CAR_Public/181221.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, December 21, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 255

                            Headlines

ADOMANI INC: Kaskela Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
ALL SAINTS HEALTH: Motion for Conditional Certification Sustained
ALLURA USA: Guinn Sues in Ohio Over Defective Fiber Cement Siding
AMAZON: Former Drivers File Racial Discrimination Class Action
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Torres Sues Over Lost Retirement Benefits

AMERICAN SPOTTING: Conditional Cert. Bid Denied without Prejudice
BEIERSDORF INC: 9th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Franz Claim
BENIHANA INC: Delivery Staff Hit Tip Pool, Unpaid Wages
BIG LOTS: Settlement in Willis Suit Granted Final Approval
BLUEBIRD BIO: Lind Sues Over Share Price Drop

BOEING COMPANY: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action
CABOT OIL: FLSA Settlement Agreement OK'd in Conley Suit
CHO FAMILIY: Chin Wen Yen Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
CORAL HOUSE: Sierra Files Suit Under Disabilities Act
CRAFTMASTER PAINTING: Ct. Partly Grants Summary Judgment to Boutell

CTI BIOPHARMA: Distribution Plan for Net Settlement Fund Approved
DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: Arbitration Ruling in Varela Modified But Upheld
ELECTRIC BEACH: Bid to Certify Class Continued to Jan. 15
FDS BANK: R. Mercer Deposition Transcript Sealed in Clark Suit
FIAT CHRYSLER: Rogers Class Action Asserts RICO Violation

FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Defective Fuel Injection Pump
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Hazel Suit Remanded to Maryland State Court
GENERAL INFORMATION: Smith FCRA Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
GENWORTH LIFE: Must File Supplemental Declaration Before Dec. 21
GNC HOLDINGS: Dismissal of Martin Securities Fraud Suit Upheld

GOOGLE INC: Cy Pres Settlement Dispute Ongoing
GOTM ENTERPRISES: Merino Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Benefits
GREENSKY INC: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Class Action
GREENSKY INC: Jan. 28 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
INSIGHT GLOBAL: Barker Must Supplement Interrogatory Responses

ISAGENIX INTERNATIONAL: Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says
ISGM: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Sham Contracting
JAPAN INN: Shortchanges Workers' Wages, La Frankie Suit Says
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Ronquillo-Griffin Sues Over False Credit Report
JENKINS WAGNON: Cordova Suit Remanded to New Mexico State Court

JUNIOR'S CHEESECAKE: Violates ADA, Crosson Suit Says
KELLOGG CO: 2nd Cir. Vacates Dismissal of Mantikas False Ad Suit
KENOSHA COUNTY: Olrich Seeks to Certify Class
L3 FUNDING LLC: Luina Seeks Unpaid Commissions, Overtime Pay
LAND APPLIANCE: Lovelace Seeks to Recover Proper Wages Under FLSA

LEXISNEXUS RISK: Hudson Files Suit Under FCRA in Calif.
LG: Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Faulty Fridge Compressors
LIBERTY INSURANCE: District Court Dismisses Richelson FAC
LOWER MERION SD: Order Quashing Appeal on Injunction Reversed
MARRIOT INTERNATIONAL: Barron Sues over Starwood Data Breach

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Husebo Files Suit Over Data Breach
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sued by Haque Over Starwood Data Breach
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Walters Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action
MEDTRONIC INC: Class Rep's Bid for Plan of Allocation Approval OK'd

MEDTRONIC INC: Lead Counsel in Securities Fraud Suit Awarded $8.5MM
MEDTRONIC INC: Settlement in Securities Fraud Suit Approved
MELINTA: Naples Challenges Share Purchase Deal with Vatera
METROPOLITAN LIFE:  Shortchanges Plan Holders' Benefits, Says Suit
MICHAEL STORES: Dispute with Armstrong Submitted for Arbitration

MIDLAND CREDIT: District Court Junks Cooper FDCPA Suit
MIDLAND FUNDING: Jeffrey Tope Seeks to Certify Class
MIDLAND FUNDING: McCoy Seeks to Certify Class
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: RGL Aims for Class Action Settlement
NAVIENT CORP: Pierce Investigates Potential Class Action Claims

NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Daniel et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses
NEXTASSURE: Ryoo Dental Brings Suit Over Unwanted Fax Ads
NOBLE HOUSE: 5 Affirmative Defenses Dismissed in Holt Suit
NURSING CARE: Bid to Certify FLSA Class Denied without Prejudice
OIL & GAS COMMISSION: Court Upholds Dismissal of Wood Lawsuit

ON-SITE MANAGER: McGill Disputes Lease Contract Provisions
PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Faces Shareholder's Suit Over Sale to Illumina
PAPA JOHN'S: Greer Suit Seeks Damages Over No Hire Agreement
PAT'S SELECT: Delivery Drivers File Wage Class Action
PG&E CO: Freeman Files Class Suit for Personal Injury

PPDAI GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
PROGREXION TELESERVICES: Winter Seeks OT Pay for Call Center Staff
RAINBOW DISPOSAL: Hurtado et al. Seek to Certify Class
RMA COMPANIES: Barron Suit Asserts Illegal Termination
ROWAN COMPANIES: Monteverde & Associates Files Securities Suit

ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Averts Class Action Over Travel Insurance
SANOFI PASTEUR: Averts Junk Fax Class Action
SCANA CORP: Santee Cooper Wants to Weigh In on Settlement
SPACE & ROCKET CENTER: Lawsuit Can Proceed as Class Action
STERICYCLE INC: Ct. Temporarily Stays Janklow Securities Fraud Suit

SUTTELL & HAMMER: Faces Bjornsdotter FDCPA Suit in Oregon
TATA CONSULTANCY: Trial Ends in Discrimination Class Action
TECH DATA: Court Dismisses Amended Bhatt Securities Fraud Suit
TELADOC HEALTH: Reiner Sues Over Share Price Drop
TELIGENT INC: Claims in Generic Drugs Antitrust Suit Dismissed

TEMPLE TERRACE, FL: Lea Family Renews Bid for Class Certification
TERNIUM SA: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
TERNIUM SA: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
TESLA INC: Removes Inter-Local Pension Fund Suit to N.D. Ca.
TSAROUHIS LAW GROUP: Davis Files Consumer Credit Class Suit

U.S. TECH CONSTRUCTION: Buttermark Sues Over Unpaid Wages
UBER: Wollongong Cab Drivers May Opt to Join Class Action
UNIFIED CARING: Hunt Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Extends Briefing Schedule in Smith Suit
UNITED SERVICE: Partial Summary Ruling Granted to Couple Flipped

UNITED STATES: Carson Suit Seeks Back Pay Under Tucker Act
UNITED STATES: Ct. Narrows Claims in Padilla Immigrant Rights Suit
VICTORY ENTERTAINMENT: Logan Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
WAL-MART STORES: Bid for Class Certification under Submission
WATERSTONE MORTGAGE: Appeals 7th Cir. Arbitration Ruling

WAYNE COUNTY, MI: District Court Tosses Nichols Due Process Suit
[*] Nine Lawyers Named to O'Melveny's 2019 Partner Class

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 115 Suits v Sempra Energy Units Pending at Nov. 2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AAR Amicus Brief Accepted in South's Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Optical Had 56,880 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $131.2MM Liability Reserve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,543 Claims at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atkins Claims v. Dixie Group Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Distribution Still Faces A&F Suit at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Lift Stay Issue Remains Pending at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendant Changed to Electrolux in Clayton Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Had $260.6MM Loss Reserves at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still Faces Lawsuits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Insurance Had US$58.9MM A&E Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Faces Lawsuits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Crane Dismissed From Wheeler Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Insurance Discussions Ongoing at Sept.30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Still Defends Lawsuits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mullinax Claims vs. Air & Liquid Systems Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mullinax Claims vs. Blackmer Pump Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mullinax Claims vs. Viad Corp Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mullinax Claims vs. Yuba Heat Dismissed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Energy Still Analyzing EME Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Faces 86 Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Faces 86 Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Still Defends Various Lawsuits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Tech, Units Still Defends Suits at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Had $605.3MM Asbestos Liability at Sept. 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Unit Has 109 Pending PI Cases at Sept. 30


                            *********

ADOMANI INC: Kaskela Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against ADOMANI, Inc. (NASDAQ: ADOM) ("ADOMANI" or the
"Company") on behalf of investors.

ADOMANI completed its initial public offering ("IPO") of common
stock on or about June 15, 2017, selling more than 2.5 million
shares of stock to investors at a price of $5.00 per share.  The
investor class action complaint alleges that the offering documents
filed in connection with the IPO omitted material information about
certain of ADOMANI's executive officers and directors in violation
of relevant disclosure obligations, and which deprived investors of
information critical to their assessment of such
officers/directors' experience and qualifications, as well as of
ADOMANI's business and prospects.  By April 2018, shares of the
Company's common stock had declined to below $1.00 per share in
value.

ADOMANI investors who purchased the Company's common stock on or
around June 15, 2017 are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D.
Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (484) 258-1585 or (888) 715-1740, or via
email at skaskela@kaskelalaw.com, to discuss their important legal
rights and options.  Additional information about this action may
be found at http://kaskelalaw.com/case/adomani-inc/.

         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         KASKELA LAW LLC
         201 King of Prussia Road
         Suite 650
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (484) 258-1585
                    (888) 715-1740
         Website: www.kaskelalaw.com
         Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]


ALL SAINTS HEALTH: Motion for Conditional Certification Sustained
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled MONICA ROSEBOROUGH, Individually
And On Behalf Of All Similarly Situated Individuals, the Plaintiff,
v. ALL SAINTS HOME CARE, INC., ALL SAINTS HEALTH CARE, LLC and ALL
SAINTS HEALTH HOLDINGS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-02122-KHV-JPO (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Kathryn H. Vratil
entered an order on Dec. 14, 2018:

   1. sustaining the parties' stipulation and motion for
      conditional certification and judicial notice to putative
      collective members filed November 21, 2018;

   2. directing parties to amend proposed notice and to submit
      such notice to the Court for final approval not later than
      December 21, 2018; and

   3. directing Defendants to produce a list of putative
      collective action members not later than December 28, 2018.
      [CC]

ALLURA USA: Guinn Sues in Ohio Over Defective Fiber Cement Siding
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHARA GUINN, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals v. ALLURA USA LLC, PLYCEM USA LLC D/B/A ALLURA, PLYCEM
USA, INC., ELEMENTIA USA, INC., ELEMENTIA, S.A. DE C.V., Case No.
1:18-cv-00858-SJD (S.D. Ohio, December 4, 2018), is a consumer
class action on behalf of all persons and entities, who own homes,
residences or other structures physically located in Ohio, on which
the Defendants' fiber cement exterior siding is or was installed.

The Siding on the Plaintiff's and Class Members' homes suffers from
an inherent defect resulting in the Siding cracking, chipping,
flaking, peeling or splitting, the Plaintiff alleges.  She contends
that homes eventually suffer water and moisture intrusion as a
result.  She adds that she and Class Members have incurred and will
incur thousands of dollars in damages to replace the Siding.

Allura USA LLC is a subsidiary of Plycem USA LLC, and Plycem USA,
Inc.  Allura USA LLC has a principal place of business in Texas.
Plycem USA LLC, doing business as Allura, is a Delaware
corporation, with a principal place of business in Texas.

Plycem USA Inc. is a Georgia corporation with a principal place of
business in Texas.  Elementia USA, Inc., is a Delaware corporation
with a principal place of business in Texas.  Elementia, S.A. de
C.V. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
another country.

The Defendants were actual and/or de facto joint ventures in the
design, development, manufacture, marketing, and sales of the fiber
cement siding at issue.  The Defendants were engaged in the design,
manufacturing, marketing, sale, supply and delivery of the fiber
cement siding in the state of Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William F. Cash III, Esq.
          LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY &
          PROCTOR, P.A.
          316 South Baylen Street Suite 600
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 435-7059
          E-mail: bcash@levinlaw.com


AMAZON: Former Drivers File Racial Discrimination Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Suryadjaja, writing for The Daily Free Press, reports that
six black and Latino former Amazon drivers filed a class action
lawsuit against Amazon on Nov. 29 at the Suffolk Superior Court to
protest Amazon's strict background checks, which they said
discriminate against people of color.

According to the Class Action Complaint, Dexter Andrews, Raymond
Dunn, Nuno Gomes, Titus Royal, Matthew Soler and Nicholas Young
were drivers for Amazon, and their jobs were terminated in 2016,
despite most of them having worked there for a few months with no
performance issues.

Oren Sellstrom, litigation director of The Lawyers' Committee for
Civil Rights and Economic Justice, one of the attorneys
representing the drivers, said in a press release that the drivers
were doing a successful job and that Amazon's decision to fire the
drivers was due to the fact that they had committed some minor
offences prior.

"Amazon's decision to fire them had nothing to do with their
ability to perform the job, but was based solely on an overly
strict background check policy," Mr. Sellstrom said in the release.
"That is not only poor business practice, it also violates federal
and state anti-discrimination laws."

An Amazon spokesperson wrote in an email to The Daily Free Press
that the company has a continuous practice of not commenting on
pending litigations, but that the company's background checks are
not discriminating against minorities.

". . . We have always required delivery service providers to
conduct comprehensive background checks for their employee
drivers," the spokesperson wrote. "The background check process is
focused on job related criminal and motor vehicle convictions and
does not consider race, gender, ethnicity, religion or other
protected characteristics."

Christina Cardona, 32, of Dorchester, said she thinks Amazon firing
its drivers for minor charges is wrong, and that the company should
support their drivers more.

"The purpose of people getting into trouble with the law [is] they
want people to learn and grow and become citizens and productive
and having jobs and they're doing well," Ms. Cardona said.

Steve Churchill, one of the drivers' counsels and an attorney at
Fair Work P.C., said he thinks Amazon's reason for a policy might
not be to intentionally discriminate against workers.

"Amazon will say that the business reason for this requirement, not
surprisingly, is to make sure that its customers are safe and that
people's properties aren't affected in some ways," Churchill said.

Mr. Churchill said discrimination rules may not seem to target
certain groups on the surface, but that the rules become unlawful
if they inadvertently discriminate against a certain group. He said
Amazon's strict background checks are inadvertently discriminating
against people of color.

"We know that that kind of requirement is going to
disproportionately screen out black and Latino applicants or
employees because the black and Latino population is more likely to
have criminal background history," he said.

Mr. Churchill said that unless Amazon can prove that the need for
strict background checks is necessary, the rules will be considered
discriminatory.

Younis Shuaib, 25, of East Boston, said he thinks workplace
discrimination does exist in Boston against people from other
countries.

"As a person who's international and came here, I would say I had
quite a hard time finding a job," Mr. Shuaib said. "I would say
there's some level of discrimination." [GN]


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Torres Sues Over Lost Retirement Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Olga Martinez Torres and Linda Davis, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. American Airlines,
Inc., The Employee Benefits Committee and John/Jane Does 1-5
Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00983-O (N.D. Tex., December 11, 2018)
is a class action against Defendant concerning the failure to pay
benefits under certain of its defined benefit retirement plans that
are actuarially equivalent to a single life annuity for the life of
the plan participant, as required by the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

By not offering actuarially equivalent pension benefits, American
is causing retirees to lose part of their vested retirement
benefits in violation of ERISA, says the complaint.

Under American's defined benefit pension plans, workers accrue
retirement benefits in the form of a single life annuity ("SLA"), a
payment stream that starts when they retire and ends when they die.
The amount of the SLA is based on their wages and years of service
with American, not current life expectancies or interest rates.  By
using a 5 percent interest rate and the UP 1984 mortality table,
Defendants do not provide true actuarially equivalent benefits and
caused Plaintiffs and Class Members to unknowingly forfeit and lose
part of their vested benefits due under the terms of the Plans.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs and other participants in the Plans who
receive joint and survivor annuities do not receive a true
equivalent benefit to the SLA. Improperly reduced pension benefits
violate ERISA's anti-forfeiture rule and cause Plaintiffs and other
participants and beneficiaries of the Plans injury every month and
will continue to affect them throughout their retirements.

Plaintiffs accordingly seek an order from the Court reforming the
Plans to conform to ERISA, payment of future benefits as required
under ERISA, payment of amounts improperly withheld, and such other
relief as the Court determines to be just and equitable.

Plaintiff Olga Martinez Torres is a resident of Homestead, Florida,
and a beneficiary in the Transport Workers Plan. Ms. Torres' late
husband worked for American for over 27 years until he passed away
in April, 2018. Ms. Torres, under the terms of the Transport
Workers' Plan, has been receiving a pre-retirement survivor annuity
since May 1, 2018.

Plaintiff Linda Davis is a resident of Claremore, Oklahoma, and a
beneficiary in the Transport Workers Plan. Ms. Davis's late husband
worked for American from 1990 until he passed away in May, 2016.
Ms. Davis, under the terms of the Transport Workers' Plan, has been
receiving a pre-retirement survivor's annuity since June 1, 2016.

American Airlines, Inc. is a network air carrier with its
headquarters in Fort Worth, Texas. American is a subsidiary of the
American Airlines Group, Inc. American is the sponsor the Plans.
The Plans name American as the Plan administrator of the Plans.

Employee Benefits Committee is an unincorporated association with a
principal place of business in Fort Worth, Texas. According to the
Plan financial statements, the "Committee was formed for the
purpose of having responsibility for all fiduciary duties related
to the administration and investment of the Plans".

John/Jane Does 1 through 5, inclusive, are the individual members
of the Committee, or any other committee(s) responsible for
administering the Plans. Their names and identities are not
currently known.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Joe Kendall, Esq.
     Jamie J. Mckey, Esq.
     KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
     3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
     Dallas, TX 75219
     Phone: (214) 744-3000
     Facsimile: (214)744-3015
     Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
            jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com


          - and -

     Robert A. Izard, Esq.
     Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
     Douglas P. Needham, Esq.
     Seth R. Klein, Esq.
     IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP     
     29 South Main Street, Suite 305
     West Hartford, CT 06107
     Phone: (860) 493-6292
     Fax: (860) 493-6290
     Email: rizard@ikrlaw.com
            mkindall@ikrlaw.com
            dneedham@ikrlaw.com

          - and -

     Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
     Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
     BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
     1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
     Washington, DC 20007
     Phone: (202) 463-2101
     Fax: (202) 463-2103
     Email: gporter@baileyglasser.com
            mboyko@baileyglasser.com


AMERICAN SPOTTING: Conditional Cert. Bid Denied without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gerald Perkins, et al.,
the Plaintiffs, vs. American Spotting Company of Ohio, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No.: 2:18-cv-00054-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge Michael H. Watson entered an order on Dec. 14, 2018:

   1. denying Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification
      without prejudice; and

   2. directing Plaintiffs to within 14 days, either; (1) file
      written consents from the named plaintiffs, which will
      commence this action as a collective action, allowing
      Plaintiffs to properly move for conditional certification,
      or (2) move for leave to amend the Complaint to assert only
      individual actions. Failure to take either response will
      result in a Dismissal of the lawsuit for failure to
      prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41
      without further notice by the Court.

The Court said, "ASCO Ohio is correct that no Plaintiff has filed a
written consent. See Chavez v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., No.
C-09-04812 SC, 2011 WL 809453, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2011)
(denying motion for conditional certification where the named
plaintiff did not file written consents). Moreover, Plaintiffs have
not responded to ASCO Ohio's brief. Since ASCO Ohio pointed out
this defect. Plaintiffs have neither moved to amend the Complaint
yet again to convert it from a putative collective action to one
asserting only individual claims by the named Plaintiffs nor have
they filed the written consents required to formally commence this
action as a collective action."[CC]

BEIERSDORF INC: 9th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Franz Claim
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ASHLEY FRANZ, On behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BEIERSDORF,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee, No. 17-55646 (9th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit reversed the
district court's dismissal of Plaintiff-Appellant Ashley Franz's
claim on the grounds that she failed to adequately plead that the
amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum and that
she lacks standing. The case is remanded for further proceedings.

The Ninth Circuit holds that Plaintiff has adequately pled that the
amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000--the jurisdictional
minimum under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). In her Second
Amended Complaint, which proposed the most restrictive class
definition, Plaintiff alleged that the proposed class includes all
California consumers who purchased NIVEA Skin Firming Hydration
Body Lotion with CoQ10 Plus formulated with Co-Enzyme Q10 and
Hydra-IQ "within the applicable statute of limitations period."
Nivea CoQ10 retails for approximately $10. During the applicable
class period, Defendant-Appellee Beiersdorf, Inc. allegedly sold
Nivea CoQ10 "online and in virtually every major food, drug, and
mass retail outlet." It is easily conceivable that Defendant sold
the product 500,000 times in a state the size of California over a
multi-year period. Defendant does not dispute that the amount in
controversy exceeds $5,000,000. The Court cannot say "to a legal
certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional
amount." The district court erred by sua sponte dismissing
Plaintiff's claim on the ground that Plaintiff did not adequately
allege that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional
minimum.

Plaintiff also has standing under California's Unfair Competition
Law ("UCL"). Plaintiff alleged that Defendant sold a "drug"--Nivea
CoQ10--without FDA approval. Plaintiff contended that doing so
violates the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"), and
California's Sherman Law. Plaintiff alleged that, as a result, she
spent money on a product that should not have been on the market.
Those allegations are sufficient to establish standing under the
UCL. Plaintiff need not plead reliance because neither the alleged
FDCA violation nor the alleged Sherman Law violation requires
allegations of fraud or deception. In response, Defendant relies on
Demeter v. Taxi Computer Services and Medina v. Safe-Guard Products
to contend that Plaintiff lacks standing under the UCL. Because
those cases concerned voidable service contracts, whereas Medrazo
and the present case concern goods that a defendant was allegedly
not legally allowed to sell in the form being offered, the Court
believes Medrazo to be more directly on point. The Court,
therefore, holds, consistent with Medrazo, that Plaintiff has
sufficiently demonstrated standing under the UCL.

Plaintiff likewise has standing under Article III of the United
States Constitution. Plaintiff alleged injury in fact--she spent
money on Nivea CoQ10. Defendant's allegedly illegal conduct caused
that injury, insofar as Defendant allegedly sold a product in
commerce that it should not have sold. And the injury is
redressable--in restitution--by a favorable court decision. The
district court erred by dismissing Plaintiff's claim on the ground
that she lacked standing.

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's Dec. 11, 2018 Memorandum is available
at https://bit.ly/2rI4CyZ from Leagle.com.


BENIHANA INC: Delivery Staff Hit Tip Pool, Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
En Ai Lin, Ren Gui Liu and Gongyi Wang, on behalf of themselves,
and the Class, v. Benihana Inc., Benihana National Corp., Benihana
New York Corp., Haru Holding Corp., Haru Wall Street Corp., Haru
Amsterdam Avenue Corp., Haru Broadway Corp., Haru Food Corp., Haru
Gramercy Park Corp. (f/k/a Haru Soho Corp.), Haru Third Avenue
Corp., Haru Too, Inc., Haru Chelsea Corp. and Haru Hells Kitchen
Corp., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-11226, (S.D. N.Y., December 3,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages (including unpaid
minimum wages resulting from an invalid tip credit), unpaid
overtime premiums, unpaid compensation caused by time shaving,
unlawfully-retained gratuities, liquidated damages, statutory
penalties and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New York Labor
Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Benihana Group operates restaurants under several brands,
including Benihana Teppanyaki, Haru Sushi and RA Sushi Bar. The
Haru Group operates food and beverage establishments under the
trade name "Haru" throughout the New York City area, including
locations at Amsterdam Avenue, Hell's Kitchen, Third Avenue, Times
Square, Wall Street, Park Avenue South and Chelsea. Haru is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Benihana. Plaintiffs worked as delivery
personnel for these different locations. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BIG LOTS: Settlement in Willis Suit Granted Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 12, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended November 3, 2018, that the Court has issued
an Order granting final approval of the settlement in the case
entitled, Willis, et al. v. Big Lots, Inc., et al.

On July 9, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuit
captioned Willis, et al. v. Big Lots, Inc., et al., 2:12-cv-00604
(S.D. Ohio) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio on behalf of persons who acquired our common
shares between February 2, 2012 and April 23, 2012.

Effective May 16, 2018, the parties executed a Stipulation of
Settlement. On November 9, 2018, the Court issued an Order granting
final approval of the Settlement.

In connection with the settlement of the Willis class action and
the Consolidated Derivative Action, during the first quarter of
2018, the company recorded a net charge of $3.5 million related to
the expected cost of the settlements for the funds in excess of our
insurance coverage. During the second quarter of 2018, the
settlement associated with the Willis class action was paid into
escrow pending the final approval by the Court.

Big Lots, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a community
retailer in the United States.  Big Lots, Inc. was founded in 1967
and is headquartered in Columbus, Ohio.


BLUEBIRD BIO: Lind Sues Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------
Harvey Lind, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Bluebird Bio, Inc., JEFFERY WALSH and NICK
LESCHLY, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-12556-MLW (D. Mass., December
12, 2018) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired bluebird
securities between December 11, 2017, and November 29, 2018, both
dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company committed to
developing potentially transformative gene therapies for severe
genetic diseases and cancer. The Company is primarily focused on
the treatment of sickle cell disease ("SCD"). SCD is a serious,
progressively debilitating and life-threatening genetic disease
that results from production of abnormal sickle hemoglobin ("HbS"),
which leads to sickled red blood cells ("RBCs") and hemolysis. As a
result of this abnormal hemoglobin, many affected individuals live
with severe anemia and vaso-occlusive events which include severe,
recurrent pain crises that lead to organ damage and shortened life
span.

According to the complaint, 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) LentiGlobin when used to treat
severe SCD did not produce as much anti-sickling hemoglobin as the
Company had previously reported; (ii) accordingly, the Company's
LentiGlobin product was not as effective as previously reported;
and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On December 3, 2018, Seeking Alpha published an article noting that
these "results were lower than initial data reported a year ago
indicating a lower rate of production of anti-sickling hemoglobin."
Following bluebird's announcement of the clinical studies' results,
the Company's stock price fell $6.39 per share, or 5.2%, to close
at $116.50 per share on December 3, 2018. As a result of
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff
and other Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages, says the complaint.

Plaintiff acquired bluebird securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation
of the alleged corrective disclosures.

Bluebird is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located at 60 Binney Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
bluebird's common stock trades in an efficient market on the Nasdaq
Global Select Market ("NASDAQ") under the ticker symbol "BLUE".

Nick Leschly serves as Chief Executive Officer of bluebird.

Jeffery Walsh serves as the Chief Financial Officer of
bluebird.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Glen DeValerio, Esq.
     ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP
     265 Franklin Street, Suite 1702
     Boston, MA 02110
     Phone: (617) 936-2796
     Email: glen@andrewsdevalerio.com

          - and -

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

          - and -

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

          - and -

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


BOEING COMPANY: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court and further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

The Boeing Company (NYSE: BA)
Class Period: Feb. 8, 2017 - Nov. 13, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Jan. 28, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/the-boeing-company-loss-form?wire=3

The lawsuit alleges that, during the class period, The Boeing
Company made materially 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 Nov. 12, 2018, 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 FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] officials," the
article reported that Boeing "withheld information about potential
hazards associated with a new flight-control feature suspected of
playing a role in last month's fatal Lion Air jet crash." Following
the publication of the Wall Street Journal article, Boeing's stock
price plummeted from a close of $357.03 on Nov. 12, 2018, to a
recent low of $312.32 on Nov. 23, 2018.

To learn more about the The Boeing Company class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         30 Broad Street - 24th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]


CABOT OIL: FLSA Settlement Agreement OK'd in Conley Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Cathy Bissoon entered an order granting Plaintiff
Jackie Conley's motion for approval of the Parties' FLSA Settlement
Agreement and Preliminary Approval of the Rule 23 Settlement
Agreement in the case captioned JACKIE D. CONLEY, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CABOT OIL
AND GAS CORPORATION, Defendant, Docket No. 2:17-cv-01391-CB (W.D.
Pa.).

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
proposed settlement of the Pennsylvania state law claims embodied
in the Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of the
Settlement Class, in light of the factual, legal, practical, and
procedural considerations raised by this case. Solely for the
purpose of the settlement defined in the Settlement Agreement, and
pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court certifies the 55 person Rule 23 class, as identified on
Exhibit 2 of the Settlement Agreement.

The Court orders that the Pennsylvania Class is preliminarily
certified for settlement purposes only. If the Settlement does not
become final for any reason, the fact that the Parties were willing
to stipulate to class action certification for settlement purposes
will have no bearing on, and will not be admissible in connection
with, the issue of whether a class action is properly certified in
a non-settlement context. The Court's findings are for purposes of
conditionally certifying the Pennsylvania Class and will not have
any claim, issue, or evidentiary preclusion or estoppel effect in
any other action against Cabot or in this litigation if the
Settlement is not finally approved.

The Court, therefore, preliminarily appoints Plaintiff Jackie
Conley as the representative of the Pennsylvania Class and finds
that he meets the requirements of Rule 23(a)(4).

A copy of the Court's Dec. 11, 2018 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/2PK0fNp from Leagle.com.

JACKIE D. CONLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua P. Geist ,
Goodrich & Geist, P.C., Michael A. Josephson , Josephson Dunlap Law
Firm & Andrew W. Dunlap -- adunlap@mybackwages.com  --  Josephson
Dunlap Law Firm, pro hac vice.

CABOT OIL AND GAS CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by Christian
Antkowiak -- christian.antkowiak@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll and
Rooney, Mark Blondman -- blondman@blankrome.com  --  Blank Rome
LLP, pro hac vice, Amy L. Barrette  -- amy.barrette@bipc.com --
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC & Curtis M. Schaffner --
curtis.schaffner@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC.


CHO FAMILIY: Chin Wen Yen Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chin Wen Yen, Chen Yong Guan, Lin Wan Jin, Duan Gao Zheng, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Cho Family Dynastia, Inc. d/b/a Flor De Mayo, Flor De Mar, Inc.,
d/b/a Flor De Mayo, Marvin Chu, Dennis Chu and Nelson Cho,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-11563-LGS (S.D. N.Y., December 11,
2018) alleges that, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law, they are entitled to recover from
Defendants: unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation,
unpaid "spread of hours" premium for each day their works shift
exceeded 10 hours, liquidated and statutory damages pursuant to the
New York Labor Law and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention
Act, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
and attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendants until on or about September 16,
2018. Plaintiff worked over 40 hours per week. Throughout the
entirety of their employment, Plaintiffs worked between 5 and 7
days per week, and the work schedule consisted of 10 or more hours
per day. Plaintiffs were not required to punch a time dock or other
time-recording devices at the beginning and end of the daily work
shifts. At all relevant times, from beginning of the employment and
continuing through to or about September 16, 2018, Plaintiffs were
not paid proper minimum wages or overtime compensation, notes the
complaint.

Defendants knowingly and willfully operate their businesses under a
policy of not paying either the FLSA minimum wage or the New York
State minimum wage to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
employees, the complaint asserts.

All Plaintiffs are residents of New York County, New York and are
former or current employees of the Defendants.

Cho Family Dynastia, Inc. d/b/a Flor De Mayo is a domestic business
corporation organized under the laws of the State of the New York,
with a principal place of business at 2651 Broadway New York, New
York 10025.

The individual Defendants are joint owners, shareholders, officers,
directors, supervisors, managing agents, and proprietors of each of
the Corporate Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     I. Frederick Shotkin, Esq.
     Leonard X. Gillespie, Esq.
     SHOTKIN & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFIC P.C.
     45 West 34th Street, Suite 603
     New York, NY 10001
     Phone: (212) 268-8668
     Fax: (212) 268-8686
     Email: slwlawny@gmail.com


CORAL HOUSE: Sierra Files Suit Under Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coral House LLC. The
case is styled as Luis Sierra, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Coral House LLC doing
business as: Coral House Hotel, Defendant, Case No.
0:18-cv-63024-BB (S.D. Fla., December 11, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Coral House LLC doing business as: Coral House Hotel is a 2 star
Hotel and Wedding venue in Baldwin, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CRAFTMASTER PAINTING: Ct. Partly Grants Summary Judgment to Boutell
-------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Barbara B. Crabb granted in part and denied in part
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in the case captioned
ANTHONY BOUTELL, BRIAN STOUT, SHANE MORN and ROGER ANDERSON, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. CRAFTMASTER PAINTING, LLC, Defendant, No. 17-cv-317-bbc (W.D.
Wis.).

Plaintiffs Anthony Boutell, Brian Stout, Shane Morn and Roger
Anderson are former employees of defendant Craftmaster Painting,
LLC, a company that performs painting and related work both within
and outside Wisconsin. Plaintiffs contend that several of
defendant's wage practices violated the Fair Labor Standards Act,
29 U.S.C. section 201-219, and Wisconsin's wage law, Wis. Stat.
section 109.01-109.13. Specifically, plaintiffs contend that
defendant erroneously permitted employees to bank overtime hours,
incorrectly calculated weekly overtime based on the lowest rate
earned during a week rather than the average weekly regular rate,
failed to treat their travel time to and from jobsites as hours
worked for which they were owed compensation, failed to compensate
employees for work performed at the shop, failed to use the average
blended rate to compute overtime time and improperly excluded
401(k) contributions (both those compelled from their employees and
matching employer 401(k) contributions) when determining the
prevailing wage and overtime pay rates. This case is proceeding as
a collective action under the FLSA and a class action under Rule 23
with respect to plaintiffs' state law claims.

Defendant generally pays employees weekly. During 2015-2017,
defendant permitted employees who worked more than 40 hours in a
week to "bank" their overtime hours rather than be paid an overtime
premium for the week in which they worked the overtime hours. An
employee with banked overtime hours could later "cash in" the
banked hours in a week in which the employee worked fewer than 40
hours. Under this practice, employees received regular pay rates
for banked hours instead of overtime premium rates.

Defendant concedes that it now understands that its "banking
practice" violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 207(a), and
Wisconsin law, Wis. Stat. section 109.03(1). Accordingly,
plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment with respect to
liability on this claim. Defendant no longer permits employees to
bank overtime hours and has repaid employees for all banked hours.
However, defendant repaid some of the banked hours at straight time
rates instead of overtime rates. Therefore, defendant agrees that
it needs to calculate the overtime premium due for those hours. The
amount defendant owes for banked overtime hours remains to be
determined at trial.

Defendant also concedes that it calculated overtime pay improperly
by paying overtime based on the lowest rate worked, rather than the
"regular rate," as required by FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 207(a), and
Wisconsin law, Wis. Admin. Code DWD § 274.03 and § 290.05.
Accordingly, plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment as to
liability on this claim. Remaining for trial is a determination of
the additional amount defendant owes plaintiffs for overtime paid
at the incorrect rate.

Plaintiffs, however, have not shown that defendant had an
established policy to count all paid travel time as hours worked.
Plaintiffs point to a few examples of situations in which an
employee was paid for travel time and the travel time was counted
as time worked for determining overtime eligibility. But
plaintiffs' examples are insufficient to prove that defendant had
an "established policy." For its part, defendant denies that it
considered all paid travel time to be work time. Plaintiffs may be
able to show at trial that defendants always treated paid travel
time as work time and thus, that defendants must count all paid
travel time in calculating how much overtime it owes to plaintiffs.
However, because there is a genuine factual dispute, this issue
cannot be resolved at summary judgment.

Although plaintiffs have shown that defendant failed to adequately
investigate the legality of its procedures, the Court concludes
that plaintiffs have not made a showing that defendant's wage and
overtime errors were for "dilatory or unjust reasons" sufficient to
justify additional penalties under Wis. Stat. section 109.11(2).
Plaintiffs may be able to make this showing at trial, but at this
point, plaintiffs have shown only that defendant's errors resulted
from a failure to investigate whether its policies complied with
the law. The current record suggests that defendant corrected the
policies as soon as the problems were brought to its attention.
Plaintiffs have not cited any Wisconsin cases suggesting that
defendant's actions in this case amount to "dilatory or unjust"
conduct. Therefore, the Court denies without prejudice plaintiffs'
request for judgment on this issue.

A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Dec. 11, 2018 is
available at https://bit.ly/2BlaOBp from Leagle.com.

Anthony Boutell, Brian Stout, Shane Morn & Roger Anderson,
Plaintiffs, represented by Yingtao Ho -- yh@previant.com -- The
Previant Law Firm, S.C.

Craftmaster Painting, LLC, Defendant, represented by Douglas E.
Witte  -- dwitte@boardmanclark.com -- Boardman & Clark LLP.


CTI BIOPHARMA: Distribution Plan for Net Settlement Fund Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert S. Lasnik granted Lead Plaintiff, DAFNA
LifeScience, LP and DAFNA LifeScience Select, LP's motion for an
order approving the Distribution Plan for the Net Settlement Fund
in the class action captioned IN RE CTI BIOPHARMA CORP. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 2:16-cv-00216-RSL (W.D. Wash.).

The administrative recommendations of the Court-approved Claims
Administrator, Garden City Group, LLC (GCG), to accept the Timely
Eligible Claims stated in Exhibit B-1 to the Donohue Declaration
and the Late But Otherwise Eligible Claims stated in Exhibit B-2 to
the Donohue Declaration, are adopted.

GCG is directed to distribute 100% of the Net Settlement Fund,
after deducting all payments previously allowed and the payments
approved by the Order, and after deducting the payment of any
estimated taxes, the costs of preparing appropriate tax returns,
and any escrow fees, as stated in paragraph 48(a) of the Donohue
Declaration. In accordance with the Court-approved Plan of
Allocation, GCG will calculate each Authorized Claimant's pro rata
share of the Net Settlement as stated in subparagraph 48(a)(1) of
the Donohue Declaration. GCG will then eliminate from the
distribution any Authorized Claimant whose total pro rata share of
the Net Settlement Fund is less than $10. These Claimants will not
receive any payment from the Net Settlement Fund and will be so
notified by GCG. After eliminating Claimants who would have
received less than $10.00, GCG will calculate the pro rata shares
of the Net Settlement Fund for Authorized Claimants who would have
received $10.00 or more (Distribution Amount).

All of GCG's fees and expenses incurred in connection with the
administration of the Settlement and estimated to be incurred in
connection with the Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund as
stated in the invoices, attached as Exhibit C to the Donohue
Declaration, are approved, and Lead Counsel is directed to pay the
outstanding balance of $103,880.21 to GCG from the Settlement
Fund.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 11, 2018 is available at
https://bit.ly/2BqBCjE from Leagle.com.

Marcello Zucca, Paul Sapan, Ernie Lemoi & Stefano D'Agostino,
Movants, represented by Dan Drachler , ZWERLING SCHACHTER &
ZWERLING.
James Lessard & Rebecca Lessard, Movants, represented by Juli E.
Farris, KELLER ROHRBACK.

IPConcept (Luxemburg) S.A., Movant, pro se.

Medical Opportunities Fund, Movant, represented by Stuart W. Emmons
-- SWE@FEDERMANLAW.COM -- FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD, pro hac vice,
William B. Federman, FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD, pro hac vice & Juli E.
Farris -- jfarris@kellerrorhback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK.

DAFNA Lifescience, LP & DAFNA LifeScience Select, LP, Movants,
represented by David R. Stickney -- davids@blbglaw.com --
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN, pro hac vice, Jonathan D.
Uslaner  -- jonathanu@blbglaw.com --  BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER &
GROSSMANN, pro hac vice & Roger M. Townsend --
rtownsend@bjtlegal.com -- BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC.

Camia Investment LLC, Movant, pro se.

Michael Li, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Stickney, BERNSTEIN
LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN, pro hac vice, Jonathan D. Uslaner,
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN, pro hac vice & Roger M.
Townsend, BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC.

CTI BioPharma Corp, James A Bianco & Louis A Bianco, Defendants,
represented by Leah Godesky -- lgodesky@omm.com -- O'MELVENY &
MYERS LLP, pro hac vice, Reuben Goetzl – rgoetzl@omm.com --
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, pro hac vice, Ross Bradley Galin --
rgalin@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, pro hac vice & Brendan
Thomas Mangan -- brendanmangan@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE.


DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: Arbitration Ruling in Varela Modified But Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUAN VARELA et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v.
DOLGEN CALIFORNIA, LLC, Defendant and Appellant, Case No. E069452
(Cal. App.), Judge Douglas P. Miller of the U.S. Court of Appeals
of California for the Fourth District, Division Two, modified but
otherwise affirmed the trial court's order granting in part and
denying in part the Dolgen's motion to compel arbitration.

Varela, Victoria Lee Dinger Main, and Steven Bailey, as individuals
and on behalf of others similarly situated, sued Dolgen, which
operated Dollar General stores.  The Plaintiffs brought a class
action alleging (1) violations of meal and rest break laws; (2)
waiting time penalties; (3) wage statement penalties; (4) unfair
business practices; and (5) violations under PAGA.

On May 20, 2013, Varela filed his original class action complaint
in Riverside County Superior Court.  Varela alleged (1) violations
of meal and rest break laws; (2) unfair business practices; and (3)
violations pursuant to PAGA.  He defined the class as all current
and former individuals who work/worked for Dolgen in the State of
California within four years of the filing date of the action, and
who a) Dolgen classified as non-exempt workers, b) Dolgen provided
'key carrier' responsibilities, and c) worked one or more afternoon
or evening shifts and were unable to be relieved of all
work-related duties during rest and/or meal breaks because s/he was
the only individual with "key carrier" responsibility.

On behalf of himself and the class, Varela alleged Dolgen failed to
provide meal and rest breaks.  On behalf of himself and the class,
Varela alleged Dolgen engaged in unfair business practices by
requiring Varela and class members to work through their meal and
rest breaks.  Varela also alleged Labor Code violations, under
PAGA.

On June 6, 2013, Main filed her original class action complaint in
Sacramento County Superior Court.  Main brings the action on behalf
of herself, and the Class Members against Dolgen for its failure to
relieve keyholders of duty for meal breaks; and were not permitted
to leave Dolgen's premises unless there was a second keyholder
on-duty to relieve the first keyholder on-duty; its failure to
issue accurate itemized wage statements to California non-exempt
employees; its failure to provide full wages due to California
non-exempt employees upon separation of employment; and for PAGA
related penalties stemming from the foregoing.

Main defined the class members as all current and former non-exempt
employees of Dolgen who worked in the State of California at any
time from June 6, 2009 through the conclusion of the action, and
who worked at least one shift as the only keyholder on-duty during
the first five hours of a shift.

Main's first cause of action was brought on behalf of herself and
the class and alleged a failure to provide meal breaks.  Main's
second cause of action was brought on behalf of herself and the
class and alleged a failure to pay compensation due at the time the
employees ceased their employment with Dolgen.  Her third cause of
action was brought on behalf of herself and the class and alleged a
failure to issue accurately itemized wage statements.  Her fourth
cause of action was brought on behalf of herself and the class and
alleged unfair business practices due to Dolgen not paying its
employees for missed breaks and waiting time penalties.  Main's
fifth cause of action was brought under PAGA.

On Aug. 4, 2014, Dolgen distributed arbitration agreements to its
employees who were given the options of consenting to or rejecting
the Agreement.  If an employee took no action, then after 30 days,
the employee was deemed to have consented to the Agreement.  Since
Aug. 4, 2014, Dolgen has presented newly hired employees with the
Agreement.  The Agreement included a class action waiver.

In July 2017, the Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint.
In August 2017, they moved for class certification.

In September 2017, Dolgen petitioned the trial court to compel
arbitration of (1) Bailey's claims; and (2) the claims of all
putative class members who consented to the Agreement.  Dolgen
asserted Bailey's claims should be arbitrated because Bailey
consented to the Agreement, which requires arbitration and
prohibits class actions.  Dolgen conceded the Agreement exempted
claims pending in court at the time of signing the Agreement, but
asserted that clause only applied to Varela and Main, who were the
named Plaintiffs in the pending cases when the Agreement was
distributed to employees in August 2014.

The Plaintiffs opposed Dolgen's petition to compel arbitration.  In
regard to Bailey, the Plaintiffs asserted Varela's case was pending
in the Court at the time that Bailey signed the Agreement.  After
Bailey was promoted to assistant store manager, he met the
definition of the class defined in Varela's complaint.  Therefore,
Bailey should not have to arbitrate his claims because they fell
within the pending claims exception of the Agreement.  In regard to
the putative class, the Plaintiffs argued tha no class has been
certified, thus Dolgen cannot seek to compel any absent class
member to arbitrate his/her claims because they are not parties and
have not been given notice as required by their constitutional
right to due process.

The trial court held a hearing on Dolgen's petition.  In regard to
Bailey, the trial court found he was not a putative class member
when he signed the Agreement because he was a sales associate --
not a keyholder -- at the time of signing.  As a result, Bailey did
not have a pending claim at the time of signing of the Agreement.
Therefore, the trial court ruled that the petition to compel
arbitration would be granted as to Bailey's claims.  The trial
court granted the petition in part and denied the petition in part.


Dolgen contends the trial court erred by partially denying the
petition.  In particular, it asserts the trial court erred by
finding putative class members had pending claims at the time they
signed the arbitration agreement.

Judge Miller concluded that the petition to compel arbitration was
premature as it pertained to the putative members of the
uncertified class.  His conclusion is limited to that issue.  He
expresses no opinion regarding whether the putative class members
had "claims pending" when they signed the Agreement.  The Judge
modified the partial denial of the petition to compel arbitration
to reflect the partial denial is without prejudice to the petition
being brought again at the proper time.  In all other respects, he
affirmed the order.  The parties are to bear their own costs on
appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 12, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/OQnZfH from Leagle.com.

McGuire Woods, John A. Van Hook -- jvanhook@mcguirewoods.com; and
Joel S. Allen -- jallen@mcguirewoods.com -- for Defendant and
Appellant.

Righetti Glugoski, Michael C. Righetti, John Glugoski; and Michael
Malk -- mm@malklawfirm.com -- for Plaintiffs and Respondents.


ELECTRIC BEACH: Bid to Certify Class Continued to Jan. 15
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Angelica Mitchell, the
Plaintiff, vs. Electric Beach Tanning Salon Ltd, et al., the
Defendant, Case No.: 1:18-cv-07475 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 11, 2018), the
Hon. Judge Harry D. Leinenweber entered an order continuing the
motion to certify class to Jan. 15, 2019.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on December 11,
2018, a motion hearing was held that day.  The Motion to certify
class is entered and continued to Jan. 15, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.[CC]

FDS BANK: R. Mercer Deposition Transcript Sealed in Clark Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith granted the Defendants' motion to
seal deposition transcript of Rhonda Mercer in the case captioned
DEBORAH CLARK, Plaintiff, v. FDS BANK and DEPARTMENT STORES
NATIONAL BANK, Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-692-Orl-41TBS (M.D.
Fla.).

The putative class action came before the Court without a hearing
on Defendants' Motion to Seal Deposition Transcript of Rhonda
Mercer. Plaintiff Deborah Clark did not oppose the motion.

The Defendants have deposed the Plaintiff's daughter, Rhonda
Mercer. Now, they wish to file the transcript of that deposition
under seal, in support of their motion to dismiss this case for
lack of prosecution. As grounds, Defendants represent that the
transcript contains information concerning Plaintiff's current
medical condition and related medical events which may be protected
by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
and other state and federal laws. This medical information is
relevant to Defendants' motion to dismiss in which they argue that
Plaintiff's poor health precludes her from appearing for her
deposition and from serving as class representative in this
action.

The law recognizes a person's privacy interest in their personal
medical information. Here, Plaintiff's private health information
is relevant to a potentially case dispositive motion. She is not a
public official, and there is no adequate alternative to sealing
the information in question. On this record, the Court finds good
cause, and that Plaintiff's interest in keeping her personal health
information private outweighs the public's right of access.
Accordingly, the motion to seal is granted. Defendants may file the
transcript of the deposition of Rhonda Mercer under seal. Because
Plaintiff's interest in the privacy of her health information will
not go away at the end of one year the transcript will remain under
seal until further order of this Court. When Defendants file the
deposition transcript under seal, they will simultaneously file a
redacted copy on the public docket.

A copy of the Court's Dec. 11, 2018 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/2LkTwsM from Leagle.com.

Deborah Clark, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda J. Allen , The Consumer
Protection Firm, PLLC, Amy L. Wells , Keogh Law, LTD, pro hac vice,
Keith J. Keogh , Keogh Law, LTD & William Peerce Howard , The
Consumer Protection Firm, PLLC.

FDS Bank & Department Stores National Bank, Defendants, represented
by Aahren Rodriguez DePalma , Macy's Inc. Law Department, pro hac
vice, Christopher W. Prusaski --  CPrusaski@shutts.com -- Shutts &
Bowen, LLP, Francis Augustine Zacherl, III , Shutts & Bowen, LLP &
Ryan C. Reinert -- RReinert@shutts.com -- Shutts & Bowen, LLP.

Ronda Mercer, Third Party Defendant, represented by Richard
Jehangir McIntyre, McIntyre Thanasides Bringgold Elliott Grimaldi &
Guito, PA.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Rogers Class Action Asserts RICO Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Rogers, et al. on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V.,
FCA US LLC, Sergio Marchionne, former CEO of FCA, FIAT and FIAT
Subsidiaries, deceased, and his successor, Michael Manley, VM
Motori S.p.A., VM North America, Inc., Robert Bosch GmbH, and
Robert Bosch, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-md-00001 (E.D. Mich.,
December 11, 2018) is an action for violations of the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

This nationwide action arises out of an international race to the
bottom. Fiat Chrysler, a rival of automaker Volkswagen struggling
to compete on the world stage, sought to grab a piece of the U.S.
"clean" diesel market with 2014-2016 EcoDiesel trucks marketed
under the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Ram 1500 model names. But like
Volkswagen, Fiat Chrysler fought dirty. That is, like Volkswagen
did with its "clean diesels," Fiat Chrysler concealed from
regulators and consumers alike that the EcoDiesel trucks were far
from "Eco."

As the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has since
discovered, Fiat Chrysler, by and through FCA, concealed emission
treatment software features in the Subject Vehicle engine's diesel
controls on applications for EPA Certificates of Conformity
("COCs") and California Air Resources Board ("CARB") Executive
Orders ("EOs"). This hidden software, designed and implemented by
Bosch GmbH and Bosch LLC, allowed the Subject Vehicles to "pass"
emission testing and obtain COCs and EOs so that Fiat Chrysler
could import and sell the Subject Vehicles in the U.S. and
California, respectively. Once on America's roads, however, the
emission controls are de-activated or severely restricted such that
the Subject Vehicles spew much higher amounts of polluting nitrogen
oxides ("NOx") than permitted by law.

On January 12, 2017, the EPA issued a Notice of Violation ("NOV")
against Fiat and FCA for failing "to disclose eight Auxiliary
Emission Control Devices (AECDs)" in the 2014-2016 FCA Ram 1500s
and Jeep Grand Cherokees. The same day, CARB publicly announced
that it, too, had notified Fiat and FCA of its violations after
detecting the AECDs in their 2014, 2015, and 2016 Jeep Grand
Cherokee and Ram 1500 EcoDiesel® vehicles. CARB also said Fiat and
FCA failed to disclose the devices, which can significantly
increase NOx emissions when activated.

The U.S. has since sued FCA, Fiat, VM Italy, and VM America for
violating the Clean Air Act ("CAA") and applicable regulations,
seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties As the U.S. has
found, "one or more of these undisclosed software features, alone
or in combination with one or more of the others, bypass, defeat
and/or render inoperative the Vehicles' emission control system,
causing the vehicles to emit substantially higher levels of NOx"
during certain normal real world driving conditions than during
federal emission tests.

Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all
other current and former owners or lessees of the Subject Vehicles.
Plaintiffs seek a buyback program for the Subject Vehicles,
monetary damages (including treble damages under RICO), pollution
mitigation, business reforms, and injunctive and other equitable
relief for Defendants' misconduct related to the design,
manufacture, marketing, sale, and lease of the Subject Vehicles, as
alleged in this Complaint. Plaintiffs are also entitled to a
significant award of punitive or exemplary damages, given that
Defendants deliberately deceived Plaintiffs, disregarded their
rights to make free and informed consumer choices, damaged them
economically, and used them as unwitting puppets in a scheme that
impaired the public health for the financial betterment of
Defendants, says the complaint.

Plaintiff, Andrew Rogers, a citizen of the State of Colorado,
residing in the City of Colorado Springs, bought a 2014 Jeep Grand
Cherokees EcoDiesel on or about November 21, 2014, at Bob Allen
Motor Mall, an authorized FCA dealer in Danville, Kentucky.

Plaintiff, Michael Barton Batman, a citizen of the State of Iowa,
residing in the City of Monticello, bought a 2015 Dodge Ram 1500
EcoDiesel on or about January 25, 2017, at Dan Deery Motor Co., an
authorized FCA dealer in Waterloo, Iowa.

Plaintiff, Andrew Steele, a citizen of the State of South Carolina,
residing in the City of Pawley's Island, bought a 2015 Dodge Ram
1500 EcoDiesel on or about April 27, 2015, at Addys Harbor Dodge,
an authorized FCA dealer in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

Plaintiff, Andrew Curtis & Mimi Elizabeth Reid, citizens of the
State of South Caroling, residing in the City of Simpsonville,
bought a 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee EcoDiesel on or about July 15,
2016, at Northwest Jeep, an authorized FCA dealer in Beaverton,
Oregon.

Plaintiff, Andy Twork, a citizen of the State of Michigan, residing
in the City of Holton, bought a 2016 Dodge Ram 1500 EcoDiesel on or
about May 1, 2016, at Lakeshore Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram, an
authorized FCA dealer in Montague, Michigan.

Plaintiff, Anne Anderson, a citizen of the State of Minnesota,
residing in the City of Hinckley, bought a 2015 Dodge Ram 1500
EcoDiesel on or about May 20, 2015, at Roseville Chrysler Jeep
Dodge Ram, an authorized FCA dealer in Roseville, Minnesota.

FCA US LLC is a Delaware limited liability company. Defendant Fiat
Chrysler Automobiles N.V. is FCA's corporate parent. Fiat's
predecessor, Fiat S.p.A., began its acquisition of FCA's
predecessor, Chrysler Group LLC, in 2009 and completed it in
January 2014, at which time Chrysler Group LLC became a
wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Fiat and was renamed FCA US
LLC. FCA's principal place of business and headquarters is located
at 1000 Chrysler Drive, Auburn Hills, Michigan 48326.

Sergio Marchionne was the CEO and Chairman of FCA, the CEO of Fiat,
and the Chairman and/or CEO of several other Fiat subsidiaries,
including FCA Italy S.p.A., the Italian subsidiary of Fiat
headquartered in Turin, Italy at the time and, Michael Manley as
his successor and current CEO. Since 2004, Mr. Marchionne was the
CEO of Fiat S.p.A., the predecessor of Fiat, and thus, oversaw
Fiat's acquisition of both VM Motori and Chrysler Group LLC, the
transformation to the current corporate structure, and the creation
of FCA.

VM Motori S.p.A., an Italian corporation headquartered in Cento,
Italy, which designs and manufactures diesel engines for
automobiles, including the Subject Vehicles. Fiat partially
acquired VM Italy in early 2011 by purchasing a 50% stake, and took
full ownership by acquiring the remaining 50% from General Motors
in October 2013.

VM North America, Inc. is or was a Delaware corporation and wholly
owned subsidiary of Fiat. VM America existed, at all relevant
times, to support VM Italy customers and activities in North
America. VM America's principal place of business is located at
1000 Chrysler Drive, Auburn Hills, Michigan 48326. Both VM Italy
and VM America conduct business at that address and report to
management at both VM Italy and VM America, including while working
on the Subject Vehicles.

Robert Bosch GmbH, a German multinational engineering and
electronics company headquartered in Gerlingen, Germany, is the
parent company of Defendant Robert Bosch LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company with its principal place of business located at
38000 Hills Tech Drive, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48331.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Kenneth A. Stern, Esq.
     STERN LAW, PLLC
     41850 West 11 Mile Road, Suite 121
     Novi, MI 48375
     Phone: (248) 347-7300
     Fax: (248) 305-3250
     Email: ken@sternlawonline.com


FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Defective Fuel Injection Pump
---------------------------------------------------
Abner Nunez, Robert D. Peters, James Childs, Paul A. Ponteaux Sr.,
Philip A. Adams, Ricky J. Tremblay, Michael Corbett, James Gregg
Simmons, Jr., Gina Carter, Eric Mobley, Gregory R. Nix, David
Lyndon Johns, Kenneth Blair, Robert W. Kirby, Mark A. Cagle,
Gustavo Nicolas Gonzalez, and Jace Reyes, each plaintiff is a
citizen of the State of Florida and each plaintiff individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ford
Motor Company, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-25211-UU (S.D. Fla., December 12, 2018) seeks to be
reimbursed for the hundreds of millions of dollars Ford
fraudulently obtained from them, and to be compensated for their
actual losses.

According to the complaint, Ford Motor Company has sold -- and
continues to sell -- millions of diesel trucks equipped with
high-pressure fuel injection pumps that are proverbial ticking time
bombs, wholly unbeknownst to an unassuming American public who
ponies-up big bucks for these vehicles' fictitious "durability,"
"longevity," and "topnotch fuel economy." Ford promised consumers
the continued reliability of their diesel engines with increased
fuel efficiency and power at greater fuel efficiency. However, this
came with a hidden and catastrophic cost that was secretly passed
on to consumers. The culprit is the Bosch-supplied CP4 high
pressure fuel injection pump, which unbeknownst to consumers is a
ticking time bomb when used in American vehicles. As Ford knew
before and during the Class Period (2011–present), Bosch's CP4
pump was never compatible with American fuel standards. The CP4
pump is not built to withstand the specifications for U.S. diesel
fuel in terms of lubrication or water content, and it struggles to
lift a volume of fuel sufficient to lubricate itself. As a result,
the pump is forced to run dry and destroy itself as air bubbles
allow metal to rub against metal.

Plaintiffs and all members of the proposed Class paid a premium for
their diesel vehicles, and were harmed by being sold vehicles with
a defective fuel injection pump that is substandard for American
fuel, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Abner Nunez, Robert D. Peters, James Childs, Paul A.
Ponteaux Sr., Philip A. Adams, Ricky J. Tremblay, Michael Corbett,
James Gregg Simmons, Jr., Gina Carter, Eric Mobley, Gregory R. Nix,
David Lyndon Johns, Kenneth Blair, Robert W. Kirby, Mark A. Cagle,
Gustavo Nicolas Gonzalez, and Jace Reyes are citizens of the State
of Florida. Each plaintiff expected that Ford via its authorized
dealers or through its advertising would disclose material facts
about the durability and longevity of its vehicles and the
existence of any defect that will result in expensive and
non-ordinary repairs.

Ford Motor Company is a publicly traded corporation organized under
the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of
business at One American Road, Dearborn, Michigan 48126. Defendant
Ford designs, manufactures, distributes, and sells Ford automobiles
in this District and multiple other locations in the United States
and worldwide. Ford and/or its agents designed, manufactured, and
installed the engine systems in the Class Vehicles. Ford developed
and disseminated the materially misrepresentative owner's manuals
and warranty booklets, advertisements, and other intentionally
unreasonable and deceptive promotional materials relating to the
Class Vehicles. Ford also designed advertising material that it
sent to Ford Dealerships for the purpose of having dealers
distribute these to consumers, and Ford authorized dealers to
communicate with consumers about the performance of the
vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Andrew Parker Felix, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     20 North Orange Ave., Ste. 1600
     P.O. Box 4979
     Orlando, FL 32801
     Phone: (407) 244-3204
     Facsimile: (407) 245-3334
     Email: Andrew@forthepeople.com
     Secondary: Kdimeglio@forthepeople.com

          - and -

     Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
     HILLIARD, MARTINEZ, GONZALES LLP
     719 S. Shoreline Blvd.
     Corpus Christi, TX 78401
     Phone: (361) 882-1612
     Facsimile: (361) 882-3015
     Email: bobh@hmglawfirm.com

          - and -

     Steve W. Berman, Esq.
     Sean R. Matt, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Phone: (206) 623-7292
     Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
     Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
            sean@hbsslaw.com


FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Hazel Suit Remanded to Maryland State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge George J. Hazel granted the Plaintiff's motion to
remand the case captioned CHATEL GRAYSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORP., Defendants, Case No. GJH-18-1375 (D. Md.).
The Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied as moot.

The action is brought by Plaintiff Chatel Grayson on her own behalf
and as a putative class action against Defendant Freedom Mortgage
Corporation alleging various violations of Maryland law. Plaintiff
filed the action in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County,
Maryland, seeking individual damages, class damages, and attorney's
fees. FMC timely filed a Notice of Removal and a Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand, contending that the Court lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction over her claims, and that removal was
therefore improper.

A defendant may remove any civil action from state court to a
federal district court if the district court has original
jurisdiction over the action. The burden is on the defendant to
prove that the district court may exercise jurisdiction.

Defendant contended that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. section 1332(a). Section 1332(a) gives a federal court
jurisdiction over an action where there is complete diversity of
citizenship of the parties and an amount in controversy in excess
of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. The parties do not
contest that Plaintiff Grayson is a citizen of the State of
Maryland, and that FMC is a citizen of the State of New Jersey.
Therefore, the sole question is whether the amount in controversy
is in excess of $75,000.

In a class action, the aggregated damages of a class of plaintiffs
cannot be used to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement; at
least one named plaintiff's damages must individually surpass
$75,000. "Where a plaintiff claims a specific amount in damages
that is less than $75,000, removal is proper only if the defendant
can prove to a 'legal certainty' that the plaintiff would actually
recover more than that if she prevailed." However, where there is
not a specific amount claimed, the defendant must prove that the
jurisdictional burden is met by a preponderance of the evidence.  

Where a party seeks recovery of attorney's fees authorized by
statute, the fees are included in the amount in controversy. But
just as a class' damages cannot be aggregated to meet the
amount-in-controversy requirement, a class' attorney's fees cannot
be aggregated to meet the requirement unless the statute
specifically awards fees to the named plaintiffs. Therefore, the
class' attorney's fees cannot be aggregated to meet the amount in
controversy requirement.

Here, the parties do not dispute that Plaintiff's alleged damages
amount to no more than $39,680. Plaintiff also sought attorney's
fees for each of her eight claims. Defendant argued that an award
of attorney's fees will likely exceed the $35,320 necessary to
bridge the gap between the alleged damages and the jurisdictional
limit, due to the number of counts involved and the complexity of
the involved litigation. However, as proof, Defendant offered only
an unsupported assertion that this case will require more than
80-120 hours of work, and citations to other cases in which greater
than $35,320 in attorney's fees have been awarded.

Even applying the lesser of the two possible standards of proof,
Defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
Plaintiff's attorney will accumulate greater than $35,320 in fees
as to her specifically, and not merely to the class. The legal fees
on the class claims must therefore be divided pro rata to determine
the portion attributable to Plaintiff, and then added to the fees
Plaintiff's attorney will incur as to Count VII, which is an
individual claim for violation of the Maryland Consumer Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.
Because Defendant has offered no evidence as to the size of the
putative class, the Court would have to speculate as to the pro
rata determination of the class claims. Absent any evidentiary
showing or affidavit that Plaintiff's counsel is unable to
prosecute Count VII for less than $35,320 in fees, the Court finds
that Defendant's proffer of the amount of fees awarded in other
cases involving different counsel, different statutes, and/or
different postures is insufficient to meet the preponderance of the
evidence standard.

A copy of the Court's Dec. 11, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is available
at https://bit.ly/2QY1HAB from Leagle.com.

Chatel Grayson, On her behalf and on behalf of four classes of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip R.
Robinson , Consumer Law Center LLC.

Freedom Mortgage Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jessica
Hepburn Sadler -- SADLERJH BALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr LLP,
John Darren Sadler -- SADLERJ BALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr LLP
& Robert E. Haimes -- HAIMESR BALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr
LLP, pro hac vice.


GENERAL INFORMATION: Smith FCRA Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Mary Geiger Lewis entered an order granting
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismissing the
putative class action captioned DEVON SMITH, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL
INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No.
3:18-2354-MGL (D.S.C.) without prejudice.

Plaintiff Devon Smith filed the putative class action suit against
Defendant General Information Solutions, LLC (GIS), alleging
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C.
section 1681. GIS then filed a motion to compel arbitration.

Smith applied for a position with TruGreen Lawncare on or about
March 2016. "GIS acts on behalf of TruGreen to apply pre-defined
hiring criteria and assign a grade to applicants, such as [Smith],
which determines and adjudicates whether the applicant is
ineligible for employment." When Smith applied to work with
TruGreen, he consented to be bound to the several requirements of
the TruGreen -- We Listen Dispute Resolution Plan (Agreement).

In this case, GIS' primary contention is this: any question
concerning the interpretation, construction, applicability,
unconscionability, arbitrability, enforceability, and formation
should be decided by an arbitrator, not this Court. Thus, according
to GIS, the Court should grant its motion to arbitrate and dismiss
this action.

GIS offered the following alternative arguments in case the Court
fails to adopt its first one: the Court should hold the Agreement
is valid and enforceable; GIS, as an agent of TruGreen Lawncare ,
may enforce the Agreement; Smith's claims against GIS are within
the scope of the Agreement; and Smith waived the right to proceed
on a class, collective, or representative basis.

Smith took issue with GIS's contentions and counters GIS is not a
party to the Agreement and is not referenced anywhere in it; GIS
may not rely on the provisions of the Agreement as a third-party
beneficiary; and, because the existence of a contractual agreement
to arbitrate is in dispute, the Court must determine the
arbitration question, not an arbitrator.

GIS is neither a party to the Agreement nor specifically referenced
anywhere in the Agreement is of no moment. The Agreement refers to
GIS in the portion of the document in which Smith agreed to
arbitrate "all Disputes, which arise out of or are related to my
application for employment . . . that [he] may have against . . .
[TruGreen's] current and former . . . agents." Hence, contract
principles bind Smith to the Agreement to arbitrate his claims
against GIS.

The Court also holds that Smith is also bound by principles of
agency to arbitrate his dispute with GIS. That GIS was acting on
behalf of TruGreen when it allegedly violated the FCRA points
convincingly to the conclusion that GIS, as TruGreen's agent, is
entitled to the protection of the Agreement between Smith and
TruGreen, GIS's principal.

Accordingly, as it appears a valid arbitration agreement exists
that would compel arbitration on the underlying dispute between the
parties, the Court orders all other claims concerning the
interpretation, construction, applicability, unconscionability,
arbitrability, enforceability, and formation of the Agreement be
decided by the arbitrator, not the Court.

The Fourth Circuit has held a dismissal of a lawsuit, instead of a
stay, is an appropriate remedy when all of the issues presented in
the lawsuit are arbitrable.  Accordingly, because all the claims in
Smith's suit are arbitrable, the Court is inclined to dismiss the
action.

The Court sua sponte raised the issue with the parties of whether
Smith's claims against GIS would be barred by the statute of
limitations if the arbitrator, in its consideration of the
interpretation, construction, applicability, unconscionability,
arbitrability, enforceability, and/or formation of the Agreement,
determines Smith's claims fall outside the ambit of the Agreement
such that Smith needs to bring them again in this Court. In
response, GIS answered it "would agree to the tolling of the
statute of limitations of [Smith's] claims in the Complaint against
GIS during the time period of dismissal of this action until the
final resolution of the arbitrator's decision or any appeal
thereof, whichever is later." The Court, having been assuaged of
its concern regarding the possibility of a statute of limitations
bar, will therefore dismiss the action without prejudice.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Dec. 11,
2018 is available at https://bit.ly/2LkHfEF from Leagle.com.

Devon Smith, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Andrew Maxfield, David
Maxfield Attorney LLC, Matthew Ryan Wilson --
mwilson@meyerwilson.com -- Meyer Wilson Co LPA, pro hac vice,
Michael J. Boyle, Jr. -- mboyle@meyerwilson.com -- Meyer Wilson Co
LPA, pro hac vice &  Steven Charles Babin, Jr. , Chapin Legal Group
LLC, pro hac vice.

General Information Solutions, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Douglas Walker MacKelcan, III , Carlock Copeland Semler and Stair,
Cindy D. Hanson -- cindy.hanson@troutman.com -- Kilpatrick Townsend
and Stockton LLP, pro hac vice, Harrison Scott Kelly –
harrison.kelly@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice &
Patrick Farley Dillard -- patrick.dillard@troutman.com  -- Troutman
Sanders LLP, pro hac vice.


GENWORTH LIFE: Must File Supplemental Declaration Before Dec. 21
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GERALD B. RHINEHART, an individual by and
through his Power of Attorney SUZANNE VILLANUEVA, and on behalf of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. GENWORTH LIFE AND
ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, a Virginia corporation, Defendant, No.
1:18-cv-01391-LJO-SAB (E.D. Cal.), Chief District Judge Lawrence J.
O'Neill ordered Defendant to file a supplemental declaration not to
exceed 5 pages on or before Dec. 21, 2018.

Plaintiff filed a putative class action suit against Defendant on
Sept. 5, 2018, in the Merced County Superior Court alleging
Defendant has actively engaged in selling insurance policies to
senior citizens in California that California violate disclosure
laws. Defendant removed the case to this Court in October 2018;
Plaintiff filed a motion to remand for lack of federal
jurisdiction, which Defendant opposed. The parties' dispute centers
on whether Defendant has established the $5 million minimum amount
in controversy to support removal jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d).

Based on the declaration Defendant submitted in support of its
amount in controversy argument, and based on the scope of
Plaintiff's and the putative class' claims, it is quite possible
that the amount in controversy will exceed $5 million in this case.
Defendant carries the burden of persuasion to establish removal
jurisdiction under CAFA by a preponderance of evidence; there is no
anti-removal presumption in CAFA cases. The Court, therefore, finds
it appropriate to seek clarification from Defendant whether the
surrender charges calculated relate only to relevant life insurance
contracts, and to delineate the incurred surrender charges in
yearly totals, rather than in lump-sum totals, since 2004.

Plaintiff may file any opposition to the supplemental declaration,
not to exceed 5 pages, on or before Jan. 7, 2019.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 11, 2018 is available at
https://bit.ly/2QBBdpi from Leagle.com.

Gerald B. Rhinehart, and individual, by and through his Power of
Attorney Suzanne Villanueva, and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, represented by A.J. de Bartolomeo --
ajdebartolomeo@milberg.com -- Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP
& Ingrid M. Evans , Evans Law Firm, Inc.

Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company, a Virginia
corporation, Defendant, represented by Steven A. Erkel --
steven.erkel@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, Thomas A. Evans
–thomas.evans@alston.com --Alston & Bird LLP & Robert D.
Phillips, Jr. -- Robert.phillips@alston.com -- Alston & Bird.


GNC HOLDINGS: Dismissal of Martin Securities Fraud Suit Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit affirmed the district
court's dismissal of the case captioned AMES MARTIN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GNC HOLDINGS,
INC.; JOSEPH M. FORTUNATO; MICHAEL M. NUZZO; ANDREW S. DREXLER;
MICHAEL G. ARCHBOLD; TRICIA K. TOLIVAR; PATRICK A. FORTUNE KBC
Asset Management NV, Appellant, No. 17-3303 (3rd Cir.).

KBC Asset Management NV appealed the district court's dismissal of
the class action complaint it filed alleging securities fraud. The
complaint alleged various misrepresentations in violation of
Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Seven statements made to investors by former GNC executives
Archbold and Fortunato are at issue in this appeal. The district
court assumed that these statements were misrepresentations as
alleged. The court also assumed that each was "material" because
there was "a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder
would consider [them] important in deciding how to [act]." The
district court nevertheless found the plaintiffs could not state a
claim because they had not adequately pled the required elements of
scienter and loss causation. It therefore dismissed the complaint.
This appeal followed.

To make out a securities fraud claim under 15 U.S.C. section
78j(b), a plaintiff must allege: (1) a material misrepresentation
or omission; (2) scienter; (3) a connection between the
misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a
security; (4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission; (5)
economic loss; and (6) loss causation. Only the elements of
scienter and loss causation are at issue in this appeal.

To determine if allegations in a complaint satisfy the scienter
requirement the Third Circuit engaged in a three-part analysis.
First, the Court accepted all factual allegations in the complaint
as true. Next, it determined "whether all of the facts alleged,
taken collectively, give rise to a strong inference of scienter,
not whether any individual allegation, scrutinized in isolation,
meets that standard." Finally, to determine whether the allegations
give rise to a "strong" inference of scienter, the Court "took into
account plausible opposing inferences." That is, the Court must
consider "plausible, nonculpable explanations for the defendant's
conduct, as well as inferences favoring the plaintiff." An
inference that a defendant acted with scienter need not be
irrefutable. However, it must be more than merely "reasonable or
permissible--it must be cogent and compelling." A securities fraud
complaint will therefore only survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss
if "a reasonable person would deem the inference of scienter cogent
and at least as compelling as any opposing inference one could draw
from the facts alleged.

Having applied this analysis, the Third Circuit agrees with the
district court's determination that the plaintiffs did not
adequately plead scienter. The complaint contains no allegations
that Fortunato or Archbold knew that GNC's DMAA-replacement
products may have contained ingredients banned by the FDA, or that
they received any report that banned substances may be included in
replacement supplements. Rather, the complaint vaguely alleged that
the reports "stimulated significant concern and discussion within
GNC" and that they were "widely distributed throughout GNC
headquarters." At bottom, the plaintiffs did not "state with
particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the
defendant[s] acted with the required state of mind."

The Third Circuit also rejects the plaintiffs' argument that they
satisfied the "core operations" doctrine. Under that theory, a
plaintiff may be entitled to a "core operations inference" if the
complaint alleges that a defendant made misstatements concerning
the "core matters" of central importance to a company.22 We agree
with the district court's assessment that the core operation
doctrine does not support a finding of scienter here, "absent some
additional allegation of specific information conveyed to
management and related to the fraud."

Finally, the Third Circuit holds that certain stock sales were not
indicative of scienter. Only two of the six defendants sold stock
during the relevant time period, and only one of them made a
statement that is the subject of this appeal. The plaintiffs failed
to plead specific facts to demonstrate that the circumstances
surrounding the sale of stock by Fortunato were "unusual in scope
or timing."

A copy of the Court's Opinion dated Dec. 11, 2018 is available at
https://bit.ly/2Gj50hA from Leagle.com.


GOOGLE INC: Cy Pres Settlement Dispute Ongoing
----------------------------------------------
Tony Lathrop, Esq. -- tonylathrop@mvalaw.com -- of Moore & Van
Allen PLLC, in an article for JDSupra, reports that what is the
value of the class action mechanism if no redress is provided to
plaintiffs at all? Is the class action about providing a remedy to
plaintiffs, is it just about getting the defendant company to pay
something to someone  . . . or has it evolved simply into a
mechanism for plaintiffs' attorneys to collect fees? These are
several of the questions raised by Frank v. Gaos, (No. 17-961),
which presents the U.S. Supreme Court with an extreme case of the
use of the cy pres doctrine in the context of class action cases.
The High Court is faced with a cy pres-only settlement in which the
terms of the agreement called for distribution of all funds paid by
the defendant directly to charitable organizations and plaintiffs'
attorneys (in the form of attorneys' fees) and there was no attempt
at all to distribute any funds to the plaintiff class. Oral
argument was held in Gaos on October 31st and the Justices probed
several aspects of the heart of the issue -- when, if ever, is it
appropriate to use cy pres in this context and what are the
standards to be applied in that determination? However, standing as
an obstacle to an immediate resolution of this issue, is the
jurisdictional question of whether the class plaintiffs had
standing to bring the privacy-based lawsuit against Google in the
first instance. The issue was not originally briefed before the
Supreme Court, leaving the High Court probing whether remand was
appropriate to illuminate the issue or whether they should dismiss
the case as improvidently granted. On November 6, 2018, the Supreme
Court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefing on standing
to aid in its determination of whether to reach the merits of this
case. We highlight below several of the key points that shaped the
discussion during oral argument regarding the standing issue. In a
companion post, we highlight key points raised during argument
regarding the merits of the appeal.

The Internet of Standing – Understanding Technology, Privacy &
Injury

The named plaintiffs filed a class action on behalf of Google
internet search users because the company disclosed their search
terms to third-party websites through a particular mechanism known
as referral headers. Plaintiffs must have suffered sufficient
injury from Google disclosing their search information to third
parties to establish standing to bring the lawsuit. Neither party
contested standing in the matter below, but the U.S. Solicitor
General's Office proffered a brief as amicus curiae in support of
neither party that raised the question regarding plaintiffs'
standing before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Justices
questioned whether the lower court judge's determination was in
fact that the disclosure in this case met the requirements of
concrete and particularized harm required to establish standing or
whether the lower court judge merely determined that the statutory
prohibition was enough. The Petitioner urged in argument that "one
of the named plaintiffs, Anthony Italiano, alleges a statutory
violation that corresponds to the common law tort of public
disclosure of private facts. And the lower courts are unanimous in
holding that that kind of statutory claim satisfies Spokeo," the
Supreme Court's recent decision addressing standing to bring
lawsuits based on statutory violations alone. The Solicitor
General's Office participated in oral argument advancing its
position that it is likely that plaintiffs did not have standing.

Named plaintiffs asserted a theory of harm based on the idea that
the websites receiving their search information could
"reverse-engineer" and identify them as the individual conducting
the search. At first blush, we know that when we run searches on
the internet we sometimes begin to see advertising and other
information that appears targeted towards our searches. So, is it a
given that this identification through "reverse-engineering" is
occurring? And is there actually harm caused merely from the
disclosure of our search terms or must there also be the revelation
of the identity of the individual coupled with the search terms to
establish harm? Must the disclosure at issue give rise to a common
law cause of action? These are several of the issues the Justices
probed during argument and their questions illuminate how critical
an understanding of the nuances of technology at the center of
these types of disputes can be.

Counsel grappled with questions from Justices Alito, Sotomayor, and
Kagan on the particulars of the technology and plaintiff's theory
underlying standing -- distinguishing the use of cookies on one's
internet browser and other mechanisms to support targeted
advertising from the disclosure of searches through referrer
headers at issue in this case. Google's counsel explained "there
are lots of cookies and other things that…generate the -- the
serving up of ads to your particular computer. The question here is
the referrer header, which is that the search terms…when you
conduct a search, you get a list of websites. When you click on one
of those sites, that site gets your search. That's the issue here."
Justice Kagan asked for an explanation that ties the technology at
issue directly to plaintiffs' standing theory: "you talked about
the re-identification theory, and I'm not quite sure I understand
it. So, could you tell me the technology that I need to know to
understand it and what plaintiffs would have to show to prove their
own theory of harm?" Google's counsel offered her an answer, while
noting the lack of information and the need for re-briefing or
remand on the standing issue: "what would have to be alleged would
be that enough referrer headers went to a single website operator
that that website operator could combine them and say: A-ha, I can
now figure out that this is the person who made the search and tie
the search terms to that person."

The United States and Google questioned whether Plaintiffs'
reverse-engineering theory would be enough to support standing for
several reasons, including the Restatement's requirements for
establishing privacy violations. Justice Kavanaugh inserted the
notion that disclosure of what someone searched for may be a harm
in and of itself and Spokeo does not exactly require a cause of
action at common law:

isn't disclosure of what you searched for a harm in and of itself,
even if it is not a cause of action? . . . Isn't that an injury,
disclosure of what you searched? . . . I don't think anyone would
want the disclosure of everything they searched for disclosed to
other people. That seems a harm . . . It may not -- may or may not
be a cause of action, but it's a harm…Just as a common sense
matter.

These and additional standing arguments will be fleshed out in
supplemental briefs due to be submitted to the Supreme Court.
Following oral arguments, the Court issued an order requesting the
parties to brief the issue "whether any named plaintiff has
standing such that the federal courts have Article III jurisdiction
over this dispute." Briefs from all parties were due on November
30th, and reply briefs are due by December 21st. [GN]


GOTM ENTERPRISES: Merino Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------
Roman Merino, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. GOTM Enterprises; and Does 1 through 20,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2018-01037589-CU-OE-CXC (Cal.
Super. Ct., Orange Cty., December 11, 2018) seeks monetary relief
against Defendants on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated in California to recover, among other things, unpaid wages
and benefits, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and
penalties.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a systematic pattern
of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and
Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders, all of which
contribute to Defendants' deliberate unfair competition.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have increased their profits by
violating state wage and hour laws by, among other things, failing
to pay all wages (including minimum wages and overtime wages);
failing to provide lawful meal periods or compensation; failing to
authorize or permit lawful rest breaks or provide compensation;
failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and failing
to pay all wages due upon separation of employment.

Plaintiff is a resident of California and worked for Defendants in
California during the relevant time periods as alleged herein.

Defendants are in the business of providing property cleaning
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     KASHIF HAQUE, Esq.
     SAMUEL A. WONG, Esq.
     JESSICA L. CAMPBELL, Esq.
     AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
     9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
     Irvine, CA 92618
     Phone: (949) 379-6250
     Facsimile: (949) 379-6251


GREENSKY INC: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC on Nov. 27 disclosed that it has
filed a securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York against GreenSky, Inc.
("GreenSky" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:GSKY) and certain of its
directors and underwriters, on behalf of purchasers of Class A
common stock acquired in the Company's initial public offering
("IPO"), which closed on May 29, 2018.

GreenSky, Inc. operates an online platform that enables creditors
to process loan applications at the point of sale.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made false and misleading
statements and omissions in the registration statement and
prospectus for the Company's IPO (the "Offering Documents") and, in
so doing, violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933. At the time of the IPO, GreenSky was well underway in
executing a strategy of swift expansion into the elective
healthcare sector while simultaneously reducing its portfolio of
solar panel merchants. This shift precipitated a significant
decline in the Company's largest source of revenue: transaction
fees.

GreenSky charged its solar merchants high transaction fees but
charged healthcare businesses substantially lower transaction fees.
Defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions in
the Offering Documents about the revenue effects of the change in
the classes of merchants for whom it facilitated loans. When the
truth was disclosed, GreenSky share prices dropped precipitously,
and investors who made purchases pursuant or traceable to the IPO
suffered harm.

If you purchased shares of GreenSky's Class A common stock issued
pursuant or traceable to the Company's IPO, you may move the Court
no later than January 28, 2019 and request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC has significant experience in
prosecuting investor class actions and actions involving securities
fraud. The firm has offices in Washington, D.C., New York,
Philadelphia, Chicago, Palm Beach, and Raleigh, and is active in
major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout the
nation.

The firm's reputation for excellence has repeatedly been recognized
by courts which have appointed the firm to lead positions in
complex multi-district or consolidated litigation. Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC has taken a lead role in numerous important
cases on behalf of defrauded investors, and has been responsible
for a number of outstanding recoveries which, in the aggregate,
total over a billion dollars. Prior results do not guarantee a
similar outcome. For more information visit www.cohenmilstein.com.

If you have any questions about this notice or the action, or with
regard to your rights, please contact either of the following:

         Steven J. Toll, Esq.
         Robin Bleiweis
         Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
         1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
         Suite 500 East
         Washington, D.C. 20005
         Telephone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600
         Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
                rbleiweis@cohenmilstein.com [GN]


GREENSKY INC: Jan. 28 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP notifies investors in GreenSky,
Inc. (NASDAQ: GSKY) of the Jan. 28, 2019 Lead Plaintiff deadline in
the securities class action pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  If you purchased or
otherwise acquired GreenSky securities pursuant or traceable to the
Company's initial public offering ("IPO") which closed on May 29,
2018 and suffered losses contact Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.


On May 29, 2018, GreenSky closed its IPO of 43,700,000 shares of
its Class A common stock at a price to investors of $23.00 per
share.

The complaint accuses Defendants of having made false and
misleading statements and regarding revenue effects of the change
in classes of merchants for whom GreenSky facilitated loans.

On November 6, 2018, GreenSky and management reported Q3 2018
earnings and slashed 2018 guidance, driving the price of GreenSky
shares down $5.38, or about 36%, to close at $9.28 that day.  This
closing price was almost 60%, below the IPO price.

"We're focused on investors' losses, management's explanations
during GreenSky's Q3 earnings conference call, and whether
statements in the IPO prospectus were misleading," said Hagens
Berman partner Reed Kathrein.

Whistleblowers:  Persons with non-public information regarding
GreenSky should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.  Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC.  For more information;
        
         Reed Kathrein, Esq.
         Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
         Telephone: 510-725-3000
         Website: https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/GSKY
         Twitter: @classactionlaw
         Email: GSKY@hbsslaw.com
                reed@hbsslaw.com [GN]


INSIGHT GLOBAL: Barker Must Supplement Interrogatory Responses
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOHN BARKER, Plaintiff, v. INSIGHT GLOBAL,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-07186-BLF (VKD) (N.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Virginia K. Demarchi ordered plaintiff John
Barker to promptly supplement his outstanding interrogatory
responses to make clear that Beacon Hill Staffing Group, LLC is
funding his proposed class action.

Defendants Insight Global, LLC and Second Amended and Restated
Insight Global, LLC 2013 Incentive Plan moved to compel plaintiff
John Barker to respond to an interrogatory and/or file an amended
case management statement disclosing that Beacon Hill Staffing
Group, LLC is funding his proposed class action.

Although it is unnecessary for a party to supplement or correct
information provided in initial disclosures or in a discovery
response if the additional or corrective information has otherwise
been made known to its adversary, the parties debate whether Mr.
Barker has already provided the additional or corrective
information by other means. To avoid further unnecessary dispute on
this point, Mr. Barker must promptly supplement his outstanding
interrogatory responses to make clear that Beacon Hill is funding
his proposed class action.

Both parties also appear to agree that Mr. Barker owes a duty to
the Court to supplement or correct incomplete information
previously provided to the Court. Mr. Barker must promptly advise
the Court of any person or entity that is funding the prosecution
of his proposed class action claims. He need not file an amended
case management statement solely for this purpose, but may file an
amended disclosure under Civil Local Rule 3-15.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 11, 2018 is available at
https://bit.ly/2PHqN1W from Leagle.com.

John Barker, Plaintiff, epresented by Benjamin I. Fink
bfink@bfvlaw.com -- Berman Fink Van Horn P.C., pro hac vice, &
Tyler Mark Paetkau -- tyler.paetkau@procopio.com -- Procopio, Cory,
Hargreaves & Savitch LLP.

Insight Global, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher Carl
Marquardt -- chris.marquardt@alston.com -- Alston Bird LLP, Jeremy
Matthew Mittman -- jmittman@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP,
Anna Beth Saraie -- anna.saraie@alston.com -- Alston and Bird LLP,
pro hac vice & Isabella Pei-Ying Lee -- isabella.lee@alston.com --
Alston and Bird LLP Labor and Employment, pro hac vice.

Insight Global, LLC 2013 Incentive Unit Plan, Defendant,
represented by Christopher Carl Marquardt, Alston Bird LLP,
Isabella Pei-Ying Lee, Alston and Bird LLP Labor and Employment,
Jeremy Matthew Mittman, Proskauer Rose LLP & Tyler Mark Paetkau,
Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP.hac vice.

Insight Global, LLC, Counter-claimant, represented by Christopher
Carl Marquardt, Alston Bird LLP, Jeremy Matthew Mittman, Proskauer
Rose LLP, Anna Beth Saraie, Alston and Bird LLP, pro hac vice,
Isabella Pei-Ying Lee, Alston and Bird LLP Labor and Employment,
Isabella Pei-Ying Lee, Alston and Bird LLP Labor and Employment &
Anna Beth Saraie, Alston and Bird LLP.

John Barker, Counter-defendant, represented by Benjamin I. Fink,
Berman Fink Van Horn P.C., pro hac vice, Charles John Smith, III,
Law Offices of Charles J. Smith III, Olga Savage, Procopio, Cory,
Hargreaves & Savitch LLP & Tyler Mark Paetkau, Procopio, Cory,
Hargreaves & Savitch LLP.


ISAGENIX INTERNATIONAL: Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Thompson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Isagenix International, LLC & Isagenix
Worldwide, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04599-SPL (D. Ariz.,
December 11, 2018) challenges Isagenix's practice of sending
unsolicited text messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991. Plaintiff believes that to generate new
leads and customers, Isagenix, or agents acting on Isagenix's
behalf, have engaged in a widespread marketing campaign that relies
upon unlawful TCPA violations.

Isagenix, or someone on Isagenix's behalf, has sent Plaintiff
messages by text message through an ATDS in violation of the TCPA.
Upon information and belief, these text messages are part of a much
larger unlawful advertising campaign carried out by Isagenix, and
Plaintiff brings lawsuit on behalf of all those similarly
situated.

Plaintiff, and each putative class members, was harmed by
Isagenix's unlawful text messages. Under Ninth Circuit precedent,
Isagenix have damaged plaintiffs by running afoul of established
Congressional mandates. Additionally, their carriers counted these
messages in their text and data plans, resulting in charges. These
damages were real, tangible, and concrete, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Mary Thompson is a natural person who, at all times
relevant, resided in Alabama.

Isagenix International, LLC is an Arizona limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Gilbert, Arizona. Isagenix
offers supplements for sale in a multi-level marketing
structure.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alicia Funkhouser, Esq.
     ELY, BETTINI, ULMAN & ROSENBLATT
     3200 North Central Avenue, Ste. 1930
     Phoenix, AZ 85012
     Phone: (602) 230-2144
     Email: afunkhouser@eburlaw.com


ISGM: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Sham Contracting
------------------------------------------------------
Damian McIver, writing for ABC News, reports that a workforce
management company facing a massive class action has been accused
of sending a threatening and misleading email to workers urging
them to opt out of the claim.

ISGM (now trading as Tandem Corporation) has been hit with a
Federal Court action representing more than 4,000
telecommunications workers, who are alleging the company engaged in
sham contracting.

The claim was filed on November 21, but an email sent by Tandem to
subcontractors the following day said the claim had not yet been
lodged.

Under the subject heading "Say No to Shine," the email said the
case may have "significant, unintended financial consequences" for
workers.

"We are not sure yet how the claim will evolve, but if you are
covered by this claim, and the claim is successful, you may no
longer be able to operate as an independent contractor for Tandem,"
the email said.

Vicky Antzoulatos from Shine Lawyers said the correspondence was
"highly inappropriate".

"It sounds like a threat to me," she said.

"Their conduct in sending the email is very serious . . . If their
work practices and system of work are sound, the company shouldn't
have anything to fear. In my view they should let the legal process
take its course and not try to subvert it."

Ms Antzoulatos says Tandem's claim that the class action had not
been filed was "obviously wrong" and had only served to confuse
workers about the status of the case.

One worker who contacted the ABC said the email "sounds like a
threat".

"As a worker I should have the right to search, or use a solicitor
to look at the contract and see if rights are being violated . . .
without being persecuted or threatened by the company that contract
me."

The president of the Communication Workers Alliance, Len Cooper,
said he was disappointed, but not surprised.

"Our experience with [Tandem] over a long period of time has been
that when all else fails, [they] try to intimidate the
subcontractors into compliance."

Company says keeping subcontractors informed is 'good practice'
Tandem said it was not aware the claim had already been filed in
the Federal Court when it originally sent the email.

"Tandem denies that its memo was inappropriate and considers it to
be good practice to keep its subcontractors informed of such
matters," the company said in a statement.

The company said it remained concerned about the impact on workers
if the class action was successful.

"It may mean that individuals lose all the benefits associated with
being an independent contractor, including flexibility, autonomy,
the ability to grow their own business and differential tax
treatment."

Tandem was established in 2010 and has grown to become a major
player in the telecommunications sector, supplying technicians to
Telstra, Foxtel and NBN co.

It turned over $650 million last financial year, and its owners
recently considered listing the company on the ASX.

The class action lodged against the company has been dubbed one of
the biggest employee-related class actions in Australian history.

It alleges that all subcontractors engaged by Tandem since 2011
should have legally been regarded as employees and are thus owed
significant compensation in the form of unpaid entitlements such as
annual leave, overtime and superannuation.

Ms Antzoulatos said the firm had been contacted by "hundreds and
hundreds" of workers since the filing of the class action was made
public.

Tandem denied the claims and says its arrangements with
subcontractors have been approved by regulators. [GN]


JAPAN INN: Shortchanges Workers' Wages, La Frankie Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Jieh La Frankie, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Japan Inn Plantation, LLC and Japan Inn Weston, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-62929 (S.D. Fla., December 3, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation owed, liquidated damages or
pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Defendants have owned and operated restaurants known as Japan Inn
Planation and Japan Inn Weston in Florida where La Frankie worked
as an hourly-paid kitchen helper in both restaurant locations,
working their scheduled hours and more, but were not paid for all
hours worked alleging that her time-records were manipulated to
reflect less hours than what were actually worked. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Ronquillo-Griffin Sues Over False Credit Report
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelissa Ronquillo-Griffin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-02789-AJB-BLM (S.D. Cal., December 11,
2018) is an action for damages, injunctive relief, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal
actions of Defendant, in reporting erroneous negative and
derogatory information on Plaintiff's credit report; and also for
damages arising out of the systematic issuance of erroneous credit
reports by Defendant. Defendant has erroneously reported continual
monthly payment obligations on accounts that have been discharged.

Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy on September 25, 2014. Plaintiff's
Debt to Defendant was included in Plaintiff's bankruptcy petition.
Plaintiff did not conduct any business nor incur any additional
financial obligations with Defendant since the date of the
discharge of her Bankruptcy. Following the bankruptcy, Plaintiff
learned Defendant reported post-Bankruptcy derogatory credit
information regarding the obligations on Plaintiff's credit
reports, thereby causing erroneous and negative information in
Plaintiff's credit files.

By reporting inaccurate information to the credit bureaus,
Defendant has misrepresented the status of Plaintiff's financial
obligations, specifically Plaintiff's payment obligations for a
discharged debt. As a result of Defendant's improper and
unauthorized conduct, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages due to
Defendant's misrepresentations regarding Plaintiff's current
payment obligations. This inaccurate reporting will adversely
affect Plaintiff's credit decisions because credit guarantors are
made aware of Plaintiff's current income during the application
process. By reporting continuing monthly payments as opposed to a
$0 monthly payment, Defendant misrepresents Plaintiff's monthly
financial obligations and gives the false impression that Plaintiff
has less funds available to satisfy the new credit currently being
applied for.

The Defendant's inaccurate and negative reporting damaged
Plaintiff's creditworthiness. Plaintiff's right to be able to apply
for credit based on accurate information has been violated, placing
Plaintiff at increased risk of not being able to obtain valuable
credit and adversely affecting Plaintiff's credit rating, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who resides in the City of San Diego,
County of San Diego, in the State of California. Plaintiff is a
"consumer".

Defendant is a Georgia corporation with its headquarters located in
St. Cloud Minnesota and authorized to do business in the State of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yana A. Hart, Esq.
     Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
     HYDE & SWIGART, APC
     2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
     San Diego, CA 92108-3609
     Phone: (619) 233-7770
     Fax: (619) 297-1022
     Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
            yana@westcoastlitigation.com

          - and -

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


JENKINS WAGNON: Cordova Suit Remanded to New Mexico State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales remands the lawsuit captioned
OSHUA CORDOVA, on his own behalf, And on the behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JODY JENKINS and JENKINS, WAGNON
& YOUNG, P.C., Defendants, Civ. No. 16-460KG/KBM (D.N.M.) to the
Second Judicial District, County of Bernalillo, State of New
Mexico.

The case came before the Court on its Amended Memorandum Opinion
and Order, filed Oct. 19, 2018, in which the Court requested
briefing on the issue of whether the amount in controversy in this
case is sufficient to establish federal diversity subject matter
jurisdiction. Having considered this briefing, the Court determined
that Defendants have not carried their burden of showing that the
$75,000 amount in controversy requirement necessary to establish
federal diversity jurisdiction is met. Consequently, this matter
will be remanded to the Second Judicial District Court, Bernalillo
County, State of New Mexico, for lack of federal subject matter
jurisdiction.

At the time of the removal of this case, Plaintiff's Complaint
raised two FDCPA claims, two New Mexico Unfair Practices Act
claims, and malicious abuse of process, fraud, and unjust
enrichment claims. Plaintiff, the only named plaintiff, alleges
that Defendants fraudulently charged him $1,062.50 in attorney's
fees and fraudulently charged attorney's fees to at least 500 other
persons, the proposed class.  Plaintiff sought statutory damages,
actual damages and attorney's fees and costs under the FDCPA.
Additionally, Plaintiff still seeks treble actual damages for each
violation of the UPA, plus attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiff,
moreover, seeks actual and punitive damages with respect to the
malicious abuse of process claim and sought actual and punitive
damages for the fraud claim.

Prior to removal, Plaintiff filed a "Court-Annexed Arbitration
Certification" in state court which states that "Plaintiffs
certify" they seek relief in excess of $25,000, "exclusive of
punitive damages, interest, costs, and attorney's fees." This
arbitration certification clearly suggests that the class, not
Plaintiff individually, was seeking more than $25,000.00, excluding
punitive damages, interest, costs, and attorney's fees. Also, prior
to removal, Plaintiff's counsel sent counsel for Defendants an
email describing "relief to the class" which would be acceptable to
settle this lawsuit. Plaintiff's counsel, however, did not state
what specific monetary amount would settle the case. Finally,
Plaintiff's counsel submitted a declaration on Nov. 16, 2018,
stating that the "current amount of attorney's fees incurred in
this case, including tax, is $41,938.55."

Considering the Complaint and above evidence, the Plaintiff, as the
only named Plaintiff in this class action, suffered actual damages
of $1,062.50. Under the FDCPA, Plaintiff could have been awarded
actual damages plus statutory damages up to $1,000. For two
violations of the FDCPA, as alleged in the Complaint, actual
damages for Plaintiff would consist of $1,062.50 plus up to $2,000
in statutory damages, $1,000 per FDCPA violation. As to attorney's
fees, even if attorney's fees amount to $1,000,000, each of the 500
class members, including Plaintiff, would incur only $2,000 in
attorney's fees.

With respect to an award of punitive damages to Plaintiff, treble
damages under the UPA for two violations could amount to as little
as $6,375. Assuming that is the case here and using a 10:1 ratio,
Plaintiff could be awarded $10,625 in punitive damages. If,
however, Plaintiff was awarded both treble damages and punitive
damages, Plaintiff would have to elect between the awards and
would, presumably, choose the higher award of $10,625.

Considering the generous estimates of damages, Plaintiff would be
entitled to a total of just $15,687.50. Even considering other
unforeseen damages, and doubling the estimate of damages to, for
example, $31,375, the amount in controversy as to Plaintiff is
still far below the $75,000 amount in controversy necessary for
federal diversity jurisdiction. The Court, therefore, concludes
that Defendants have failed to show that at the time of removal,
this Court had federal diversity subject matter jurisdiction.
Because this Court has neither federal diversity jurisdiction nor
federal question jurisdiction, the Court is compelled to remand
this matter.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Dec. 11,
2018 is available at https://bit.ly/2QZ2qRX from Leagle.com.

Joshua Cordova, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas H. Mattison,
Feferman & Warren & Richard N. Feferman, Feferman Warren Mattison.

Jody Jenkins & Jenkins, Wagnon & Young, P.C., Defendants,
represented by Abigail M. Yates -- ayates@rodey.com -- Rodey,
Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A., Leslie McCarthy Apodaca --
lapodaca@rodey.com -- Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb & Charles
J. Vigil -- cvigil@rodey.com -- Rodey Dickson Sloan Akin & Robb,
P.A..


JUNIOR'S CHEESECAKE: Violates ADA, Crosson Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Junior's Cheesecake,
Inc., under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Junior's
Cheesecake Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07038 (E.D. N.Y.,
December 11, 2018).

Junior's Cheesecake Inc. manufactures cheesecakes. The Company
produces traditional cheesecakes, cheesecake samplers, fancy and
seasonal, and daily items.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KELLOGG CO: 2nd Cir. Vacates Dismissal of Mantikas False Ad Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the appeals case captioned KRISTEN MANTIKAS, KRISTIN BURNS, and
LINDA CASTLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KELLOGG COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee, Docket No. 17-2011 (2nd Cir.), the United
States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit vacates the judgment of the
district court dismissing the Plaintiffs' complaint. The case is
remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiffs Kristen Mantikas, Kristin Burns, and Linda Castle appeal
from a judgment entered on August 21, 2017 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York granting
Defendant Kellogg Company's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint
for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs are residents of New York
and California who purchased Defendant's Cheez-It crackers that
were labeled "whole grain" or "made with whole grain." They filed a
class action complaint against Defendant alleging that the whole
grain labels were false and misleading in violation of New York and
California consumer protection laws. They alleged that such
labeling would cause a reasonable consumer to believe that the
grain in whole grain Cheez-Its was predominantly whole grain, when,
in fact, it was not. The primary grain content was enriched white
flour. The district court dismissed the Complaint pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6). It held that the whole grain labels would not mislead a
reasonable consumer, and that Plaintiffs therefore failed to state
a claim.

To state a claim for false advertising or deceptive business
practices under New York or California law, a plaintiff must
plausibly allege that the deceptive conduct was "likely to mislead
a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances."

The district court held that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for
relief because, in the context of the entire Cheez-Its packaging, a
reasonable consumer would not be misled by the whole grain
representations. The court relied on the fact that although the
Cheez-Its boxes were conspicuously labeled "WHOLE GRAIN" and "MADE
WITH WHOLE GRAIN," the boxes accurately displayed, on the front
panel, the precise number of grams of whole grain per serving
("MADE WITH 5G [OR 8G] OF WHOLE GRAIN PER SERVING"). The court
reasoned that because the crackers in fact contained whole grain,
and because the front of each box clarified exactly how much whole
grain was in the product, a reasonable consumer was not likely to
believe that the crackers were made of predominantly whole grain.
After all, the court emphasized, "a reasonable consumer would not
be misled by a product's packaging that states the exact amount of
the ingredient in question."

Although the district court is correct that an allegedly misleading
statement must be viewed "in light of its context on the product
label or advertisement as a whole," the court misapplied that
principle to Plaintiffs' claims in this case.  Plaintiffs' core
allegation is that the statements "WHOLE GRAIN" and "MADE WITH
WHOLE GRAIN" are misleading because they communicate to the
reasonable consumer that the grain in the product is predominantly,
if not entirely, whole grain. Contrary to the reasonable
expectations communicated by the large, bold-faced claims of "WHOLE
GRAIN," however, the grain in the product is predominantly enriched
white flour. While the disclosures on the front of the box relied
on by the district court ("MADE WITH 5G [OR 8G] OF WHOLE GRAIN PER
SERVING") do set forth accurately the amount of whole grain in the
crackers per serving, they are nonetheless misleading because they
falsely imply that the grain content is entirely or at least
predominantly whole grain, whereas in fact, the grain component
consisting of enriched white flour substantially exceeds the whole
grain portion.

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs, as required to survive a Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, "state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face." "A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged." Plaintiffs have adequately alleged such
factual content. They allege that the conspicuous "WHOLE GRAIN" and
"MADE WITH WHOLE GRAIN" claims on the front and center of the
Defendant's packaging communicates to the reasonable consumer the
false message that the grain content of the crackers is
exclusively, or at least predominately whole grain; that this false
message is not dispelled by the information that each cracker is
"MADE WITH 8G [OR 5G] G OF WHOLE GRAIN PER SERVING," which fails to
communicate that the quantity of enriched white flour exceeds the
quantity of whole grain; and that the misleading quality of the
message is not effectively cured by implicitly disclosing the
predominance of enriched white flour in small print on an
ingredients list on the side of the package. These are sufficient
factual allegations to state a claim that Defendant's conduct was,
plausibly, deceptive. A reasonable consumer would likely be
deceived by the labeling alleged in the complaint. The district
court's conclusion to the contrary was error.

A copy of the Court's Decision dated Dec. 11, 2018 is available at
https://bit.ly/2UOjMAf from Leagle.com.

MICHAEL R. REESE , George V. Granade, Reese LLP, New York, N.Y.,
for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

KENNETH K. LEE , Christina A. Aryafar -- caryafar@jenner.com --
Jenner & Block LLP, Los Angeles, CA,Dean N. Panos --
dpanos@jenner.com --  Jenner & Block LLP, Chicago, IL, Kelly M.
Morrison -- kmorrison@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Washington
D.C. for Defendant-Appellee.


KENOSHA COUNTY: Olrich Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jason Allen Olrich et al.,
the Plaintiffs, vs. KENOSHA COUNTY, et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 2:18-cv-01980-PP (E.D. Wisc.), Mr. Olrich ask the Court for an
order to certify a class.[CC]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

L3 FUNDING LLC: Luina Seeks Unpaid Commissions, Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
David Luina, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. L3 Funding LLC, Victor
Rodriguez, Kris Blaku, and John and Jane Does 1-50, Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-11208 (S.D. N.Y., December 3, 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.

L3 Funding employed Luina as a "closer" from approximately January
31, 2018, until approximately September 2018. He secured revenue
for the company by closing sales through sales calls. L3 failed to
compensate him at least minimum wage for every hour worked and all
appropriate premium pay for every overtime hours worked in each
given workweek. Luina regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per
week. L3 also failed to pay the appropriate commission rate for
every deal closed, says the complaint. [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


LAND APPLIANCE: Lovelace Seeks to Recover Proper Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Lovelace and Horane Williams, on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated v. Land Appliance Services, Inc.,
Hal Gordon, and Ira Gordon, Case No. 1:18-cv-06892 (E.D.N.Y.,
December 4, 2018), alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Plaintiffs are entitled to:

     (i) compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory
         minimum wage;

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

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

Land Appliance Services, Inc., is a New York corporation with a
principal place of business in Brooklyn, New York.  The Individual
Defendants are owners or part owners and principals of Land
Appliance.

The Defendants owned and operated an appliance store in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


LEXISNEXUS RISK: Hudson Files Suit Under FCRA in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lexisnexus Risk
Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Jane Hudson and Charissa
Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Lexisnexus Risk Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-02793-BEN-BLM (S.D. Cal., December 11, 2018).

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

LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. provides data, analytics, and
technology solutions to help customers across industry and
government to assess, predict, and manage risk. The company offers
compliance, data management, fraud, identity, and investigation
solutions; and helps insurers assess their risk and streamline the
underwriting process in auto insurance and homeowner claims.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
   Kazerouni Law Group, APC
   245 Fischer Avenue
   Unit D1
   Costa Mesa, CA 92626
   Tel: (800) 400-6808
   Fax: (800) 520-5523
   Email: ml@kazlg.com



LG: Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Faulty Fridge Compressors
------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Byrne, writing for WTMJ-TV Milwaukee, reports that there's
currently a class action lawsuit filed in an Illinois federal court
against LG over faulty refrigerator compressors.

Part of the suit reads, "The Compressor Defect prevents the
refrigerators from cooling consumers' food and beverages,
ultimately causing the food and beverages to spoil..."

It continues to say, the frozen items thaw and "...cause water to
leak from the refrigerator onto the consumers' kitchen floors."

In some cases, defendants allege they are "...being charged for
replacement parts, despite such parts being covered under
warranty."

Michael Lindsley of Waldo in Sheboygan County bought his LG
refrigerator five years ago. His compressor had a 10-year warranty.


"It simply started making a really loud noise and ice started
actually melting," said Lindsley.

The refrigerator started leaking and his food was spoiled. He
contacted LG for repairs and ended up waiting five months before it
was fixed.

He said appliance vendors working with LG told him it wasn't worth
their time to make the repairs since LG didn't pay them enough for
the service.

"I had to call places myself on behalf of LG," said Lindsley.

After five months, Michael Lindsley's fridge was repaired.

"We don't even know if the fridge will actually hold up," Lindsley
said.

With a family of four, he said he only lasted a couple weeks before
he had to buy a new refrigerator.

So which model or year of the LG fridge seems to be impacted? It
appears to be all over the board.

On a Facebook page called "LG Life is NOT GOOD," people from all
over the country are complaining about older refrigerators and new
ones and all different kinds.

There are thousands of bad reviews on Consumer Affairs' website as
well. Click here to see those.

Faulty compressors though are the common theme.

Lindsley wants to be compensated about $1,000 for the one he
bought, that's not an LG.

TODAY'S TMJ4 reached out to LG.  A media spokesperson said the
experience of their customers is extremely important to them and
they will get back to us.[GN]


LIBERTY INSURANCE: District Court Dismisses Richelson FAC
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Murray Richelson, Plaintiff, v. Liberty
Insurance Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:18 CV 1801 (N.D.
Ohio), Chief District Judge Patricia A. Gaughan granted the
Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.

The case involves the interpretation of a homeowner insurance
policy. Plaintiff Murray Richelson filed the Class Action Complaint
in the Lake County Court of Common Pleas against defendant Liberty
Mutual Insurance Company. A First Amended Class Action Complaint
was thereafter filed.

The First Amended Complaint sets forth three claims. Count One
alleges breach of contract by defendant's promise of "additional
coverage," but actually delivering reduced coverage. Count Two
alleges fraud based on defendant's misrepresentation that it was
delivering "additional coverage" while actually intending to
deliver a policy with less coverage. Count Three alleges breach of
contract by defendant's subtraction of the deductible from actual
cash value (ACV) payment made.

Defendant moves to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on the basis
that the fraud count fails to state a claim because the alleged
fraudulent omission was disclosed in the policy, and the breach of
contract counts fail because, under Ohio law, the Roof ACV
endorsement is part of the policy and the endorsement required
defendant to adjust plaintiff's loss in the manner that it did.

Defendant maintains that plaintiff cannot state a claim for fraud
because the alleged misrepresentation is belied by the plain
language on the face of the policy documents attached to the
pleading. Nor did it breach the contract because it provided
exactly what is spelled out in the policy in exchange for a premium
credit. In fact, the First Amended Complaint alleges that defendant
settled the loss pursuant to the terms of the Roof ACV
endorsement.

The Court agrees with defendant's assertion that a party cannot
claim to have been defrauded when the act of reading the contract
would have revealed the information at issue.

Defendant further contends that the Roof ACV endorsement is an
"additional" coverage, meaning that it is a type of coverage that
was not in the policy prior to the addition of the endorsement.
And, Ohio recognizes that "An insurance policy is a contract
between the insurer and the insured ... Defendant notes that under
the "Discounts and Benefits Section" of the Policy Declarations, it
states that "Your discounts and benefits have been applied to your
total policy premium." The "Roof Actual Cash Value Loss Settlement
Endorsement" is identified under that heading. Moreover, under the
"Additional Coverages" heading found in the Policy Declarations,
there is no separate deductible, premium, or coverage limit listed
for the Roof ACV endorsement. Defendant maintains that it would
have been unreasonable for plaintiff to have believed he was
getting "higher" coverage for no additional premium. The first page
of the Policy Declarations refers to the "Roof Actual Cash Value
Loss Settlement Endorsement." No reasonable person could interpret
this to mean that a roof loss would be settled on a replacement
cost basis rather than an actual cash value basis. Consequently,
defendant asserts, and the Court agrees, that there was no
ambiguity in labeling the Roof ACV endorsement as "additional
coverage."

Even if there were ambiguity, the endorsement would control. Ohio
law finds that where "printed references in a declarations page of
an insurance policy contain typewritten numerical designations
relating to endorsements, the typewritten endorsement designations
are controlling where the endorsement provisions conflict with the
printed references in the same declarations page." Here, the Policy
Declarations contain a typewritten numerical designation which
identifies "Roof Actual Cash Value (FMHO 3325 0312)." Thus, even if
there were a conflict between the Policy Declarations and the
endorsement (which is identified with that number), the endorsement
prevails.

For these reasons, Counts One and Two fail and plaintiff's
arguments in opposition are not persuasive.

As to the second breach of contract claim, plaintiff alleges that
defendant breached the policy by subtracting a $1000 deductible
from the ACV payment when it was only permitted to subtract the
deductible from payments made under the replacement cost
provisions. Again, defendant contends that this impermissibly
ignores the endorsement. Rather, because plaintiff made a Section 1
loss claim for roof damage caused by a windstorm, the $1,000
deductible applied as clearly set forth in Policy Declarations:
"Losses covered under Section 1 are subject to a deductible of:
$1,000."

Even examining the policy as a whole, the Court agrees with
defendant that the parties intended for the $1,000 deductible to
apply to all losses under Section 1, regardless of whether the loss
is settled on an RCV or ACV basis. Section 1 of the policy lists
four Coverages: A. Dwelling, B. Other Structures, C. Personal
Property, and D. Loss of Use. Under the Loss Settlement provision
of the policy, two of the four coverages (structures and personal
property) are settled on an ACV, not replacement, basis.
Additionally, defendant notes that Loss of Use coverage is not
settled under either RCV or ACV basis because the coverage provides
for payment of "additional living expenses" or "fair rental value"
when an insured's residence is "not fit to live in" because of a
loss. Thus, plaintiff's interpretation that only losses settled on
a RCV basis are subject to a deductible would render the deductible
provision superfluous as to three of the four coverages to which
the policy states the deductible applies. Consequently, plaintiff's
interpretation is not reasonable.

For these reasons, Count Three fails to state a claim as well.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum of Opinion and Order dated Dec.
11, 2018 is available at https://bit.ly/2S3ZO2H from Leagle.com.

Murray Richelson, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by James A. DeRoche,
Garson Johnson, Patrick J. Perotti -- pperotti@dworkenlaw.com --
Dworken & Bernstein & Stuart I. Garson, Garson Johnson.

Liberty Insurance Corporation, other, Defendant, represented by
Dustin M. Dow -- ddow@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler, Keesha N.
Warmsby -- kwarmsby@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler, Martina T.
Ellerbe -- mellerbe@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler & Rodger L.
Eckelberry -- reckelberry@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler.


LOWER MERION SD: Order Quashing Appeal on Injunction Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the appeals case captioned ARTHUR ALAN WOLK, PHILIP BROWNDIES,
AND CATHERINE MARCHAND, Appellees, v. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF LOWER
MERION, Appellant, No. 1 MAP 2018 (Pa.), the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania reversed the order of the Commonwealth Court quashing
Appellant's appeal from a county court's order awarding an
injunction. The matter is remanded for consideration of the merits
of the Appellant’s interlocutory appeal filed as of right.

In this civil matter, the appellant challenges the Commonwealth
Court's decision to quash its appeal from a county court's order
awarding an injunction. The dispute centers on whether a post-trial
motion was required, or whether the appellant was entitled to
proceed with an interlocutory appeal as of right under Rule of
Appellate Procedure 311(a)(4).

Appellees are residents and taxpayers of Lower Merion Township,
Montgomery County. In February 2016, they filed a multi-count,
putative class action complaint against Appellant, the local school
district, which included asserted grievances about "proliferate
spending and tax increases." In various counts styled under
theories of law, Appellees sought money damages in excess of
$55,000,000 and the appointment of a trustee to undertake the
responsibilities of the school board members. The amended complaint
also contained a count seeking equitable relief, primarily in the
form of court-supervised modifications of the procedures employed
by the District's administrators.

While these matters remained pending, Appellees submitted a
"Petition for Injunctive Relief" seeking "immediate relief because
without this [c]ourt's intervention, the District will raise taxes
and the bills for the same will go out July 1, 2016 to some 22,000
taxpayers." The petition requested for the District to be enjoined
from enacting any tax increase for the 2016-2017 fiscal year.
Significantly, consistent with the prayer for immediate relief, the
petition reflected criteria associated with a preliminary
injunction, including an assertion of irreparable harm to the
plaintiffs.

The common pleas court awarded relief on Appellees' petition,
enjoining the District from implementing more than a 2.4 percent
increase in taxes in fiscal year 2016-2017, and requiring
revocation of the larger increase that had been adopted. In its
"Decision/Order Sur Petition for Injunction," the court did not
specifically address the dispute among the parties over whether the
hearing concerned preliminary or permanent injunctive relief.

The District lodged an immediate appeal invoking Rule of Appellate
Procedure 311(a)(4), which provides that an interlocutory appeal
generally may be taken as of right from an order "that grants or
denies, modifies or refuses to modify, continues or refuses to
continue, or dissolves or refuses to dissolve an injunction[.]"
Appellees, in turn, moved to quash, citing Rule of Civil Procedure
227.1 and asserting that a post-trial motion was required to
preserve the District's right to appeal.  The Commonwealth Court
credited Appellees' argument and dismissed the District's appeal.

This case manifests a great deal of procedural disorder. For
example, it is difficult to apprehend that a judicial officer would
undertake to issue a final and permanent injunction while a
challenge to the standing of the proponent to seek judicial review
remained pending.  The Court rejects, out of hand, Appellees'
contentions that a complaint and preliminary objections have some
sort of cross-cancelling effect relative to finality
considerations, and that a petition for an injunction filed in a
pending civil action constitutes a legal or equitable proceeding
separate and distinct from the case in which the petition has been
filed.

Despite the many irregularities, it is clear that the District's
appeal was proper, since Rule of Appellate Procedure 311
specifically authorizes an immediate interlocutory appeal as of
right from an order granting an injunction. In certain instances
the rule permits trial courts to postpone the accrual of the right
to appeal injunctions that alter the status quo until a later stage
by making an injunction effective only after the entry of a final
judgment.  

The Court also reject Appellees' contention that the injunction
issued by the county court was not immediately effective on account
of the District only being required to take action at its next
meeting.  This argument is tenuous at best concerning the mandatory
component of the injunction, since the "Decision/Order" was
immediately effective on its own terms. Accordingly, the District
was instantaneously under the obligation to do all that was
necessary to lay the necessary foundation for a school board
meeting withdrawing the adopted tax increase.

In response to the rationale of the Commonwealth Court, premised on
the New Life Evangelistic Church decision, the Court believes that
better clarity can be achieved, relative to non-jury matters, by
focusing, in the first instance, on the stage of the proceedings
rather than whether a trial-like proceeding may have been
conducted. In this regard, it is essential, as concerns a non-jury
trial, that "the decision" has been issued. Where "the decision" in
the case has not yet issued, Rule 227.1 is not implicated. And, as
the District stresses, "the decision" in a non-jury case is the
decision that disposes of all claims for relief.

A copy of the Court's Opinion dated Dec. 11, 2018 is available at
https://bit.ly/2LoBciE from Leagle.com.

Alfred W. Putnam, Jr. -- Alfred.putnam@dbr.com -- Dorothy Alicia
Hickok -- Dorothy.hickok@dbr.com -- Mark David Taticchi --
mark.taticchi@dbr.com  --Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP, for School
District of Lower Merion, Appellant.

Arthur A. Wolk, The Wolk Law Firm, for Arthur Alan Wolk, Philip
Browndies and Catherine Marchand, Appellee.

John Jacob Hare, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin,
P.C., for Pennsylvania Defense Institute, Amicus Curiae.

Stuart Lee Knade, PA School Boards Association, Inc., for
Pennsylvania School Boards Association, Inc., Amicus Curiae.

Mary Catherine Roper, American Civil Liberties Union of PA, for
ACLU of Pennsylvania, Amicus Curiae.


MARRIOT INTERNATIONAL: Barron Sues over Starwood Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
DENA BARRON, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MARRIOT INTERNATIONAL, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-03720-GJH (D. Md., Dec. 3, 2018), seeks
to enjoin Defendant from further deceptive practices in connection
with a data breach incident.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff brought the action for
herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated whose
personally identifiable information (PII) and other sensitive
information was compromised by the Defendant when the information
of up to 500 million guests and consumers may have been accessed as
part of breach of its Starwood guest reservation database.

The Defendant knew about security vulnerabilities that led to the
Starwood Data Breach before it was announced to the public. The
Defendant's representation that it would secure and protect the PII
and other sensitive information of Plaintiff and Class members were
facts that reasonable persons could be expected to rely upon when
deciding whether to use Defendant's services; such representation
were false with regard to storing and safeguarding Plaintiff and
Class members' PII and other sensitive information; and that
Defendant misrepresented the safety and security of its many
systems and services, and its ability to safely store Plaintiff and
Class members' PII and other sensitive information, the lawsuit
says.

Marriott International is an American multinational diversified
hospitality company that manages and franchises a broad portfolio
of hotels and related lodging facilities.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          James P. Ulwick, Esq.
          KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A.
          One South Street, Suite 2600
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 752 6030
          Facsimile: (410) 539 1269
          E-mail: julwick@kg-law.com

               - and -

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
          Joseph B. Kennedy, Esq.
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF, LLC
          555 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 200 0580
          Facsimile: (610) 727 4360
          E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
                  mds@sstriallawyers.com
                  jbk@sstriallawyers.com

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Husebo Files Suit Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Husebo and Matthew Tidd, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Marriott International,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02545 (C.D. Cal., December 3,
2018), seeks actual, statutory, punitive, exemplary and/or multiple
damages, disgorgement, restitution, preliminary or other equitable
or declaratory relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses and such other and
favorable relief resulting from negligence and for violation of the
Unfair Competition Law of the California Business and Professions
Code and California's Customer Records Act.

Marriott's Starwood guest reservation database suffered a massive
security breach that began in or around 2014, compromising personal
and financial information belonging to up to 500 million customers,
notes the complaint.

Marriott operates Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide. Husebo and
Tidd were Marriott customers who have used the Starwood reservation
system. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sued by Haque Over Starwood Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zakaria Haque, Jonathan Levy, each individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case
No. 8:18-cv-03736-PX (D. Md., December 4, 2018), seeks damages and
injunctive relief for the Defendant's alleged improper and
negligent disclosure of up to approximately 500 million customers'
personal identifying information.

Marriott announced this data breach on November 30, 2018.  Marriott
concedes that as early as September 8, 2018, it learned that up to
500 million guests, who made a reservation at Starwood Hotels &
Resorts Worldwide, LLC property had their data stolen.  This breach
is believed to be one of the largest single company data breaches
in U.S. history, according to the complaint.

Marriott International, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Bethesda, Maryland.  Marriott is
principally a hotel and restaurant business.  Marriott operates
thousands of properties worldwide.

Starwood became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Marriott in 2016.  In
November 2015, Marriott announced its intention to purchase
Starwood for $13.6 billion.  That purchase established Marriott as
the largest hotel chain in the world.

Starwood includes the following hotel brands: W Hotels, St. Regis,
Sheraton Hotels & Resorts, Westin Hotels & Resorts, Element Hotels,
Aloft Hotels, The Luxury Collection, Tribute Portfolio, Le Meridien
Hotels & Resorts, Four Points by Sheraton, and Design Hotels, as
well as Starwood-branded timeshare properties.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          WHITFIELD, BRYSON, & MASON, LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10036-8718
          Telephone: (917) 438-9102
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

               - and -

          Adam Frankel, Esq.
          GREENWICH LEGAL ASSOCIATES, LLC
          881 Lake Avenue
          Greenwich, CT 06831
          Telephone: (203) 622-6001
          E-mail: afrankel@grwlegal.com


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Walters Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald N. Walters and Kenneth Tew, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Marriott
International, Inc., Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-03804-GJH (D. Md., December 11, 2018)
is a class action against Defendants for failure to secure and
safeguard its customers' personally identifiable information
("PII") such as the passport information, customers' names, mailing
addresses, and other personal information, as well as credit and
debit card numbers and other payment card data ("PCD").

Marriott and Starwood collected this information at the time
customers registered on its website, checked-in to one of its
hotels, used its loyalty program, and/or used it at one of its
dining or retail operations within its hotels.

Beginning or around 2014 (and perhaps even earlier) and continuing
through November 2018, hackers exploiting vulnerabilities in
Starwood's network accessed the guest reservation system at
Starwood hotels and stole this data. On or about November 30, 2018,
Marriott acknowledged an investigation had determined that there
was unauthorized access to the Starwood guest reservation database,
which contained guest information relating to reservations at
Starwood properties on or before September 10, 2018.

According to the complaint, Marriott disregarded Plaintiffs' and
Class Members' rights by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or
negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure its data systems were protected, failing to take available
steps to prevent and stop the breach from ever happening, and
failing to disclose to its customers the material facts that it did
not have adequate computer systems and security practices to
safeguard customers' Private Information.

As a result, Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information was
compromised and stolen. However, as this same information remains
stored in Marriott's computer systems, Plaintiffs and Class Members
have an interest in ensuring that their information is safe, and
they are entitled to seek injunctive and other equitable relief,
including independent oversight of Marriott's security systems,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff and class representative Ronald N. Walters is a United
States citizen and resident of Kanawaha County, West Virginia, and
has been a long-time SPG member. Mr. Walters provided his personal
and confidential information to Defendants on the basis that they
would keep his information secure, employ reasonable and adequate
security measures to ensure that hackers would not compromise his
information, and notify him promptly in the event of a breach.

Plaintiff and class representative Kenneth Tew, Ph.D. is a dual
citizen of the United States and the United Kingdom, and resident
of Charleston County, South Carolina. Plaintiff Tew has been a
long-time SPG member. Dr. Tew provided his personal and
confidential information to Defendants on the basis that they would
keep his information secure, employ reasonable and adequate
security measures to ensure that hackers would not compromise his
information, and notify him promptly in the event of a breach.

Marriott International, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business located in the State of Maryland at
10400 Fernwood Road, Bethesda, Maryland 20817. Defendant Marriott
operates, franchises, and licenses hotel, residential, and time
share properties worldwide through various subsidiaries, each of
which act as an agent of or in concert with Marriott.

Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC is a subsidiary company of
Marriott International, Inc., with its principal place of business
at One StarPoint, Stamford, Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jodi Westbrook Flowers, Esq.
     Fred Baker, Esq.
     Ann Ritter, Esq.
     Andrew Arnold, Esq.
     Annie Kouba, Esq.
     MOTLEY RICE LLC
     28 Bridgeside Boulevard
     Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
     Phone: (843) 216-9000
     Facsimile: (843) 216-9450
     Email: jf1owers@motleyrice.com
            fbaker@motleyrice.com
            aritter@motleyrice.com
            aarnold@motleyrice.com
            akouba@motleyrice.com

          - and -

     William F. Askinazi, Esq.
     Askinazi Law & Business LLC
     12504 Palatine Court
     Potomac, MD 20854
     Phone: 301-540-5380
     Facsimile: 240-715-9113
     Email: askinazilaw@gmail.com

          - and -

     Charles R. "Rusty" Webb, Esq.
     The Webb Law Centre, PLLC
     716 Lee Street East
     Charleston, WV 25301
     Phone: (304) 344-9322
     Facsimile: (304) 344-1157
     Email: rusty@rustywebb.com

          - and -

     Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq.
     Lynn Lincoln Sarka, Esq.
     Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
     Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
     120 I Third Avenue, Suite 3200
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Phone: (206) 623-1900
     Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
     Email: Isarko@kellerrohrback.com
            gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
            claufcllhcrg0.kcllcrrohrback.com

          - and -

     Chris Springer, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
     801 Garden Street, Suite 30 I
     Santa Barbara, CA 93101
     Phone: (805) 456-1496
     Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
     Email: cspringer@kellerrohrback.com


MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP informs shareholders
that purchasers of McDermott International, Inc. (NYSE: MDR) filed
a class action complaint against the company's officers and
directors for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 between January 24, 2018 and October 30, 2018. McDermott
provides engineering, procurement, construction and installation,
front-end engineering and design, and module fabrication services
for upstream field developments.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
https://www.robbinsarroyo.com/mcdermott-international-inc-nov-2018/

McDermott Accused of Hiding Higher Project Costs Related to Its
Acquisition

According to the complaint, McDermott repeatedly affirmed its 2018
guidance, acknowledging "strong operational performance, cost
saving and better than anticipated weather and change orders." In
May 2018, McDermott acquired Chicago Bridge & Iron Company
("CB&I"). Shortly after, McDermott revealed it was disappointed
with the increased cost estimates for three of the legacy CB&I
projects, but that the company could nevertheless bring them to
successful completion. Then, on October 30, 2018, McDermott
reported that financial results for the third quarter of 2018 fell
far below analysts' estimates and announced a massive $744 million
change in the value of certain projects it had acquired from CB&I,
citing regional limitations on labor availability and quality. On
this news, McDermott's stock fell nearly 40% to close at $7.73 per
share on October 31, 2018, and has yet to regain its value.

McDermott Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid Kandinov
at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- is a
nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights law. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped its
clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and
the companies in which they have invested. [GN]


MEDTRONIC INC: Class Rep's Bid for Plan of Allocation Approval OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael J. Davis granted the Class Representatives'
Motion for Approval of the Plan of Allocation in the case In re
MEDTRONIC, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No.
0:13-cv-01686-MJD-KMM (D. Minn.).

The Court finds and concludes that the formula for the calculation
of the claims of Authorized Claimants which is set forth in the
Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action sent to Class
Members, provides a fair and reasonable basis upon which to
allocate the proceeds of the Net Settlement Fund established by the
Stipulation among the Class Members, with due consideration having
been given to administrative convenience and necessity. This Court
finds and concludes that the Plan of Allocation, as set forth in
the Notice, is, in all respects, fair and reasonable and the Court
approves the Plan of Allocation.

The Court finds and concludes that the process set forth in
Paragraph 5.10 of the Stipulation provides a fair and reasonable
basis upon which to reallocate any remaining funds after the
initial distribution of the Net Settlement Fund to Authorized
Claimants.

The Court also finds and concludes that the minimum distribution
threshold of $10 as provided for in the Plan of Allocation is fair
and reasonable and warranted to minimize expense and administrative
costs to the Class.

A copy of the Court's Dec. 11, 2018 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/2LmUq85 from Leagle.com.

West Virginia Pipe Trades Health & Welfare Fund, Plaintiff,
represented by Brian C. Gudmundson, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Carolyn
G. Anderson, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Christopher M. Wood, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Danielle S. Myers, Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice,Hillary Bryn Stakem, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Jonah H. Goldstein, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Robert R. Henssler, Jr., Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Shawn A. Williams, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Susannah R. Conn, Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP.

Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii & Union Asset
Management Holding AG, Plaintiffs, represented by Arthur C. Leahy,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Brian C.
Gudmundson, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Carolyn G. Anderson, Zimmerman
Reed, PLLP, Christopher F. Moriarty, Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice,
Christopher M. Wood, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Danielle S. Myers, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Ellen
Gusikoff Stewart, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice,
Hillary Bryn Stakem, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, James M. Hughes, Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice, Jonah H.
Goldstein, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Meghan
S.B. Oliver, Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice, Robert R. Henssler,
Jr., Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Shawn A.
Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Susannah
R. Conn, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice,William
Henry Narwold, Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice & William S. Norton ,
Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice.

Medtronic, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda Margaret
MacDonald, Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher W.
Wasson, Pepper Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, James K. Langdon, Dorsey
& Whitney LLP, Janine Marie Pierson, Williams & Connolly LLP, pro
hac vice, Joseph G. Petrosinelli, Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac
vice, Sarah Lochner O'Connor, Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac
vice, Steven M. Farina, Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice &
Theresa M. Bevilacqua, Dorsey & Whitney LLP.


MEDTRONIC INC: Lead Counsel in Securities Fraud Suit Awarded $8.5MM
-------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael J. Davis granted the Lead Counsel's motion
for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and Class
Representatives' costs and expenses in the litigation captioned In
re MEDTRONIC, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No.
0:13-cv-01686-MJD-KMM (D. Minn.).

Having considered all papers filed and proceedings conducted and
having found the Settlement of the litigation to be fair,
reasonable and adequate, the Court awards Lead Counsel attorneys'
fees in the amount of $7,568,000 (which is 17.6% of the settlement
fund), plus expenses in the amount of $1,022,639.88, together with
the interest earned on both amounts for the same time period and at
the same rate as that earned on the Settlement Fund until paid. The
Court finds that the amount of fees awarded is appropriate and that
the amount of fees awarded is fair and reasonable under the
"percentage-of-recovery" method.

In making this award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid
from the Settlement Fund, the Court has considered and found that:

   * the Settlement has created a fund of $43,000,000 in cash that
has been funded into escrow under the Stipulation, and Class
Members who submit acceptable Proof of Claim and Release forms will
benefit from the Settlement that occurred because of the efforts of
Plaintiffs' Counsel;

   * the fee sought by Lead Counsel has been reviewed and approved
as reasonable by Class Representatives, institutional investors,
that were all involved in overseeing the prosecution and resolution
of the Litigation;

   * The Litigation involves complex factual and legal issues, and,
in the absence of Settlement, would involve further lengthy
proceedings with uncertain resolution if the case were to proceed
to trial.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 11, 2018 is available at
https://bit.ly/2QDBCYg from Leagle.com.

West Virginia Pipe Trades Health & Welfare Fund, Plaintiff,
represented by Brian C. Gudmundson -- brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
-- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Carolyn G. Anderson –
Carolyn.anderson@zimreed.com --  Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Christopher
M. Wood  -- cwood@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Danielle S. Myers -- denim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Ellen Gusikoff Stewart -- elleng@rdrlaw.com
-- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Hillary Bryn
Stakem , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Jonah H.
Goldstein -- jonahg@rdrlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
pro hac vice, Robert R. Henssler, Jr. -- bhenssler@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Shawn A. Williams
-- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP &
Susannah R. Conn -- sconn@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP.

Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii & Union Asset
Management Holding AG, Plaintiffs, represented by Arthur C. Leahy ,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Brian C. Gudmundson
, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Carolyn G. Anderson , Zimmerman Reed, PLLP,
Christopher F. Moriarty , Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice,
Christopher M. Wood , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Danielle S. Myers , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Ellen
Gusikoff Stewart , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice,
Hillary Bryn Stakem , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, James M. Hughes , Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice, Jonah H.
Goldstein , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Meghan
S.B. Oliver -- moliver@motleyrice.com --  Motley Rice LLC, pro hac
vice, Robert R. Henssler, Jr. , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
pro hac vice, Shawn A. Williams , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
pro hac vice, Susannah R. Conn , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
pro hac vice, William Henry Narwold -- bnarwold@motleyrice.com--
Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice & William S. Norton , Motley Rice
LLC, pro hac vice.

Medtronic, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda Margaret
MacDonald -- amacdonald@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac
vice, Christopher W. Wasson -- wassonc@pepperlaw.com -- Pepper
Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, James K. Langdon --
langdon.jim@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Janine Marie
Pierson -- jpierson@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac
vice, Joseph G. Petrosinelli -- jpetrosinelli@wc.com -- Williams &
Connolly LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah Lochner O'Connor --
soconnor@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice,  Steven
M. Farina -- sfarina@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac
vice & Theresa M. Bevilacqua -- bevilacqua.theresa@dorsey.com --
Dorsey & Whitney LLP.

William A. Hawkins, Gary L. Ellis, Richard E. Kuntz, Julie
Bearcroft, Richard W Treharne & Martin Yahiro, Defendants,
represented by Amanda Margaret MacDonald , Williams & Connolly LLP,
James K. Langdon, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Theresa M. Bevilacqua ,
Dorsey & Whitney LLP.


MEDTRONIC INC: Settlement in Securities Fraud Suit Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael J. Davis approved the settlement set forth
in the stipulation entered into by Medtronic, Inc. and the
Plaintiffs in the case captioned In re MEDTRONIC, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Master File No. 0:13-cv-01686-MJD-KMM (D. Minn.).

The Court holds that Defendants have complied with the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. section1715, et seq.
Defendants timely mailed notice of the Settlement pursuant to 28
U.S.C. section1715(b), including notices to the Attorney General of
the United States of America, and the Attorneys General of all
States in which Members of the Class reside. The Court finds that
Defendants have complied in all respects with the requirements of
28 U.S.C. section 1715.

The Court, thus, fully and finally approves the settlement set
forth in the stipulation in all respects (including, without
limitation, the amount of the settlement, the releases provided for
therein, and the dismissal with prejudice of the claims asserted in
the Litigation), and finds that the settlement is, in all respects,
fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class.
Subject to the terms and provisions of the stipulation and the
conditions therein being satisfied, the parties are directed to
consummate the settlement.

All of the claims asserted in the litigation are dismissed in their
entirety with prejudice. The Settling Parties will bear their own
costs and expenses, except as otherwise expressly provided in the
Stipulation.

The Court has considered the objection filed by Anthony M.
Chasensky and finds it to be without merit. Therefore, it is
overruled.

A copy of the Court's Order and Final Judgment is available at
https://bit.ly/2Ch37hu from Leagle.com.

West Virginia Pipe Trades Health & Welfare Fund, Plaintiff,
represented by Brian C. Gudmundson -- brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
--  Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Carolyn G. Anderson --
Carolyn.anderson@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Christopher
M. Wood -- cwood@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Danielle S. Myers  --  denim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Ellen Gusikoff Stewart --
elleng@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Hillary Bryn Stakem , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro
hac vice, Jonah H. Goldstein --  jonahg@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Robert R. Henssler, Jr. ,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Shawn A. Williams ,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Susannah R. Conn , Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Medtronic, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda Margaret
MacDonald -- amacdonald@wc.com --Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac
vice, Christopher W. Wasson -- wassonc@pepperlaw.com -- Pepper
Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, James K. Langdon --
langdon.jim@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Janine Marie
Pierson -- jpierson@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac
vice,  Joseph G. Petrosinelli -- jpetrosinelli@wc.com -- Williams &
Connolly LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah Lochner O'Connor , Williams &
Connolly LLP, pro hac vice, Steven M. Farina , Williams & Connolly
LLP, pro hac vice & Theresa M. Bevilacqua --
bevilacqua.theresa@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP.

William A. Hawkins, Gary L. Ellis, Richard E. Kuntz, Julie
Bearcroft, Richard W Treharne & Martin Yahiro, Defendants,
represented by Amanda Margaret MacDonald , Williams & Connolly LLP,
James K. Langdon , Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Theresa M. Bevilacqua ,
Dorsey & Whitney LLP.

Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii & Union Asset
Management Holding AG, Movants, represented by Arthur C. Leahy ,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher F.
Moriarty , Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice, Christopher M. Wood ,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Danielle S. Myers ,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Ellen Gusikoff
Stewart , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice,James M.
Hughes , Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice, Shawn A. Williams , Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Susannah R. Conn , Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice & William S. Norton , Motley
Rice LLC, pro hac vice.


MELINTA: Naples Challenges Share Purchase Deal with Vatera
----------------------------------------------------------
James Naples, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
stockholders of Melinta Therapeutics, Inc., Plaintiff, v. John H.
Johnson, Kevin T. Ferro, Bruce L. Downey, Jay Galeota, David Gill,
Thomas Koestler, Garheng Kong, David Zaccardelli, and Melinta
Therapeutics, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2018-0874 (Del. Ch.,
December 3, 2018), seeks (i) to enjoin defendants and all persons
acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or
closing the transfer or control of Melinta by Vatera by way of
purchase of its common stock, (ii) rescinding it in the event
defendants consummate the purchase, and (iii) 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.

Melinta is the largest pure-play antibiotics company, and its
business focuses on the development of treatments for bacterial
infections. Its stock price has collapsed in 2018, dropping from
$16.45 per share on January 1, 2018 to $2.12 per share as of
November 30, 2018.

Venture capital and private equity firm Vatera is Melinta's largest
stockholder and has two representatives on the Board. On November
6, 2018, Vatera Healthcare committed to purchase shares of the
Melinta's common stock for an aggregate purchase price of up to $75
million at $2.66 per share which is the volume-weighted average
price of Melinta's common stock. Said agreement will substantially
increase Vatera's ownership of Melinta stock, thereby transferring
control of the Company to Vatera for no premium.

However, the proxy statement filed in connection with the
transaction failed to disclose the process or negotiations
culminating to the purchase, if there were any other alternatives
to the purchase, and whether the Board retained a financial advisor
in connection with the transaction. Without this information,
stockholders have no way to assess the fairness of the process or
financial terms of the purchase, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy S. Friedman, Esq.
      David F.E. Tejtel, Esq.
      FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
      240 East 79th Street, Suite A
      New York, NY 10075
      Tel: (888) 529-1108

             - and -

      D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
      KASKELA LAW LLC
      201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Tel: (484) 258-1585
      Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com

             - and -

      Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
      Craig J. Springer, Esq.
      David M. Sborz, Esq.
      ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
      3801 Kennett Pike, Building C, Suite 305
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Tel: (302)-504-4957
      Fax: (302)-397-2681


METROPOLITAN LIFE:  Shortchanges Plan Holders' Benefits, Says Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
William Masten and Catherine McAlister, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
Employee Benefits Committee and John/Jane Does 1-20, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-11229, (S.D. N.Y., December 3, 2018), Defendants,
seeks damages and remedies pursuant to the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company provides insurance, annuities
and employee benefit programs. It manages the Metropolitan Life
Retirement Plan, a defined benefit plan of its employees and their
beneficiaries.

Masten and McAlister worked for Metropolitan until their retirement
in 2012 and 2015, respectively. Under the terms of his retirement
plan, they shall receive a joint and survivor retirement annuity.
Under the terms of the Plan, Ms. McAlister and her husband receive
a joint and survivor retirement annuity.

Metropolitan allegedly failed to pay them the alternative benefits
available under its defined benefit Metropolitan Life Retirement
Plan. Metropolitan uses an outdated mortality table for actuarial
assumptions used to calculate the conversion factor (i.e. the value
of the Alternate Annuity Benefits) and uses a 6 percent interest
rate. The resulting computation is materially lower than the
benefits that would be a true equivalent to their default benefits,
asserts the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert A. Izard, Esq.
      Seth R. Klein, Esq.
      Christopher M. Barrett, Esq.
      Douglas P. Needham, Esq.
      IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
      29 South Main Street, Suite 305
      West Hartford, CT 06107
      Tel: (860) 493-6292
      Fax: (860) 493-6290
      Email: rizard@ikrlaw.com
             sklein@ikrlaw.com
             cbarrett@ikrlaw.com
             dneedham@ikrlaw.com

             - and -

      Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
      Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
      Washington, DC 20007
      Tel: (202) 463-2101
      Fax: (202) 463-2103
      Email: gporter@baileyglasser.com
             mboyko@baileyglasser.com


MICHAEL STORES: Dispute with Armstrong Submitted for Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh grants the Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration and stays the case captioned TERESA ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff, v. MICHAELS STORES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
17-CV-06540-LHK (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Teresa Armstrong filed the putative class action against
Michael Stores, Inc. in the Superior Court of California on Oct.
10, 2017. Defendant removed the action based on the Class Action
Fairness Act on Nov. 10, 2017. On Dec. 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed
her First Amended Complaint, which asserted eight causes of action
arising from her employment with Michaels at a retail store in
California, including a claim for civil penalties under the Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). The Defendant then filed a motion
to compel arbitration of Plaintiff's non-PAGA claims, dismiss class
allegations, and stay civil proceedings.

Defendant contended that the Arbitration Agreement requires
Plaintiff to arbitrate--on an individual basis--any claims relating
to her employment, except for her claim for civil penalties under
PAGA. Plaintiff does not challenge whether the parties agreed to
arbitrate, whether the scope of the Arbitration Agreement
encompasses all of her claims except her PAGA claim in this
lawsuit, or whether these are questions for the arbitrator.
Instead, Plaintiff argues that Defendant (1) forfeited the right to
compel arbitration by not seeking arbitration within the applicable
time limit, which included an obligation to seek arbitration
"within the statute of limitations" and "as soon as possible," and
that Defendant (2) waived the right to compel arbitration by
litigating the case. As an initial matter, the parties disagree on
whether these questions of forfeiture and waiver are for the Court
or for the arbitrator to decide.

On whether the Court or the arbitrator should decide the issues,
the Court finds that the forfeiture question should go to the
arbitrator. However, the Court finds that the Court itself must
address the waiver question because the delegation provision fails
to provide clear and unmistakable proof that the parties agreed to
delegate to an arbitrator the issue of waiver through litigation
conduct.

The Court also finds that Defendant has not engaged in conduct
inconsistent with its right to arbitrate because Defendant has not
actively litigated its case to take advantage of being in federal
court. First, Defendant has been transparent and consistent in its
interest in enforcing the Arbitration Agreement since the outset of
this case (filed Oct. 10, 2017), and Defendant reiterated its
interest in seeking arbitration in its Nov. 10, 2017 and Feb.14,
2018 answers in the Feb. 7, 2018 and July 3, 2018 joint case
management statements at the February 14, 2018 case management
conference; and in Defendant's June 5, 2018 letter to Plaintiff's
counsel. Second, Defendant participated only in minimal discovery
and did not file any substantive motions, including any motion to
dismiss, let alone a motion to dismiss on a key merits issue.

The Court turns second to the question of whether to stay the
non-arbitrable PAGA claim pending resolution of the arbitration.
When a court "determines that all of the claims raised in the
action are subject to arbitration," the court "may either stay the
action or dismiss it outright." Where plaintiffs assert both
arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims, district courts have
"discretion whether to proceed with nonarbitrable claims before or
after the arbitration and [have] . . . authority to stay
proceedings in the interest of saving time and effort for itself
and litigants." In CMAX, "Where it is proposed that a pending
proceeding be stayed, the competing interests which are affected by
the granting or refusal to grant a stay must be weighed." "Among
these competing interests are the possible damage which may result
from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party
may suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly course
of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of
issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to
result from a stay."

The Court, in its discretion, discretion, also finds that a stay of
the non-arbitrable PAGA claim is appropriate. First, because
Plaintiff is silent as to whether a stay is appropriate, Plaintiff
has failed to identify any possible damage she may suffer from a
stay. Second, Defendant has similarly failed to identify any
hardship or inequity it may suffer in being required to go forward
with the case. Third, the Court finds that a stay would save the
Court and the parties time and effort. "Plaintiff's PAGA claim[]
[is] derivative in nature of her substantive claims that will
proceed to arbitration, and the outcome of the nonarbitrable PAGA
claim[] will depend upon the arbitrator's decision." Thus, the
Court concludes that a stay will help advance "the orderly course
of justice." In sum, the Court finds the CMAX factors weigh in
favor of granting a stay of Plaintiff's non-arbitrable PAGA claim,
and therefore, the Court grants Defendant's motion to stay
Plaintiff's PAGA claim.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 11, 2018 is available at
https://bit.ly/2UNjr0M from Leagle.com.

Teresa Armstrong, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh,
Setareh Law Group & Thomas Alistair Segal, Setareh Law Group.

Michaels Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jonathan Sage
Christie, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Stephanie Peri Priel,
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld LLP & Gregory William Knopp, Akin
Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.


MIDLAND CREDIT: District Court Junks Cooper FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Clay D. Land granted the Defendant's motion
and dismissed the case captioned KEITH COOPER, Plaintiff, v.
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:18-CV-82
(CDL) (M.D. Ga.).

Keith Cooper brought the putative class action alleging that
Midland Credit Management, Inc. sent him a collection letter that
violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15
U.S.C. section 1692, et seq. Court is Midland Credit Management,
Inc.'s filed a motion to dismiss.

Cooper owes a debt to Midland Funding, LLC based on Cooper's use of
a revolving line of credit he obtained from Credit One Bank. Cooper
does not allege that he selected any of the payment options. Cooper
does allege that if he did make a partial payment, that "would
potentially re-start the statute of limitations on the debt under
Georgia law." Cooper further alleges that Midland's collection
letter "is misleading and deceptive since it fails to advise
[Cooper] that if he takes advantage of any of the payment options,
such payment(s) would be a new promise to pay that would restart
the statute of limitations clock in Georgia thus exposing him to a
potential lawsuit." Cooper does not allege facts to suggest that
Midland would sue him following a partial payment, and in fact,
Cooper alleged that Midland unequivocally stated that it will not
sue him.

To prevail on his FDCPA claim, Cooper must establish that: (1) he
was the object of collection activity arising from consumer debt;
(2) Midland is a debt collector under the FDCPA; and (3) Midland
engaged in a practice prohibited by the FDCPA. Here, Midland does
not dispute that Cooper was the object of collection activity
arising from consumer debt or that it is a debt collector under the
FDCPA. The dispositive question is whether Cooper adequately
alleged an FDCPA violation.

The Court recognizes that at the motion to dismiss stage, it must
draw all reasonable inferences in favor of Cooper. Cooper alleged
that if he made a partial payment, that could "potentially re-start
the statute of limitations" and that he would be exposed to a
"potential lawsuit." But Cooper did not allege any facts to suggest
that Midland would disregard its promise not to sue him for the
debt and instead pursue a claim against him if he made a partial
payment accompanied by a notation sufficient to revive the statute
of limitations. In the absence of such factual allegations,
Midland's letter would only be misleading or amount to an unfair
means of attempting to collect a debt if the Court inferred from
Cooper's allegations that Midland would do exactly what it said it
would not do: sue Cooper for the debt. So, the Court would have to
infer that Midland's letter amounts to attempted fraudulent
inducement--that "we will not sue you for the debt" actually means
"we will not sue you for the debt unless you make a partial
payment." The Court finds that such an inference is implausible and
therefore concludes that Cooper's claim must be dismissed. Of
course, if Midland did renege on its promise not to sue and instead
recalculated the statute of limitations based on a partial payment,
then either sued Cooper on the debt or resold the debt to someone
who sued him on it, Cooper would have a good argument that Midland
used an unfair or unconscionable means of collecting a debt. And he
could have a claim at that time.

The Court adds that if this were a case alleging that the debt
collector devised a scheme to mislead the consumer to refresh a
stale debt, then the outcome would be different. But Cooper does
not allege such a scheme, likely because there is nothing to
indicate that Midland would pursue a lawsuit to collect the debt if
a partial payment were voluntarily made. Instead, Cooper seeks to
have a class action certified based on the remote possibility that
a consumer could be misled into renewing an old debt and based on
sheer speculation that the debt collector would then pursue
collection of that renewed debt in court, notwithstanding the fact
that it said it would not do so. Such speculation does not support
an FDCPA claim.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 11, 2018 is available at
https://bit.ly/2BlOFDb from Leagle.com.

KEITH COOPER, Individually on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by DAVID A. CHAMI &
TRISTAN WADE GILLESPIE .

MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC, Defendant, represented by ALAN F.
PRYOR -- apryor@balch.com -- Balch & Bingham LLP & AUSTIN B.
ALEXANDER -- aalexander@balch.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: Jeffrey Tope Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled JEFFREY H. TOPE, MARK S. LEWIS,
JANE S. LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01448 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 14,
2018), the Plaintiffs move the Court for certification of two
classes:

   "(A) all persons in the United States whose telephone numbers
   were listed on the national Do Not Call Registry, and to whom,
   at any time within the applicable limitations period, more than

   one call within any twelve month period was placed by or on
   behalf of Bankers Life to market, promote and sell its
   insurance products";

   - and -

   "(B) all persons in the United States who received more than a
   telemarketing call from Bankers Life, requested that Bankers
   Life cease calling, and then still received another calls or
   calls more than 30 days after making their request."[CC]

Plaintiff's Attorneys:

          Howard Prossnitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES HOWARD PROSSNITZ
          1014 Ontario St.
          Oak Park, IL 60302
          Telephone: 708 203-5747

MIDLAND FUNDING: McCoy Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled CHERYL MCCOY, individually and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, vs. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC; MIDLAND, CREDIT MANAGEMENT,
INC; and ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC., the DEFENDANTS, Case No.
1:18-cv-01035 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 14, 2018), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "(1) all persons with addresses in the State of Illinois
      (2) from whom Defendant attempted to collect a delinquent
      consumer debt, (3) upon which Defendants sent a form letter
      substantially similar to that of Plaintiff's Exhibit F,
      which contained the following paragraphs:

        (a) We have the right to inquire regarding the existence
        and location of assets, and your ability to satisfy the
        judgment. Complete the enclosed Financial Disclosure Form
        and send your response via email to
        FWLResponses@mcmcg.com. Alternatively, you may mail the
        form to P.O. Box 2121, Warren, MI 48090.

      (4) which included a Financial Disclosure Form (5) sent
      during a period one year prior to the filing of this action
      and ending 20 days after the filing date of this Complaint."

   2. appointing Plaintiff as class representative; and

   3. appointing Plaintiff's lawyers as counsel for the class.[CC]

Plaintiff's Attorneys:

          Michael J. Wood, Esq.
          Celetha C. Chatman, Esq.
          Community Lawyers Group, Ltd.
          73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 514
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 757-1880
          Facsimile: (312) 265-3227
          E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com
                  cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: RGL Aims for Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Hans van Leeuwen, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that the wide-pinstripe suit is a bit of a giveaway: the Australian
executive who is spearheading a multimillion-pound class action in
Britain against National Australia Bank and its former offshoot
Clydesdale & Yorkshire Bank is not a lawyer by trade -- he's an
investment banker.

James Hayward, chief executive of the London-based claims
management firm RGL, is not interested in the legal niceties of a
class action case, or preparing a watertight brief for court. For
him a lawsuit is an asset, like any other he has managed in his
banking career. His job is to develop and nurture it to the point
where he can attract funding and earn a return.

"I look at these cases as assets in a portfolio. It's really
portfolio management -- it's a commercial business, it's not a
legal business. They just happen to be legal assets," he tells The
Australian Financial Review.

In Britain -- feted as the world's litigation capital, and the home
of the payment protection insurance (PPI) mis-selling scandal --
there are plenty of class-action lawyers (or their British
equivalent), and plenty of people willing to fund the cases for a
cut of the winnings.

And there are specialist companies whose only job is to round up
claimants. But Mr. Hayward says RGL, which was set up around three
years ago, is the only company playing an intermediary role --
neither litigant, lawyer nor funder.

"We create the case, we develop it into something that is
commercially and legally robust enough for people to want to invest
in it -- it becomes an investible asset," he says. "Then we get it
funded, we get the lawyers involved, and we manage it."

There are around eight to 10 litigation funders for RGL to choose
from in London. Mr. Hayward says it's a growth area: "There are two
or three very large hedge funds that are interested in getting into
litigation funding because it's so profitable. They'll fund the
funders."

It's a model Mr. Hayward suggests could work in Australia: "You
could see it working there. Litigation funding is probably more
developed in Australia than anywhere else."

Taking on the banks
The NAB/Clydesdale suit illustrates RGL's method. The accusation is
that between 2001 and 2012 Clydesdale, supported by technical
expertise from its then parent NAB, made more than 8000 loans to
businesses that were marketed as fixed-rate loans but in fact
concealed an interest-rate hedge. The consequence was unexpected
and punitive costs for businesses that tried to vary the terms of
the loan, to the extent that some clients were left insolvent.

The accusation is that between 2001 and 2012 Clydesdale, supported
by technical expertise from its then parent NAB, made more than
8000 loans to businesses that were marketed as fixed-rate loans but
in fact concealed an interest-rate hedge.  Glenn Hunt

A group of affected people and businesses got in touch with RGL.
Mr. Hayward and his team -- a former business executive and an
insolvency practitioner -- went to Leeds in the north of England
with a couple of lawyers and heard them out.

The stories they heard were stark, but for Mr. Hayward and his
colleagues the case had to make not just legal sense but commercial
sense: what was the potential scale of the action? What were the
odds of the banks settling rather than going into prolonged and
costly litigation?

"You look for things that are so heinous that the bank is going to
want to settle quickly. A quick settlement is one of the main
criteria we look at. Even if the legal merits look good, if it's
five years and then an appeal, then forget it."

That said, RGL's analysis of a case will be based on it going the
distance, and funders will be signed up expecting a trial. "We plan
for the worst and hope for the best," Mr. Hayward says.

Dealing with a bank can be particularly daunting. "There's a legal
axiom that banks never settle," Mr. Hayward says. "If a bank thinks
it can win, it will throw as much money as it needs to in order to
win the case, because it will set a precedent. Whereas if the
bank's worried about it, it will quietly settle one by one."

So RGL's tactic is to try to intimidate Clydesdale and NAB with
scale. Mr. Hayward's team has to maximise the number of potential
claimants, to up the stakes enough to push the banks towards a
settlement. Having recruited up to 500 themselves, RGL said it had
teamed up with AllSquare Finance, a PPI claims firm, which has
amassed up to 550 potential claimants to this action.

Building a book
"We have a commercial arrangement with them whereby they help us
build the book," Mr. Hayward says. "Claims management companies
don't go near the litigation, they gather the clients. They fill a
need that we don't -- we don't have the expertise in gathering huge
volumes of clients."

RGL has a back office in the Midlands town of Ludlow -- where
labour is cheaper -- which processes the documentation and deals
with the claimants. "It's modular, so if we get heavy demand we can
add people. AllSquare are helping to feed that machine."

The claimants authorise RGL to instruct the lawyers, to take out
the After the Event insurance (which covers the legal costs and
expenses involved in litigation), to gather in the settlement or
litigation proceeds, and to parcel out those proceeds to the
claimants and funders.

"We haven't looked at anything that has been under GBP100 million
($180 million) or GBP200 million in claim value. There is a lot of
work, and a lot of mouths to feed," Hayward says.

RGL has "five or six" cases on the go, and Clydesdale isn't at the
front of the queue to deliver a return. But at the moment returns
are for the future -- Mr. Hayward admits that the first two or
three years of business, as the cases are developed, have been
RGL's "lean years". Time will tell whether, for this particular
asset class, his banker's nose has served him well. [GN]


NAVIENT CORP: Pierce Investigates Potential Class Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP is investigating whether
student loan servicers violated consumer protection or other laws
in connection with the federal Public Service Loan Forgiveness
program. If you believe errors or malfeasance by a loan servicer
have prevented or delayed you from receiving Public Service Loan
Forgiveness by the federal government, you are encouraged to
contact Pierce Bainbridge attorney Jonathan A. Sorkowitz at
PSLF@piercebainbridge.com for additional information about your
legal rights and options.

The Public Service Loan Forgiveness ("PSLF") program, administered
by the U.S. Department of Education, was created by the College
Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 to provide public- and
nonprofit-sector employees with a means to have their student loan
burden abated. Borrowers are required to make 120 qualifying
monthly payments under a qualifying repayment plan while working
full-time for a qualifying employer. Consequently, student
borrowers first began to become eligible for forgiveness under the
PSLF program in 2017. However, as has been widely reported in the
press, approximately 99% of student borrowers who have applied for
PSLF have been rejected to date.1

The administration of student loans is handled for the federal
government by loan servicing companies. Pierce Bainbridge Beck
Price & Hecht LLP is investigating whether errors or malfeasance by
those loan servicers may have improperly or illegally led to
denials of loan forgiveness. In particular, the firm is
investigating the actions of the following loan servicers:

   -- Navient
   -- Nelnet
   -- Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc.
   -- American Education Services
   -- FedLoan Servicing
   -- ACS/Conduent
   -- MOHELA
   -- HESCEd Financial
   -- CornerStone
   -- Granite State Management & Resources
   -- OSLA Servicing

The loan servicer practices which may be causing the high PSLF
denial rate include, but are not limited to:

   -- Failure to consolidate private loans for borrowers requesting
PSLF into federal Direct Loans, as required for loan forgiveness
  -- Failure to transfer loans of borrowers requesting PSLF to
FedLoan Servicing, as required for loan forgiveness
   -- Miscalculation of a borrower's correct monthly payment in an
Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plan
   -- Delays in placing students into an IDR plan, or in
calculating IDR payments, resulting in unnecessary
interest-capitalization events
   -- Placement of borrowers who request PSLF into ineligible
payment plans
   -- Placement of borrowers who request PSLF into unnecessary loan
forbearance
   -- Loss of required paperwork, such as employment certification
forms, or failure to appropriately submit it to the federal
government
   -- Other errors and malfeasance by loan servicers that prevent
borrowers from receiving loan forgiveness for which they would
otherwise be eligible

If you believe errors or malfeasance by any of the above loan
servicers have prevented or delayed you from receiving Public
Service Loan Forgiveness by the federal government, please contact
Pierce Bainbridge attorney Jonathan A. Sorkowitz at
PSLF@piercebainbridge.com for additional information about your
legal rights and options.

        About Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP

Pierce Bainbridge has significant experience in prosecuting major
class action cases and taking cases through trial across the United
States. We have represented individuals, companies, funds,
foundations and other entities worldwide with offices in New York,
Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C. [GN]


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Daniel et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled EDWING DANIEL, WILLIAM COTTRILL,
BROOKE PADGETT, and ELAINE LAREINA, the Plaintiffs, v. NAVIENT
SOLUTIONS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.: 8:17-cv-02503-SCB-JSS
(M.D. Fla., Dec. 14, 2018), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order:

   1. certifying these class and subclasses:

      Class

      "all individuals in the United States who: (1) have federal
      student loans that are or were serviced by Navient Solutions

      LLC; (2) are, or after October 1, 2007, were, employed full-
      time in public service by a qualifying organization for
      purposes of the PSLF program; and (3) were told by Navient
      their loans were eligible for the PSLF program; and (4) on
      or after October 25, 2013, learned they were ineligible for
      the PSLF program because their federal student loans are not

      Direct Loans and/or they were not on a payment plan that is
      eligible for the PSLF program";

      Florida Subclass

      "all individuals who: (1) are residents of Florida; (2) have

      federal student loans that were serviced by Navient
      Solutions LLC; (3) are, or after October 1, 2007, were,
      employed full-time in public service by a qualifying
      organization for purposes of the PSLF program; (4) were told

      by Navient their loans were eligible for the PSLF program;
      and (5) on or after October 25, 2015, learned they were
      ineligible for the PSLF program because their federal
      student loans are not Direct Loans and/or they were not on a

      payment plan that is eligible for the PSLF program"; and

      Colorado Subclass

      "all individuals who: (1) are residents of Colorado; (2)
      have federal student loans that were serviced by Navient
      Solutions LLC; (3) are, or after October 1, 2007, were,
      employed full-time in public service by a qualifying
      organization for purposes of the PSLF program; (4) were told

      by Navient their loans were eligible for the PSLF program;
      and (5) on or after January 30, 2015, learned they were
      ineligible for the PSLF program because their federal
      student loans are not Direct Loans and/or they were not on a

      payment plan that is eligible for the PSLF program";

   2. appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives; and

   3. appointing Plaintiffs' Counsel as Class Counsel."[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Gus M. Centrone, Esq.
          Brian L. Shrader, Esq.
          CENTRONE & SHRADER, PLLC
          612 W. Bay Street
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 360-1529
          Facsimile: (813) 336-0832
          E-mail: gcentrone@centroneshrader.com
                  bshrader@centroneshrader.com

               - and -

          Katherine Earle Yanes, Esq.
          Brandon K. Breslow, Esq.
          KYNES, MARKMAN & FELMAN, P.A.
          Post Office Box 3396
          Tampa, FL 33601-3396
          Telephone: (813) 229-1118
          Facsimile: (813) 221-6750
          E-mail: kyanes@kmf-law.com
                  bbreslow@kmf-law.com

NEXTASSURE: Ryoo Dental Brings Suit Over Unwanted Fax Ads
---------------------------------------------------------
Ryoo Dental, Inc. d/b/a Ryoo Dental, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NextAssure Inc. d/b/a
NextAssure Insurance Services, Roohi Akhtar, Asim Ashary, and
Akhtar Hassan, Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-02189 (C.D. Cal.,
December 11, 2018) is a class action under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure against Defendants for their violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff received Fax through Plaintiff's facsimile machine. The
Fax constitutes material advertising the quality or commercial
availability of any property, goods, or services. In the past four
years, Defendants have sent at least three other similar facsimile
transmissions of material advertising the quality or commercial
availability of property, goods, or services to Plaintiff,
including on May 31, 2017, on August 23, 2017, and to at least 40
other persons as part of a plan to broadcast fax advertisements, of
which the Fax is an example, or, alternatively, the Fax was sent on
Defendants' behalf.

The transmissions of facsimile advertisements, including the Fax,
to Plaintiff and the Class caused concrete and personalized injury,
including unwanted use and destruction of their property, e.g.,
toner or ink and paper, caused undesired wear on hardware,
interfered with the recipients' exclusive use of their property,
cost them time, occupied their fax machines for the period of time
required for the electronic transmission of the data, and
interfered with their business or personal communications and
privacy interests, says the complaint.

Plaintiff's principal place of business is in Orange County,
California. Plaintiff is a citizen of the state of California.

NextAssure Inc. d/b/a NextAssure Insurance Services, is an Illinois
corporation that is also registered with the California Secretary
of State.

Roohi Akhtar is an individual who resides in Irvine, California.
Roohi Akhtar was the Secretary of NextAssure according to
NextAssure's December 21, 2016 filing with the Illinois Secretary
of State.

Defendant Asim Ashary is an individual who resides in Irvine,
California. According to the Statement of Information filed with
the California Secretary of State on June 2, 2017, Ashary is the
Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, and
California registered agent for NextAssure.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
     EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
     425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: 954-524-2820
     Facsimile: 954-524-2822
     Email: seth@epllc.com


NOBLE HOUSE: 5 Affirmative Defenses Dismissed in Holt Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael M. Anello granted Plaintiff's unopposed
motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed with prejudice
Defendant's fifth, eighth, ninth, sixteenth, and twenty-first
affirmative defenses in the case captioned KATHLEEN HOLT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. NOBLE HOUSE HOTELS & RESORT, LTD; and DOES 1 TO 25,
Defendant, Case No. 17cv2246-MMA (BLM) (S.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Kathleen Holt, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed the class action against Noble House
Hotels & Resort, LTD alleging causes of action for violations of
California's False Advertising Law, California's Unfair Competition
Law, and California's Consumers Legal Remedy Act.

On Nov. 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).
Specifically, Plaintiff sought dismissal with prejudice of the
following affirmative defenses raised by Noble House: (1) laches
(fifth affirmative defense); (2) failure to state a cause of action
for attorneys' fees (eighth affirmative defense); (3) statute of
limitations pursuant to California Business and Professions Code §
17208 (ninth affirmative defense); (4) statute of limitations
pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 337, 338, 339,
and 340 (sixteenth affirmative defense); and (5) reservation of
rights to assert additional affirmative defenses (twenty-first
affirmative defense). On Dec. 3, 2018, Noble House filed a
statement of non-opposition to Plaintiff's motion.

In light of Noble House's statement of non-opposition, the Court
granted Plaintiff's unopposed motion.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 11, 2018 is available at
https://bit.ly/2rJq1YQ from Leagle.com.

Kathleen Holt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Lemieux --
kevin@westcoastlitigation.com -- The Law Office of Kevin Lemieux,
APC, Yana A. Hart -- yana@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde &
Swigart, Abbas Kazerounian -- ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerounian Law
Group, APC, Clark Robert Conforti, Kazerouni Law Group APC, Joshua
B. Swigart -- josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde & Swigart &
Robert Lyman Hyde -- bob@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde &
Swigart.

Noble House Hotels & Resort, LTD, doing business as Noble House
Hotels & Resort, LTD, LP, Defendant, represented by Darin Murl
Sands -- sandsd@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC & Heidi Brooks
Bradley -- bradleyh@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC.


NURSING CARE: Bid to Certify FLSA Class Denied without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIANYA SMITH, the
Plaintiff, vs. NURSING CARE SERVICES, LLC, et. al., the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-04075-CFK (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Chad F.
Kenney entered an order on Dec. 12, 2018, denying without prejudice
Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify a Fair Labor Standards
Act collection action, approve notice and expedited consideration.


The Plaintiff may refile a motion to conditionally certify a FLSA
collective action pursuant to the scheduling order that will be
issued after the December 20, 2018 Rule 16 conference, the Court
held.[CC]

OIL & GAS COMMISSION: Court Upholds Dismissal of Wood Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Donald E. Wood, in the case captioned Donald E. Wood,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Division of Oil and Gas Resources
Management et al., Defendants-Appellees, No. 18AP-470, (Ohio App.),
appeals the judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio granting the
motion to dismiss filed by defendant-appellees Division of Oil and
Gas Resources Management and the Oil and Gas Commission. The Ohio
Court of Appeals affirms the judgment of the Court of Claims.

Wood filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, certification as a
class action, and petition for removal of appeal No. 907 before the
oil and gas commission on Dec. 20, 2017 in the Court of Claims.
According to the complaint, Wood is an oil and gas well operator in
Ohio, and has operated wells since 1985. R.C. 1509.07 requires the
owners of wells to provide proof of financial responsibility to the
Division. Under the statute, this requirement can be fulfilled by
depositing cash, a surety bond, certificates of deposit, or
irrevocable letters of credit. R.C. 1509.07(B)(1)(2).
Alternatively, the chief of the Division may accept as proof of
financial responsibility a sworn financial statement showing a net
financial worth within the state equal to twice the amount of the
bond for which it substitutes.

Wood alleged that he has provided the requisite proof of financial
responsibility by the use of a financial statement since 1986. Wood
then alleged that on July 6, 2015, the chief of the Division issued
order No. 2015-345 requiring Wood to provide proof of financial
responsibility by some means other than a financial statement.
Wood also alleged that he submitted a new updated financial
statement on July 15, 2015, but the chief refused to accept it
because it did not comply with the terms of chief's order No.
2015-345. Wood argued that the chief's order was unlawful because
it did not permit him to provide proof of financial responsibility
by means of a financial statement as provided in R.C. 1509.07

The Division filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1)
asserting a lack of jurisdiction because the complaint sought an
appeal of a pending administrative matter that was still
proceeding, and the complaint did not allege money damages. The
Division also argued that there is no process for "removal" of an
administrative proceeding to the Court of Claims. The Division also
moved for dismissal pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) asserting that the
complaint failed to state a claim for relief because it asserted
liability based on regulating a public duty for which the Division
was immune under R.C. Chapter 2743.

The Court of Claims granted the motion to dismiss on the basis that
the declaratory judgment action was proper only if there was an
ancillary claim for money damages over which the Court of Claims
had jurisdiction. The court ruled that Wood's statement in the
prayer that he sought compensatory damages was not sufficient to
confer jurisdiction in the Court of Claims.

Wood assigned the following errors for the Court to review:

[I] The Court of Claims erred when it dismissed Appellant's case
pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.

[II] The Court of Claims erred when it dismissed Appellant's case
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Here, Wood's complaint does not contain a claim for money damages
and, as such, the Court of Claims lacks subject-matter jurisdiction
over the complaint. Wood argued on appeal that damages may be
presumed from the complaint and that some of the members of his
putative class may have been damaged monetarily. However, his
complaint is devoid of any factual allegation that he or the
proposed class members were damaged monetarily. The complaint
contains no indication that Wood was seeking money damages other
than the assertion in the prayer for relief that he was asking for
compensatory damages. "The prayer for relief does not, in itself,
establish subject matter jurisdiction in the Ohio Court of Claims."
Wood's complaint sought a declaration vacating an allegedly
unlawful and unreasonable Chief's order and, as such, it is
equitable in nature. Since there is no ancillary claim for money
damages, the Court of Claims lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over
the action and properly dismissed the complaint. Lacking subject
matter jurisdiction, the Court of Claims did not need to reach the
issue of whether the complaint also should have been dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Therefore, the second assignment of error is overruled, and the
first assignment of error is rendered as moot.

A copy of the Court's Decision dated Dec. 11, 2018 is available at
https://bit.ly/2A2NSY5 from Leagle.com.

On brief: Donald E. Wood, pro se.

On brief: Michael DeWine, Attorney General, Christopher P. Conomy
and Randall W. Knutti, for appellee.


ON-SITE MANAGER: McGill Disputes Lease Contract Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------
Lowri McGill, and a class of similarly situated others, Plaintiff,
v. On-Site (a/k/a On-Site Manager, Inc.), Vintage Housing, Kennedy
Wilson, FPI Management, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, Defendants,
Case No. 18CV338709, (Cal. Super., December 3, 2018) questions the
legality and un-enforceability of lease provisions in dispute; and
seeks an injunction, attorney's fees and costs and such other and
further relief under Civil Code 1953.

McGill lives in a street level apartment and requested to be
relieved of the lease and to be paid for relocation to a different
complex due to excessive noise from the neighboring tenants. McGill
is a pregnant woman. However, her landlord refuses to accept her
complaint as a valid justification for the termination of her lease
and the rescinding of her contract.

Vintage Housing and Kennedy Wilson owns the residential rental
property while FPI Management, Inc. manages it. The lease contract
was created by On-Site. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ron K. Bochner, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF RON BOCHNER
      3905 State Street
      Santa Barbara, CA 93105
      Tel: (805) 979—3007



PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Faces Shareholder's Suit Over Sale to Illumina
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Wang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc.,
Michael Hunkapiller, Ph.D., David Botstein, Ph.D., William W.
Ericson, Christian Henry, Randy Livingston, John F. Milligan,
Ph.D., Marshall L. Mohr, Kathy Ordonez, and Lucy Shapiro,
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-07450 (N.D. Cal., December 11, 2018)
alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with their Preliminary Proxy Statement filed
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
in connection with the acquisition of Pacific Biosciences by
Illumina, Inc. and its affiliates.

According to the complaint, the Proposed Transaction is the product
of a hopelessly flawed process that is designed to ensure the sale
of Pacific Biosciences to Illumina on terms preferential to
Defendants and other Pacific Biosciences insiders and to subvert
the interests of Plaintiff and the other public stockholders of the
Company. To convince Pacific Biosciences stockholders to vote for
the Proposed Transaction, on December 5, 2018, the Board authorized
the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Proxy.
Defendants have failed to disclose certain material information
necessary for Pacific Biosciences stockholders to properly assess
the fairness of the Proposed Transaction, thereby violating SEC
rules and regulations and rendering certain statements in the Proxy
materially incomplete and misleading.

In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning the financial forecasts for the
Company and Illumina that were both prepared and relied upon by the
Board in recommending the Company's stockholders to vote for the
Proposed Transaction. The same forecasts were used by Pacific
Biosciences's financial advisor, Centerview Partners LLC, in
conducting its valuation analyses in support of its fairness
opinions. The material information that has been omitted from the
Proxy must be disclosed prior to the shareholder meeting in order
to allow the stockholders to make an informed decision regarding
whether to support the merger.

For these reasons, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking
any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless, and until,
all material information is disclosed to Pacific Biosciences
stockholders sufficiently in advance of the special meeting of the
Pacific Biosciences stockholders or, in the event the Proposed
Transaction is consummated without corrective disclosures, to
recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the
Exchange Act, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a resident of Fairfield County, Connecticut and has
owned the common stock of Pacific Biosciences since prior to the
announcement of the Proposed Transaction, and continues to own this
stock.

Pacific Biosciences is a corporation duly organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware and maintains its principal
offices in Menlo Park, California. Pacific Biosciences is, and at
all relevant times hereto was, listed and traded on the NASDAQ
under the symbol "PACB".

Pacific Biosciences is a corporation duly organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware and maintains its principal
offices in Menlo Park, California. Pacific Biosciences is, and at
all relevant times hereto was, listed and traded on the NASDAQ
under the symbol "PACB."

Michael Hunkapiller, Ph.D. been the Company's President and Chief
Executive Officer since 2012. Hunkapiller is also the Company's
Chairman of the Board and has been a member of the Board since
2005.

David Botstein, Ph.D. has served as a director of the Company since
July 2012.

William W. Ericson has served as a director of the Companynsince
2004 and is the lead independent director.

Christian Henry has served as a director of the Company since July
2018. Henry was a Chief Financial Officer, Chief Commercial Officer
and General Manager of the Life Sciences Business at Illumina from
2005 through January 2017.

Randy Livingston has served as a director of the Company since
2009.

John F. Milligan, Ph.D. has served as a director of the Company
since 2013.

Marshall L. Mohr has served as a director of the Company since
2012.

Kathy Ordonez has served as a director of the Company since
December 2014. Ordonez is also the Company's Chief Commercial
Officer and Executive Vice President.

Lucy Shapiro has served as a director of the Company since
2012.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
     Marisa C. Livesay, Esq.
     Brittany N. DeJong, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     750 B Street, Suite 2770
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 239-4599
     Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
     Email: byrd@whafh.com
            livesay@whafh.com
            dejong@whafh.com

          - and -

     Gloria Kui Melwani, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     270 Madison Avenue
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 545-4600
     Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
     Email: melwani@whafh.com


PAPA JOHN'S: Greer Suit Seeks Damages Over No Hire Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIAH GREER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-11312
(S.D.N.Y., December 4, 2018), seeks damages arising from PJI's use
of the No Hire Agreement to restrain competition in the labor
market.

Ms. Greer alleges that PJI and its franchisees have entered into an
agreement not to compete for individuals employed by other Papa
John's restaurants.  She contends that this "No Hire Agreement" was
a standardized part of every franchise agreement entered between
PJI and its franchisees since at least 2008.

PJI is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
located in Louisville, Kentucky.  PJI operates "company-owned" Papa
John's restaurants through its wholly-owned subsidiary Papa John's
USA, Inc. ("PJ USA").

PJI owns and operates approximately 700 pizza restaurants in the
United States under the "Papa John's" brand.  PJI also licenses the
Papa John's brand to franchisees, who operate approximately 2,600
restaurants nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          Christian Levis, Esq.
          Roland R. St. Louis, III, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
                  clevis@lowey.com
                  rstlouis@lowey.com


PAT'S SELECT: Delivery Drivers File Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Xerxes Wilson, writing for Delaware News Journal, reports that a
Newark-area man is part of a group of pizza delivery drivers
pursuing a class-action lawsuit against a local chain they say is
cheating a largely immigrant workforce out of proper pay.

The lawsuit filed in Maryland federal court claims the owners of a
group of Pat's Select pizzerias in Maryland and Pennsylvania did
not provide delivery drivers and kitchen staff federally mandated
minimum wages and overtime pay.

Apostolos Kalaitzoglou and Dimitrios Tangaldis, relatives and
neighbors who live in Elkton, are the named defendants and own a
series of Pat's Select restaurants that operate as an "integrated
enterprise," the lawsuit states.

One attorney representing defendants declined to comment. Another
could not be reached.

The lawsuit names five restaurants in Maryland and Pennsylvania.
Delaware Pat's Select locations in Middletown, Smyrna and Dover are
not named in the lawsuit, which does name "John Doe" restaurants.

Joyce Smithey, an Annapolis, Maryland attorney who filed the
lawsuit, said it could include Delaware locations. She said it is
too early to put a dollar figure on the lawsuit's demand.

"In short, we are looking for them to be paid minimum wage and the
overtime premium," Ms. Smithey said in an interview on
Nov. 28.

Johnathan Thomas, a Newark-area resident, is one of three named
plaintiffs in the lawsuit that seeks class action status on behalf
of some 150 delivery drivers and 100 kitchen staffers who worked at
the restaurants in the past three years.

The lawsuit states that Mr. Thomas was a delivery driver and
staffer for the North East, Maryland Pat's Select restaurant for
about four months beginning in November 2016. He was paid about
$6.55 an hour, according to the complaint.

During that time, he received tips while driving but was not
informed of the applicable minimum wage when he made deliveries and
he was paid below the federally mandated minimum wage, according to
the lawsuit. He was also not paid properly for overtime, the suit
says.

The lawsuit claims the restaurants also cheated him out of
reimbursement for expenses he incurred such as uniform shirts, cell
phone use and car use.

In a two-month period, he averaged 1,896 miles per month delivering
pizzas, which should lead to a reimbursement of about $950,
according to standardized federal mileage rates used for
estimation, the lawsuit states.

Instead, he was paid about 75 cents per delivery, leading to him
being reimbursed some $275 per month, according to the complaint.

Ms. Smithey said she advised the plaintiffs not to comment due to
the pending litigation.

Thomas' situation is similar to others cited in the lawsuit.

Drivers were paid 50 cents to $1.50 per delivery but that falls
short of the "reasonable approximate reimbursement" required by
federal law, the complaint states.

Other staffers claim they were not paid a minimum wage when doing
work that was not subject to tips, like sweeping floors, cleaning
pans, folding boxes and painting. Some said they worked 60 hours
per week without federally mandated time and a half pay for
overtime.

Employees were told to clock no more than 10 hours per day, no
matter how many they were worked and were often paid in cash, court
filings state. Sometimes supervisors would clock employees out
though they were instructed to continue working beyond those hours,
the lawsuit said.  

The suit claims the restaurant owners rely largely on immigrants
who do not speak English as a first language and "taunted" them
when they threatened legal action over wage violations.

These pay practices were applied uniformly across five named
restaurants, including the Pat's Select Pizza & Grill in Elkton,
the suit claims.

The defendants advertise their restaurants jointly, coordinate
staff among their restaurants and require staff use the same cell
phone app for processing credit card charges and tracking mileage.

Workers from one location would often be asked to drive dozens of
miles to fill staffing shortages at other locations named in the
lawsuit, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit states the pay scheme was "willful and intentional" and
"undertaken for the unlawful purpose of avoiding the payment of the
standard minimum wage" and many employees were affected.

Attorneys who filed the lawsuit have been contacted by a "small
handful" of employees about how they were paid, Ms. Smithey said.
The lawsuit seeks to make a claim on behalf of any employee who
worked at the restaurants in the past three years.

In court filings, the defendants denied most of the plaintiff's
claims and denied the collection of restaurants and businesses
named are part of a collective.

The lawsuit was filed in March. The defendants have moved to
dismiss some of the defendant businesses named in the lawsuit,
arguing that the employees do not fall under the federal rules
cited.

A judge is considering that motion to dismiss. Depending on the
result, further filings will move toward establishing the class for
the complaint, Ms. Smithey said. [GN]


PG&E CO: Freeman Files Class Suit for Personal Injury
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Gas and
Electric Company. The case is styled as Anita Freeman and Karen
Roberts and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, PG&E Corporation and Does 1 to
25, Defendants, Case No. CGC18571988 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 11,
2018).

The lawsuit arises from personal injury/property damage.

The Pacific Gas and Electric Company is an American investor-owned
utility with publicly traded stock that is headquartered in the
Pacific Gas & Electric Building in San Francisco.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeremiah F. Hallisey, Esq.
   Hallisey & Johnson, PC
   465 California St., Suite 405
   San Francisco, CA, 94104 US
   Tel:  +1-415-433-5300
   Fax:  +1-415-433-5342
   Email: jfhallisey@h-jlaw.com



PPDAI GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court and further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

PPDAI Group Inc. (NYSE: PPDF)
Class Period: Purchasers of American Depositary Shares pursuant
and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection
with PPDAI's November 2017 Initial Public Offering
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Jan. 25, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ppdai-group-inc-ppdf-loss-form?wire=3

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement issued in
connection with the IPO contained materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
information, including that: (1) PPDAI was engaged in predatory
lending practices that saddled subprime borrowers and those with
poor or limited credit histories with high interest rate debt they
could not repay; (2) many of PPDAI's customers were using
PPDAI-provided loans to repay existing loans they otherwise could
not afford to repay, thereby inflating PPDAI's revenues and active
borrower numbers and increasing the likelihood of defaults; (3)
PPDAI was experiencing increasing delinquency rates, negatively
affecting PPDAI's reserves; (4) PPDAI's purported "rapid growth" in
the number and amount of loans had materially dropped off; and (5)
PPDAI was providing online loans to college students despite a
government ban on the practice.

To learn more about the PPDAI Group Inc. class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

To learn more about the Edison International class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         30 Broad Street - 24th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]


PROGREXION TELESERVICES: Winter Seeks OT Pay for Call Center Staff
------------------------------------------------------------------
Glee Winter, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Progrexion Teleservices, Inc., an
Arizona Corporation, Case No. 2:18-cv-04541-DMF (D. Ariz., Dec. 7,
2018), seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all
current and former hourly non-exempt call-center employees who
worked for Progrexion Teleservices, Inc., at any time from December
7, 2015 through the final disposition of this matter. Specifically,
Progrexion has enforced a uniform company-wide corporate policy
wherein it improperly required its non-exempt hourly call-center
employees -- plaintiff and the Putative Class Members -- to perform
work off-the-clock and without pay.

Progrexion's company-wide policy has caused Plaintiff and the
Putative Class Members to have hours worked that were not
compensated and further created a miscalculation of their regular
rate(s) of pay for purposes of calculating their overtime
compensation each workweek. Although Plaintiff and the Putative
Class Members have routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members have not been
paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Progrexion has
knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the
Putative Class Members for all hours worked each workweek on a
routine and regular basis in the last three years, the lawsuit
says.

Progrexion Teleservices, Inc. provides management consulting
services. The Company offers improving their credit, and online
communities.[BN].

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Putative Class Members:

          Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq.
          Kaitlyn A. Redfield-Ortiz, Esq.
          Stanley Lubin, Esq.
          LUBIN & ENOCH, P.C.
          349 North Fourth Avenue
          Phoenix, AR 85003-1505
          Telephone: (602) 234-0008
          Facsimile: (602) 626-3586
          E-mail: nick@lubinandenoch.com

               - and -

          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 North Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: austin@a2xlaw.com
                  clif@a2xlaw.com

RAINBOW DISPOSAL: Hurtado et al. Seek to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned ANTONIO HURTADO, et al., the
Plaintiffs, vs. RAINBOW DISPOSAL CO., INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP
PLAN COMMITTEE, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
8:17-cv-01605-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal., Dec. 14, 2018), the Plaintiffs
will move the Court on March 22, 2019, for certification of a class
of:

   "all persons who were vested participants in the Rainbow
   Disposal Co., Inc. ("Rainbow") Employee Stock Ownership Plan
   (the "Rainbow ESOP") as of October 1, 2014 and the
   beneficiaries of any such participants."

   Excluded from the Class are Defendants and persons who were
   named fiduciaries of the Rainbow ESOP, who are alleged to have
   engaged in prohibited transactions or breaches of corporate
   fiduciary duties, or who had decision-making or administrative
   authority relating to the administration, modification,
   funding, or interpretation of the Rainbow ESOP, or relating to
   the decision to sell Rainbow.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Joseph Creitz, Esq.
          CREITZ & SEREBIN LLP
          100 Pine St., Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 466-3090
          E-mail: joe@creitzserebin.com

               - and -

          R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
          Vincent Cheng, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          1735 20th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 734-7046
          E-mail: jbarton@blockesq.com
          vincent@blockesq.com

Attorneys for Defendants Rainbow Disposal Co., Inc. Employee Stock
Ownership Plan Committee, Jon Black, Catharine Ellingsen, Bill
Eggleston, Republic Services, Inc. and Rainbow Disposal Co., Inc.:

          Christopher W. Smith, Esq.
          Jason Levin, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, 7th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 439-9433
          E-mail: csmith@steptoe.com
                  jlevin@steptoe.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Sloniewsky, Esq.
          Eric G. Serron, Esq.
          Linda C. Bailey, Esq.
          Osvaldo Vazquez, Esq.
          Paul J. Ondrasik, Jr.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          1330 Connecticut Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-3907
          E-mail: asloniewsky@steptoe.com
                  eserron@steptoe.com
                  lbailey@steptoe.com
                  ovazquez@steptoe.com
                  pondrasik@steptoe.com

Attorney for Defendant Gregory Range:

          Joshua Pollack, Esq.
          David R. Scheidemantle, Esq.
          LATHROP GAGE LLP
          1888 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 789-4662
          E-mail: jpollack@lathropgage.com
                  dscheidemantle@lathropgage.com

Attorneys for Defendant Jeff Snow:

          Larry Walraven, Esq.
          Nicole Wurscher, Esq.
          Brian Selvan, Esq.
          WALRAVEN AND WESTERFELD LLP
          20 Enterprise Suite 310
          Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
          Telephone: (949) 215-1990
          E-mail: law@walravenlaw.com
                  new@walravenlaw.com
                  bselvan@walravenlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant GreatBanc Trust Company:

          Dylan Rudolph, Esq.
          Joseph Faucher, Esq.
          Brian D. Murray, Esq.
          TRUCKER HUSS APC
          One Embarcadero Center, 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-3111
          E-mail: drudolph@truckerhuss.com
                  jfaucher@truckerhuss.com
                  bmurray@truckerhuss.com

Attorney for Defendant Gerald Moffatt:

          Timothy J. Toohey, Esq.
          GREENBERG GLUSKER FIELD
             CLAMAN AND MACHTINGER LLP
          1099 Avenue of the Stars, 21st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 553-3610
          E-mail: ttoohey@greenbergglusker.com

Attorneys for Defendant Jeff Snow

          Larry Walraven, Esq.
          Nicole Wurscher, Esq.
          Brian Selvan, Esq.
          WALRAVEN AND WESTERFELD LLP
          20 Enterprise Suite 310
          Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
          Telephone: (949) 215-1990
          E-mail: law@walravenlaw.com
                  new@walravenlaw.com
                  bselvan@walravenlaw.com

RMA COMPANIES: Barron Suit Asserts Illegal Termination
------------------------------------------------------
Juanita Barron, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RMA Companies and Does 1 through
50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18930646, (Cal. Super.,
December 3, 2018) seeks redress for Defendant's failure to pay
overtime wages, and for Plaintiff's illegal termination, under the
Unfair Business Practices statures of the California Business and
Professions Code, the California Labor Code and Welfare Commission
Orders.

Defendant provides consulting services with respect to the
construction industry. On or about June 16, 2017, Plaintiff was
hired by Defendant to work as a construction inspector. On or about
March 6, 2018, Barron was unlawfully terminated in retaliation for
her complaints regarding not being paid overtime and refusing to
sign an on-duty meal period waiver, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William L. Marder, Esq.
      POLARIS LAW GROUP, LLP
      501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
      Hollister, CA 95023
      Telephone: (831) 531-4214
      Facsimile: (831) 634-0333

            - and -

      Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
      HYUN LEGAL, APC
      515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (213) 488-6555
      Fax: (213) 488-6554


ROWAN COMPANIES: Monteverde & Associates Files Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby given that Monteverde & Associates PC has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:18-cv-10423-JPO, on
behalf of public common shareholders of Rowan Companies plc
("Rowan" or the "Company") (NYSE: RDC) who have been harmed by
Rowan and its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations
of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") in connection with the sale of the Company to
Ensco plc ("Ensco") (the "Proposed Merger").

Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Rowan shareholders will
only receive 2.215 Ensco Class A ordinary shares of Ensco stock for
each share of Rowan common stock they own (the "Merger
Consideration"). The complaint alleges that the Merger
Consideration is inadequate and that the proxy statement regarding
the Proposed Merger (the "Proxy") provided shareholders with
materially incomplete and misleading information about the Proposed
Merger, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.  In particular, the complaint alleges that the Proxy contains
materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i)
the valuation analyses performed by the Company's financial
advisor, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, in support of its fairness
opinion; and (ii) the background of the Proposed Merger. The
special meeting of Rowan shareholders to vote on the Proposed
Merger is forthcoming, as the Proposed Merger is expected to be
completed in the first calendar half of 2019.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than Jan. 28, 2019. Any member of the putative class may move
the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

Click here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/rowan-companies-plc. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

         Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
         MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
         The Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Ave, Suite 4405
         New York, NY 10118
         United States of America
         Telephone: (212) 971-1341
         Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN]


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Averts Class Action Over Travel Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Hale, writing for Law360, reports that Royal Caribbean
sailed away on Nov. 27 from a Florida couple's proposed class
action claiming the cruise line deceives passengers by not
disclosing commissions it receives on travel insurance it offers.

Lyle Adriano, writing for Insurance Business America, reports that
with various airlines and cruise operators facing lawsuits over
receiving kickbacks from the sales of travel cancellation
insurance, one company is off the hook thanks to the fine print in
its contracts.

A federal judge in Miami dismissed a class-action suit filed by two
Royal Caribbean passengers who claimed the cruise line violated
state law by failing to disclose that it had received inducements
from helping sell travel insurance whenever Royal Caribbean sells
cruise tickets online.

US District Judge Ursula Ungar dismissed the claims on grounds that
the fine print in the passengers' tickets contracts prevents them
from filing a suit, South Florida Sun Sentinel reported.

In similar other lawsuits lodged against other cruise companies, as
well as airline companies such as Delta and JetBlue, plaintiffs
argued that the travel companies misled them by claiming they only
collect the purchase price of travel insurance on behalf of the
insurers providing the coverage. Instead, the companies were
earning kickbacks that inflated travel insurance costs, plaintiffs
maintained.

The claims against Royal Caribbean were dropped, however. Ungar
agreed with the cruise line's contention that by agreeing to
restrictions in their ticket contracts, the two passengers waived
their right to bring a class-action suit, or to file a similar
claim.

The plaintiffs had argued that the restrictions in their ticket
contracts did not apply to their claim. They maintained that the
ticket contracts specified that the restrictions apply to "the
Carrier's Royal Caribbean Travel Protection Program," but it was
Arch Insurance, not Royal Caribbean that issued the coverage.

Ungar, however, ruled that the term "Carrier" in the ticket
contracts also extends to Royal Caribbean, since the cruise line
essentially served as the insurance agent that sold the policy.

"The plain and common sense construction of [the language] is that
it seeks to make clear that the terms of the ticket contract extend
to all of the products that Royal Caribbean considers to be part of
its Travel Protection Program," the judge's order stated.[GN]


SANOFI PASTEUR: Averts Junk Fax Class Action
--------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that a junk fax
class action against Sanofi Pasteur Inc. filed six years after the
last fax was sent was properly dismissed as untimely, the Third
Circuit said Nov. 27.

A still-pending state court action doesn't toll the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act's four-year statute of limitations, Judge
D. Brooks Smith wrote for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

The court cited the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in China
Agritech, Inc. v. Resh. [GN]


SCANA CORP: Santee Cooper Wants to Weigh In on Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Brown, writing for The Post and Courier, reports that Santee
Cooper wants to weigh in before South Carolina Electric & Gas
settles a lawsuit with its customers over the utilities' failed
nuclear project, arguing a rushed deal could harm the state-run
power company and its ratepayers.

Attorneys for Santee Cooper, which held a minority interest in the
V.C. Summer reactor project, filed a motion in court on
Nov. 28 that could disrupt a proposed legal settlement between
SCE&G and several law firms that represent the utility's customers
in ongoing class-action lawsuits.

That settlement, if approved, would allow SCE&G's parent company,
SCANA Corp., to do away with the risky litigation and help seal
Dominion Energy's proposed takeover of the Cayce-based company.

It would also lock customers into paying another $2.3 billion for
the failed nuclear project over the next two decades.

In return, the law firms that pushed the class-action lawsuit would
pocket a portion of the settlement, which requires the utility to
turn over $115 million that was previously set aside for the
company's executives and the proceeds from the sale of several
properties, including a plantation near Georgetown and an office in
downtown Charleston.

Santee Cooper said SCE&G and the law firms involved in the case
"attempted to stage a hurried settlement."

"It is typical, once a class action is settled and submitted for
court review, that adversaries unite in support of the class action
settlement," wrote Rush Smith, Santee Cooper's attorney with Nelson
Mullins. "This case, however, warrants special attention, given the
public interest in its subject matter."

SCANA suggested in a statement on Nov. 28 that it would oppose
Santee Cooper's request to review the proposed settlement. "We
believe its motion to intervene lacks merit, and we will be
responding in court at the appropriate time," said
Eric Boomhower, SCANA's spokesperson. "Our focus continues to be
moving forward with the pending combination with Dominion Energy."

Dominion did not respond to a request for comment. But Pete Strom,
the lead counsel in the class-action lawsuit, said Santee Cooper
should have intervened in the case months ago if it wanted to be
involved.

"All they are doing now is trying to hold up SCE&G customers from
getting relief," Strom said. "If the Santee Board thinks it's going
to get any part of the SCE&G customers' settlement, they have a
fight on their hands."  

Santee Cooper has an interest in the outcome of the lawsuit, its
lawyers said, because the utility is still considering suing SCANA,
the majority partner in the $9 billion project, over the unfinished
nuclear reactors located just north of Columbia. SCANA was
responsible for overseeing the multibillion dollar reactors for
both utilities and reigning in troubled nuclear contactors.

"The settlement may impair Santee Cooper's rights, and its
interests in the subject of this litigation are significant enough
to warrant intervention," Santee Cooper's attorneys wrote.

Santee Cooper isn't opposing the settlement at this point in time,
said Mollie Gore, a spokeswoman for the Moncks Corner-based
utility. It is, however, fighting to obtain more information about
the proposed settlement and how the deal was negotiated.

"We want to make sure that we are in a position to receive the
information we need from the settlement," Ms. Gore said. "We're
just asking to be part of the process."

According to the legal motion, Santee Cooper has already requested
documents and communications from the parties involved in the
settlement discussions.

The lawyers for Santee Cooper argue the utility needs to be
involved in the proposed settlement because it is also being sued
as a result of the abandoned nuclear project. In addition, the
state's 20 electric cooperatives -- Santee Cooper's largest
customers -- have asked a judge to stop the state-run utility from
charging their 788,000 ratepayers for the failed project.

"The cases cannot be divorced from one another given the similarity
in allegations and alignment of interests," Santee Cooper's
attorneys wrote. "Even though one case involves a class of SCE&G
customers and the other involves classes of Santee Cooper and
cooperative customers, allegations of SCE&G's conduct are at the
heart of both."

Depending on the terms of the settlement, Santee Cooper's attorneys
said the deal could "impair or impede Santee Cooper's interests in
the full and fair adjudication of the wrongdoing and responsibility
of SCANA and SCE&G." [GN]


SPACE & ROCKET CENTER: Lawsuit Can Proceed as Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rocketcitynow.com reports that a lawsuit that alleges the Space and
Rocket Center failed to pay employees for certain holidays is now a
class action suit.[GN]


STERICYCLE INC: Ct. Temporarily Stays Janklow Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Colm F. Connolly granted the Defendants' motion to
temporarily stay the litigation captioned ALVIN JANKLOW,
Derivatively on Behalf of STERICYCLE, INC., Plaintiff, v. CHARLES
A. ALUTTO, DANIEL V. GINNETTI, JOSEPH B. ARNOLD, RICHARDT. KOGLER,
FRANK J.M. TEN BRINK, MARK C. MILLER, JACK W. SCHULER, JOHN
PATIENCE, LYNN DORSEY BLEIL, MIKE S. ZAFIROVSKI, RODNEY F.
DAMMEYER, THOMAS D. BROWN, THOMAS F. CHEN, WILLIAM K. HALL,
JONATHAN T. LORD, and RONALD G. SPAETH, Defendants. and,
STERICYCLE, INC., a Delaware Corporation Nominal Defendant, Civil
Action No. 18-457-CFC (D. Del.).

Nominal Defendant Stericycle, Inc. is a company that specializes in
the collection, processing, and disposal of regulated waste. In
2010, a Stericycle employee filed a qui tam action against
Stericycle, accusing Stericycle of improperly overcharging
customers by implementing automated price increases in excess of
the flat rates Stericycle agreed to charge its customers.
Stericycle settled the qui tam action for over $29 million, and
Stericycle's customers began to pursue litigation across the
country, with approximately twenty separate actions filed against
Stericycle.  The various actions were consolidated by the Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation before the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, which approved a settlement
in March 2018 for $295 million.

In addition to the customer class action, Stericycle's shareholders
filed various derivative and direct claims arising out of the
allegations that Stericycle was improperly overcharging customers
and failed to disclose such overcharging to shareholders. The
action furthest along is a federal securities class action against
Stericycle filed in the Northern District of Illinois. The
defendants in the Securities Class Action have filed a motion to
dismiss, which has been fully briefed as of July 13, 2018.

On March 26, 2018 Plaintiff Alvin Janklow, initiated this action
with the filing of his Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint
alleging violations of Section 10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and common law claims for breach of fiduciary
duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment by Charles
A. Alutto, Daniel V. Ginnetti, Joseph B. Arnold, Richard T. Kogler,
Frank J.M. Ten Brink, Mark C. Miller, Jack W. Schuler, John
Patience, Lynn Dorsey Bleil, Mike S. Zafirovski, Rodney F.
Dammeyer, Thomas D. Brown, Thomas F. Chen, William K. Hall,
Jonathan T. lord, and Ronald G. Speath and Stericycle. On April 18,
2018, Defendants filed the motion to stay temporarily this
litigation pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the
Securities Class Action.

Courts should consider three factors in determining whether to
grant a motion to stay: "(1) whether a stay will unduly prejudice
or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the non-moving party,
i.e., the balance of harms; (2) whether a stay will simplify the
issues in question and trial of the case; and (3) whether a stay
will promote judicial economy, e.g., how close to trial has the
litigation advanced."

With respect to the first factor, the balance of harms, the Court
finds that a stay will not unduly prejudice Plaintiff. In contrast,
Defendants are likely to suffer prejudice if the present litigation
is not stayed because Defendants may be forced to take inconsistent
positions if required to litigate simultaneously the Securities
Class Action and the present action.

The second factor, simplifying the issues for trial, also weighs in
favor of a stay. Although Plaintiff, unlike the plaintiffs in the
Securities Class Action, has pled a Section 14 claim and common law
claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and
unjust enrichment, Plaintiff's allegations arise out of the same
underlying factual conduct alleged in the Securities Class Action.
Furthermore, Plaintiff has pled the same Section 10(b) claim
alleged in the Securities Class Action.

The final factor, promoting judicial economy, clearly weighs in
favor of a stay. The present derivative litigation is in its
infancy, and the Court has not yet directed its scarce resources to
the merits of this dispute. In contrast, the motion to dismiss in
the Securities Class Action has been fully briefed. Even though the
claims in the Securities Class Action are not entirely identical to
Plaintiff's claims, the Securities Class Action addresses many of
the factual and legal issues likely to arise in the present
litigation. Accordingly, the Court concludes that this action
should be stayed until the Northern District of Illinois completes
the first substantive inquiry of any securities violations
committed by Stericycle.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum Order dated Dec. 11, 2018 is
available at https://bit.ly/2LlHoHV from Leagle.com.

Alvin Janklow, Derivatively on Behalf of Stericycle, Inc.,
Plaintiff, represented by Blake A. Bennett --
bbennett@coochtaylor.com -- Cooch and Taylor & Ashley R. Rifkin --
arifkin@robbinsarroyo.com - Robbins Arroyo LLP, pro hac vice.

Charles A. Alutto, Daniel V. Ginnetti, Joseph B. Arnold, Richard T.
Kogler, Frank J.M. ten Brink, Mark C. Miller, Jack W. Schuler, John
Patience, Lynn Dorsey Bleil, Mike S. Zafirovski, Rodney F.
Dammeyer, Thomas D. Brown, Thomas F. Chen, William K. Hall,
Jonathan T. Lord & Ronald G. Spaeth, Defendants, represented by
Lisa A. Schmidt -- schmidt@rlf.com -- Richards, Layton & Finger,
PA, Eliezer Yitzhak Feinstein – Yitzhak@rlf.com -- Richards,
Layton & Finger, PA & Kelly E. Farnan -- farnan@rlf.com --
Richards, Layton & Finger, PA.

Stericycle, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Nominal Defendant,
represented byLisa A. Schmidt , Richards, Layton & Finger, PA,
Eliezer Yitzhak Feinstein , Richards, Layton & Finger, PA & Kelly
E. Farnan , Richards, Layton & Finger, PA.


SUTTELL & HAMMER: Faces Bjornsdotter FDCPA Suit in Oregon
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the firm Suttell &
Hammer.  The case is captioned, Anna M. Bjornsdotter on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Suttell &
Hammer, P.S. formerly known as: Suttell, Hammer & White, P.S.; and
Patrick J. Layman, the Defednants, Case No. 6:18-cv-02079-MC (D.
Ore., Dec. 3, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael
J. McShane. The suit alleges Fair Debt Collection Act
violation.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Bret A. Knewtson, Esq.
          3000 N.E. Stucki Ave., Suite 230 M
          Hillsboro, OR 97124
          Telephone: (503) 846-1160
          Facsimile: (503) 922-3181
          E-mail: bknewtson@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Mark G. Passannante, Esq.
          BROER & PASSANNANTE, PS
          1001 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 1220
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 294-0910
          Facsimile: (503) 243-2717
          E-mail: markpassannante@msn.com

Attorneys for Suttell & Hammer, P.S. and Patrick J. Layman:

          Kevin H. Kono, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP
          1300 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400
          Portland, OR 97201-5630
          Telephone: (503) 241-2300
          Facsimile: (503) 778-5299
          E-mail: kevinkono@dwt.com

TATA CONSULTANCY: Trial Ends in Discrimination Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jochelle Mendonca, writing for Economic Times, reports that a jury
is currently deliberating whether India's largest IT services
provider Tata Consultancy Services discriminated against US locals
in its hiring policies, after the trial in the class action lawsuit
ended on Nov. 27.

The weeklong trial in Oakland, California was the first against an
Indian IT company to go to a jury. The lawfirm, Kotchen & Low,
involved in the suit against TCS is also suing Infosys, Wipro, HCL
Technologies and Cognizant, ET has reported. The firm filed a
second case against TCS in September.

Kotchen argued that TCS fired 78 percent of its local workers
benched between 2011 and 2014, while only 22 percent of benched
South Asians were fired, even though they constituted half the
company's workforce in the country, Law360 reported.TCS' lawyers
pointed out the company's increased local hiring.

TCS did not immediately respond to a call seeking comment.

Because all the cases hinge on the fact that Indian IT companies
have predominantly staffed their local operations with Indians on
visas, a verdict against TCS in this case could spur other law
firms to sue Indian IT companies as well.

TCS also lost its bid to get the court to restrict the verdict to
just monetary damages, it could face an order against its business
model, ET has reported. [GN]


TECH DATA: Court Dismisses Amended Bhatt Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William F. Jung granted the Defendant's motion and
dismissed the case  captioned NEALAN BHATT, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similar Situated, Plaintiff, v. TECH DATA
CORPORATION, ROBERT M. DUTKOWSKY, and CHARLES V. DANNEWITZ,
Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-02185-T-02AEP (M.D. Fla.) with
prejudice.

Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint asserted a securities
fraud class action on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock
of Defendant Tech Data Corporation between June 1, 2017 and August
31, 2017, inclusive. Tech Data is a wholesale distributor of
technology products. Tech Data's stock is listed and trades on the
NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "TECD."

Plaintiff claims the June 1, 2017 statements made by Tech Data were
materially false, misleading, and omitting material facts.
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that "Defendants made materially
false and misleading statements and/or omitted material facts
concerning: (a) the combined Tech Data-TS' execution capabilities;
(b) the Company's optimization of relationships with legacy TS
vendors; (c) the exceedingly competitive market environment in
Europe; and (d) the Company's expected earnings for 2Q18."  The
first count of the Complaint is for Violation of section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.  Count II is for
Violation of section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA").

To establish a claim under section 10(b), a plaintiff must
demonstrate "(1) a material misrepresentation or omission; (2) made
with scienter; (3) a connection with the purchase or sale of a
security; (4) reliance on the misstatement or omission; (5)
economic loss; and (6) a causal connection between the material
misrepresentation or omission and the loss, commonly called `loss
causation.'"

A claim under section 20(a) against a "controlling person" requires
that an entity violated the securities laws and that the defendant
"had the power to control the general affairs of the entity
primarily liable at the time the entity violated the securities law
. . . [and] had the requisite power to directly or indirectly
control or influence the specific corporate policy which results in
the primary liability." Absence of an adequately pleaded primarily
violation, in this case section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, is fatal to a
section 20(a) claim.

The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to plead a violation of
section 10(b). Thus, the section 20(a) claim also fails. Because
any amendment to the Complaint would be futile, leave for Plaintiff
to amend is unwarranted.

Under the heightened pleading standards of the PSLRA, the plaintiff
must (1) "specify each statement alleged to have been misleading,
the reason or reasons why the statement is misleading, and, if an
allegation regarding the statement or omission is made on
information and belief . . . state with particularity all facts on
which that belief is formed," and (2) "with respect to each act or
omission alleged . . . state with particularity facts giving rise
to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required
state of mind." Here, Plaintiff is unable to establish that
Defendants made a misrepresentation or omission of material fact,
or that any misrepresentation or omission was made with the
necessary mental state.

Section 20(a) claims cannot stand where a claimant fails to
adequately plead a primary violation of securities law.  Thus,
because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff's § 10(b) claim in Count
I, it must also dismiss the section 20(a) claim in Count II.

The Court holds that any further amendment of Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint would be futile. Plaintiff put forth no possible avenue
for meaningful amendment in either its papers or at the oral
hearing. The Complaint is deficient not because of a technical
matter, but because its allegations are simply not enough to meet
the PSLRA's pleading requirements. There is no indication before
the Court that another bite at pleadings would remedy this,
especially considering that no new, actionable allegations have
emerged during the relatively long lifespan of the case. The case
is, therefore, dismissed with prejudice.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 11, 2018 is available at
https://bit.ly/2GkpyXc from Leagle.com.

Nealan Bhatt, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated,, Plaintiff, represented by Cullin Avram O'Brien --
cullin@cullineobrienlaw.com -- Cullin O'Brien Law, P.A. & Eduard
Korsinsky , Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.

Tech Data Corporation, Robert M. Dutkowsky & Charles V. Dannewitz,
Defendants, represented by Brian P. Miller --
brian.miller@akerman.com --  Akerman LLP, Irene Bassel Frick –
Irene.frick@ackerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Jason L. Margolin --
Jason.margolin@ackerman.com --  Akerman LLP & Samantha Joy
Kavanaugh -- Samantha.kavanaugh@ackerman.com -- Akerman LLP.

John Atkinson & Randye Hubsher, Movants, represented by Cullin
Avram O'Brien, Cullin O'Brien Law, P.A.

Wayne County Employees Retirement System, Movant, represented by
Douglas S. Wilens -- dwilens@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd, LLP, Jack Reise -- jreise@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Maureen Mueller -- mmueller@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Sabrina Elsa Tirabassi --
stirabassi@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP &
Stephen Richard Astley – sastley@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd, LLP.


TELADOC HEALTH: Reiner Sues Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------
Jon Reiner, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Teladoc Health, Inc., JASON GOREVIC, and
MARK HIRSCHHORN, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-11603 (S.D. N.Y.,
December 12, 2018) is a federal securities class action on behalf
of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Teladoc securities between March 3, 2016, and December 5, 2018,
both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Teladoc was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Purchase, New
York. The Company provides telehealth services worldwide. The
Company offers a portfolio of services and solutions covering 450
medical subspecialties, such as flu and upper respiratory
infections, cancer, and congestive heart failure. The Company
provides its services through mobile devices, the Internet, video,
and phone. The Company serves health plans, health systems, and
other entities. The Company was formerly known as "Teladoc, Inc."
and changed its name to "Teladoc Health, Inc." in August 2018.

Mark Hirschhorn is Executive Vice President ("EVP"), Chief
Operating Officer, and Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") of Teladoc.
In those capacities, Hirschhorn is responsible for advancing the
Company's financial infrastructure and strategic direction, and
developing Teladoc's industry-leading operations.

At all relevant times, the Company purported to be committed to
"the highest standards of integrity and ethics in the way it
conducts business," and, to that end, adopted a Code of Business
Conduct and Ethics, which applies to all of its employees, officers
and directors, including its chief executive officer, chief
financial officer, and all other executive and senior officers.

The complaint notes that throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Hirschhorn was
engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with a subordinate;
(ii) Hirschhorn and this subordinate engaged in insider trading to
provide themselves with undue benefits; (iii) Hirschhorn caused the
subordinate to receive promotions for which she was unqualified,
thereby negatively impacting the Company's operations; (iv) the
Company's enforcement of its own purported employment and trading
policies were inadequate to prevent the foregoing conduct; and (v)
as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On December 5, 2018, the Southern Investigative Research Foundation
("SIRF") published an article reporting that Teladoc's CFO,
Hirschhorn, had engaged "in an affair with . . . an employee many
levels below him on the company's organizational chart." The SIRF
article stated that "during their relationship, [the employee]
received a series of promotions over colleagues with either more
industry experience or better credentials that stunned her former
colleagues." In addition, the SIRF article reported that the
employee and Hirschhorn "liked to trade Teladoc Health's stock
together," with Hirschhorn "telling her when he thought there were
good opportunities to sell some shares."

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

Plaintiff acquired Teladoc securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation
of the alleged corrective disclosures.

Teladoc is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located at 2 Manhattanville Road, Suite 203, Purchase, New
York. Teladoc's common stock trades in an efficient market on the
New York Exchange ("NYSE") under the ticker symbol "TDOC".

Jason Gorevic has served at all relevant times as the Chief
Executive Officer of Teladoc.

Hirschhorn has served at all relevant times as the EVP, COO, and
CFO of Teladoc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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

          - and -

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



TELIGENT INC: Claims in Generic Drugs Antitrust Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Teligent, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 12, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court
overseeing the case, In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing
Antitrust Litigation, has dismissed the class plaintiffs' claims
against the Company with leave to replead.

To date, 12 putative class action antitrust lawsuits have been
filed against the Company along with co-defendants, including Taro
Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and Perrigo New York Inc.  

One  "opt-out" action has additionally been filed against the
Company along with thirty-four generic manufacturer co-defendants
regarding the pricing of econazole nitrate cream along with
twenty-nine additional drug products not manufactured or sold by
the Company.

All actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
for pre-trial proceedings as part of the In re Generic
Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation matter, and the class
actions have been consolidated into three actions: the direct
purchaser, end payer and indirect reseller actions.

The class plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide or state classes
consisting of persons who directly purchased, indirectly purchased,
paid and/or reimbursed patients for the purchase of generic
econazole from July 1, 2014 until the time the defendants'
allegedly unlawful conduct ceased or will cease.

On October 16, 2018 the court dismissed the class plaintiffs'
claims against the Company with leave to replead.

The opt-out plaintiffs allege a conspiracy by 35 generic
manufacturers to fix prices for thirty drug products, including
econazole nitrate cream, in violation of federal antitrust laws.
The opt-out plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged price
overcharges for the thirty drug products identified in the
complaint during the alleged period of conspiracy, and also seek
injunctive relief against the defendants.

A motion to dismiss the opt-out plaintiffs' complaint has not yet
been filed.

Teligent said, "Due to the early stage of these cases, we are
unable to form a judgment at this time as to whether an unfavorable
outcome is either probable or remote or to provide an estimate of
the amount or range of potential loss. We believe these cases are
without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend against these
claims."

Teligent, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, and markets generic topical, branded
generic, and generic injectable pharmaceutical products in the
United States and Canada. The company was formerly known as IGI
Laboratories, Inc. and changed its name to Teligent, Inc. in
October 2015. Teligent, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is based in
Buena, New Jersey.


TEMPLE TERRACE, FL: Lea Family Renews Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled LEA FAMILY PARTNERSHIP Ltd., a
Florida Limited Partnership, on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF TEMPLE TERRACE,
FLORIDA, and LEN VALENTI, in his official capacity as "Housing
Compliance Officer" and individually, the Defendants, Case No.
8:16-cv-03463-JSM-AAS (M.D. Fla., Filed Dec. 14, 2018), the
Plaintiff renews its request for the Court to enter an order
certifying a class.

The Plaintiff filed its original motion for class certification
before the Court on July 31, 2017.  On September 19, 2017, the
Court entered an order denying the motion and providing time for
the parties to conduct discovery on whether the City's records,
including the software systems used for enforcement of the Rental
Housing Program, document whether a dwelling is unoccupied at the
time of inspection in order to demonstrate that numerosity and an
administratively feasible means to ascertain Class Members exist.

After a protracted and hard-fought struggle to obtain production of
the data and information documented in these systems, and with
assistance from its data analysis expert, the Plaintiff has
identified the specific members of the Class from the City's own
records. The Plaintiff has identified 182 specific properties which
were unoccupied at the time of a Rental Housing inspection. The
Plaintiff has also identified 164 unique property owners for those
182 properties. Thus, Plaintiff has satisfied both the numerosity
and ascertainability requirements of Rule 23. In the interest of
efficiency, this renewed motion begins by identifying the Class and
addressing this newly established evidence related to
ascertainability and numerosity of the Class.

The Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
disgorgement of initial fees paid, on their own behalf and on
behalf of the owners of the 182 properties. These 182 rental
properties, as documented by the City's electronic Zoll/Fire RMS
and Sunguard/Navaline systems, were included within the City's
Rental Housing Program and were subjected to an inspection prior to
occupancy of a tenant.

From the City's books and records, Plaintiff has also identified
the names of the owners of these 182 properties. In the interests
of privacy, however, Plaintiff is not including these names in the
present motion, but can make those names available to the Court if
the Court believes that should be necessary."[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Christa L. Collins, Esq.
          HARMON PARKER, P.A.
          110 North 11th Street - 2nd Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: 813-222-3600
          Facsimile: 813-222-3616
          E-mail: service.clc@harmonparkerlaw.com

               - and -

          J. Andrew Meyer, Esq.
          J. ANDREW MEYER, P.A.
          7431 114th Ave. No. 104
          Largo, FL 33773
          Telephone: 727-709-7668
          E-mail: andrew@jandrewmeyer.com

TERNIUM SA: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Ternium S.A. (NYSE: TX) securities between May
1, 2014 and November 27, 2018 (the "Class Period"). Investors have
until Jan. 28, 2019 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Defendant Rocca, Ternium's Chairman, knew that one of his
company's executives paid cash to government officials from 2009 to
2012 to expedite compensation payments for the sale of Ternium's
Sidor unit; (2) this conduct would lead Rocca to be charged in a
graft scheme and subject Ternium, its affiliates, and/or its
executives to heightened governmental scrutiny; and (3) as a
result, Ternium's public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased Ternium securities during the Class Period or
continue to hold shares purchased before the Class Period, have
information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon
Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com,
or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact
form. There is no cost or obligation to you.

         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Telephone: (212) 355-4648
         Email: investigations@bespc.com
                fortunato@bespc.com
                walker@bespc.com [GN]


TERNIUM SA: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Ternium S.A. (NYSE:TX) from May 1, 2014 through November 27, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Ternium investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Ternium class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1460.html or call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Defendant Rocca,
Ternium's Chairman, knew that one of his company's executives paid
cash to government officials from 2009 to 2012 to expedite
compensation payments for the sale of Ternium's Sidor unit; (2)
this conduct would lead Rocca to be charged in a graft scheme and
subject Ternium, its affiliates, and/or its executives to
heightened governmental scrutiny; and (3) as a result, Ternium's
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than Jan. 28,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1460.html or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action please;

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]


TESLA INC: Removes Inter-Local Pension Fund Suit to N.D. Ca.
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Tesla, Inc., removed on December 4, 2018, the lawsuit
titled INTER-LOCAL PENSION FUND GCC/IBT, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. TESLA, INC., ELON MUSK, GOLDMAN
SACHS & COMPANY, LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & COMPANY, LLC, BARCLAYS
CAPITAL, INC., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC.,
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC., DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES, INC., RBC
CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, AND DOES 1-25, Inclusive, Case No.
18CIV337109, from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Santa Clara to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-07325 to the
proceeding.

According to Tesla's Notice of Removal, this action is
substantially related to an alleged securities class action suit
filed in the District Court on October 10, 2017.  That suit,
captioned Wochos v. Tesla, Inc., No. 17-5828 ("the Wochos
litigation"), has been assigned to the Hon. Charles R. Breyer.  In
the Wochos litigation, the plaintiffs claim that Tesla made certain
alleged misstatements regarding its Model 3 vehicle in May and
August 2017.  Judge Breyer dismissed the claims in that case
without prejudice in light of the plaintiffs' failure to plead any
false or misleading statement.  Tesla's motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint in the Wochos litigation was filed on
November 20, 2018.

This lawsuit was filed on November 2, 2018, in the State Court.
The Plaintiff bases its case largely on the same alleged
misstatements in the Wochos litigation that Judge Breyer has
already ruled fail to state a claim.  The main difference is that
the Plaintiff in the State Court Action alleges that it purchased
Tesla's 5.30% Senior Notes due 2025 ("the Notes") in August 2017
rather than common stock on the open market, the Defendant asserts.
The Notes were issued by Tesla and sold to a group of investment
banks as the initial purchasers (also named as defendants in the
State Court Action), which in turn sold the Notes to qualified
purchasers in a non-public offering, registration-exempt
transaction pursuant to an offering circular dated August 11, 2017
("the Offering Circular").

The Plaintiff alleges that it purchased the Notes "directly" from
one of the initial purchaser defendants (not from Tesla), and that
the statements in the Offering Circular concerning Model 3 were
materially misleading.  The Plaintiff purports to bring the State
Court Action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities, who purchased the Notes pursuant to the Offering
Circular.[BN]

Defendants Tesla, Inc., and Elon Musk are represented by:

          Dean S. Kristy, Esq.
          Jennifer C. Bretan, Esq.
          Alexis I. Caloza, Esq.
          FENWICK & WEST LLP
          555 California Street, 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 875-2300
          Facsimile: (415) 281-1350
          E-mail: dkristy@fenwick.com
                  jbretan@fenwick.com
                  acaloza@fenwick.com


TSAROUHIS LAW GROUP: Davis Files Consumer Credit Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tsarouhis Law Group,
LLC. The case is styled as Canesha Davis, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Tsarouhis Law Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-05338-JFL
(E.D. Penn., December 11, 2018).

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

The Tsarouhis Law Group LLC is a law firm in Allentown, PA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   NICHOLAS J. LINKER, Esq.
   ZEMEL LAW LLC
   1373 Broad St., Suite 203-C
   Clifton, NJ 07013
   Tel: (862) 227-3106
   Email: nl@zemellawllc.com


U.S. TECH CONSTRUCTION: Buttermark Sues Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS L. BUTTERMARK & SONS, INC., individually, and as
representatives of all trust beneficiaries similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. U.S. TECH CONSTRUCTION CORP., ANNA LUIS ASHA KHALED,
LEOPOLDO BAEZ, PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, and John
Does One through Ten, and other Lien Holders unknown, Defendants,
Case No. 656174/2018 (Sup. Ct. N.Y., New York Cty., December 12,
2018) seeks to recover all collection costs, attorney's fees, and
court costs necessarily incurred to collect the sums due.

On or about August 12, 2016, plaintiff BUTTERMARK entered into a
written contract with the defendant U.S. TECH CONSTRUCTION CORP. to
provide work, labor, services, and furnish materials, at the
Project known as Sophie Davis Interior Upgrade Phase 1 at City
College of New York. The labor performed was: plumbing work,
installed pipe, fittings, fixtures, floor drain. The materials
furnished were: plumbing materials, pipe, fittings, fixtures, floor
drain. The labor and materials above specified were actually
performed and furnished by the plaintiff BUTTERMARK, and have been
actually used in the execution of the contract aforementioned.

The amount due and owing to the plaintiff BUTTERMARK is $43,246.77,
no portion of which has been paid although duly demanded. At all
relevant times herein, plaintiff BUTTERMARK contracted with the
defendant U.S. TECH CONSTRUCTION CORP., and performed said work,
labor, services, and furnished materials, at the said Project.

Plaintiff is entitled to recover all collection costs, attorney's
fees, and court costs necessarily incurred to collect the sums due
plaintiff. Plaintiff duly and properly performed each and every
obligation on its part to be performed, says the complaint.

LOUIS L. BUTTERMARK & SONS, INC. was and still is a domestic
corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of New York,
with its principal place of business at 16 New Dorp Avenue, Staten
Island, New York 10306 and was, and still is, at all relevant times
herein duly licensed by the applicable governmental agency.

U.S. TECH CONSTRUCTION CORP. was and still is a domestic
corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of New York,
with its principal place of business at 32-75 Steinway Street,
Astoria, New York 11103.

ANNA LUIS ASHA K.HALED was and still is a resident of the State of
New York residing at 1015 Cedar Swamp Rd, Glen Head, New York.
Defendant ANNA LUIS ASHA KHALED was, and still is, the
Vice-President, and owner, principal, officer, and shareholder, of
the defendant U.S. TECH CONSTRUCTION CORP., and at all times
relevant herein exercised sole dominion and control over the
monies, trust funds, accounts receivables, bank accounts, and
finances, of said defendant U.S. TECH CONSTRUCTION CORP.

LEOPOLDO BAEZ was, and still is, a resident of the State of New
York residing at 32-75 Steinway Street, Astoria, New York.
Defendant LEOPOLDO BAEZ was, and still is, the Chief Executive
Officer, and owner, principal, officer, and shareholder, of the
defendant U.S. TECH CONSTRUCTION CORP., and at all times relevant
herein exercised sole dominion and control over the monies, trust
funds, accounts receivables, bank accounts, and finances, of said
defendant U.S. TECH CONSTRUCTION CORP.

PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY was, and still is, a
Massachusetts insurance company duly authorized to write and issue
bonds in the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Leonard J. Catanzaro, Esq.
     555 Lenox Avenue, Suite 2F
     New York, NY 10037
     Phone: (212) 226-1234


UBER: Wollongong Cab Drivers May Opt to Join Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Glen Humphries, writing for Illawara Mercury, reports that
Wollongong cab drivers have the option of joining a class action
against rideshare company Uber.

This is despite the fact Uber did not enter the region until after
government legislation allowing rideshare providers to operate.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn is looking to expand its Victorian class
action suit nationwide, calling for people in other states to take
part.

At the heart of the class action is Uber's allegedly "illegal" move
to start operating in various states ahead of government
regulations.

In NSW, regulations were introduced in December, 2015, but Uber did
not begin operating in the Illawarra until March 2017.

A spokesman for Maurice Blackburn said this did not exclude the
Illawarra Taxi Network from joining the class action.

He said drivers may have suffered losses -- particularly in regard
to licence values -- despite the rideshare company not operating in
the region before December 2015.

The spokesman encouraged those in the Illawarra taxi industry to
"register and protect their interests". [GN]


UNIFIED CARING: Hunt Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Hunt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Unified Caring Association and Patriot
Health Florida, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
18-cv-81647 (S.D. Fla., December 3, 2018), seeks injunctive relief,
statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Unified Caring Association operates as Healthy Nationwide, a
company that brokers the sale of discount medical plans. Patriot
Health Florida, Inc. is a discount medical plan organization.
Beginning in or around April 2018, United Caring contacted Hunt on
his cellular telephone number in an attempt to promote its services
using an automatic telephone dialing system. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Wellikoff, Esq.
      ADLER WELLIKOFF PLLC
      1300 N. Federal Highway, Suite 107
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Phone: (561) 508-9591
      Email: swellikoff@adwellgroup.com


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Extends Briefing Schedule in Smith Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the stipulated
request to extend briefing schedule for Defendants' motion to
dismiss plaintiff's class action captioned JANE SMITH, on her
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY and UNITED BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-6336-HSG (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff's deadline to file an Opposition to Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss currently set for Dec. 24, 2018 is extended to
Jan. 10, 2019.

Defendants' deadline to file a Reply in support of their Motion to
Dismiss currently set for Dec. 31, 2018 is extended to Jan. 24,
2019.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 11, 2018 is available at
https://bit.ly/2PK8LMr from Leagle.com.

Jane Smith, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by D. Brian Hufford --
dbhufford@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice,
Jason S. Cowart -- jcowart@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP,
pro hac vice, Anant Kumar -- snaunton@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice, Nell Zora Peyser -- peyser@zuckerman.com
-- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice,  Shawn P. Naunton,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice & Meiram Bendat --
mbendat@psych-appeal.com --Psych-Appeal, Inc.

United Behavioral Health, Defendant, represented by Jennifer
Salzman Romano -- jromano@crowell.com  -- Crowell & Moring LLP,
Jared L. Facher -- jfacher@crowell.com -- Crowell Moring LLP,
Margaret Carroll Gomes -- mgomes@crowell.com -- CROWELL MORING LLP
& Michael W. Lieberman -- mlieberman@crowell.com -- Crowell Moring
LLP, pro hac vice.

United Healthcare Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Jennifer Salzman Romano, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jared L. Facher,
Crowell Moring LLP, pro hac vice, Margaret Carroll Gomes, CROWELL
MORING LLP & Michael W. Lieberman, Crowell Moring LLP.


UNITED SERVICE: Partial Summary Ruling Granted to Couple Flipped
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DAVID TURK and MARISSA TURK, individually and
as the representative of all persons similarly situated,
Respondents, v. UNITED SERVICE AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION; USAA
CASUALITY INSURANCE COMPANY; USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY; and
GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellants, No.
50067-1-II (Wash. App.), the Washington Court of Appeals reversed
the trial court's order granting partial summary judgment to the
Turks because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the
scope of the release as intended by the parties. The Court also
reversed the trial court's class certification order because
neither David nor Marissa Turk has a claim typical of the class and
neither is an adequate class representative. The case is remanded
for further proceedings.

USAA argued that the trial court erred by granting partial summary
judgment to the Turks as to USAA's release of liability affirmative
defense. It claims the proper interpretation of the release creates
a genuine issue of material fact. Because there are material facts
in dispute, the Court agrees.

In this case, the release was labeled "Uninsured Motorist Coverage
Release (Bodily Injury or Death with Subrogation Provisions)."
However, the text of the release stated that it discharged USAA
"from any and all claims" under Turk's UIM policy "for damages,
both known and unknown, caused by the ownership, maintenance, or
use of an uninsured automobile" resulting from the Nov. 17, 2013
accident.

Though the text of the release itself unambiguously states that it
applies to "any and all claims" arising from the accident, the
heading implies that it was intended to cover only bodily injury
claims. Additionally, the check USAA wrote to Marissa stated the
"Nature of Payment" was for "Payment under Underinsured Motorists
Bodily Injury, Personal Injury Protection coverage." Pursuant to
Plancich, however, a payment for a specific type of insurance
coverage does not restrict broad release language from covering
claims outside that type of coverage.

Considering the language of the contract and the Turks' written-in
addition, the release is ambiguous as to whether it released LOU
property damage claims. Despite the testimony of the Turks and
retained attorney Jeanette Coleman that Coleman represented them
only for Marissa's bodily injury claims, the objective intent they
manifested to USAA did not definitively demonstrate this fact.
Whether the parties intended for the release to include all claims
or only bodily injury claims is a question of fact. Because this
genuine issue of material fact exists, the trial court erred by
granting summary judgment on this issue and the Court reverses.

USAA also argued that the trial court abused its discretion by
granting class certification. It claims the court erred by
concluding many certification requirements were met, including
typicality and adequacy of representation. Because the Court agrees
that the typicality and adequacy of representation elements were
not met in this case, the Court reverses the order certifying the
class and remand.

The class in this case includes all USAA insureds whose vehicle
required repair, during which time they were without use of their
vehicle for a day or more. Although the record suggests that David
had ownership interest in Marissa's vehicle, the parties agree that
David never went without any vehicle as the result of an accident.
The trial court abused its discretion by appointing David as class
representative because he is not a member of the class.

Marissa, however, was a member of the class. Her vehicle suffered a
loss requiring repair as the result of a collision that was covered
by her UIM insurance and she was without her vehicle for
approximately thirty days. But because Marissa's claim is subject
to the release of liability defense, she is not typical of the
other class members. Accordingly, typicality is not met as to
either of the named class representatives. Because there is no
typical class representative in this case, the Court reverses the
order certifying the class.

A copy of the Court's Opinion dated Dec. 11, 2018 is available at
https://bit.ly/2rG7Ym1 from Leagle.com.

Michael A Moore -- mmoore@corrcronin.com -- Corr Cronin LLP, 1001
4th Ave Ste 3900, Seattle, WA, 98154-1051.

David Benjamin Edwards -- dedwards@corrcronin.com -- T-Mobile, 3625
132nd Ave Se, Bellevue, WA, 98006-1325.

Jay Williams -- jwilliams@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP,
233 South Wacker Drive Ste 6600, Chicago, IL, 60606.

Paula Ketcham -- pketcham@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP,
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6600, Chicago, IL, 60606, Counsel for
Appellant(s).

Stephen Michael Hansen, Law Offices of Stephen M Hansen PS, 1821
Dock St Unit 103, Tacoma, WA, 98402-3201.

Scott P. Nealey, Nealey Law, 71 Stevenson Street, Suite 400, San
Francisco, CA, 94105, Counsel for Respondent(s).


UNITED STATES: Carson Suit Seeks Back Pay Under Tucker Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the USA. The case is
styled as Carl Robert Carson, Jr., on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. USA, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-01902-SGB (COFC, December 11, 2018).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Civilian Pay -
Back Pay filed pursuant to the Tucker Act.

The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean. Major Atlantic Coast
cities are New York, a global finance and culture center, and
capital Washington, DC. Midwestern metropolis Chicago is known for
influential architecture and on the west coast, Los Angeles'
Hollywood is famed for filmmaking.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ira M. Lechner, Esq.
   1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1050
   Washington, DC 20036
   Tel: (858) 864-2258
   Fax: (760) 839-5755
   Email: iralechner@yahoo.com




UNITED STATES: Ct. Narrows Claims in Padilla Immigrant Rights Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Marsha J. Pechman granted in part and denied
in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss the case captioned YOLANY
PADILLA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT, et al., Defendants, Case No. C18-928 MJP (W.D. Wash.).
The Plaintiffs' claims relating to violations of the Administrative
Procedures Act (APA) are dismissed with prejudice. The motion to
dismiss the remainder of Plaintiffs' claims is denied.

Plaintiffs brought the action against U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement ("ICE"), the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
("DHS"), U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP"), U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), the Executive
Office for Immigration Review ("EOIR"), and various government
officials in their official capacities (collectively, the
"government") challenging the legality of (1) "the government's
policy or practice of excessively prolonging the detention of
asylum seekers placed in expedited removal proceedings by failing
to promptly provide them their credible fear interview and
determination," and (2) "the government's related policy or
practice of excessively prolonging the detention of asylum seekers
by failing to promptly conduct the bond hearings required by
federal law after an asylum seeker's positive completion of their
credible fear interview."

The government first claims that this Court lacks jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs' claims challenging the timing of the credible fear
interviews under 8 U.S.C. section 1252(a)(2)(A). The Court
recognizes that the existence of Fifth Amendment issues does not,
by itself, confer jurisdiction upon it to hear Plaintiffs' claims.
However, Plaintiffs here seek habeas relief for their alleged
injuries and "[i]t is now clear that 'federal district court has
habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section2241 to review'"
complaints by detained aliens "for constitutional claims and legal
error. Although [the immigration statutory scheme] restricts
jurisdiction in the federal courts in some respects, it does not
limit habeas jurisdiction over constitutional claims or questions
of law."

In addition to challenging jurisdiction, the government also
asserts that, as "non-admitted aliens," the members of the Credible
Fear Interview class have no constitutional right to enter the
United States or have the determination of their admissibility
subject to any procedural safeguards other than those Congress has
seen fit to provide.

Faced with a motion to dismiss, this Court must accept all
well-pled allegations of material fact as true and draw all
reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.  Under this
standard, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have adequately pled
that they were within the borders of this country without
permission when detained, and thus enjoy inherent constitutional
due process protections which they are entitled to vindicate
through the legal process. The Court will not dismiss Plaintiffs'
claims on the grounds that they do not have a right to the
constitutional protections they seek. Defendants' motion in this
regard is denied.

The government alsos contends that there is no "final agency
action" at issue in this lawsuit, thus no cause of action under the
APA. Plaintiffs make the following arguments:

First, Plaintiffs contend that the credible fear interview marks
the culmination of a decision-making process (i.e., because once
the interview is concluded, the matter is transferred from DHS to
EOIR). While this may be the case, Plaintiffs are not seeking a
review of the outcome of a credible fear interview but are instead
challenging the timing of the interview itself. When the interview
is held does not mark the culmination of any decision-making
process.

Second, Plaintiffs contend that the credible fear interview is a
process by which rights are determined and from which legal
consequences flow. Again, this is correct with regard to the
interview itself (as the decision following the interview will
determine whether the applicant will be able to apply for relief
from the immigration court or be subject to expedited removal), but
inapplicable to the question of when the interview is conducted.

Defendants' motion to dismiss the claim of the Credible Fear
Interview class under the APA is granted.

In sum, the Court has jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs' lawsuit.
Both the proposed Credible Fear Interview and Bond Hearing classes
have succeeded in stating a claim under Count I for constitutional
relief from certain alleged violations by Defendants, and
Defendants' motion is denied in that regard. The Credible Fear
Interview class has failed to state a claim under the APA for which
relief may be granted, and Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted
in that regard.

The Bond Hearing class has failed to state a claim for which relief
may be granted under section 706(1) or section 706(2) of the APA
concerning the timing of their bond hearings; Defendants' motion to
dismiss is granted in that regard. The Bond Hearing class has
succeeded in stating a claim for which relief may be granted under
section 706(2) of the APA concerning the procedural safeguards
(i.e., burden of proof, provision of a verbatim transcript, written
findings) to which they allege they are entitled; Defendants'
motion is denied in that regard.

It is the further finding of this Court that Plaintiffs are
entitled to seek injunctive and declaratory relief for the causes
of action which they have successfully pled. Defendants' motion is
denied in that regard as well.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 11, 2018 is available at
https://bit.ly/2UNLmxC from Leagle.com.

Yolany Padilla, Ibis Guzman, Blanca Orantes & Baltazar Vasquez,
Plaintiffs, represented by Kristin Macleod-Ball, AMERICAN
IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice, Leila Kang , NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT
RIGHTS PROJECT, Matt Adams, NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT,
Trina Realmuto, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice & Aaron
Korthuis, NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT.

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE, US
Department of Homeland Security, also known as DHS, US Customs and
Border Protection, also known as CBP, United StatesCitizenship and
Immigration Services, also known as USCIS, Thomas Homan, Acting
Director of ICE, Kirstjen M Nielsen, Secretary of DHS, Kevin K.
McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of CBP, L Francis Cissna, Director
of USCIS, Marc J Moore, Seattle Field Office Director, ICE,
Executive Office for Immigration Review, Jefferson Beauregard
Sessions, III, United States Attorney General, Lowell Clark, Warden
of the Norwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Charles Ingram, Warden
of the Federal Detention Center in SeaTac, Washington & David
Shinn, Warden of the Federal Correctional Institute in Victorville,
CA, Defendants, represented by Joseph A. Darrow , US DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Lauren C. Bingham , US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & Sarah S.
Wilson -- swilson@cov.com -- US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.


VICTORY ENTERTAINMENT: Logan Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Sahara Logan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Victory Entertainment, Inc. d/b/a Delilah's
Den a/k/a Showgirls a/k/a Delilah's Den of Atlantic City, 2405
Pacific Avenue, LLC, d/b/a Delilah's Den a/k/a Showgirls a/k/a
Delilah's Den of Atlantic City, Nicholas Panaccione, Richard D.
Schibell, Leonard Casiero, Joseph Shamy and Doe Defendants 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-17129 (D. N.J., December 12, 2018) is
a Class/Collective action lawsuit 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.

Plaintiff brings this action as a collective action to recover
unpaid wages, including inappropriately withheld tips, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Additionally, Plaintiff
brings this action as a New Jersey state-wide class action to
recover unpaid wages, including inappropriately withheld tips,
pursuant to the New Jersey Wage Payment Law the New Jersey Wage and
Hour Law and New Jersey common law.

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.

The 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
Delilah's Den of Atlantic City located at 2405 Pacific Avenue,
Atlantic City, New Jersey, from the beginning of July 2018 and
working at various times until she was terminated at the end of
July 2018.

Victory Entertainment, Inc. and its alter ego 2405 Pacific Ave,
L.L.C. d/b/a Delilah's Den a/k/a Delilah's of Atlantic City a/k/a
Showgirls are New Jersey Limited Liability Companies. Upon
information and belief, Victory Entertainment, Inc. and its alter
ego 2405 Pacific Ave., L.L.C. own and operate Delilah's of Atlantic
City located at 2405 Pacific Avenue, Atlantic City, New Jersey
08401.

Nicholas Panaccione is an owner, president, and a member of the
board of directors of Victory Entertainment, Inc.

Richard D. Schibell, is an owner and a member of the board of
directors of Victory Entertainment, Inc.

Leonard Casiero is an owner and a member of the board of directors
of Victory Entertainment, Inc.

Joseph Shamy is the owner and a member of the board of directors of
2405 Pacific Ave, L.L.C.[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


WAL-MART STORES: Bid for Class Certification under Submission
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Mark Prado, the Plaintiff, v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-05630-AB-KK (C.D. Cal., Dec. 14, 2018), the Hon. Judge
Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order taking Plaintiff's motion for
class certification under submission.

According to the civil minutes, "The Courtroom Deputy Clerk
distributes the Court’s tentative rulings prior to the case being
called. The Court having carefully considered the papers and the
evidence submitted by the parties, and having heard the oral
argument of counsel, hereby takes the motion under
submission."[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Shawn C. Westrick, Esq.
          The Westrick Law Firm, P.C.,
          11075 Santa Monica Blvd, Ste 125,
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-7562
          Telephone: (310) 746-5303
          Facsimile: (310) 943-3373
          E-mail: swestrick@westricklawfirm.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          James Robert Evans, Jr.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          333 S Hope St Fl 16
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1410
          Telephone: (213) 576-1000
          Facsimile: (213) 576-1100
          E-mail: james.evans@alston.com

WATERSTONE MORTGAGE: Appeals 7th Cir. Arbitration Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Odendahl, writing for Indianan Lawyer, reports that a wage
and hour lawsuit that would have followed precedent became a case
of first impression in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals with a
ruling that held that while employers can prohibit class action
arbitration, the district court, not the arbitrator, answers the
questions about what can be arbitrated.

However, employment attorneys say the important lesson from this
case is that employment agreements need to be written clearly and
explicitly. These contracts between employers and their workers
that send disputes to arbitration are becoming more common, and
even those agreements already in place should be reviewed to avoid
arguments over the specifics.

The price for confusion over the language can be very high. In the
matter that reached the 7th Circuit, Pamela Herrington v.
Waterstone Mortgage Corp., 17-3609, the employees were awarded more
than $10 million in the class arbitration.

Brendan Sweeney -- Brendan.Sweeney@jacksonlewis.com -- of counsel
in the Jackson Lewis P.C. Long Island office, reiterated that the
case shows "how important it is to be careful when drafting these
agreements."

The dispute in Herrington began in November 2011, when Herrington,
who had worked for Waterstone as a loan officer, filed a complaint
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
She asserted the mortgage company did not pay minimum wages and
overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

While the district court told Ms. Herrington she had to arbitrate
as her employment agreement required, the judge found the waiver
forbidding class or collective arbitration was unlawful. The
arbitrator was instructed to let other Waterstone employees join
Herrington's case, but was given the freedom to choose the type of
multiparty arbitration.

In the end, 174 other Waterstone employees were allowed to join in
the class arbitration and were awarded more than $10 million in
damages and fees. The district court affirmed the award and
Waterstone appealed.

Peter Tschanz -- ptschanz@bgdlegal.com -- an associate at Bingham
Greenebaum Doll LLP in Indianapolis, observed that Waterstone has a
lot at stake in this case. The award is substantial and would be
considerably more modest if the plaintiffs had to arbitrate
individually,
Mr. Tschanz said. Moreover, being able to challenge the
arbitrator's decision in this dispute to enable others to join is
critical because appealing issues from arbitration can be very
difficult, he said.

Echoing Sweeney's point, Mr. Tschanz noted the importance of making
sure the waiver of class arbitration in the employment agreement is
done "clearly and unmistakably."

'What happens next?'

At the 7th Circuit, the mortgage company argued the class
arbitration should not have been allowed in the first place because
the agreement contained a waiver forbidding individuals to join
together and arbitrate as a group. In contrast, Herrington had
successfully asserted in district court that the National Labor
Relations Act prohibited individual arbitration of employment
claims. The 7th Circuit reached a similar conclusion in Lewis v.
Epic Sys. Corp., 823 F.3d 1147, 1161 (7th Cir. 2016) and was poised
to rule that the district court had properly struck the class
waiver from the employment agreement.

However, things got upended when the Supreme Court of the United
States reversed the 7th Circuit in the Epic Systems case. The
justices ruled in a 5-to-4 decision this year that waivers against
class or collective arbitration in employment agreements are
enforceable.

With that precedent, the 7th Circuit found the district court
should have upheld the waiver in Herrington's employment agreement
and not allowed the other Waterstone workers to join the case.

But that still did not bring about a conclusion. As Judge Amy Coney
Barrett wrote in the opinion, "The lawfulness of the waiver is the
easy part of this appeal. The hard part is the question that Epic
Systems does not address: what happens next?"

The question is being asked because, according to the appellate
panel, Herrington "changed her tune." She argued that even with the
waiver, the agreement indicates Waterstone consented to class and
collective arbitration because the company incorporated the
American Arbitration Association's rules into the agreement, which
includes provisions for multiparty arbitration.

Although the 7th Circuit described the argument as "implausible,"
it still remanded the dispute and ordered the district court to
decide if the employment contract does allow for individuals to
join together and arbitrate as a group.

In finding the courts -- not the arbitrators -- should decide the
question of arbitrability, the 7th Circuit joined the 3rd, 4th,
6th, 8th and 11th Circuits.

Including waivers

Mr. Sweeney, who has experience as in-house legal counsel,
described this case as a "worst nightmare." It provides the lesson,
he said, for clearly drafting employment agreements.

The agreements should be "extraordinarily clear" that multiparty
arbitration is waived, Sweeney said, and expressly state that any
questions about the waiver are to be decided by the district court.
He maintained that a "well-drafted agreement is going to be
enforceable."

Mr. Tschanz agreed. He said the takeaway from the case is that
employers must be very clear in their employment agreements that
the parties are precluded from class and collective arbitration. If
companies are not crystal clear, they could end up in costly
litigation.

In its supplement brief to the 7th Circuit, Waterstone contended
that the cases that have fostered the "what happens next" question
all involved employment agreements that were silent as to class
arbitration and did not include a class arbitration waiver like
Waterstone did. The Supreme Court's ruling in Epic, Waterstone
argued, held the wavier must be enforced according to the terms,
including those that require individual arbitration.

"I believe the U.S. Supreme Court gave clear instruction in the
Epic decision that courts must enforce class waivers," said Spencer
Skeen -- spencer.skeen@ogletree.com -- a shareholder at Ogletree
Deakins who was the lead attorney representing Waterstone on
appeal. "There is no 'who decides' question when the agreement
speaks to the issue of class arbitration and clearly precludes
it."

As an alternative position, Mr. Skeen and Waterstone argued the
issue of class arbitration was a gateway issue for the courts to
decide. Gateway matters address whether the parties' action is
governed by the arbitration agreement or whether the arbitration
clause applies to a particular issue.

In reaching its ruling, the 7th Circuit adopted the latter
reasoning.

Ms. Herrington's petition for a rehearing was denied. Attorneys
from Getman Sweeney & Dunn, PLLC in New York, who are representing
Ms. Herrington, did not return a call seeking comment. [GN]


WAYNE COUNTY, MI: District Court Tosses Nichols Due Process Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert H. Cleland grants in part the Defendants'
motion and dismisses the case captioned STEPHEN NICHOLS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF WAYNE et al. Defendants, Case No. 18-12026
(E.D. Mich.).

Plaintiffs Stephen Nichols, Adam Chappell, Jr., and Ryan Chappell
filed a putative class action complaint naming as defendants the
County of Wayne, "the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office," the Wayne
County Prosecutor Kym Worthy in her official and individual
capacity, the "Wayne County Sheriff's Office," and the City of
Lincoln Park. The complaint alleged municipal liability under 42
U.S.C. section 1983 for violations of the Fourteenth Amendment and
sought declaratory and injunctive relief. A few months after it was
filed, two of the three named Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
their claims and they, along with the "Sheriff's Office," were
terminated from the case. This left Wayne County, "the Wayne County
Prosecutor's Office," Kym Worthy, and the City of Lincoln Park as
Defendants in the case.

The facts underlying remaining Plaintiff Nichols' claim are as
follows. Stephen Nichols, while driving an automobile, was pulled
over by a Lincoln Park police officer and ticketed for driving an
uninsured vehicle. He presented an invalid insurance certificate to
the officer and his car was confiscated under the forfeiture
provisions of Michigan's Identity Theft Protection Act. He filed a
claim of interest and posted a bond to contest the forfeiture.
Wayne County failed to file a civil forfeiture case against the
vehicle and Nichols' car was not returned to him until he filed
this lawsuit. He is challenging the process of the county's seizure
and forfeiture procedure.

Plaintiff's Complaint alleged that Wayne County's liability arises
here from a "policy, practice, custom or pattern of not providing
these hearings" and in a failure to train attorneys to conduct
them. It is undisputed that Defendants do not routinely provide
post-deprivation, pre-forfeiture hearings for civil seizures. Wayne
County argued that this "policy" is merely its compliance with
Michigan's forfeiture statute. The statute does not require such a
hearing and has been found constitutional by both Michigan state
courts and federal courts.

Defendants argue that their lack of routine post-deprivation,
pre-forfeiture hearings for civil seizures does not constitute a
due process violation.

The Court holds that Wayne County's "policy" of not providing an
additional hearing does not violate due process. Because the
forfeiture procedure Wayne County follows, as Plaintiff alleged,
provides both notice and an opportunity to be heard, Plaintiff's
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Furthermore, Plaintiff's sole claim and argument against Defendant
City of Lincoln Park is identical to that against Wayne County. As
Plaintiff had the opportunity to respond to the argument in its
Response to the other Defendants' Motion and there is no relevant
factual or legal distinction between the claim against the City of
Lincoln Park and Wayne County, the court will dismiss the claim
with respect to the City of Lincoln Park as well. Accordingly,
Defendants' motion is granted and Plaintiff's Complaint is
dismissed as to all Defendants.

A copy of the Court's Dec. 11, 2018 Decision and Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2GhLuSQ from Leagle.com.

Stephen Nichols, Plaintiff, represented by Shaun P. Godwin --
shaun@godwinlegal.com --  Godwin Legal Services, PLC.

County of Wayne, Wayne County Prosecutor's Office & Kym Worthy,
Defendants, represented by Davidde A. Stella, Wayne County
Corporation Counsel.

City of Lincoln Park, Defendant, represented by James E. Tamm,
O'Connor, DeGrazia.


[*] Nine Lawyers Named to O'Melveny's 2019 Partner Class
--------------------------------------------------------
Nine outstanding lawyers reflecting O'Melveny's global reach and
broad capabilities have been named to the firm's 2019 partner
class: Alicja Biskupska-Haas (New York), Hannah Chanoine
(New York), Mia Gonzalez (New York), Susannah Howard (San
Francisco), Dimitri Portnoi
(Los Angeles), Daniel Suvor (Los Angeles), Vincent Zhou (Los
Angeles), Ke Zhu (Hong Kong), and Joseph Zujkowski (New York).

"Each of our new partners embodies the qualities and values we hold
dear, including top-flight legal skill, unflagging dedication to
clients, and a commitment to improving our communities," said
Bradley J. Butwin, chair of O'Melveny.  "We're particularly pleased
that this year's class of nine partners again exemplifies
O'Melveny's longstanding commitment to diversity and inclusion. We
know we are stronger for it."

Nearly 80 percent of O'Melveny's new partner class is women, people
of color, or LGBT.  For the fifth straight year, women make up more
than 40 percent of the firm's new partnership class.  And 2019 is
the fourth consecutive year that over 50 percent of the incoming
partnership class is diverse.

Alicja Biskupska-Haas
Biskupska-Haas advises managers of private equity funds, venture
capital funds, and hedge funds on fund formation, operations,
regulatory, general corporate, and portfolio company transaction
matters.  She also represents institutional investors, including
major pension funds, in connection with investments in alternative
asset classes, both domestically and internationally.  In addition,
she counsels clients on co-investment transactions and handles
issues relating to the acquisition, disposition, and structuring of
portfolio investments.  Because she has experience representing
both sponsors and investors, Biskupska-Haas helps her clients
understand investment opportunities from all angles.  She also
advises clients on regulatory compliance matters arising in each
stage of an investment cycle. Biskupska-Haas received her law
degree magna cum laude from Benjamin Cardozo School of Law.  She
joined O'Melveny in 2011.

Hannah Chanoine
A tireless advocate for clients facing consumer class actions,
Ms. Chanoine has a record of successfully defending companies in
both trial and appellate courts.  A significant portion of her
practice involves defending and advising consumer packaged goods
and consumer electronics companies in nationwide false advertising
cases.  She also counsels clients on strategies for mitigating
class action litigation risk during product and label development.
She began her career clerking for the Hon. Sonia Sotomayor on the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals and then served as a trial attorney
in the US Department of Justice, Civil Division.  
Ms. Chanoine serves as the co-chair of the Federal Bar Council's
Inn of Court mentoring program, and on the board of the Pipeline to
Practice Foundation, which is dedicated to enhancing diversity in
the legal profession.  Ms. Chanoine received her law degree from
Columbia University School of Law, where she was twice named a
James Kent Scholar.  She is currently a member of the adjunct
faculty at Columbia Law School.  Ms. Chanoine joined O'Melveny in
2015.

Mia Gonzalez
A member of the firm's White Collar Defense and Corporate
Investigations practice, Ms. Gonzalez specializes in representing
financial institutions, public companies, boards of directors,
audit committees, and individuals in internal investigations and
investigations conducted by the Department of Justice, the New York
Attorney General, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and
various self-regulatory organizations.  A well-rounded litigator,
Ms. Gonzalez has also represented clients in significant securities
and antitrust civil litigations.  She maintains an active pro bono
practice, representing a wide range of clients in both criminal and
civil matters, and served as co-leader of the New York office's
Summer Program for several years.  Ms. Gonzalez earned her master's
degree and law degree from Columbia University. She has been with
O'Melveny since graduating from law school in 2008.

Susannah Howard
A powerhouse in the labor and employment arena, Ms. Howard focuses
her practice on representing employers in discrimination,
harassment, and pay equity matters -- issues of increasing concern
to employers as the #MeToo era continues to reshape industries and
the workplace becomes more fraught and scrutinized than ever.
Ms. Howard also has extensive experience defending employers in the
wage-and-hour space, having resolved such high-profile class
actions for a growing roster of prominent clients.  Ms. Howard
attended the University of Toronto for both her undergraduate and
law degrees, graduating from the Faculty of Law in 2007.  Following
law school, Ms. Howard clerked for the Hon. Louis LeBel of the
Supreme Court of Canada.  She joined O'Melveny in 2012.

Dimitri Portnoi
A seasoned advisor to clients in complex business and appellate
litigation, Mr. Portnoi has expertise in a range of legal areas
including international law, water and natural resources law,
copyright and trademark law, securities, products liability and
consumer class actions, and First and Fifth Amendment disputes. As
a core member of O'Melveny's Water Industry Group, Mr. Portnoi uses
his knowledge of water law and regulatory law to counsel clients on
both litigation matters and transactions.  With his strategic
thinking and broad experience in complex trial and appellate
matters, Mr. Portnoi consistently helps clients prevail in
seemingly intractable disputes. Since joining the firm in 2011, Mr.
Portnoi has maintained an extensive pro bono practice and emerged
as a leading advocate for the LGBT community, earning him the
firm's coveted Warren Christopher Values Award.  Mr. Portnoi
clerked for both the Hon. Margaret M. Morrow of the US District
Court and the Hon. Judith W. Rogers of the US Court of Appeals
after graduating magna cum laude from New York University School of
Law in 2008.

Daniel Suvor
Previously Chief of Policy and Senior Counsel to California's
then-Attorney General Kamala Harris, Mr. Suvor is a strategic
advisor in high-stakes litigation, government investigations, and
regulatory matters.  He taps his experience supervising some of the
most complex and high-profile state Attorneys General matters to
counsel clients across a broad range of sectors and areas of law
when they confront inquiries or litigation from state Attorneys
General. Since joining the firm in 2017, Mr. Suvor has continued
his longstanding record of civic involvement, including on issues
and initiatives related to the Latino community.
Mr. Suvor received his law degree from George Washington University
Law School in 2008.

Xin-Yi (Vincent) Zhou
A former microchip engineer, Zhou is regularly in demand by the
biggest names in Silicon Valley for his skill as an intellectual
property and technology litigator and his grasp of highly technical
subject matters.  His practice focuses on patent and trade secret
litigation involving computer chips, semiconductor fabrication,
telecommunications, and mobile technologies.  A fluent Mandarin
speaker, Mr. Zhou frequently assists on matters involving Asian
companies. Mr. Zhou received his undergraduate and master's degrees
in engineering from Cornell and Stanford, respectively, and worked
as an engineer in Silicon Valley for several years before earning
his law degree from UCLA School of Law in 2007.  He joined
O'Melveny as an associate in 2007.

Ke Zhu
A linchpin of the firm's booming corporate practice in Asia, Zhu
offers clients broad experience spanning IPOs, mergers and
acquisitions, privatizations, financing, and private equity and
venture capital investments.  Through his relationships with
leading investment banks, issuers, private equity and venture
funds, and other institutional clients, and drawing on his
well-honed deal-making skills, he has helped make O'Melveny a
premier destination for Hong Kong IPOs, public mergers and
acquisitions, and privatizations, particularly in the healthcare,
education and technology, media, and telecom sectors. Zhu earned
his Master of Law degree from Oxford University in 2007 and his
Master of Laws from Columbia University in 2008. He joined
O'Melveny in 2015.

Joseph Zujkowski
A vital member of the Bankruptcy & Restructuring Group, Zujkowski
has played a leading role in major restructurings for some of the
firm's biggest clients across a wide range of industries.  His
experience representing debtors and creditors in high-profile
chapter 11 cases, out-of-court restructurings and complex financing
transactions makes him a highly versatile advisor.  It has also
made him a thought leader in his field: he has served as an adjunct
professor at Cardozo Law School and authored nearly 20 articles
since joining O'Melveny.  He is also an engaged member of both the
firm and the greater community, devoting considerable time to pro
bono work as part of the firm's relationship with Kids in Need of
Defense (KIND).  Mr. Zujkowski received his law degree from Boston
University School of Law in 2007 and joined O'Melveny in 2013.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 115 Suits v Sempra Energy Units Pending at Nov. 2
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy's units have 115 asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuits pending as of November 2, 2018, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

On March 9, 2018, Sempra Energy completed the merger of Energy
Future Holdings Corp. (renamed Sempra Texas Holdings Corp.) (EFH)
with an indirect subsidiary of Sempra Energy, with EFH continuing
as the surviving company and as an indirect, wholly owned
subsidiary of Sempra Energy.

The Company states, "Certain EFH subsidiaries that we acquired as
part of the Merger are defendants in personal injury lawsuits
brought in state courts throughout the U.S.  As of November 2,
2018, 115 such lawsuits are pending.  These cases allege illness or
death as a result of exposure to asbestos in power plants designed
and/or built by companies whose assets were purchased by
predecessor entities to the EFH subsidiaries, and generally assert
claims for product defects, negligence, strict liability and
wrongful death.  They seek compensatory and punitive damages.
Additionally, in connection with the EFH bankruptcy proceeding,
approximately 28,000 proofs of claim were filed on behalf of
persons who allege exposure to asbestos under similar circumstances
and assert the right to file such lawsuits in the future.  We
anticipate additional lawsuits will be filed.  None of these claims
or lawsuits were discharged in the EFH bankruptcy proceeding."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2DZBCv3


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AAR Amicus Brief Accepted in South's Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of New York granted the Motion by Association
of American Railroads for leave to file a brief amicus curiae in
the appealed case In the matter of New York City Asbestos
Litigation: Ann M. South, etc., Respondent, v. Chevron Corporation,
Etc. Appellant, et al., Defendant, Motion No. 2018-1019, and
accepted the proposed brief as filed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Optical Had 56,880 Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018, that approximately 56,880 claims naming
American Optical and numerous other defendants were pending as of
September 30, 2018, in various federal and state courts seeking
damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to asbestos and
other allegedly hazardous materials.

The Company states, "Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned
American Optical Corporation (American Optical), which manufactured
and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety
clothing.  In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982,
Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain
liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims.
As of September 30, 2018, approximately 56,880 claims naming
American Optical and numerous other defendants were pending in
various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged
personal injury from exposure to asbestos and other allegedly
hazardous materials.

"Warner-Lambert was acquired by Pfizer in 2000 and is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Pfizer.  Warner-Lambert is actively
engaged in the defense of, and will continue to explore various
means of resolving, these claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2r8Msq5


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $131.2MM Liability Reserve
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has US$131,220,000 reserve at
September 30 2018, for the total costs, including defense costs,
for Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted
through 2026, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2018.

The Company states, "In 2006, the Corporation retained Hamilton,
Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized
expert in the valuation of asbestos liabilities, to assist the
Corporation in estimating the potential liability for pending and
unasserted future claims for Asbestos Liability.  Based on this
analysis, the Corporation recorded a reserve for Asbestos Liability
claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2013 as of
December 31, 2006.  HR&A's analysis has been periodically updated
since that time.  Most recently, the HR&A analysis was updated in
2016, and additional reserves were established by the Corporation
as of December 31, 2016, for Asbestos Liability claims pending or
projected to be asserted through 2026.  The methodology used by
HR&A in its projection in 2016 of the operating subsidiaries'
liability for pending and unasserted potential future claims for
Asbestos Liability, which is substantially the same as the
methodology employed by HR&A in prior estimates, relied upon and
included the following factors:

   * HR&A's interpretation of a widely accepted forecast of the
population likely to have been exposed to asbestos;

   * epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely
to develop asbestos-related diseases;

   * HR&A's analysis of the number of people likely to file an
asbestos-related injury claim against the subsidiaries and the
Corporation based on such epidemiological data and relevant claims
history from January 1, 2014, to September 9, 2016;

   * an analysis of pending cases, by type of injury claimed and
jurisdiction where the claim is filed;

   * an analysis of claims resolution history from January 1, 2014,
to September 9, 2016, to determine the average settlement value of
claims, by type of injury claimed and jurisdiction of filing; and

   * an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement
value of claims, at an annual inflation rate based on the
Congressional Budget Office's ten year forecast of inflation.

"Using this information, HR&A estimated in 2016 the number of
future claims for Asbestos Liability that would be filed through
the year 2026, as well as the settlement or indemnity costs that
would be incurred to resolve both pending and future unasserted
claims through 2026.  This methodology has been accepted by
numerous courts.

"In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,
the Corporation also developed an estimate of probable insurance
recoveries for its Asbestos Liabilities.  In developing the
estimate, the Corporation considered HR&A's projection for
settlement or indemnity costs for Asbestos Liability and
management's projection of associated defense costs, as well as a
number of additional factors.  These additional factors included
the Settlement Agreements then in effect, policy exclusions, policy
limits, policy provisions regarding coverage for defense costs,
attachment points, prior impairment of policies and gaps in the
coverage, policy exhaustions, insolvencies among certain of the
insurance carriers, and the nature of the underlying claims for
Asbestos Liability asserted against the subsidiaries and the
Corporation as reflected in the Corporation's asbestos claims
database, as well as estimated erosion of insurance limits on
account of claims against Howden arising out of the Products.  In
addition to consulting with the Corporation's outside legal counsel
on these insurance matters, the Corporation consulted with a
nationally recognized insurance consulting firm it retained to
assist the Corporation with certain policy allocation matters that
also are among the several factors considered by the Corporation
when analyzing potential recoveries from relevant historical
insurance for Asbestos Liabilities.  Based upon all of the factors
considered by the Corporation, and taking into account the
Corporation's analysis of publicly available information regarding
the credit-worthiness of various insurers, the Corporation
estimated the probable insurance recoveries for Asbestos Liability
and defense costs through 2026.  Although the Corporation believes
that the assumptions employed in the insurance valuation were
reasonable and previously consulted with its outside legal counsel
and insurance consultant regarding those assumptions, there are
other assumptions that could have been employed that would have
resulted in materially lower insurance recovery projections.

"Based on the analyses, the Corporation's reserve at December 31,
2016, for the total costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos
Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2026,
was US$171,181,000 of which approximately 70% was attributable to
settlement costs for unasserted claims projected to be filed
through 2026 and future defense costs.  The reserve at September 30
2018, was US$131,220,000.  It is reasonably possible that the
Corporation will incur additional charges for Asbestos Liability
and defense costs in excess of the amounts currently reserved.

"The Corporation's receivable at December 31, 2016, for insurance
recoveries attributable to the claims for which the Corporation's
Asbestos Liability reserve has been established, including the
portion of incurred defense costs covered by the Settlement
Agreements in effect through December 31, 2016, and the probable
payments and reimbursements relating to the estimated indemnity and
defense costs for pending and unasserted future Asbestos Liability
claims, was US$115,945,000 (US$87,331,000 at September 30, 2018)"

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2TRmc0i


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,543 Claims at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has 6,543 asbestos-related claims
pending at September 30, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

The Company states, "Claims have been asserted alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically
used in some products manufactured by predecessors of Air & Liquid
("Asbestos Liability").  Air & Liquid, and in some cases the
Corporation, are defendants (among a number of defendants, often in
excess of 50) in cases filed in various state and federal courts.

"Included as "open claims" are approximately 678 and 480 claims,
respectively, as of September 30, 2018, and 2017, classified in
various jurisdictions as "inactive" or transferred to a state or
federal judicial panel on multi-district litigation, commonly
referred to as the MDL.

"A substantial majority of the settlement and defense costs was
reported and paid by insurers.  Because claims are often filed and
can be settled or dismissed in large groups, the amount and timing
of settlements, as well as the number of open claims, can fluctuate
significantly from period to period."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2TRmc0i


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atkins Claims v. Dixie Group Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
The mesothelioma-related claims filed against The Dixie Group, Inc.
in the lawsuit styled Danny Atkins and Pamela Atkins, Pltfs., vs.
Aurora Pump Company, et al., has been dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to a Stipulation for Dismissal, according to Dixie Group's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2018.

Dixie Group states, "The Company was one of multiple parties to a
current lawsuit filed in Madison County Illinois styled Danny
Atkins and Pamela Atkins, Pltfs., vs. Aurora Pump Company, et al.
No. 18-L-2.  The lawsuit entails a claim for damages to be
determined in excess of US$50 million filed on behalf of a former
employee that alleges that the deceased contracted mesothelioma as
a result of exposure to asbestos while employed by the Company.

"In October of 2018, subsequent to the close of the third quarter,
a Stipulation for Dismissal was granted which dismissed, without
prejudice, the claims against the Company with respect to this
lawsuit."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2E3GsHD


ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Distribution Still Faces A&F Suit at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC's subsidiary, D/C Distribution Corporation,
continues to face the insurance coverage lawsuit filed by American
& Foreign Insurance Company, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

The Company states, "On February 15, 2005, D/C was served with a
lawsuit entitled American & Foreign Insurance Company v. D/C
Distribution and Amfac Corporation, Case No. 04433669 filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco, Central Justice Center.  No other purported party was
served.  In the eight-count complaint for declaratory relief,
reimbursement and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and for
such other relief as the court might grant, plaintiff alleged that
it is an insurance company to whom D/C tendered for defense and
indemnity various personal injury lawsuits allegedly based on
exposure to asbestos containing products.  Plaintiff alleged that
because none of the parties have been able to produce a copy of the
policy or policies in question, a judicial determination of the
material terms of the missing policy or policies is needed.

"Plaintiff sought, among other things, a declaration: of the
material terms, rights, and obligations of the parties under the
terms of the policy or policies; that the policies were exhausted;
that plaintiff is not obligated to reimburse D/C for its attorneys'
fees in that the amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by D/C have
been incurred unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled to
recoupment and reimbursement of some or all of the amounts it has
paid for defense and/or indemnity; and that D/C breached its
obligation of cooperation with plaintiff.  D/C filed an answer and
an amended cross-claim.  D/C believed that it had meritorious
defenses and positions, and intended to vigorously defend.

"In addition, D/C believed that it was entitled to amounts from
plaintiffs for reimbursement and recoupment of amounts expended by
D/C on the lawsuits previously tendered.  In order to fund such
action and its other ongoing obligations while such lawsuit
continued, D/C entered into a Loan Agreement and Security Agreement
with Kaanapali Land, in August 2006, whereby Kaanapali Land
provided certain advances against a promissory note delivered by
D/C in return for a security interest in any D/C insurance policy
at issue in this lawsuit.  In June 2007, the parties settled this
lawsuit with payment by plaintiffs in the amount of US$1,618,000.
Such settlement amount was paid to Kaanapali Land in partial
satisfaction of the secured indebtedness.

"Because D/C was substantially without assets and was unable to
obtain additional sources of capital to satisfy its liabilities,
D/C filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern
District of Illinois, its voluntary petition for liquidation under
Chapter 7 of Title 11, United States Bankruptcy Code during July
2007, Case No. 07-12776.  Such filing is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the Company as D/C was substantially
without assets at the time of the filing.  Kaanapali Land filed
claims in the D/C bankruptcy that aggregated approximately
US$26,800,000, relating to both secured and unsecured intercompany
debts owed by D/C to Kaanapali Land.  In addition, a personal
injury law firm based in San Francisco that represents clients with
asbestos-related claims, filed proofs of claim on behalf of
approximately two thousand claimants.  While it is not likely that
a significant number of these claimants have a claim against D/C
that could withstand a vigorous defense, it is unknown how the
trustee will deal with these claims.  It is not expected, however,
that the Company will receive any material additional amounts in
the liquidation of D/C."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2Rmw68O


ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Lift Stay Issue Remains Pending at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to lift stay is still pending in the bankruptcy cases of
Kaanapali Land, LLC's subsidiary, D/C Distribution Corporation,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018.

The Company states, "On or about April 28, 2015, eight litigants
who filed asbestos claims in California state court (hereinafter,
"Petitioners") filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay in
the D/C bankruptcy (hereinafter "life stay motion").  Under
relevant provisions of the bankruptcy rules and on the filing of
the D/C bankruptcy action, all pending litigation claims against
D/C were stayed pending resolution of the bankruptcy action.  In
their motion, Petitioners asked the bankruptcy court to lift the
stay in the bankruptcy court to name D/C and/or its alternate
entities as defendants in their respective California state court
asbestos actions and to satisfy their claims against insurance
policies that defend and indemnify D/C and/or their alternate
entities.  The Petitioner's motion to lift stay thus in part has as
an objective ultimate recovery, if any, from, among other things,
insurance policy proceeds that were allegedly assets of both the
D/C and Oahu Sugar bankruptcy estates.

"Kaanapali, the EPA, and the Navy are claimants in the Oahu Sugar
bankruptcy and the Fireman's Fund policies are allegedly among the
assets of the Oahu Sugar bankruptcy estate as well.  For this and
other reasons, Kaanapali, the EPA and the Navy opposed the motion
to lift stay.

"After briefing and argument, on May 14, 2015, the United States
Bankruptcy Court, for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, in In Re D/C Distribution, LLC, Bankruptcy Case No.
07-12776, issued an order lifting the stay.  In the order, the
court permitted the Petitioners to "proceed in the applicable
nonbankruptcy forum to final judgment (including any appeals) in
accordance with applicable nonbankruptcy law.  Claimants are
entitled to settle or enforce their claims only by collecting upon
any available insurance Debtor's liability to them in accordance
with applicable nonbankruptcy law.  No recovery may be made
directly against the property of Debtor, or property of the
bankruptcy estate." Kaanapali, Firemen's Fund and the United States
appealed the bankruptcy court order lifting the stay.

"In March 2016, the district court reversed the bankruptcy court
order finding that the bankruptcy court did not apply relevant law
to the facts in the case to arrive at a reasoned decision.  On
appeal the district court noted that the law requires consideration
of a number of factors when lifting a stay to permit certain claims
to proceed, including consideration of the adequacy of remaining
insurance to meet claims still subject to the stay.  Among other
things, the court noted that the bankruptcy court failed to explain
why it was appropriate for the petitioners to liquidate their
claims before the other claimants whose claims remained subject to
the stay.  The district court remanded the case for further
proceedings.  It is uncertain whether such further proceedings on
the lift stay will take place.

"The parties in the D/C and Oahu Sugar bankruptcies have reached
out to each other to determine if there is any interest in pursuing
a global settlement of the claims in the Oahu Sugar and D/C
bankruptcies insofar as the Fireman's Fund insurance policies are
concerned.  If such discussions take place, they may take the form
of a mediation or other format and involve some form of resolution
of Kaanapali's interest in various of the Fireman's Fund insurance
policies for Kaanapali's various and future insurance claims.
Kaanapali may consider entering into such discussions, but there is
no assurance that such discussions will take place or prove
successful in resolving any of the claims in whole or in part."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2Rmw68O


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendant Changed to Electrolux in Clayton Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
By way of Stipulated Motion by the Parties, District Judge Ricardo
S. Martinez, modifies party name of incorrectly identified
Defendant Copes-Vulcan, Inc. to "Electrolux Home Products, Inc., as
Successor in Interest to Copes Vulcan," in the case entitled
William R. Clayton and Jill D. Clayton, Plaintiffs, v. IMO
Industries, Inc., individually and as successor-in-interest to De
Laval Turbine, Inc., et al., Defendants, No. 2:18-cv-01437-RSM,
(W.D. Wash.).

The parties specifically have agreed to the following:

      (1) Defendant Electrolux Home Products, Inc., was erroneously
named as Copes-Vulcan, Inc. in the Plaintiffs initial pleadings;

      (2) The proper party in interest is Electrolux Home Products,
Inc., as Successor in Interest to Copes Vulcan; and,

      (3) The Court record and case caption should be amended to
reflect the proper party name, Electrolux Home Products, Inc., as
Successor in Interest to Copes Vulcan,

Electrolux Home Products, Inc., successor in interest, Defendant,
represented by Alice Coles Serko -- aserko@tktrial.com -- Tanenbaum
Keale LLP, Christopher S. Marks -- cmarks@tktrial.com -- Tanenbaum
Keale LLP & Malika Johnson -- mjohnson@tktrial.com -- Tanenbaum
Keale LLP.

William R. Clayton & Jill D. Clayton, husband and wife, Plaintiffs,
represented by Ruby K. Aliment , Bergman Draper Oslund & Matthew
Phineas Bergman -- matt@bergmanlegal.com -- Bergman Draper Oslund.

IMO Industries, Inc, individually and successor in interest De
Laval Turbine Inc, Defendant, represented by James Edward Horne --
jhorne@gth-law.com -- Gordon Thomas Honeywell & Michael Edward
Ricketts -- mricketts@gth-law.com -- Gordon Thomas Honeywell.

Metalclad Insulation LLC, Defendant, represented by Aleksander
Richard Schilbach -- sascha.schilbach@bullivant.com -- Bullivant
Houser Bailey & Katherine M. Steele --
katherine.steele@bullivant.com -- Bullivant Houser Bailey.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Richard G. Gawlowski -- gawlowski@wscd.com -- Wilson Smith Cochran
& Dickerson.

North Coast Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Katherine
M. Steele -- katherine.steele@bullivant.com -- Bullivant Houser
Bailey.

Syd Carpenter Marine Contractor Inc, Defendant, represented by J.
Scott Wood -- swood@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield, R.
Dirk Bernhardt -- dbernhardt@foleymansfield.com -- Foley &
Mansfield & Zackary A. Paal -- zpaal@foleymansfield.com -- Foley &
Mansfield.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Had $260.6MM Loss Reserves at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd. had net asbestos loss reserves of US$260.6
million, or 96.5%, of total net A&E reserves, at September 30,
2018, all of which was for assumed business, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

The Company states, "On July 13, 2015, we sold Mt. McKinley to
Clearwater Insurance Company.  Concurrently with the closing, we
entered into a retrocession treaty with an affiliate of Clearwater.
Per the retrocession treaty, we retroceded 100% of the liabilities
associated with certain Mt. McKinley policies, which had been
reinsured by Bermuda Re.  As consideration for entering into the
retrocession treaty, Bermuda Re transferred cash of US$140.3
million, an amount equal to the net loss reserves as of the closing
date.  Of the US$140.3 million of net loss reserves retroceded,
US$100.5 million were related to A&E business.  The maximum
liability retroceded under the retrocession treaty will be US$440.3
million, equal to the retrocession payment plus US$300.0 million.
We will retain liability for any amounts exceeding the maximum
liability retroceded under the retrocession treaty.

"Ultimate loss projections for A&E liabilities cannot be
accomplished using standard actuarial techniques.  We believe that
our A&E reserves represent management's best estimate of the
ultimate liability; however, there can be no assurance that
ultimate loss payments will not exceed such reserves, perhaps by a
significant amount.

"Industry analysts use the "survival ratio" to compare the A&E
reserves among companies with such liabilities.  The survival ratio
is typically calculated by dividing a company's current net
reserves by the three year average of annual paid losses.  Hence,
the survival ratio equals the number of years that it would take to
exhaust the current reserves if future loss payments were to
continue at historical levels.  Using this measurement, our net
three year asbestos survival ratio was 5.1 years at September 30,
2018.  These metrics can be skewed by individual large settlements
occurring in the prior three years and therefore, may not be
indicative of the timing of future payments."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2QkeoFF


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still Faces Lawsuits at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation still defends itself against lawsuits alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in or
accompanying its products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly
contained in or accompanying our products.  We are a co-defendant
with numerous other defendants in these lawsuits and intend to
vigorously defend ourselves against these claims.  The claims in
our current lawsuits are similar to those made in previous asbestos
lawsuits that named us as a defendant.  Such previous lawsuits
either were dismissed when it was shown that we had not supplied
products to the plaintiffs' places of work or were settled by us
for immaterial amounts.

"As of September 30, 2018, we are subject to the claims, as well as
other legal proceedings and potential claims that have arisen in
the ordinary course of business.  Although the outcome of the
lawsuits, legal proceedings or potential claims to which we are or
may become a party cannot be determined and an estimate of the
reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot be made, we do not
believe that the outcomes, either individually or in the aggregate,
will have a material effect on our results of operations, financial
position or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2zycnvI


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Insurance Had US$58.9MM A&E Reserves
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. had US$57.9 million of asbestos
and environmental reserves as of September 30, 2018, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2018.  The Company previously had US$59.4 million of asbestos and
environmental reserves as of December 31, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2S7zyUI


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Faces Lawsuits at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corporation still faces asbestos lawsuits related to its
discontinued heat technologies segment, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

IntriCon Corp. states, "The Company is a defendant along with a
number of other parties in lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have
or may have contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of
exposure to asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold
by one or more named defendants.  These lawsuits relate to the
discontinued heat technologies segment which was sold in March
2005.  Due to the non-informative nature of the complaints, the
Company does not know whether any of the complaints state valid
claims against the Company.

"Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the
primary policies for the period August 1, 1970-1978 have been
exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide defense and
insurance coverage under those policies.  However, the Company has
other primary and excess insurance policies that the Company
believes afford coverage for later years.

"Some of these other primary insurers have accepted defense and
insurance coverage for these suits, and some of them have either
ignored the Company's tender of defense of these cases, or have
denied coverage, or have accepted the tenders but asserted a
reservation of rights and/or advised the Company that they need to
investigate further.  Because settlement payments are applied to
all years a litigant was deemed to have been exposed to asbestos,
the Company believes that it will have funds available for defense
and insurance coverage under the non-exhausted primary and excess
insurance policies.

"However, unlike the older policies, the more recent policies have
deductible amounts for defense and settlements costs that the
Company will be required to pay; accordingly, the Company expects
that its litigation costs will increase in the future.  Further,
many of the policies covering later years (approximately 1984 and
thereafter) have exclusions for any asbestos products or
operations, and thus do not provide insurance coverage for
asbestos-related lawsuits.

"The Company does not believe that the asserted exhaustion of some
of the primary insurance coverage for the 1970-1978 period will
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition,
liquidity, or results of operations.  Management believes that the
number of insurance carriers involved in the defense of the suits,
and the significant number of policy years and policy limits under
which these insurance carriers are insuring the Company, make the
ultimate disposition of these lawsuits not material to the
Company's consolidated financial position or results of
operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2RfTTqB


ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Crane Dismissed From Wheeler Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Fernando M. Olguin of the United States District Court for
the Central District of California dismissed Defendant John Crane,
Inc. from the case styled John Wheeler and Sandra Wheeler,
Plaintiffs, v. John Crane, Inc., et al., Defendants, No.
2:18-cv-09051-FMO. (MAA), (C.D. Cal.) and remanded the case to the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case. No.
BC720137.  

John Wheeler, Plaintiff, represented by Alan R. Brayton , Brayton
and Purcell LLP, David R. Donadio , Brayton and Purcell LLP, James
P. Nevin, Jr. , Brayton Purcell LLP, Nancy T. Williams , Brayton
Purcell, Kimberly J. Chu , Brayton Purell LLP & Richard M. Grant ,
Brayton Purcell LLP.

Sandra Wheeler, Plaintiff, represented by Alan R. Brayton , Brayton
and Purcell LLP, David R. Donadio , Brayton and Purcell LLP, James
P. Nevin, Jr. , Brayton Purcell LLP, Nancy T. Williams , Brayton
Purcell & Richard M. Grant , Brayton Purcell LLP.

John Crane Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian Takeya Yasuzawa --
byasuzawa@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins, Parnell, Thackston & Young,
Samantha Brignoni -- sbrignoni@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins Parnell
Thackston and Young LLP & Claire C. Weglarz -- cweglarz@hptylaw.com
-- Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP.

The Pep Boys Manny Moe and Jack of California, Defendant,
represented by Bradford J. DeJardin -- brad.dejardin@dentons.com --
Dentons US LLP, Connor Matthew Scott -- connor.scott@dentons.com --
Dentons US LLP & Julia M. Beckley -- julia.beckley@dentons.com --
Dentons US LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, formerly known as Foster Wheeler Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Charles S. Park -- cpark@hugoparker.com
-- Hugo Parker LLP, Edward R. Hugo -- ehugo@hugoparker.com -- Hugo
Parker LLP, Shaghig D. Agopian -- sagopian@hugoparker.com -- Hugo
Parker LLP & Thomas W. Remillard -- tremillard@hugoparker.com --
Hugo Parker LLP.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey
-- bbailey@leaderberkon.com -- Leader Berkon Colao and Silverstein
LLP, Emily Kate Doty -- edoty@leaderberkon.com -- Leader and Berkon
LLP & Olga Guadalupe Pena -- opena@leaderberkon.com -- Leader and
Berkon LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Insurance Discussions Ongoing at Sept.30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018, that the Company continues to pursue
discussions with Fireman's Fund Insurance Corporation in an attempt
to resolve the issues related to insurance coverage on the asbestos
lawsuits that the Company is facing.

The Company states, "On February 12, 2014, counsel for Fireman's
Fund, the carrier that has been paying defense costs and
settlements for the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases, stated that it
would no longer advance fund settlements or judgments in the
Kaanapali Land asbestos cases due to the pendency of the D/C and
Oahu Sugar bankruptcies.

"In its communications with Kaanapali Land, Fireman's fund
expressed its view that the automatic stay in effect in the D/C
bankruptcy case bars Fireman's Fund from making any payments to
resolve the Kaanapali Land asbestos claims because D/C Distribution
is also alleging a right to coverage under those policies for
asbestos claims against it.  However, in the interim, Fireman's
Fund advised that it presently intends to continue to pay defense
costs for those cases, subject to whatever reservations of rights
may be in effect and subject further to the policy terms.

"Fireman's Fund has also indicated that to the extent that
Kaanapali Land cooperates with Fireman's Fund in addressing
settlement of the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases through
coordination with its adjusters, it is Fireman's Fund's present
intention to reimburse any such payments by Kaanapali Land,
subject, among other things, to the terms of any lift-stay order,
the limits and other terms and conditions of the policies, and
prior approval of the settlements.

"Kaanapali Land continues to pursue discussions with Fireman's Fund
in an attempt to resolve the issues, however, Kaanapali Land is
unable to determine what portion, if any, of settlements or
judgments in the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases will be covered by
insurance.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2Rmw68O


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Still Defends Lawsuits at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC continues to defend itself against personal
injury suits related to asbestos exposure, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

The Company states, "Kaanapali Land, as successor by merger to
other entities, and D/C have been named as defendants in personal
injury actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos.  While
there are relatively few cases that name Kaanapali Land, there were
a substantial number of cases that were pending against D/C on the
U.S. mainland (primarily in California).

"Cases against Kaanapali Land (hereafter, "Kaanapali Land asbestos
cases") are allegedly based on its prior business operations in
Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on sale of
asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business
operations primarily in California.  Each entity defending these
cases believes that it has meritorious defenses against these
actions, but can give no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of
these cases.  The defense of these cases has had a material adverse
effect on the financial condition of D/C as it has been forced to
file a voluntary petition for liquidation.

"Kaanapali Land does not believe that it has liability, directly or
indirectly, for D/C's obligations in those cases.  Kaanapali Land
does not presently believe that the cases in which it is named will
result in any material liability to Kaanapali Land; however, there
can be no assurance in that regard."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2Rmw68O


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mullinax Claims vs. Air & Liquid Systems Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon review of the parties' Joint Motion to Dismiss, the Hon.
Martin Reidinger of the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina has dismissed with prejudice all
the Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant Air & Liquid Systems
Corporation in the case styled Robert A. Mullinax, Individually, as
Executor of the Estate of Jack Junior Waugh, Deceased, Plaintiff,
v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil Case No.
1:16-cv-00310-MR-WCM, (W.D.N.C.).

A copy of the Order dated December 12, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ya8gpn96 from Leagle.com.

Robert A. Mullinax, Individually, Plaintiff, represented by Sabrina
G. Stone -- sstone@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac
vice, William M. Graham , Wallace & Graham, Charles W. Branham, III
-- tbranham@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham, Jessica Michelle Dean
-- jdean@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Braham & Kevin W. Paul --
kpaul@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham LLP.

Covil Corporation, Defendant, represented by Mark Hedderman Wall ,
Elmore & Wall & William W. Silverman --
William.Silverman@WallTempleton.com -- Wall Templeton & Haldrup,
P.A.

Daniel International Corporation, formerly known as Daniel
Construction Company, Inc., Fluor Constructors International,
formerly known as Fluor Corporation, Fluor Constructors
International, Inc., Fluor Daniel Services Corporation, Fluor
Enterprises, Inc. & Union Carbide Corporation, Defendants,
represented by Christopher B. Major -- cmajor@hsblawfirm.com --
Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G. McDonald --
mmcdonald@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac
vice, Scott E. Frick -- sfrick@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth,
Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David Conner --
dconner@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac
vice.

Flowserve US Inc., individually, Defendant, represented by James M.
Dedman, IV -- jdedman@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White, & Boyd,
P.A., T. David Rheney -- drheney@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White
& Boyd, P.A. & Allyson R. Twilley -- atwilley@gwblawfirm.com --
Gallivan, Whte & Boyd, P.A.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, formerly known as Georgia-Pacific Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kyre, Jr. -- kkyre@pckb-law.com
-- Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mullinax Claims vs. Blackmer Pump Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Martin Reidinger of the United States District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina, upon review of the parties'
Joint Motion to Dismiss, has dismissed with prejudice all the
Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant Blackmer Pump Company in
the case styled Robert A. Mullinax, Individually, as Executor of
the Estate of Jack Junior Waugh, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. Advance
Auto Parts, Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil Case No.
1:16-cv-00310-MR-WCM, (W.D.N.C.).

A copy of the Order dated December 12, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y8s39cbq from Leagle.com.

Robert A. Mullinax, Individually, Plaintiff, represented by Sabrina
G. Stone -- sstone@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac
vice, William M. Graham , Wallace & Graham, Charles W. Branham, III
-- tbranham@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham, Jessica Michelle Dean
-- jdean@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Braham & Kevin W. Paul --
kpaul@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham LLP.

Covil Corporation, Defendant, represented by Mark Hedderman Wall ,
Elmore & Wall & William W. Silverman --
William.Silverman@WallTempleton.com -- Wall Templeton & Haldrup,
P.A.

Daniel International Corporation, formerly known as Daniel
Construction Company, Inc., Fluor Constructors International,
formerly known as Fluor Corporation, Fluor Constructors
International, Inc., Fluor Daniel Services Corporation, Fluor
Enterprises, Inc. & Union Carbide Corporation, Defendants,
represented by Christopher B. Major -- cmajor@hsblawfirm.com --
Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G. McDonald --
mmcdonald@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac
vice, Scott E. Frick -- sfrick@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth,
Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David Conner --
dconner@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac
vice.

Flowserve US Inc., individually, Defendant, represented by James M.
Dedman, IV -- jdedman@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White, & Boyd,
P.A., T. David Rheney -- drheney@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White
& Boyd, P.A. & Allyson R. Twilley -- atwilley@gwblawfirm.com --
Gallivan, Whte & Boyd, P.A.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, formerly known as Georgia-Pacific Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kyre, Jr. -- kkyre@pckb-law.com
-- Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mullinax Claims vs. Viad Corp Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Martin Reidinger of the United States District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina, upon review of the parties'
Joint Motion to Dismiss, has dismissed with prejudice all the
Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant Viad Corp. in the case
styled Robert A. Mullinax, Individually, as Executor of the Estate
of Jack Junior Waugh, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. Advance Auto Parts,
Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil Case No. 1:16-cv-00310-MR-WCM,
(W.D.N.C.).

A copy of the Order dated December 12, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ybp8euy8 from Leagle.com.

Robert A. Mullinax, Individually, Plaintiff, represented by Sabrina
G. Stone -- sstone@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac
vice, William M. Graham , Wallace & Graham, Charles W. Branham, III
-- tbranham@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham, Jessica Michelle Dean
-- jdean@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Braham & Kevin W. Paul --
kpaul@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham LLP.

Covil Corporation, Defendant, represented by Mark Hedderman Wall ,
Elmore & Wall & William W. Silverman --
William.Silverman@WallTempleton.com -- Wall Templeton & Haldrup,
P.A.

Daniel International Corporation, formerly known as Daniel
Construction Company, Inc., Fluor Constructors International,
formerly known as Fluor Corporation, Fluor Constructors
International, Inc., Fluor Daniel Services Corporation, Fluor
Enterprises, Inc. & Union Carbide Corporation, Defendants,
represented by Christopher B. Major -- cmajor@hsblawfirm.com --
Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G. McDonald --
mmcdonald@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac
vice, Scott E. Frick -- sfrick@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth,
Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David Conner --
dconner@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac
vice.

Flowserve US Inc., individually, Defendant, represented by James M.
Dedman, IV -- jdedman@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White, & Boyd,
P.A., T. David Rheney -- drheney@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White
& Boyd, P.A. & Allyson R. Twilley -- atwilley@gwblawfirm.com --
Gallivan, Whte & Boyd, P.A.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, formerly known as Georgia-Pacific Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kyre, Jr. -- kkyre@pckb-law.com
-- Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mullinax Claims vs. Yuba Heat Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Martin Reidinger of the United States District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina, upon review of the parties'
Joint Motion to Dismiss, has dismissed with prejudice all the
Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant Yuba Heat Transfer, LLC in
the case styled Robert A. Mullinax, Individually, as Executor of
the Estate of Jack Junior Waugh, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. Advance
Auto Parts, Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil Case No.
1:16-cv-00310-MR-WCM, (W.D.N.C.).

A copy of the Order dated December 12, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y8f2gvl4 from Leagle.com.

Robert A. Mullinax, Individually, Plaintiff, represented by Sabrina
G. Stone -- sstone@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac
vice, William M. Graham , Wallace & Graham, Charles W. Branham, III
-- tbranham@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham, Jessica Michelle Dean
-- jdean@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Braham & Kevin W. Paul --
kpaul@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham LLP.

Covil Corporation, Defendant, represented by Mark Hedderman Wall ,
Elmore & Wall & William W. Silverman --
William.Silverman@WallTempleton.com -- Wall Templeton & Haldrup,
P.A.

Daniel International Corporation, formerly known as Daniel
Construction Company, Inc., Fluor Constructors International,
formerly known as Fluor Corporation, Fluor Constructors
International, Inc., Fluor Daniel Services Corporation, Fluor
Enterprises, Inc. & Union Carbide Corporation, Defendants,
represented by Christopher B. Major -- cmajor@hsblawfirm.com --
Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G. McDonald --
mmcdonald@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac
vice, Scott E. Frick -- sfrick@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth,
Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David Conner --
dconner@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac
vice.

Flowserve US Inc., individually, Defendant, represented by James M.
Dedman, IV -- jdedman@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White, & Boyd,
P.A., T. David Rheney -- drheney@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White
& Boyd, P.A. & Allyson R. Twilley -- atwilley@gwblawfirm.com --
Gallivan, Whte & Boyd, P.A.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, formerly known as Georgia-Pacific Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kyre, Jr. -- kkyre@pckb-law.com
-- Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Energy Still Analyzing EME Liabilities
-----------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018, that it is still analyzing the scope of
potential asbestos liabilities as a result of its acquisition of
Edison Mission Energy (EME).

NRG Energy states, "The Company, through its subsidiary, Midwest
Generation, may be subject to potential asbestos liabilities as a
result of its acquisition of EME.  The Company is currently
analyzing the scope of potential liability as it may relate to
Midwest Generation.  The Company believes that it has established
an adequate reserve for these cases.  On March 27, 2018, ComEd
filed a Motion to Compel Payments of Claims seeking US$61 million
related to asbestos liabilities.  On April 25, 2018, NRG filed an
Omnibus Objection to All Remaining Claims of ComEd and Exelon.  A
trial before the Bankruptcy Court to determine the amount of
ComEd's claims is currently scheduled for April 10, 2019."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2E5XAfM


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Faces 86 Cases at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. is still defending itself against
approximately 86 cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately
188 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018.

The Company states, "We were a co-defendant in approximately 86
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 188 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants.  In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought.  To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are three asbestos cases, involving 19 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages against named defendants.  In each of the
three cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of
action.  In two cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at
US$3 million compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at
US$3 million compensatory and US$1 million punitive damages; one
count at US$1 million.  In the third case, the plaintiff has
alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of
US$20.0 million, for three separate causes of action, and US$5.0
million compensatory damages for the fifth cause of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing
product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.  We intend
to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will
continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases.
However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation.  Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations.  Among the factors management
considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical
success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the
bases; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against one of our
subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been unable to
establish any causal relationship to us or our products or
premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or
compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have
incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and
(e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and,
in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual
defendants.  Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts
claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of
our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear
no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date
and, based upon available information, our management does not
expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or
financial position."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2S1XKI2


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Faces 86 Suits at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. still faces around 86 asbestos-related
personal injury cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018.

The Company states, "We were a co-defendant in approximately 86
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 188 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants.  In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought.  To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are three asbestos cases, involving 19 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages against named defendants.  In each of the
three cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of
action.  In two cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at
US$3 million compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at
US$3 million compensatory and US$1 million punitive damages; one
count at US$1 million.  In the third case, the plaintiff has
alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of
US$20.0 million, for three separate causes of action, and US$5.0
million compensatory damages for the fifth cause of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing
product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.  We intend
to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will
continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases.
However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation.  Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations.  Among the factors management
considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical
success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the
bases mentioned; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against
one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been
unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products
or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or
compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have
incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and
(e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and,
in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual
defendants.  Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts
claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of
our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear
no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date
and, based upon available information, our management does not
expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or
financial position."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2AtXZEH


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Still Defends Various Lawsuits at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. continues to face a number of asbestos-related
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018.

The Company states, "Numerous lawsuits are pending against Pfizer
in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged
personal injury from exposure to products allegedly containing
asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials sold by Pfizer and
certain of its previously owned subsidiaries.

"There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various
federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to
asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its
subsidiaries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2r8Msq5


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Tech, Units Still Defends Suits at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Roper Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2018, that the Company or its subsidiaries have
been named defendants along with numerous industrial companies in
asbestos-related litigation claims in certain U.S. states.

The Company states, "No significant resources have been required by
Roper to respond to these cases and Roper believes it has valid
defenses to such claims and, if required, intends to defend them
vigorously.  Given the state of these claims, it is not possible to
determine the potential liability, if any."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2PIeozy


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Had $605.3MM Asbestos Liability at Sept. 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
SPX Corporation recorded US$605.3 million for asbestos product
liability matters at September 29, 2018, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2018.

The Company states, "Numerous claims, complaints and proceedings
arising in the ordinary course of business have been asserted or
are pending against us or certain of our subsidiaries
(collectively, "claims").  These claims relate to litigation
matters (e.g., class actions and contracts, intellectual property,
and competitive claims), environmental matters, product liability
matters (predominately associated with alleged exposure to
asbestos-containing materials), and other risk management matters
(e.g., general liability, automobile, and workers' compensation
claims).  Additionally, we may become subject to other claims of
which we are currently unaware, which may be significant, or the
claims of which we are aware may result in our incurring
significantly greater loss than we anticipate.  While we (and our
subsidiaries) maintain property, cargo, auto, product, general
liability, environmental, and directors' and officers' liability
insurance and have acquired rights under similar policies in
connection with acquisitions that we believe cover a significant
portion of these claims, this insurance may be insufficient or
unavailable (e.g., in the case of insurer insolvency) to protect us
against potential loss exposures.  Also, while we believe we are
entitled to indemnification from third parties for some of these
claims, these rights may be insufficient or unavailable to protect
us against potential loss exposures.

"Our recorded liabilities related to these matters totaled US$648.5
million (including US$605.3 million for asbestos product liability
matters) and US$685.7 million (including US$641.2 million for
asbestos product liability matters) at September 29, 2018 and
December 31, 2017, respectively.  Of these amounts, US$618.1
million and US$651.6 million are included in "Other long-term
liabilities" within our condensed consolidated balance sheets at
September 29, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively, with the
remainder included in "Accrued expenses." The liabilities we record
for these claims are based on a number of assumptions, including
historical claims and payment experience and, with respect to
asbestos claims, actuarial estimates of the future period during
which additional claims are reasonably foreseeable.  While we base
our assumptions on facts currently known to us, they entail
inherently subjective judgments and uncertainties.  As a result,
our current assumptions for estimating these liabilities may not
prove accurate, and we may be required to adjust these liabilities
in the future, which could result in charges to earnings.  These
variances relative to current expectations could have a material
impact on our financial position and results of operations.

"Our asbestos-related claims are typical in certain of the
industries in which we operate or pertain to legacy businesses we
no longer operate.  It is not unusual in these cases for fifty or
more corporate entities to be named as defendants.  We vigorously
defend these claims, many of which are dismissed without payment,
and the significant majority of costs related to these claims have
historically been paid pursuant to our insurance arrangements.
During the nine months ended September 29, 2018, our payments for
asbestos-related matters, net of insurance recoveries of US$26.9
million, were US$5.3 million, which included cash proceeds of
US$5.5 million received during the third quarter of 2018 related to
a settlement reached with an insurance carrier.  During the nine
months ended September 30, 2017, our insurance recoveries for
asbestos-related matters, net of payments of US$36.8 million, were
US$2.3 million, which included cash proceeds received during the
first quarter of 2017 of US$8.5 million related to a settlement
reached with an insurance carrier.  A significant increase in
claims, costs and/or issues with existing insurance coverage (e.g.,
dispute with or insolvency of insurer(s)) could have a material
adverse impact on our share of future payments related to these
matters, and, as such, have a material impact on our financial
position, results of operations and cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2zmcRVH


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Unit Has 109 Pending PI Cases at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valhi, Inc.'s subsidiary, NL Industries, Inc., has 109 pending
personal injury cases related to products manufactured in past
operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed dust, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2018.

The Company states, "NL has been named as a defendant in various
lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a
result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured
by our former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed
dust.  In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos
from working in various facilities previously owned and/or operated
by NL.  There are 109 of these types of cases pending, involving a
total of approximately 582 plaintiffs.  In addition, the claims of
approximately 8,676 plaintiffs have been administratively dismissed
or placed on the inactive docket in Ohio courts.  We do not expect
these claims will be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet the
courts' medical criteria for asbestos-related claims.  We have not
accrued any amounts for this litigation because of the uncertainty
of liability and inability to reasonably estimate the liability, if
any.

"We have not been adjudicated liable in any of these matters.
Based on information available to us, including facts concerning
historical operations, the rate of new claims, the number of claims
from which we have been dismissed, and our prior experience in the
defense of these matters, we believe that the range of reasonably
possible outcomes of these matters will be consistent with our
historical costs (which are not material).  Furthermore, we do not
expect any reasonably possible outcome would involve amounts
material to our consolidated financial position, results of
operations or liquidity.  We have sought and will continue to
vigorously seek, dismissal and/or a finding of no liability from
each claim.  In addition, from time to time, we have received
notices regarding asbestos or silica claims purporting to be
brought against former subsidiaries, including notices provided to
insurers with which we have entered into settlements extinguishing
certain insurance policies.  These insurers may seek
indemnification from us."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2RrhDYU



                            *********

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 ***