CAR_Public/181226.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, December 26, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 258

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Removes Dutchess County Suit to D. New York
8020 FLATLANDS: Dennis Sues Beauty Salon Under ADA
ALERE HOME: Calif. Court Stays Sandusky TCPA Suit
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Removes Erby Suit to E.D. Pennsylvania
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Denial of McCleery Class Certification Affirmed

ALTICE USA: Kupfner Files Suit Over Misleading Reports re IPO
APPLE AMERICAN: Bramlett Claims Demotion Violates CEPA
APPLE INC: Discounted Battery Replacement Program Ends Dec. 31
APPTIO INC: Trainer Sues over Misleading Report, Merger Deal
AQUAVELLA GALLERIES: Violates ADA, Tucker Suit Asserts

AUSTRALIA: Cattle Live Export Ban Case Resumes in Federal Court
AVALON HOTEL: Borozny Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
AVVO INC: Court Grants Bid to Correct Gennaro Suit Caption
AYR INC: Dennis Files Suit Under ADA in New York
BABESTA LLC: Dennis Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Violation

BAROQUE USA: Dennis Sues Over ADA Violation
BASF CORPORATION: Underpays Operators, Galloway Suit Alleges
BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: Thaxton et al. Suit Moved to North Carolina
BRISTOL BAY: Class Certification Bid in Abikar Tentatively Denied
C.R. ENGLAND: Faces Tolefree Suit in California Superior Court

CARLISLE ETCETERA: Dennis Files Suit under ADA in New York
CENTER FOR SENIORS: Kim Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
CENTRAL MAINE: Neglected to Charge New Accounts, Probe Reveals
CHARLOTTE SCHOOL: Bid to File Single Brief in Barchiesi Suit Okayed
CHECKR INC: Nelson Sues over Alleged Illegal Background Checks

CHRYSLER LLC: 9-Speed Transmission Settlement Awaits Final Approval
CIGNA CORP: Judge Approves $32MM Attorneys' Fees in ERISA Case
CIRCLE K: Final Fairness Hearing in Grahl Suit Continued to April 8
CITIBANK NA: Revitch's Bid to Strike Affirmative Defense Denied
COBALT REAL: Faces Bartley et al. Suit in California Superior Court

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Misha Bid for Page Limit Extension Granted
CORECIVIC INC: Underpays Janitors, Ndambi et al. Allege
CVS PHARMACY: Suit Over Drug Benefit Plan Dismissed With Prejudice
DEAN COLLEGE: Faces Camacho ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DIOCESE OF BUFFALO: Sexual Abuse Settlement Offer "Insulting"

DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Faces Camacho ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Judge Hears Arguments in Android Users' Data Case
FLINT, MI: Snyder Appeals Ruling in Waid Suit to Sixth Circuit
FLY JAMAICA: Genova LLP Files Class Action Over November 9 Crash

FORD MOTOR: 9th Cir. Flips Remand of Schneider Suit to State Court
FORSTER & GARBUS: Solinsky Suit Moved to S.D. New York
FOUNTAIN GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Pay, Romeo Alleges
FTD COMPANIES: Bunting Suit Alleges ADA Violation
GACO WESTERN: Court Denies Bid to Stay Feamster Suit

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Direct Purchasers Class Certified in Lamictal Suit
GLENCORE PLC: Levi & Korsinsky to Lead in Securities Fraud Suit
GOLD PROTECTION: Underpays Security Guards, Harrell Suit Alleges
GONZALES CORPORATION: Diaz Seeks Overtime Pay for Farm Workers
GRIMLEY FINANCIAL: Perry Sues over Debt Collection Practices

HASBRO INC: Bunting Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
HOLLANDER HOTEL: Violates ADA, Borozny Suit Asserts
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Underpays Loan Officers, Hannah Claims
JLS GROUP: Lubas Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
JPMORGAN CHASE: Melissinos Trading Sues over Trading Manipulation

JUUL LABS: Removes Malaney et al. Suit to C.D. California
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Lopez Suit
LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT: Weinstein Sues over Unfinished Concert
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Hunter Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
LUXOTTICA USA: Eyewear Maker Faces ADA Class Action

MADCADI INC: Children's Wear Maker Faces Suit Under ADA
MANSUR GAVRIEL: Faces Dennis Class Suit Over ADA Breach
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Maldini Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Moore Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sempre Suit Asserts Breach of Contract

MARRIOTT: Faces Class Actions Following Data Breach
MBF INSPECTION: Court Rules on Bid to Lift Stay in Ganci Suit
MDL 2179: Court Stays Discoveries in BELO Lawsuit
MDL 2389: Court OKs $35MM Settlement in IPO Securities Suit
MDL 2804: Doyle vs. Purdue Pharma over Opiates Sales Consolidated

MDL 2873: Fearnley et al. Suit vs. 3M Company Consolidated
MDL 2873: Yockey Suit v. 3M Company Consolidated
MIDLAND CREDIT: Castanares Sues over Debt Collection Practices
MIDLAND CREDIT: Lance Sues over Debt Collection Practices
MIDLAND CREDIT: Margerum Sues over Debt Collection Practices

MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Chew Sues over 49% Drop in Share Price
MONSANTO COMPANY: Bargys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Belsome Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Ottinger Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Rickard Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Vacante Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Walker Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MORNING STAR: Settlement in McClain Suit Has Prelim Approval
MYLIFE.COM: Cohen Sues over Misleading Personal Information
NINE ENERGY: Court Refuses to Bid to Reconsider Patterson Ruling

NYC FIRE SERVICES: Atkinson Seeks Reimbursements, Overtime Pay
OHIO NATIONAL: Sarraf Gentile Files Class Action Lawsuits
PHILIP MORRIS: Fla. Dist. App. Flips $4.3MM Damages Award in Martin
PILGRIM SURF: Shop Faces Class Action Under ADA
PINK CHICKEN: Faces Class Suit in NY for Disabilities Act Violation

PLAYBOY.COM: Blind Man Files Class Action in New York
PORTA BELLA: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtimes Wages
PREFERRED HOME: Shortchanges Health Aides' Benefits, Says Suit
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Deadline to Answer Takano Suit Moved to Jan. 2
RECEIVABLE PERFORMANCE: Faces Sully Suit Under Debt Collection Act

RED HOOK CONSTRUCTION: Diaz Claims Overtime for Off-the-Clock Work
REPUBLIC WASTE: Denial of Subclasses Cert. in Acme Suit Affirmed
RJ REYNOLDS: 11th Cir. Affirms Denial of New Trial Bid in Cote Suit
RJ REYNOLDS: Bid for Directed Verdict in Whitmore Affirmed in Part
ROSIE POPE MATERNITY: Violates ADA, Says Dennis Class Suit

SCANA CORP: Dominion Wants Commissioners to Review New Offer
SCANLAN THEODORE: Faces Dennis Suit Asserting ADA Breach
SECURUS TECH: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Romero Class Suit
SPESS OIL: Settles Oklahoma Earthquake Class Action
STETSON DESERT: Manes Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

STUCKY LAUER: $25K Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Maloy FDCPA Suit
TESLA INC: Settles Enhanced Autopilot Class Action
TEXAS BANK: Court Dismisses RICO Claim in Zucker Ponzi Scheme Suit
TGI FRIDAYS: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Williams Suit
US BANK: Jan. 7 Fairness Hearing in Moseman Suit Under FLSA

VOLKSWAGEN AG: To Face Difficult 2019 Amid Emissions Litigation
WALMART INC: Hester Sues over Sale of Mislabeled Power Banks
WATKINS AND SHEPARD: Removes Ortega Suit to C.D. California
WELBILT INC: Schlimm Sues over Misleading Financial Report
WEYERHAUSER CO: Can't Compel Arbitration in Kipp Suit

WINCO FOODS: 9th Cir. Affirms FCRA Class Action Dismissal
WINNER FORD: Court Reverses Arbitration Ruling in Trout Suit
ZAQU INC: Fouissi Sues for Unpaid Wages, Retaliatory Discharge

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Removes Dutchess County Suit to D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of COUNTY OF DUTCHESS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M
COMPANY, formerly known as: MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING CO.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS
L.P.; and NATIONAL FOAM, INC., Defendants, filed a notice to remove
the lawsuit from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County
of Dutchess (Case No. 2018-53225) to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New York on November 14, 2018, 2018. The clerk of
court for the District of New York assigned Case No.
7:18-cv-10622-UA.

3M Company operates as a diversified technology company worldwide.
The company's Industrial segment offers tapes; coated, non-woven,
and bonded abrasives; adhesives; ceramics; sealants; specialty
materials; purification products; closure systems for personal
hygiene products; acoustic systems products; automotive components;
and abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew Jonathan Calica, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP (NY)
          1221 Avenue of the Americas, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10020-1001
          Telephone: (212) 506-2500
          Facsimile: (212) 262-1910
          E-mail: acalica@mayerbrown.com


8020 FLATLANDS: Dennis Sues Beauty Salon Under ADA
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 8020 Flatlands Beauty
Corp. The case is styled as Derrick U Dennis, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 8020 Flatlands
Beauty Corp, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07107 (E.D. N.Y., December
13, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

8020 Flatlands Beauty Corp. is engaged in the business of Beauty
Salons, Beauty Salon Equipment & Supplies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



ALERE HOME: Calif. Court Stays Sandusky TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California stayed the case, SANDUSKY WELLNESS CENTER,
LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALERE HOME MONITORING,
INC., Defendant, Case No. C 18-04869 WHA (N.D. Cal.).

In February 2017, the recipient of fax solicitations sued Defendant
Alere Home Monitoring, Inc. ("AHM") in Arkansas state court.  The
Plaintiff in that case, ARcare, Inc., sought to represent a
nationwide class of other fax recipients.  The ARcare action cited
two representative fax solicitations -- one received in June 2016
and another received in August has stayed the action pending
mediation and an anticipated class-wide settlement.

In August 2018, Plaintiff Sandusky filed the instant action against
AHM, also on behalf of a putative nationwide class of fax
solicitation recipients.  The Plaintiff's complaint also cited two
representative fax solicitations -- the same August 2016 fax
received by ARcare and a second fax received by the Plaintiff in
April 2017.  

ALM now moves to dismiss, stay, or transfer the instant action to
the Eastern District of Arkansas pursuant to the first-to-file
rule.

Judge Alsup finds that the parties in both actions are
substantially similar and that both actions also involve
substantially similar issues.  The Plaintiff's arguments to the
contrary are unavailing.  

First, the Plaintiff argues that if the ARcare action is certified
only with respect to the faxes received by the plaintiff in that
case, then ARcare would not resolve issues solely involving the
April 2017 fax received by the Plaintiff.  To be sure, the Judge
finds that although both cases involve the same August 2016 fax,
each case also involves a second fax not at issue in the other.
Nevertheless, the key issue of whether or not AHM sent
non-compliant faxes under the TCPA remains the same.

Second, the Plaintiff argues that AHM may try to defeat class
certification in the ARcare action by relying on the Supreme
Court's recent decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior
Court of California, which held that a California state court
lacked specific jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant where
the plaintiffs were not residents of California and did not claim
any contact with the defendant in California.  The Judge holds that
even if AHM does raise this defense in ARcare (which it has yet to
do), he concludes that the issues at play in both cases remains
substantially similar.

Third, because AHM allegedly sent Plaintiff the April 2017 fax
months after AHM was sued for violating the TCPA in ARcare, the
Plaintiff argues that the case uniquely involves the issue of
whether or not AHM's conduct amounts to a "willful or knowing"
violation of the TCPA.  The Judge disagrees.  As he mentioned, the
Plaintiff in ARcare similarly seeks treble damages for allegedly
"willful or knowing" TCPA violations.  There remains a substantial
overlap between the two lawsuits and application of the
"first-to-file" rule is appropriate.

Having concluded that "first-to-file" rule applies, the Judge order
now addresses whether a dismissal or stay is most appropriate.  He
finds that while it would be inefficient to allow the present case
to go forward knowing that many of the putative class members may
have their claims extinguished by the resolution or settlement of
the ARcare case, the Plaintiff has raised at least some possibility
that the class ultimately certified by the Arkansas district court
in the ARcare action will not include all of the proposed class
members.  

The Judge holds that issuing a stay of the current proceedings is
thus more appropriate than dismissal.  He will accordingly stay the
present action pending resolution of the class claim in the ARcare
case.  Withinseven calendar days of the resolution of the class
claim (or an order denying class certification) in that action, AHM
and the Plaintiff will submit a joint status report explaining the
impact on the claim asserted in the instant case.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Alsup denied the Defendant's
motion to dismiss or transfer the action under the first-to-file
rule, and stayed the action.  A status conference is set for April
4, 2019 AT 11:00 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 14, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/IuhF3O from Leagle.com.

Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan
Michael Kelly , Anderson & Wanca, pro hac vice, Robert C. Schubert
-- rschubert@sjk.law -- Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP & Willem F.
Jonckheer -- wjonckheer@sjk.law -- Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP.

Alere Home Monitoring, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ahtoosa
Amini Dale -- adale@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn LLP, Dana
Lynn Cook-Milligan -- dlcook@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn LLP,
Sean D. Meenan -- smeenan@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn, Sean
Gerald Wieber -- swieber@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn &
Stephen Victor D'Amore -- sdamore@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn
LLP.


ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Removes Erby Suit to E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of MICHAEL ERBY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE ALLSTATE
CORPORATION, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from
the Court of Common Pleas of the State of Pennsylvania, County of
Philadelphia (Case No. 1811001604) to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on November 14, 2018. The
clerk of court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania assigned
Case No. 2:18-cv-04944-PBT (E.D. Pa., Nov. 14, 2018. The case is
assigned to Honorable Petrese B. Tucker.

The Allstate Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, engages
in property and casualty insurance, and life insurance businesses
in the United States and Canada. The company was founded in 1931
and is based in Northbrook, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Katharine Mooney, Esq.
          Cozen O'Connor
          1650 Market Street, Suite 2800
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 665-2016
          E-mail: kmooney@cozen.com


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Denial of McCleery Class Certification Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIMOTHY McCLEERY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case
No. B282851 (Cal. App.), Judge Victoria Gerrard Chaney of the U.S.
Court of Appeals of California for the Second District, Division
One, affirmed the trial court's order denying the motion for class
certification.

In the putative class action, property inspectors allege they were
engaged by three "service" companies to perform inspections for two
major insurers.  The inspectors allege they were in fact employees
of the insurers and service companies jointly, and were entitled to
but deprived of minimum wages, overtime, meal and rest breaks,
reimbursement of expenses, and accurate wage statements.

Property inspectors McCleery, Yvonne Beckner, Terry Quimby and
April Boyles Jackson filed this action on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated persons, alleging Defendants Allstate Insurance
Co. and Farmers Group, insurers for whom the Plaintiffs provided
property inspection services, and CIS Group LLC/North American
Compass Insurance Services Group, Advanced Field Services, Inc.
("AFS"), and Capital Personnel Services, Inc. ("PMG"), service
companies contracting to provide inspection services, concocted a
scheme to insulate themselves from labor laws by nominally
employing Plaintiffs as independent contractors while retaining
control over all aspects of their work.  The Plaintiffs purport to
represent a putative class of approximately 1,550 property
inspectors in California.

The Plaintiffs allege the insurers and service companies were in
fact their joint employers, and all the Defendants failed to pay
minimum wages and overtime, furnish timely or accurate wage
statements, establish a policy for meal or rest breaks, or
reimburse them for employment expenses, and in so doing violated
the Unfair Competition Law.

In 2013, the Plaintiffs filed five class certification motions, one
for each employer, designating one subclass per employer and a
sixth subclass for CIS employees who had suffered retaliation for
cooperating with the Plaintiffs in the litigation.  They contended
the Defendants' liability or lack thereof could be determined on
common proof regarding the Defendants' status as joint employers
and their uniform employment policies, or lack thereof.

The trial court summarily rejected the expert's plan and denied
certification on the ground that the inspectors had failed to show
that their status as employees (as opposed to independent
contractors) could be established on predominately common proof.

The Appellate Court reversed the order and remanded the matter with
a direction, as pertinent in the appeal, to evaluate the
Plaintiffs' proposed sampling plan.  

On remand, the Plaintiffs offered a trial plan describing their
proposal to establish liability and damages by way of an anonymous
survey of all the class members.  The trial court found common
issues existed as to the class members' employment status.  It
further found that the Plaintiffs' survey method, although flawed
in some respects, was carefully crafted for accuracy.  However, the
court found that the Plaintiffs' trial plan to be unworkable
because it failed to address individualized issues and deprived
defendants of the ability to assert defenses.  The court therefore
again denied certification.

The Plaintiffs appeal, contending the trial court applied improper
criteria and made incorrect legal assumptions.

Judge Chaney disagrees.  She finds that the trial court reasonably
concluded the Plaintiffs' trial plan failed to address how they
could fairly establish the Defendants' liability on a class-wide
basis as to any claim.  With respect to overtime and meal and rest
breaks, simply having the status of an employee does not make the
employer liable for a claim for overtime compensation or denial of
breaks.  The Plaintiffs' plan similarly failed with respect to
their minimum wage claim, as the inspectors were paid a piece rate
for each inspection performed, and the Plaintiffs offered no
explanation how they could establish, by their survey alone, the
number of inspections performed for Farmers, how long they took, or
what Farmers paid for them.

Regarding meal and rest period claims, the Judge inspectors
performed inspections for a number of insurance companies,
including nonparties, often in the same day, but Dr. Krosnick's
survey failed to ask if anyone ever worked long enough in a day for
either Farmers or Allstate to be entitled to a meal or rest period
from that insurer or any of its three co-employers.  And because
the Plaintiffs made no effort to explain how they could establish
through common proof what expenses, if any, inspectors incurred for
any particular insurer, or how they were deprived of wage
statements, the trial court could reasonably conclude these claims
were unmanageable as well under the trial plan.

The trial court also reasonably concluded that by anonymizing
responses the Plaintiffs unfairly insulated their survey from any
meaningful examination.  Even Dr. Krosnick, their only witness
regarding the survey, did not know who the survey respondents were
or why any class member had chosen not to participate.  He declared
respondents should not be thought of as witnesses, and he testified
he had no opinion as to their reliability.  In fact, the Judge
finds that the Plaintiffs expressly admit they intend to answer the
ultimate question in the case based solely on expert testimony --
testimony founded on multiple hearsay that the Defendants could
never challenge.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Chaney concludes that under the
analytic framework promulgated by Brinker Restaurant Corp. v.
Superior Court and Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn., the trial
court acted within its discretion in denying certification.  The
order denying certification is affirmed.  The Respondents are to
receive their costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 14, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/0J8Md2 from Leagle.com.

Shenoi Koes, Allan A. Shenoi -- ashenoi@shenoikoes.com -- Daniel J.
Koes, Nneka Egbujiobi -- negbujiobi@shenoikoes.com; The Law Offices
of Stephen M. Benardo, Stephen M. Benardo --steve@benardolaw.com;
Appell Shapiro, Barry Appell -- barry@asattorney.com -- and Scott
E. Shapiro for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Seyfarth Shaw, Andrew M. Paley -- apaley@seyfarth.com -- James M.
Harris -- jmharris@seyfarth.com -- Sheryl L. Skibbe, Joshua A.
Rodine -- jrodine@seyfarth.com -- and Kiran Aftab Seldon --
kseldon@seyfarth.com -- for Defendant and Respondent Allstate
Insurance Company.

Bononi Law Group, Michael J. Bononi and Christy W. Granieri for
Defendant and Respondent Capital Personnel Services, Inc.

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough and Cory E. Manning for
Defendant and Respondent Advanced Field Services, Inc.

Epstein Becker & Green, Michael S. Kun and Kevin D. Sullivan for
Defendant and Respondent Farmers Group, Inc.

Robie & Matthai and Kyle Kveton for Defendants and Respondents CIS
Group LLC and North American Compass Insurance Services Group LLC.


ALTICE USA: Kupfner Files Suit Over Misleading Reports re IPO
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Kupfner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Altice USA Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-06601 (E.D.
N.Y., November 19, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or acquired the publicly traded securities
of Altice USA pursuant and traceable to the Company's initial
public offering which took place in June 2017 (the "IPO"). The
claims in this action arise from the materially misleading
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the
IPO.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact and omitted to state material facts both required by governing
regulations and necessary to make the statements made not
inaccurate statements of material fact, the complaint asserts.

The Plaintiff Joshua Kupfner purchased Altice USA common stock
pursuant and traceable to the Company's Registration Statement for
the IPO.

The Defendant Altice USA is a Delaware corporation with its
principal executive offices located at 1 Court Square West Long
Island City, New York 11101. The Company’s common stock is listed
and trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol
"ATUS."

The Defendant Altice Europe was formally known as Altice N.V. prior
to June 8, 2018. Altice Europe is a multinational cable, fiber,
telecommunications, content, media and advertising company founded
and controlled by Defendant Patrick Drahi.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Altice.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      55 Broadway, 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10006
      Tel: (212) 363-7500
      Fax: (212) 363-7171
      E-mail: ek@zlk.com


APPLE AMERICAN: Bramlett Claims Demotion Violates CEPA
------------------------------------------------------
TROY BRAMLETT, the Plaintiff, vs. APPLE AMERICAN GROUP and JOHN
DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, the Defendants, Case No. CAM-L-004533-18 (N.J.
Sup. Ct., Dec. 3, 2018), demands judgment against the defendants
jointly, severally and, in the alternative, together with
compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, cost of suit,
attorneys' fees, enhanced attorneys' fees, equitable back pay,
equitable front pay, equitable reinstatement, and any other relief
the Court deems equitable and just, under the Conscientious
Employee Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by the
Defendants from in or about July 2014 until November 7, 2018. The
Plaintiff worked in Defendant's Somerdale, New Jersey Applebee's
restaurant as a cook. In performing his duties, the Plaintiff would
regularly come into contact with various cook. During the course of
his employment, the Plaintiff began to notice that his managers
were relabeling packaged food that was already expired to make it
appear as if the food had not yet expired. Specifically, in or
around January 2018, the Plaintiff observed a moldy container of
strawberries that was relabeled so as to not appear expired. The
Plaintiff complained to his general manager, Mathew Moratta, and
his two assistant managers, Jenna Incognito and Alex Rodriguez,
that the restaurant was serving expired food and intentionally
relabeling products.

The Plaintiff was of the reasonable belief that the serving of
expired food and relabeling products was illegal and/or a violation
of public policy. In fact, the New Jersey Department of Health and
Senior Services, Chapter 24, N.J.A.C. 8:24-36 (b), states that food
shall be labeled in accordance with N.J.S.A. 24:5-17 entitled Food
Misbranding. The Plaintiff's complaints regarding the mislabeling
of expired food constituted protected conduct under CEPA. Despite
plaintiff's complaints to management, to the best of his knowledge,
nothing was done to rectify the issue. As a result, in or around
April 7, 2018, the Plaintiff sent an e-mail to the area manager
named Chris (last name presently unknown) echoing his complaints.
In or around April 26, 2018, the Plaintiff had a conversation
regarding his objections with Chris.

Chris was a member of upper management as that term is defined
under CEPA. Chris stated that the Plaintiff should not bring these
questions to his area management. Approximately ten days later,
Chris advised the Plaintiff that he was demoted. The Plaintiff's
demotion came with both a reduction in pay and in the amount of
hours he worked per week. Prior to his demotion, the Plaintiff
worked approximately 40 hours per week. After his demotion, the
Plaintiff worked approximately 20 hours per week. A determinative
and/or motivating factor in Plaintiff's demotion was Plaintiff's
CEPA protected conduct. As a result of the Defendant's actions,
plaintiff has been forced to suffer economic and emotional harm.
Because the actions of the Defendants were undertaken by members of
upper management and/or members of upper management were willfully
indifferent to the same, and because those actions were especially
egregious, punitive damages are warranted, the lawsuit says.

Apple American, part of the Flynn Restaurant Group, is the largest
Applebee's franchisee in the country.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
          COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
          18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 727-9700

APPLE INC: Discounted Battery Replacement Program Ends Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
BGR reports that last year, Apple confirmed that it intentionally
slowed down iPhones over time to prevent the smartphone's batteries
from degrading faster, following the findings of a Geekbench
report. The company drew a considerable amount of flak due over the
fiasco and was slapped with multiple class-action lawsuits. To
appease angry customers, Apple eventually apologized and lowered
the cost of replacing batteries on most of its newer smartphones
(ranging from iPhone SE to iPhone X) to $29, down from the original
$79.

That said, if you happen to have an older-generation iPhone and you
need to get its battery replaced, we suggest you act fast, as
Apple's discounted battery-replacement program will end on December
31, 2018. After that, getting a worn-out battery replaced on
previous-generation iPhones will set you back by $79 again.
However, in case of iPhone X, you'll need to pay $69 for a new
battery.

It's worth mentioning that the discounted battery-replacement
program isn't applicable to Apple's newest iPhone XS, iPhone XS
Max, and iPhone XR since those devices are obviously still under
warranty.

After the processor-throttling debacle of last year, Apple had
introduced a new 'Battery Health' feature in iOS 11.3. Available
under the Battery section of iOS' settings, it allows users to
check the maximum operating capacity (measured in terms of percent)
of their iPhones. It's also possible to disable automatic
performance throttling under this section. In fact, by default, the
feature is disabled on all devices. Only when the device
experiences an unexpected shutdown, is when the feature is
automatically re-enabled. [GN]


APPTIO INC: Trainer Sues over Misleading Report, Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY TRAINER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. APPTIO, INC., THOMAS BOGAN, PETER
KLEIN, MATTHEW MCILWAIN, JOHN MCADAM, RAJEEV SINGH, SACHIN GUPTA,
REBECCA JACOBY, and KATHLEEN PHILIPS, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01983-UNA (D. Del., Dec. 13, 2018), seeks to enjoin the
Defendants from holding shareholder vote on a proposed transaction
and taking any steps to consummate the proposed transaction unless,
and until, material information is disclosed to Apptio shareholders
sufficiently in advance of the vote on the proposed transaction or,
in the event the proposed transaction is consummated, to recover
damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange
Act.

According to the complaint, this action is brought as a class
action by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the other public
holders of the common stock of Apptio, Inc. against the Company and
the members of the Company's board of directors for their
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed acquisition of Apptio
by an affiliate of Vista Equity Partners. On November 9, 2018, the
Board caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of
merger, pursuant to which Apptio shareholders will receive $38.00
in cash for each share of Apptio common stock they hold. On
December 10, 2018, to convince Apptio shareholders to vote in favor
of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the filing of a
materially incomplete and misleading Proxy Statement on Schedule
14A with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The stockholder
meeting is currently set for January 8, 2019.

While Defendants are touting the fairness of the Merger
Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the Proxy, they have
failed to disclose certain material information that is necessary
for shareholders to properly assess the fairness of he Proposed
Transaction, thereby rendering certain statements in the Proxy
false and/or misleading. In particular, the Proxy contains
materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (1)
Apptio's financial projections, which were developed by the
Company's management and relied on by the Board to recommend the
Proposed Transaction; and (2) the background of the merger. It is
imperative that the material information that has been omitted from
the Proxy is disclosed to the Company's shareholders prior to the
forthcoming shareholder vote, so that they can properly exercise
their corporate suffrage rights, the lawsuit says.

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

Counsel for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
          3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 201
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 482-3182
          E-mail: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com

AQUAVELLA GALLERIES: Violates ADA, Tucker Suit Asserts
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aquavella Galleries,
Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aquavella Galleries,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11667-VSB (S.D. N.Y., December
13, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Acquavella Galleries is an art gallery located at 18 East 79th
Street between Madison and Fifth Avenues in the Upper East Side
neighborhood of Manhattan, New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



AUSTRALIA: Cattle Live Export Ban Case Resumes in Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Brann, writing for ABC, reports that the northern cattle
industry's class action against the Gillard Government's ban on
live exports to Indonesia in 2011, resumes in the Federal Court.

The industry, led by Northern Territory cattle producers Emily and
Colin Brett, is seeking up to $600 million in compensation for the
damages caused by the Commonwealth's snap decision, which followed
an episode of ABC's 4 Corners, which revealed animal welfare abuse
in some Indonesian abattoirs.

Tracey Hayes, the former CEO of the NT Cattlemen's Association is a
facilitator of the class action, and spoke to ABC Rural.

"Over the course of the next few weeks, the Federal Court will hear
of the loss suffered by cattle producers across northern Australia
as a result of the government's decision to ban live exports of
cattle to Indonesia in June 2011," she said.

"It was not just the farmers that endured losses -- it was
contractors, employees and local communities that were devastated
by the government's ban.

"We will lead evidence showing that the Australian Government's
decision to suspend the cattle trade caused the Indonesian
Government to reduce the number of cattle that they would import
from Australia.

"Considered in its totality, the ban had a significant impact on
both the cattle industry and the lead applicant in this case."
[GN]


AVALON HOTEL: Borozny Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avalon Hotel LLC. The
case is styled as Austin Borozny, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Avalon Hotel LLC, a Florida
limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
8:18-cv-03014-WFJ-AEP (M.D. Fla., December 13, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Avalon Hotel offers an array of rooms to choose from with
access to all of the amenities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
   The Advocacy Group, LLC
   200 SE 6th St Ste 504
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3424
   Tel: (954) 282-1858
   Fax: (844) 786-3694
   Email: jkerr@advocacypa.com


AVVO INC: Court Grants Bid to Correct Gennaro Suit Caption
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS G. GENNARO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AVVO, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-02213-WQH-BLM (S.D. Cal.), Judge William Q. Hayes of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
granted the Gennaro's Unopposed Motion to Correct Case Caption.

On Sept. 24, 2018, named Plaintiff Stephen Mitchell initiated the
action by filing the Class Action Complaint.  On Nov. 11, 2018, the
Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Class Action Complaint, which
added named Plaintiff Gennaro.  On Nov. 15, 2018, Plaintiff
Mitchell voluntarily dismissed his claims against the Defendant.  

On Nov. 30, 2018, Gennaro filed the Unopposed Motion to Correct
Case Caption.  He moves the Court to correct the case caption by
omitting the name of Mitchell.  He contends that for purposes of
clarity and to prevent confusion as to the named party Plaintiff in
the action, the case caption should be amended to remove reference
to Mitchell.  The Defendant does not oppose the change.

Judge Hayes granted the Motion.  Pursuant to Mitchell's Nov. 15,
2018 voluntary dismissal, the Clerk of Court will terminate
Mitchell from the docket.  The case caption will reflect the change
henceforth.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/72RQKk from Leagle.com.

Thomas G Gennaro, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarily Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Abbas Kazerounian,
Kazerounian Law Group, APC & Jason A. Ibey, Kazerouni Law Group,
APC.

Avvo, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ambika K. Doran --
ambikadoran@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, pro hac vice,
Fred B. Burnside -- fredburnside@dwt.com -- & Sean M. Sullivan --
seansullivan@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.


AYR INC: Dennis Files Suit Under ADA in New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AYR, Inc. The case is
styled as Derrick U Dennis, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AYR, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-07104 (E.D. N.Y., December 13, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

AYR, Inc. manufactures apparel for women. The company provides
jeans, pants, shirts, dresses, shorts, jackets, work-wear, and
other apparel.  It also sells gift cards, and offers products
online. The company was founded in 2014 and is based in New York,
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BABESTA LLC: Dennis Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Babesta, LLC. The
case is styled as Derrick U Dennis, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Babesta, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-07116 (E.D. N.Y., December 13, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Babesta, LLC offers baby clothing and accessories retail
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BAROQUE USA: Dennis Sues Over ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baroque USA Limited.
The case is styled as Derrick U Dennis, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Baroque USA Limited,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07112 (E.D. N.Y., December 13, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Baroque USA Limited is a leading Japanese apparel and accessories
company.  The company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Baroque Japan
Limited, which operates over 500 stores between Japan and China
under brand names including MOUSSY and ENFOLD. Baroque Japan
Limited made its initial public offering on the Tokyo Stock
Exchange on November 1, 2016.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



BASF CORPORATION: Underpays Operators, Galloway Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
DEREK GALLOWAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BASF CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-00388 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 14, 2018) is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Galloway was employed by the Defendant as operator at
the Defendant's production and manufacturing facilities in
Beaumont, Texas.

BASF Corporation manufactures and supplies basic chemicals and
intermediates ranging from solvents, plasticizers, and monomers to
glues and electronic chemicals, as well as raw materials for
detergents, plastics, textile fibers, paints and coatings, plant
protection, and pharmaceuticals. The company was founded in 1865
and is headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey. BASF Corporation
operates as a subsidiary of BASF SE. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com

               - and -

          Nitin Sud, Esq.
          6750 West Loop South, Suite 920
          Bellaire, TX 77401
          Telephone: (832) 623-6420
          Facsimile: (832) 304-2552
          E-mail: nsud@sudemploymentlaw.com


BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: Thaxton et al. Suit Moved to North Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A case, BARBARA THAXTON and ANGELA D. MAYES, Individually, and on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated current and
former employees, the Plaintiffs, vs. BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation, and BOJANGLES', INC., a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-00269 (Filed Aug. 26, 2017), as
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of North Carolina (Charlotte). The Western District of North
Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case No.: 3:18-cv-00665-FDW-DCK to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge Frank
D. Whitney.

According to the complaint, Barbara Thaxton and Angela D. Mayes
were employees of and performed job duties for Bojangles'
Restaurants, Inc. and Bojangles', Inc. This lawsuit is brought
against Defendants as a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime compensation for
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former
employees who are members of a class. The Plaintiffs and the class
performed non-exempt labor duties on behalf of Defendant, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          James L Holt, Jr., Esq.
          Joseph Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert Emmett Turner, IV, Esq.
          Nathaniel Andrew Bishop, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Cordova, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com
                  pjackson@jsyc.com
                  gjackson@jsyc.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Brian Lee Church, Esq.
          Charles E. Johnson, Esq.
          ROBINSON BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A.
          101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 377-8166
          Facsimile: (704) 339-3466
          E-mail: bchurch@rbh.com
                  cejohnson@rbh.com

               - and -

          James R. McKoon, Esq.
          Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC
          1800 Republic Centre
          633 Chestnut St.
          Chattanooga, TN 37450-1800
          Telephone: (615) 756-2010

BRISTOL BAY: Class Certification Bid in Abikar Tentatively Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ABUCAR NUNOW ABIKAR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BRISTOL
BAY NATIVE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-01036-GPC-AGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
tentatively denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of
Class Action.

The Plaintiffs in the case are refugees from Africa and were
formerly employed by the Defendants to assist training Marines in
African culture.  In the litigation, the Plaintiffs claim that the
Defendants harassed and discriminated against them based on their
race, national origin, and religion.

The Plaintiffs are current or former employees of the Defendants.
The Defendants contract with the U.S. Department of Defense to
train Marines in African, Iraqi, Afghani, and Filipino culture.
They employ East African refugees to roleplay as shopkeepers,
village elders, and insurgents in simulated villages.  The members
of the proffered class have worked for the Defendants since 2010.
The East African refugees the Defendants employ are either citizens
or permanent residents of the United States.

Beginning in December 2015 to February 2016, dozens of East African
role-players filed complaints of discrimination, harassment, and
retaliation with the EEOC.  The Defendants nonetheless persisted in
their mistreatment.  On July 12, 2016, as a group, the East African
role-players filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB.
The Defendants still continued their adverse actions.

The First Amended Complaint presents three classes.  The "East
African Class" consists of female and male refugees from Somalia,
Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Burundi.  The
"Female Class" consists of female East African refugees.  The
"Muslim Class" consists of Muslim East African refugees.

The Plaintiffs claim that Defendants engaged in discrimination and
harassment of the East African Class by: 1) subjecting them to
insults, ridicule, scorn, and mockery directed toward their race,
color, national origin, language, culture and traditions.; 2)
requiring them to perform janitorial duties outside of their job
description and without compensation but did not require similarly
situated non-East African Class members to perform those janitorial
duties; 3) failing to provide them with promotional opportunities,
rest and meal breaks, and food, and water to the same extent and in
as favorable a manner as provided to similarly situated non-East
African Class members; and 4) retaliating against them for
complaining about the adverse treatment.

Additionally, the Plaintiffs claim that Defendants engaged in
discrimination and harassment of the Female Class based on
gender/sex by: 1) subjecting them to insults, ridicule, scorn, and
mockery; 2) refusing to allow them to wear "traditional" clothing
but allowing non-Female Class members to wear traditional clothing;
3) requiring them to perform "stereotypically female cleaning and
housekeeping duties" outside their job description and without
compensation but not requiring non-Female Class members to do so;
4) failing to provide them with promotional opportunities to the
same extent as to similarly situated non-Female Class members; and
4) retaliating against them for complaint about the adverse
treatment.

The FAC claims that the Defendants engaged in discrimination
against the Muslim Class by: 1) failing to provide religious
accommodation; 2) subjecting them to insults, ridicule, scorn, and
mockery; and 3) retaliating against them for complaining about the
adverse treatment.

The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on May 19, 2017.  On Oct. 6,
2017, they filed their FAC.  Count IV of the FAC claimed that the
Defendants' practices and policies constitute illegal race
discrimination with respect to the making, performance, and
termination of contracts prohibited by 42 U.S.C. Section 1981.  In
Counts VII to X, the Plaintiffs claim under California Government
Code Section 12940(a) and (j) that the Defendants discriminated
against and harassed the Plaintiffs on the basis of race, color,
national origin, gender/sex, and religion.  In Count XII, they
claimed that the Defendants failed to prevent discrimination and
harassment in violation of the California Fair Employment and
Housing Act ("FEHA").  Count XIII advances a claim for retaliation
in violation of FEHA.

The Plaintiffs have now filed a Motion for Class Certification.
They request the Court certifies a class of all refugees living or
formerly living in the United States, from Somalia, Ethiopia, the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burundi, and other African
countries (collectively, East African or East African Countries),
who work or worked as role-players for any of the Defendants at any
time between Jan. 1, 2010 and the date of judgment in the action,
who allege they were treated worse than their counterparts because
of race, color, and national origin.

They also ask the Court to appoint the named Plaintiffs as the
class representatives, and appoint Marilyn Spencer and David
Duchrow as the co-lead counsel.

Judge Curiel tentatively denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Certification of Class Action.  The Judge tentatively finds that
the Plaintiffs have not carried their burden of demonstrating that
the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable, that questions of law or fact common to the class
members predominate over any questions affecting only individuals,
or that the class counsel is adequate.  The parties will be
permitted to address the tentative ruling at the scheduled hearing
on Dec. 14, 2018 at 1:30 p.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 14, 2018 Tentative Order is
available at https://is.gd/CSVqlj from Leagle.com.

Abucar Nunow Abikar, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by A. Melissa Johnson ,
The Spencer Law Firm, David J. Duchrow , Law Offices of David J
Duchrow, Marilynn Mika Spencer , Spencer Johnson McCammon LLP &
Neil Pedersen , Pedersen McQueen APLC.

Barkadle Sheikh Muhamed Awmagan, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Arab Mursal Deh, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Majuma Madende, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Osman Musa Mohamed,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Osman
Musa Muganga, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Rukia Musa, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated & Fatuma Somow, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by A. Melissa
Johnson -- mjohnson@thespencerlawfirm.com -- The Spencer Law Firm,
David J. Duchrow -- djduchrow@yahoo.com -- Law Offices of David J
Duchrow & Marilynn Mika Spencer -- mspencer@thespencerlawfirm.com
-- Spencer Johnson McCammon LLP.

Bristol Bay Native Corporation, Glacier Technical Solutions, LLC &
Workforce Resources, LLC, Defendants, represented by Amy Todd-Gher
-- atodd-gher@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C & Ruth Dapper
-- rdapper@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson.


C.R. ENGLAND: Faces Tolefree Suit in California Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against C.R. England, Inc.
The lawsuit is captioned as Ronniesa Tolefree, all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. C.R. England, Inc. and Does 1-10, the
Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00245670-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Dec. 3, 2018). The suit alleges employment-related violation.

C.R. England, Inc. is an American family-owned trucking company
founded in 1920. The company provides temperature-controlled
transportation services throughout North America.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Joshua H Haffner, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          445 S Figueroa St, Ste 2325
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1631
          Telephone: (213) 514-5681
          Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
          E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com


CARLISLE ETCETERA: Dennis Files Suit under ADA in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carlisle Etcetera
LLC. The case is styled as Derrick U Dennis, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Carlisle Etcetera
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07109 (E.D. N.Y., December 13,
2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Carlisle Etcetera LLC designs and manufactures apparels. The
Company offers women's apparels such as shirts, jackets, tops,
skirts, pants, and accessories. Carlisle Etcetera serves customers
in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CENTER FOR SENIORS: Kim Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------
Paul Kim, on behalf of himself and all other Plaintiffs similarly
situated v. Center for Seniors, Young Ha and Jae Kwan Ha, Case No.
1:18-cv-07660 (N.D. Ill., November 19, 2018), is brought against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants willfully and
intentionally failed to pay overtime wages.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Illinois and worked for the
Defendants since July 11, 2015. The Plaintiff did all maintenance
and repairs of the buildings.

The Defendants own and operate Defendant Center For Seniors runs
four Senior Centers in Chicago, Morton Grove, Schaumburg and
Wheeling, Illinois. The centers provide services to senior citizens
such as adult day service, meals, and recreational activities. The
center also provides the shuttle service between the center and its
customers' home. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan J. Kim
      INSEED LAW, P.C.
      2454 E Dempster St Suite 301
      Des Plaines, IL 60016


CENTRAL MAINE: Neglected to Charge New Accounts, Probe Reveals
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tux Turkel and Eric Russell, writing for Portland Press Herald,
report that roughly 3,400 new Central Maine Power customers that
have been drawing electricity for months have not received bills
and are being charged for only a fraction of what they actually
used, an action that means other CMP customers may have to make up
the lost revenue.

The company has decided to bill for only 30 days of service to some
new customers, a decision it attributes to two factors: a rash of
retirements has left it shorthanded and unable to keep up with the
demand for new accounts, and the expectation that it can charge off
those losses to other customers, rather than its shareholders.

CMP says it hasn't bothered to tally the amount of money going
uncollected because revenue shortfalls are adjusted in rates each
year via an agreement with the Maine Public Utilities Commission.
So existing CMP customers are likely to pick up the tab, if CMP's
annual revenues fall below a set target and the PUC doesn't object
to the billing practice.

Barry Hobbins, Maine's public advocate, said the 30-day billing
practice is disappointing. He said it confirms reports he has
received from company owners who were worried about being hit with
large back payments. He faulted CMP for making a unilateral
decision and not consulting with his office, at a time when the PUC
is scrutinizing the company's billing practices.

"They are making a business decision that may affect all ratepayers
in the future, in the middle of a forensic audit," he said.

The revelation is the latest in a string of problems facing CMP.
The company has faced a storm of attacks this year over how it
treats and bills its customers and whether it's telling the truth
about problems at the utility.

State regulators have launched investigations into storm response,
rate charges and company earnings, and protracted deliberations
over a proposed transmission line. Attorneys for ratepayers are
seeking a class-action lawsuit over extraordinarily high electric
bills. They are even alleging corporate fraud -- saying CMP trained
its workers to blame spiking bills on customers, rather than the
company's faulty billing and metering systems, a charge CMP denies.
The investigation into the storm response found that the company
acted appropriately.

DATA CAPTURED

Southern Maine's building boom has led to a surge in requests for
new service, CMP says. But the need to hook up all those homes and
businesses coincides with a wave of recent retirements in the
customer service department, overwhelming CMP's ability to set up
new accounts on time. As a result, CMP said it's only charging
these new customers for the most-recent billing cycle, after the
account finally is established. Officials said the situation is not
related to its perplexing billing-system problems, already under
state investigation.

"We cannot bill a customer until an account is created, creating a
record of usage," according to Catharine Hartnett, CMP's
spokeswoman. "Because the customer did not cause the delay, CMP is
billing for (only) 30 days."

Ms. Hartnett said CMP is getting a handle on the backlog. It has
filled the open positions and is training workers to create
accounts on its new billing system, put in place 13 months ago.

But in the meantime, CMP has chosen not to bill customers beyond
the most recent 30 days, even though it can see the amount of power
consumed previous to that.

Confidential CMP information provided to the Portland Press
Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram indicates that the company's digital
smart meters are capturing and recording past power consumption for
months, and that data could be used to recover the cost of
service.

In one example, the newspaper was sent an internal email exchange
and a computer screen shot from an account for temporary service
tied to construction of the new Portland headquarters for Wex, the
payment processing firm. It shows that service was set up in April
and that a total of 43,297 kilowatt-hours of electricity were
consumed through Sept. 5. But the information also shows that CMP
only issued a bill for power used in September, for 385
kilowatt-hours.

The amount due was $954.75, well short of the cost of using 43,297
kilowatt-hours. Based on a typical per-kilowatt-hour charge, the
total should be at least $6,400.

Herb Adams, a former Portland lawmaker and longtime critic of CMP
and its billing practices, said the PUC and the public advocate
should intervene and halt the 30-day practice.

"It is not just the sum, it's the symbolism," he said. "Remember
that CMP is a wholly owned subsidiary, layers down, of Iberdrola, a
Spanish holding company, one of the largest energy selling empires
in the world."

"Why should Joe and Jane Mainer be forced to pay full freight to
pick up the slack for a well-off company and a mega-monopoly
because of CMP's paperwork mistake?" he added. "CMP's
self-reasoning is so circular it is a spiral, and it leads directly
down into everyone else's wallet. CMP should eat this: Mainers
should not pay it."

'TOO MANY KWHS TO DISMISS'

CMP workers are aware of the undercharge issue. Concern was
expressed in a September email exchange provided to the Press
Herald/Sunday Telegram between employees who handle metering and
customer service issues and are trying to switch the Wex service
from temporary to permanent.

A manager asks: "Is the NA (new account) for the temp in limbo? Can
it get processed so we can do the MC (meter change) upgrade? Too
many kwhs to dismiss."

The second worker replies and copies other co-workers to find out
what went wrong and to create the correct account.

She replies to the manager: "The customer will only be back billed
for 30 days, not the (full amount)."

The customer listed on the bill is Bob Goulet, a regional manager
at E.S. Boulos, a Westbrook-based electrical contractor on the Wex
job. Reached for comment, Goulet said he never actually sees bills
like these and suggested the project's general contractor, Cianbro
Corp., might be responsible. A spokesman for Cianbro said the
company would have no comment.

Asked why CMP wasn't trying to recover the cost of providing power
if the smart meters were recording it, Hartnett said automatically
recording the data and manually establishing an account are two
different things.
Advertisement

"This is not the same as an account being created," she said. "We
do not want to send a multi-month bill to a new customer, if the
account creation was our own delay. So as a matter of practice, we
bill for the past 30-days' usage."

BILLS UNDER SCRUTINY

CMP switched from its 27-year-old mainframe computer system on Oct.
30, 2017, the same day a powerful windstorm knocked out power to
more than 400,000 customers. Soon thereafter, thousands of
customers began seeing higher-than-expected bills and started
complaining. The PUC subsequently hired a consultant to examine
CMP's metering and billing systems. The results of that so-called
management or forensic audit are expected to be made public in
mid-December.

Hartnett said CMP has notified the PUC of its latest billing
problem. A spokesman for the PUC confirmed the agency is aware of
the issue. He said figuring out the root cause and who's
responsible will be part of the management audit.

"All billing issues are being scrutinized, including issues where
bills have not been sent," said Harry Lanphear. "How the commission
deals with this will be determined after the report is filed. In
general, to the extent there may be imprudence on a particular
issue, the commission would determine the most appropriate remedy
to protect ratepayers."
Advertisement

GOING FORWARD

But CMP is indicating that it thinks customers -- not shareholders
-- should be responsible for any revenue shortfall, based on an
existing PUC agreement designed to help keep delivery rates stable
for home and commercial customers.

CMP's electric rates contain what's called a revenue decoupling
mechanism. Under this arrangement, actual revenues are compared
each year with target revenues approved by the PUC. Any difference
is either refunded to customers or recovered in rates, with
interest. Similar arrangements are used in other states.

So if the unbilled revenue contributes to a shortfall or reduces an
overcollection, Hartnett said, customers will share in the impact.

Delayed billing has been a periodic problem for the past two years,
Hartnett said.
Advertisement

Between 2009 and 2017, the company added 25,000 or so new accounts,
with 10,000 of them created in 2016 and 2017. This year, CMP is
expected to add 10,000 new accounts.

"We are not satisfied with our overall level of service on this
matter," Ms. Hartnett said. "We are taking an aggressive approach
to address the backlog. We are adding new trained resources to
enter the new customer accounts into our system in a timely manner.
In addition, we are taking steps to address our internal processes
to prevent this kind of issue from happening again." [GN]


CHARLOTTE SCHOOL: Bid to File Single Brief in Barchiesi Suit Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT C. BARCHIESI, and LEJLA HADZIC, Individually
and in a representative capacity on behalf of a class of all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW,
LLC and INFILAW CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
3:16-CV-00861-GCM (W.D. N.C.), Judge Graham C. Mullen of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
Charlotte Division, granted the Defendants' Motion to File a Single
Brief Supporting Final Approval of the Settlement and Opposing the
Objections to Final Approval.

The Defendants may file a single brief, with a maximum length of 38
pages (not including caption, signature blocks and certificates),
which (a) responds to the objections submitted by class members to
final approval of the class action settlement and/or certification
of the settlement class, including the two separate briefs filed on
behalf of various subsets of objectors; and (b) addresses the
reasons supporting final approval of the settlement and
certification of the settlement class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 14, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/UWgLSu from Leagle.com.

Robert C Barchiesi, Individually and in a Representative capacity
on behalf of a class of all persons similarly situated & Lejla
Hadzic, Individually and in a Representative capacity on behalf of
a class of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented
Angelique Adams -- aadams@shipmanlaw.com -- Shipman & Wright, LLP,
Gary K. Shipman -- gshipman@shipmanlaw.com -- Shipman & Wright,
LLP, John Alan Jones -- email@m-j.com -- Martin and Jones, PLLC,
Karl Joseph Amelchenko, Martin & Jones, Kyle Joseph Nutt, Shipman &
Wright, LLP, Steven Dennis Corriveau, Martin & Jones & H. Forest
Horne, Jr., Jones, Martin, Parris & Tessener.

Raissa Levy, James Villanueva, Shanna Rivera, Andre McCoy & 17cv26
Levy Plaintiffs, Consol Plaintiffs, represented by Amanda A.
Mingo,
Rawls, Scheer, Foster, Mingo & Culp, PLLC, Brian Leighton Kinsley,
Crumley Roberts, Daniel Ray Francis, Crumley Roberts, Philip
Bohrer, Bohrer Brady LLC, pro hac vice, Robert Andre Fleury, Jr.,
Crumley Roberts & Scott E. Brady -- scott@bohrerbrady.com -- Bohrer
Brady LLC, pro hac vice.

Leah Ash & 17cv39 Ash Plaintiff, Consol Plaintiffs, represented by
Michael John Messinger , Law Offices of Michael Messinger, PLLC.

Spencer Krebs, Morgan Switzer, Dave Wyatt, Jacenta Marie Price,
Krystal Horsley, Markisha Dobson & 17cv190 Plaintiffs, Consol
Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony J. Majestro --
amajestro@powellmajestro.com -- Powell & Majestro, PLLC, pro hac
vice, Douglas B. Abrams, Abrams & Abrams, P.A., Noah Abrams, Abrams
& Abrams PA, Taylor M. Norman -- tnorman@bjc4u.com -- Bailey Javins
& Carter, LC, pro hac vice & Timothy C. Bailey, Bailey Javins &
Carter, LC, pro hac vice.

Charlotte School of Law, LLC, Defendant, represented by David
Edward Mills -- dmills@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Debbie W. Harden
-- debbie.harden@wbd-us.com -- Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP,
Johnny M. Loper -- johnny.loper@wbd-us.com -- Womble Bond Dickinson
(US) LLP, Michael DeWayne Hays -- mhays@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP,
pro hac vice, Rebecca Claire Fleishman --
rebecca.fleishman@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice,
LLP, Robert Cahill -- rcahill@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, pro hac
vice & Sarah Motley Stone -- sarah.stone@wbd-us.com -- Womble Bond
Dickinson (US) LLP.

InfiLaw Corporation, Defendant, represented by David Edward Mills,
Cooley LLP, Johnny M. Loper, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Sarah
Motley Stone, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Debbie W. Harden,
Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Michael DeWayne Hays, Cooley LLP,
pro hac vice & Robert Cahill, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice.

Jay Conison, Consol Defendant, represented by David Edward Mills,
Cooley LLP, Debbie W. Harden, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP,
Johnny M. Loper, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Michael DeWayne
Hays, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice, Rebecca Claire Fleishman, Womble
Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Robert Cahill, Cooley LLP, pro hac
vice & Sarah Motley Stone, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP.

Chidi Ogene, Consol Defendant, represented by David Edward Mills,
Cooley LLP, Debbie W. Harden, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP,
Johnny M. Loper, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Robert Cahill,
Cooley LLP, pro hac vice & Sarah Motley Stone, Womble Bond
Dickinson (US) LLP.

Sterling Partners & Sterling Capital Partners IV, LLC, Consol
Defendants, represented by Adam Karl Doerr -- adoerr@rbh.com --
Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson & Robert Evans Harrington, Robinson,
Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A..


CHECKR INC: Nelson Sues over Alleged Illegal Background Checks
--------------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR NELSON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. CHECKR, INC., and DOES 1 to 100,
the Defendants, Case No.: CGC-18-572066 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 13,
2018), seeks to recover actual damages, Attorney fees and costs,
punitive damages, and other relief the court deems proper, pursuant
to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are investigative
consumer reporting agencies pursuant to Civil Code section
1786.2(d) since they engage in whole or in part in the practice of
collecting, assembling, evaluating, compiling, reporting,
transmitting, transferring, or communicating information concerning
consumers for the purposes of furnishing investigative consumer
reports to third parties, including Lyft. Many companies use
Defendants for background checks. For Plaintiff, he discovered that
Defendants included the impermissible information after applying
with Lyft. Under Civil Code section 1768.18(a)(6), an investigative
consumer reporting agency may not make or furnish an investigative
consumer report that contains records of arrest, indictment,
information, misdemeanor complaint, or conviction of a crime that,
from the date of disposition, release, or parole, antedate the
report by more than seven years. The Plaintiff and the class
members had background checks performed by Defendants that
contained information in violation of Section 1768.18, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Adam Rose, Esq.
          Emanuel Starr, Esq.
          FRONTIER LAW CENTER
          23901 Calabasas Road, #2074
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 914-3433
          Facsimile: (818) 914-3433
          E-mail: adam@frontierlawcenter.com
                  manny@frontier1awcenter.com

CHRYSLER LLC: 9-Speed Transmission Settlement Awaits Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Chrysler 9-speed transmission lawsuit awaits final approval of a
judge after the automaker and the plaintiffs agreed to settle the
complaint before the case went to trial.

The class-action lawsuit alleges the 9-speed ZF 9HP transmissions
cause sudden, delayed and rough shifting as a grinding noise is
heard during shifting. Customers also claim the transmissions
experience reduced power when the vehicles shift into gear, and the
vehicles can jerk during a harsh engagement of the gears.

In addition, the plaintiffs claim the transmissions can suddenly
fail because Chrysler dealers don't know how to repair the
problems.

The Fiat Chrysler (FCA US) 9-speed transmission class-action
includes all consumers who purchased or leased a new 2014-2015 Jeep
Cherokee, 2015 Jeep Renegade, 2015 Chrysler 200 or 2015 ProMaster
City. In addition, the consumer must still own the vehicle and it
must have been purchased or leased in the U.S.

The transmission class-action is the result of two separate
lawsuits, one from 2015 when the plaintiffs said 2014 Jeep
Cherokees were equipped with defective ZF 9HP automatic
transmissions.

Affected customers may be eligible to receive cash payments or
trade-in vouchers, but only if certain requirements are met.
Additionally, all customers will automatically receive an extended
warranty.

To have a chance of receiving cash or a voucher, the customer must
be able to prove they made three (3) transmission-related
complaints to authorized dealerships on or before November 16,
2018.

According to the Chrysler 9-speed transmission lawsuit, a
transmission-related complaint is described as a report you made to
an FCA dealership about one or more of the following symptoms in
your vehicle: "rough, delayed, or sudden shifting; a grinding noise
during shifting; harsh engagement of gears; or reduced power when
the vehicle shifts into gear."

The amount of compensation you can receive is based on how many
transmission-related complaints you made, and can prove you made,
to Chrysler dealers.

If you can show documents that three transmission complaints were
made to dealers, you may be eligible to receive a cash payment of
$400, or a trade-in voucher valued at $1,000.

Documents proving you made four to five transmission-related
complaints may get you $800 or a trade-in voucher worth $2,000. And
proving you made six or more transmission complaints to dealerships
may see you receive $2,000 in cash or a $4,000 trade-in voucher. In
no situation will a customer receive compensation beyond those
amounts.

A customer must submit a claim form and the required documents to
receive a cash payment or voucher, but all affected FCA customers
will receive an extended warranty automatically. The 9-speed ZF 9HP
automatic transmission warranty will be extended to 6 years or
100,000 miles on the odometer, whichever occurs first.

The lawsuit says the extension is calculated from the date the
vehicle was first delivered.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs have asked to be awarded $1.2 million
for attorney fees and cost. This amount will include a service
award in the amount of $5,000 made to the couple (Dolores and
Albert Granillo) who filed the lawsuit.

Chrysler denies it did anything wrong and denies there are defects
with the transmissions, but decided to settle to save on the great
expense of continued litigation.

Although both parties have agreed to the settlement terms, the
judge will hold a final fairness hearing on February 13, 2019.

If you own a 2014-2015 Jeep Cherokee, 2015 Jeep Renegade, 2015
Chrysler 200 or 2015 Ram ProMaster City, additional information and
claim forms can be found at FCATransmissionSettlement.com.

CarComplaints.com has complaints about the models named in the
transmission lawsuit:

   -- Jeep Cherokee
   -- Jeep Renegade
   -- Chrysler 200
   -- Ram ProMaster City [GN]


CIGNA CORP: Judge Approves $32MM Attorneys' Fees in ERISA Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge approved $32 million in attorney fees -- 17.5 percent
of the $184 million in recovery -- in an ERISA class action against
Cigna Corp. and its pension plan.


CIRCLE K: Final Fairness Hearing in Grahl Suit Continued to April 8
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARLES GRAHL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CIRCLE K. STORES, INC., a
foreign corporation; DOES I through V, inclusive; and ROE
corporations I through V, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:14-cv-00305-VCF (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada continued the Final
Fairness Hearing to April 8, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.

Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, LR IA 6-2, LR 7-1 and LR 26-4, the parties
request and stipulate to continue the Final Fairness Hearing
pursuant to the Court's Dec. 11, 2018 Order in Chambers, presently
scheduled for March 18, 2019.  It is the first request to extend
the deadline contained within the Order.

In preparing the Proposed Order Granting the Motion for Approval of
Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release, the parties realized
that the deadline for the Plaintiffs to submit claim forms to
participate in the Settlement is March 15, 2019.  Thereafter, the
parties would need to obtain a declaration from the Third Party
Administrator and prepare a Motion for Final Approval.  As a
result, it would be impracticable to have the Final Fairness
Hearing on March 18, 2019.

Therefore, the counsel is requesting the Court continue the Final
Fairness Hearing for April 8, 2018 or a date thereafter.
Magistrate Judge Ferenbach so ordered.  He vacated the Magistrate
Judge Final Fairness Hearing scheduled for March 18, 2019 and
rescheduled to April 8, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., courtroom TBD.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/wsJXZk from Leagle.com.

Charles Grahl, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew L. Rempfer, Law
Offices of Steven J. Parsons, Anthony M. Carter --
acarter@tostrudlaw.com -- Tostrud Law Group, P.C., pro hac vice,
Erik H. Langeland, Erik H. Langeland, P.C., pro hac vice, Jon A.
Tostrud -- jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com -- Tostrud Law Group, P.C., pro
hac vice, Joseph Nathan Mott, Law Offices of Steven J. Parsons,
Scott E. Lundy, Law Offices of Steven J. Parsons & Steven J.
Parsons, Law Office Of Steven J. Parsons.

Circle K Stores, Defendant, represented by Anthony L. Martin --
anthony.martin@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, P.C., Dana B. Salmonson -- dana.salmonson@ogletree.com --
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Patrick F. Hulla --
patrick.hulla@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins, pro hac vice & Jill
Garcia -- jill.garcia@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, P.C..


CITIBANK NA: Revitch's Bid to Strike Affirmative Defense Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEREMIAH REVITCH, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CITIBANK, N.A., Defendant, Case
No. C 17-06907 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California denied the
Plaintiff's motion to strike the Defendant's affirmative defense
for failure to timely produce discovery.

Revitch filed the putative class action under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") in December 2017, alleging that
the Defendant called him at least five times on his cell phone
using an autodialer and/or an artificial or prerecorded device
despite the Plaintiff not being a Citibank customer.  In its April
2018 answer to the complaint, the Defendant asserted an affirmative
defense of "consent," claiming that the Plaintiff and the putative
class were barred from bringing a TCPA claim to the extent they
provided "prior express consent" to its calls.

In September 2018, after the Plaintiff succeeded in moving to
compel its production, the Defendant produced between two and three
terabytes of customer data relevant to its consent defense.  From
that data, it selected a sample set of more than 400 phone numbers
(associated with more than 1,300 customer accounts) from which to
analyze the underlying account records in connection with its
defense.  During a discovery hearing on Oct. 17, 2018, the
Defendant agreed to produce these account records -- which it
intended to rely on in support of its defense of consent -- by Nov.
9, 2018.  Judge Alsup so ordered.

Despite the Defendant's agreement to do so, it failed to meet the
deadline.  Rather, on Nov. 9, 2018, the Defendant filed a letter
brief explaining that it had completed its collection of the
account records at issue but that an additional week was needed to
redact personally identifiable information.  Three days later, on
Nov. 12, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion to strike the
Defendant's affirmative defense of consent and to exclude all
evidence offered in support of that defense for failure to meet the
Nov. 9, 2018 production deadline.  On Nov. 16, 2018, a week after
the agreed-upon deadline, the Defendant produced the documents,
having spent approximately $60,000 for an outside vendor to
complete the redactions on an expedited basis.

Judge Alsup finds that the Defendant's one-week delay in producing
documents that the Plaintiff knew were coming down the pike does
not warrant the Plaintiff's requested relief of striking the
Defendant's affirmative defense and excluding supporting evidence.
While the Defendant's consent defense seems to be one of the key
issues at play in the case, the Plaintiff has not shown any harm
resulting from the Defendant's failure to produce the documents a
week earlier.  The Plaintiff had the documents for nearly two weeks
prior to the class certification deadline.   To the extent he
claims to have been prejudiced by changes to the scheduling order,
the Judge order disagrees.  The Plaintiff himself asked for and
agreed to such extensions.

The Judge also finds that the Defendant served initial disclosures
in May 2018 and first amended initial disclosures in June 2018.
Those disclosures did not identify the documents at issue.  It
argues that the documents were not included in its initial
disclosures because it did not identify them until September 2018.
The Plaintiff disputes this characterization, arguing that the
Defendant always had its call logs and customer data.  In any
event, FRCP 37(c)(1) exempts a party from sanctions where failure
to provide the information was harmless.  For the same reasons he
explained, the Judge holds that such is the case.

Finally, as to the Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees, the
Judge finds that on Nov. 6, 2018, the Defendant hired an outside
team of 50 reviewers to redact highly-sensitive information (such
as social security numbers and account passwords) from voluminous
documents on an expedited basis.  Moreover, on Nov. 9, 2018, prior
to the Plaintiff filing the instant motion, the Defendant informed
the Court of its need for a one-week extension of time.  Under the
circumstances, the one-week delay was substantially justified.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Alsup denied the Plaintiff's
motion for discovery sanctions.  He vacated the Dec. 20, 2018
hearing.  The directed the Defendant to ensure its compliance with
all deadlines going forward.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 12, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/mo9AsL from Leagle.com.

Jeremiah Revitch, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas A. Reyda --
treyda@bursor.com -- Burosr and Fisher, P.A., Joel Dashiell Smith
-- jsmith@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A. & Lawrence Timothy
Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Citibank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Christopher J. Willis --
WILLISCBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr LLP, Daniel J.T. McKenna
-- MCKENNADBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr LLP, pro hac vice &
Marcos D. Sasso -- SASSOMBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr LLP.


COBALT REAL: Faces Bartley et al. Suit in California Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cobalt Real Estate
Brokers, Inc.  The lawsuit is captioned as Michael Bartley and
Robin Hills, all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
Cobalt Real Estate Brokers, Inc., Does 1-25, Riverland At Castle
Oaks L.P., and Riverland Homes, Inc., the Defendants, Case No.
34-2018-00245659-CU-CO-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 3, 2018).[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Stuart C. Talley, Esq.
          KERSHAW, COOK & TALLEY PC
          401 Watt Ave.
          Sacramento, CA 95864
          Telephone: (916) 779-7000
          Facsimile: (916) 721-2501
          E-mail: stuart@kctlegal.com


COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Misha Bid for Page Limit Extension Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Troy L. Nunley granted Plaintiff Debi Mishra's ex
parte request for page limit extension to 31 pages in the case
captioned DEBI MISHRA, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS
U.S. CORP., et al., Defendants, No. 2:17-cv-01785-TLN-EFB (E.D.
Cal.).

Mishra requested a page limit extension for her Request for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement from the 20-page
limit the Court imposes on dispositive motions to 31 pages.
Plaintiff states the suit relies on the California Labor Code and
the U.S. FLSA, notes settlements for collective actions for each
are assed differently, and states the substantive text ran to 31
pages.

Good cause appearing, the Court grants Plaintiff's request.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 11, 2018 is available at
https://bit.ly/2Go46R6 from Leagle.com.

Debi Mishra, Plaintiff, represented by John T. Stralen, Clayeo C.
Arnold A Professional Law Corporation & Joshua H. Watson, Clayeo C.
Arnold.

Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation & Cognizant
Technology Solutions Corporation, Defendants, represented by Julie
A. Totten -jatotten@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP & Katie Elizabeth Briscoe -- jatotten@orrick.com -- Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe.


CORECIVIC INC: Underpays Janitors, Ndambi et al. Allege
-------------------------------------------------------
DESMOND NDAMBI; MBAH EMMANUEL ABI; and NKEMTOH MOSES AWOMBANG,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CORECIVIC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03521-RDB
(D. Md., Nov. 14, 2018) is an action against the Defendant for
failure to pay immigrants confined in civil detention at the Cibola
County Correctional Center their legally mandated wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as janitors.

CoreCivic, Inc. provides detention and corrections services to
governmental agencies. The Company designs, constructs, owns,
manages, and renovates jails, prisons, government agencies, and
inmate transportation companies. CoreCivic operates throughout the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph M. Sellers, Esq.
          D. Michael Hancock, Esq.
          Stacy N. Cammarano, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: jsellers@cohenmilstein.com
                  mhancoc@cohenmilstein.com
                  scammarano@cohenmilstein.com

               - and –

          Robert S. Libman, Esq.
          Nancy Maldonado, Esq.
          Deanna Pihos, Esq.
          Benjamin Blustein, Esq.
          Matthew J. Owens, Esq.
          MINER BARNHILL & GALLAND, P.C.
          325 North LaSalle Street, Suite 350
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 751-1170
          E-mail: rlibman@lawmbg.com
                  nmaldonado@lawmbg.com
                  dpihos@lawmbg.com
                  bblustein@lawmbg.com
                  mowens@lawmbg.com


CVS PHARMACY: Suit Over Drug Benefit Plan Dismissed With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN DOE ONE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CVS PHARMACY,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01031-EMC (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (i) granted CVS and Employer Defendants'
motions to dismiss, and (ii) dismissed with prejudice the
Plaintiffs' claims.

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action alleging that they
have been discriminatorily denied benefits under their
employer-offered prescription drug benefit plans.  The complaint
names two sets of Defendants: CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Caremark, LLC.,
and Caremark California Specialty Pharmacy, LLC ("CVS"), and
Amtrak, Lowe's Companies, and Time Warner, Inc. ("Employer
Defendants").  

CVS contracted with the Employer Defendants to provide prescription
drug benefits to the Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs allege that their
benefit plans allow them to obtain their HIV/AIDS medications at
favorable "in-network" prices only via mail or from a CVS pharmacy.
Compared to the non-CVS "community pharmacies" from which the
Plaintiffs were previously able to obtain their medications, the
mail order and CVS Pharmacy pickup options do not offer the same
level of privacy, convenience, reliability, and service.

The Plaintiffs bring eight causes of action: (1) violation of the
anti-discrimination provision of the Affordable Care Act ("ACA");
(2) violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA"); (3) violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act;
(4) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (5)
claim for benefits due under plans governed by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"); (6) claim for breach of
fiduciary duties under ERISA; (7) failure to provide full and fair
review under ERISA; and (8) declaratory relief.  The Counts 1-4 are
against CVS only.  The Counts 5-8 are against all the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent the class of all persons currently
or previously enrolled in or covered by a health plan since Jan. 1,
2015 in which the prescription drug benefit is or was administered
by CVS Caremark, and who: (i) obtained or may obtain HIV/ADIS
Medications; and (ii) have been or may in the future be required to
participate in the Program with no right to opt-out or notice
thereof, but not including individual claims for personal injury or
bodily harm.

The Plaintiffs filed their original class action complaint on Feb.
16, 2018.  After CVS and Amtrak each filed a motion to dismiss, the
Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Class Action Complaint
on June 18, 2018. Each Defendant filed a motion to dismiss
thereafter.

Among other things, Judge Chen finds that (i) the Plaintiffs have
done just enough to meet the pleading requirements of Rule 8; (ii)
he obstacles the Plaintiffs have to surmount to obtain their
HIV/AIDS medication under the Program, while understandably a
source of frustration and stress, do not rise to a level that
deprives them of "meaningful access" to their benefits; (iii)
without more specific factual allegations supporting the inference
that CVS intentionally compiled the specialty formulary to
discriminate against persons with disabilities while evading
accountability under the ADA, the Plaintiffs have not made a
sufficient showing that the Program discriminates on the basis of
disability; (iv) because the Plaintiffs' ADA claim is dismissed
with prejudice, their conclusory allegations of intentional
discriminations are contradicted by other allegations in their
complaint; and (v) the Plaintiffs do not allege the negligent
disclosure of HIV-positive status is a regular or widespread
practice, as opposed to an isolated incident, sufficient to entitle
them to equitable and injunctive relief directed against the
Program as a whole.

The Judge concludes that the Plaintiffs' ACA and ADA claims fail
because the benefit plan restrictions they challenge do not
discriminate on the basis of HIV/AIDS status or disability
generally; the restrictions apply to medications that treat
disabilities as well as those that do not.  The Plaintiffs' Unruh
Act claim fails because they cannot show intentional discrimination
on the part of CVS.  They have not stated a claim under the UCL
because the benefit restrictions are neither "unlawful" nor
"unfair."  The Plaintiffs' ERISA claims against CVS fail because
their benefit plans do not entitle them to the benefit they seek,
and because CVS is not an ERISA fiduciary with respect to the
benefit plans.  The Plaintiffs' ERISA claims against the Employer
Defendants fail for similar reasons.  

For these reasons, the Judge accordingly granted CVS and the
Employer Defendants' motions to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 12, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/MS6lVX from Leagle.com.

John Doe One, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, John Doe Two, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, John Doe Three, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated & John Doe Four, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Alan
M. Mansfield -- amansfield@whatleykallas.com -- The Consumer Law
Group, Benjamin Reese Powell -- ben@consumerwatchdog.org --
Consumer Watchdog, Charles Nicholas Dorman --
ndorman@whatleykallas.com --  Whatley Kallas, LLP, Edith Marie
Kallas -- ekallas@whatleykallas.com -- Whatley Kallas, LLP, Henry
C. Quillen -- hquillen@whatleykallas.com -- Whatley Kallas, LLP,
pro hac vice, Jerry Sinclair Flanagan -- jerry@consumerwatchdog.org
-- Consumer Watchdog & Joe R. Whatley, Jr. --
jwhatley@whatleykallas.com -- Whatley Kallas LLP.

John Doe Five, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Henry C. Quillen, Whatley
Kallas, LLP, pro hac vice & Alan M. Mansfield, The Consumer Law
Group.

CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Caremark LLC & Caremark California Specialty
Pharmacy LLC, Defendants, represented by Enu A. Mainigi --
emainigi@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP, Grant A. Geyerman --
ggeyerman@wc.com -- Williams Connolly, LLP, pro hac vice, Tami Sue
Smason -- tsmason@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, Benjamin Walker
Graham -- bgraham@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP, Nicholas
John Fox -- nfox@foley.com -- Foley and Lardner LLP & Sarah Lochner
O'Connor -- soconnor@wc.com -- Wiliams & Connolly LLP.

National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak,
Defendant, represented by Brian W. Shaffer, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Elise Monique Attridge, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP & Ellie
Frances Chapman, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP.

Lowe's Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Phillip J.
Eskenazi -- peskenazi@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP &
Kirk Austin Hornbeck -- khornbeck@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews
Kurth LLP.

Time Warner Inc, Defendant, represented by James Landon Mink ,
Walsworth Franklin Bevins & McCall, Jean E. Tomasco, Robinson and
Cole LLP, pro hac vice, Michael H. Bernstein, Robinson and Cole
LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick W. Begos, Robinson and Cole, LLP, pro
hac vice & Scott David Mroz, Walsworth Franklin Bevins & McCall.


DEAN COLLEGE: Faces Camacho ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dean College. The
case is captioned as JASON CAMACHO, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEAN COLLEGE,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10593-JMF (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 2018).
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act. The case is assigned to Judge Jesse M. Furman.

Dean College is a private college in Franklin, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com


DIOCESE OF BUFFALO: Sexual Abuse Settlement Offer "Insulting"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Franz Ross, writing for News 4, reports that a Western New York
attorney described a settlement offer by the Buffalo Diocese to one
of his clients as "insulting."

Kevin Stocker represents six people who are in the The Diocese of
Buffalo Independent Reconciliation and Compensation Program.

Mr. Stocker said one of his clients was offered $35,000 as a
settlement on Friday, November 30.

The client is described as an adult man who was 14-years-old when
the alleged act occurred.

Mr. Stocker would not confirm the year and location.

The priest alleged to have committed the assault was identified as
Father Bialkowski, according to Mr. Stocker.

Though Stocker did describe the offer as "insulting and
disappointing," he did confirm that it has not been rejected as of
December 1.

News 4 has reached out to the Diocese of Buffalo for comment about
this settlement offer. The Diocese released the following
statement:

Awards have recently been issued by the Administrators of the
Independent Reconciliation and Compensation Program (IRCP).  They
are not settlement offers from the Diocese. According to the
Program, the claimant is free to accept or reject the awards issued
by the Administrators.  The Diocese is bound by whatever the
claimant decides. The IRCP claimants are not bound by
confidentiality, and are free to publically discuss their claim and
any aspect of the IRCP process.   The Diocese, however, is bound by
confidentiality and will not be commenting on specific claims.

Mr. Stocker did confirm to News 4 that there are other attorneys
who may meet in the near future about the possibility of forming a
class-action lawsuit against the Diocese.

Another Buffalo attorney, Barry Covert, confirmed that he also knew
of the possibility of a class-action suit. [GN]


DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Faces Camacho ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
JASON CAMACHO, individually and and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DREXEL UNIVERSITY, Case No.
1:18-cv-10597-LTS (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 2018). The lawsuit alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
assigned to Judge Laura Taylor Swain.

Drexel University is a private research university with its main
campus located in the University City neighborhood of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, United States. It was founded in 1891 by Anthony J.
Drexel, a noted financier and philanthropist. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com


EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Edison International.
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.

Edison International (NYSE: EIX)
Class Period: Feb. 23, 2016 - Nov. 12, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Jan. 15, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/edison-international-loss-form?wire=3

The lawsuit alleges: Edison International made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the Company failed to maintain electricity transmission and
distribution networks in compliance with safety requirements and
regulations promulgated under state law; (ii) consequently, the
Company was in violation of state law and regulations; (iii) the
Company's noncompliant electricity networks created a significantly
heightened risk of wildfires in California; and (iv) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

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]


FACEBOOK INC: Judge Hears Arguments in Android Users' Data Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
to advance a privacy class action against Facebook, Android users
must explain precisely what permissions they granted before the
tech giant started harvesting their phone call and text data, a
federal judge said in court on Dec. 6.

"If you're making claims of misrepresentation and omission, you
need specific language," U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg said
during a motion to dismiss hearing on Dec. 6.

Facebook is fighting a consolidated class action alleging that
prior to October 2017, it exploited a vulnerability in Android's
permission settings to not only obtain users' contact lists but
also years' worth of phone call and text log history.

The hearing on Dec. 6 occurred one day after the British government
released a trove of internal Facebook documents, including a
February 2015 email in which a Facebook employee called the
collection of Android users' call and text data a "high-risk" move
"from a PR perspective."

In court, the social media giant insisted that it never uploaded
Android users' text and call data without consent, and that even if
it had, those users would still lack standing to sue because they
suffered no "concrete and particularized injury."

"It must be something beyond the boiler plate invasion of privacy,"
Facebook attorney Elizabeth Deeley -- elizabeth.deeley@lw.com -- of
Latham & Watkins in San Francisco, argued. "It must be coupled with
some promise not to do something, or particularly sensitive
information that could create some kind of risk."

A similar standing debate is now playing out in the Ninth Circuit,
where Facebook is challenging U.S. District Judge James Donato's
decisions from earlier this year finding the "intangible harm" of
losing control over one's private data is a concrete injury
suitable to establish standing.

According to Android users' complaint, Facebook collected years of
phone call data, including contact names and numbers for each call,
the date and time of each call, call durations and whether the call
was outgoing, incoming or missed. It also collected the dates,
times and other details for text messages, which it allegedly used
to monetize the information for advertising purposes.

Facebook denies that it collected the data without permission. In a
Dec. 5 blog post, the company said each Android user must "opt in"
to give Facebook access to their call and text data, which it uses
to "do things like make better suggestions for people to call in
Messenger."

But the plaintiffs say Facebook misled Android users by only
requesting permission to access their contacts list, not their
phone call and text history.

"A cell phone has a reasonable expectation of privacy that if
police want to search it, they need to get a warrant," plaintiffs'
lawyer Neal Deckant -- ndeckant@bursor.com -- of Bursor & Fisher in
New York, insisted. "The court should consider the highly sensitive
nature of the information."

But Judge Seeborg repeatedly pushed Deckant to identify the
specific words displayed in permission prompts that gave Facebook
access to Android phone data, along with details on when the named
plaintiffs saw those requests for permission.

"We all agree that is your obligation," Judge Seeborg told the
plaintiffs' lawyer. "You can't just generally say there was a
prompt during all this period of time."

Mr. Deckant urged the judge to let the plaintiffs amend their
complaint if he decides to dismiss it. The plaintiffs' lawyer said
recently released documents could provide new details about
Facebook's alleged misconduct.

"Additional documents were released discussing the prompts at issue
from Facebook engineers," Mr. Deckant said, likely referring to
records released by the British government on Dec. 5.

Mr. Deckant refused to confirm which documents he was citing when
approached after the hearing.

Judge Seeborg said at the start of the Dec. 6 hearing that he was
leaning toward dismissing the suit with leave to amend, but he
issued no official ruling.

Documents released by British Parliament on Dec. 5 also revealed
that Facebook used its massive trove of user data to favor certain
business partners and punish rivals by granting or restricting
access to the valuable information.

The lawsuit over Android users' call and text data is one of
several privacy-related class actions Facebook is now fighting in
federal court.

The Menlo Park-based social media giant is also defending itself
against lawsuits over its sharing of 87 million users' private data
with Cambridge Analytica, a September security breach that
compromised 50 million user accounts and its data-sharing
partnerships with device makers like Apple and Samsung.


FLINT, MI: Snyder Appeals Ruling in Waid Suit to Sixth Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Rick Snyder, Andy Dillon, Nick Lyon and Michigan filed
an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Luke Waid, et
al. v. Rick Snyder, et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-10444, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, several
parties have filed appeals from various decisions issued in the
lawsuit.

Richard Dale Snyder is sued in his official capacity as Governor of
the state of Michigan.   The state of Michigan is sued in its
capacity of operating the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality.

The lawsuit is one of the eight cases consolidated for all
purposes, including trial, in the case captioned In re Flint Water
Cases, Case No. 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM (E.D. Mich.).

The Plaintiffs seek recovery from the Defendants for alleged
injuries, damages and losses suffered by the Plaintiffs as a result
of exposure to the introduction of lead and other toxic substances
from the Defendants' ownership, use, management, supervision,
storage, maintenance, disposal and release of highly corrosive
water from the Flint River into the drinking water of Flint,
Michigan.

The appellate case is captioned as Luke Waid, et al. v. Rick
Snyder, et al., Case No. 18-2395, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Deborah A. LaBelle, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DEBORAH A. LABELLE
          221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104-0000
          Telephone: (734) 996-5620
          E-mail: deblabelle@aol.com

               - and -

          Emmy L. Levens, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS AND TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500-W
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: elevens@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Cary S. McGehee, Esq.
          Michael L. Pitt, Esq.
          Beth M. Rivers, Esq.
          PITT, MCGEHEE, PALMER & RIVERS
          117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          Telephone: (248) 398-9800
          E-mail: cmcgehee@pittlawpc.com
                  mpitt@pittlawpc.com
                  brivers@pittlawpc.com

               - and -

          Paul Francis Novak, Esq.
          Gregory Stamatopoulos, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG PC
          719 Griswold, Suite 620
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 800-4170
          E-mail: pnovak@weitzlux.com
                  gstamatopoulos@weitzlux.com

Defendants-Appellants RICK SNYDER, Governor, in his individual and
official capacities, ANDY DILLON, NICK LYON and STATE OF MICHIGAN
are represented by:

          Margaret Bettenhausen, Esq.
          Zachary Chad Larsen, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          525 W. Ottawa Street
          Lansing, MI 48909
          Telephone: (517) 373-7540
          E-mail: bettenhausenm@michigan.gov
                  larsenz@michigan.gov

               - and -

          Nathan A. Gambill, Esq.
          Richard S. Kuhl, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          P.O. Box 30755
          Lansing, MI 48909
          Telephone: (517) 373-7540
          E-mail: gambilln@michigan.gov
                  kuhlr@michigan.gov


FLY JAMAICA: Genova LLP Files Class Action Over November 9 Crash
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Luke Kieper, writing for KelownaNow, reports that a Toronto
law firm has filed a proposed class-action lawsuit on behalf of
passengers who believe they were harmed when a Fly Jamaica aircraft
skidded off the runway at Guyana's main international airport last
month.

According to a statement from Genova LLP, the proposed lawsuit was
filed on Nov. 30 and seeks compensation for passengers and their
families who were harmed on the November 9th crash.

The airline reported that two elderly passengers had been taken to
the hospital, but mentioned that no one was seriously injured after
the Toronto-bound flight experienced an emergency only 20 minutes
after take off. Upon landing, the plane skidded off the runway,
damaging its engine and right wing.

Global Affairs explained that at the time, none of the 82
passengers on the plane were hurt, but confirmed that a Canadian
citizen that was on board died more than a week later.

The law firm went on to say that four passengers on the flight will
be proposed representative plaintiffs in the class-action suit.
[GN]


FORD MOTOR: 9th Cir. Flips Remand of Schneider Suit to State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVEN SCHNEIDER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FORD MOTOR
COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellant, Case No.
18-56347 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the district court's order remanding the putative
class action to state court.

In its order remanding the action to state court, the district
court held that Ford had not met its burden of showing, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy
exceeded CAFA's $5 million threshold.

The case arises out of an alleged defect affecting Ford's F-150
trucks.  Plaintiff-Appellee Schneider filed a complaint on behalf
of himself and a putative class of California consumers.  That
class included all persons in California who purchased or leased an
F-150 after Dec. 14, 2012.  Schneider contended the putative class
members were entitled to either damages or a restitution award
under several different legal theories.

Ford filed a notice of removal to federal court.  In its notice,
Ford asserted that, based on Schneider's restitution request, more
than $5 million was in controversy.  The district court disagreed.
It explained that under California's Song-Beverly Act, any
restitution award would be equal to the F-150s' purchase price
offset by any decrease in the car's value attributable to the
buyer's use before the defect was discovered.  Ford's notice of
removal did not explicitly speak to either element of the
Song-Beverly Act's formula: Ford relied on the trucks'
Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price ("MSRP"), not their actual
purchase prices, and Ford did not discuss the Use Offset at all.
Because of these deficiencies, the district court concluded that
Ford had not demonstrated that the amount in controversy exceeded
$5 million.

As an initial matter, the Ninth Circuit finds that the district
court should not have applied the preponderance of the evidence
standard at that point in the proceeding.  The preponderance of the
evidence standard applies only after a plaintiff contests, or a
court questions, a defendant's allegation and both sides submit
proof.  In the case, the district court questioned Ford's estimate,
but it did not give Ford the opportunity to introduce additional
evidence.  Under that posture, it was improper to evaluate the
allegations in Ford's notice of removal under the stricter
preponderance of the evidence standard.

Nevertheless, the Court holds that it is not necessary to remand
the case to permit Ford to submit proof, because Ford satisfied
that more stringent standard by attaching a declaration to its
notice of removal.  That declaration provided evidence that
approximately 68,255 new F-150s from model years 2015-2017 were
sold in California during the five years between the class date and
the date the lawsuit was filed, and that the F-150s' average MSRP
was $45,498.94 for those model years.  After multiplying those two
numbers, Ford concluded that a restitution award in favor of the
class members could exceed $3.1 billion, or 620 times the $5
million that CAFA requires as a basis for federal jurisdiction.

As the district court recognized, that estimate did not account for
either the difference between the F-150s' MSRP and their actual
purchase price or the Use Offset.  But that does not mean that
Ford's evidentiary showing was insufficient.  The $5 million
jurisdictional minimum is a very small fraction of $3.1 billion,
less than one-fifth of 1%, specifically 0.16%.  The Court finds
that, although the two issues identified by the district court will
reduce the amount in controversy, they will not reduce it by 99.84%
of the original amount calculated by Ford to be in controversy.

The Ninth Circuit concludes that Ford met its burden of showing, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy
exceeds CAFA's $5 million threshold.  Under CAFA, the case was
properly removed to federal court.  Accordingly, it reversed and
remanded the case for further proceedings.  The costs will be taxed
in favor of the Defendant.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 12, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/b49aKh from Leagle.com.


FORSTER & GARBUS: Solinsky Suit Moved to S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A case, Aaron J. Solinsky on behalf of on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Forster & Garbus LLP
and Capital One Bank LP, the Defendant, Case No. EF011267-2018, was
removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
Orange, to the  U.S. District Court fot the Southern District of
New York (White Plains) on Dec. 13, 2018. The Southern District of
New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.: 7:18-cv-11691 to the
proceeding. The suit alleges Fair Debt Collection Act violation.

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

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for Capital One Bank LP:

          Philip A. Goldstein, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP (NYC)
          1251 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 548-2167
          Facsimile: (212) 715-6275
          E-mail: pagoldstein@mcguirewoods.com

FOUNTAIN GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Pay, Romeo Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH ROMEO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE FOUNTAIN GROUP LLC, Defendant, Case No.
80796756 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., Nov. 14, 2018) is an action
against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Plaintiff Romeo worked for the Defendant as a recruiter, from
January 2010 to March 2011. From March 2011 to August 2017, the
Plaintiff worked as an account manager. From August 2017 to August
2018, the Plaintiff worked as a director of client services.

The Fountain Group LLC provides employment services. The Company
offers workforce solutions to wide range of industries. The
Fountain Group serves clients in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FTD COMPANIES: Bunting Suit Alleges ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Rasheta Bunting, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. FTD Companies, Inc. and Provide Commerce, Inc. dba
Shari's Berries, Case No. 1:18-cv-06588 (E.D. N.Y., November 19,
2018), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Shari's
Berries for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendants are denying blind and visually-impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Shari's Berries provides to their non-disabled customers
through http//:www.Berries.com. Defendants' denial of full and
equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products
and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the complaint asserts.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Kings County, New York. The
Plaintiff is legally blind and a member of a protected class under
the ADA.

The Defendants, FTD Companies, Inc. and Provide Commerce, Inc.,
control and operate Berries.com in New York State and throughout
the United States and the world. Berries.com is a commercial
website that offers products and services for online sale. The
online store allows the user to browse gourmet desserts and fruit,
gift baskets, and related products, make purchases, and perform a
variety of other functions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dan Shaked, Esq.
      SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
      44 Court St., Suite 1217
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Tel: (917) 373-9128
      E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com


GACO WESTERN: Court Denies Bid to Stay Feamster Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California denied Gaco's motion to stay the
case, SCOTT FEAMSTER, Plaintiff, v. GACO WESTERN, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-01327-HSG (N.D. Cal.), pending resolution of the
state court action under Colorado River Conservation District v.
United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976).

On Feb. 28, 2018, Feamster filed a putative class action against
Gaco, seeking damages on behalf of a California class to repair and
replace allegedly defective Gaco-formulated foam insulation.  The
same day, the Plaintiff separately filed a personal injury suit
against the Defendant in state court.

On April 16, 2018, Gaco moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's putative
class action complaint under the "doctrine of claim splitting,"
which Gaco argued precluded the Plaintiff from raising individual
personal injury claims in state court, while at the same time
pursuing product liability claims on a class-wide basis in the
Court.  In other words, Gaco objected to the Plaintiff asserting
different claims in different courts, when the claims shared
operative facts.

The Court denied Gaco's motion.  Shortly thereafter, Gaco filed the
motion, which seeks a stay pending resolution of the state court
action under Colorado River, arguing that the case and the state
case are "virtually identical."  Gaco filed its motion on Sept. 17,
2018.  The Plaintiff opposed Gaco's motion on Oct. 1, 2018.

The Plaintiff's primary objection to staying the case is that there
is "substantial doubt" as to whether the state proceeding will
resolve the action.  In their view, on the one hand, the state case
is a personal injury action that concerns whether the Gaco Western
foam installed in Feamster's home emitted toxic fumes and
particulates causing Feamster to sustain significant head and lung
injuries.  On the other hand, the issue in the case is whether a
formulation error in the foam installed in Feamster's and the class
members' homes renders the foam unfit to provide insulation and
causes it to prematurely fail, and if so, whether Feamster and the
class are entitled to recover damages sufficient to repair and
replace the defective foam.  The Plaintiff contends that these
claims present distinct damages inquiries which will require
different evidence.

Judge Gilliam agrees with the Plaintiff.  The state action's thrust
is recovery for Feamster's physical injuries, the resolution of
which will not necessarily resolve potential class claims in the
action, which seek relief based on property and structural damage.
In this vein, the Judge cannot say that if it issued a stay pending
resolution of the state action, that the federal court will have
nothing further to do in resolving any substantive part of the
case.  To the contrary, a distinct possibility exists that the case
would simply continue after resolution of the state action, which
is not what the Colorado River doctrine contemplates.

Because he finds that there is substantial doubt as to whether the
state proceedings will resolve the federal action, the Judge holds
he needs not consider non-dispositive factors.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gilliam denied the Defendant's
motion for stay pending resolution of the state court action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 14, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/dreQiZ from Leagle.com.

Scott Feamster, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Sheri L. Kelly --
slk@sherikellylaw.com -- Law Office of Sheri L. Kelly.


Gaco Western, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, Defendant,
represented by Nicolas Peter Martin -- nick.martin@wilsonelser.com
-- WILSON ELSER LLP.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Direct Purchasers Class Certified in Lamictal Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: LAMICTAL INDIRECT PURCHASER AND ANTITRUST
CONSUMER LITIGATION, THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS, Civ.
No. 12-cv-00995 (D. N.J.), Judge William H. Walls of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a direct purchaser class pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

In the putative class action, the Plaintiffs, purchasers of the
drug lamotrigine, challenge the legality of a patent litigation
settlement between the Defendant pharmaceutical companies.  The
Plaintiffs' theory of liability derives from the Defendants'
allegedly anticompetitive behavior and affects two subsets of
direct purchaser Plaintiffs who sustained damages therefrom.  In
sum, they allege that Defendant SmithKline Beecham Corp., doing
business as GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK"), entered into a contract with
Defendant Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (and its subsidiary
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.) that caused antitrust injury.

Specifically, during litigation between the Defendants, Judge
Bissell of the District ruled from the bench that Teva had shown
that at least one claim relating to the patent for Lamictal -- the
brand name epilepsy and bipolar disorder drug marketed by GSK --
was invalid, which strongly indicated that Teva would be successful
on the rest of its claims against the patent.  

Shortly thereafter, GSK and Teva reached a settlement agreement
wherein GSK made two large concessions to Teva.  First, Teva was
permitted to sell generic lamotrigine chewables -- separate and
apart from Lamictal tablets and a much smaller relative share of
the market -- three years before GSK's patent was set to expire.
Second, GSK agreed not to launch an authorized generic ("AG") until
six months after the expiration of the patent ("no-AG agreement"),
giving Teva a significant running start in the lamotrigine market
share.

The Plaintiffs claim two subsets of damages resulting to the direct
purchaser putative class from the Defendants' actions.  First, the
brand purchasers were harmed because but for the settlement
agreement, the Lamictal patent would have been invalidated and Teva
would have been able to sell generic lamotrigine three years
earlier, which would have allowed Lamictal purchasers to either buy
Lamictal at a lower price (based on simple economics) or simply
purchase the generic at a lower cost.  Second, the generic
purchasers were harmed because but for the settlement agreement,
GSK would have not been bound by the no-AG agreement and would have
produced their own generic six months earlier, which would have
dropped prices in generic lamotrigine across the board.  These in
total are the alleged damages suffered by the direct purchaser
class.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify the class of all persons or entities
in the United States and its territories who purchased Lamictal
Tablets directly from GSK, or who purchased a generic version of
lamotrigine tablets directly from Teva, at any time during the
Class Period from Feb. 17, 2008 until Jan. 22, 2009.

Judge Walls granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
He finds that the Plaintiffs met the requirements of Rule 23(a)
and Rule 23(b)(3).

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 12, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/r4DHTD from Leagle.com.

LOUISIANA WHOLESALE DRUG CO., INC., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Lead Plaintiff, represented by ELENA K.
CHAN -- echan@garwingerstein.com -- GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP,
KIMBERLY MARION HENNINGS, GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP, MATTHEW F.
GATELY, COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP & PETER S.
PEARLMAN -- psp@njlawfirm.com -- COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN
& KNOPF, LLP.

KING DRUG COMPANY OF FLORENCE, INC., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Lead Plaintiff, represented by ELENA K.
CHAN, GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP, KIMBERLY MARION HENNINGS,
GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP & PETER S. PEARLMAN, COHN, LIFLAND,
PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF, LLP.

ROCHESTER DRUG CO-OPERATIVE, INC., Lead Plaintiff, represented by
CAITLIN G. COSLETT -- ccoslett@bm.net -- BERGER MONTAGUE PC & PETER
S. PEARLMAN, COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF, LLP.

MEIJER INC. & MEIJER DISTRIBUTION, INC., Plaintiff Consolidateds,
represented by LINDSEY H. TAYLOR -- LTaylor@carellabyrne.com --
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO.

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, doing business as GLAXOSMITHKLINE,
Defendant, represented by DOUGLAS SCOTT EAKELEY --
deakeley@lowenstein.com -- LOWENSTEIN SANDLER PC, LINDSAY
DOBRZYNSKI BREEDLOVE -- breedlovel@pepperlaw.com -- PEPPER HAMILTON
LLP, MELISSA J. HATCH, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP & JOSEPH ALDO FISCHETTI
-- jfischetti@lowenstein.com -- LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP.

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS & TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendants, represented by MICHAEL E.
PATUNAS, PATUNAS LAW LLC.

GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC, formerly SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a/
GlaxoSmithKline, Defendant, represented by CONNIE LEE, PEPPER
HAMILTON LLP & GAVIN J. ROONEY, LOWENSTEIN SANDLER, PC.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Amicus, represented by TIMOTHY JOHN
SLATTERY, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

MEIJER INC. & MEIJER DISTRIBUTION, INC., Interested Partys,
represented by LINDSEY H. TAYLOR, CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN,
BRODY & AGNELLO.


GLENCORE PLC: Levi & Korsinsky to Lead in Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HENRY CHURCH VI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GLENCORE PLC, IVAN
GLASENBERG, and STEVEN KALMIN, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-11477
(SDW)(CLW)(D. N.J.), Judge Susan D. Wigenton of the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey (i) granted Randall Seymour's
Motions to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and for Approval of Selection of
Lead Counsel; and (ii) denied Michael Pera's Motion to Appoint Lead
Plaintiff and for Approval of Selection of Lead Counsel.

On July 9, 2018, Plaintiff Henry Church, VI filed the putative
class action, alleging that Glencore, Glasenberg, Glencore's CEO,
and Kalmin, Glencore's CFO, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, which was
promulgated thereunder.

In short, the Complaint alleges that Glencore, a company that
engages in the production, refinement, processing, storage,
transport and marketing of metals and minerals, energy products,
and agricultural products worldwide, has common stock that trades
on the OTC Exchange under the ticker symbols "GLCNF" and "GLNCY."
From Sept. 30, 2016 through July 2, 2018, the Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse
facts relating to an ensuing bribery investigation into Glencore.
After news of the investigation was published, Glencore's common
shares declined in market value, damaging investors.  The Plaintiff
contends that he and the other class members were damaged as a
result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions.

On Sept. 7, 2018, three competing Motions to Appoint Lead Plaintiff
and for Approval of Selection of Lead Counsel were filed.
Opposition briefs were filed on Sept. 17, 2018, and reply briefs
were filed on Sept. 24, 2018.  The motion filed by Plaintiff Daniel
Lowman was withdrawn on Sept. 20, 2018.  Thus, only the motions of
Movants Seymour and Pera motions are before the Court.

Based on the numbers, Judge Wigenton finds it apparent that Movant
Seymour has the largest financial interest in the litigation.
Movant Seymour indicates that during the Class Period he purchased
8,000 GLCNF shares at a cost of $45,6000, and sustained losses in
the amount of $11,930.91.  Movant Pera indicates that he purchased
1,500 GLNCY shares at a cost of $16,339.95, and suffered financial
losses of $4,025.28 during the Class Period.

Next, the Judge finds that Movant Seymour satisfies the typicality
requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) because his claims arise from the same
set of events and conduct that gives rise to other class members'
claims.  He also satisfies the adequacy requirement under Rule
23(a)(4) because he is able and incentivized to represent the class
vigorously; he has retained the counsel that is experienced in
litigating securities class actions; and there appears to be no
conflict between his claims and those asserted on behalf of the
class.  Because Movant Seymour seeks to serve as the lead Plaintiff
in his individual capacity, the Judge holds she needs not address
the second factor.  Based on her analysis, she identifies Movant
Seymour as the most adequate Plaintiff.

Having determined that Movant Seymour is the most adequate
Plaintiff, the Judge next considers whether anyone can prove that
he will not do a fair and adequate job.  She finds that Movant Pera
has failed to set forth any assertions that would rise to the level
of proof required to rebut the presumption that Movant Seymour is
the most adequate Plaintiff.

Finally, Movant Seymour requests that the Court appoints Levi &
Korsinsky LLP to serve as the lead counsel.  Levi & Korsinsky LLP
is a national law firm with extensive experience litigating
securities class actions.  Because the Judge finds no reason to
disapprove of Movant Seymour's selected counsel, Levi & Korsinsky
LLP will be appointed as the lead counsel for the action.

For the reasons she set forth, Judge Wigenton (i) granted Movant
Seymour's Motion and (ii) denied Movant Pera's Motion.  An
appropriate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 12, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/o7AxPe from Leagle.com.

Daniel Lowman, Movant, represented by LAURENCE M. ROSEN --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA.

Michael Pera, Movant, represented by DONALD A. ECKLUND --
DEcklund@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY
& AGNELLO, P.C.

Randall Seymour, Lead Plaintiff, represented by EDUARD KORSINSKY --
ek@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP.

HENRY CHURCH VI, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by LAURENCE M. ROSEN, THE ROSEN
LAW FIRM, PA.


GOLD PROTECTION: Underpays Security Guards, Harrell Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
KADERIA L. HARRELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOLD PROTECTION SERVICES, INC.;
and ALAIN URQUIOLA, Defendants, Case No. 80807813 (Fla. Cir.,
Miami-Dade County, Nov. 14, 2018) seeks to recover from the
Defendant unpaid overtime compensation, prejudgment interest,
maximum liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Harrell was employed by the Defendants as security
guard.

Gold Protection Services, Inc. is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Florida. The company is
engaged as a security agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GONZALES CORPORATION: Diaz Seeks Overtime Pay for Farm Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
OLIVIA DIAZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. L. GONZALES CORPORATION, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No.
18CECG04335 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 3, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants did (and do) business by
employing seasonal farm labor employees to clean and process
produce (such as tomatoes and lettuce), and employed Plaintiff and
other aggrieved employees within Fresno County and the State of
California. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt
seasonal farm labor employee from 1999 to October 22, 2017. The
Plaintiff was not boarded and lodged by Defendants during her
employment. Although the Plaintiff was compensated weekly, the
Defendants failed to pay her all wages earned up to and including
the fourth day before the scheduled payday. Instead, Defendants
paid Plaintiff on a one-week delay -- a check dated on Saturday
would compensate Plaintiff and for wages earned from Monday through
Sunday of the previous workweek. This resulted in an approximately
six-day delay from the earning of wages to compensation, in
violation of the "fourth day" requirement found in Labor Code.

The Defendants failed to authorize and permit Plaintiff to take all
required rest periods because the Defendants do not maintain a
written rest period policy. Instead, rest periods were verbally
authorized by supervisors and Plaintiff was not authorized or
permitted to take a second paid rest period when she worked shifts
between 6.1 and 8.0 hours. Similarly, when Plaintiff worked shifts
in excess of 10.0 hours, she was not authorized and permitted to
take a third paid rest period. Thus, Plaintiff was only authorized
and permitted to take up to two paid rest periods when she worked
shifts in excess of 8.0 hours. Despite Defendants' failure to
authorize and permit paid rest periods due to their uniform and
unlawful practices, the Defendants never provided Plaintiff with an
hour of pay at her regular rate for each rest period violation as
required by Labor Code section 226.7. As a result of Defendants'
failure to pay all overtime wages, as well as meal and rest period
premium wages, Defendants maintained inaccurate payroll records,
issued inaccurate wage statements, and failed to pay all final
wages owed to Plaintiff upon her separation of employment, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq.
          Matthew K. Moen, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
                  arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com
                  mmoen@haineslawgroup.com

GRIMLEY FINANCIAL: Perry Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
TAMIKA W. PERRY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GRIMLEY FINANCIAL CORP., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-16135-NLH-JS (D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The
case is assigned to Judge Noel L. Hillman and referred to
Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider.

Grimley Financial Corp. is a full service, value-added 3rd party
collection agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          Zemel Law LLC
          1373 Broad Street, Suite 203-C
          Clifton, NJ 07013
          Telephone: (862) 227-3106
          E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com


HASBRO INC: Bunting Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hasbro, Inc. The case
is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Hasbro, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07084 (E.D. N.Y.,
December 13, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Hasbro, Inc. is an American multinational toy and board game
company. It is the largest toy maker in the world in terms of stock
market value, and third largest with revenues of approximately
$5.12 billion. Hasbro acquired the trademarks and products of
Kenner, Parker Brothers, and Milton Bradley, among others.[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



HOLLANDER HOTEL: Violates ADA, Borozny Suit Asserts
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hollander Hotel LLC.
The case is styled as Austin Borozny, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hollander Hotel LLC, a
Florida limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
8:18-cv-03015-CEH-SPF (M.D. Fla., December 13, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Located in Saint Petersburg city centre, this boutique hotel
features an on-site restaurant and heated outdoor pool with a
poolside bar, and free WiFi.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
   The Advocacy Group, LLC
   200 SE 6th St Ste 504
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3424
   Tel: (954) 282-1858
   Fax: (844) 786-3694
   Email: jkerr@advocacypa.com



HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Underpays Loan Officers, Hannah Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM HANNAH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES INCORPORATED, d/b/a
THE HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07564
(N.D. Ill., Nov. 14, 2018) is an action against the Defendant's
failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Hannah was employed by the Defendant as loan
officer.

Huntington Bancshares Incorporated operates as a holding company
for The Huntington National Bank that provides commercial, small
business, consumer, and mortgage banking services. Huntington
Bancshares Incorporated was founded in 1866 and is headquartered in
Columbus, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 f
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  rstephan@stephanzouras.com


JLS GROUP: Lubas Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Jozef Lubas, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. JLS Group, Inc. JLS Group Construction LLC, Guiliano
Brother's LLC, SEG Maintenance, Inc., Steve Sekato, Charlie
Cordero, Jose Ordones, Richard Guiliano, Joseph Figliola, John Does
1-10, and Jane Does 1-10, Case No. 1:18-cv-06611 (E.D. N.Y.,
November 19, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime
wages, prevailing wages, liquidated damages and reasonable
attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the
New York Labor Law.

Additionally, this action seeks damages, liquidated damages, and
punitive damages arising out of breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, fraud by certain or all Defendants and against the
Individual Defendants for intentionally inducing the Corporate
Defendants into violating the employee contract between the
Corporate Defendants and the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated of wages they rightfully earned working for the Corporate
Defendants.

The Defendants are construction companies in New York. The
Individual Defendants are managers and officers of the corporate
Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darius A. Marzec, Esq.
      MARZEC LAW FIRM, PC
      776A Manhattan Avenue, Ste. 104
      Brooklyn, NY 11222
      Tel: (718) 609-0303
      E-mail: dmarzec@marzeclaw.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Melissinos Trading Sues over Trading Manipulation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSINOS TRADING, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.; JOHN
EDMONDS; and JOHN DOE No. 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10628
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 2018) alleges that the Defendants engaged in
the unlawful and intentional manipulation of gold, silver,
platinum, and palladium futures contracts traded on the New York
Mercantile Exchange ("NYMEX") and the Commodity Exchange, Inc.
("COMEX") and options on precious metals futures contracts traded
on NYMEX and COMEX.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' use of
spoof orders would indicate to market participants the appearance
of legitimate supply and demand on the market and induce other
market participants to change their trading patterns based on those
false appearances. This would result in class members trading
against the Defendants' genuine orders, typically because those
genuine orders had prices that appeared more favorable because of
the Defendants' spoofing. Accordingly, the Defendants caused the
Plaintiff and other members of the class to trade at prices,
quantities, and times at which they would not have traded through
the use of manipulative and disruptive trade practices.

The Defendants' use of spoofing was intended to, and did,
artificially move the prices of NYMEX and COMEX precious metals
futures contracts and options on such contracts during the Class
Period in directions that were favorable to the Defendants but
unfavorable to Plaintiff and the Class members.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company
worldwide. JPMorgan Chase & Co. was founded in 1799 and is
headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Martin, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          33 Whitehall Street, 14 th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (646) 357-1100
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Timothy S. Kearns, Esq.
          Reena A. Gambhir, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: tkearns@hausfeld.com
                  rgambhir@hausfeld.com

               - and -

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


JUUL LABS: Removes Malaney et al. Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of TIMOTHY MALANEY; and BRENDAN GORMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. JUUL LABS, INC.; and PAX LABS, INC., Defendants,
filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 18STCV02948)
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on November 14, 2018. The clerk of court for the Central District
of California assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-09605-JAK-PLA. The case is
assigned to Judge John A. Kronstadt and referred to Judge Paul L.
Abrams.

JUUL Labs, Inc. manufactures and markets e-cigarettes. The company
offers a temperature regulation system to heat nicotine-based
liquid to an ideal level, which is designed to avoid burning. Its
products include device kits, JUULpods, and accessories in
different flavors. The company retails its products online, through
its e-commerce platform. JUUL Labs, Inc. was incorporated in 2007
and is based in San Francisco, California. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Austin V. Schwing, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
          Telephone: (415) 393-8200
          Facsimile: (415) 393-8306
          E-mail: aschwing@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Jessica R. Culpepper, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7000
          Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
          E-mail: jculpepper@gibsondunn.com


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Lopez Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Golden Eagle Insurance Corporation, Liberty Mutual
Insurance Company and Safeco Insurance Company of America filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Trinidad Lopez, et
al. v. LMIC, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-05576-AB-JC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Honorable
Andre Birotte, Jr., granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

The Court certified the Class and the Waiting Time Penalties
Subclass as to all claims except the accurate wage statement claim.
The Plaintiffs have sought class certification on behalf of
current, former, and future employees of the Defendants.  The
putative class consists of California-based, non-management claims
handlers, including special investigative unit ("SIU")
investigators.

Judge Birotte further separated the Class into these additional
subclasses: (1) Bodily Injury Claims Handlers, (2) Worker's
Compensation Claims Handlers, (3) Property Claims Handlers, (4) SIU
Investigators, and (5) Claims Handlers Who Managed Litigated
Files.

The appellate case is captioned as Trinidad Lopez, et al. v. LMIC,
et al., Case No. 18-80178, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents TRINIDAD LOPEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, AMANE PEREZ, NATHAN FESLER, GINA
MCPHERSON, NANCY LEE YANG, ANTHONY CASTILLO and JENNIFER DOUD are
represented by:

          Vincent James DeSimone, Esq.
          V. JAMES DESIMONE LAW
          13160 Mindanao Way, Suite 280
          Marina del Rey, CA 90292
          Telephone: (310) 693-5561
          E-mail: vjdesimone@gmail.com

               - and -

          Daniel Joseph Koes, Esq.
          SHENOI KOES LLP
          175 So. Lake Street
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 792-2300
          Facsimile: (626) 792-2311
          E-mail: dkoes@shenoikoes.com

               - and -

          Aidan C. McGlaze, Esq.
          Colleen Marika Mullen, Esq.
          Michael Seplow, Esq.
          SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS AND HOFFMAN LLP
          11543 W. Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 396-0731
          Facsimile: (310) 399-7040
          Benjamin Schonbrun, Esq.
          E-mail: amcglaze@sshhlaw.com
                  cmullen@sshhlaw.com
                  mseplow@sshhlaw.com
                  bschonbrun@sshhlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Rapkin, Esq.
          Scott Rapkin, Esq.
          RAPKIN & ASSOCIATES, LLP
          723 Ocean Front Walk
          Venice, CA 90291
          Telephone: (310) 319-5465
          Facsimile: (310) 319-5355
          E-mail: msrapkin@gmail.com
                  scottrapkin@rapkinesq.com

Defendants-Petitioners LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GOLDEN
EAGLE INSURANCE CORPORATION and SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
are represented by:

          David Ryan Carpenter, Esq.
          Mark D. Campbell, Esq.
          Douglas R. Hart, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West 5th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896-6679
          E-mail: drcarpenter@sidley.com
                  mcampbell@sidley.com
                  dhart@sidley.com


LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT: Weinstein Sues over Unfinished Concert
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TOMMY WEINSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; and DOES 1
to 25, Defendants, Case No. 18STCV04844 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., Nov. 14, 2018) is an action against the Defendants in
relation to the Marshmello concert at Festival Pier in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on May 12, 2018.

According to the complaint, the Defendant breached an implied
contract because the Plaintiff and the class purchased a ticket to
the Marshmello May 12, 2018 concert expecting to see Marshmello
perform the usual and customary concert lasting in excess of one
hour and 15 minutes, but were instead deprived of the benefits
because Marshmello cut the performance short, leaving the state
after about only 30 minutes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David N. Lake, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID N. LAKE
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          16130 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 650
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 788-5100
          Facsimile: (818) 479-9990


LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Hunter Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER HUNTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEPUTY
SANDOVAL, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-09257-CJC (SHK)
(C.D. Cal.), Judge Cormac J. Carney of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California

On June 29, 2018, Hunter, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") against Los Angeles County
Employees at the Twin Towers Correctional Facility ("TTCF"), Deputy
Sandoval, Sergeant Benjamin, and Doe Defendants 1-15.  The
Plaintiff, a prisoner at TTCF, sought to recover damages under the
Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") on behalf of himself and a
potential class of 10 other inmates for intentional infliction of
emotional distress.

On Aug. 31, 2018, the Court issued an Order dismissing the FAC with
leave to amend on the following grounds: (1) the Plaintiff could
not maintain a class action lawsuit as a pro se litigant; (2) the
Defendants were improper parties to an FTCA lawsuit; (3) the
Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege an Eighth Amendment
violation against Defendants in their individual or official
capacities; and (4) the Plaintiff failed to name the Doe
Defendants.  

The Court granted the Plaintiff an opportunity to file a Second
Amended Complaint ("SAC").  It instructed the Plaintiff to file the
SAC within 21 days of the order, i.e., by Sept. 21, 2018.  The
Plaintiff, however, has not complied with the Court's notice and as
of the date of the Order -- nearly two months after the deadline --
the Plaintiff has not filed a SAC.

After the Plaintiff failed to file a SAC by the deadline, the Court
issued an Order to Show Cause ("OSC") requiring that, by Oct. 25,
2018, the Plaintiff satisfy one of the following requirements: (a)
advise the Court that he does not desire to pursue the action; (b)
if he does desire to pursue the action, show good cause in writing,
if any exists, why he has not timely filed with the Court his SAC,
and why the Court should not recommend that this action be
dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the
Court's prior Order; or (c) file a SAC.  The Court informed him
that the Court may deem the Plaintiff's failure to comply with the
OSC a further violation of a Court order justifying dismissal, or
as further evidence of a lack of prosecution on the Plaintiff's
part.

As of the date of the Order, the Plaintiff has not complied with
any of the options in the Court's OSC.  Considering the Plaintiff's
failure to prosecute the matter diligently and follow Court orders,
Judge Carney dismissed the Plaintiff's action, without prejudice,
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 41-1.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 12, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/2dosPp from Leagle.com.

Christopher Hunter, Plaintiff, pro se.


LUXOTTICA USA: Eyewear Maker Faces ADA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Luxottica USA LLC.
The case is styled as Derrick U Dennis, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Luxottica USA LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07111 (E.D. N.Y., December 13, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Luxottica Group designs, manufactures and distributes fashion,
luxury, sports and performance eyewear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



MADCADI INC: Children's Wear Maker Faces Suit Under ADA
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Madcadi Inc. The case
is styled as Derrick U Dennis, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Madcadi Inc, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-07114 (E.D. N.Y., December 13, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Madcadi Inc. is in the Children's Wear business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MANSUR GAVRIEL: Faces Dennis Class Suit Over ADA Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Derrick U Dennis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Mansur Gavriel LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-07108 (E.D. N.Y., December 13, 2018) seeks to put an end to
systemic civil rights violations committed by Defendant, against
sight-impaired, disabled individuals, as is under Title III of the
Americans with Disability Act ("ADA"), within the State of New York
and across the United States.

The Plaintiff commences this civil rights action against the
Defendant for the Defendant's failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full
and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its
products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its
physical location, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under
the Americans with Disabilities Act, asserts the complaint.

Because the Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired individuals, it violates the ADA. The
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's website will thus become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired persons, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff, Derrick U Dennis, at all relevant times, was a
resident of Queens County. The Plaintiff is a legally blind,
visually-impaired, handicapped person.

Mansur Gavriel LLC is a luxury private designer and offers a
collection of bags, shoes and ready-to-wear clothing. Defendant's
website provides consumers with access to ready to wear fashion
pieces for both men and women, and an array of goods and services,
ranging from jackets, dresses, skirts, blouses, bottoms, leather
shoes and bags and services including store locations and hours,
the ability to browse and purchase store products. The Defendant
operates MANSUR GAVRIEL LLC, along with a store and a website,
www.mansurgavriel.com, offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services which Defendant offers
in connection with its store. The Defendant operates a store in New
York, which is located at 134 Wooster St New York, NY 10012. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11415
     Phone: (718) 971-9474
     Facsimile: (718) 865-0943
     Email: Jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Maldini Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Maldini, Kathleen Frakes Hevener, and Tamara Wallace,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Marriott International, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-03841-ELH (D. Md., December 13, 2018) is a class action
against Defendants for their failure to secure and safeguard its
customers' protected personal information ("PII").

Marriott announced on November 30, 2018 that it was subject to one
of the largest data breaches in the nation's history when
unauthorized persons compromised the personal information of up to
500 million hotel guests from Marriott's Starwood guest reservation
database as part of an ongoing, four-year long data breach.

The complaint asserts that Marriott failed to secure and safeguard
its customers' personally identifiable information 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") contained in Starwood's
guest reservation database. Starwood and Marriott collected this
information at the time customers registered on one of its hotel
websites, 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.

During the four-year breach, Marriott failed to detect the hackers'
presence, notice the massive amounts of data that was being stolen
from its databases, or take any steps to investigate the numerous
other red flags that should have warned the company about what was
happening. As a result of Marriott's failure to protect the
consumer information it was entrusted to safeguard, Plaintiffs and
members of the Class have been exposed to fraud, identity theft,
financial harm and, are subject to a heightened, imminent risk of
such harm in the future.  Marriott also failed to provide timely,
accurate, and adequate notice to Plaintiffs and members of the
Class that their PCD and PII had been stolen, as well as precisely
what types of information were stolen, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Peter Maldini is a citizen and resident of the State of
Maryland. Mr. Maldini has been a member of Defendant's Loyalty
Program for more than fifteen years.

Plaintiff Kathleen Frakes Hevener has been a citizen and resident
of the State of Florida since October 2017. Prior to October 2017,
Ms. Hevener was a citizen and resident of the State of Maryland.
Ms. Hevener has been a member of Defendant's Loyalty Program for
more than ten years.

Plaintiff Tamara Wallace is a citizen and resident of the State of
North Carolina. Ms. Wallace is a member of Defendant's Loyalty
Program.

Marriott International, Inc. ("Marriott") is a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business in Bethesda, MD. Marriott
primarily derives its revenues from hotel and restaurant
operations. Starwood is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Marriott.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     D. Bruce Poole, Esq.
     THE POOLE LAW GROUP
     29 W. Franklin Street
     Hagerstown, MD 21740
     Phone: 301-790-3600
     Fax: 301-714-0082
     Email: bruce.poole@poolelg.com

          - and -

     Roland Tellis, Esq.
     David Fernandes, Esq.
     Elizabeth Smiley, Esq.
     BARON & BUDD, P.C.
     15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
     Encino, CA 91436
     Phone: 818-839-9698
     Email: esmiley@baronbudd.com
            dfernandes@baronbudd.com
            rtellis@baronbudd.com


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Moore Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Moore and Dennis Desalvo, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Marriott International,
Inc. and Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 8:18-cv-03848-TDC (D. Md., December 13, 2018) is a class
action against Defendants for their failure to secure and safeguard
hundreds of millions of customers' protected personal information,
including their names, addresses, birthdates, passport numbers,
email addresses, phone numbers, and encrypted payment card numbers
along with expiration dates ("PII") despite the unauthorized access
of such information since 2014.

On September 8, 2018, Marriot received an alert from an internal
security tool of an attempt to access its Starwood Database. Upon
investigation, Marriott confirmed that unauthorized access to the
Starwood Database had been occurring since 2014 and that an
unauthorized party had copied and encrypted guest information.

On November 19, 2018, Marriot determined that the compromised
information from the Starwood Database included the PII of more
than 500 million guests who had made a reservation at a Starwood
property at least once since 2014. Specifically, Marriott provided
that for about 327 million guests, that compromised information
included some combination of their name, mailing address, phone
number, email address, passport number, Starwood Preferred Guest
account information, date of birth, gender, arrival, and departure
information, reservation date, and communication preferences. For
an undisclosed number of guests, the compromised information also
included their payment encrypted payment card number along with the
expiration date.

Furthermore, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the Starwood
Database remains vulnerable to hackers as of the date of this
filing, and that Defendants have yet to take the proper steps to
secure the Starwood Database and protect their customers' PII even
though more than 3 months have passed since they became aware of
the Starwood Data Breach, says the complaint

Plaintiff Pamela Moore is, and at all relevant times was, a citizen
of the State of Colorado. Plaintiff Moore is a Starwood Preferred
Guest whose credit card is linked to her Starwood Preferred Guest
account.

Plaintiff Dennis Desalvo is, and at all relevant times was, a
citizen of the State of New Jersey. Plaintiff Desalvo is a Starwood
Preferred Guest whose credit card is linked to his Starwood
Preferred Guest account.

Marriott International, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 10400 Fernwood Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817. Marriott conducts business throughout this
District, the State of Maryland, and the United States.

Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC is an indirect,
wholly-owned subsidiary of Marriott. On September 23, 2016,
Marriott completed the acquisition of Starwood, formerly known as
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. Starwood conducts
business throughout this District, the State of Maryland, and the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ivy T. Ngo, Esq.
     Franklin D. Azar & Associates, P.C.
     14426 E. Evans Avenue
     Aurora, CO 80014
     Phone: 303-757-3300
     Facsimile: 720-213-5131
     Email: ngoi@fdazar.com


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sempre Suit Asserts Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marriott
International, Inc. The case is styled as Janel Sempre,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Marriott International, Inc., Starwood Hotels &
Resorts Worldwide Inc. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-10324 (C.D. Cal., December 13, 2018).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Alex R Straus, Esq.
   Ahdoot and Wolfson PC
   10728 Lindbrook Drive
   Los Angeles, CA 90024
   Tel: (310) 474-9111
   Fax: (310) 474-8585
   Email: astraus@ahdootwolfson.com


MARRIOTT: Faces Class Actions Following Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------
Catalin Cimpanu, writing for ZDNet, reports that hours after
announcing a data breach on Nov. 30, two Oregon men sued
international hotel chain Marriott for exposing their data. Their
lawsuit was followed hours later by another one filed in the state
of Maryland.

Both lawsuits are seeking class-action status. While plaintiffs in
the Maryland lawsuit didn't specify the amount of damages they were
seeking from Marriott, the plaintiffs in the Oregon lawsuit want
$12.5 billion in costs and losses.

This should equate to $25 for each of the 500 million users who had
their personal data stolen from Marriott's servers in the breach
announced on Nov. 30.

The two Oregon plaintiffs told a local newspaper, that they view
the $25 as a minimum value for the time users will spend canceling
credit cards due to the Marriott hack.

The Maryland lawsuit was filed by Baltimore law firm Murphy, Falcon
& Murphy, according to a press release.

Both lawsuits have been filed after Marriott announced a massive
data breach on Nov. 30, revealing that hackers stole the personal
details of nearly 500 million users. The hotel chain didn't say for
how many users hackers also managed to get access to financial
data, but the tally can't be larger than 327 million, according to
a Marriott press release.

Guests who stayed at Marriott's Starwood-branded hotels in the past
four years were affected. Starwood brands include W Hotels, St.
Regis, Sheraton Hotels & Resorts, Westin Hotels & Resorts, Element
Hotels, Aloft Hotels, The Luxury Collection, Tribute Portfolio, Le
Méridien Hotels & Resorts, Four Points by Sheraton and Design
Hotels.

Other class-action lawsuits against Marriott are expected to be
filed in the coming months. Most of these lawsuits will be merged
together to simplify court proceedings. Such class-action lawsuits
usually take years to reach trial and in most instances end with a
settlement. For example, Uber just agreed to pay $148 million to
settle a class-action for its 2016 hack, while Yahoo agreed to pay
as much as $85 million for a 2014 hack that exposed the personal
details of 500 million users.

The Marriott hack is tied for the second biggest hack of all time
with this aforementioned Yahoo hack. The top spot goes to the same
Yahoo, but for a 2013 breach during which hackers stole the
personal details of three billion users.

Marriot shares saw a maximum 8.7 percent drop after announcing the
data breach, but they are now 5 percent down compared to the Nov.
29 closing price. Research released in 2017 by Centrify showed that
hacks and data breaches don't have a long-term impact on share
prices and that most companies recover. [GN]


MBF INSPECTION: Court Rules on Bid to Lift Stay in Ganci Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: MBF Inspection Services, Inc., Debtor, Case No.
18-11579-t11 (D. N.M.), Judge David D. Thuma of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of New Mexico has issued a Memorandum Opinon
on Ganci Creditors' motion for relief from automatic stay.

The Ganci Creditors filed their instant motion so they can complete
pending federal court litigation.  MBF, a New Mexico corporation
headquartered in Roswell, New Mexico, is in the business of
inspecting oil and gas pipelines. It employs certified pipeline
inspectors throughout the United States and does business in 43
states.  The Debtor pays its inspectors by the day, at an
agreed-upon rate.  Paying inspectors at a daily rate is the
industry standard.  Under the daily rate compensation system,
inspectors do not get overtime pay if they work more than eight
hours a day or 40 hours a week.  Nevertheless, certified pipeline
inspectors are well paid.  Currently, a busy inspector can make up
to $15,000 a month.

The Debtor has agreements with its inspectors about the terms of
employment, including the applicable day rate, a per diem for
living expenses, and mileage reimbursement.  It classifies its
inspectors as salaried employees, which means that Debtor is not
required to pay them for overtime work.

Thomas Ganci is a pipeline inspector and a former employee of the
Debtor.  He worked in Ohio and was paid by the day like the
Debtor's other inspectors.  He sued the Debtor in October 2015,
claiming that the Debtor's policy of not paying overtime violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and Ohio labor laws.  In
essence, Ganci argues that he was an hourly employee, not a
salaried employee, and therefore was entitled to overtime.

Ganci brought his action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.  The action was certified as a class
action, with about 52 Plaintiffs asserting FLSA claims and another
68 Plaintiffs asserting state law claims ("Ganci Creditors").  The
most important legal issue is whether the Ganci Creditors were
hourly employees or salaried employees.

While the Ganci litigation was pending, the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio decided Hughes v. Gulf Interstate
Field Services, Inc., 2016 WL 4197596 (S.D. Ohio).  The decision
was favorable to the Debtor, ruling that pipeline inspectors could
be considered salaried employees under the FLSA even if their
employment agreements were for daily pay, so long as they actually
received the specified minimum weekly amount.

The Hughes plaintiffs appealed the district court decision.  On
Dec. 19, 2017, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court.  The
Sixth Circuit ruled that pipeline inspectors cannot be considered
salaried employees unless they were guaranteed the requisite
minimum weekly salary.  The ruling was a major victory for the
Ganci Creditors.

In April 2018, the parties filed cross motions for partial summary
judgment.  In its Memorandum in Opposition to the laintiff's Motion
for Summary Judgment, the Debtor included the footnote that states
that MBF is thus not opposing those portions of the Plaintiff's
Motion which seek summary judgment on MBF's 1) FLSA exemption
defense for all Ohio Plaintiffs and all FLSA Plaintiffs without at
least one contract with MBF containing a guaranteed-pay provision;
2) 29 U.S.C. Section259 good faith defense; and 3) fifth
(estoppel), sixth (failure to mitigate), seventh (latches), tenth
(unclean hands) and eleventh (waiver) affirmative defenses.  The
Ohio district court has not ruled on the summary judgment motions.

On June 22, 2018, the Debtor filed the bankruptcy case.  Its
stockholders testified that if the Debtor ceased operating, it
would be difficult to collect the accounts receivable and work in
progress because the customers would offset the amounts due with
breach of contract damage claims.  In 2017, the Debtor made
approximately $1.4 million in profit. In 2018, the projected income
is lower, and could be less than $770,000.  Senior District Court
Judge George C. Smith presides over the Ganci litigation.

During 2017, the Debtor spent about $500,000 in legal and
professional fees on the Ganci litigation.  It expects to pay a
similar amount in 2018.  Altogether, the Debtor has spent about
$950,000 on labor litigation related to the overtime issue.  On
Aug. 27, 2018 the Ganci Creditors filed a motion for relief from
the automatic stay, so they could return to Ohio and complete the
litigation.

Judge Thuman finds that the caveat is that the same law should
apply to the Ganci Creditors' claims in the Court as in Ohio.
Otherwise, shifting the forum from Ohio to the Court could be an
unfair litigation tactic.  He therefore will deny the stay relief
motion if the Debtor agrees to the following conditions: (i) the
Debtor waives its right to a jury trial; (ii) in the claims
allowance process, the Footnote One Concessions continue to bind
the Debtor, both before the Court and on appeal; (iii) the Debtor
agrees, both before the Court and in any appeal, that Sixth Circuit
law (including without limitation the Hughes decision) applies to
the Ganci Creditors' claims; and (iv) once the Ganci Creditors file
proofs of claim, the Debtor will promptly assert any claim
objections, which will be subject to the concessions and applicable
law agreement.

On the other hand, if the Debtor is not willing to agree to these
conditions, then the Judge believes that the proper course would be
to lift the automatic stay so the Ganci litigation could proceed to
judgment.

Judge Thuman holds taht if the Debtor agrees to the above
conditions, he will deny the motion for relief from stay.
Otherwise, the motion will be granted.  The Debtor should file a
statement on the docket within 10 calendar days from the date of
the Memorandum Opinion, indicating its decision in the matter.
Shortly after the statement is filed, the Judge will enter an order
on the Ganci Creditors' stay relief motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 12, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/yjabk7 from Leagle.com.

MBF Inspection Services, Inc., Debtor, represented by Jennie
Behles, Behles Law Firm PC & Richard E. Olson, Hinkle Shanor LLP.

United States Trustee, U.S. Trustee, represented by Leonard K.
Martinez-Metzgar, Office of the U.S. Trustee & Alice Nystel Page,
Office of the U.S. Trustee.

Unsecured Creditors Committee, Creditor Committee, represented by
John-Patrick McGinnis Fritz -- jpf@lnbyb.com  -- & Daniel Harris
Reiss -- dhr@lnbyb.com -- Levene, Neale, Bender, Yoo & Brill
L.L.P.


MDL 2179: Court Stays Discoveries in BELO Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana issued an Order staying All Discovery in the case
captioned IN RE: OIL SPILL by the OIL RIG "DEEPWATER HORIZON" in
the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, Applies to: 12-CV-968: BELO.
MDL No. 2179. (E.D. La.)

Having considered the competing case management order proposals
(Proposed CMO) submitted by counsel, together with their recently
submitted memoranda, which the Court have ordered separately filed
in the record, the oral representations of counsel during the
status conferences, the record and the applicable law, the court
finds that the parties through their Settlement Agreement have
resolved the principal common issues that were the basis for
including these claims in MDL No. 2179.

The court further finds that the issues reserved for further
litigation in the BELO provisions of the Settlement Agreement are
so highly particularized as to individual plaintiffs that they
substantially predominate over any common issues that might merit
extensive consolidated discovery procedures of the type proposed by
counsel, as evidenced by the prohibition in the Settlement
Agreement against class action allegations in all BELO cases.  

No discovery may be commenced and all discovery in all BELO
lawsuits is stayed at this time.

Discovery is prohibited until after any BELO lawsuit is transferred
to another court or reallotted within the Eastern District of
Louisiana as provided above. After transfer or reallotment, special
procedures for discovery, consolidation or other matters, if any,
will be determined by the presiding judge in the transferee court
or reallotted section.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 26, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybd5gafl from Leagle.com.

Antonio Saavedra-Vargas, Plaintiff, represented by Craig Downs ,
Downs Law Group, PA & Nathan Lee Nelson, Downs Law Group, PA.


MDL 2389: Court OKs $35MM Settlement in IPO Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for
Final Approval of the Proposed Settlement in the case captioned IN
RE FACEBOOK, INC., IPO SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. MDL
No. 12-2389. (S.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint, which alleged violations of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The
Plaintiffs' consolidated class action complaint alleged, among
other things, that certain disclosures made by the Defendants, in
registration statement effective at the time of its IPO
(Registration Statement, were materially false or misleading.

The Proposed Settlement

On February 26, 2018, the parties informed this Court that a
settlement had been reached (Proposed Settlement). The settlement
provides for a $35,000,0000 cash payment to resolve the securities
class action brought against defendants Facebook, Zuckerberg,
Sandberg, Ebersman, Spillane, Andreessen, Bowles, Breyer, Graham,
Reed Hastings, and Peter Thiehl, along with the Underwriter
Defendants.

Applicable Standards

Rule 23(e) provides that claims, issues, or defenses of a certified
class may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only
with the court's approval. Court approval of a class action
settlement must be premised on a hearing and subsequent finding
that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and not the
product of collusion or some other malfeasance.

The Proposed Settlement is Procedurally Fair

The Proposed Settlement was reached just eight weeks before trial
was set to begin. Parties therefore had a deep understanding of the
facts and legal theories supporting the claims. Before settlement,
Lead Plaintiffs conducted extensive investigations into Defendants'
alleged misrepresentations, opposed Defendants' motions to dismiss,
conducted extensive discovery including review of over 1.5 million
pages of documents, participated in 40 depositions of fact
witnesses, and prepared an expert report on the underwriting of the
Facebook IPO, among other things.  

Based on the process followed, including involvement of a
third-party mediator and multiple experts, and the extensive
arms-length negotiations performed by sophisticated counsel, this
late-stage Settlement is procedurally fair.

The Proposed Settlement is Substantively Fair

Courts in this Circuit consider substantive fairness using a
nine-factor test from City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d
448, 463 (2d Cir. 1974). The Grinnell factors include: (1) the
complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation; (2) the
reaction of the class to the settlement (3) the stage of the
proceedings and discovery completed (4) the risks of establishing
liability (5) the risks of establishing damages (6) the risks of
maintaining the class action through trial (7) the ability of
defendants to withstand greater judgment (8) the range of
reasonableness of the settlement in light of the best possible
recovery and (9) the range of reasonableness of the settlement in
light of the risks of litigation.  

Complexity, Expense, and Likely Duration of Litigation

The outstanding issues in this included whether and to what extent
Facebook's alleged misstatements and omissions caused the post-IPO
stock price decline (Causation), whether the institutional investor
subclass had actual knowledge of the alleged misstatements and
omissions prior to the registration statement's issuance (Truth on
the Market), whether foreign purchasers of Facebook stock met the
domesticity requirements of Morrison v. Nat'l Australia Bank Ltd.,
and whether the no loss plaintiffs had cognizable claims under the
federal securities laws. Each of these issues would have involved
extensive expert testimony and reports presented at trial. Appeals
would follow, further protracting the litigation and delaying any
recovery.

These issues presented in this case are complex and difficult. They
require the involvement of costly experts whose involvement tends
to increase both the cost and duration of litigation. This factor
weighs in favor of approval of the Proposed Settlement.

Reaction of the Class to the Settlement

The reaction of the class to the settlement is perhaps the most
significant factor to be weighted in considering its adequacy.

Hayes's primary objection to the Proposed Settlement centers on the
strategic decision by Lead Plaintiffs to forego causes of action
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (34 Act) in favor of 1933
Act claims. It is axiomatic, however, that "a lead plaintiff has
the sole authority to determine what claims to pursue on behalf of
the class. And in any event, Hayes has been on notice of Lead
Plaintiffs' decision not to pursue 34 Act claims since at least
2015. As Plaintiffs point out, Hayes could have pursued an
individual 34 Act claim against Facebook. He chose not to.

Assuming a '34 Act claim or claims would have had merit in this
case and Hayes has not made such a showing-the Class has not been
prejudiced by the absence of such claims. The Complaint was filed
in 2013, putting class members on notice of the strategic decision
to exclude '34 Act claims. Neither Hayes nor the other Retail
Subclass members brought an individual action against Facebook
under the '34 Act on these facts, nor did the other class members.
This objection is therefore without substantial merit.

Hayes's next objection is to the Proposed Settlement's release of
liability, which bars class members from asserting 34 Act claims
against parties to the action. For the reasons Plaintiffs note-that
this Circuit has approved such releases and that 34 Act claims at
this stage are untimely-the Court is unpersuaded by this objection.


The reaction of the class being overwhelmingly positive, this
factor supports final approval of the Proposed Settlement.

Stage of the Proceedings and Discovery Completed

The advanced stage of this proceeding, and the discovery so far
completed, weighs in favor of approving the Proposed Settlement. At
the time of settlement, discovery was completed, the class had been
certified, and numerous pre-trial motions had been briefed and
heard. Plaintiffs reviewed more than 1.5 million pages of
documents, took and defended dozens of depositions, including of
top executives Zuckerberg and Sandberg, and conducted mock jury
exercises to test legal theories. These facts suggest Lead
Plaintiffs and their counsel had a sufficient understanding of the
case to gauge the strengths and weaknesses of their claims as well
as the adequacy of the settlement.

Risks of Establishing Liability

Among the risks of establishing liability is Defendants' contention
with respect to Facebook's mobile revenue disclosure: that
Facebook's statement that increasing mobile usage may or would
affect revenue is not definite enough and therefore inactionable. A
second risk arises out of Defendants' argument that, because
Facebook's revenue rebounded by the time of the IPO, there was no
loss, and therefore no liability. Even if Plaintiffs overcame these
defenses and others, lengthy appeals could tie up, delay, or
ultimately preclude recovery for the class.

The inherent risks to establishing liability support approval of
the Proposed Settlement.

Risks of Establishing Damages

The risks of establishing liability apply with equal force to the
establishment of damages. Certain of the defenses raised by
Defendants present risks unique to the establishment of damages.
Chief among them is the negative causation defense to loss
causation. Plaintiffs themselves note the plausibility of
Defendants' negative causation defense. The unique circumstances
surrounding Facebook's IPO, including Nasdaq's May 18, 2012
widespread system failure on Facebook's first day of trading, would
complicate loss causation and damages determinations.

What is more, Defendants may well have successfully argued at trial
that damages should be limited, perhaps to a number smaller than
the settlement amount, due to Facebook's strong performance since
this litigation. A costly and lengthy battle of the experts would
likely coincide with such a determination.  

The risks and unknowns associated with establishing damages in this
case weigh in favor of approving the Proposed Settlement.

Risks of Maintaining the Class Action Through Trial

While two subclasses of Plaintiffs have been certified in this
case, Defendants have indicated an intent to move to decertify the
Institutional Investor Subclass and the Retail Investor Subclass
either before or after trial. Because of the risk of
decertification which appears particularly acute because certain
class members were informed of reduced revenue models before the
IPO this factor weight in favor of approving the Proposed
Settlement.  

Ability of Defendants to Withstand Greater Judgment

The ability of the Defendants, and in particular Facebook, to
withstand a judgment in excess of $35 million is clear. This fact
alone, however, does not suggest that the settlement is unfair.
Were this the case, as one court in this Circuit has noted, then
only the most massive settlement awards could be deemed reasonable
in cases against large corporations.  The Defendants' ability to
withstand greater judgment does not support approval and nor does
it militate against approval. Accordingly, this factor is neutral.

Range of Reasonableness of Settlement Fund in Light of Best
Possible Recovery and Attendant Risks of Litigation

Because the Plaintiffs face serious challenges to establishing
liability, consideration of the Plaintiffs' best possible recovery
must be accompanied by the risk of non-recovery.

The Plaintiffs contend that, when weighed against the substantial
risks of continued litigation and the ultimate potential of
non-recovery, $35 million in cash is a favorable result. The $35
million figure was agreed upon only after careful consideration,
both by competent Lead Counsel and by Judge Weinstein of the JAMS.
There is no indication this settlement was the result of haste or
unscrupulous lawyering.

Accordingly, while the best possible recovery in this case may be
higher than $35 million, the potentiality of a dramatically reduced
judgment or no judgment at all suggests $35 million is within the
range of reasonableness.

The Proposed Settlement being procedurally and substantively fair,
it is approved.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 26, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc5sspz7 from
Leagle.com.

Institutional Investor Group, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Adam
Henry Wierzbowski -
adam@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
Gerald H. Silk -- adam@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, James W. Johnson -- jjohnson@labaton.com -- Labaton
Sucharow, LLP, John James Rizio-Hamilton -- johnr@blbglaw.com --
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Salvatore Jo Graziano --

sgraziano@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
Stefanie Jill Sundel, Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman,
Thomas A. Dubbs -- tdubbs@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow, LLP,
Christopher J. Keller -- ckeller@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow,
LLP

Facebook, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Andrew Brian Clubok -- andrew.clubok@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins
LLP, Ashley Littlefield – ashley.littlefield.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis LLP, Christopher William Keegan -- ckeegan@kirkland.com --
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Elizabeth L. Deeley --
elizabeth.deeley@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins, LLP, pro hac vice,
Jacob Harold Johnston -- jacob.johnston@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis LLP, James Francis Basile -- james.basile@kirkland.com --
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Lindsay Michelle Kwoka -- lkwoka@mnat.com --
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Mark Bernard Salomon --
mark.salomon@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Michael Courtney
Keats, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Richard D. Bernstein --
rbernstein@willkie.com -- Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Susan
Elisabeth Engel -- susan.engel@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP,
Susan W. Waesco -- swaesco@mnat.com -- Morris, Nichols, Arsht &
Tunnell LLP, Tariq Mundiya -- tmundiya@willkie.com -- Willkie Farr
& Gallagher LLP, Todd G. Cosenza -- tcosenza@willkie.com -- Willkie
Farr & Gallagher LLP & William M. Lafferty -- wlafferty@mnat.com --
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell.


MDL 2804: Doyle vs. Purdue Pharma over Opiates Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Erin Doyle, Individually and as mother and custodian of
Baby D.F., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Purdue Pharma LP., Purdue Pharma Inc.;
Cephalic Inc.; Neva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.; Neva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Jansen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Johnson &
Johnson; Aramco Inc.; Or tho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
now known as Jansen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Jansen Pharmaceutical
Inc., now known as Jansen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Undo Health
Solutions Inc.; Undo Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Allergen PL, formerly
known as: Activist PL; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as
Activist Inc.; Watson Laboratories Inc.; Activist Dharma, Inc.,
formerly known as: Watson Dharma, Inc.; Activist LLC; Maeterlinck
PL; Maeterlinck LLC; McPherson Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.;
Counterinsurgency Drug Corporation; and Purdue Frederick Company,
Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00719, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland)
on Dec. 10, 2018. The Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:18-op-46327-DAP to the proceeding.

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

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for Actavis LLC; Actavis Pharma, Inc.; Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.; Watson Laboratories Inc.; and
Cephalon, Inc.:

          Wendy West Feinstein, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS-PITTSBURGH
          One Oxford Center, 32nd Floor
          301 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 560-7455
          Facsimile: (412) 560-7001
          E-mail: wendy.feinstein@morganlewis.com

Attorneys for Allergan PLC:

          John R. Mitchell, Esq.
          Andrea B. Daloia, Esq.
          THOMPSON HINE - CLEVELAND
          3900 Key Tower
          127 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 566-5847
          Facsimile: (216) 566-5800
          E-mail: john.mitchell@thompsonhine.com
                   Andrea.Daloia@ThompsonHine.com

Attorneys for AmerisourceBergen Corporation:

          Erin E. Rhinehart, Esq.
          Christopher C. Hollon, Esq.
          FARUKI IRELAND COX
          RHINEHART & DUSING-DAYTON, Ste. 1600
          110 North Main Street
          Dayton, OH 45402
          Telephone: (937) 227-3714
          Facsimile: (937) 227-3717
          E-mail: erhinehart@ficlaw.com
                  chollon@ficlaw.com

Attorneys for Cardinal Health Inc. and Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.:

          James B. Hadden, Esq.
          MURRAY, MURPHY, MOUL & BASIL
          1114 Dublin Road
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 488-0400
          Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
          E-mail: hadden@mmmb.com

               - and -

          Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
          Joseph F. Murray, Esq.
          MURRAY, MURPHY, MOUL & BASIL
          1114 Dublin Road
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 488-0400
          Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
          E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com
          murray@mmmb.com

                - and -

          Tera N. Coleman, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER-CLEVELAND
          127 Public Square,Ste. 2000
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 621-0200
          Facsimile: (216) 696-0740
          E-mail: tcoleman@bakerlaw.com

Attorneys for McKesson Corporation:

          Vincent I. Holzhall, Esq.
          Alana V. Tanoury, Esq.
          Brian J. Laliberte, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON-COLUMBUS
          41 South High Street,Ste. 2200
          Columbus, OH 43215
          E-mail: vince.holzhall@steptoe-johnson.com
                  alana.tanoury@steptoe-johnson.com
                  Brian.Laliberte@steptoe-johnson.com

Attorneys for Purdue Pharma Inc.; Purdue Frederick Company; and
Inc.and Purdue Pharma L.P.:

          Daniel J. Buckley, Esq.
          VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE-CINCINNATI
          3500 Great American Tower
          301 East Fourth Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 723-4000
          Facsimile: (513) 852-7819
          E-mail: djbuckley@vorys.com

MDL 2873: Fearnley et al. Suit vs. 3M Company Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM J. FEARNLEY, LISA FRYLING, ROMAYNE HIGGINS, PHYLLIS KELLY
ISSAC PEOPLES, KENNETH V. STACEY, DEBORAH L. STACEY, and LEO
VARANI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, vs. The 3M Company, formerly known as:
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.; The Ansul Company; Angus
Fire; National Foam; Buckeye Fire Protection Co.; and Chemguard,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-06416, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Pennsylvania, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (Charleston)
on Dec. 13, 2018.  The District of South Carolina Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-03440-RMG.  The suit alleges "torts to
land" violation.  The case is assigned to the Hon. Richard M
Gergel. The lead case is Case No. 2:18-mn-02873-RMG.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          W. Steven Berman, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK & ASSOC., PLLC
          10,000 Lincoln Drive E
          One Greentree Center, Suite 201
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 988-5574
          Facsimile: (646) 843-7603
          E-mail: wsberman@napolilaw.com

               - and -

          Aaron Richard Modiano, Esq.
          Hunter Jay Shkolnik, Esq.
          Louise Rita Caro, Esq.
          Patrick James Lanciotti, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
          2665 South Bayshore Dr, Suite 220
          Coconut Grove, FL 33133
          Telephone: (786) 837-5442
          Facsimile: (786) 441-2140
          E-mail: hunter@napolilaw.com
                  LCaro@napolilaw.com
                  planciotti@napolilaw.com

Attorneys for The 3M Company:

          Basil A Disipio, Esq.
          LAVIN O'NEIL CEDRONE & DISIPIO
          190 N. Independence Mall West, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 627-0303
          Facsimile: (215) 627-2551
          E-mail: bad@lavin-law.com

Attorneys for National Foam:

          Keith Edward Smith, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          2700 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 988-7843
          Facsimile: (215) 717-5225
          E-mail: smithkei@gtlaw.com

Attorneys for Buckeye Fire Protection Co.:

          Philip M. Colicchio, Esq.
          TAYLOR COLICCHIO LLP
          100 Canal Pointe Blvd, Suite 210
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 987-0022
          Facsimile: (609) 987-0070
          E-mail: pcolicchio@tcslawyers.com

MDL 2873: Yockey Suit v. 3M Company Consolidated
------------------------------------------------
A case, J. Davy Yockey and Josephine Yockey, HUSBAND AND WIFE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the
Plaintiffs, vs. The 3M Company formerly known as: Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing, Co., The Ansul Company; Buckeye Fire Protection
Co.; Chemguard; National Foam; and Angus Fire, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-05553 (Filed Oct. 24, 2016), was transferred from U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District Pennsylvania, to the the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (Charleston)
on Dec. 13, 2018.  The District of South Carolina Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-03455-RMG to the proceeding.  The case is
assigned to the Hon. Honorable Richard M Gergel. The lead case is
Case No. 2:18-mn-02873-RMG.

The Plaintiffs brought this case against Defendants for monetary
damages, declaratory, injunctive, and other relief as a result of
the use of hazardous chemicals and compounds which contaminated
public and private water sources.

3M Company, is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, health care, and consumer
goods.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Daniel C Levin, Esq.
          Charles E Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN AND BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com
                  CSchaffer@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Lawrence R Cohan, Esq.
          ANAPOL SCHWARTZ WEISS COHAN FELDMAN & SMALLEY
          130 N 18TH ST SUITE 1600
          PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 790-4567
          E-mail: lcohan@anapolweiss.com

Attorneys for The 3M Company:

          Basil A Disipio, Esq.
          LAVIN O'NEIL CEDRONE & DISIPIO
          190 N. Independence Mall West, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 627-0303
          Facsimile: (215) 627-2551
          E-mail: bad@lavin-law.com

Attorneys for Ansul Company and Chemguard:

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

Attorneys for Buckeye Fire Protection Co.:

          Philip M. Colicchio, Esq.
          TAYLOR COLICCHIO LLP
          100 Canal Pointe Blvd., Suite 210
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 987-0022
          Facsimile: (609) 987-0070
          E-mail: pcolicchio@tcslawyers.com

Attorneys for National Foam:

          Albert G. Bixler, Esq.
          ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN
            & MELLOTT, LLC-PHILADELPHIA
          50 South 16th Street
          Two Liberty Place, 22nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 851-8412
          Facsimile: (215) 851-8383
          E-mail: abixler@eckertseamans.com

               - and -

          Keith Edward Smith, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          2700 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 988-7843
          Facsimile: (215) 717-5225
          E-mail: smithkei@gtlaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Castanares Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOY CASTANARES, individually and on behalf all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC.; and MIDLAND
FUNDING LLC., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-09625 (C.D. Cal., Nov.
14, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

Midland Credit Management, Inc., a licensed debt collector, assists
customers in resolving past-due financial obligations through
various education and payment plans. The company was founded in
1953 and is based in San Diego, California. Midland Credit
Management, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group,
Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher G. Beckom, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER GLENN BECKOM
          1307 W. 6th Street, Suite 223
          Corona, CA 92882
          Telephone: (800) 581-7030
          E-mail: Christopher.beckom@gmail.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Lance Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
JACOB LANCE, individually and on behalf all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC.; and MIDLAND
FUNDING LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04933-MAK (E.D. Pa., Nov.
14, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Honorable Mark A.
Kearney.

Midland Credit Management, Inc., a licensed debt collector, assists
customers in resolving past-due financial obligations through
various education and payment plans. The company was founded in
1953 and is based in San Diego, California. Midland Credit
Management, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group,
Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas J. Linker, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          1373 Broad St., Suite Suite 203-C
          Clifton, NJ 07013
          Telephone: (862) 227-3106
          E-mail: nl@zemellawllc.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Margerum Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM MARGERUM individually and on behalf all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC.; and MIDLAND
FUNDING LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04932-ER (E.D. Pa., Nov.
14, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Honorable Eduardo
C. Robreno.

Midland Credit Management, Inc., a licensed debt collector, assists
customers in resolving past-due financial obligations through
various education and payment plans. The company was founded in
1953 and is based in San Diego, California. Midland Credit
Management, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group,
Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas J. Linker, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          1373 Broad St., Suite Suite 203-C
          Clifton, NJ 07013
          Telephone: (862) 227-3106
          E-mail: nl@zemellawllc.com


MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Chew Sues over 49% Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
KHONG MENG CHEW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL, INC.; W. ALEXANDER
HOLMES; PAMELA H. PATSLEY, and LAWRENCE ANGELILLI, Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-07537 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 14, 2018) is class action on
behalf of a class who purchased publicly traded MoneyGram
securities from February 11, 2014 through November 8, 2018, seeking
to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations
of federal securities laws and pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that the Defendants
submitted documents with the SEC which were materially false and
misleading because they misinterpreted and failed to disclose the
following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business and
operations which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (1) MoneyGram was aware for
years of high levels of fraud involving its money transfer system;
(2) MoneyGram failed to implement appropriate anti-fraud
countermeasures, in part, because doing so would adversely impact
its revenue; (3) this misconduct would draw scrutiny from the FTC,
which had an agreed-upon order requiring MoneyGram to implement a
comprehensive anti-fraud program, and the Department of Justice,
which entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement concerning
MoneyGram's anti-fraud and anti-money laundering programs; and (5)
as a result, Defendants' statements about MoneyGram's business,
operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and
lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On November 9, 2018, MoneyGram reported its third quarter 2018
earnings, stating that "money transfer revenue" decreased "15% on a
reported basis . . . as compared to third quarter 2017" due to "the
impact of higher compliance standards and newly implemented
corridor specific controls."

On this news, shares of MoneyGram fell $2.20 per share or over
49.2% to close at $2.27 per share on November 9, 2018, damaging
investors.

MoneyGram International, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
provides money transfer services in the United States and
internationally. MoneyGram International, Inc. was founded in 1940
and is based in Dallas, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          111 W. Jackson St., Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 214-3110
          E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com

               - and -

          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  lrosen@rosenlegal.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Bargys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
PAUL BARGY and DEBRA BARGY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02076 (E.D. Mo., Dec. 13, 2018),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Belsome Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
HARRIET BELSOME by her Attorney-in-Fact KAREN BELSOME, the
Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-02077 (E.D. Mo., Dec. 13, 2018), seeks to recover damages
suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the
Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the
design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the
herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient
glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Ottinger Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
NINA OTTINGER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-01370 (E.D. Mo., Dec. 12, 2018), seeks to recover
damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of
the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with
the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Russell W. Lewis IV, Esq.
          JOHNSON LAW GROUP
          1019 16th Avenue South
          Nashville, TN 37212
          Telephone: (615) 200-1122
          Facsimile: (866) 902-8647
          E-mail: rlewis@johnsonlawgroup.com

               - and -

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Rickard Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN RICKARD, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00246-DPM (E.D. Ark., Dec. 13, 2018), seeks to
recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate
result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Laura Fellows, Esq.
          PAUL LLP
          601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: 816-984-8100
          E-mail: Laura@PaulLLP.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Vacante Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL VACANTE, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-02079 (E.D. Mo., Dec. 13, 2018), seeks to recover
damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of
the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with
the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Walker Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
WAYNE WALKER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-02080 (E.D. Mo., Dec. 13, 2018), seeks to recover
damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of
the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with
the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MORNING STAR: Settlement in McClain Suit Has Prelim Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IAFREEDRE McCLAIN, MONTRELL DAVIS, and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MORNING STAR, LLC a/k/a MORNING
STAR NC, LLC, d/b/a HARDEE'S, Defendant. E.P. and S.F.,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CKE RESTAURANTS HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; HARDEE'S FOOD SYSTEMS LLC, a North Carolina
Corporation; HARDEE'S RESTAURANTS LLC, a Delaware Corporation; and
MORNING STAR, LLC a/k/a MORNING STAR NC, LLC, a Florida
Corporation, Defendants, Civil Action Nos. 3:18-cv-00419-FDW-DCK,
3:18-cv-00483-FDW-DCK (W.D. N.C.), Judge Frank D. Whitney of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
Charlotte Division, (i) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand;
(ii) granted the the Parties' Joint Motion to Consolidate the case
with E.P. and S.F. vs. CKE Restaurants Holdings, Inc., Hardee's
Food Systems, LLC, Hardee's Restaurants LLC, and Morning Star, LLC
a/k/a Morning Star NC, LLC, Civil Action File No.
3:18-cv-00483-FDW-DCK; (iii) granted the Parties' Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Settlement; and (iv) denied as moot the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Class Allegations or Deny Class
Certification.

Turning first to the Motion to Remand, the Judge denied the motion
for the reasons stated in the Court's orders on the same arguments
in the Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-00483-FDW-DCK.  

As to the Motion to Consolidate, Judge consolidated the case with
Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-00483-FDW-DCK case for all purposes,
including pre-trial motions, discovery and trial.

Because he also granted the parties' Joint Motion for Discovery ,
he certified, for preliminary purposes only, the class of all
individuals who were (a) potentially exposed to the Hepatitis A
Virus ("HAV") at the Hardee's Restaurant, 2604 Little Rock Road,
Charlotte, North Carolina ("Charlotte Hardee's"), between June 13,
2018, and June 23, 2018 ("Potential Exposure Period"), and (b) who,
as a result of such potential exposure to HAV, obtained preventive
medical treatment, including the administration of IG, HAV vaccine
shots, or blood tests within 14 days after their exposure, and in
no event any later than July 7, 2018.

Judge Whitney finds that the related records maintained by the
Mecklenburg County Health Department are the best possible source
for the information necessary to get adequate notice to as many
potential class members as possible.  He further finds that notice
provided through use of those records is reasonably calculated
under the circumstances to apprise members of the Class of the
pendency of the lawsuit and of their right to object or to exclude
themselves from the Class.  

The Judge, having appointed The Notice Company,  Inc. as the Class
Claims Administrator, now orders as follows:

     (1) For the purpose of providing direct mail notice to the
potential Class Members, the designated Claims Administrator, The
Notice Company, Inc., is authorized to obtain from the Mecklenburg
County Health Department, the names and last known addresses of all
the potential Class Members.

     (2) The Health Department will disclose to the designated
Claims Administrator electronic files containing the names and last
known addresses of the potential Class Members.

     (3) The Order authorizes the Health Departments to disclose
the name and address information referenced, which may be deemed
Protected Health Information under the privacy regulations issued
pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
of 1996.  The Health Department is authorized to provide such
information to The Notice Company, Inc., with such information to
be provided in electronic format if available.

     (4) The parties to the action and The Notice Company, Inc. are
expressly prohibited from using or disclosing the protected health
information obtained pursuant to the Order for any purpose other
than the action.  Further, The Notice Company, Inc. is ordered to
destroy all protected health information received from the Health
Department (including all copies made) within 10 days following the
conclusion of the action.

Finally, as to the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval
of Class Settlement, the Judge granted that Motion.  Having
reviewed the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class Settlement, ordered that the Plaintiffs and the Defendants,
who have entered into a Settlement Agreement, subject to Court
approval, dated Nov. 27, 2018, to settle the litigation and hereby
file the Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Proposed
Settlement.  The Settlement Agreement sets forth the terms and
conditions for the proposed settlement and dismissal with prejudice
of the Litigation.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Judge
certified, for settlement purposes only, the class of all
individuals who were (a) potentially exposed to the Hepatitis A
Virus ("HAV") at the Hardee's Restaurant, 2604 Little Rock Road,
Charlotte, North Carolina ("Charlotte Hardee's"), between June 13,
2018, and June 23, 2018 ("Potential Exposure Period"), and (b) who,
as a result of such potential exposure to HAV, obtained preventive
medical treatment, including the administration of IG, HAV vaccine
shots, or blood tests within 14 days after their exposure, and in
no event any later than July 7, 2018.

The following Plaintiffs' attorneys will continue to act as counsel
for the Class: Brett Dressler SELLERS, AYERS, DORTCH & LYONS, PA
301 S. McDowell St., Ste. 410 Charlotte, NC 28204 Tel (704)
377-5050 Fax (704) 339-0172 William D. Marler MARLER CLARK, LLP, PS
(Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending) 1012 First Avenue, Fifth Floor
Seattle, WA 98104 Tel (206) 346-1888 Fax (206) 346-1898 Daniel K.
Bryson Scott C. Harris WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 900 W. Morgan
Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Tel (919) 600-5000 Fax (919) 600-5035
Joseph G. Sauder SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC 555 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn,
Pennsylvania 19312 Telephone: 888.711.9975 Fax: 610-421-1326

Judge Whitney appointed as the Settlement Administrator, The Notice
Company, Inc. 94 Station Street Hingham, MA 02043 Tel (781)
740-1900 Fax (781) 740-0888 E-mail: class@notice.com.

He preliminarily approved (i) the settlement as sufficiently fair,
reasonable and adequate to allow notice of the proposed settlement
to be given to the members of the Class; (ii) approved the form of
the proposed Notice of Settlement of Proposed Class Action, without
material alteration; and (iii) the form of the Class Action Claim
Form without material alteration.

A Final Approval Hearing will be held on at 10:00 a.m. on April 1,
2019.

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

Iafreedre McClain & Montrell Davis, Plaintiffs, represented by
Brett E. Dressler, Sellers, Ayers, Dortch & Lyons, PA, William Dale
Marler, Marler Clark LLP PS, pro hac vice & Michelle Massingale
Dressler -- mpmdressler@sellersayers.com -- Sellers, Hinshaw,
Ayers, Dortch & Lyons, P.A.

E. P., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Consol Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Kent Bryson --
dan@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP, Joseph G. Sauder,
Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice & Scott Crissman Harris,
Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP.

S. F., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Consol Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Kent Bryson, Whitfield,
Bryson & Mason, LLP & Scott Crissman Harris, Whitfield, Bryson &
Mason, LLP.

Morning Star, LLC, also known as Hardee's, Defendant, represented
by Alan M. Maxwell -- amaxwell@wwhgd.com -- Weinberg, Wheeler,
Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC, pro hac vice, Jennifer Anne Adler --
jadler@wwhgd.com -- Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC,
pro hac vice, Nicholas P. Panayotopoulos -- npanayo@wwhgd.com --
Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC, pro hac vice & Shawn
D. Scott -- scott@wbmllp.com -- Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn &
Dial, LLC.


MYLIFE.COM: Cohen Sues over Misleading Personal Information
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH COHEN, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MYLIFE.COM, INC. a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
37-2018-00060911-CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 3, 2018), seeks
to put an end to the long-running scam and harm to reputation
perpetrated by MyLife in violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code and the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.

According to the complaint, MyLife has been preying on the public
since 2002, under its current name as well as under its former
incarnation, Reunion.com.  "MyLife, once the focus of a class
action lawsuit, an investigation by the Washington State Attorney
General, as well as an investigation and subsequent lawsuit by the
Los Angeles County District Attorney and Santa Monica City
Attorneys' Offices, has not changed its ways, and is harming
innocent peoples' reputations while at the same time scamming these
individuals out of money.  Unfortunately for the public, MyLife has
decided to place its appetite for profits at the expense of
consumers' reputations. The Plaintiff is a victim of MyLife's scam.
He brings this action to end these predatory practices and to stop
MyLife from harming other consumers' reputations or scamming the
public out of their hard-earned money. Plaintiff brings this action
for public injunctive relief," the lawsuit says.

The Defendant has been operating since 2002. The Defendant
previously operated under the name Reunion.com, Inc. and operated a
website at www.reunion.com, which was originally a people search
website which charged a fee for its services. When that became
outdated, they launched a "Who's Searching For You" feature which
also charged a fee for its services, and claimed to tell members
who was searching for them online. In 2008, the Los Angeles Times
ran an expose on Reunion.com's practices. It alleged that
Reunion.com was sending people e-mails telling them that one of
their acquaintances was searching for them. The person was then
told they can pay a fee to Reunion.com to see who else was
searching for them. When an individual paid this fee, they found
out that nobody was actually searching for them. Furthermore,
Reunion.com then sent an e-mail to everyone else in that person's
address book stating that that individual was searching for them,
thereby continuing the cycle. In 2009, Defendant rebranded itself
as Mylife.com, Inc and changed its website address to
www.mylife.com but has continued to manipulate consumers in similar
predatory ways.

In 2011, the Washington State Attorney General began an
investigation into Defendant's practices. They found among other
things that Defendant's advertising, that stated that you can see
if someone was searching for you for free, was misleading. The
Defendant only revealed that person's age and location but not
their name. In order, to view the name, you had to pay a fee. In
2012, the Defendant entered into an "assurance of discontinuance"
in which they agreed to, among other things, stop saying the
service is free, and disclose the amount of the fee. Mylife
currently bills itself as a website to view and improve your
reputation score or check out other peoples' scores.

Mylife claims they have over 300 million Public Pages with
information about almost anyone in America. To check a person's
reputation score, one must enter first name, last name, and city,
state or zip. Once that information is entered, a person clicks
"Check Reputation Score", and the screen populates with a list of
various individuals meeting the search criteria. The search results
contain information about the target (i.e. age, location,
relatives) so a consumer can identify the correct person. When a
consumer clicks on a specific person's name, they are taken to a
screen where they can see more information about the individual,
but not all information. Defendant uses this as a tactic to entice
individuals to pay for a subscription so they can view the complete
profile. Instead of putting true and accurate information on the
website, the Defendant places false and misleading incendiary
information in profiles.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Helen I. Zeldes, Esq.
          Amy C. Johnsgard, Esq.
          Ben Travis, Esq.
          COAST LAW GROUP LLP
          1140 S. Coast Highway 101
          Encinitas, CA 92024
          Telephone: 760 942-8505
          Facsimile: 760 942-8515
          E-mail: helen@coastlaw.com
                  amy@coastlaw.com
                  ben@coastlaw.com

               - and -

          Tammy Gruder Hussin, Esq.
          HUSSIN LAW
          1302 N. Coast Highway 101, Suite 201
          Encinitas, CA 92024
          Telephone: (877) 677-5397
          Facsimile: (877) 667-1547
          E-mail: tammy@hussinlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA LLP
          7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1675
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: 314 226-1015
          Facsimile: 202 789-1813
          E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

NINE ENERGY: Court Refuses to Bid to Reconsider Patterson Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Plaintiff's Motion
for Reconsideration in the case captioned RYAN PATTERSON,
Plaintiff, v. NINE ENERGY SERVICE, LLC, Defendant. No. CIV 17-1116
JB\GBW. (D.N.M.).

Patterson worked for Nine Energy, an oilfield services company.
Nine Energy first offered Patterson employment via letter. Offer
Letter states that his employment is contingent upon an enumerated
list of items, including drug testing, physical capacity testing,
and other things. The Offer Letter does not mention arbitration.
Patterson accepted the employment offer by signing the Offer
Letter. The same day that Patterson signed the Offer Letter, he
also signed the Confidentiality and Dispute Resolution Agreement.
The Arbitration Agreement states that the Company and the Employee
agree to submit exclusively to final and binding arbitration any
and all Disputes as defined herein in accordance with the following
understanding and terms.

Nine Energy moves the Court to dismiss this case for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction and to compel arbitration. Nine Energy
first contends that Patterson's claims fall within the Arbitration
Agreement's scope, because the Arbitration Agreement's provisions
cover all disputes, claims, or disagreements relating to
Plaintiff's employment.

Nine Energy then argues that the Arbitration Agreement contains
adequate consideration, asserting that the bargained for exchange
in this case was Plaintiff's offer of employment with Nine Energy
in exchange for signing the Confidentiality and Dispute Resolution
Agreement as well as the Parties' mutual agreement to submit all
employment disputes to arbitration.

In the Memorandum Opinion and Order (MOO), the Court began its
analysis regarding the injunctive relief provision's severability
by quoting Cordova: If a contract or term thereof is unconscionable
at the time the contract is made a court may refuse to enforce the
contract, or may enforce the remainder of the contract without the
unconscionable term. The Court also cited to the Supreme Court of
New Mexico's opinion in Dalton v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., for
the proposition that courts may render a contract or portions of a
contract unenforceable under the equitable doctrine of
unconscionability when the terms are `unreasonably favorable to one
party while precluding a meaningful choice of the other party.

The Court cited to Padilla Padilla, 2003-NMSC-011, Par. 18, 68 P.3d
at 909), for the principle that, if a provision is severable, the
agreement that remains after its severance will be a mutual
agreement to binding arbitration. The Court concluded that, without
the substantively unconscionable injunctive relief provision, the
Arbitration Agreement is a mutual agreement to binding arbitration
and, furthermore, that it would make little sense for the Court to
trash the entire Arbitration Agreement because of an unconscionable
provision unrelated to this case.

For these reasons, the Court concluded that the injunctive relief
provision is severable.
The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court committed manifest
legal error in its MOO, where it relied on Padilla v. State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2003-NMSC-011, 68 P.3d 901
(Padilla), as well as Cordova v. World Finance Corporation of New
Mexico, 2009-NMSC-021, 208 P.3d 901 (Cordova), and Rivera v.
American General Financial Services, Inc., 2011-NMSC-033, 259 P.3d
803 (Rivera), in concluding that, although the injunctive relief
provision in the Confidentiality and Dispute Resolution Agreement
is substantively unconscionable, it is also severable, and (ii)
whether the Court should certify the question of whether the
substantively unconscionable provision is severable to the Supreme
Court of New Mexico for the Supreme Court of New Mexico's
determination.

It is ordered that: (i) the Court reaffirms its determination in
the MOO, based on the Court's correct, but not exclusive, reliance
in Padilla, that the injunctive relief provision in the Arbitration
Agreement is severable; and (ii) the Court declines to certify the
severability question to the Supreme Court of New Mexico.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Reconsideration Motion is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 29, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yaw9nagn from Leagle.com.

Ryan Patterson, Plaintiff, represented by J. Derek Braziel --
jdbraziel@l-b-law.com -- Lee & Braziel LLP, Jack L. Siegel --
jack@siegellawgroup.biz -- Siegel Law Group PLLC & Travis Andrew
Gasper -- gasper@l-b-law.com -- Lee & Braziel, LLP.

Nine Energy Service, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jennifer L.
Anderson, Jones Walker LLP & Christopher S. Mann, Jones Walker
LLP.


NYC FIRE SERVICES: Atkinson Seeks Reimbursements, Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chantell Atkinson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. NYC Fire Services and Guards LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 524130/2018 filed in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of Kings on November 30, 2018, seeks
reimbursement or additional pay for time spent off the clock and
money spent in laundering and maintaining his company-provided
uniform in accordance with new York Labor Law.

Atkinson worked for NYC Fire Services as a fire guard from
approximately April 1, 2018 through September 11, 2018. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Gaylord, Esq.
      BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
      400 Jericho Turnpike Suite 226
      Jericho, NY 11753
      Phone: (516) 742-4949
      Fax: (516)742-1977
      Email: mark@bglawny.com

OHIO NATIONAL: Sarraf Gentile Files Class Action Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
Sarraf Gentile LLP disclosed that multiple class actions have been
filed against Ohio National Life Insurance Company concerning its
decision to terminate trailing commissions.

The actions are pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio (case numbers 18-cv-00763 and
18-cv-00769). The actions allege that in September 2018, Ohio
National announced that it was terminating its agreements with all
broker-dealers with regard to certain variable annuity products and
that as part of that termination Ohio National would no longer pay
trailing commissions to those broker-dealers. According to the
complaints, broker-dealers could still service clients who bought
such Ohio National variable annuity products but they and any
securities representatives who do such work would not be
compensated by Ohio National for doing so.

No class has been certified in the above actions and until a class
is certified, any affected broker-dealer or financial advisor that
has not filed a lawsuit is not considered represented by an
attorney. Affected broker-dealers or financial advisors may also
choose to do nothing and be absent class members. Sarraf Gentile
LLP has not filed a lawsuit against the defendants.

If you are an affected broker-dealer or financial advisor and want
to discuss your legal rights, at no cost and without obligation,
please;

         Joseph Gentile, Esq.
         SARRAF GENTILE LLP
         401 Park Avenue South
         New York, New York 10016
         Telephone: 212.868.3610 extension 12
         Email: joseph@sarrafgentile.com  [GN]


PHILIP MORRIS: Fla. Dist. App. Flips $4.3MM Damages Award in Martin
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. and R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO
COMPANY, Appellants, v. STANLEY MARTIN, as Personal Representative
of the ESTATE OF CAROLE MARTIN, Appellee, Case No. 4D17-574 (Fla.
Dist. App.), Judge Edward L. Artau of the District Court of Appeal
of Florida for the Fourth District (i) reversed and remanded with
instructions for the trial court to vacate the punitive damages
awards, but affirm on all other issues in the main appeal; and (ii)
reversed and remanded with instructions for the trial court to
reinstate the entire amount of the jury's verdict on compensatory
damages in the cross-appeal.

In the Engle wrongful death case, the Defendants, Philip Morris and
R.J. Reynolds, appeal a final judgment awarding the Plaintiff just
under $3.7 million in compensatory damages (the $5.4 million
assessed by the jury, less a 32% comparative fault reduction), and
$650,000 in punitive damages.  The Plaintiff cross-appeals the
trial court's reduction of the compensatory damages award based on
the decedent's comparative fault.

The Plaintiff and his late wife, Carole Martin, moved to Florida in
1992, but split their time between New York and Florida.  Mrs.
Martin suffered a smoking-related heart attack in 1995.  She later
developed lung cancer in 2003, and ultimately died of the cancer in
2004.  In 2007, the Plaintiff brought the Engle wrongful death
lawsuit against the Defendants, asserting claims of strict
liability, negligence, fraud by concealment, and conspiracy to
commit fraud by concealment.  The trial court granted the Plaintiff
leave to amend his complaint to add claims for punitive damages.

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found that Mrs. Martin was
a legal citizen and resident of Florida on or before Nov. 21, 1996,
found in favor of the Plaintiff on each claim, determined that Mrs.
Martin was 32% at fault, found that the Plaintiff had suffered
approximately $5.4 million in compensatory damages, assessed
$450,000 in punitive damages against Philip Morris, and assessed
$200,000 in punitive damages against R.J. Reynolds.

In post-trial motions, the Defendants argued that the Plaintiff's
claim for punitive damages was barred by the current version of
section 768.73(2)(a).  The trial court denied the Defendants'
post-trial motions.  It entered final judgment in favor of the
Plaintiff, but reduced the compensatory damages award to just under
$3.7 million to account for the jury's comparative fault
determination.

The appeal and cross-appeal ensued.

Judge Artau first addresses the Defendants' argument that the trial
court erred by refusing to apply the post-1999 version of section
768.73.  He finds that the relevant facts are simple.  Mrs. Martin
qualified for Engle class membership based on her smoking-related
heart disease that manifested in 1995, but she died from lung
cancer that manifested in 2003.  Accordingly, he finds that the
Plaintiff's wrongful death cause of action arose no earlier than
2003, which was when Mrs. Martin developed lung cancer.

The Judge emphasizes that, as of Oct. 1, 1999, Mrs. Martin had no
vested right to bring a claim for punitive damages under the
pre-1999 statute arising from the harm caused by her lung cancer
that manifested in 2003.  Thus, because the smoking-related illness
causing Mrs. Martin's death did not develop until after the 1999
amendment to section 768.73, the Judge finds that the post-1999
version of section 768.73 applies to the case.  Applying the
current version of section 768.73 to the case, he finds that
section 768.73(2)(a) bars a punitive damages award to the Plaintiff
because the Defendants established before trial that punitive
damages had previously been awarded against them in other actions
alleging harm from the same act or single course of conduct for
which the claimant seeks compensatory damages.

On cross-appeal, the Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in
reducing the compensatory damages award based on comparative fault
where the jury found for the Plaintiff on the intentional tort
claims.  The Judge holds that the Florida Supreme Court's
elimination of the comparative negligence defense under the
circumstances leaves nothing for retrial or apportionment.  The
jury was instructed to award the compensatory damages they found to
be attributable to the defendants -- nothing less -- nothing more.


The fact that they were also instructed to determine the percentage
of comparative negligence attributable to the Plaintiff on a
defense that the Florida Supreme Court has eliminated as applied
here is of no consequence to the gross amount of compensatory
damages awarded by the jury.  Accordingly, the Judge is left with
no alternative but to reverse and remand with instructions for the
trial court to award compensatory damages in the full amount of the
jury's verdict.

On the main appeal, Judge Artau reversed and remanded with
instructions for the trial court to vacate the punitive damages
awards, but affirm on all other issues.  On the cross-appeal, he
reversed and remanded with instructions for the trial court to
reinstate the entire amount of the jury's verdict on compensatory
damages.

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

William L. Durham II -- bdurham@kslaw.com -- and Val Leppart of
King & Spalding LLP, Atlanta, GA, for appellant R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co.

Scott A. Shesin, and Michael Rayfield -- mrayfield@mayerbrown.com
-- of Mayer Brown LLP, New York, NY, and Joseph H. Lang, Jr. --
jlang@carltonfields.com -- of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.,
Tampa, for appellant Philip Morris USA Inc.

Richard B. Rosenthal, of Richard B. Rosenthal, P.A., Miami, and
Eric S. Rosen, of Kelley Uustal, PLC, Fort Lauderdale, for
appellee.


PILGRIM SURF: Shop Faces Class Action Under ADA
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pilgrim Surf Inc.
under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Derrick U Dennis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Pilgrim Surf Inc, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-07113 (E.D. N.Y., December 13, 2018).

Pilgrim Surf Inc. is in the surf shop industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PINK CHICKEN: Faces Class Suit in NY for Disabilities Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pink Chicken, Inc.
The case is styled as Derrick U Dennis, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pink Chicken, Inc,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07115 (E.D. N.Y., December 13, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Pink Chicken Inc is a privately held company in New York, NY and is
engaged in Children's Underwear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PLAYBOY.COM: Blind Man Files Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
CBS Los Angeles reports that a blind man has sued Playboy.com
alleging the website is inaccessible to individuals who are
visually-impaired.

Donald Nixon filed his lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York
as a potential class-action.

In the suit, Nixon alleges that the men's lifestyle and
entertainment magazine was in violation of federal
anti-discrimination laws for "constructing and maintaining a
website that is inaccessible to visually-impaired individuals,
including Plaintiff . . ."

"During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring in
November 2018, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that
denied Plaintiff full and equal access to the facilities, goods and
services offered to the public and made available to the public,
the suit claimed.

Those barriers, the suit claims, include lack of alternative text
("alt-text"), or a text equivalent, empty links, redundant links,
and linked images missing alt-text.

"If the Website was equally accessible to all," the suit said,
"Plaintiff could independently navigate the Website and complained
the desired transaction as sighted individuals do."

The suit is seeking both injunctive relief and compensatory
damages. [GN]


PORTA BELLA: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtimes Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orlando Martinez, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, Plaintiff, v. PORTA BELLA GROUP LLC, PORTA BELLA,
INC., PORTA BELLA HOLDING CO., INC., PORTA BELLA BUYING LLC, PORTA
BELLA CAPITAL, INC., PORTA BELLA BUYING OFFICE, INC., PORTA BELLA
THIRD AVENUE LLC, PORTA BELLA PR, INC., PORTA BELLA PITKIN LLC,
PORTA BELLA BURNSIDE LLC, PORTA BELLA 350, LLC, PORTA BELLA 259
FORDHAM LLC, PORTA BELLA 18 EAST 125 LLC, PORTA BELLA 118 LLC,
PORTABELLA OF PARKCHESTERLLC, PORTABELLA OF JAMAICA AVENUE, LLC,
PORTABELLA JEROME LLC, PORTABELLA JAMAICA 162, LLC, PORTABELLA
BRUCKNER LLC, PORTABELLA 366 FULTON LLC, PORTABELLA 308 UTICA, LLC,
PORTA BELLA PAYROLL LLC, PORTA BELLA NEW YORK LLC, PORTA BELLA 9304
LLC, PORTA BELLA 7510 ROCKWAY LLC, PORTA BELLA 709 LEXINGTON LLC,
PORTA BELLA 243 LLC, PORTA BELLA 164 JAMAICA LLC, PORTA BELLA 82
LLC, KHALED ASHMAWY and NASIMA [LNU], Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-11666 (S.D. N.Y., December 13, 2018) alleges, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, that he,
and others similarly situated, are entitled to recover from
Defendants: unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation due to
time-shaving, statutory penalties, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

During Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants, the Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiff proper minimum wage and overtime
compensation, due to Defendants' policy of time-shaving. FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and Class members similarly suffered from
Defendants' failure to pay proper minimum wage and overtime
compensation, due to time-shaving. The Defendants knowingly and
willfully operated their business with a policy of not providing
proper wages statements, which did not reflect actual hours worked,
to Plaintiff and Class members as required under the New York Labor
Law, the complaint asserts.

At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the other FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated, have had
substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are
and have been subjected to Defendants' decisions, policies, plans,
programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules,
all culminating in a willful failure and refusal to pay them the
minimum wage and overtime compensation due to time-shaving. The
claims of Plaintiff are essentially the same as those of the other
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, says the complaint.

Plaintiff, Orlando Martinez, is a resident of Bronx County, New
York.

Each Corporate Defendant is a domestic business corporation
organized under the laws of New York. Corporate Defendants operate
a chain of men's clothing stores under the trade name "Porta Bella"
and "Fino." Corporate Defendants owned and/or operated each of the
Porta Bella and Fino clothing stores throughout New York state and
New Jersey, which include 31 locations in New York State and one
location New Jersey State.

Individual Defendant, Khaled Ashmawy is the owner and/or Chief
Executive Officer of Corporate Defendants.

Individual Defendant, Nasima [LNU] is a principle of Corporate
Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PREFERRED HOME: Shortchanges Health Aides' Benefits, Says Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ynes M. Gonzalez De Fuente, Mariya Kobryn and Ivan Kobryn,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Preferred Home Care of New York LLC, Edison Home
Health Care, Healthcap Assurance, Inc., Berry Weiss, Samuel Weiss
and Does 1-15, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-06749 (E.D.
N.Y., November 27, 2018), seeks redress for violations of the New
York State Home Care Worker Wage Parity Law, Public Health Law and
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Gonzalez de Fuente, Mariya Kobryn and Ivan Kobryn are certified
home health aides employed by Edison Home Health Care. Gonzalez
worked between three and five ten-hour shifts, Mariya Kobryn works
three eleven-hour shifts while Ivan Kobryn works four twelve-hour
shifts for Edison, where all of their hours worked were within New
York City on Medicaid cases. Under the Wage Parity Law, the Benefit
Portion of the Minimum Rate, may be paid either in cash, or through
any combination of cash, health, education, pension benefits, wage
differentials, supplements in lieu of benefits or compensated time
off. However, at no time did the total compensation package
provided to Plaintiffs satisfied the Benefit Portion of the minimum
rate under the Wage Parity Law -- namely debit cards and Plan
benefit cards -- because their out of pocket expenses are too
expensive, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Laureve Blackstone, Esq.
     Ryan Barbur, Esq.
     LEVY RATNER, P.C.
     80 Eighth Avenue
     New York, NY 10011
     Tel: (212) 627-8100
     Fax: (212) 627-8182
     Email: lblackstone@levyratner.com
            rbarbur@levyratner.com

            - and -

     Daniel Feinberg, Esq.
     Catha Worthman, Esq.
     FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP
     2030 Addison Street, Suite 500
     Berkeley, CA 94704
     Tel: (510) 269-7998
     Fax: (510) 269-7994
     Email: dan@feinbergjackson.com
            catha@feinbergjackson.com


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Deadline to Answer Takano Suit Moved to Jan. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TOM TAKANO and TRACY McCARTHY, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE PROCTER &
GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00385 TLN-AC (E.D.
Cal.), District Judge Troy L. Nunley extended the time for the
Defendant to answer the Complaint up to and including Jan. 2,
2019.

The Plaintiffs and P&G have agreed to extend the time for P&G to
answer the Complaint up to and including Jan. 2, 2019, which is 28
days from the date that the answer is currently due, Dec. 5, 2018.
This is the second extension of time to respond to the Complaint
agreed to by Plaintiffs and P&G. The previous agreement of an
extension extended the date that the answer was due from Nov. 7,
2018 to Dec. 5, 2018.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 11, 2018 is available at
https://bit.ly/2Qymtr0 from Leagle.com.

Tom Takano & Tracy McCarthy, Plaintiffs, represented by Yeremey
Olegovich Krivoshey -- ykrivoshey@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher,
P.A.

Procter & Gamble Company, Defendant, represented by Raymond A.
Cardozo -- rcardozo@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP.

RECEIVABLE PERFORMANCE: Faces Sully Suit Under Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Receivable
Performance Management, LLC. The case is styled as Marie Sully also
known as: Marie Evene Sully, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Receivable Performance Management,
LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-05390-JLS
(E.D. Penn., December 13, 2018).

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

Receivable Performance Management, LLC is an accounts receivable
management company. The company was incorporated in 2002 and is
based in Lynnwood, Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   ROBERT P. COCCO, Esq.
   LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. COCCO PC
   1500 WALNUT ST., STE 900
   PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102
   Tel: (215) 351-0200
   Fax: (215) 922-3874
   Email: rcocco@rcn.com


RED HOOK CONSTRUCTION: Diaz Claims Overtime for Off-the-Clock Work
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eliax Diaz, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Red Hook Construction Group,
LLC, Red Hook Construction I, LLC, Red Hook Construction-II, LLC,
RHCG Safety Corp., Defendants, Case No. 161245/2018 filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, on
November 30, 2018, seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
New York Labor Law and applicable New York Codes, Rules and
Regulations.

Diaz worked for Red Hook as a construction worker from
approximately 2013 until approximately 2016, nonconsecutively at
multiple construction sites. Diaz occasionally worked six days per
week, past his regular shift time, yet was only paid for his shift
and not for all the hours he actually worked, notes the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
      Jack L. Newhouse, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 943-9080
      Fax: (212) 943-9082
      Email: jnewhouse@vandallp.com


REPUBLIC WASTE: Denial of Subclasses Cert. in Acme Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Acme Iron & Metal Company, a d/b/a of Txalloy, Inc.;
and Mayfield Paper Company, Inc., Appellants, v. Republic Waste
Services of Texas, Ltd., sometimes d/b/a Trashaway Services and
Duncan Disposal, Appellee, Case No. 03-17-00664-CV (Tex. App.),
Judge David Puryear of the Court of Appeals of Texas for the Third
District, Austin, affirmed the trial court's order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Plaintiffs filed suit against Appellee Republic for breach of
contract and other claims associated with Republic's provision of
waste-collection services to commercial customers in the City of
San Angelo.  The City and Republic executed a
waste-disposal-services contract in February 1989 for a 10-year
term, which was extended for an additional five years, until 2004.
The 1989 Contract provided Republic a "non-exclusive" "privilege"
to provide commercial waste-collection services in the City and
provided that Republic will contract directly with its commercial
customers as to the terms of removal and disposal of solid waste.
The 1989 Contract provided that rates for commercial customers were
to be established with the City.  By contrast, rates for
residential customers would be established by ordinance or
resolution of the City Council.

Effective Aug. 1, 2004, the City and Republic executed a new,
10-year contract for the provision of residential and commercial
waste services.  In contrast to the prior contract, the 2004
Contract provided Republic the exclusive right, privilege, and
permit to engage in the business of waste collection and disposal,
unless a commercial entity obtained its own hauling and disposal
permit.  Unlike the prior contract, the 2004 Contract also provided
that Republic will be responsible for billing and collection of all
charges for commercial service in accordance with the rates for
commercial waste collection service established by City ordinance
or resolution.

After the 2004 Contract expired, the City requested proposals for a
new 10-year waste-collection-services contract.  In the bid-review
process, the City's auditor raised questions about Republic's
historical calculations of certain fuel-surcharge and environmental
fees under its prior contracts.  Republic engaged an accounting
firm to conduct an audit of its commercial billing statements in
response to the City's concerns and ultimately publicly stated that
it would fully refund its commercial customers any fees incorrectly
charged to their accounts.

Three days after Republic's public statement, the Plaintiffs filed
a lawsuit against it.  The lawsuit alleged that Republic had
charged the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated commercial
customers unauthorized "Fuel/Environmental Recovery Fees" for
years.  The Plaintiffs sought damages and attorney's fees on their
claims against Republic for breach of contract, unjust enrichment,
violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, fraud, and
negligent misrepresentation.  About a month after they filed their
lawsuit, the City awarded the contract to Republic.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, seeking to
certify two subclasses: (1) the class members charged allegedly
unauthorized fees by Republic between March 2000 and July 2004
("2000 Subclass") and (2) the class members charged allegedly
unauthorized fees by Republic between August 2004 and July 2014
("2004 Subclass").  

Republic filed a motion for summary judgment on all of the
Plaintiffs' claims.  The trial court conducted a single hearing on
both the Plaintiffs' motion to certify and Republic's motion for
summary judgment.  It denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, concluding that the Plaintiffs failed to establish
any of the requirements under Rule 42(a) and (b).  Without signing
a separate order, the trial court made a docket entry that it
granted summary judgment regarding the Plaintiffs' "2004 Claims"
but denied it regarding their "2000 Claims."

The Plaintiffs brought the interlocutory appeal from the denial of
their certification motion.  

Judge Puryear finds that the Plaintiffs' concession that the 2004
Subclass' claims are not cognizable under current law supports the
trial court's reasonable conclusion that the claims fail as a
matter of law.  Furthermore, because the 2004 Subclass has suffered
no damages it has no legally cognizable injury, and the potential
subclass members therefore have no standing.  Accordingly, he
concludes that the trial court's refusal to certify this subclass
was not legally unreasonable under these circumstances, and the
trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion in its ruling
pertaining to the 2004 Subclass.

On the records, and given the deferential standard by which the
Court must review orders denying certification, the Judge cannot
say that the trial court acted unreasonably in concluding that the
proposed 2000 Subclass did not meet the predominance requirement.
Accordingly, he holds that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in denying the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the 2000
Subclass.

Because he concludes that the trial court acted within its
discretion by denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, Judge Puryear affirmed the trial court's order.

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

Amanda G. Taylor -- ataylor@beckredden.com -- Constance H. Pfeiffer
-- cpfeiffer@beckredden.com -- for Duncan Disposal, Appellee.

Amanda G. Taylor, Constance H. Pfeiffer, for Republic Waste
Services of Texas, Ltd., sometimes d/b/a Trashaway Services,
Appellee.

David A. King, James A. Hemphill -- jhemphill@gdhm.com -- Paul
Stipanovic, Christopher L. Elliott -- celliott@gdhm.com -- for
Mayfield Paper Company, Inc., Appellant.

Paul Stipanovic, Christopher L. Elliott, James A. Hemphill, David
A. King, for Acme Iron & Metal Company, a d/b/a of Txalloy, Inc.,
Appellant.


RJ REYNOLDS: 11th Cir. Affirms Denial of New Trial Bid in Cote Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment denying Defendant's
Motion for New Trial in the cases captioned BERNARD COTE, the
Personal Representative of the Estate of Judith Berger,
Plaintiff-Appellee Cross Appellant, v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO
COMPANY, et al., Defendants. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant Cross Appellee. Nos. 15-15633, 16-15957. (11th
Cir.).

Philip Morris appeals denial of its motion for a new trial,
asserting improper closing argument.

Plaintiff Judith Berger (Mrs. Berger) sued Philip Morris USA, Inc.
(Philip Morris) for intentional and unintentional torts, seeking
compensatory and punitive damages for smoking-related injuries.

After a nine-day, bifurcated trial, a jury found for Mrs. Berger on
all claims and awarded compensatory and punitive damages.  

On appeal, Philip Morris argues that the district court erred in
denying its motion for a new trial, based on improper closing
argument by counsel.  

The Court reviews the district court's denial of Philip Morris's
motion for a new trial based on allegedly improper closing argument
under the deferential, abuse-of-discretion standard.

Philip Morris argues that in closing arguments, opposing counsel
made three types of inflammatory, prejudicial comments that require
a new trial: (1) comments that compared it to a child predator; (2)
comments that improperly disparaged its defense against Mrs.
Berger's claims; and (3) comments that improperly injected
counsel's opinion.

The finds that counsel's rebuttal argument was a fair response to
the argument that Mrs. Berger smoked even after her father caught
her smoking and expressed his disapproval. Contrary to Philip
Morris's portrayal, counsel's use of the
don't-take-candy-from-a-stranger adage did not of necessity suggest
child predation or pedophilia. Furthermore, to constitute
reversable error, statements made in oral argument must be plainly
unwarranted and clearly injurious. Jurors heard extensive evidence
that Philip Morris and its co-conspirators, knowing that nicotine
cigarettes were addictive and harmful, deliberately targeted and
encouraged school-age children to start smoking. Given such
evidence, it is most unlikely that counsel's rebuttal argument
altered jurors' assessment of Philip Morris.

Philip Morris argues that counsel improperly voiced personal
opinions, including, the Court don't think that's a lot to ask in
this country: to make products as safe as possible and a comment
that it was sick and disgusting that Philip Morris introduced
Nicorette gum only after smokers had become ill. Although counsel
has a duty to refrain from providing personal commentary,
potentially prejudicial remarks may be rendered harmless by a
curative instruction.

Here, immediately after counsel made the comments at issue, Philip
Morris objected and without hesitation, the district court reminded
jurors that they were bound to decide the case on the evidence, not
the personal observations of counsel. Given the district court's
curative instruction, we find no prejudice.

In its opening brief, Philip Morris sought to preserve its position
on two additional issues: (1) whether the use of Phase I findings
to prove elements of Engle-progeny claims violates due process and
(2) whether the use of Phase I findings to prove elements of
Engle-progeny nonintentional tort claims is preempted by federal
law. Philip Morris acknowledged that these questions had been
decided against it by this Court's decision in Graham v. R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co., 857 F.3d 1169, 1183-86 (11th Cir. 2017) (en
banc), cert. denied, 138 S.Ct. 636 (2018), where the Coourt held
that treating the Engle jury findings on negligence and strict
liability as res judicata did not violate due process and that
federal tobacco laws do not preempt state tort claims based on the
dangerousness of all the cigarettes manufactured by the tobacco
companies.

After the close of briefing, this Court held in Burkhart v. R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co., 884 F.3d 1068, 1091-93 (11th Cir. 2018) that
due process is not violated by applying preclusive effect to Phase
I fraudulent concealment and conspiracy findings in an
Engle-progeny action. And more recently, when presented with
arguments identical to those asserted by Philip Morris here, this
Court held: Because the Court is bound to follow precedent, the
Burkhart decision therefore ends any debate in this court as to
whether the Engle jury findings related to the concealment claims
are to be given preclusive effect. The answer is: they will.

In sum, the Eleventh Circuit precedent holds, categorically, that
use of Phase I findings to establish Engle-progeny tort claims is
constitutionally permissible, and the Court must therefore reject
Philip Morris's arguments.

The Court affirms the district court's denial of Philip Morris's
motion for a new trial based on improper closing argument,

A full-text copy of the Eleventh Circuit's November 26, 2018
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8rnaduc from
Leagle.com.

Dana G. Bradford, II -- dgbradford@sgrlaw.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant-Cross Appellee.

Steven L. Brannock -- sbrannock@bhappeals.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross Appellant.

Mark Jurgen Heise, for Defendant-Appellant-Cross Appellee.

James B. Murphy, Jr., for Defendant-Appellant-Cross Appellee.

Lance V. Oliver -- loliver@motleyrice.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross Appellant.

Joseph W. Prichard, Jr., for Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross Appellant.

Robert B. Parrish -- bparrish@mppkj.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross Appellant.

M. Sean Laane -- sean.laane@arnoldporter.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant-Cross Appellee.


RJ REYNOLDS: Bid for Directed Verdict in Whitmore Affirmed in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Appellant, v. JAMES
WHITMIRE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Evelyn
Whitmire, Appellee, Case No. 1D17-1986 (Fla. App.), Judge Bradford
L. Thomas of the U.S. District Court of Appeal of Florida for the
First District affirmed in part and reversed in part the the trial
court's denial of the Appellant's motion for directed verdict.

In the Engle-progeny case, the Appellant challenges the trial
court's denial of its motion for directed verdict, arguing that the
Appellee failed to prove individual detrimental reliance, and thus
failed to prove fraudulent concealment and conspiracy.  

The Appellee's wife (the decedent) died in 1995 after being
diagnosed with lung cancer.  The Appellee, as the personal
representative of her estate, brought wrongful death claims on her
behalf against the Appellant, arguing strict liability, negligence,
fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy to fraudulently
conceal.  He claimed the decedent was a member of the class
prospectively decertified in Engle.

The decedent started smoking cigarettes when she was about 14 years
old, and normally smoked one or two packs a day.  The Appellee and
the decedent smoked Winston filtered cigarettes, introduced by
Appellant in 1954, and later switched to Salem menthol-flavored
filtered cigarettes.  The decedent made multiple unsuccessful
attempts to quit smoking cigarettes.  She did not quit smoking
until after her cancer diagnosis, months before her death.

The Appellee presented expert testimony that large tobacco
companies in the United States, including the Appellant, made
fraudulent statements regarding the hazards of smoking on Dec. 4,
1953 and thereafter.  The Appellant moved for a directed verdict,
arguing that the Appellee presented no evidence connecting these
statements to the decedent's smoking behavior.  The Appellee argued
that, under R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. Martin, he was not
required to prove the decedent relied on specific statements by the
Appellant.  The trial court denied Appellant's motion for directed
verdict.

The jury found that the decedent was addicted to cigarettes
containing nicotine, and that such addiction was the cause of her
lung cancer and death.  The jury apportioned 33% of the
responsibility of her death to the decedent, and 67% of the
responsibility to Appellant, awarding $3 million in damages to the
Appellee for the loss of companionship and pain and suffering
caused by the decedent's death.

After trial, the Appellant renewed its motions for directed
verdict, asserting that no testimony connected the decedent's
smoking to her reliance on any false or misleading statements by
any tobacco company.  The trial court denied Appellant's motion.
It entered final judgment for the full $3 million compensatory
award, with no reduction based on the decedent's 33% comparative
fault.

The parties do not dispute that the case is an Engle-progeny case.
Engle was a class action brought against several tobacco companies,
including the Appellant, on behalf of all Florida-resident smokers
who developed smoking-related illnesses, including lung cancer,
caused by an addiction to nicotine.  The trial was divided into
three "phases," with Phase I concerning common issues relating to
the Defendant tobacco companies' conduct and to the general health
effects of smoking.  After Phase I, the jury reached a verdict in
favor of the class.  

After Phases II-A and II-B, which were intended to determine
entitlement and damages for the class representatives and the
class, the jury awarded the class representatives $12.7 million in
compensatory damages and the class as a whole $145 billion in
punitive damages.  The tobacco companies appealed, and the supreme
court eventually decertified the class and vacated the
punitive-damages award.  However, the supreme court held that some
factual findings regarding liability made during Phase I of the
trial could be retained for individual actions by the Engle class
members.

Judge Thomas affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.  He
finds that because the Appellee failed to present adequate evidence
as a matter of law that the decedent relied on fraudulent
statements by the Appellant regarding the health hazards of smoking
cigarettes, the trial court erred in denying Appellant's motion for
a directed verdict.  He reversed the trial court's denial of the
Appellant's motion for a directed verdict on the fraudulent
concealment and conspiracy claims.  He remanded for an order
granting the directed verdict and reducing the compensatory damage
award to deduct the decedent's comparative fault.

The Judge holds he needs not reach the issue of whether the trial
court erred in rejecting the Appellant's requested jury instruction
requiring the jury to find that the decedent relied on a
"statement" to find fraudulent concealment and conspiracy, in light
of his holding directing that the verdict be granted for the
Appellant on fraudulent concealment and conspiracy.

The Judge rejected all other arguments raised by the Appellant.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/BkUJrt from Leagle.com.

Charles F. Beall, Jr., of Moore, Hill & Westmoreland, P.A.,
Pensacola; Emily C. Baker -- ecbaker@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day,
Atlanta, GA; Edward M. Carter -- emcarter@jonesday.com -- and
Kenneth M. Grose -- kmgrose@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day, Columbus,
OH; Charles R. A. Morse -- cramorse@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day,
New York, NY; Michael A. Carvin -- macarvin@jonesday.com -- Jones
Day, Washington, D.C.; Kenneth R. Hart -- khart@ausley.com -- of
Ausley McMullen, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

David J. Sales and Daniel R. Hoffman of David J. Sales, P.A.,
Sarasota, for Appellee.


ROSIE POPE MATERNITY: Violates ADA, Says Dennis Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rosie Pope Maternity,
LLC. The case is styled as Derrick U Dennis, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rosie Pope
Maternity, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07110 (E.D. N.Y.,
December 13, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Rosie Pope Maternity, LLC is a privately held company in New York,
NY and is a Single Location business. Categorized under Maternity
Apparel, it was established in 2007 and is incorporated in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



SCANA CORP: Dominion Wants Commissioners to Review New Offer
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Brown, writing for The Post and Courier, reports that for 15
days, South Carolina's utility regulators reviewed testimony and
sorted through mountains of evidence on the failed V.C. Summer
nuclear project in order to decide how much S.C. Electric & Gas
customers should pay for two unfinished reactors.

But as the high-stakes hearing wrapped up, the utility regulators
were asked to consider one more thing.

Dominion Energy wanted the commissioners to review a new offer that
would allow the Virginia-based energy company to seal its proposed
takeover of SCE&G's parent, SCANA Corp. It was the third plan
Dominion pitched to regulators.

Less than four days later, SCANA announced another deal -- this
time with several law firms that were suing the company in a class
action lawsuit on behalf of SCE&G ratepayers. That legal settlement
threw support behind Dominion's plans in the state Public Service
Commission and is contingent upon the regulators giving the
utilities what they want.

With a decision from regulators due by Dec. 21, here's some
explanation of what this dual settlement offer could mean for
ratepayers, who have already dumped more than $2 billion into the
abandoned nuclear project and who face paying more in the future.


What does Dominion's latest offer in the Public Service Commission
include?

The initial plan from Dominion called for the average SCE&G
ratepayer to receive a roughly $1,000 refund check but required
customers to pay another $3.8 billion for the reactors.

Dominion has since offered to do away with the refund checks if the
utility commissioners don't like the idea. Instead, the company
offered to further reduce how much customers pay for the abandoned
reactors moving forward.

Under the more recent plan, residential and business ratepayers
would be required to pay another $2.3 billion for the reactors over
the next two decades.

The average residential ratepayer under that plan would pay more
than $7 a month to the unfinished power project, according to the
Office of Regulatory Staff, the state's utility watchdog agency.

It is a decrease from what people paid last year, when the average
customer doled out more than $25 per month for the failed project.

But it will require the average SCE&G customer to pay more than
$1,600 each for the reactors before the debt is paid off in 20
years.

What other plans are the state's utility regulators considering?

The Office of Regulatory Staff is sticking to its plan. Customers
will still have to pay for the reactors moving forward, due to the
2007 state law that allowed SCE&G to charge customers in advance
for the project.

But under the utility watchdog's plan, the average residential
ratepayers would kick in a little more than $5 per month for the
failed project.

Overall, all SCE&G's customers will pay back $1.7 billion over the
next two decades under that plan, according to the Office of
Regulatory Staff.

Other groups in the Public Service Commission case are still
pushing for more savings for SCE&G's ratepayers. But if the
regulators choose any of these plans, Dominion says it will walk
away from its deal with SCANA.

It's up to the utility commissioners to decide the issue before
Christmas.

What does the new settlement in the class action lawsuit do?

The press release announcing the pending legal settlement mentioned
$2 billion in rate relief for SCE&G customers. But that money was
already part of the deal that Dominion put forward in the Public
Service Commission.

In reality, SCANA and the trial attorneys representing SCE&G
ratepayers plan to settle the high-stakes case for $115 million,
which matches the money set aside in golden parachutes for SCANA
executives let go after the Dominion sale, and whatever money can
be made from the sale of several SCANA properties, including an
office in downtown Charleston.

It's a far cry from the $2 billion in damages they sought earlier,
but the law firms representing SCE&G ratepayers say the settlement
avoids years of costly litigation. An even bigger concern, they
told the judge in the case, is that SCANA would go bankrupt and
they wouldn't be able to collect any damages.

If the settlement is approved, former and current SCE&G ratepayers
will be compensated based on how much they paid into failed nuclear
project. Instructions on how to join the class action lawsuit will
be sent out in the mail or via email.

It's unclear at this point how many customers the settlement money
will be split between. SCE&G currently has more than 700,000
customers, and the nuclear payments have lasted a decade.

The law firms that pushed the case, however, will ask the judge to
allow them to pocket a chunk of that money too. Those attorneys
have yet to say how much they will collect to cover the litigation
costs, which included months of discovery.

SCANA, for its part, gets to end the risky litigation and walk away
without admitting any guilt.

Who is supporting the offers in court and the Public Service
Commission?

South Carolina's House Speaker Jay Lucas, R-Darlington, was hinting
at his support for Dominion's more recent offers even before the
hearings started in the Public Service Commission last month.

Now, he's backing the latest rates Dominion put on the table. He's
doing so because the monthly bills Dominion is offering is right
around the temporary rates the Legislature forced SCANA to
implement this summer.

He's not the only elected official to get on board. Republican
Attorney General Alan Wilson also blessed the settlement in the
class action lawsuit. For more than a year, Wilson's office pushed
for a court ruling that deemed the 2007 Base Load Review Act
unconstitutional.

The judge in the class action lawsuit was reportedly on the cusp of
doing just that.

But the settlement will end that possibility, and Wilson says it
"resolves the injury that SCE&G customers suffered." SCE&G
ratepayers will have an opportunity to weigh in on that legal
settlement in the coming months and to tell the judge whether they
believe it resolves their financial injuries.

Correction: An earlier version of this story mistated the amount of
money ratepayers would need to pay for the nuclear reactors under
Dominion and the Office of Regulatory Staff's plans. [GN]


SCANLAN THEODORE: Faces Dennis Suit Asserting ADA Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scanlan Theodore
Americas, LLC. The case is styled as Derrick U Dennis, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Scanlan
Theodore Americas, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07105 (E.D.
N.Y., December 13, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Scanlan Theodore is a women's fashion and accessories brand
offering a range of ready-to-wear, handbags, and footwear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



SECURUS TECH: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Romero Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Juan Romero, Frank Tiscareno and Kenneth Elliott filed
an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Juan
Romero, et al. v. Securus Technologies, Inc., Case No.
3:16-cv-01283-JM-MDD, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, San Diego.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 11, 2018, Judge
Jeffrey T. Miller (i) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment; and (ii) granted in part their renewed motion for
class certification.

Plaintiffs Romero, Tiscareno, and Elliot filed the putative class
action on May 27, 2016, alleging Securus unlawfully recorded
detainee-attorney calls.  Securus provides inmate communication
services for correctional facilities throughout California.  The
Plaintiffs are two former inmates and a criminal defense attorney,
all of whom used Securus' telephone systems to make calls to and
from certain correctional facilities in California and allege that
their calls were recorded.

The appellate case is captioned as Juan Romero, et al. v. Securus
Technologies, Inc., Case No. 18-80180, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners JUAN ROMERO, FRANK TISCARENO and KENNETH
ELLIOTT, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
are represented by:

          Eileen R. Ridley, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          555 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104-1520
          Telephone: (415) 434-4484
          E-mail: eridley@foley.com

               - and -

          Nicholas Fox, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          3579 Valley Centre Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 847-6700
          E-mail: nfox@foley.com

               - and -

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com

Defendant-Respondent SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., is represented
by:

          Adam R. Fox, Esq.
          Marisol C. Mork, Esq.
          SQUIRE SANDERS (US) LLP
          555 South Flower Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2300
          Telephone: (213) 624-2500
          E-mail: adam.fox@squirepb.com
                  marisol.mork@squirepb.com


SPESS OIL: Settles Oklahoma Earthquake Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Associated Press reports that three oil companies have reached a
settlement with plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit over damaging
earthquakes in central Oklahoma.

The companies, Spess Oil Co., Equal Energy US Inc. and Fairfield
Oil and Gas Corp., have not admitted to any liability but have
agreed to put $925,000 into a settlement fund. The lawsuit argues
that saltwater disposal well operations led to 2011 earthquakes
near the Oklahoma town of Prague.

Attorneys say the fund is subject to court approval and a January
hearing is scheduled to consider approval of the settlement.

Another defendant, New Dominion LLC, is not included in the
agreement. The plaintiffs' attorney, Scott Poynter, says the
company is pursuing an appeal before the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
[GN]


STETSON DESERT: Manes Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Manes and Jason Vangundy on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Stetson
Desert Project, LLC, d/b/a Le Girls' Gentlemen's Club, and Cory J.
Anderson, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04664-DJH (D.
Ariz., December 13, 2018) is a collective action seeking to recover
unpaid overtime compensation and minimum wage owed to them
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
employees, current and former, of Defendants in Arizona.

The Defendants required Plaintiff Manes to work as an exotic dancer
at their adult entertainment club in excess of 40 hours per week,
but refused to compensate her at the applicable minimum wage and
overtime rates. In fact, Defendants refused to compensate Plaintiff
Manes whatsoever for any hours worked, the complaint asserts.
Plaintiff Manes' only compensation was in the form of tips from
club patrons. Moreover, Plaintiff was required to divide her tips
with Defendants and other employees who do not customarily receive
tips. Therefore, Defendants have failed to compensate Plaintiff at
the federally-mandated minimum wage rate.

Additionally, the Defendants required Plaintiff Vangundy to work as
a bouncer, security guard, and VIP host in excess of 40 hours per
week but refused to compensate him for all hours worked. The
Defendants had a policy of clocking out their hourly paid employees
at or near closing hours of the club but required them to continue
to work several hours after closing, adds the complaint.

Defendants' conduct violates the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
which requires non-exempt employees to be compensated for their
overtime work at a rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay, the complaint contends.

Plaintiff Manes is an individual residing in Maricopa County,
Arizona, and works as an exotic dancer for the Defendants.

Plaintiff Vangundy is an individual residing in Maricopa County,
Arizona, and works as a bouncer, security guard, and VIP host for
the Defendants.

Stetson Desert Project, LLC, d/b/a Le Girls' Gentlemen's Club is a
domestic for-profit company doing business in Phoenix, Arizona.

Defendant Cory J. Anderson is an individual who resides in Maricopa
County, Arizona. He is the owner and registered agent of Stetson
Desert Project, LLC, d/b/a Le Girls' Gentlemen's Club.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
     SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
     5612 Chaucer Drive
     Houston, TX 77005
     Phone: (281) 885-8844
     Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
     Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com

          - and -

     John Neuman, Esq.
     SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
     5612 Chaucer Drive
     Houston, TX 77005
     Phone: (281) 885-8630
     Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
     Email: JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com


STUCKY LAUER: $25K Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Maloy FDCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SAMUEL MALOY (on behalf of Himself and others
similarly situated), Plaintiff, v. STUCKY, LAUER & YOUNG, LLP,
Defendant, Cause No. 1:17-CV-336-TLS (N.D. Ind.), Judge Theresa L.
Springmann of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiff's, Samuel Maloy, Motion for Attorney Fees and
Expenses.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
filed suit against the Defendant on Aug. 9, 2017 regarding an
alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

On May 29, 2018, the Court approved the Plaintiff's Motion to
Certify Class and for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement.  

On Oct. 4, 2018, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Certify Class
and Final Approval of Class Settlement.  The parties indicated that
they had entered a Settlement Agreement, which requires the
Defendant to pay $1,000 to the named Plaintiff for his service as
the class representative and $5,000 to be distributed among the 889
class members for whom the parties possess valid addresses.
Pursuant also to the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant agrees not
to contest an award of attorney's fees up to $30,000, and
reasonable costs and expenses up to $3,000 to the Class Counsel.

The Court conducted a Fairness Hearing on Oct. 5, 2018.  On Oct.
25, 2018, the Court granted in part the parties' Joint Motion to
Certify Class and Final Approval of Class Settlement and requested
additional briefing on attorney's fees.  

On Nov. 5, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Attorney's Fees
and Expenses and an Affidavit in Support of the Motion for
Attorney's Fees and Expenses from the Plaintiff's attorney Russell
S. Thompson.  The Class Counsel requests that the Court, pursuant
to its authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h), award
it $30,000 in attorney's fees and $2,526.44 in expenses. In
accordance with the parties' Settlement Agreement, the Defendant
did not file an objection.

As to attorneys' fees, Judge Springmann finds that a rate of
$75/hour is appropriate in the instance.  She also finds it
appropriate to reduce the lodestar number of $28,791.60 to $25,000
as this was a straightforward case involving little difficulty,
senior attorneys billed extensively despite previous experience
with such matters and the availability of junior attorneys, the fee
would otherwise be disproportionate, and the amount of attorney's
fees awarded is congruent with other cases in the district.

As to the expenses, she holds that the Class Counsel is the
prevailing party and the expenses should be considered in
accordance with Rule 54.  She finds that the expenses claimed are
reasonable and directly related to the litigation and claims
administration process and therefore will grant $2,526.44 in
expenses.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Springmann granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Expenses.
She granted expenses in the amount of $2,526.44 and denied the
Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees in the amount of $30,000.
Instead, she granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees in
the amount of $25,000.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 14, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/ZjmDST from Leagle.com.

Samuel Maloy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Russell S. Thompson, IV --
rthompson@thompsonconsumerlaw.com -- Thompson Consumer Law Group
PLLC.

Stucky, Lauer & Young, LLP, Defendant, represented by Briane M.
House -- bhouse@skilesdetrude.com -- Skiles DeTrude.


TESLA INC: Settles Enhanced Autopilot Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Tesla
Enhanced Autopilot class-action lawsuit has been settled after
customers alleged they paid $5,000 for a system they couldn't use
by the date Tesla advertised.

The Tesla settlement includes all U.S. consumers who purchased
Enhanced Autopilot with their purchase or lease of a Tesla Hardware
2 Model S or Model X vehicle delivered to them on or before
September 30, 2017.

In October 2016, Tesla announced it would release Enhanced
Autopilot for its Hardware 2 vehicles which consumers could
purchase for $5,000. Tesla told customers the software was
"expected to complete validation and be rolled out to your car via
an over-the-air update in December 2016, subject to regulatory
approval."

However, the automaker started rolling out Enhanced Autopilot
features in January 2017, with substantially all promised features
delivered by September 2017.

In addition, the Hardware 2 vehicles were supposed to be equipped
with certain standard safety features that would be available
December 2016, but those features didn't start appearing until
January 2017 and were substantially completed in May 2017.

The plaintiffs say they filed the lawsuit because Tesla didn't meet
the December 2016 date promised when the vehicles were ordered.

Court documents say there are 32,410 affected customers in the
U.S., with 94 class members requesting to be excluded from the
lawsuit. And although the original lawsuit argued Tesla should buy
back the vehicles, the settlement agreement fell way short of that
goal.

According to the final terms, Tesla customers who paid at least
$5,000 for Enhanced Autopilot will receive anywhere from $20 to
$280 each.

According to the class-action, whether a customer receives the
minimum $20 or the maximum $280 will depend on a combination of
three things.

   1. What Tesla's said regarding the timing of the release of the
Enhanced Autopilot features as of the date the customers ordered
the vehicles.
   2. The timing and content of Tesla's Enhanced Autopilot software
releases.
   3. The date customers took delivery of their vehicles.

Affected customers include all U.S. residents who purchased
Enhanced Autopilot in connection with their purchase or lease of a
Tesla Hardware 2 Model S or Model X vehicle delivered to them on or
before September 30, 2017.

If there are any residual amounts once funds are distributed to
Tesla customers, the money will be donated to the Ohio State
University Center for Automotive Research and/or Texas A&M
Transportation Institute, Center for Transportation Safety.

Even though no class member will receive more than $280 for their
$5,000 Autopilot purchase, the judge says the "settlement recovery
is substantial given the size of the class for a consumer class
action case."

Attorneys who represented the owners will receive $976,000 in
reimbursement for costs and expenses.

The Tesla Enhanced Autopilot class-action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Jose Division - Sheikh, et al., vs. Tesla, Inc.

The plaintiffs are represented by Hagens Berman. [GN]


TEXAS BANK: Court Dismisses RICO Claim in Zucker Ponzi Scheme Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT EDWARD ZUCKER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JERRY LEE
FARISH, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:18-CV-01790-K (N.D.
Tex.), Judge Ed Kinkeade of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, granted the Motion to
Dismiss and Brief in Support filed by Defendants Texas Bank and
Trust Co. and Barry Brown.

The proposed representative class Plaintiffs in the case are
various persons alleging that they were victims of a Ponzi scheme
at the hands of Jerry Farish, Jill Farish, Nathan Farish, Erick
Farish, and Nicholas Farish ("Farish Defendants"), as well as
several entities allegedly operated by some or all of the Farish
Defendants ("New Summit Defendants").  The Complaint alleges that
Barry L. Brown and Texas Bank and Trust ("Bank Defendants"), along
with Schultz and Kellar, PLLC, Texas American Title Co., and Title
Resources Guaranty Co., assisted the Farish Defendants and/or the
New Summit Defendants in carrying out the Ponzi scheme.

The 524-paragraph Complaint describes at length, almost entirely
upon information and belief only, the various "sub-schemes" of the
Ponzi scheme as they relate to different sub-classes of the
Plaintiffs.  The first two proposed sub-classes consist of the
following proposed representative class Plaintiffs: Robert Edward
Zucker, Lory Baraz, Baraz Zucker Properties, LLC, and Robert E.
Zucker Investments, LLC ("Zucker Plaintiffs").  The third proposed
sub-class consists of the following proposed representative class
Plaintiffs: Gary Werezynski, GMW II, LLC, and Marsha Frost.  The
Complaint alleges that the Farish Defendants carried out the Ponzi
scheme in slightly different manners as to each sub-class.

The sole federal claim alleged by the Plaintiffs is the civil
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") claim,
which is Count Ten and begins with paragraph 510 of the Complaint.
The Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding 509 paragraphs and then
allege that all the Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. Section 1964(c)
(2012) through a pattern of criminal conduct including: (1) wire
fraud, (2) conspiracy to commit wire fraud, (3) fraudulently
claiming an interest in one or more parcels of real property, and
(4) money laundering.

The Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order to prevent a
foreclosure sale on one of the investment properties.  Judge Sidney
A. Fitzwater, sitting as duty judge, denied the temporary
restraining order.  In the same filing, the Plaintiffs moved the
Court for a writ of attachment and expedited discovery.  The Court
has not ruled on either of those motions.  The Plaintiffs have also
dismissed Defendant Jerry Hatfield from the case.

In their Motion, the Bank Defendants argue, inter alia, that the
Plaintiffs failed to allege facts supporting a civil RICO claim
because Count Ten is almost entirely statutory quotes and
allegations directed only at the Farish Defendants and/or the New
Summit Defendants.  In the Plaintiffs' Response to the Bank
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support, they briefly
describe how the Bank Defendants participated in the Ponzi scheme.
Other than arguing that the proceeds of the Ponzi scheme helped
perpetuate an "enterprise," and that all conduct affected
interstate commerce, the Plaintiffs do not explain how the facts
underlying the alleged Ponzi scheme properly plead a civil RICO
claim.

The Plaintiffs allege in Count Ten of the Complaint that the Farish
Defendants and/or the New Summit Defendants committed wire fraud in
some 40 different transactions as described in the Complaint.
Based upon the law previously discussed by the Court, Judge
Kinkeadee finds that the Plaintiffs fail to satisfy Rule 9(b) when
pleading in this manner.  Within Count Ten, the Plaintiffs do not
cite any specific, prior factual allegations within their Complaint
that would support a claim of wire fraud.  They instead make a
conclusory allegation of wire fraud in hopes that through their
shotgun pleading, some facts will support the civil RICO claim.
Their shotgun pleading for their civil RICO claim does not satisfy
the Rule 9(b) burden for pleading fraud.  Even upon the Court's
review of the entire Complaint for references to wire fraud, the
Plaintiffs fail to adequately plead the predicate act of wire
fraud.

The Plaintiffs also fail to plausibly plead the predicate act of
money laundering in their Complaint.  They provide no citation to
any prior factual allegations in the Complaint.  Furthermore, the
Count Ten assertion is not plausible when viewed in light of the
entire Complaint.  

Because the Plaintiffs have failed to plead a plausible civil RICO
claim in their Complaint, the Judge dismisses Count Ten of the
Complaint.  Although he has only directly addressed the Bank
Defendants' Motion, the Judge dismisses Count Ten of the Complaint
as to all Defendants.

Having dismissed the civil RICO claim as to all the Defendants, the
Judge discusses the implications on its jurisdiction.  He finds
that the Plaintiffs do not properly request leave to amend their
Complaint with regard to their civil RICO claim.  Even if the Court
were to find that the Plaintiffs did request to amend their
Complaint with regard to the civil RICO claim, the specific request
to do so would still not justify a grant of leave to amend.

Finally, the Plaintiffs allege jurisdiction exists in the case on
the basis of diversity jurisdiction and federal-question
jurisdiction.  The only federal claim alleged by them is their
civil RICO claim, and as the Judge explained, that claim must be
dismissed.  He therefore holds that the Court has no jurisdiction
over the case.

Judge Kinkeade concludes that because the Plaintiffs fail to plead
a plausible civil RICO claim, and the Court declines to exercise
jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, the Court does
not have jurisdiction over any of the claims in the case.  He
therefore granted the Motion as to the Plaintiffs' civil RICO claim
and dismissed without prejudice the action as to all the
Defendants.

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

Lory Baraz, Robert Edward Zucker, Baraz Zucker Properties LLC,
Robert E Zucker Investments LLC, Gary Wereszynski, GMW II LLC &
Marsha Frost, Plaintiffs, represented by John Gannon Helstowski, J
Gannon Helstowski Law Firm & J. Manuel Torres-Rodriguez, J. Manuel
Torres-Rodriguez, JD, CPA.

Jerry Lee Farish, Ernani Inc, also known as New Summit Homes Inc,
Jill Farish, Nathan C. Farish, Erick Farish, Nicholas Farish & New
Summit Realty LLC, Defendants, represented by Lane Odom --
lodom@berryodom.com -- Berry Odom LLP.

Barry L. Brown & Texas Bank and Trust Company, Defendants,
represented by E. Glenn Thames, Jr., Potter Minton, a Professional
Corporation.

Schultz and Kellar PLLC, Defendant, represented by Chad Arnette --
chad.arnette@kellyhart.com -- Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP.

Texas American Title Company, doing business as Independence Title
& Title Resources Guaranty Company, Defendants, represented by
Christopher A. Brown -- Chris.Brown@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP,
Bryan K. Washburn -- bryan.washburn@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker
Daniels LLP, pro hac vice, Clayton L. Falls --
clayton.falls@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP, Peter Cunningham
Magnuson -- peter.magnuson@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels,
pro hac vice & Wendy J. Wildung -- wendy.wildung@FaegreBD.com --
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, pro hac vice.


TGI FRIDAYS: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Williams Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GABRIELLE WILLIAMS and TONYA O'DONOVAN, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and
unknown, Plaintiffs, v. TGI FRIDAYS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16 C
4286 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

Williams and O'Donovan are former employees of Fridays.  They
allege that Fridays violated the Illinois Wage Payment Collection
Act ("IWPCA") by failing to timely compensate them for unused paid
vacation benefits due to a payroll error, and they have moved to
certify a class of similarly situated Plaintiffs.

Under the policies in place during Williams' and O'Donovan's
tenure, Fridays employees were eligible to participate in the
company's paid vacation program only if they worked full
time—that is, at least 1,300 hours in the preceding year.
Eligible employees who were separated from employment without
having used their vacation days were supposed to be paid the value
of those benefits as part of their final compensation.

Williams and O'Donovan filed the suit alleging that Fridays'
restriction of vacation benefits to full-time employees unlawfully
deprived non-full-time employees of vacation benefits that they had
earned, which they contend violates the IWPCA, 820 ILCS 115/5.
They also allege that Fridays unlawfully delayed paying accrued
vacation pay as part of the employee's final compensation, which
the employer must pay in full at the time of separation, if
possible, but in no case later than the next regularly scheduled
payday for such employee.

Fridays moved for partial summary judgment on the legality of its
vacation policy, citing McCaster v. Darden Restaurants Inc., 845
F.3d 794 (7th Cir. 2017), to argue that the ICPWA does not bar
employers from establishing eligibility criteria for their vacation
policies. The Court granted that motion, holding that the IWPCA (as
interpreted in McCaster) permitted Fridays to impose eligibility
criteria for its vacation policy and that the Plaintiffs were not
eligible for additional vacation pay under that policy.

The summary judgment ruling leaves only one claim remaining in the
case: Fridays' allegedly unlawful delay in tendering vacation pay
owed to departing employees as part of their final compensation.
Williams and O'Donovan have moved to certify a class of individuals
relating to that claim.

The Plaintiffs initially defined the proposed class as all persons
employed by Defendant on an hourly basis in Illinois who separated
from employment between March 1, 2006 and November 2015 who worked
at least 1,300 hours in their final anniversary or vacation year
but who did not receive vacation pay as part of their final
compensation.

In their reply brief, the Plaintiffs propose for the first time to
define a narrower class that would encompass only employees who
separated from employment between Dec. 24, 2014 and November 2015.
This amended class proposal -- to which Fridays has had no
opportunity to respond -- is intended to restrict the class to
those employees who might have been affected by an error by
Infosync, the payroll provider Fridays began using on Dec. 24,
2014.

Judge Kennelly finds that though the late amendment to the
Plaintiffs' class definition arguably should be ignored because it
appeared for the first time in their reply brief, he needs not
decide that question, because neither the original nor the amended
proposed class satisfies Rule 23(a)'s commonality requirement.  The
Plaintiffs contend that the proposed class members' claims share
common issues of law and fact because they are all based on
Infosync's payroll error.  However, this payroll information,
according to the Judge, is insufficient to establish that there are
issues capable of class-wide resolution because the data alone do
not show that the claims of the proposed class members share a
common issue of law or fact.  Because the resolution of the
employees' vacation pay claims turned entirely on facts specific to
each individual class member's claim, there were no common issues
that could be resolved on a class-wide basis.

The Judge does not conclude, however, that there is no possible the
class Plaintiffs could propose that would satisfy the requirements
of Rule 23.  A class limited to the employees who did not receive
vacation pay as part of their final compensation because of the
Infosync error -- rather than, for example, idiosyncratic payment
practices by restaurant managers -- may have the required
commonality under McCaster.  But the Plaintiffs did not seek
certification of such a class in their motion or even in their
reply.

For the foregoing reasons, the Kennelly denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification without prejudice to filing another
motion to certify a class.  The case is set for a status hearing on
Dec. 20, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.  The Court intends to set at that time a
schedule for whatever proceedings are needed to bring the case to a
conclusion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 12, 2018 Memrandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/tzk2KK from Leagle.com.

Gabrielle Williams, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated & Tonya O'Donovan, on behalf of themselves and
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Douglas M. Werman -- dwerman@flsalaw.com -- Werman Salas P.C.,
Maureen Ann Salas -- msalas@flsalaw.com -- Werman Salas P.C., Sarah
Jean Arendt -- sarendt@flsalaw.com -- Werman Salas P.C. & Zachary
Cole Flowerree -- zflowerree@flsalaw.com -- Werman Salas P.C.

TGI Fridays Inc, Defendant, represented by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.
-- gmaatman@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Alex W. Karasik --
akarasik@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw Llp, Jennifer Ann Riley --
jriley@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Kevin Andrew Fritz --
kfritz@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Matthew James Gagnon --
mgagnon@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Thomas E. Ahlering --
tahlering@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


US BANK: Jan. 7 Fairness Hearing in Moseman Suit Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JORDAN MOSEMAN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00481-FDW-DCK (W.D. N.C.), Judge Frank
D. Whitney of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina, Charlotte Division, set the class action settlement
fairness hearing for Jan. 7, 2019 at 10:15 a.m.

The hearing will be held in Courtroom 1-1 of the Charles R. Jonas
Federal Building, 401 W. Trade Street, Charlotte, NC 28202.  The
Parties are ordered to send notice of the hearing to all
individuals who have timely opted into the lawsuit.  Upon sending
such notice of hearing, the Parties are further ordred to file a
certificate of compliance with the Court within 14 days of the
Order's entry.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Gqjc4N from Leagle.com.

Jordan Moseman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine T. Mitchell --
cmitchell@stephanzouras.com -- STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP, pro hac vice,
James B. Zouras -- jzouras@stephanzouras.com -- Stephan Zouras,
LLP, pro hac vice, Teresa M. Becvar -- tbecvar@stephanzouras.com --
Stephan Zouras, LLP, pro hac vice & Philip J. Gibbons, Jr. --
pgibbons@stephanzouras.com -- Gibbons Leis, PLLC.

U.S. Bank National Association, Defendant, represented by Anthony
Craig Cleland -- craig.cleland@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins
Nash Smoak & Stewart, PC, pro hac vice, Elizabeth R. Gift --
elizabeth.gift@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak, and
Stewart, P.C. & Erika Lee Leonard -- erika.leonard@ogletree.com --
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., pro hac vice.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: To Face Difficult 2019 Amid Emissions Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick McGee, writing for The Financial Times, reports that the
head of compliance at Volkswagen said 2019 will be its "most
difficult year ever" as the German carmaker tries to put the
three-year old diesel scandal in the rear-view mirror.

"We still have cases in 50 countries around the world," Hiltrud
Werner, a Volkswagen Group board member said in an interview. "This
will be the most difficult year to manage. It's not so much the
size [of the potential fines], but the sheer complexity. It's
tiring out the workforce."

Volkswagen admitted in 2015 to installing cheat software enabling
up to 11m of its VW, Porsche and Audi cars to enter a low-emissions
mode when they detected they were being tested on a lab bench, all
the while spewing excess nitrogen oxide pollution in real-world
conditions.

The scandal has already cost the company EUR28bn in penalties,
environmental remediation payments and offers to buy back the cars
— mostly in the US, where Volkswagen settled a class-action suit
for more than half a million car owners and pleaded guilty in a
criminal court.

But resolving claims is far from done and dusted. Ms Werner said
she has three priorities these days: "Diesel, diesel, diesel."

The 50 countries include the UK, where lawyers have been motivating
car owners to join their group litigation order, and extend across
civil litigation and regulatory questions from Australia to
Brazil.

The hope within VW is that few or none of these cases bring out
new, embarrassing headlines, as happened in January when an
American lawyer discovered that in 2014 VW had helped to finance an
emissions study involving caged monkeys watching cartoons as they
inhaled fumes from a Beetle.

"We will not come out of the bad news on any week," Ms Werner said
of next year. "Any court case can bring new media coverage."

Other people familiar with Volkswagen's legal woes say the diesel
issue will drag on for at least the next decade, despite the group
already wrapping up the bulk of cases in North America and
agreeing, in June, to a EUR1bn fine from public prosecutors in
Braunschweig near its Wolfsburg headquarters.

Shareholders alone are suing Volkswagen for EUR9bn in damages,
reflecting the losses they suffered when VW shares nearly halved in
the days following the revelation from the US Environmental
Protection Agency.

Judges in Braunschweig are only just beginning to look at the case,
which is expected to drag on for years as it is already understood
on both sides that an appeal will be filed, sending the case to the
federal court. In Germany, the higher court helps to determine the
proper understanding of the law, then bounces cases back to the
regional court for further consideration.

"This is probably a long marathon run we are facing. It could
easily be 10 years or more," said a person familiar with VW's legal
situation.

In the US, VW just recently agreed to a tentative settlement to pay
$48m to investors in American Depositary Receipts who felt misled.
Final approval is expected next summer.

Next year, too, is likely to see dozens of Volkswagen engineers go
to trial for the first time. Prosecutors in Braunschweig and Munich
collectively have about 70 current and former employees under
suspicion. Legal experts at VW do not yet know if there will be one
big trial or a series of smaller cases.

Meanwhile, Braunschweig prosecutors are still looking at
allegations of "market manipulation" -- the claim that VW's top
executives sat on critical information instead of informing
shareholders immediately.

Sheer complexity aside, Volkswagen is confident and has long
maintained it did not break laws outside of North America. The
company has not set aside more money for extra damages, and it
would only do so if its lawyers see a high chance of losing a
case.

In Germany, roughly 30,000 individual cases have been brought
against the carmaker. About 10,000 of them already received a
judgment, with VW winning at least 60 per cent of them, one person
said. For each loss, VW has appealed. [GN]


WALMART INC: Hester Sues over Sale of Mislabeled Power Banks
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL HESTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:18-cv-05225-TLB (W.D. Ark., Nov. 14, 2018) is a class action
against the Defendant's unjust, unfair, and deceptive practices in
misrepresenting the capacity of the Power Banks being sold to
consumers.

According to the Complaint, the Defendant markets and distributes
for sale to consumers a number of Power Banks under the Onn label.
The Defendant does so by prominently representing the Products'
capacities as measured in mAh. Unfortunately for consumers, testing
has shown the Products' actual capacities are substantially lower
than what the Defendant represents. By deceiving consumers about
the Products' capacities, the Defendant is able to sell more of,
and charge more for, the Products than the Company could if they
were labeled accurately. The Defendant was also motivated to
mislead consumers to take away market share from competing
products, thereby increasing its own sales and profits.

Walmart Inc. operates discount stores, supercenters, and
neighborhood markets. The Company offers merchandise such as
apparel, house wares, small appliances, electronics, musical
instruments, books, home improvement, shoes, jewelry, toddler,
games, household essentials, pets, pharmaceutical products, party
supplies, and automotive tools. Walmart serves customers worldwide.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
          Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 West 7th Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
          E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com
                  hbates@cbplaw.com

               - and -

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


WATKINS AND SHEPARD: Removes Ortega Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of ALLAN ORTEGA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WATKINS AND
SHEPARD TRUCKING, INC.; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, filed a notice
to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Bernardino (Case No. CIVDS1826457) to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
November 14, 2018. The clerk of court for the Central District of
California assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-02414-DOC-KK. The case is
assigned to Judge David O. Carter and referred to Magistrate Judge
Kenly Kiya Kato.

Watkins & Shepard Trucking, Inc. provides truckload, less than
truckload (LTL), van, and flatbed transportation services. As of
June 1, 2016, Watkins & Shepard Trucking, Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Schneider National, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William David Turley, Esq.
          Alexandra Shipman, Esq.
          David Thomas Mara, Esq.
          Jamie K Serb, Esq.
          Tony Roberts, Esq.
          THE TURLEY AND MARA LAW FIRM APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234-2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
          E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com
                  ashipman@turleylawfirm.com
                  dmara@turleylawfirm.com
                  jserb@turleylawfirm.com
                  troberts@turleylawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew Charles Kane, Esq.
          Sabrina A Beldner, Esq.
          Sean Sullivan, Esq.
          Sylvia Jihae Kim, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          1800 Century Park East 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 315-8200
          Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
          E-mail: mkane@mcguirewoods.com
                  sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com
                  ssullivan@mcguirewoods.com
                  skim@mcguirewoods.com


WELBILT INC: Schlimm Sues over Misleading Financial Report
----------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL J SCHLIMM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WELBILT, INC., HUBERTUS M.
MUEHLHAEUSER, JOHN O. STEWART and HARESH SHAH, the Defendants, Case
No. 8:18-cv-03007-JSM-AEP (M.D. Fla., Dec. 13, 2018), is a federal
securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Welbilt common stock between February 24, 2017,
and November 2, 2018, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, Welbilt
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company lacked effective internal control
over financial reporting; (ii) the Company was incorrectly
recording the tax basis of foreign subsidiaries and the
amortization of their intangible assets; and (iii) as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about Welbilt's business,
operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

On November 5, 2018, Welbilt filed a Form 8-K for its Q3 2018,
stating that "During the third quarter of 2018, the Company
identified errors in the tax basis of a foreign subsidiary and
incorrect amortization of the intangible assets held by the same
entity… In addition, the Company discovered certain intercompany
transactions were not recorded on a timely basis."  As a result of
these errors, Welbilt announced that "the consolidated financial
statements of the Company as of and for the year ended December 31,
2016 will be restated, and as of and for the years ended December
31, 2015 and 2017 are expected to be revised."

Welbilt is a commercial foodservice equipment company. Welbilt
designs, manufactures and supplies food and beverage equipment for
the global commercial foodservice market. Welbilt offers customers
unparalleled operator and patron insights, collaborative kitchen
solutions, culinary expertise and implementation support and
service.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and Proposed Lead Counsel for the Class:

          Cullin O'Brien, Esq.
          CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
          6541 NE 21st Way
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308
          Telephone: (561) 676-6370
          Facsimile: (561) 320-0285
          E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com

               - and -

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          55 Broadway, 10 th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail:ek@zlk.com

WEYERHAUSER CO: Can't Compel Arbitration in Kipp Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, KRISTINA KIPP, et al., v. WEYERHAUSER COMPANY, Civil
Action No. 17-3958 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Juan R. Sanchez of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration.

The Named Plaintiffs bring the products liability class action on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against
Defendant Weyerhaeuser for damages sustained after
Weyerhaeuser-produced construction materials emitted unsafe levels
of noxious formaldehyde gas, causing physical harm to the Named
Plaintiffs and their children and rendering their homes
uninhabitable.

In 2017, the Named Plaintiffs purchased homes in Chester Springs,
Pennsylvania.  The homes allegedly contained
formaldehyde-contaminated joists, materials used to support floors,
manufactured by Weyerhaeuser.  At oral argument, Weyerhaeuser's
counsel conceded that the joists at-issue were sold by Weyerhaeuser
to dealers and distributors, who, in turn, sold them to home
builders for use in homes eventually sold to consumers.  The
Counsel also conceded that the Named Plaintiffs did not have any
interaction with Weyerhaeuser nor did they pay any money to
Weyerhaeuser.

As part of the home purchase, Named Plaintiffs each entered into
identical Home Purchase Agreements ("HPAs") with Pulte.  Each HPA
defines the "Buyer" as the Named Plaintiff, and the "Seller" as
"Pulte Homes of PA, Limited Partnership."  Each HPA also contains
an arbitration provision.

Each Named Plaintiff also received a limited warranty from Pulte as
part of their purchase.  The terms of the limited warranty apply
"only to Covered Defects" which are defined as defects in material
and workmanship that are either part of the structure or are
elements of the home as supplied by the Builder at the date of
closing.  The limited warranty further limits its coverage
depending on the type of problem identified.   Similar to the HPAs,
the limited warranties feature mandatory arbitration procedures for
any dispute concerning the home or this Warranty, whether based on
statute, in tort, contract, or other applicable law, and allow for
either party to join Pulte's suppliers in such an arbitration.

Upon moving into their new homes (or while doing additional work on
the home), the Named Plaintiffs noticed a strong odor, most
prominently in their basements, and they and/or their young
children began experiencing physical symptoms consistent with
exposure to elevated formaldehyde levels, including red, tearing,
irritated, burning, itchy, tingling, and/or dry eyes; blurry
vision; respiratory distress; headaches; and dizziness.  In
late-July 2017, the builder of the homes notified the Named
Plaintiffs that their homes may contain defective joists, and the
Named Plaintiffs thereafter vacated their homes.  Testing in all of
the homes confirmed the presence of excessive levels of
formaldehyde, even on levels of the home above the basement.

On Sept. 1, 2017, the Named Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit on their
own behalf and on behalf of two separate classes of home purchasers
asserting various products liability claims sounding in contract
and tort.  On March 26, 2018, Weyerhaeuser filed the instant motion
to compel arbitration, which the Named Plaintiffs oppose.  On Aug.
21, 2018, the Court stayed the matter so that the parties could
attempt to resolve this matter without further judicial
intervention.  Those efforts having failed, the Court lifted the
stay, entered a revised Case Management Order on Nov. 19, 2018, and
held oral argument on the motion to compel on Dec. 6, 2018.

Judge Sanchez finds that Weyerhaeuser was not a signatory to the
HPA or the limited warranty.  As the documents make clear, those
agreements were entered into by the individual Named Plaintiffs and
Pulte, not Weyerhaeuser.  Moreover, those agreements contain only
the names of the Named Plaintiffs and Pulte (or its affiliates,
amongst whom Weyerhaeuser is not listed), and do not reference
Weyerhaeuser in any way (as it conceded at oral argument).  These
facts, alone, preclude a finding of a sufficiently close
relationship.  Weyerhaeuser also admitted that its joists were sold
to distributors, who, in turn, sold them to builders (like Pulte),
who then sell homes containing the joists to homeowners, like the
Named Plaintiffs.  Under these circumstances, the Judge finds
Weyerhaeuser cannot be characterized as "close" to a transaction
two bends down the stream of commerce.

The relationship between Weyerhaeuser, Pulte, and Named Plaintiffs
is too attenuated to apply equitable estoppel.  As a result, the
Judge finds there is no enforceable arbitration agreement between
the Named Plaintiffs and Weyerhaeuser, and denied its motion to
compel.  An appropriate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 14, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/WKy81v from Leagle.com.

KRISTINA KIPP, VINCENT DISTEFANO, CAROL EBERL, ANJANI TRIPATHI,
CHHAVI CHATURVEDI, SRIKANTH KALVAKOTAVENKATA, SHALINI MARKA, DAVID
LAI & RAHUL PUDI, Plaintiffs, represented by E. MICHELLE DRAKE --
emdrake@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C., JOSEPH C. HASHMALL --
jhashmall@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE PC, SHANON J. CARSON --
scarson@bm.net -- BERGER MONTAGUE PC, JACOB M. POLAKOFF --
jpolakoff@bm.net -- BERGER MONTAGUE PC, LAWRENCE DEUTSCH --
ldeutsch@bm.net -- BERGER MONTAGUE PC & STEVEN A. SCHWARTZ --
steveschwartz@chimicles.com -- CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP.

ANUSHA CHILLAKURU, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by E. MICHELLE DRAKE , BERGER &
MONTAGUE, P.C., JOSEPH C. HASHMALL , BERGER & MONTAGUE PC, SHANON
J. CARSON , BERGER MONTAGUE PC, JACOB M. POLAKOFF , BERGER MONTAGUE
PC & LAWRENCE DEUTSCH , BERGER MONTAGUE PC.

WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Defendant, represented by PAUL G. GAGNE --
pgagne@kleinbard.com -- KLEINBARD LLC, MARK S. MESTER --
mark.mester@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, MARY ROSE ALEXANDER --
mary.rose.alexander@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS & ROBERT C. COLLINS,
III -- robert.collins@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP.

WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Counter Claimant, represented by PAUL G.
GAGNE, KLEINBARD LLC, MARK S. MESTER, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, MARY
ROSE ALEXANDER, LATHAM & WATKINS & ROBERT C. COLLINS, III, LATHAM &
WATKINS LLP.

ANUSHA CHILLAKURU, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, CAROL EBERL, DAVID LAI & RAHUL PUDI, Counter Defendants,
represented by E. MICHELLE DRAKE, BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C., JOSEPH
C. HASHMALL, BERGER & MONTAGUE PC & SHANON J. CARSON, BERGER
MONTAGUE PC.


WINCO FOODS: 9th Cir. Affirms FCRA Class Action Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------
Nadia Adams, Esq. -- nadia.adams@wbd-us.com -- of Womble Bond
Dickinson (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that on November 29, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals issued a decision in Mitchell v. Winco Foods, No. 17-35998,
2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 33483 (9th Cir. Nov. 29, 2018); a Fair Credit
Reporting Act ("FCRA") case on appeal after the U.S. District Court
for the District of Idaho granted the defendant's motion to dismiss
the case for lack of standing.

The Ninth Circuit agreed with the lower court that Mitchell did not
establish the requisite standing because she alleged that WinCo's
job application forms were not FCRA-compliant, but did not
articulate how those alleged violations harmed, or presented a
material risk of harm to, her protected interests.  Id. at *1.

The Court opined that Mitchell might have intended to allege that
she was confused by the FCRA waiver and authorization on the forms
but that the facts were not sufficiently plead, even for the lower
court to reach an inference of confusion.  Id. at *2.  Still, the
Ninth Circuit remanded on the basis that it was error for the lower
court not to grant Mitchell leave to amend the operative
complaint.

The opinion itself is very succinct; at first glance, almost banal.
Another case about Article III standing? **Yawn**

However, there is a subtle-yet-important reminder lurking for those
of us in FCRAland.

Employers can, and do, get dinged for FCRA violations when the
disclosures they provide on a job application are confusing.
Confusion, as well all know, is a subjective standard and that can
be dangerous, especially in a proposed class action like the one
Mitchell filed.

In briefly discussing the possibility that Mitchell was confused,
the Ninth Circuit referenced its own decision in Syed v. M-I, LLC,
853 F.3d 492, 499-500 (9th Cir. 2017).  In Syed, the Court held
that "the [FCRA] disclosure requirement at issue, 15 U.S.C. §
1681b(b)(2)(A)(i), creates a right to information by requiring
prospective employers to inform job applicants that they intend to
procure their consumer reports as part of the employment
application process." Id. at 499.

15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) prohibits a consumer report from
being procured, for employment purposes with respect to any
consumer, unless a clear and conspicuous disclosure has been made
in writing to the consumer at any time before the report is caused
to be procured, in a document that consists solely of the
disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained for employment
purposes.

Further, the authorization requirement found in section
1681b(b)(2)(A)(ii), creates a right to privacy by enabling
applicants to withhold their permission to obtain the report from
the prospective employer, and a concrete injury when applicants are
deprived of their ability to meaningfully authorize the credit
check.  Id.

The implication here is, if the disclosures are confusing, the
information is not getting to the consumer and the consumer cannot
make an informed privacy decision about whether to allow the
procurement of the report.  That lack of information is sufficient,
the Ninth Circuit held, to establish Article III standing. [GN]


WINNER FORD: Court Reverses Arbitration Ruling in Trout Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey for the Appellate Division
reversed the order granting the Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration in the case, JAMES TROUT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
WINNER FORD, Defendant-Respondent, Case No. A-3529-17T4 (N.J.
Super. App. Div.).

Trout appeals from a March 29, 2018 order compelling arbitration of
his Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA") and Truth in Consumer Contract,
Warranty and Notice Act ("TCCWNA") claims, against the Defendant,
relating to the trade-in and pay-off of his vehicle.

In December 2015, the Plaintiff traded in his used car to the
Defendant.  The vehicle had an outstanding loan, which had to be
satisfied at the trade-in.  He executed two agreements, namely, a
trade-in agreement and a separate lease agreement for his new
vehicle.  The trade-in agreement has not been provided to the Court
as a part of the record.

The Plaintiff paid a $75 fee, which was added to the loan payoff
and not the future purchase or lease.  He claimed the fee was never
disclosed or itemized and that the Defendant offered various
explanations for its purpose, namely, to satisfy the per diem
interest on the outstanding loan; to allow time to receive credit
approval, process the vehicle transaction, and make the payoff; to
cover title transfer costs, the cost of a bank check for the payoff
amount, and the time and gas mileage of clerical staff to secure
the bank draft; and the cost of express mail delivery of the
pay-off amount to the bank.  The Plaintiff claimed he never
received an explanation for the fee and only learned about it after
the trade-in.

The Plaintiff filed a Law Division complaint on behalf of himself
and a purported class asserting four counts for violation of the
CFA, one count of common law fraud, and one count for violation of
the TCCWNA.  The Defendant filed a motion for a stay and a motion
to compel arbitration.  The arbitration agreement was contained in
the lease agreement.

The motion judge enforced arbitration and concluded that the
parties' contract was subject to the Federal Arbitration Act.  The
judge concluded the arbitration agreement was not "ambiguous or
vague in any way."  The judge concluded although there were two
agreements, the matter involved one transaction because the lease
would not have occurred unless there was the trade-in of the
vehicle.  The record seems to indicate that the Plaintiff traded in
his vehicle in exchange for the lease.  The judge signed the order
and the appeal followed.

On appeal, the Plaintiff argues the arbitration clause in the lease
is vague because it states the parties "may" arbitrate, and
therefore was not clear as to whether arbitration was an exclusive
remedy.  He also argues the arbitration agreement does not state
which statutory rights are being waived.  Lastly, he argues the
arbitration agreement does not reference the trade-in agreement and
whether claims arising from it were subject to arbitration.

The Court finds that without the trade-in agreement, it has no
means to determine whether the motion judge's findings regarding
the arbitration provision met the "clear and unambiguous" standard,
or the ability to undertake its own de novo review.  More
problematic is the absence of language in the lease agreement
affirmatively informing the Plaintiff he could not pursue his
statutory rights in court.

In addition, the lease agreement's use of the passive "may" when
referring to a party's ability to opt into arbitration does not
constitute a clear and unambiguous statement informing the reader
that arbitration is the exclusive remedy.  This language, the Court
says, leaves open the possibility a party may also proceed with a
cause of action in court, which is intimated by language stating
arbitration would not be waived if a party filed suit in court.
Therefore, even without the trade-in agreement as part of the
record, the arbitration agreement was not enforceable.

For these reasons, the Court reversed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/VHPKbQ from Leagle.com.

Law Offices of Leo B. Dubler, III, LLC, attorneys for appellant
(Leo B. Dubler, III and Mark R. Natale, on the briefs).

Montgomery Fetten, attorneys for respondent (John S. Fetten, of
counsel and on the brief; Jason B. Rojas, on the brief).


ZAQU INC: Fouissi Sues for Unpaid Wages, Retaliatory Discharge
---------------------------------------------------------------
Redouane Fouissi, and other similarly situated individuals v. Zaqu,
Inc. dba Midway Food Market fka S&M Grocery, Inc. fka Alqurneh LLC
and Mohammed I. Alqurneh, Case No. 1:18-cv-24845 (S.D. Fla.,
November 19, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

This action seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime
wages and retaliatory discharge under the laws of the United
States.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Corporate Defendant as a
non-exempt cashier/attendant for the Corporate Defendant's
business.

The Defendants operate a food, cigarette and beer market. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Tel: (305) 503-5131
      Fax: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***