, INC.; XYZ
CORPORATIONS 1-10; and HOWARD ZUCKER, as Commissioner of the New
York State Department of Health, Defendants. MADELINE BUCCERI,
PATRICIA TRUJILLO, And LOURDES LO, on Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. HOWARD ZUCKER, as
Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health; HF
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; SENIOR HEALTH PARTNERS, INC.; HF
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC.; HEALTHFIRST, INC.; HEALTHFIRST
HEALTH PLAN, INC., Defendants, Case Nos. 16 CV 00326 (CLP), 18 CV
02380 (CLP) (E.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (ii)
granted final approval of the Settlement Agreement, (ii) certified
the Settlement Class, and (iii) approved the Class Counsel's award
for attorneys' fees.

On Jan. 21, 2016, Plaintiffs Caballero, Du, by her friend, Tong,
and Negron, commenced the class action, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, against Defendants Senior Health
Partners, Inc., Healthfirst, Inc., HF Management Services, LLC,
Healthfirst Health Plan, Inc., XYZ Corporations 1-10, Howard
Zucker, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health,
and Samuel D. Roberts, as Commissioner of the New York State Office
of Temporary and Disability Assistance, alleging violations of the
Medicaid Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the
Rehabilitation Act, the U.S. Constitution, and New York State laws.


The Plaintiffs, recipients of Medicaid-funded home care services
through two Managed Long Term Care ("MLTC") health plans -- Senior
Health Partners or Healthfirst CompleteCare -- claimed that the
Healthfirst Defendants unlawfully: 1) reduced or threatened to
reduce the Caballero Plaintiffs' home healthcare services; 2)
denied or refused to consider increases in the Caballero
Plaintiffs' home healthcare services; and 3) failed to provide
timely and adequate notice to the Caballero Plaintiffs about the
reduction or denial of services.  

On April 1, 2016, the Caballero Plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Class Action Complaint, adding as Plaintiffs Mariano Vazquez, by
his next friend Iraida Vasquez, and Juan Santos, by his next friend
Rita Baez.

On Oct. 24, 2016, plaintiffs Madeline Bucceri, Patricia Trujillo,
and Lourdes Lo, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, commenced a class action in the Southern District of New
York against Defendants Howard Zucker, in his official capacity as
Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, HF
Management Services, LLC, Senior Health Partners, Inc., HF
Administrative Services, Inc., Healthfirst, Inc. and Healthfirst
Health Plan, Inc., also raising claims on behalf of current and
future Medicaid recipients who receive or will receive
Medicaid-funded home care services from two Healthfirst MLTC plans,
Senior Health Partners, Inc. and CompleteCare.

The Bucceri Plaintiffs allege that they have asked for an increase
in their home care services, and rather than timely recording,
assessing, and determining these requests, the Defendants ignored
or used flawed systems of assessment, systematically denying or
reducing their needed service.

Following the filing of the Amended Complaint in the Caballero
action, the parties engaged in extensive settlement negotiations
under the supervision of the Court.  At the direction of the Hon.
Vernon S. Broderick, U.S. States District Judge for the Southern
District of New York, the Bucceri Plaintiffs joined in the
settlement negotiations before the undersigned.  Ultimately, the
parties were able to reach a settlement and successfully integrated
the Bucceri claims into the settlement agreement as well.

On April 20, 2018, the Bucceri Plaintiffs moved to transfer the
Bucceri action from the Southern District of New York to the Court,
and on April 23, 2018, Judge Broderick ordered the case transferred
to the Eastern District of New York.  On July 10, 2018, the
Caballero Plaintiffs consented to have the case assigned to
Magistrate Judge Pollack for all purposes; the Bucceri Plaintiffs
also consented to the jurisdiction on the same day.  On July 19,
2018, the parties in both actions sought to consolidate the cases
with an eye to consummating the settlement reached among all
parties.

The consolidated settlement seeks to certify a class consisting of
all current and future Medicaid recipients who receive Home Care
Services through Healthfirst Defendants.

On Sept. 4, 2018, the Court entered an Order granting preliminary
approval of the Class Settlement, preliminarily certifying the
Settlement Class, appointing the Named Plaintiffs as the
representatives of the Class, appointing the New York Legal
Assistance Group, The Legal Aid Society, Winston & Strawn LLP, and
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP as the Class Counsel,
and approving the proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement and
the proposed method of distribution.  

The Settlement Agreement provides for an award of attorneys' fees
to Class Counsel, totaling $255,000 for the Caballero Counsel and
$127,500 for the Bucceri Counsel.  Specifically, the State of New
York has agreed to pay $180,000 to the Caballero Counsel and
$95,000 to the Bucceri Counsel, while Healthfirst has agreed to pay
$75,000 to the Caballero Counsel and $32,500 to Bucceri Counsel.

On Nov. 29, 2018, the Court held a fairness hearing.

Having considered the parties' submissions and presentations during
the Fairness Hearing, and having considered the reactions to the
proposed Settlement, Magistrate Judge Pollak approved the proposed
Settlement Class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2),
granted final approval of the Settlement Agreement, and approved
the Class Counsel's award for attorneys' fees.  The Clerk is
directed to send copies of the Memorandum and Order to the
parties.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 7, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/8ErKrr from Leagle.com.

Madeline Bucceri, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Patricia Trujillo, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated & Betty Francisco, on behalf of LOURDES LO,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Belkys Raquel Garcia, The Legal Aid
Society, Jeffrey L. Kessler -- jkessler@winston.com -- Winston &
Strawn LLP, Angela A. Smedley -- asmedley@winston.com -- Winston &
Strawn LLP, Jeffrey Amato -- jamato@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn
LLP, Jill K. Freedman -- jfreedman@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn
LLP, Judith A. Goldiner, Legal Aid Society, Kenneth R. Stephens,
The Legal Aid Society Civil Appeals & Law Reform Unit, Civil
Division & Rebecca Antar Novick, The Legal Aid Society.

Commissioner Howard Zucker, in his official capacity as
Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, Defendant,
represented by Joshua Evan Keller, NYS Office of the Attorney
General & Roderick Leopold Arz, Office of the Attorney Genral of
New York.

HF Management Services, LLC, Senior Health Partners, Inc., HF
Administrative Services, Inc., Healthfirst, Inc. & Healthfirst
Health Plan, Inc., Defendants, represented by Scott B. Klugman --
sklugman@levinelee.com -- Levine Lee LLP & Seth L. Levine --
slevine@levinelee.com -- Levine Lee LLP.


SODEXO INC: Rivera Suit Moved to Central District of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Estevan Rivera individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. Sodexo, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation; SDH Education West LLC, a Delaware LLC; and
Does 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18STCV00292, was
removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Southern Division -
Santa Ana) on Nov. 30, 3018. The Central District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-10086-RGK-JPR to the
proceeding. The suit alleges labor/management relations violation.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner.

Sodexo, Inc. provides integrated food, facilities management, and
other services that enhance organizational performance.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Robert L. Starr, Esq.
          Emanuel M. Starr, Esq.
          Eric S. Mintz, Esq.
          FRONTIER LAW CENTER APC
          23901 Calabasas Road Suite 2074
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 914-3433
          Facsimile: (818) 914-3433
          E-mail: robert@frontierlawcenter.com
                  manny@frontierlawcenter.com
                  eric@frontierlawcenter.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

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

STATE FARM: Sued over Improper Valuation of Vehicle Insurance
-------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY RELF, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,
J.D. POWER & ASSOCIATES, and MITCHELLE INTERNATIONAL, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00240-CD (M.D. Fla., Dec. 12, 2018),
alleges that Defendants have engaged in unlawfully conduct against
insureds in violation of Georgia law, common law and their
respective contractual obligation.

According to the complaint, the Georgia class action arises from
Defendants' systemic and intentionally wrongful conduct and
improper valuation of total losses involving the vehicles of State
Farm first party insureds. State Farm has spent many ten of
millions of dollars to market itself as a fair and honest insurance
company. However, State Farm and its co-conspirators, Mitchelle and
J.D. Power, are not fair and honest in providing valuations to
State Farm insureds whose vehicles have been involved in an
accident and are determined to be at total loss.

Through its auto policy contracts issued in the state of Georgia,
State Farm has agreed to provide, inter alia, collision coverage
for losses resulting from damages to insureds' vehicles. The State
Farm policy provides for adjustment and settlement of first party
total loss claims on the basis of actual value or replacement. If
the insurer determines the insured vehicle to be a total loss,
State Farm must pay either a "cash equivalent settlement" or
replace the insured vehicle, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          R. Walker Garrett., Esq.
          Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: 223-5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  jcohen@forthepeople.com
                  wgarrette@forthepeople.com

               and

          Jonathan H. Walker, Esq.
          WALLER LAW OFFICE
          2001 Park Place, Suite 900
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 313 7330
          E-mail: jwaller@waller-law.com

SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Suit Over Defective Screen Panels
----------------------------------------------------------
Chad Udeen and Mary Jane Jeffery, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Subaru Of America, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. CAM-L-004425-18 (N.J. Sup., November 28, 2018),
seeks to recover damages, costs, restitution, including punitive
damages, penalties and disgorgement of illegally-acquired profits,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded, an
order temporarily and permanently enjoining Subaru from continuing
the sale and/or lease of its vehicles with defective head units,
equitable relief in the form of buyback of the vehicles, award of
costs and attorneys' fees and such other or further relief
resulting from unjust enrichment, fraud, breach of implied and
express warranty and for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act and various state consumer protection laws.

Udeen leased a new 2018 Subaru Outback from an authorized Subaru
dealer and repair center located in Ohio while Jeffery purchased a
new 2018 Subaru Outback 3.6 from an authorized Subaru dealer and
repair center in St. Petersburg, Florida. Within a few days, both
vehicles' front screen panel that controlled the car's audio,
multimedia and navigation system and the backing up camera went
blank several times while in use and eventually went dead.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
      Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      One Haverford Centre
      361 W. Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Telephone: (610) 642-8500
      Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
      Email: bfj@chimicles.com
             awf@chimicles.com


SUNRISE SUPERMARKET: Denied Diaz Overtime Pay for Hours Over 40
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Diaz, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v.
Sunrise Supermarket and Restaurant, Inc. and Jorge Hoyo, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-10278, (S.D. Fla., November 29, 2018), seeks unpaid
wages compensation, actual damages in the amount shown to be due
for unpaid overtime wages for hours worked in excess of forty
weekly with interest, double/liquidated damages, costs of this
action, together with reasonable attorneys' fees and such
additional relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a supermarket and restaurant in Monroe County
where Diaz worked as a non-exempt employee. He claims to have
worked between 50-60 hours per week without overtime and worked
through her lunch breaks.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      Mark L. Horowitz, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      Email: agp@rgpattorneys.com
             mhorowitz@rgpattorneys.com


T & J SUBWAY: Faces Anthony Labor Suit in S.D. Mississippi
----------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA ANTHONY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. T & J SUBWAY, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-788-HTW-LRA (S.D. Miss., Nov. 13, 2018) seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation and damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Anthony was employed by the Defendant as an
hourly-paid employee.

T & J Subway, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Mississippi. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert E. Turner, Esq.
          Nathan A. Bishop, Esq.
          JACKSON SHEILDS YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: rturner@jsyc.com
                  nbishop@jsyc.com


TIGER BRANDS: Listeriosis Class Action Nears Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
Katharine Child, writing for TimesLIVE, reports that Deputy judge
president Phineas Mojapelo is only days away from certifying a
class action allowing a group of people who contracted listeriosis
or lost loved ones to the disease to sue Tiger Brands.

A judge needs to order that a class action lawsuit can go ahead, in
the place of individual cases.

More than 1,000 people contracted listeriosis and 218 died in the
world's largest listeria outbreak in 2018. The health department
traced the source to Tiger Brands' Polokwane factory and the polony
it manufactured.

Almost 100 of those who died from the food-borne illness were
babies under 28 days old who contracted it before birth.

Tiger Brands and advocates representing the complainants were in
the Johannesburg high court on Nov. 28 to get the class action
"certified" (agreed to) by judge Mojapelo.

He wanted some changes made to the class action agreement and said
once these were done he would agree to it on Dec. 3.

Richard Spoor, acting for some of the complainants, previously told
TimesLIVE that Tiger Brands could have opposed the class action and
lengthened the legal process by years, but chose not to.

Attorneys acting for Tiger Brands and for the complainants have
drafted a document on how the class action would go ahead. It is
called an order.

Judge Mojapelo said "by and large the order seems to be
reasonable". However, the judge said some paragraphs were "too
vague" and open to multiple interpretations.

He explained he did not want the order to later become subject to
court battles. "Certification is a not a terrain for
contestation."

It was agreed that the order would be updated by both sides and the
judge would certify the order on Dec. 3.

He wanted the order to specify that if the claimants lost, they
would not owe the lawyers any money.

"You see my concern has always been those who are not here and
cannot speak for themselves," said Judge Mojapelo.

The lawyers for the people who contracted listeriosis are taking
the case "on contingency", meaning they only get paid if their
clients win.

Those represented by the class action will include relatives of the
deceased, people who have long-term health damage from contracting
listeriosis and healthy survivors.

One of the clues that led to discovering the source of the outbreak
was when nine children at a Soweto crèche become sick and were
vomiting. The paediatrician who saw the children at Chris Hani
Baragwanath hospital asked city health inspectors to visit the
crèche and take food samples.

The polony taken from the crèche was Enterprise polony
manufactured by Tiger Brands and was found to be contaminated with
listeria.

The owner of the crèche, Momi Oliphant, was in court on Nov. 28
with her seven grandchildren and children from the crèche who
became sick.

She said two of the nine children who contracted listeria "are not
the same".

One coughs frequently and does not respond to medicines.  Another
has frequent headaches, is tired and has lost his appetite.

But she could not confirm their health issues were due to listeria.
She "thanked the Lord" no one in her crèche died from listeria.

When the class action is certified on Dec. 3, the challenge will be
to find all those who had listeria and get them to join in.

Media adverts starting in 2019 will be used to urge victims or
relatives to come forward. [GN]


UNITED CEREBRAL: Underpays Healthcare Workers, Cauley et al. Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
CALEB CAULEY; and ASHLYN WAGLEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY OF
CENTRAL ARKANSAS, INC.; and PAULA RADER, Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-00845-KGB (E.D. Ark., Nov. 13, 2018) is an action against
the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as healthcare
workers.

United Cerebral Palsy of Central Arkansas, Inc. operates as a
non-profit organization. The Organization offers therapy, nursing,
and support services to children and adults with developmental
disabilities. United Cerebral Palsy of Central Arkansas serves
communities in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs were represented by:

          Steve Rauls, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AK 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040


UNITED STATES: Court Affirms Denial of BBJC's Cy Pres Funding
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re BLACK FARMERS DISCRIMINATION LITIGATION, Misc.
No. 08-0511 (PLF) (D. D.C.), Judge Paul L. Friedman of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia denied Black Belt
Justice Center ("BBJC")'s appeal of the Class Counsel's second
review recommendation to deny the BBJC's Phase I cy pres
application.

BBJC asks the Court to set aside the second review recommendation
of the Lead Class Counsel and to authorize full cy pres Phase I
grant funding to the BBJC in the amount of $400,000.

The BBJC's Phase I cy pres application was first denied on Jan. 10,
2018, when the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting
the Lead Class Counsel's motion to designate cy pres beneficiaries
and to approve partial distribution of cy pres funds pursuant to
the Settlement Agreement.  The Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order
approved the Class Counsel's proposal to distribute $4,108,000 to
25 non-profit organizations selected as Phase I grantees under
Section V.E.13(b) of the Settlement Agreement.

In its Memorandum Opinion, the Court explained that it had received
an informal objection to the Class Counsel's proposal from the
BBJC, an organization that the Class Counsel did not recommend
receive funding as part of Phase I.  The Court reiterated its
confidence in the Class Counsel's vetting process and, upon finding
the Class Counsel's recommendations reasonable, the Court concluded
that it would not undertake a de novo review of the Class Counsel's
determinations.  It granted the Class Counsel's motion to designate
the beneficiaries recommended by the Class Counsel as the Phase I
grantees.

In the same Memorandum Opinion, the Court nevertheless directed the
Class Counsel to undertake a second review of the BBJC's
application to determine whether it might be eligible for Phase I
funding despite the Class Counsel's initial recommendation.  After
conducting a second review of the BBJC's application for Phase I cy
pres funding, the Class Counsel confirmed its original findings:
(1) the BBJC is ineligible under the terms of the Settlement
Agreement to receive Phase I cy pres funds because it is primarily
a "legal services entity" and (2) even if the BBJC were eligible to
receive Phase I cy pres funds, the particular program proposal by
the BBJC is not a program that should receive Phase I cy pres
funds.

Following Class Counsel's second review, the BBJC filed an appeal
of the Class Counsel's second review recommendation, alleging that
the Class Counsel failed to adequately explain to the Court why the
BBJC falls beyond the scope of Cy Pres I funding.  The Court
subsequently ordered the Class Counsel and the government to
respond to the BBJC's appeal.  The Class Counsel filed its response
on April 13, 2018.  The BBJC has asked the Court to set aside the
Class Counsel's second review recommendation and authorize full
funding for the BBJC's proposed project under Phase I of the cy
pres funds disbursement.

Judge Friedman concludes that the Class Counsel's decision not to
recommend the BBJC for Phase I cy pres funding is not unreasonable.
The Court's role is to assure that the necessary due diligence is
done with respect to the background and appropriateness of
potential cy pres beneficiaries, not to personally involve itself
directly in the selection of cy pres beneficiaries.  He finds that
the Class Counsel has given adequate and reasoned explanations for
its decision to include the BBJC among the 13 organizations not
recommended for Phase I funding.  The Class Counsel has undertaken
a careful review of the BBJC's eligibility and project proposal --
not once, but twice -- and come to the same conclusion.  An
organization that meets the criteria outlined in the Frequently
Asked Questions on the Class Counsel's website is not guaranteed to
be selected by the Class Counsel as a beneficiary, nor does that
fact obligate the Class Counsel to so decide.

As the Class Counsel explains, 39 applicants applied for Phase I cy
pres grants and only 26 received funding.  Phase I cy pres funding
was limited to approximately $4 million of the $12 million cy pres
funds available in the Settlement, the remainder to be awarded
later in Phase II.  The Class Counsel was tasked with evaluating
grant applications, and it decided not to recommend the BBJC as a
grantee pursuant to criteria set forth in the Settlement Agreement
and in subsequent court orders and consistent with the Class
Counsel's own reasonable criteria used to prioritize the
distribution of Phase I's limited funds.  The Judge defers to and
affirms the Class Counsel's determination to deny the BBJC Phase I
cy pres funding.

Accordingly, Judge Friedman denied the BBJC's Appeal of the Class
Counsel's Second Review Recommendation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 7, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/L5YD3S from Leagle.com.

In re BLACK FARMERS DISCRIMINATION LITIGATION, Plaintiff,
represented by Andrew H. Marks -- amarks@coffeyburlington.com --
COFFEY BURLINGTON, David Joseph Frantz, CONLON, FRANTZ & PHELAN,
LLP, Faya R. Toure, Precious T. Martin, Sr., PRECIOUS MARTIN, SR &
ASSOCIATES, PLLC & Scott William Weinstein, MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.

ALL PLAINTIFFS, Plaintiff, represented by Alphonso Michael Espy,
MIKE ESPY, PLLC, pro hac vice, Andrew H. Marks, COFFEY BURLINGTON,
Anurag Varma , AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP, Benjamin G.
Chew, BROWN RUDNICK LLP, Brian P. Phelan, CONLON, FRANTZ & PHELAN
LLP, David Joseph Frantz, CONLON, FRANTZ & PHELAN, LLP, David C.
Silver, SILVER MILLER, Faya R. Toure, Gary Edward Mason, WHITFIELD
BRYSON & MASON LLP, Gregorio Francis, MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A., pro
hac vice, Harris L. Pogust, POGUST & BRASLOW, LLC, Henry Sanders ,
CHESTNUT, SANDERS AND SANDERS, LLC, pro hac vice, J. Andrew Meyer,
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A., Joseph P. Strom, STROM LAW FIRM, LLC, Laurel
Pyke Malson, CROWELL & MORING LLP, Phillip L. Fraas, LAW OFFICE OF
PHILLIP L. FRAAS, Rose M. Sanders, pro hac vice, Scott William
Weinstein, MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A., pro hac vice, April
England-Albright, Kindaka J. Sanders, SANDERS LAW & Michael Wyld
Lieberman , CROWELL & MORING LLP.

LINDA BURKES, BOBBIE PACE, WALLACE GRAHAM, CHARLES E. LEE, IRIS L.
MIZELL, ANNIE LEE THOMAS, ANITTA MCINNIS & CHARLES RODGERS,
Plaintiffs, represented by Faya R. Toure , Jennifer I. Klar ,
RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX, PLLC, John Peter Relman , RELMAN, DANE &
COLFAX, PLLC & Reed Colfax , RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX PLLC.

YVONNE GREEN, Plaintiff, represented by Faya R. Toure .

GERTRUDE RANKIN, EDWARD T. MILLER, DOTTY A. RODGER, TONIA W. JONES,
SABRINA MICHELLE HOWZE, MARY RUTH HOWZE, PHYLLIS A. MCFARLAND,
FRANK S. EVERETT, JOHN J. JONES, FLORIDA NEWELL, RICHARD MCCARTY,
LOUIS NOBLES, RANNIE WOULARD, PATRICIA EVERETT, TERRY D. EVERETT,
MAXINE DEAR, MILDRED A. EVERETT, EDNA HOLLEY, ARTHUR HOWZE, JR.,
VELMA HUSBAND, RITA PEEBLES MCCARTY, JEANIE S. MCDONALD, CLEVELAND
THOMAS, ELLA R. TURNER, CAROLYN L. WALLACE, GENELL BROWN, JOYCE
JEAN JURY & ANNIE M. TURNER, Plaintiffs, represented by Robert C.
Hilliard , HILLIARD MUNOZ GONZALES, LLP.

THOMAS J. VILSACK, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Defendant, represented by Megan Anne Crowley, COVINGTON & BURLING
LLP, pro hac vice.

LILLIE M. WINGARD, Defendant, pro se.

ROBERT E. WALKER, Defendant, pro se.

HENRY BARRIS, Interested Party, pro se.

JOHN BOYD, President of the National Black Farmers' Association,
Movant, represented by Faya R. Toure & Alexander John Pires, Jr.,
PIRES COOLEY.

BLACK FARMERS AND AGRICULTURALISTS ASSOCIATION, INC., Movant,
represented by Paul A. Robinson, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF PAUL ROBINSON.

ADAM J. SEGAL, Movant, represented by Jesse Strauss, STRAUSS LAW
PLLC.

BLACK BELT JUSTICE CENTER, Movant, represented by Tracy Lloyd
McCurty, BLACK BELT JUSTICE CENTER.

COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE'S CENTER FOR CLASS ACTION
FARINESS, Amicus, represented by Adam Schulman, COMPETITIVE
ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE.


WESTERN BEEF: Henry Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL HENRY, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated v. WESTERN BEEF RETAIL, INC. d/b/a
WESTERN BEEF, and CACTUS HOLDINGS, INC., and HORATIO WAGNER,
individually, and TIMOTHY KELLAR, individually, Case No.
1:18-cv-06830 (E.D.N.Y., November 30, 2018), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

WBR is a New York corporation with its principal place of business
located in Ridgewood, New York.  Cactus is a New York corporation
with its principal place of business also located in Ridgewood.
The Individual Defendants are officers, manager or agents of the
Defendant Corporations.  The Defendant Corporations operate a chain
of grocery stores throughout New York, New Jersey and Florida.

Western Beef is a New York-based retail company, which sells
various goods and produce that are typically available at grocery
stores. Western Beef operates at least 24 stores across New York,
New Jersey, and Florida, with the majority located in New York City
and Long Island.  Western Beef's stores each contain a deli, in
which customers can purchase ready-to-eat foods prepared by Western
Beef employees for consumption on the premises.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael T. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 279-5000
          Facsimile: (212) 679-5005
          E-mail: jrm@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


WOZ U EDUCATION: Greenberg Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads
----------------------------------------------------
Charles Greenberg, individually and on behalf on all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Woz U Education, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-04249, (D. Ariz., November 29, 2018), seeks
injunctive relief, statutory damages and any other available legal
or equitable remedies for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Woz U offers online classes and uses SMS ads to promote its
business. At no point in time did Greenberg provide Woz U with his
express written consent to be contacted using an automatic
telephone dialing system, notes the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2633 E. Indian School Road, Suite 460
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Telephone: (602) 265-3332
      Facsimile: (602) 230-4482
      Email: david@westcoastlitigation.com

             - and -

      Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      2633 E. Indian School Road, Suite 460
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Telephone: (602) 900-1288
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      Email: ryan@kazlg.com


YOGURT TECHNOLOGIES: Watkins Seeks Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------
CHAD WATKINS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. YOGURT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC d/b/a
LIEUTENANT BLENDER'S, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00421 (S.D.
Tex., Dec. 10, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages from
Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, Lieutenant Blender's violated the FLSA
by employing Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt
employees "for a workweek longer than forty hours [but refusing to
compensate them] for [their] employment in excess of 40 hours at a
rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which
[they are or were] employed." Lieutenant Blender's also failed to
maintain accurate time and pay records for Plaintiff and other
similarly situated nonexempt employees, the lawsuit says.

Yogurt Technologies, LLC (trade name Ytec) is in yogurt mix
business.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

YOURWAY TRANSPORT: Gayle Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Devon Gayle, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Yourway Transport, Inc. Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-05142, (E.D. Pa., November 29, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wage, premium overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law.

Yourway Transport, Inc., is a privately held company that provides
a broad range of transportation services on pharmaceutical and
aeronautical goods in the pharmaceutical and biotech sectors. It
employs a staff of delivery drivers, including Plaintiff, to
deliver pharmaceutical and aeronautical goods to their clients.
Defendant allegedly misclassified its delivery drivers as
independent contractors to evade paying minimum wage and overtime
compensation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Irene Chan, Esq.
      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      BROWN, LLC
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Tel: (877) 561-0000
      Fax: (855) 582-5297
      Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
             Irene.chan@@jtblawgroup.com


ZIA TAQUERIA: Frechette Sues Over Illegal Tip Credit Deduction
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert John Frechette, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Zia Taqueria, LLC and Kevin
Grant, individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-03208 (D. S.C.,
November 28, 2018), seeks to recover damages with interest, costs
and attorney's fees as well as all such other relief resulting from
unauthorized deductions from wages and for other relief under the
South Carolina Payment of Wages Act, the North Carolina Wage and
Hour Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Zia does business as Zia Taqueria with restaurants in Charleston,
South Carolina and Asheville, North Carolina. Defendants illegally
took out a tip credit from workers thus rendering their pay below
the minimum wage rates, the complaint relates. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Casey M. Martens, Esq.
      Molly R. Hamilton Cawley, Esq.
      MHC LAW, LLC
      1250 Folly Road
      Charleston, SC 29412
      Tel: (843) 225-8651
      Email: casey@mhc-lawfirm.com
             molly@mhc-lawfirm.com


[*] California Issues Guidance on Class Action Settlements
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mallow and Rachel Straus, writing for Law.com, report that
with little fanfare, the Northern District of California recently
issued guidance on class action settlements (the "Guidance"). The
Guidance -- by far the most comprehensive in the country -- has the
potential to have a significant impact, not just on class actions
filed in the Northern District of California, but in class actions
filed throughout the country.

An Overview of the Guidance
The Guidance focuses on three key areas: (1) detailed and extensive
disclosures at the preliminary approval stage, (2) increased
scrutiny of attorneys' fees during the final approval phase, and
(3) unparalleled transparency of notice efforts and actual recovery
via mandatory post-distribution accounting and judiciary
oversight.

Preliminary Approval. The Guidance lists the following twelve
categories of information parties must provide to the court to
obtain preliminary approval for a class action settlement:

   -- Settlement fund and allocation plan to class members;
   -- Any differences between the settlement class and the
definition of the class as alleged in the complaint, as well as
differences between the original claims in the complaint and the
claims to be released in the settlement;
   -- The process used to select the settlement administrator and
anticipated administrative costs;
   -- Class notice and instructions for opt-outs or objections;
Attorneys' fees, including lodestar calculation, and incentive
awards;
   -- Cy pres recipients, how the cy pres recipients are related to
the subject matter of the lawsuit and the class members, and any
relationship the named plaintiffs or their counsel have with the
proposed cy pres

Final Approval. Unlike other portions of the Guidance, which are
more guidelines than requirements, the Guidance requires class
counsel to disclose "detailed lodestar information," in all fee
requests "even if the requested amount is based on a percentage of
the settlement fund." The Guidance also requires incentive awards
to be supported by evidence of the proposed awardees' involvement
in the case and other justifications for the awards. Motions for
final approval should also disclose data on submitted claims,
undeliverable class notices, opt-outs and objectors.

Post-Distribution Accounting. Within 21 days after the distribution
of the settlement funds and payment of attorneys' fees, the parties
should file a Post-Distribution Accounting, containing an
"easy-to-read chart," with the following information:

   -- Total settlement fund;
   -- Number of notices sent to class members out of the total
number of class members;
   -- Claims rate (number and percentage of claim forms
submitted);
   -- Opt-outs and objections;
   -- Average, median, largest, and smallest recovery per
claimant;
   -- Notice and payment methods;
   -- Number and value of checks not cashed;
   -- Amounts distributed to each cy pre recipient;
   -- Administrative costs;
   -- Attorneys fees and cost, including as a percentage of the
settlement fund, and the multiplier.

The Court may choose to hold a hearing after the materials are
submitted.

Impact on Class Actions in the Northern District of California
The Guidance is intended to ensure fairness, uniformity, and
transparency in class action settlements in the Northern District
of California. Whether the changes will ensure fairness is an open
question, but transparency and uniformity will certainly result
from the Guidance. An additional benefit will be access to
previously unavailable data about claims rates and distributions
that will facilitate analysis of whether, and to what extent, the
public meaningfully benefits from the added costs and burdens
associated with class actions.

The Guidance is not without issues. It certainly imposes more work
on the parties (especially class counsel) and the courts. The
Guidance may also make it more difficult for parties to settle
class actions. For example, the increased scrutiny on the
differences between the settlement class and the proposed or
certified class and differences between the original claims in the
complaint and the claims to be released in the settlement, may
cause defendants to be overly cautious about settling class actions
if they are concerned that the court may limit the scope of their
release. It is also unclear what happens to a settlement if the
court holds a post-distribution hearing and finds that the
distribution is inadequate. This will likely be more of an issue
for consumer class actions, rather than securities or employment
class actions, since most of the concerns relating to poor claims
rates or leftover settlement funds reverting to defendants, involve
consumer class actions.

Another possible consequence of the Guidance is that it may
perpetuate what has become a recent trend in the Northern District
of California—judges using class counsels' lodestar to
significantly reduce class counsels' fees when the judges believe
that the percentage of settlement method provides a windfall to
class counsel. This could lead to overbilling by class counsel or
the unnecessary prolonging of cases to increase a lodestar in an
attempt to circumvent judges applying a lodestar calculation to
reduce their fees.

The disclosure requirements in the Guidance may also have the
unintended consequence of making it easier for objectors. For
example, under the Guidance, plaintiffs should disclose cy pres
recipients and any relationship they or their counsel have with the
proposed cy pres recipients. Generally, although cy pres recipients
are disclosed in motions for preliminary approval, the only way for
objectors to know if there is a conflict is for them to connect the
dots through their own online research. Now the information will be
publicly available and easily accessible to them.

Impact on Class Action Filings in the Northern District of
California and Other California Courts
At least initially, due to the increased work and additional
disclosures, the Guidance may lead to a reduction in the number of
consumer class actions filed in the Northern District of
California. But some class counsel, especially in cases where there
will likely be high claims rates, i.e., settlement class members
are easily identifiable and direct communication is possible, may
prefer to file in the Northern District of California because there
will be no surprises about what is expected of them when pursuing a
class action settlement.

Because California's laws tend to have a pro-consumer bias, it
seems likely that class counsel that would have filed in the
Northern District of California prior to the Guidance, may file in
the other federal districts in California rather than looking to
other jurisdictions.

Impact on Class Action Settlements Throughout the United States
Courts around the country will likely be watching to see how the
Guidance impacts class action settlements in the Northern District
of California. If successful, some jurisdictions may consider
implementing similar guidelines, or at least look to the Guidance
when evaluating class action settlements. Although the Guidance is
a departure from current practice, the Guidance is consistent with
the soon to be enacted amendments to Rule 23 and provides a helpful
roadmap for practitioners and the courts to follow when trying to
settle a class action under the new Rule 23. This is true
regardless of where a case is located.

The Guidance could also have a significant impact on class action
procedure throughout the country if the Post-Distribution
Accounting information suggests that class actions are not
benefiting consumers. This could eventually be the catalyst for an
overhaul of the current class action process, especially consumer
class actions.

Michael Mallow is a partner in Sidley Austin's Los Angeles office
and is the co-leader of the firm's Consumer Class Action Defense
practice. Rachel Straus is an associate in the office and focuses
her practice on complex commercial litigation. They can be reached
at mmallow@sidley.com and rstraus@sidley.com, respectively. [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 ***