CAR_Public/190102.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, January 2, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 2

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Singer Suit Transferred to South Carolina
ACCESS NATIONAL: Parshall Balks at Merger Deal with Union
ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued over Monopoly of Bosentan Drug
ADVANCED CALL: Untershine Seeks Class Certification Under FDCPA
ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Class of Applicants Certified in Gross Suit

ADVOCATE HEALTH: Ciskowski Sues Over Illegal Pay Deductions
ALAMEDA HEALTH: Court Junks 2nd Amended Complaint in Soman Suit
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Appeal Filed in Thompson Case
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Alarimo Files Suit in New York
AMAZON.COM LLC: Fails to Pay Delivery Drivers' OT, Faucett Claims

AMERICA'S TRUST: Missry Files TCPA Suit in New York
AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC: Court OKs $84MM Settlement in Talone Suit
ANSAFONE CONTACT: Brown's Customer Service Reps Class Certified
APHRIA INC: Curkan Hits Share Drop from Operational Flaws
APHRIA INC: Gloschat Hits Share Drop from Operational Flaws

APPLE INC: Phone's Pixel Count Misleading, Sponchiado et al. Claim
ARAMARK CAMPUS: Buchanan Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime Pay
ARKANSAS: Raytheon Co. Moves for Certification of Taxpayers Class
ARS NATIONAL: Helmuth Moves for Class Certification Under FDCPA
AUTOREMIND INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Ward Family Claims

BEEWAKE CORP: Olsen Suit Asserts ADA Violation
BES INDUSTRIES: Gorss Motels Seeks to Certify Class Under TCPA
BIRD RIDES: Removes Borgia et al. Suit to C.D. California
BONIMA OIL CORP: Espinosa to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
BOXBOROUGH REGENCY: Morin Seeks Unpaid Wages for Wait Staff

BROOKLYN CORNER: Delivery Staff Hit Tip Credit, Claim Overtime
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Spady Sues over Debt Collection Practices
CHAPTERS HEALTH SYSTEM: Diaz Sues Over FACTA and FCRA Violation
CHARLOTTE PALM: Autry FLSA Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Macleod Suit Moved to District of New Jersey

CLEANNET USA: Can't Compel Arbitration in Castillo Suit
CLEAR WATER: $350K Settlement in Aragon Suit Has Final Approval
CLEVELAND AVE: Hogan Moves to Certify Bartenders Class Under FLSA
CLEVELAND AVE: Hogan Seeks to Certify Class of Exotic Dancers
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE: Pitkivitch Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA

COTTON BAYOU: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in King Suit
CSO SYSTEMS: Underpays Graphic Designers, Kaifos Alleges
DENNYS INC: Rosales Suit Moved to Central District of California
DERREL'S MINI: Court Partly Okays Bid to Invalidate in Kutzman Suit
DISH NETWORK: Court Grants $20.4MM Attorney's Fees in Krakauer

DOVER DOWNS: Raul Balks at Merger Deal with Twin River
EJR ENTERPRISES: Borozny Files Suit under ADA in Florida
EMTS INC: Ruem Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages & OT under Labor Code
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces Lawrence Suit over Violation of FCRA
ESA MANAGEMENT: Court Issues Show Cause Order in Beasley Suit

FARMLAND PARTNERS: Bernstein Liebhard to Lead in Mariconda Suit
FEDEX CORPORATION: Overpeck Seeks Unpaid Wages for Drivers
FORD MOTOR: Faces Farlow et al. Suit in N.D. California
GENERAL MOTORS: Duffy Sues Over Vehicle Transmission Defect
GLADSTONE GALLERY: Tucker Sues Over ADA Violation

GLOBAL RECEIVABLES: Lasky Sues over Debt Collection Practices
GOOGLE LLC: Removed Roley Case to Northern Dist. of California
GREENSKY INC: Faces Zou Suit over Drop in Share Price
GULFVIEW LODGING: Faces Borozny Suit in Middle District of Florida
HAKU TEN: Ramales Seeks Ovetime Pay for Delivery Workers

HARIHAR INC: Court Won't Junk C. Honeywell's Amended ADA Complaint
HELENA-WEST HELENA, AR: Summary Judgment Bid in Green Suit Granted
HIGH IMPACT MARKETING: Duggan Suit to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
HOSPITALITY VENTURES: Tom State Law Claims Dismissed with Prejudice
HOWARD E. FRIEDMAN: Leade Removed Teamster Case to Maryland Dist.

HOYT LIVERY: Court Moots Bid to Enforce Settlement in Lassen Suit
HUMANADENTAL INSURANCE: 7th Cir. Affirmed Certification Denial
IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Hovermale FDCPA Suit
INUVO INC: D'Arcy Sues Over Sale to ConversionPoint
J R PUTMAN INC: Faces Scarano Suit in Sacramento

KAISER FOUNDATION: Court Narrows Claims in Gamble Suit
KANE FURNITURE: Scharrer Sues over Deceptive Trade Practices
KANSAS CITY: Faces Suit over Foster Care Practices
KENTUCKY: Rule 23 Class Certification Sought in Carver Suit
KLONDEX MINES: Court Consolidates Lawon, Gunderson, and Baker Suits

L'OREAL USA: Bid to Certify Class in Carter Suit Filed
LA FOX: Martinez Supports Claim for Damages in FLSA Suit
LE BERNARDIN: Ramos Seeks Minimum Wage
LEMONLEAF THAI: Underpays Deliverymen, Gu Suit Alleges
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Court Dismisses R. Yates' Class Allegations

LINE LLC: Website not Accessible to Blind, Dennis Says
LMB MORTGAGE: Cunningham Sues Over TCPA Violation
LUMILEDS LLC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Chaudri's NJCFA Suit
LYONS DOUGHTY: NJ Court Dismisses G. Gross's FDCPA Suit
MACADO'S INC: Spencer Asks to Certify Servers & Bartenders Class

MAGNOLIA FLOORING: Ross et al Seek Overtime Pay under FLSA
MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces Rapak Suit Over Data Breach at Starwood
MARRIOTT INT'L: Golin Files Tort Class Suit in Connecticut
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: DeMarco Sues Over Data Breach
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Erlbaum Sues Over Data Breach

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Grady, Kleiman Sue Over Data Breach
MENARD INC: FLSA Class of Workers Certified in Astarita Suit
MIAMI PERFECT TRAVEL: De Armas Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MIDLAND CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in Adkins Suit
MIDLAND FUNDING: Dotson Sues over Debt Collection Practices

MONINI NORTH: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Jessani Suit
MULLOOLY & JEFFREY: Final Certification of Settlement Class Sought
MUTUAL HOUSING: Rivera Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA, CMWA
MYLAN NV: Certification of Consumer Classes Sought in EpiPen MDL
NATIONAL RESPONSE: Faces Sullivan Suit in Sacramento

NISSAN MOTOR: Hid Payments to CEO Ghosn, Retirement System Claims
NOBILIS HEALTH: Van 'T Hoofd Sues over Misleading Financial Report
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Bid to Quash Subpoena under Advisement
OHIO MULCH: Wolfe & Bailey Seek Overtime Pay
PALM PAVILION: Borozny Files Suit under ADA in M.D. Florida

PRONAI THERAPEUTICS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Securities Suit Dismissal
RACK ROOM: Court Refuses to Stay Peralta's TCPA Suit
RECKITT BENCKISER: Yamagata Moves to Certify 3 Purchaser Classes
RISING SUN: Construction Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Pay
SABER HEALTHCARE: M. Mullen's Suit Remanded to N.C. State Court

SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Fife Suit
SIGNATURE RESOURCES: Staples et al. Seek Overtime Pay
SONNY-N-SON'S PAINTING: Underpays Painters & Carpenters, Suit Says
SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT: Court Certifies 3 Classes in Caudle Suit
STAND UP: Townsend et al. Seek Payment of OT & Minimum Wages

SYNERGY ENTERPRISES: Rodriguez et al. Seek Overtime Wages
TAMPA BAY RAYS: Certification of Class Sought in Fernandez Suit
TARGET ENTERPRISE: First Circuit Appeal Filed in Carlson Suit
TARTE, INC: Products Contain Synthetic Ingredients, Patora Says
TEACHERS FEDERAL: Dixon Suit Alleges Civil Rights Act Violation

TONY'S FINER: Figueroa Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
TRAININGWHEEL: Consultants Hit Misclassification, Seek Overtime Pay
TRES DIAMANTE: Restaurant Staff Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
U.S. BANCORP: Sued over Excessive Reductions to Pension Plan
UNITED TRANZACTIONS: Lake Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach

VANEGAS INT'L: Salazar Seeks to Recover Overtime & Minimum Wages
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Roper Sues Over Unpaid Off-the-Clock Work
WELLS FARGO: $480MM Settlement in Hefler Suit Has Final Approval
WELLS FARGO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Garr Suit Claims
WOLF APPLIANCE: Certification of Classes Sought in Kail Suit

YELP INC: Spiegelman Sues over Unauthorized Use of Private Data

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Singer Suit Transferred to South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Diane Singer, Brian Valentin and Kelly
Valentin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. The 3M Company formerly known as: Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing, Co., Tyco Fire Products LP
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, National Foam, Buckeye
Fire Protection Co., Chemguard and County of Suffolk, Defendants,
Case No 2:17-cv-06962, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for
the District of South Carolina on December 11, 2018, and assigned
Case No. 2:18-cv-03336-RMG.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Tort Product
Liability.

The 3M Company, formerly known as the Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company, is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, health care, and
consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
   Napoli Shkolnik PLLC
   1301 Avenue Of The Americas
   10th Floor
   New York, NY 10019
   Tel: (212) 397-1000
   Fax: (646) 843-7603
   Email: pnapoli@napolilaw.com

      - and -

   Tate J Kunkle, Esq.
   Napoli Shkolnik PLLC
   400 Broadhollow Road, Suite 305
   Mellville, NY 11747
   Tel: (212) 397-1000
   Fax: (646) 843-7603
   Email: tkunkle@napolilaw.com

The Defendant 3M Company is represented by:

   Andrew Jonathan Calica, Esq.
   Mayer Brown
   1675 Broadway
   New York, NY 10019
   Tel: (212) 506-2500
   Fax: (212) 262-1910
   Email: acalica@mayerbrown.com

      - and -

   Jordan David Sagalowsky, Esq.
   Mayer Brown LLP
   1221 Avenue Of The Americas
   New York, NY 10020
   Tel: (212) 506-2500
   Fax: (212) 262-1910
   Email: jsagalowsky@mayerbrown.com

      - and -

   Michael A. Olsen, Esq.
   Mayer Brown LLP
   71 S Wacker Drive
   Chicago, IL 60606
   Tel: (312) 701-7120
   Fax: (312) 701-8742
   Email: molsen@mayerbrown.com

      - and -

   Richard F. Bulger, Esq.
   Mayer Brown LLP
   71 S Wacker Drive
   Chicago, IL 60606
   Tel: (312) 701-7318
   Fax: (312) 706-8789
   Email: rbulger@mayerbrown.com

      - and -

   Timothy H. Birnbaum, Esq.
   DLA Piper LLP (US)
   1251 Avenue Of The Americas
   New York, NY 10020
   Tel: (212) 335-4618
   Fax: (917) 778-8618
   Email: timothy.birnbaum@dlapiper.com

The Defendant Tyco Fire Products LP and Chemguard are represented
by:

   David S Weinraub, Esq.
   Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan
   51 Madison Avenue
   22nd Floor
   New York, NY 10010
   Tel: (212) 849-7000
   Fax: (212) 849-7100
   Email: davidweinraub@quinnemanuel.com

      - and -

   Douglas E Fleming , III, Esq.
   Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan
   51 Madison Avenue
   22nd Floor
   New York, NY 10010
   Tel: (212) 849-7000
   Email: douglasfleming@quinnemanuel.com

      - and -

   Katherine Armstrong, Esq.
   Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom
   4 Times Square
   New York, NY 10036
   Tel: (212) 735-3000
   Email: katherine.armstrong@dechert.com

The Defendant National Foam is represented by:

   Keith Edward Smith, Esq.
   Greenberg Traurig, LLP
   2700 Two Commerce Square
   2001 Market Street
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 988-7843
   Fax: (215) 717-5225
   Email: smithkei@gtlaw.com

The Defendant Buckeye Fire Protection Co. is represented by:

   Ellen Nunno Corbo, Esq.
   Taylor Colicchio LLP
   100 Canal Pointe Blvd, Suite 210
   Princeton, NJ 08540
   Tel: (609) 987-0022
   Fax: (609) 987-0070
   Email: ecorbo@tcslawyers.com

      - and -

   Michael Carpenter, Esq.
   516 South New Hope Road
   Gastonia, NC 28054
   Tel: (704) 865-4400
   Email: mcarpenter@gastonlegal.com

The Defendant County of Suffolk is represented by:

   Andrew Scott Kazin, Esq.
   Stagg, Terenzi, Confusione & Wabnik LLP
   401 Franklin Avenue, Suite 300
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 812-4500
   Fax: (516) 812-4600
   Email: akazin@stcwlaw.com

      - and -

   Brian A. Lacoff, Esq.
   Stagg, Terenzi, Confusione & Wabnik, LLP
   401 Franklin Avenue, Suite 300
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 812-4500
   Fax: (516) 812-4600
   Email: blacoff@stcwlaw.com

      - and -

   David R. Ehrlich, Esq.
   Stagg Terenzi Confusione & Wabnik, LLP
   401 Franklin Avenue, Suite 300
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 812-4500
   Fax: (516) 812-4600
   Email: dehrlich@stcwlaw.com

      - and -

   Thomas Edward Stagg, Esq.
   Stagg, Terenzi, Confusione & Wabnik, LLP
   401 Franklin Avenue, Suite 300
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 812-4500
   Fax: (516) 812-4600
   Email: tstagg@stcwlaw.com


ACCESS NATIONAL: Parshall Balks at Merger Deal with Union
---------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ACCESS NATIONAL CORPORATION, JOHN C.
LEE IV, MICHAEL G. ANZILOTTI, J. RANDOLPH BABBITT, CHILDS F.
BURDEN, MICHAEL W. CLARKE, JOHN W. EDGEMOND, MARTIN S. FRIEDMAN,
THOMAS M. KODY, GARY D. LECLAIR, MARY LEIGH MCDANIEL, JANET A.
NEUHARTH, ROBERT C. SHOEMAKER, and UNION BANKSHARES CORPORATION,
the Defendants, Case No.: 3:18-cv-00862-REP (E.D. Va., Dec. 14,
2018), alleges that Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with a
registration statement.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on October
5, 2018, pursuant to which Access National Corporation will be
acquired by Union Bankshares Corporation. On October 4, 2018,
Access' Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger with Union. Pursuant to the terms of
the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Access will receive 0.75
shares of Union common stock for each share of Access stock they
own. On December 10, 2018, the defendants filed a Form S-4
Registration Statement with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction.

The registration statement, which scheduled a stockholder vote on
the Proposed Transaction for January 15, 2019, omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Registration Statement false and misleading, the lawsuit says.

Access National Corporation operates as the bank holding company
for Access National Bank that provides credit, deposit, mortgage,
and wealth management.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          David G. Browne, Esq.
          SPIRO & BROWNE, PLC
          6802 Paragon Place, Suite 410
          Richmond, VA 23230
          Telephone: (804) 573-9220
          Facsimile: (804) 836-1855
          E-mail: dbrowne@sblawva.com

               - and -

          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310

               - and -

          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800

ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued over Monopoly of Bosentan Drug
-------------------------------------------------------------
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HEALTH ASSOCIATION, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACTELION
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.; ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS US, INC; and
ACTELION CLINICAL RESEARCH, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-02682(D. Colo., Nov. 19, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants' illegal scheme to maintain their monopoly over the
prescription drug bosentan.

Bosentan is a dual endothelin receptor antagonist that Actelion
sells as a treatment for pulmonary artery hypertension ("PAH")
under the brand name "Tracleer."

According to the complaint, the Defendants blocked would-be generic
bosentan manufacturers from obtaining samples of Tracleer. To
obtain FDA approval of a generic drug application, a generic
manufacturer must run comparison tests to establish that the brand
and the generic are bioequivalent -- that is, that the generic is
absorbed in the body at the same rate and to the same extent as the
brand. Doing so requires samples of the brand product. Without
these samples, generic manufacturers cannot complete the regulatory
process and cannot bring a competing generic to market.

The Defendants prevented would-be generic bosentan competitors from
purchasing samples of Tracleer by forbidding its distributors from
selling Tracleer to those generic manufacturers and refusing to
sell Tracleer directly to the manufacturers as well. By doing both,
the Defendants blocked every path generic manufacturers had to
obtain samples of Tracleer.

Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd develops drugs and therapies for
pulmonary arterial hypertension. The company was founded in 1997
and is based in Allschwil, Switzerland. Actelion Pharmaceuticals
Ltd operates as a subsidiary of Actelion Ltd. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Connolly, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP  
          1701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC
          Telephone: (202) 248-5403
          Facsimile: (202) 580-6559
          E-mail: jenniferc@hbsslaw.com

               - and -  

           Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
           Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
           Gregory T. Arnold, Esq.
           Hannah Schwarzschild, Esq.
           HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
           55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
           Cambridge, MA 02142
           Telephone: (617) 482-3700
           Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
           E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
                   kristenj@hbsslaw.com
                   grega@hbsslaw.com
                   hannahs@hbsslaw.com

               - and –

          Mark Fischer, Esq.
          Jeffrey Swann, Esq.
          Robert C. Griffith, Esq.
          RAWLINGS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          1 Eden Pkwy
          La Grange, KY 40031
          Telephone: (502) 814-2139
          E-mail: mdf@rawlingsandassociates.com
                  js5@rawlingsandassociates.co
                  rg1@rawslingsandassociates.co

               - and –

          John D. Radice, Esq.
          RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
          34 Sunset Blvd.,
          Long Beach, NJ 08008
          Telephone: (919) 749-3980
          E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com


ADVANCED CALL: Untershine Seeks Class Certification Under FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Untershine asks the Court to enter an order determining that
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act action styled WENDY
UNTERSHINE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ADVANCED CALL CENTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Case No.
2:18-cv-00077-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), may proceed as a class action
against the Defendant.

The class is defined as (a) all natural persons in the State of
Wisconsin, (b) who were sent an initial collection letter in the
form represented by Exhibit D to the complaint in this action, (c)
seeking to collect a credit card account debt owed to Synchrony
Bank, (d) which debt was incurred for personal, family, or
household purposes (e) between January 16, 2017 and January 16,
2018, inclusive, (f) that was not returned by the postal service.

This case concerns the legality of standard form collection letters
used by the Defendant to collect consumer debts owed to third
parties.  Specifically, the Plaintiff contends, the Defendant's
form debt collection letter at issue violates the FDCPA because it
misstates the amount due to the creditor as of the date of the
letter.

Ms. Untershine also asks the Court to appoint her as class
representative, and to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Class of Applicants Certified in Gross Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Charlene Edwards Honeywell grants the Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification in the lawsuit styled THOMAS GROSS v.
ADVANCED DISPOSAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 8:17-cv-01920-CEH-TGW
(M.D. Fla.).

The Court certifies this Background Check Class:

     Applicants for employment at Advance Disposal Services, Inc.
     that applied between August 14, 2015 and March 17, 2017 upon
     whom Advance Disposal Services, Inc. procured a consumer
     report for employment purposes, without first providing a
     stand alone disclosure in violation of 15 U.S.C
     Section 1681b(b)(2), who did not execute an agreement to
     arbitrate employment related claims.

Judge Honeywell approves Thomas Gross as Class Representative and
his counsel, Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq., C. Ryan Morgan, Esq., and
Marc Reed Edelman, Esq., as Class Counsel.

The parties are provided 30 days from the date of the Order to
confer regarding issues that may arise associated with the
administration of the class, including the form and content of the
notice, and the establishment of an opt-out period and procedure,
and shall advise the Court on these efforts and whether there are
issues that require the Court's resolution.

In his complaint, Mr. Gross, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, sued the Defendant for alleged violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  He alleges that the Defendant, in
violation of the FCRA, failed to make proper disclosure, to obtain
proper authorization and to provide notice.[CC]


ADVOCATE HEALTH: Ciskowski Sues Over Illegal Pay Deductions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert T. Ciskowski, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and Christopher Blood, Jessica Corona, James Blackwood,
Christopher Pumala, Gary Joy, Oleh Prodan, Joel Ramos, Colleen
Galvicius, Benjamin Friel, Edmund Haras, and Vincent Garduno,
Plaintiffs, v. Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-08302 (N.D. Ill., December 18, 2018) is
a lawsuit that arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act, for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated persons all earned overtime wages, and failure
to compensate Plaintiffs for all time worked.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs worked as Public Safety
Officers at Advocate Condell Medical Center. For each shift
Plaintiffs worked, Defendant deducted 30 minutes from Plaintiffs'
hours worked to account for an unpaid meal period despite knowing
that Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Public Safety Officers
were not relieved of their work duties and were not able to take 30
minute meal breaks.

The Defendant also failed to keep an accurate record of all the
hours Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees worked. For
weeks Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons worked over 40
hours a week. Under the FLSA and the IMWL, the unpaid time is owed
at a rate that is one and a half times their regular hourly rate,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff Ciskowski resides in and is domiciled in Woodstock,
Illinois. Plaintiff Ciskowski began working as a Public Safety
Officer at Advocate Condell Medical Center in approximately
February 2013, and he is presently employed by Defendant as a
Public Safety Officer.

Plaintiff Blood resides in and is domiciled in Fox Lake, Illinois.
Plaintiff Blood began working as a Public Safety Officer at
Advocate Condell Medical Center in approximately 2012, and he is
presently employed by Defendant as a Public Safety Officer.

Plaintiff Corona resides in and is domiciled in Chicago, Illinois.
Plaintiff Corona began working as a Public Safety Officer at
Advocate Condell Medical Center in approximately 2013, and she is
presently employed by Defendant as a Public Safety Officer.

Plaintiff Blackwood resides in and is domiciled in Trevor,
Wisconsin. Plaintiff Blackwood began working as a Public Safety
Officer at Advocate Condell Medical Center in approximately 2011,
and he is presently employed by Defendant as a Public Safety
Officer.

Plaintiff Pumala resides in and is domiciled in Burlington,
Wisconsin. Plaintiff Pumala began working as a Public Safety
Officer at Advocate Condell Medical Center in approximately March
2015, and he ceased working there in approximately March 2017.

Plaintiff Joy resides in and is domiciled in Pleasant Prairie,
Wisconsin. Plaintiff Joy began working as a Public Safety Officer
at Advocate Condell Medical Center in approximately December of
2014, and he is presently employed by Defendant as a Public Safety
Officer.

Plaintiff Prodan resides in and is domiciled in Palatine, Illinois.
Plaintiff Prodan began working as a Public Safety Officer at
Advocate Condell Medical Center in approximately October 2015, and
he is presently employed by Defendant as a Public Safety Officer.

Plaintiff Ramos resides in and is domiciled in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
Plaintiff Ramos began working as a Public Safety Officer at
Advocate Condell Medical Center in approximately 2010, and he is
presently employed by Defendant as a Public Safety Officer.

Plaintiff Galvicius resides in and is domiciled in McHenry,
Illinois. Plaintiff Galvicius began working as a Public Safety
Officer at Advocate Condell Medical Center in approximately 2011,
and she ceased working there in approximately September 2017.

Plaintiff Friel resides in and is domiciled in Franksville,
Wisconsin. Plaintiff Friel worked as a Public Safety Officer at
Advocate Condell Medical Center between approximately 2009 and
September 2016.

Plaintiff Edmund Haras resides in and is domiciled in Cape Coral,
Florida. Plaintiff Haras began working as a Public Safety Officer
for Defendant in approximately June 2015 and ceased working for
Defendant in approximately March 2018.

Plaintiff Garduno resides in and is domiciled in Wildwood,
Illinois. Plaintiff Garduno began working as a Public Safety
Officer at Advocate Condell Medical Center in approximately 2008,
and he is presently employed by Defendant as a Public Safety
Officer.

Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation is an Illinois
not-for-profit corporation. Advocate owns and operates Advocate
Condell Medical Center, located at 801 S. Milwaukee Avenue,
Libertyville, IL 60048.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
     Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
     Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
     Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
     Werman Salas P.C.
     77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 419-1008
     Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
            msalas@flsalaw.com
            sarendt@flsalaw.com
            zflowerree@flsalaw.com


ALAMEDA HEALTH: Court Junks 2nd Amended Complaint in Soman Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
the second amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) in the case captioned JAS SOMAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
ALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant. Case No.17-cv-06076-JD. (N.D.
Cal.).

In this putative class action, plaintiff Jas Soman alleges claims
against her former employer, defendant Alameda Health System (AHS),
under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the California
Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA).  

The SAC is Soman's third effort at stating a plausible FCRA claim.
The Court dismissed the prior amended complaint because it did not
provide enough non-conclusory facts to allege a plausible claim,
and did not include a statement of the Court's jurisdiction. The
question now is whether Soman has a viable claim under the FCRA in
light of the actual FCRA disclosure she received and signed, and
which is incorporated into the SAC.

AHS argues that the text boxes advising residents of certain states
that they have accretive rights under state law could not possibly
make the FCRA disclosure non-compliant for saying more than what
was solely required, or making the disclosures unclear.  AHS
approaches the issue as a matter of Article III standing under
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016) and Rule 12(b)(1). In
effect, AHS contends that even if the text boxes might, for the
sake of discussion, be deemed superfluous, they amount to a bare
procedural violation of the FCRA divorced from any concrete harm
sufficient to confer standing under Article III for an
injury-in-fact.  

The point is well taken. The argument could also be cast under Rule
12(b)(6) for failure to state a plausible claim, but other courts
have approached the analysis as an Article III standing problem.
Either way, it is hard to see how Soman's complaint is actionable.
The three state-law boxes are not of a sort that would make the
notice in the FCRA disclosure less than clear and conspicuous in
any meaningful way, or violate the intent of being solely
disclosures.

Visually, they are easy to read because they are distinguished from
the main text by a box featuring bold print to catch the eye of
residents in the relevant states. The text within each box is short
and to the point, and in the same font as the rest of the document.
Content-wise, they are wholly consistent with Congress's intent to
protect applicants' rights by advising them in plain words of
state-law rights that enhance the FCRA's disclosure requirements.
These rights are wholly consistent with the goals and policies
embodied in the FCRA.

The boxes are not at all akin to the extraneous language found
improper in Syed, a case Soman relies on heavily. There, a broad
liability waiver was combined with the disclosure about obtaining
consumer reports. No waiver language is present in the FCRA
disclosure here. To the contrary, the liability waiver Soman signed
was in the separate Application form and not in the FCRA
disclosure.

Soman is unclear about why this was not adequate. She appears to
contend that AHS should have included similar information in the
Application document but she does not point to any such requirement
in the FCRA, or explain why the actual notice in the FCRA
disclosure might be deficient for not being repeated in the
Application. She takes issue with one missing digit in the zip code
of the AHS vendor,  but that minor typo is the quintessence of a
procedural misstep that could not cause an injury and in any event
Soman received the ICRAA disclosure with the vendor's full and
accurate address.

Consequently, the FCRA claims are dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 3, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yb9f4lla from Leagle.com.

Jas Soman, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh --
shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group, Thomas Alistair Segal --
thomas@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group & Howard Scott Leviant
-- scott@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

Alameda Health System, Defendant, represented by Fletcher C. Alford
-- falford@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, Edward
Romero -- eromero@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP &
Kevin Liu -- kliu@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Appeal Filed in Thompson Case
-------------------------------------------------
Danny L. Thompson filed an appeal from a court decision in the case
captioned, DANNY L. THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01620-KOB (N.D. Ala., Sep. 30, 2016).
The appeal was filed on November 14, 2018 before the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and captioned as DANNY
L. THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 18-14761 (11th Cir.).

Allstate Insurance Company provides personal lines property and
casualty products. The company was founded in 1931 and is based in
Northbrook, Illinois with additional offices in Liverpool, New York
and Gainesville, Florida. Allstate Insurance Company operates as a
subsidiary of Allstate Insurance Holdings, LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Garrett Parker Dennis, Esq.
          221 Longwood Dr. SW
          Huntsville, AL 35801

The Defendant is represented by:

          Felicia A. Long, Esq.
          HILL HILL CARTER FRANCO COLE & BLACK, PC
          425 S Perry St.
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 834-7600
                     (334) 834-7600


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Alarimo Files Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial,
LP. The case is styled as Joseph Alarimo, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alltran Financial, LP,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-07223 (E.D. N.Y., December 19, 2018).

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

Alltran Financial, LP specializes in revenue cycle, accounts
receivable, and contact center solutions within healthcare,
financial services, higher education, and government industries in
the Unites States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


AMAZON.COM LLC: Fails to Pay Delivery Drivers' OT, Faucett Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PRIESTLEY FAUCETT, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. AMAZON.COM, LLC, AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., and
SHEARD-LOMAN TRANSPORT, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-08066 (N.D. Ill.,
December 7, 2018), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime premium to the
Plaintiff and other Delivery Associates.

The case is about the Amazon Defendants' alleged unlawful scheme to
attempt to avoid responsibility for paying its Delivery Associates
in accordance with federal wage and hour laws by attempting to
contract out that responsibility to third-party Delivery Service
Providers, such as Defendant Sheard-Loman Transport, LLC.  Delivery
Associates deliver Amazon's packages but are paid through Defendant
Sheard-Loman.

Amazon.com, LLC, is a limited liability company with principal
offices in Seattle, Washington, which operates throughout the
United States.  Amazon Logistics, Inc., a subsidiary of Defendant
Amazon.com, LLC, is a corporation with principal offices in
Seattle, Washington, which operates throughout the United States.

Sheard-Loman Transport, LLC, is a limited liability company
organized under the laws of Illinois with principal offices in
Chicago, Illinois.  Sheard-Loman provides Delivery Associates to
Amazon as a Delivery Service Provider.  Sheard-Loman operates a
carrier and logistics business in providing vehicles and drivers to
deliver goods on behalf of Amazon.com and its affiliates.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4620
          E-mail: sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                  crodriguez@bm.net

               - and -

          Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
          WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
          1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 656-3600
          Facsimile: (215) 567-2310
          E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com

               - and -

          John Bielski, Esq.
          WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
          77 W. Washington St., Suite 2120
          Chicago, IL 60602
          E-mail: jbielski@wwdlaw.com


AMERICA'S TRUST: Missry Files TCPA Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against America's Trust
Insurance. The case is styled as Carol Missry and Hyman Missry,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Samuel Messinger, America's Trust Insurance and ATI
Agency, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07226 (E.D. N.Y.,
December 19, 2018).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Fraud or
Truth-In-Lending filed pursuant to Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991.

Americas Trust Inc. is an insurance company.[Bn]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Adam Richard Gonnelli, Esq.
   The Sultzer Law Group
   85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
   Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
   Tel: (845) 483-7100
   Fax: (888) 749-7747
   Email: agonnelli@thesultzerlawgroup.com



AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC: Court OKs $84MM Settlement in Talone Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion granting Parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval
of Certification of Settlement Class and Sub-Classes and Class
Settlement in the case captioned ALBERT TALONE, D.O., CRAIG WAX,
D.O., RICHARD RENZA, D.O., ROY STOLLER, D.O., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE
AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant. No.
1:16-cv-04644-NLH-JS. (D.N.J.).

This case concerns antitrust and fraud claims brought by
osteopathic physicians against the American Osteopathic Association
for its alleged unlawful tying of board certification with
membership in a professional association. Plaintiffs are
osteopathic physicians (DOs) who have been board certified as
medical specialists by the American Osteopathic Association (AOA),
and who have also purchased membership in the AOA. Plaintiffs claim
that in order to avoid the loss of their board certification,
Plaintiffs and AOA board certified DOs have been forced to purchase
AOA membership even though it serves no purpose with respect to,
and has no actual connection with, AOA board certification or their
practice as physicians (Challenged Rule).

The Settlement Class is defined as:

     All persons who were members of the AOA (regardless of
membership category) and all persons or entities who paid dues on
behalf of anyone who was a member of the AOA at any time since
August 1, 2012.

The Settlement Sub-Classes are comprised of: (i) an AOA
Board-Certified Sub-Class comprised of all members of the
Settlement Class that have held AOA Board certifications since
August 1, 2012 and (ii) a Lifetime Sub-Class comprised of all
members of the Settlement Class who received lifetime board
certification (Settlement Class and Sub-Classes).

The parties represent that there are approximately 48,000 members
of the AOA, 32,000 AOA Board certified DOs, and thousands of
lifetime certificate holders. It is evident that joinder of the
members of the Settlement Class and Sub-Classes would be
impractical, and the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1) is
satisfied.  The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' claims present the
following issues common to the proposed Settlement Class and
Sub-Classes.  The answers to these common questions are the same
for all the Settlement Class and Sub-Class, respectively. Thus, the
commonality prong of Rule 23(a) has been met.

The representative Plaintiffs purchased AOA memberships, have AOA
Board certifications, and two of the Plaintiffs Dr. Talone and Dr.
Renza have lifetime certification. Thus, Plaintiffs assert legal
claims on behalf of themselves that are sufficiently typical of the
claims of all members of the Settlement Class and Sub-Classes.
These similarities satisfy Rule 23(a)(3)'s typicality requirement.

The Court finds that there has been no showing that any conflicts
exist between the Class Representatives and the proposed Settlement
Class and Sub-Classes. There also has been no reasons presented to
doubt that Class Counsel are experienced class action litigators
familiar with the legal and factual issues involved in this action,
and each is highly qualified. Thus, the adequacy prong of Rule
23(a)(4) has been met.

The Court finds that the settlement satisfies the relevant Girsh
factors.  This is a nationwide, antitrust case involving over
48,000 class members. Cases of this magnitude and subject matter
easily meet this first Girsh factor.  None of the class members has
objected to the settlement.

This litigation has proceeded for two years, the Plaintiffs
retained an expert economist, the parties engaged in core
discovery, and interrogatories have been served, litigated over,
and answered. It is evident that both sides appreciate the merits
of the case and the benefits of settling the matter rather than
continuing to litigate, thus satisfying the third Girshfactor.

Antitrust actions are complex to prosecute. Previously in resolving
AOA's motion to dismiss, the Court articulated AOA's challenges to
Plaintiffs' claims and the elements necessary to prove Plaintiffs'
claims. The Court found that Plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded their
claims to proceed, but noted the type of substantiated proof
Plaintiffs would be required to produce to support their claims. It
is clear that the risks to Plaintiffs in establishing liability and
damages support their desire to settle their claims, and satisfy
the fourth and fifth Girsh factors.

In regard to the seventh factor, the AOA states: The AOA cannot
afford to settle this case if opt outs are permitted. The reason is
that, under the antitrust laws, a successful plaintiff is entitled
to its full attorneys' fees. So it is foreseeable that enterprising
attorneys may attempt to persuade members of the class to bring
individual antitrust actions based on the Rule at issue in this
case seeking four years of alleged dues overpayment, trebled plus
attorneys' fees. The AOA is not prepared to risk the scenario of
numerous follow-on lawsuits. There is no evidence in the record
regarding AOA's financial wherewithal, but even if AOA could afford
to pay more does not mean that it is obligated to pay any more than
what the class members are entitled to under the theories of
liability that existed at the time the settlement was reached.  The
Court, therefore, finds this factor to support the fairness of the
settlement.

The present value of the damages plaintiffs would likely recover if
successful, appropriately discounted for the risk of not
prevailing, should be compared with the amount of the proposed
settlement.

Above, the Court presented the parties' calculation of the total
net present value of the settlement from years one to three:
$31,388,060, $59,922,660 and $84,210,312. The value to each class
member is at least $1,750. The non-monetary terms of the settlement
also provide meaningful benefits to the Settlement Class and
Sub-Classes, including several terms that will save the members of
the Settlement Class and Sub-Classes significant time and money.
Even if the members of the Settlement Class and Sub-Classes were
willing to assume all of the litigation risks, the passage of time
would introduce still more risks in terms of appeals and possible
changes in the law that would likely make a future recovery less
beneficial than a recovery today. This settlement represents a
resolution that approaches the best possible recovery. The Court
agrees with the parties' position and finds that the eighth and
ninth Girsh factors favor settlement.

The analysis of the Girsh factors confirms that the proposed
settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court therefore
approves the settlement agreed to by the parties.  

Accordingly, the settlement of the Plaintiffs' class action claims
against the AOA meets the requirements of Rule 23(a), is
appropriately certifiable under Rule 23(b)(2), and overall is fair,
reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e).

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 3, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yacbgpgy from Leagle.com.

ALBERT TALONE, D.O., CRAIG WAX, D.O., RICHARD RENZA, D.O. & ROY
STOLLER, D.O., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiffs, represented by JAMES GREENBERG --
jgreenberg@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP, SARAH O'LAUGHLIN
KULIK -- sckulik@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP, SETH A.
GOLDBERG -- SAGoldberg@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP & SEAN
PATRICK MCCONNELL -- spmcconnell@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS
LLP.

THE AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant, represented by
JEFFREY WARREN LORELL -- jlorell@saiber.com -- SAIBER LLC, GERI L.
ALBIN -- galbin@saiber.com -- SAIBER LLC & JEFFREY S. SOOS , SAIBER
LLC.


ANSAFONE CONTACT: Brown's Customer Service Reps Class Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James S. Moody, Jr., granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiff's "Amended Motion to Conditionally Certify Collective
Action and Facilitate Notice to Potential Class Members" in the
lawsuit titled LLOYD BROWN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. ANSAFONE CONTACT CENTERS, LLC, Case No.
5:18-cv-00490-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla.).

The Court conditionally certifies a class of all current and former
customer service representatives employed by Ansafone Contact
Centers, LLC at its call center in Ocala, Florida, who were
employed at any time during the period from March 16, 2015, to
present, and who were not paid full and proper overtime
compensation for all hours worked due to Ansafone Contact Centers,
LLC's timekeeping practices.

Judge Moody directs the parties to confer with respect to any
remaining objections to certain provisions of the notice (to the
extent not already addressed by the Court) and file a joint
proposed notice within 14 days of this Order.  If the parties are
unable to agree on the details of the notice, they shall
individually file a proposed notice for the Court's review during
that same period of time.

The Plaintiff sued his former employer, Ansafone Contact Centers,
LLC, on behalf of himself and similarly situated Ansafone employees
for alleged unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.[CC]


APHRIA INC: Curkan Hits Share Drop from Operational Flaws
---------------------------------------------------------
John Curkan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Aphria Inc., Victor Neufeld and Carl
Merton, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-11428, (S.D. N.Y., December 6,
2018) seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Aphria is a Canadian firm that produces and sells medical cannabis.
Its recent acquisitions in Latin America allegedly lacked adequate
licenses to operate and were overvalued. On this news, the company
share price fell $1.85 per share, or over 23%, to close at $6.05
per share on December 3, 2018, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Curkan purchased Aphria securities and lost during corrective
disclosures, notes the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Fax: (631) 367-1173
      Email: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

      Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-8498
      Tel: (619) 231-1058
      Fax: (619) 231-7423
      Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

      W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
      JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
      99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 292-5690
      Fax: (212) 602-1592
      scotth@johnsonfistel.com


APHRIA INC: Gloschat Hits Share Drop from Operational Flaws
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony V. Gloschat, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Aphria Inc., Victor Neufeld and
Carl Merton, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-11427, (S.D. N.Y., December
6, 2018), Defendants, seeks to recover damages caused by violations
of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Aphria is a Canadian firm that produces and sells medical cannabis.
Its recent acquisitions in Latin America allegedly lacked adequate
licenses to operate and were overvalued. On this news, the company
share price fell $1.85 per share, or over 23%, to close at $6.05
per share on December 3, 2018, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Gloschat purchased Aphria securities and lost during corrective
disclosures. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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

             - and -

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


APPLE INC: Phone's Pixel Count Misleading, Sponchiado et al. Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN SPONCHIADO and COURTNEY DAVIS, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. APPLE INC.,
the Defendant, Case No.: 5:18-cv-07533 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 14, 2018),
alleges that Apple advertises its phones by touting their display
size and screen quality as major selling points. Apple makes two
types of claims about its screens: first, that that its screens
have specific high resolutions, i.e. that they have a high pixel
count as tallied by multiplying the screen height in pixels by the
screen width in pixels. Secondly, that the phones' surface area is
large, as calculated by measuring the diagonal length of the screen
from corner to corner. However, Apple's iPhone X, iPhone XS, and
iPhone XS Max 2 phones do not have the advertised screen resolution
because they do not have the advertised number of screen pixels
(2436×1125 in the iPhone X and XS, and 14 2688×1242 in the iPhone
XS Max). Furthermore, it does not have the advertised screen size
as measured in inches.

The pixel deception is rooted in the misrepresentation of the
Products' screens, which do not use true screen pixels. Defendant's
nominal screen pixel resolution counts misleadingly count false
pixels as if they were true pixels. This is in contrast to every
other iPhone -- phones whose screens Defendant directly compares to
the iPhone X screen in its effort to mislead consumers into
believing that the iPhone X has more pixels (and better screen
resolution) than it really does. The screen size deception is
simply based on Apple cutting corners – the Defendant rounds off
the corners of the Products' screens and the Products have notches
without pixels at the top of their screens, but Defendant
calculates the screen size of the Products by including non-screen
areas such as the corners and the cut-out notch at the top of the
screen. The missing screen areas also reduce the false pixel counts
of the Products' screens below their advertised pixel counts, the
lawsuit says.

Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops, and
sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online
services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212-465-1188
          Facsimile: 212-465-1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com

               - and -

          David Makman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. MAKMAN
          655 Mariner's Island, Suite 306
          San Mateo, CA 94404
          Telephone: 650 242-1560
          Facsimile: 650 242-1547
          E-mail: david@makmanlaw.com

ARAMARK CAMPUS: Buchanan Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BUCHANAN, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ARAMARK CAMPUS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; ARAMARK SPORTS, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV339719 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Dec. 10, 2018), seeks minimum wages and overtime pay under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other similarly
situated concession supervisor Employees of Defendants worked in
the food and support services sector and in connection with
Defendants' concessions operations at various venues and sports and
entertainment facilities throughout California at Defendants'
behest without being paid all wages due. More specifically,
Defendants employed the Plaintiff and the other similarly situated
hourly, non-exempt concessions supervisors with assigned
responsibilities for managing the services provided by concessions
staff workers, including cooks and cashiers, at the multiple
concession stands assigned to them within their assigned
facilities.

Employees were required to remain under Defendant's control and
were not provided with the opportunity to take full uninterrupted
and duty-free rest periods and meal breaks, as required by the
Labor Code and the applicable paragraphs of the IWC Wage Orders.
The Defendants did not record actual meal period start times and
end times for Plaintiff and the Class members, or else inaccurately
recorded them, and required concessions supervisors to remain under
Defendants' control during breaks to respond to radio calls and
other management directives and customer and concession worker
requirements. Defendants have therefore also either failed to
maintain timekeeping records for Plaintiff that would permit the
Plaintiff to discover the nature and extent of Defendants' unlawful
rounding and the actual hours the Plaintiff worked, or has
otherwise declined to produce them to Plaintiff in response to a
timely and lawful request, the lawsuit says.

Aramark Campus, LLC, together with its division, provides on-campus
dining and food service for colleges and universities in the United
States. It serves students, faculty, and administrators. The
company is headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Aramark
Campus, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Aramark Corporation.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Yuet Lai, Esq.
          David Yeremian, Esq.
          Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com
                  alvin@yeremianlaw.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
          5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (310) 652-2242
          E-mail: whaines@uelg.com

ARKANSAS: Raytheon Co. Moves for Certification of Taxpayers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled RAYTHEON COMPANY, and its
Subsidiaries, JPS Communications Inc., Raytheon Exchange Holdings,
Inc., Raytheon Exchange Holdings II, Inc., Raytheon Exchange
Holdings III, Inc., Raytheon Exchange Holdings IV, Inc., Raytheon
Exchange Holdings V, Inc., and Raytheon Oakley Systems, LLC f/k/a
Raytheon Oakley Systems Inc. v. LARRY WALTHER, in his official
capacity as DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION OF
THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, Case No. 1:18-cv-01030-SOH (W.D. Ark.), move
to certify a class of all Arkansas taxpayers as to Count 7 of their
complaint.

Count 7 of Raytheon's complaint is an illegal-exaction claim
brought under Ark. Const. art. 16 Section 13.  Claims brought under
this provision of the Arkansas Constitution are, as a matter of
law, class actions brought on behalf of all Arkansas taxpayers and,
in Arkansas state court, are exempt from the certification
requirements of the Arkansas counterpart to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiffs assert.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John R. Tisdale, Esq.
          Rodney P. Moore, Esq.
          Michael A. Thompson, Esq.
          WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
          200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3699
          Telephone: (501) 371-0808
          Facsimile: (501) 376-9442
          E-mail: jtisdale@wlj.com
                  rpmoore@wlj.com
                  mthompson@wlj.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alicia Austin Smith, Esq.
          Amanda D. Land, Esq.
          Michael Wehrle, Esq.
          OFFICE OF REVENUE LEGAL COUNSEL
          P.O. Box 1272, Room 2380
          Little Rock, AR 72203
          Telephone: (501) 683-2255
          E-mail: Alicia.Austin.Smith@dfa.arkansas.gov
                  Amanda.Land@dfa.arkansas.gov
                  Mike.Wehrle@dfa.arkansas.gov


ARS NATIONAL: Helmuth Moves for Class Certification Under FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned BERNADETTE M. HELMUTH, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ARS NATIONAL
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 9:11-cv-81044-KAM (S.D. Fla.), asks the
Court to enter an order certifying this case to proceed as a class
action.

The class is defined as:

     a) all Florida residents for whom Defendant left a
     pre-recorded telephone message in which it failed to
     disclose that the communication was from a debt collector;
     b) in an attempt to collect a debt incurred for personal,
     family, or household purposes; c) then due Dell Financial;
     d) during the one-year period prior to the filing of the
     complaint in this matter through August 19, 2011.

The purported class action is filed alleging violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
policy and practice of the Defendant was to leave telephone
messages, which violate the FDCPA by failing to indicate that the
call is from a debt collector.

Ms. Helmuth also asks the Court to appoint her as class
representative, and to appoint Donald A. Yarbrough, Esq., as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald A. Yarbrough, Esq.
          DONALD A. YARBROUGH, ESQ.
          Post Office Box 11842
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33339
          Telephone: (954) 537-2000
          Facsimile: (954) 566-2235
          E-mail: don@donyarbrough.com


AUTOREMIND INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Ward Family Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
WARD FAMILY CHIROPRACTOR, LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUTOREMIND, INC.; and JBS
OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00251-HLM (N.D.
Ga., Nov. 16, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
making unsolicited calls.

Autoremind, Inc. is a healthcare communication service provider.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher B. Hall, Esq.
          Andrew Lampros, Esq.
          Gordon Van Remmen, Esq.
          HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
          400 Galleria Parkway Suite 1150
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (404) 876-8100
          Facsimile: (404) 876-3477
          E-mail: chall@hallandlampros.com
                  alampros@hallandlampros.com
                  gordon@hallandlampros.com

               - and -

          Jacob Philllips, Esq.
          Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
          NORMAND PLLC
          3165 McCrory Place Suite 109
          Orlando, FL 32814
          Telephone: (407) 603-6031
          E-mail: jacob@ednormand.com
                  ed@ednormand.com


BEEWAKE CORP: Olsen Suit Asserts ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------
Beewake Corp. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Thomas
J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Beewake Corp., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-11974 (S.D. N.Y., December 19, 2018).

Beewake Corp. developed a mobile application that allows users to
find and book hotel rooms, meeting rooms, co-working or office
spaces, and neighborhood coffee shops. The company was incorporated
in 2015 and is based in New York, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BES INDUSTRIES: Gorss Motels Seeks to Certify Class Under TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled GORSS MOTELS, INC., a
Connecticut corporation, individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly-situated persons v. BES INDUSTRIES, INC., Case
No. 3:17-cv-00447-BJD-PDB (M.D. Fla.), seeks an order certifying
this class:

     All persons or entities who were successfully sent a
     facsimile on or about May 17-23, 2013, and March 27-April 4,
     2014, from BES Industries, Inc., which states "BES - The
     Preferred Source," that mentions "Thru-The Wall Air
     Conditioners" or "Commercial Lodging LED Televisions," and
     which contained an opt-out notice as follows: "If you would
     prefer to be removed from our customer database please call
     or 888-527-6288 or Fax 888-201-7631.

Gorss also seeks an order appointing it as class representative and
appointing Ryan M. Kelly, Esq., of
Anderson + Wanca as class counsel.

The case arises out of the Defendant's alleged fax broadcasting
campaigns wherein facsimile advertisements were sent to the
Plaintiff and the proposed Class on May 17 - 23, 2013, and on March
27 – April 4, 2014.  The Plaintiff received both Faxes and
brought this lawsuit alleging the Faxes violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


BIRD RIDES: Removes Borgia et al. Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of DANIELLE BORGIA; TINA OGATA; JOAN
HOWELL; ALEX BULE; KEITH FINKELSTEIN; NATASA KOJIC; REBECCA
MARTINEZ; DAVID PETERSEN; and ANDREA ROSENTHAL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BIRD RIDES,
INC., d/b/a BIRD; NEUTRON HOLDINGS, INC., d/b/a LIME; XIAOMI USA,
INC.; SEGWAY INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, filed a
notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 18STCV01416) to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
November 16, 2018. The clerk of court for the Central District of
California assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-09685-DMG-FFM. The case is
assigned to Judge Dolly M. Gee and referred to Magistrate Frederick
F. Mumm.

Bird Rides, Inc. operates as an electric vehicle sharing company.
The company provides a fleet of electric, shared scooters that can
be accessed through smartphones. The company was incorporated in
2017 and is based in Santa Monica, California. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kent J. Schmidt, Esq.
          Navdeep k. Singh, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
          600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 2000
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 800-1400
          Facsimile: (714) 800-1499
          E-mail: schmidt.kent@dorsey.com
                  singh.navdeep@dorsey.com

               - and -

          Bryon Benevento, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
          111 South Main Street, Suite 2100
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 933-8958
          Facsimile: (801) 933-7373
          E-mail: benevento.bryon@dorsey.com


BONIMA OIL CORP: Espinosa to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Patricia Nakamura Espinosa and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff, vs. Bonima Oil Corp. and Ricardo
Echeverria, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-25128 (S.D. Fla., December
6, 2018), requests double damages and reasonable attorneys' fees,
jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for
all overtime wages still owing along with court costs, interest and
any other relief.

Bonima is a Shell retail gas station owned by Echeverria where
Espinosa worked as a cashier/attendant from on or about October 5,
2017, through on or about November 22, 2018. She claims to be
denied overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess
of 40 hours weekly. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      Email: zabogado@aol.com


BOXBOROUGH REGENCY: Morin Seeks Unpaid Wages for Wait Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARY ANN MORIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs BOXBOROUGH REGENCY, LLC, EMPIRE
REGENCY HOSPITALITY, LLC, and LAWRENCE GORDON, the Defendants, Case
No. 18-3514 (Dec. 10, 2018, Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty.),
alleges that the Defendants have improperly distributed a portion
of banquet service charges to outside vendors who supply temporary
banquet workers, rather than remitting the full proceeds of those
service charges to eligible wait staff employees who work at the
Regency Hotels in violation of the Massachusetts Tips Act Wage Act
and the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law.

In addition, Morin alleges that Defendants have improperly paid the
wait staff employees at the Regency Hotels less than the basic
minimum wage while also failing to comply with the Tips Act, the
lawsuit says.

The Defendants own and operate the Regency Hotels – nameley, the
Boxboro Regency Hotel & Conference Center located at 242 Adams
Place in Boxborough, Massachusetts and the Westford Regency Inn &
Conference Center located at 219 Littleton Road in Westford,
Massachussetts .[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Brant Casavant, Esq.
          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607-3261
          Facsimile: (617)488-2261
          E-mail: brant@fairworklaw.com
                  hillary@fairworklaw.com

BROOKLYN CORNER: Delivery Staff Hit Tip Credit, Claim Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ali H. Gurocak and Nicholas Gurdial Singh, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Brooklyn
Corner, Corp., MIS Restaurant Inc., Inventa Group Inc., Green Bay
Enterprise Partners LLC, Sam Kaya, Ekrem Kaya and Gokmen Leventeli,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-06943, (E.D. N.Y., December 6, 2018)
seeks to recover unpaid minimum, overtime and spread-of-hours wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor
Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.

Defendants owned, operated, or controlled two Turkish restaurants,
located at 332 5th Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11215 under the name "Cafe
Mistral," and at 370 5th Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11215 under the name
"Park Terrace Grill." Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants
who ostensibly were employed as construction workers and then as
delivery workers and waiters. They was required to spend a
considerable part of their work day performing non-tipped duties,
thus Defendants were not entitled to take a tip credit because
their non-tipped duties exceeded 20% of each workday. They worked
for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that they
worked. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping
of the hours worked, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Spady Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA SPADY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC; CAVALRY SPV
I, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-16259-RMB-KMW (D.N.J., Nov. 18, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The
case is assigned to Judge Renee Marie Bumb and referred to
Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams.

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC provides financial resolution
services. Its services cover various areas, such as collection
account and debt control. The company was founded in 1991 and is
based in Valhalla, New York. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC
operates as a subsidiary of Cavalry Investments, LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


CHAPTERS HEALTH SYSTEM: Diaz Sues Over FACTA and FCRA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
John A. Diaz, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Chapters Health System, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 8:18-cv-03052-CEH-SPF (M.D. Fla., December 19, 2018)
alleges that the Defendant  violated the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act ("FACTA") amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting
Act ("FCRA").

The Plaintiff says the Defendant knowingly or recklessly violated
the law by providing Plaintiff and putative class members with
electronically printed receipts bearing ten of the sixteen digits
comprising their credit card numbers.

Consequently, Plaintiff and the putative class members, all of whom
conducted business with Defendant during the time frame relevant to
this complaint, and paid for goods using a credit or debit card,
have been harmed by Defendant's conduct and are entitled to an
award of statutory damages, asserts the complaint.

By printing of the first six and last four digits of his credit
card account number(s) Defendant not only placed him at risk for
identity theft, Defendant breached Plaintiff's confidence, says the
complaint. Defendant is liable to Plaintiff and members of the
class for statutory damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees and
costs, the complaint assrtes.

Plaintiff John A. Diaz is a natural person who resides in
Hillsborough County, Florida.

Chapters Health System, Inc. is a Florida not for-profit
corporation whose principal address is 12470 Telecom Drive, Suite
300 West, Temple Terrace, FL 33637.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James S. Giardina, Esq.
     The Consumer Rights Law Group, PLLC
     3104 W. Waters Avenue, Suite 200
     Tampa, FL 33614-2877
     Phone: (813) 435-5055 ext. 101
     Fax: (866) 535-7199
     Email: James@ConsumerRightsLawGroup.com


CHARLOTTE PALM: Autry FLSA Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARIE AUTRY, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHARLOTTE PALM CORP., Defendant,
Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-00797-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 Plaintiffs' unopposed
motion for final approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement and
approval of attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant failed to pay her and
similarly situated employees promised and earned wages for all
hours worked, proper minimum wage, and proper overtime premium
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA").  The Defendant
denies any liability or wrongdoing of any kind under the FLSA and
NCWHA and pled various defenses.

The Court preliminarily approved the Parties' Agreement on Sept.
10, 2018.  Notice was provided to the Class Members.  There were no
objections to the settlement, and no Class Members excluded
themselves from the settlement.  There are disputes between the
Parties as to the underlying facts and the controlling law.
Nonetheless, the Parties believe the settlement reached and agreed
upon to be a fair and reasonable settlement of their dispute, given
the uncertainty as to liability and damages and the estimated
future costs of litigation.

The Final Fairness and Approval Hearing was held on Nov. 14, 2018.

After due consideration and inquiry into the circumstances
surrounding the proposed settlement of the Plaintiffs' collective
FLSA claims and Rule 23 class claims under the NCWHA against
Defendant, and review of the Agreement, Judge Mullen finds and
concludes that the proposed settlement in the case meets the
standard for approval as it reflects a reasonable compromise of a
bona fide dispute.  He granted the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for
final approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement and approval of
attorneys' fees and costs.

For settlement purposes only, he finally certified pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23 and 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) the Settlement Class of
every individual employed by the Defendant as a server, server
assistant, runner and/or bartender during any workweek between Nov.
18, 2013 and Aug. of 2017.

The Judge approved (i) Plaintiff Charie Autry as the Representative
of the Settlement Class, and the proposed service award as outlined
in the Agreement to Plaintiff Autry for her service to the
Settlement Class; (ii) Gibbons Leis, PLLC and Stephan Zouras, LLP
as the Class Counsel to the Settlement Class and the Plaintiff's
unopposed request for attorneys' fees and costs as outlined in the
Agreement; and (iii) RG2 Claims Administration, LLC as the
Settlement Administrator and the costs of the settlement
administration will be paid by the Defendant.

The Judge directed the settlement funds be distributed in
accordance with the terms of the Class Action Settlement Agreement.
He further directed the entry of final judgment in the case and
dismissed the action with prejudice in its entirety in accordance
with the terms of the Class Action Settlement Agreement.  The Clerk
of the Court is ordered to enter Final Judgment in the action
adjudicating all the claims and all the Parties' rights and
liabilities pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

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

Charie Autry, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew C. Ficzko --
aficzko@stephanzouras.com -- Stephan Zouras, LLP, pro hac vice,
James B. Zouras -- jzouras@stephanzouras.com -- Stephan Zouras,
LLP, pro hac vice, Philip J. Gibbons, Jr. -- phil@gibbonsleis --
Gibbons Leis, PLLC & Craig Lorne Leis, Gibbons Leis, PLLC.

Charlotte Palm Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jerry Howard
Walters, Jr. -- jwalters@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. &
Molly M. Shah -- mmshah@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Macleod Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, ALYSSA MACLEOD, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL,
INC., and CHIPOTLE SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 55-00018,
was removed from the New Jersey Superior Court, Bergen County, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark) on
Dec. 10, 2018. The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:18-cv-17042-SDW-LDW to the proceeding. The suit alleges
labor-related violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Susan D. Wigenton.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is an American chain of fast casual
restaurants in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany,
and France, specializing in tacos and Mission-style burritos. Its
name derives from chipotle, the Nahuatl name for a smoked and dried
jalapeño chili pepper.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Carl J. Mayer, Esq.
          MAYER LAW GROUP
          66 Witherspoons Street, Suite 414
          Princeton, NJ 08542
          Telephone: (609) 921-0253
          E-mail: carlmayer@aol.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Abigail Nitka, Esq.
          Lena Brinjikji, Esq.
          MESSNER REEVES,LLP
          805 Third Avenue-18th Fl
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (646) 663-1860
          Facsimile: (646) 663-1895
          E-mail: anitka@messner.com
                  lbrinjikji@messner.com

CLEANNET USA: Can't Compel Arbitration in Castillo Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LUIS CASTILLO, Plaintiff, v. CLEANNET USA, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-07277-JCS (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Joseph C. Spero of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied the Defendants bring a Motion to
Compel Arbitration and Stay the Proceeding.

Castillo brings a putative class action against Defendants CleanNet
and D&G Enterprises, Inc., doing business as CleanNet of the Bay
Area and CleanNet of San Jose ("D&G"), asserting claims under the
federal Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act
("TVPRA"), and the California Trafficking Victims Protection Act
("CTVPA").

Castillo entered into a Franchise Agreement with D&G on Sept. 26,
2011.  D&G is an area operator licensed by CleanNet USA to sell
franchises and to operate a franchising business using the CleanNet
USA® registered marks and proprietary system in the San Francisco
Bay area.  To purchase the franchise, Castillo made a down payment
of $8,500 and signed a promissory note for $5,000 on the day he
signed the Franchise Agreement.  The Franchise Agreement contains a
section entitled "Dispute Resolution."  Section XXII of the
Agreement provides for waiver of punitive damages.  The Franchise
Agreement also contains a provision addressing the use of English
language.

Castillo does not dispute that he signed the Franchise Agreement
and also initialed each page of it, including the pages containing
the dispute resolution provision.  However, there are factual
disputes about the circumstances under which he signed the
Franchise Agreement and whether he understood what he was agreeing
to.  Castillo received a copy of the Franchise Disclosure
Documents, including the Franchise Agreement, in June 2011 and
therefore had time to get it translated before signing it.

With respect to Castillo's ability to speak English, Defendants
have offered a declaration by Andrew Kaska, who was employed by D&G
and accompanied Castillo to meetings with customers who did not
speak Spanish to discuss the work he was performing.  The
Defendants also imply that Castillo is more sophisticated -- and
perhaps more financially well-off -- than his declaration suggests.
Finally, Defendants introduce evidence, in the form of a signed
receipt and a subsequent acknowledgment of receipt, they contend
shows that Castillo received a packet of Franchise Disclosure
Documents on June 14, 2011.

The Defendants bring a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay the
Proceeding based on an arbitration provision in the Aranchise
Agreement between D&G and Castillo.  A hearing on the motion was
held on Dec. 7, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.

Judge Spero finds that Castillo did not have an opportunity to
review the Franchise Agreement or other Franchise Disclosure
Documents at home before signing the Franchise Agreement.  Instead,
he was presented with these documents for the first time at the
meeting that he and Vega had set up to finalize the agreement and
make a down-payment, on Sept. 26, 2011.  Vega did not encourage
Castillo to consult an attorney or obtain English language
assistance so that he could fully understand the terms of the
documents he was signing; instead, she encouraged him to rely on
her translation of the documents.  Under these circumstances, the
Judge concludes that Castillo has demonstrated that he reasonably
relied on Vega's translation and was unaware that he was entering
into an arbitration agreement, giving rise to fraud in the
inception and rendering the arbitration agreement void.

Castillo argues that even if the Court does not find fraud in the
inception, it should not enforce the arbitration agreement because
it contains numerous provisions that are unconscionable or violate
public policy under Armendariz and the agreement cannot be fixed by
severing them.  

The Judge concludes that the Plaintiff is correct.  Among other
things, he finds that (i) the CTVPA, under which Castillo asserts
his state law trafficking claim, was enacted for a public purpose
and therefore, that the rights afforded under that statute are
unwaivable; (ii) Castillo has made a strong showing of procedural
unconscionability; (iii) at least these four requirements of the
arbitration agreement are substantively unconscionable; and (iv)
because the arbitration agreement contains at least four illegal
provisions, the Judgeconcludes that it is permeated by
unconscionability and is unenforceable as a whole.

For the reasons stated, Judge Spero denied the Defendant's Motion
to Compel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/TpnW84 from Leagle.com.

Luis Castillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Carole Vigne --
cvigne@legalaidatwork.org -- Legal Aid at Work, Henry Sanford
Hewitt -- hhewitt@legalaidatwork.org -- Legal Aid at Work, Mana
Barari -- mbarari@legalaidatwork.org -- Legal Aid at Work & Monique
Olivier -- monique@dplolaw.com -- Olivier Schreiber & Chao LLP.

CleanNet USA, Inc., a Virginia corporation, Defendant, represented
by Laura Emily Hayward -- lhayward@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C., Joshua Eric Elefant, Littler Mendelson, P.C. & R.
Brian Dixon -- bdixon@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC.

D&G Enterprises, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant,
represented by Charles Godfrey Miller -- cmiller@bzbm.com -- Bartko
Zankel Bunzel & Miller, Charles Griffith Towle -- gtowle@bzbm.com
-- Bartko Zankel Bunzel & Miller & Sony Broto Barari --
sbarari@bzbm.com -- Bartko, Zankel, Bunzel & Miller


CLEAR WATER: $350K Settlement in Aragon Suit Has Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS ARAGON, on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. CLEAR WATER PRODUCTS LLC, MILLS
SOLIDS CONTROL CONSULTING, LLC, AQUA CLEAR SOLUTIONS LLC, BRODY
HANSEN, SCOTT FORKNER, WAYNE JEFFREY HUBBARD, JAY GARRETT MILLS,
and DANIELLE MILLS, Defendants, Civil Action No.
15-cv-02821-PAB-STV (D. Colo.), Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado granted (i) the
aprties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement,
and (ii) the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Approval of
Attorney's Fees and Costs.

The case arises out of a wage dispute.  The Plaintiff, a solids
control technician, claims that he and other similarly situated
employees of the Defendants were not paid full compensation for
overtime hours worked and were instead paid a "day rate with no
overtime premium pay."  The Plaintiff also alleges that he was not
paid for all his hours worked and rest breaks as mandated by
Colorado law.

The Plaintiff filed a class action complaint on Dec. 28, 2015.  He
asserts claims for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the Colorado Wage Claim Act, the Colorado Minimum Wage
Act, and breach of contract.

On May 5, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion for preliminary
approval of a class action settlement.  The Court granted the
motion on March 5, 2018 and approved the parties' plan to
disseminate notice of the settlement to the class members.

On May 14, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an award
of attorney's fees and costs.  On June 28, 2018, the parties moved
for final approval of the class action settlement. The Court held a
final fairness hearing regarding the proposed settlement on Dec.
13, 2018.

The proposed settlement agreement defines the settlement class as
all persons who worked for Clear Water as solids control
technicians and were paid a day rate at any time from Dec. 28, 2013
through the date that the Court enters an order preliminarily
approving the Agreement.

Under the proposed settlement agreement, the Defendants agree to
pay a total of $350,000 as well as the settlement administrator's
fees.  The settlement funds are to be distributed as follows: (1)
service awards of $7,000 to the Plaintiff and $2,750 each to opt-in
Plaintiffs Michael Aragon, Raymond Romero, Kevin Shay, and David
Yoho; (2) payments to the class counsel of up to $116,666 for
attorneys' fees and costs; (3) payment of the class members'
payroll taxes; and (4) pro rata payments to the settlement class
members of all remaining funds based on the number of weeks they
were paid a day rate since Dec. 28, 2013.

Judge Brimmer is satisfied that the notice provided to the class
members met the requirements of Rule 23(e) and Due Process.  He
concludes that the settlement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate,"
and will grant final approval of the settlement agreement.
The Judge also finds that the number of hours expended on the case
to be reasonable given that the litigation has been ongoing since
2015 and has involved multiple motions, extensive discovery, and
settlement negotiations.  The hourly rate charged by the class
counsel of $600 per hour is also generally consistent with the
rates charged in other cases in this district.  Even if the rate is
slightly higher than the rates customarily charged in the area, the
1.15 multiplier is lower than the lodestar multipliers that have
been approved in other class action cases in this District.
Accordingly, the lodestar crosscheck supports the reasonableness of
the requested fee.

The class counsel's requested fee award includes $2,070 in
out-of-pocket litigation expenses.  The Judge finds that there have
been no objections to the counsel's request for costs and that the
costs are reasonable given the nature and duration of thelawsuit.

The settlement provides for an "enhancement payment" of $7,000 for
the class representative, as well as an enhancement of $2,750 for
each of four opt-in Plaintiffs.  The Judge finds that no member of
the settlement class has objected to the payments, which were
disclosed in both the settlement agreement and the notice sent to
class members.  Based on the information provided by the class
counsel and the fact that the case has been pending for almost
three years, he concludes that the enhancement payments are
reasonable compensation for the named Plaintiff and the opt-in
Plaintiffs' participation in the lawsuit.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Brimmer granted the Joint Motion
for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement, and the Plaintiff's
Unopposed Motion for Approval of Attorney's Fees and Costs.  He
will issue a separate order setting forth the terms of the
judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/oQuGz9 from Leagle.com.

Thomas Aragon, on behalf of himself and all similarlysituated
persons, Plaintiff, represented by Brian David Gonzales --
BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com -- Brian D. Gonzales, PLLC.

Clear Water Products LLC, Mills Solids Control Consulting, LLC,
Aqua Clear Solutions LLC, Brody Hansen, Scott Forkner, Wayne
Jeffrey Hubbard, Jay Garrett Mills & Danielle Mills, Defendants,
represented by Joshua B. Kirkpatrick --  jkirkpatrick@littler.com
-- Littler Mendelson, PC & Michelle Lynn Gomez --
mgomez@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC.


CLEVELAND AVE: Hogan Moves to Certify Bartenders Class Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Constitution,
the Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Jessica Hogan, On behalf of
herself and those similarly situated v. Cleveland Ave. Restaurant,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-02883-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio) moves the
Court to authorize her to send notice of this action to these
similarly situated employees:

     All non-owner, non-employer bartenders who were paid tipped
     minimum wage and who worked at Sirens at any time from
     October 6, 2012 to present.

Jessica Hogan brings this lawsuit on behalf of herself and two
groups of workers -- exotic dancers and Sirens' bartenders.  She
worked at Sirens, a Columbus-area strip club, as both a bartender
and dancer.  This motion deals with the bartenders' claims and
seeks to send notice of this lawsuit to Ms. Hogan's fellow
bartenders so that they can choose whether and how to proceed with
their own claims.

Ms. Hogan also asks the Court to (1) approve her proposed notices
and method of disseminating notice, (2) order the Defendants to
provide name and contact information for all potential class
members within 15 days of the Court's order, (3) authorize her to
send the notices via regular U.S. mail and e-mail, (4) require the
Defendants to post the notice in a conspicuous place at Sirens, and
(5) authorize a 90-day opt-in/out period.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul De Marco, Esq.
          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
          E-mail: pdemarco@msdlegal.com
                  abiller@msdlegal.com
                  akimble@msdlegal.com
                  pkrzeski@msdlegal.com


CLEVELAND AVE: Hogan Seeks to Certify Class of Exotic Dancers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Jessica Hogan, on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated v. Cleveland Ave. Restaurant,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-02883-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Constitution asks the
Court to authorize her to send notice of this action to these
similarly situated employees:

     All non-owner, non-employer exotic dancers who worked at
     Sirens at any time from October 6, 2012 to present and to
     whom Sirens did not pay any wages.

Jessica Hogan brings this lawsuit on behalf of herself and two
groups of workers -- exotic dancers and Sirens' bartenders.  She
worked at Sirens, a Columbus-area strip club, as both a bartender
and dancer.  This motion deals with the bartenders' claims and
seeks to send notice of this lawsuit to Ms. Hogan's fellow
bartenders so that they can choose whether and how to proceed with
their own claims.

Ms. Hogan also asks the Court to (1) approve her proposed notices
and method of disseminating notice, (2) order the Defendants to
provide name and contact information for all potential class
members within 15 days of the Court's order, (3) authorize her to
send the notices via regular U.S. mail and e-mail, (4) require the
Defendants to post the notice in a conspicuous place at Sirens, and
(5) authorize a 90-day opt-in/out period.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul De Marco, Esq.
          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
          E-mail: pdemarco@msdlegal.com
                  abiller@msdlegal.com
                  akimble@msdlegal.com
                  pkrzeski@msdlegal.com


COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE: Pitkivitch Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE PITKIVITCH, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees, the Plaintiff, vs. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, LLC; CHMS GROUP, LLC; SAMUEL HALPER; AND, EPHRAM LAHASKY,
the Defendants, Case No.: 2:18-cv-01667-PJP (W.D. Pa., Dec. 14,
2018), seeks to recover damages for non-payment of wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act.

According to complaint, the Plaintiff has regularly performed work
within the state of Pennsylvania paid hourly for $22. The Plaintiff
has clocked in and clocked out using a time-recording system used
by Defendants. The Plaintiff is entitled to overtime pay (1-1⁄2
the regular rate of pay) when working more than 40 hours in a
workweek. The Plaintiff regularly works more than 40 hours in
workweeks and has frequently worked in excess of 50 hours per
workweek. The Defendants consistently fail to pay Plaintiff all of
the overtime hours, or straight time hours, worked, the lawsuit
says.

Comprehensive Healthcare Management Services, LLC owns and operates
over 40 long-term-care facilities providing rehabilitation and
nursing care throughout Pennsylvania and the United States and
maintains its headquarters at 147 Reist Street, Williamsville, NY
14221. CHMS, LLC, manages and controls time and payroll policies
for the 40+ facilities from its base in Williamsville, New York,
and/or from offices in Lynbrook, New York. CHMS Group, LLC  owns
and operates over 40 long-term-care facilities providing
rehabilitation and nursing care throughout Pennsylvania and the
United States and maintains its headquarters at 600 Broadway, Suite
E, Lynbrook, New York 11563. CHMS Group, LLC, manages and controls
time and payroll policies for the 40+ facilities from its base in
Lynbrook, New York, and/or from offices in Williamsville, New
York.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and all others similarly situated:

          Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
          The Employment Rights Group, LLC
          First & Market Building, Suite 650
          100 First Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 227-0763
          Facsimile: (412) 774-1994
          E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com

               - and -

          John R. Linkosky, Esq.
          715 Washington Avenue
          Carnegie, PA 15106-4107
          Telephone: (412) 278-1280
          Facsimile: (412) 278-1282
          E-mail: linklaw@comcast.net

COTTON BAYOU: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in King Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Parties in the lawsuit captioned NANCY KING & KATHERINE CAIN on
behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees v. COTTON
BAYOU MARINA, INC., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00314-WS-B (S.D.
Ala.), move the Court to approve conditional certification of a
collective action class pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and issuance of notice to putative class
members.

On July 16, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed this collective action
lawsuit pursuant to the FLSA.  Counsel for the Parties conferred by
telephone and agreed that jointly moving for conditional
certification and issuance of notice served the interests of
parties and judicial economy.

Counsel for parties have agreed to these:

   (1) A collective action shall be conditionally certified
       covering all current and former servers and bartenders who
       have worked as servers and/or bartender at Tacky Jacks at
       any time between July 16, 2015 through October 1, 2018;

   (2) Putative class members will have sixty days from the
       issuance of notice to join this case by sending a signed
       consent to counsel for Plaintiffs;

   (3) For any notices that are returned to sender, then
       Plaintiffs' counsel shall search for better contact
       information and mail the notice to such address;

   (4) For purposes of determining whether an individual has met
       the opt-in deadline, the earlier of the post-mark date,
       the fax transmittal date, e-mail date, or the date a
       consent is received by Plaintiffs' counsel shall control;
       and

   (5) Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs' counsel with contact
       information for putative class members within 15 days of
       the Court entering an order on this motion.  The
       Defendants have agreed to produce a Microsoft Excel
       workbook with the following information in separate
       columns: (1) last name; (2) first name; (3) middle name;
       (4) last known street number name, unit or apartment
       number; (5) city; (6) state; (7) zip code; and (8) and
       last four digits of their social security number.

Within 10 days following the close of the notice period, the
Parties will submit a status report for the Court, which shall
include whether the Parties will enter the mediation process or
move forward with filing a report of parties planning meeting
pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel E. Arciniegas, Esq.
          ARCINIEGAS LAW, PLLC
          501 Union Street
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (629) 777-5339
          E-mail: daniel@attorneydaniel.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joseph J. Minus, Jr., Esq.
          J. Day Peake III, Esq.
          PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
          101 Dauphin Street
          Mobile, AL 36602
          P. O. Box 2727
          Mobile, AL 36652
          Telephone: (251) 432-4481
          Facsimile: (251) 433-1820
          E-mail: jay.minus@phelps.com
                  day.peake@phelps.com


CSO SYSTEMS: Underpays Graphic Designers, Kaifos Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY KAIFOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CSO SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a SIGN ZOO; and
WILLIAM T. STUART, Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-02837 (M.D. Fla.,
Nov. 19, 2018) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Kaifos was employed by the Defendants as graphic designer.

CSO Systems, Inc., doing business as SignZoo.Com, designs,
manufactures, and installs graphics on fleet vehicles, boats, and
buildings in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Fraley, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 600
          Tampa, FL 33602
          E-mail: Mfraley@forthepeople.com


DENNYS INC: Rosales Suit Moved to Central District of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Jose Ricardo Huepa Rosales, individually and on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Dennys,
Inc., a Florida corporation and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC717352, was removed from the Los Angeles
Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on Dec. 10, 2018.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-10236-DMG-SK to the proceeding. The suit alleges employment
discrimination. The case is ssigned to the Hon. Judge Dolly M.
Gee.[BN]

Attorneys for Jose Ricardo Huepa Rosales:

          Ramin R Younessi, Esq.
          RAMIN YOUNESSI LAW OFFICES APLC
          3435 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 480-6200
          Facsimile: (213) 480-6201
          E-mail: ryounessi@younessilaw.com

Attorneys for Dennys, Inc.:

          Timothy Taejoon Kim, Esq.
          Adam Ryan Rosenthal, Esq.
          Nancy E Pritikin, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street 43rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
          Telephone: (213) 455-7672
          E-mail: tkim@sheppardmullin.com
                  arosenthal@sheppardmullin.com
                  npritikin@sheppardmullin.com

DERREL'S MINI: Court Partly Okays Bid to Invalidate in Kutzman Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICK KUTZMAN and JAMIE LEONARDO, individuals, and on
behalf of themselves, and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. DERREL'S MINI STORAGE, INC., a California
corporation Defendant, Case No. 1:18-CV-755 AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal.),
Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California grantd in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Invalidate the Settlement Agreements, Send
Curative Notice to Class Members, and Bar Communications.

In the fall of 2018, the Defendant sent letters to and hosted
voluntary informational sessions for their current and former
employees -- all putative class members in Rick Kutzman and Jamie
Leonardo's wage-and-hour class action suit.  The Defendant's
ultimate purpose was to obtain a settlement and release with these
individual putative class members.  The Plaintiffs contend the
communications were coercive, arguing they contained factual
inaccuracies, omitted material facts, disparaged named Plaintiffs
and their counsel, and were otherwise misleading.

Plaintiffs Kutzman and Leonardo worked for Derrel's Mini Storage
from October 2017 to February 2018.  They allege that during this
time, the Defendant required employees to sign a background check
authorization that included an unlawful credit check provision, and
failed to provide the required rest breaks, accurately pay
overtime, compensate them for business expenses, or provide them
with complete and accurate wage statements.  The Plaintiffs filed a
class-action complaint in California state court, and the Defendant
removed to the Court.  The Plaintiffs sought remand, which the
Court denied on July 31, 2018.

On Aug. 21, 2018, the parties informed Magistrate Judge Thurston of
their intent to mediate, set for Dec. 13, 2018.  The day prior, the
Defendant sent a letter to its current employees, as the putative
class members, generally notifying them of the existence of the
class lawsuit and the possibility that the Plaintiffs' counsel may
contact them.  The letter stated the Defendant was open to speaking
with any concerned employees, would not retaliate against any
employees who choose to speak with the Plaintiffs, and otherwise
generally disputed the claims.  It also referred to Kutzman and
Leonardo as employees that worked for the company for less than six
months, misstated the name of the Plaintiffs' counsel's firm,
failed to include a copy of the complaint, and omitted the case
number, the Court's information, and any details about the
scheduled mediation.

On Sept. 12, 2018, the current employees were invited to a
"voluntary" meeting in Bakersfield, CA to update them on the status
of the case.  There, a paralegal for the defense counsel read a
prepared statement that included the case name and number, the
correct name of the Plaintiffs' counsel, a detailed list of the
Plaintiffs' claims, the Company's general disagreement with the
claims, and the employees right to an independent counsel.  Before
employees left, the Defendant collected the settlement papers.  

Additionally, in mid-October, the Defendant mailed a letter
(similar to the Letter to Current Employees) entitled "Offer to
Employees to Settle Individual Wage and Hour Claims" to those
former employees it deemed members of the putative class.  Included
with the letter was a copy of the settlement agreement and release
form, but not the operative complaint.

The Plaintiffs now requests the Court order a notice be sent to all
putative class members curing the defects and invalidating any
executed settlement agreements.  They also request a prophylactic
order barring the Defendant from communicating with the class about
the case, arguing its communications demonstrate an intent to
mislead and coerce.  The Defendant objects to any such relief,
contending their communications are allowed and acceptable.

Judge Ishii finds that the Defendant made no overt threats to its
employees, did discuss some aspects of the case at various times
with the putative members, and advised them to seek outside counsel
before agreeing to settle.  However, the standard is one requiring
the facts be examined in totality; as such, he finds that the
Plaintiffs have met their burden to show misleading and coercive
conduct on the Defendant's part.

The Judge believes a complete communications ban is unnecessary,
given the finding that the Defendant's misleading and coercive acts
are merely a number of slights, omissions, and misstatement.  He
finds the Defendant's errant acts can mostly be cured via a notice
to the class.

As to a blanket invalidation of all settlement agreements, the
Judge will make all settlement agreements and release of claims
voidable, at the election of each individual putative class member.
When the parties meet and confer, they will draft a separate
statement to be included with the reformed notice, deliverable to
all putative class members that accepted Defendant's offer to
settle and signed the release.  This notice of voidability should
be submitted to the Court for approval, along with the reformed
notice.  Further, the Judge will require Defendant to shoulder the
cost of notice to all the putative class members, since it is
because of its actions that the Court has had to intervene.

Finally, the Judge cannot countenance the Defense counsel's actions
in attempting to mislead and coerce the Defendant's current and
former employees into settling prior to certification, possibly
adverse to their interests.  He will therefore entertain a
supplemental motion for sanctions under Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. Section
1927, or the Court's inherent power, for the time and energy the
Plaintiffs' counsel expended to bring this motion and to correct
for the errant communications.  He reminded the Plaintiffs' counsel
that a request for fees should be supported by credible evidence,
and that the Court bases any award of attorney fees on the
prevailing rate for the Eastern District of California.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Ishii granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Invalidate the Settlement
Agreements, Send Curative Notice to Class Members, and Bar
Communications.  The parties are to meet and confer on language for
a reformed notice to putative class members, as well as language
notifying any settling parties of their right to void the
settlement agreement and release, and submit proposed language on
each notice to the Court within 24 days of service of the Prder.

The Defendant is ordered to show cause why sanctions should not be
issued on the following briefing schedule: (i) within 24 days of
service of the Order, the Defendant will serve its brief to the
Court; (ii) the Plaintiffs are granted 10 days thereafter to
respond; and (iii) the Defendants may issue a reply within seven
days after any response from the Plaintiffs.

The remainder of the case, including the Plaintiffs' motion to
amend the complaint, is referred back to the magistrate judge for
further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/6y6LXv from Leagle.com.

Rick Kutzman, individuals, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated & Jamie Leonardo, individuals, on
behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Aparajit Bhowmik --
aj@bamlawlj.com  -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Kyle R.
Nordrehaug -- kyle@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug and
Bhowmik, Molly Ann DeSario, Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Norman
Blumenthal -- norm@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik,
LLP, Ruchira Piya Mukherjee -- piya@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik & Victoria Bree Rivapalacio , Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Derrel's Mini Storage, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Charles Paul Hamamjian, Sagaser Watkins Wieland PC,
Howard A. Sagaser, Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, PC & Ian Blade
Wieland -- ian@sw2law.com -- Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, PC.


DISH NETWORK: Court Grants $20.4MM Attorney's Fees in Krakauer
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina granted Class Counsel's motion in part to award Class
Counsel's fees and expenses but will deny the motion to the extent
it seeks a class representative award in the case captioned THOMAS
H. KRAKAUER, on behalf of a class of persons, Plaintiff, v. DISH
NETWORK, L.L.C., Defendant. No. 1:14-CV-333. (D.N.C.).

Class Counsel for plaintiff's seek attorney's fees, nontaxable
costs, and compensation for the class representative from a common
fund created following a jury trial and final judgment of $61
million against defendant Dish Network, LLC for its willful
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Court has
reviewed Class Counsel's request and supporting evidence, as well
as attorney's fees and class representative awards from similar
cases.

Dr. Thomas Krakauer, the plaintiff and class representative, sued
Dish under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleging that he
and others on the Do Not Call Registry received more than one
telephone call within a 12-month period in violation of the TCPA
and that the calls were made on behalf of Dish.

To determine the reasonableness of the fee award, the Court begins
by considering the twelve factors identified in Barber v.
Kimbrell's, Inc.: (1) the time and labor expended (2) the novelty
and difficulty of the questions raised (3) the skill required to
properly perform the legal services rendered (4) the attorney's
opportunity costs in pressing the instant litigation (5) the
customary fee for like work (6) the attorney's expectations at the
outset of the litigation (7) the time limitations imposed by the
client or circumstances (8) the amount in controversy and the
results obtained (9) the experience, reputation and ability of the
attorney; (10) the undesirability of the case within the legal
community in which the suit arose (11) the nature and length of the
professional relationship between attorney and client and (12)
attorney's fees awards in similar cases. 577 F.2d 216, 226 & n.28
(4th Cir. 1978)

Barber Factors

Class Counsel request attorney's fees of 33.33% of the total
judgment amount at the time of distribution, including interest; as
of the date of the motion, the requested fee would be $20,445,555,
Doc. 460, and would increase as interest accrues.  

Contingent fees of up to one-third are common in this circuit in
similar cases. In this complex case with numerous contested issues,
there is more than sufficient reason to support a one-third
contingent fee.

Regardless of the subject matter, it takes skilled counsel to
successfully manage an 18,000-plus member class action. It takes a
different set of highly developed skills to successfully achieve a
jury verdict. Class Counsel here is particularly experienced and
skilled in TCPA litigation, having settled numerous TCPA class
actions including acting as co-lead counsel in a multidistrict TCPA
case.  

Against this backdrop, Class Counsel achieved an excellent result
on behalf of the class. The $61 million judgment results in an
average payout of more than $3,000 per class member. The judgment
applies to the entire class and does not exclude any trial class
members. While certain claims were dropped along the way, those
claims were largely duplicative of the claims that went to trial.


The excellent result obtained is the most critical factor in
determining the reasonableness of a fee award" and further supports
finding the requested fee reasonable.  Class members and their
counsel were hardly assured the successful outcome achieved here at
the outset of the case. While a jury may award between $0-500 per
violative call on a TCPA claim, Dish raised several defenses and
recovery was not assured. Even with a win before the jury, courts
have discretion on whether to treble damages after finding willful
or knowing violations. § 227(c)(5). Class Counsel assumed
significant risk in representing the plaintiff and the class and
will continue to face that risk as it litigates issues on appeal.

The Court finds that attorney's fees equal to one-third of the
common fund amount when the Court entered judgment, $20,447,600,
are reasonable based on the time and labor Class Counsel expended,
the value of counsel's work and the results obtained, the risks and
obstacles counsel faced, and the customary fee for TCPA cases and
awards in similar cases.

Lodestar Cross-check

Courts often use the lodestar method to cross-check the
reasonableness of a percentage fee.  To determine the lodestar,
courts multiply the reasonable hourly rate for each attorney by the
number of hours reasonably expended. When the lodestar method is
used only as a cross-check, however, courts need not exhaustively
scrutinize the hours documented by counsel and the reasonableness
of the claimed lodestar can be tested by the court's familiarity
with the case.

The Court has reviewed Class Counsel's time summaries, which cover
more than 8,000 hours. Class Counsel testified that they strived to
work efficiently and perform only the work necessary for an
outstanding result for the class. This testimony is consistent with
the Court's observation on the number of attorneys appearing before
the Court. The Court finds that the time Class Counsel spent on the
case is reasonable considering the complexity and number of issues
they addressed and considering that the case was tried before a
jury.  

An award of one-third of the judgment amount at the time of entry,
$20,447,600, represents a lodestar multiplier of just under 4.39,
i.e., 4.39 times the $4,659,761.80 lodestar amount for work through
April 17, 2018. This does not take into account hours Class counsel
will spend on appeal and during the remainder of the claims
process. Thus, the lodestar will ultimately be smaller.  In sum, a
4.39 multiplier is reasonable for this case.

Accordingly, Class counsel's motion for attorney's fees, expenses,
and a class representative award is granted in part and denied in
part.  The Court awards Class Counsel an attorney's fee of
$20,447,600, to be paid from the final judgment awarded to the
class.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 3, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y9c9fo3j from Leagle.com.

THOMAS H. KRAKAUER, on behalf of a class of persons, Plaintiff,
represented by ANTHONY I. PARONICH -- anthony@broderick-law.com --
BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C., BRIAN A. GLASSER --
bglasser@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP, EDWARD A.
BRODERICK, BRODERICK LAW, P.C., JOHN W. BARRETT --
jbarrett@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP, JOHN J. RODDY
-- jroddy@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER LLP, MATTHEW P.
MCCUE, LAW OFFICE OF MATHEW P. MCCUE, PATRICK MUENCH --
jbarrett@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP, RYAN M.
DONOVAN -- rdonovan@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP &
JACOB MATTHEW NORRIS , Norris Law Firm, PLLC.

DISH NETWORK L.L.C., Defendant, represented by BENJAMEN E. KERN --
bkern@beneschlaw.com -- BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF,
LLP, DAVID M. KRUEGER -- dkrueger@beneschlaw.com -- BENESCH,
FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF, LLP, DAVID LITTERINE-KAUFMAN --
dlitterinekaufman@orrick.com -- ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP,
ELYSE D. ECHTMAN -- eechtman@orrick.com -- ORRICK HERRINGTON &
SUTCLIFFE LLP, ERIC L. ZALUD -- ezalud@beneschlaw.com -- BENESCH,
FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF, LLP, JOHN L. EWALD, ORRICK
HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP, JULIE GORCHKOVA, ORRICK HERRINGTON &
SUTCLIFFE LLP.


DOVER DOWNS: Raul Balks at Merger Deal with Twin River
------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Raul, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DOVER DOWNS GAMING & ENTERTAINMENT,
INC., HENRY B. TIPPIE, DENIS MCGLYNN, TIMOTHY R. HORNE, R. RANDALL
ROLLINS, PATRICK J. BAGLEY, and JEFFREY W. ROLLINS, the Defendants,
Case 1:18-cv-11506 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2018), seeks to enjoin the
Defendants from taking any steps to consummate a proposed
transaction unless and until material information is disclosed to
Dover Downs stockholders before the vote on the proposed
transaction or, in the event the proposed transaction is
consummated, recover damages resulting from the Defendants'
violations of the Securities Exchange Act.

The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of the public
shareholders of Dover Downs against the Company's Board of
Directors for their violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed
merger of the Company in a stock-for-stock transaction with Twin
River Worldwide Holdings, Inc.

According to the complaint, on July 22, 2018, Dover Downs entered
into a Transaction Agreement with Twin River and Double Acquisition
Corp., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Parent, pursuant to
which, among other things and subject to the conditions set forth
therein, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company with the
Company continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, each
share of the Company's common stock, par value $0.10 per share, and
Class A common stock, par value $0.10 per share, issued and
outstanding immediately prior to the effective time will be
cancelled and converted into the right to receive a number of
shares of validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable shares of
common stock of Parent, equal to the quotient obtained by dividing
(A) the aggregate number of shares of Parent Common Stock issued
and outstanding immediately prior to the effective time, on a fully
diluted, as-converted basis, multiplied by 0.07787658, by (B) the
aggregate number of shares of Company Common Stock issued and
outstanding immediately prior to the effective time, on a fully
diluted, as-converted basis, plus cash in lieu of any fractional
shares. The aggregate number of shares of Parent Common Stock
issued as Merger Consideration in the transaction is intended to
represent 7.225% of the outstanding equity of Parent immediately
after giving effect to the Merger. The consummation of the Proposed
Transaction is subject to certain closing conditions, including the
approval of the stockholders of Dover Downs. The Company expects
the Proposed Transaction to close in the second half of 2019. On
November 5, 2018, in order to convince Dover Downs' stockholders to
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board, jointly with
Twin River, authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and
misleading preliminary proxy statement with the SEC by Granite, in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, the
lawsuit says.

Dover Downs is a hotel, casino, and racetrack complex in Dover,
Delaware. It has a .625-mile harness horse racing track, which is
surrounded by Dover International Speedway, a 1-mile concrete track
used for NASCAR motor racing events. The speedway is owned and
operated by Dover Motorsports.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
          LIFSHITZ & MILLER LLP
          821 Franklin Avenue, Suite 209
          Garden City, New York 11530
          Telephone: (516) 493-9780
          Facsimile: (516) 280-7376

EJR ENTERPRISES: Borozny Files Suit under ADA in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
EJR Enterprises LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Austin Borozny, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EJR Enterprises LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01495 (M.D. Fla.,
December 19, 2018).

EJR Enterprises, L.L.C. was founded in 2004. The Company's line of
business includes providing oil and gas services.[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


EMTS INC: Ruem Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages & OT under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL RUEM, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. EMTS, INC., a California
corporation; ELITE LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION, INC.; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18CECG04441 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Fresno Cty., Dec. 10, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages
and overtime pay under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by the
Defendants providing landscaping, general construction, and
maintenance of properties out of Defendants facilities located in
Fresno. The Plaintiff and other Class members consistently worked
at Defendants' behest without being paid all wages due. As a result
of Defendants' unlawful policies and practices, Plaintiff and Class
members incurred overtime hours worked for which they were not
adequately and completely compensated, in addition to the hours
they were required to work off the clock. To the extent applicable,
the Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class members
at an overtime rate of 1.5 times the regular rate for the first
eight hours of the seventh consecutive work day in a week and
overtime payments at the rate of two times the regular rate for
hours worked over eight on the seventh consecutive work day, as
required under the Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Orders, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Michael Ruem, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated:

          David Yeremian, Esq.
          Jason Rothman, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
          E-mail: David@yeremianlaw.com
                  Jason@yeremianlaw.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
          5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (310) 652-2242
          E-mail: whaines@uelg.com

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces Lawrence Suit over Violation of FCRA
---------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN LAWRENCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00800-JAG (E.D. Va., Nov. 16, 2018)
alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is
assigned to District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.

Equifax Information Services LLC collects and reports consumer
information to financial institutions. The company was formerly
known as Equifax Credit Information Services Inc. and changed its
name to Equifax Information Services LLC in June 2004. The company
was incorporated in 1937 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. Equifax
Information Services LLC operates as a subsidiary of Equifax Inc.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
          KELLY & CRANDALL PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7576
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com

               - and -

          Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
          KELLY & CRANDALL PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 640-3334
          Facsimile: (703) 591-9285
          E-mail: casey@kellyandcrandall.com

               - and -

          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          KELLY & CRANDALL PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7570
          Facsimile: (703) 591-9285
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com


ESA MANAGEMENT: Court Issues Show Cause Order in Beasley Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order to Show Cause in the case captioned
FRANISHA BEASLEY, Plaintiff, v. ESA MANAGEMENT LLC, and DOES 1-100,
Defendants. Case No. 18-cv-06304-JSW. (N.D. Cal.).

Defendant ESA Management LLC has removed this action under the
Class Action Fairness Act. CAFA requires diversity of citizenship
between any member of a class of plaintiffs and any defendant.

In its notice of removal, Defendant ESA Management LLC states that
it is organized under the laws of Delaware and that its principal
officers are located in North Carolina. Under Ninth Circuit law,
an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are
citizens.

Accordingly, the Defendant is ordered to show cause why this matter
should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 3, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7p989yw from Leagle.com.

Franisha Beasley, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Farzad Rastegar --
farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com -- Rastegar Law Group, APC & Amir H.
Seyedfarshi -- amir@rastegarlawgroup.com -- Rastegar Law Group
APC.

ESA Management LLC, a Delaware Cmporation, Defendant, represented
by Ebunoluwa O. Olaleye -- dolaleye@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson PC, Kurt R. Bockes -- kbockes@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson & Lindbergh Porter, Jr. -- lporter@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, PC.


FARMLAND PARTNERS: Bernstein Liebhard to Lead in Mariconda Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Nina Y. Wang of the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado issued an Order granting in part Turner
Insurance Agency, Inc. and Cecilia Turner's Motion for Appointment
as Lead Plaintiff in the case captioned MIKE MARICONDA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. FARMLAND PARTNERS INC., PAUL A. PITTMAN, and LUCA
FABBRI, Defendants. Civil Action No. 18-cv-02104-DME-NYW. (D.
Colo.).

This is a class action alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, brought pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). This action
alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the extent and nature of Farmland Partners's
related party transactions in making quarterly and yearly filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Magistrate Judge concluded that oral argument would not
materially assist in the resolution of these matters.  Upon careful
review of the motions and associated briefing, the applicable case
law, and the entire case file, this court grants the Turner Family
Motion in part, appointing the Turner Family as Lead Plaintiff and
their counsel, Bernstein Liebhard LLP, as Lead Counsel with Berens
Law LLC serving as Liaison Counsel. The Turner Motion is denied as
moot to the extent it seeks consolidation with the now-dismissed
Kachmar Action, and the Farmland Investor Group Motion is denied.

The court agrees that the Globe Newswire is an adequate widely
circulated national business-oriented publication or wire service
under the PSLRA early notice provision. Additionally, upon review
of the Notice, the court finds that it meets the requirements of
Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i). Therefore, potential Lead Plaintiffs had
sixty days from July 11, until September 10, to file their Motions
for Appointment. Both the Turner Motion and the Farmland Investor
Motion were filed on September 10, within the sixty-day limit
triggered by the Early Notice.  Thus, both Motions are properly
before the court and both parties have satisfied the initial
requirement of filing a timely motion for appointment under Section
78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(aa).

Neither the Turner Family nor Farmland Investor Group dispute the
generally accepted proposition that a group of persons may
aggregate their losses in calculating a plaintiff's financial
interest in the litigation, subject to certain practical
limitations not implicated here.  The Turner Family claims that it
suffered a loss of $104,253.30 in connection with the Defendants'
alleged violations.  Specifically, Cecilia Turner alleges that she
bought 1000 shares of Farmland Partners on February 2, 2017 for
$11.20/share and sold those shares on July 20, 2018 for
$6.5067/share for a loss of $4,693.30.  The Farmland Investor Group
claims a financial interest of $88,514.88. Albert G. Driver, Jr.
purchased 15,000 shares in six installments between November 10,
2016 and January 30, 2017 for prices between $10.20/share and
$11.31/share.

In this case it appears that the Turner Family used a simple
LIFO/FIFO computation of damages (because all the stock was sold at
once, there is no distinction between the two methods),
representing their realized loss on the sale of the Farmland
Partners stock as their financial interest. The court finds this is
an appropriate and reasonable measure of financial interest and
accepts the Turner Family's claimed financial interest of
$104,253.30.  The Farmland Investor Group has sold almost none of
its stock, only 450 shares, leaving just over 20,673 shares unsold.
Rather than setting forth their realized losses, the Farmland
Investor Group relies on  Section 78u-4(e)(1) and claims that the
Turner Family calculations should be made pursuant to the same
formula. The court rejects Farmland Investor Group's reliance on
Section 78u-4(e)(1).

Here, the source of the Farmland Investor Group's proposed
financial interest is therefore not clear. The court also notes
that while the Farmland Investor Group used the Section 78u-4(e)(1)
formula for its unsold securities, the Group used a simple
LIFO/FIFO analysis for the realized losses in the 450 shares it did
sell, and thus has at least implicitly conceded that the Turner
Family's similar calculations based on their realized losses are
proper.

The court need not resolve the proper measure of the Farmland
Investor Group's financial interest because it is not disputed that
the Turner Family has the largest financial interest even applying
the Section 78u-4(e)(1) formula, the Farmland Investor Group
concedes as much.  

The court therefore finds that the Turner Family has the largest
financial interest in this case pursuant to Section
78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(bb).  

The Turner Family has met its prima facie burden of establishing
both the typicality and adequacy requirements. The Turner Family
and the lead Plaintiff in this case, Mr. Mariconda, are represented
by the same counsel, Bernstein Liebhard LLP and Berens Law LLC.
There does not appear to be any discernable difference between Mr.
Mariconda's and the Turner Family's theory of the case, allegations
regarding the Defendants' violations of the securities laws, or
damages, and the Farmland Investor Group does not claim as such.
The Turner Family's claims therefore appear to be entirely typical
of the class. Likewise, the court is satisfied that the Turner
Family is an adequate representative; there are no apparent or
claimed conflicts of interest, and the Turner Family's choice of
counsel appears to be reasonable and appropriate as set forth
below.
The Turner Family is thus the presumptive Lead Plaintiff.  

In sum, the court is persuaded that the Turner Family has
established that it is the presumptive Lead Plaintiff and the
Farmland Investor Group has not adequately rebutted that
presumption. Accordingly, the Turner Family is appointed Lead
Plaintiff.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 3, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yaqvlwr8 from Leagle.com.

Mike Mariconda, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence Jesse Hasson,
Bernstein Liebhard LLP & Jeffrey Allen Berens, Berens Law LLC.

Farmland Partners Inc., Paul A. Pittman & Luca Fabbri, Defendants,
represented by James Joseph Beha, II, Morrison & Foerster, LLP,
Michael D. Birnbaum, Morrison & Foerster, LLP & Rhiannon N.
Batchelder, Morrison & Foerster, LLP.

Malcolm Jones, Movant, represented by Rusty Evan Glenn, Shuman Law
Firm.

Albert G. Driver, Jr., Annette Driver Forry & Douglas Barber,
Movants, represented by Jacob Allen Walker, Block & Leviton LLP.


FEDEX CORPORATION: Overpeck Seeks Unpaid Wages for Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------
HERMAN OVERPECK and KEVIN STERLING, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and as a proxy of the State of
California on behalf of aggrieved employees, the Plaintiffs, vs.
FEDEX CORPORATION and FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., the
Defendants, Case No.: 4:18-cv-07553-DMR (N.D. Cal., Dec. 14, 2018),
seeks unpaid wages under the California Labor Code and the Unfair
Competition Law.

According to the complaint, FedEx operates a freight transportation
system with long-haul and local delivery components. Plaintiff
Herman Overpeck worked for Defendants as a long-haul team truck
driver for Defendants in  California. Mr. Kevin Sterling worked for
Defendants as a local delivery driver in California. The Defendants
have employed and/or jointly employed numerous long-haul team
drivers and local delivery Drivers in California, like Mr. Overpeck
and Mr. Sterling in California, who work the long hours necessary
to carry out Defendants' transportation business. The long-haul
team Drivers work day and night, typically transporting loads up to
and often over a thousand miles, overnight, five days per week,
hauling freight as part of a two driver team. For example, Mr.
Overpeck worked with another Driver hauling freight along a
dedicated route back and forth between Tracy, CA and Palm Springs,
CA, for a 20-22 hour day (including driving, riding in a moving
truck, fueling, truck inspections, hooking and unhooking trailers,
coordinating with the recipient of the freight, and waiting for
freight to be available, among other tasks). Mr. Overpeck ran this
route 5 times per week, pushing his hours worked to 100 or more per
week. He was paid for only a fraction of this work. The local
delivery drivers similarly work long hours, in the range of 60-70
per week or more. For example, Mr. Sterling delivered packages to
homes and businesses throughout Northern California for 12 or more
hours per day, 5-6 days per week (including loading, driving,
vehicle inspections, coordinating with customers, scanning packages
and communicating with FedEx's managers, among other tasks).

While FedEx takes the benefit of these long work hours that it
requires and oversees, it attempts to offload responsibility onto
its purported "independent service providers". Nonetheless, FedEx
does not take responsibility for: (1) providing the Drivers with
the same employee benefit pension and welfare plans it already
provides to the rest of its employees, as required by California
Law; or (2) paying the Drivers the wages they are owed and
providing them with the other work protections to which they are
entitled under the California Labor Code, the lawsuit says.

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. provides business-to-business
package shipping and ground delivery services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Joshua Konecky, Esq.
          Nathan Piller, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE
          COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com
                  npiller@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Jeremy Pasternak, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JEREMY PASTERNAK
          A Professional Corporation
          445 Bush St., Sixth Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: 415.693.0300
          Facsimile: 415.693.0393
          E-mail: jdp@pasternaklaw.com

FORD MOTOR: Faces Farlow et al. Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ford Motor Company.
The case is captioned as ZACHARY J. FARLOW; MATTHEW H. CLOUGH;
CURTIS MCNEAL MERTZ; WILLIAM TSUMPES; JAMES HIGDON; DARYL
ALEJANDRO; GARY O. PEDERSON; BOBBY J. GRIFFITH; BARRY R. GONSALVES;
JOSEPH SAWICKI; ALLEN J. FOWLER; JAMES CROWELL, JR.; KELLY ARNOLD;
ROBERT C. HAUS; and WARREN STORY, Plaintiff v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-06967-JSC (N.D. Cal., Nov. 16, 2018).
The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley.

Ford Motor Company designs, manufactures, markets, and services a
range of Ford cars, trucks, sport utility vehicles, and electrified
vehicles; and Lincoln luxury vehicles worldwide. The company has a
strategic collaboration with Panasonic Corporation of North America
and Qualcomm Technologies. Ford Motor Company was founded in 1903
and is based in Dearborn, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff D Friedman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Duffy Sues Over Vehicle Transmission Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Duffy, Richard Sullivan, Daniel Baptist, Dennis Speerly,
Michael Plafker, John Iasiello, and Benjy Tompkins individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. General
Motors, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 9:18-cv-81726-RLR (S.D. N.Y.,
December 18, 2018) seeks six statewide classes on behalf of
purchasers and lessees of GM vehicles equipped with GM 8L90 or GM
8L45 transmissions purchased within the applicable statute of
limitations of the respective state. These states include Florida,
California, Illinois, New York, Oklahoma, and Texas. Plaintiffs
bring claims under each state's consumer protection statutes, and
express and implied warranty law of their respective states of
purchase or lease.

According to the complaint, these transmissions have a common
defect. Drivers attempting to accelerate or decelerate their cars
feel a hesitation, followed by a significant shake, shudder, jerk,
clunk, or "hard shift" when the vehicle's automatic transmission
changes gears. Said shudder, shake and hesitation also occurs while
the subject vehicles are accelerated in a single gear, and not
actively shifting gears. Drivers have reported that the shift is
sometimes so violent, they feel as though they have been hit by
another vehicle. In fact, one purchaser reported that the
transmission shifted from "reverse" to "drive" so harshly that he
almost drove through his garage door.

The problem does not merely result in an uncomfortable driving
condition. The shuddering, shaking, jerking and hesitation is
related to internal issues within the transmission and/or torque
converter causing friction surfaces, hydraulic systems, and gears
to not function properly, and resulting in metal shavings being
circulated throughout the transmission, the complaint asserts. As
such, the Transmission Defect endangers the drivers and passengers
of the vehicles, and diminishes the value of the vehicles. GM's
deliberate non-disclosure of these defects artificially inflated
the purchase and lease price for these vehicles as well, notes the
complaint.

GM has not disclosed the Transmission Defect to purchasers or
lessees like Plaintiffs at the point of purchase or through
advertisements. Such disclosures would have impacted purchase
decisions and purchase price. GM's omissions artificially inflated
the market price for the Subject Vehicles equipped with defective
transmissions. GM could have and should have warned consumers about
the Transmission Defect through advertisements, on its website, and
through communications from its authorized dealers. However, GM
failed to do so, the complaint alleges.

The GM 8L90 and GM 8L45 transmission defect is a latent defect that
presents a safety risk to riders, causes damage to components over
time, and makes vehicles equipped with the defective transmissions
dangerous and uncomfortable to ride. It makes the Subject Vehicles
unfit for their ordinary use. As such, the Transmission Defect
presents a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff Dennis Duffy is a citizen and resident of Florida, over
the age of eighteen years. Plaintiff purchased a new 2016 Yukon
Denali, manufactured by GM and containing an 8L90 transmission, on
or about August 10, 2016.

Plaintiff Richard Sullivan is a citizen and resident of Florida,
over the age of eighteen years. Plaintiff Sullivan purchased a new
2015 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray, manufactured by GM and containing
an 8L90 transmission, on or about November 1, 2015.

Plaintiff Daniel Baptist is a citizen and resident of California,
over the age of eighteen years. Plaintiff purchased a used 2015
Chevrolet Silverado, manufactured by GM and containing an 8L90
transmission, on or about August 26, 2018.

Plaintiff Dennis Speerly is a citizen and resident of Illinois,
over the age of eighteen years. Plaintiff Speerly purchased a new
2017 GMC Canyon, manufactured by GM and containing an 8L45
transmission, on or about April 14, 2017.

Plaintiff Michael Plafker is a citizen and resident of New York,
over the age of eighteen years. Plaintiff Plafker leased a 2017 GMC
Sierra Denali, manufactured by GM and containing an 8L90
transmission, on or about September 8, 2017.

Plaintiff John Iasiello is a citizen and resident of Oklahoma, over
the age of eighteen years. Plaintiff Iasiello purchased a new 2017
GMC Sierra, manufactured by GM and containing an 8L90 transmission,
on August 15, 2017.

Plaintiff Benjy Tompkins is a citizen and resident of Texas, over
the age of eighteen years. Plaintiff Tompkins bought a used 2016
Chevrolet Camaro SS, manufactured by GM and containing an 8L90
transmission, in November 2017.

General Motors Inc., ("GM") is a citizen and resident of Michigan
which regularly does business in Florida and all over the United
States. GM is headquartered in Delaware, and its principal office
is located at 300 Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan 48265.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
     2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
     Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
     Phone: (561) 515-1400
     Facsimile: (561) 515-1401

          - and -

     Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
     Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
     Julia A. Horwitz, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
     1100 New York Ave. NW
     East Tower, 5th Floor
     Washington, DC 20005
     Phone: (202) 408-4600
     Facsimile: (202) 408-4699

          - and -

     Robert Gordon, Esq
     Steven Calamusa, Esq.
     GORDON & PARTNERS, P.A.
     4114 Northlake Blvd.,
     Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
     Phone: (561) 799-5070
     Facsimile: (561) 799-4050


GLADSTONE GALLERY: Tucker Sues Over ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Gladstone Gallery LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-11961 (S.D. N.Y., December 18, 2018) is a civil rights
action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA"), notes the complaint.

Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. Defendant's website, www.gladstonegallery.com, is not
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers,
violating the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause
a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and the
procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Henry Tucker, at all relevant times, is a resident of New
York, New York. Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped
person and a member of member of a protected class of individuals
under the ADA.

Gladstone Gallery, is and was, at all relevant times a New York
Limited Liability Company doing business in New York. It operates
the Gladstone Gallery as well as the www.gladstonegallery.com
website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New
York and throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
     COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (929) 575-4175
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: Joseph@cml.legal

          - and -

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
     GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
     150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003-2461
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Email: nyjg@aol.com
            danalgottlieb@aol.com



GLOBAL RECEIVABLES: Lasky Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
HOWARD LASKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL RECEIVABLES SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-06537-JS-GRB (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2018)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Joanna Seybert and
referred to Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown.

Global Receivables Solutions, Inc. provides customer management
solutions for business-to-consumer and business-to-business (B2B)
sectors in the United States and internationally. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
          KLEINMAN LLC
          626 RXR Plaza
          Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
          Telephone: (516) 522-2621
          Facsimile: (888) 522-1692
          E-mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com


GOOGLE LLC: Removed Roley Case to Northern Dist. of California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Google LLC removes class action lawsuit captioned ANDREW ROLEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. GOOGLE LLC and DOES 1-50, the Defendants, (Case No.
18CV336773, Filed Oct. 25, 2018), from the Superior Court of the
State of California County of Santa Clara, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on Dec. 14,
2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:18-cv-07537 to the proceeding.

In Mr. Roley's complaint, He states he brought this class action on
behalf of "all individuals 10 residing in the United States who
attained 'Level 4' as a Google Local Guide." He goes on to claim
that “there are millions of Local Guides around the world, and
the United States has the largest number of Local Guides."

Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, which
include online advertising technologies, search engine, cloud
computing, software, and hardware.[BN]

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Michael G. Rhodes, esq.
          Whitty Somvichian, esq.
          Maxwell E. Alderman, esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          101 California Street, 5th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
          Telephone: (415) 693-2000
          Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
          E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com
                  wsomvichian@cooley.com
                  malderman@cooley.com

GREENSKY INC: Faces Zou Suit over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------
LILI ZOU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREENSKY, INC.; DAVID ZALIK; ROBERT PARTLOW;
JOEL BABBIT; GERALD BENJAMIN; JOHN FLYNN; GREGG FREISHTAT; NIGEL
MORRIS; ROBERT SHEFT; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC; J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC; MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC; SUNTRUST ROBINSON
HUMPHREY, INC.; MERRILL LYNCH; PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC.;
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC;
RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC.; GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES, LLC;
SANDLER O’NEILL & PARTNERS, L.P.; and FIFTH THIRD SECURITIES,
INC. Defendants, Case No. 655744/2018 (N.Y. Sup., New York County,
Nov. 16, 2018) is a securities class action on behalf of all
persons who purchased GreenSky common stock pursuant and traceable
to GreenSky's initial public stock offering on May 24, 2018,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

According to the complaint, on November 6, 2018, the Company
released disappointing third quarter financial results that caused
the stock to lose more than a third of its value.  Specifically,
the Company tumbled as much as 42 % (closing at $9.28 per share)
after slashing its full-year forecasts for earnings and transaction
volume due to "seasonal headwinds" and a much "steeper yield curve"
than management initially expected.

GreenSky slashed its full year 2018 guidance on Adjusted EBITDA
from growth of 20-25% to 4-10% or between $165 million and $175
million.  The Company also cut its full year 2018 guidance on
transaction volume from an increase of 35%-41% down to between 30%
35%. In light of the precipitous decline from its post-Offering
high of $26.77 per share, the Company stated that its Board of
Directors had approved the repurchase of up to $150 million of the
Company's Class A common stock at management's discretion from time
to time on the open market or through privately negotiated
transactions. Accordingly, the Company was now going back to the
market to repurchase its shares below $10 when only in May its
executives and initial shareholders sold the same shares into the
market at $23 per share.

Given that the IPO occurred nearly two months after the close of
the first quarter of 2018, the Defendants were aware of the
Company's pricing failures in response to rising interest rates and
inherent delay before remedial pricing measures would be effective.
Rather than disclose these known issues that occurred in the first
quarter of 2018, the Defendants opted to conceal this information
leading up to the IPO.

The Defendants concealed this information until before the insider
lock-up is lifted. As a result, the Individual Defendants can buy
back the shares for less than half what the investing public paid
at $23 per share, and receive a further windfall from the IPO.

GreenSky, Inc., a technology company, provides point-of-sale
financing and payment solutions to merchants, consumers, and banks.
It offers a proprietary technology infrastructure that support the
full transaction lifecycle, including credit application,
underwriting, real-time allocation to bank partners, document
distribution, funding, settlement, and servicing functions. The
company was incorporated in 2017 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Herman Cahn, Esq.
          Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
          Patrick Donovan, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: gmn@whafh.com


GULFVIEW LODGING: Faces Borozny Suit in Middle District of Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gulfview Lodging LLP.
The lawsuit captioned Austin Borozny, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Gulfview Lodging
LLP, a Tennessee limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No.
8:18-cv-02983-SCB-AEP (M.D. Fla., Dec. 10, 2018). The suit alleges
Americans with Disabilities Act violation. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Susan C. Bucklew.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
          THE ADVOCACY GROUP, LLC
          200 SE 6th St Ste 504
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3424
          Telephone: (954) 282-1858
          Facsimile: (844) 786-3694
          E-mail: jkerr@advocacypa.com

HAKU TEN: Ramales Seeks Ovetime Pay for Delivery Workers
--------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Ramales, Raul Solano and Severo Ramales individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Haku Ten
Inc., (d/b/a Amami Sushi), Ako Restaurant Inc., (d/b/a Ako Sushi )
Qi Wang Zhang (a/k/a “Nick Wang"), the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-07143 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 15, 2018), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, spread-of-hours pay, unlawful deductions and
breach-of-contract and quantum meruit damages for Plaintiffs and
similarly situated co-workers who have been employed by Defendants
as delivery workers, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
New York Labor Law, and Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Acccording to the complaint, the Plaintiffs regularly work for
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without receiving
appropriate overtime compensation for any of the hours that they
worked. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10
hours a day. The Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping as required by the FLSA and the NYLL, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Lina Franco, Esq.
          STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
          www.FightForUrRights.com
          42 Broadway, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 203-2417

HARIHAR INC: Court Won't Junk C. Honeywell's Amended ADA Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Fort Myers Division, issued an Opinion and Order denying
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Class Action Complaint in the
case captioned CHERI HONEYWELL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HARIHAR INC, a Florida
corporation, Defendant. Case No. 2:18-cv-618-FtM-29MRM. (M.D.
Fla.).

Plaintiff, Cheri Honeywell, is a resident of Fort Lauderdale who
travels annually to the Fort Myers area. Because she suffers from a
mobility disability and is dependent upon mobility devices and
aids, plaintiff requires an accessible hotel and hotel room. To
that end, plaintiff visited the website of the Palm City Motel,
which is located in Fort Myers and owned, managed, and/or operated
by defendant, HARIHAR, INC. The website, however, failed to provide
information about the accessible features of the motel and its
rooms for persons with disabilities.

The Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action
Complaint, arguing (1) the plaintiff lacks standing to bring a
claim as an individual or as the representative of the class, and
(2) the Amended Class Action Complaint fails to satisfy Rule 23(a)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for class certification.

Title III of the ADA provides the following general rule: "No
individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of
disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place
of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases
to), or operates a place of public accommodation."

A plaintiff alleging Title III ADA discrimination must initially
prove that (1) he is a disabled individual; (2) the defendants own,
lease, or operate a place of public accommodation and (3) the
defendants discriminated against the plaintiff within the meaning
of the ADA.

The Defendant's motion challenges the plaintiff's standing to bring
this action. Motions to dismiss based on lack of standing attack
the court's subject matter jurisdiction, and are therefore
considered pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).

In order to establish standing, a plaintiff must adequately allege
and ultimately prove three elements: (1) that he or she has
suffered an injury-in-fact (2) a causal connection between the
asserted injury-in-fact and the challenged conduct of the
defendant; and (3) that the injury likely will be redressed by a
favorable decision.  

The Defendant first argues the plaintiff has not sufficiently
alleged a past injury for standing purposes. The Court disagrees.

In the Amended Complaint, the plaintiff alleges she visited the
website several times, including on July 16, 2018, to determine
whether the motel and its rooms met her accessibility needs. She
was unable to independently ascertain the accessible features and,
as a result, was deterred from patronizing the motel. These
allegations are sufficient to demonstrate an injury for purposes of
standing.

The Defendant also argues the plaintiff has not sufficiently
alleged she will be harmed in the future by the motel's failure to
maintain an ADA compliant website.

In the Amended Complaint, the plaintiff states she initially
planned to visit friends in the Fort Myers area during August of
2018 but had to reschedule. The Plaintiff has attempted to
reschedule her trip but has been unable to find a hotel (including
defendant's) with sufficient accessibility information to make a
reservation via online reservation systems. THe Plaintiff also
states she is planning a trip to the area within the next six
months and intends to return to the motel and the website for the
dual purpose of availing herself of goods and services offered by
the motel, and to ensure defendant ceases evading its
responsibilities under federal law.

The Defendant argues the plaintiff's allegations are insufficient
to demonstrate a real and immediate threat of injury, as required
for injunctive relief. The Defendant notes that the plaintiff has
failed to provide any specific anticipated dates of travel to the
Fort Myers area, and does not allege she intends to travel to the
motel or when she plans to reserve a room in the future.  The
Defendant's argument misses the mark.

The Plaintiff's ADA claim is based upon the Palm City Motel's
website failing to identify the accessible features of the motel
and its rooms, in violation of 28 C.F.R. Section 36.302(e)(1)(ii).
Therefore, the relevant future injury inquiry relates to the
motel's website and reservation system, rather than the motel's
physical property.

Here, the plaintiff states she intends to make a trip to the Fort
Myers area within the next six months and also intends to return to
the website to both avail herself of the goods and services offered
by the motel and ensure its compliance with the ADA. She further
alleges she is currently being deterred from patronizing the motel
and will be until the website is corrected. The Court finds these
allegations are sufficient to create an inference plaintiff will
suffer injury in the future.  

Therefore, the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of standing
is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 3, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yam68c4t from
Leagle.com.

Cheri Honeywell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica Lynn Kerr, The Advocacy
Group, LLC.

HARIHAR INC, a Florida corporation, Defendant, represented by
Gordon R. Duncan, Duncan & Tardif, PA.


HELENA-WEST HELENA, AR: Summary Judgment Bid in Green Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEANDRE GREEN, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES BYRD,
individually and in his official capacity as a police officer of
the City of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas, Defendant, Case No.
2:17CV00033 JLH (E.D. Ark.), Judge J. Leon Holmes of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Helena
Division, (i) granted the City's motion for summary judgment, and
(ii) denied Green's motion for summary judgment.

Green claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 that the City of
Helena-West Helena, Arkansas, violated his constitutional right to
a prompt first appearance after his arrest.  Byrd, a Helena-West
Helena police officer, arrested Green on June 28, 2013, shortly
before 8:00 p.m.  On the next day, a City officer swore an
affidavit of probable cause and obtained an arrest warrant.  Green
was transported to the Ashley County jail.  He did not receive a
first appearance before July 1, 2018. The parties dispute whether
he received a first appearance on that at all, but the City says
that Judge Reid Harrod, an Ashley County District Court judge,
presided over Green's first appearance on Monday.  After several
months, the charges were dismissed and Green was released.

Green sued Byrd in his individual capacity and official capacity.
Helena-West Helena is located in Phillips County.  Green also sued
the Phillips County Sheriff in his official capacity.  He claimed
among other things that his constitutional right to a timely first
appearance was violated.  Green also initially asserted a claim
that he was arrested without probable cause.  He has now abandoned
that claim.  The City argued and provided evidence that Helena-West
Helena officers arrested Green based on probable cause, but Green
did not respond to that argument.  Any probable-cause claim is
therefore waived.  Remaining is Green's Section 1983 claim that
Byrd, in his official capacity, violated Green's constitutional
right to a timely first appearance.

The City conceded for years that Green did not have a first
appearance hearing.  That concession was made not only in the case
but also in a previous class action in which Green opted out of a
class comprised in relevant part by all those arrested in Phillips
County, Arkansas between Oct. 9, 2012 and Nov. 10, 2016 who did not
receive a Rule 8 appearance within 72 hours of arrestt.  In
preparing for trial in the case, however, the City's lawyers
uncovered, for the first time, in the Ashley County records, a
"Record of First Judicial Appearance" for Green.  The document
records that Green received a first appearance before Ashley County
District Court Judge Reid Harrod on July 1, 2013.  Both Judge
Harrod's and Green's signatures appear on the document.

The City contends, among other things, that the record shows that
Green received a first appearance on July 1, 2013, within three
days of his Friday evening arrest.  The City argues that, as a
matter of law, the delay from Friday evening to Monday did not
violate Green's rights.

Green asserts that he did not receive a first appearance that
Monday.  He also contends that, even if he did have a first
appearance, Judge Harrod had no jurisdiction to conduct it because
Judge Harrod is an Ashley County District Court judge whereas Green
was arrested and charged in Phillips County.  Green argues,
therefore, that the first appearance was void.  Finally, Green
maintains that the City should be estopped from now contending that
he received a first appearance when it has previously conceded that
he did not have one.

Judge Holmes finds that under the circumstance, where a court
record that not only is presumed to be correct, but also is signed
by the Defendant, shows that the first appearance took place, that
the Defendant cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact
merely by signing an affidavit contradicting his own signature.  In
the face of the objective evidence that the City has provided, and
against the backdrop of the presumption of regularity accorded the
court records, Green's affidavit does not create a genuine issue of
fact.

Based on the plain language of Rules 8.1 and 1.6, the plain
language of Section 16-88-101, the Arkansas cases interpreting
parallel provisions governing the issuance of search warrants, and
the repeal of Sections 16-88-201 through 203, an Arkansas district
court judge is "a judicial officer" who may conduct the arrestee's
first appearance even if the arrestee was arrested and charged in a
different county.  That Green's first appearance was conducted in
Ashley County rather than Phillips County did not invalidate that
first appearance.

In his final argument, Green argues that the City should be
estopped from changing its earlier position that he did not receive
a first appearance.  The Judge finds that the City did not change
positions because its interests had changed; rather, it discovered
new evidence -- evidence that had been in the control of Ashley
County, not the City.  It was no advantage to the City to wait
until the late stage to reveal these records.  The City has not
intentionally contradicted itself, deliberately changed positions
according to the needs of the moment, or played "fast and loose
with the courts" -- all ways the Supreme Court has described the
actions of a party against whom judicial estoppel may apply.  Green
also invokes the doctrine of equitable estoppel.  That doctrine has
no application in the case.

Finally, turning to the facts, the Judge finds that Green was
arrested without a warrant on Friday, June 28, 2013, in the
evening.  On the next day, a judge found probable cause and issued
an arrest warrant.  The probable cause determination was made
within 48 hours of Green's arrest.  It was not delayed
unreasonably.  That Green was not present for the probable cause
determination did not violate his constitutional rights.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Holmes (i) denied Green's motion for
summary judgment, and (ii) granted the City's motion for summary
judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/cum2Kx from Leagle.com.

Deandre Green, Plaintiff, represented by Lucien Ramseur Gillham,
Sutter & Gillham, PLLC & Luther Oneal Sutter, Sutter & Gillham,
PLLC.

Charles Byrd, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Police
Officer of the City of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas, Defendant,
represented by Jenna Adams, Arkansas Municipal League, Ralph C.
Ohm, Attorney at Law, C. Burt Newell, C. Burt Newell, Attorney at
Law & Christian Campbell Michaels -- cmichaels@catlaw.com --
Catlett Law Firm.


HIGH IMPACT MARKETING: Duggan Suit to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Duggan, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. High Impact Marketing, LLC and Carl
Miletello, Individually, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00209 (S.D.
Miss., December 6, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants own and operate furniture stores located in both
Columbia and Hattiesburg, Mississippi where Duggan worked as a
commission only salesperson and was classified as an independent
contractor in that sense. However, his job duties included selling
furniture, loading and unloading delivery vans, writing up
invoices, moving and/or rearranging merchandise around the store
and occasionally personally delivering furniture to customers
wherein he was not paid minimum wage for all those hours. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher W. Espy, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PLLC
      4450 Old Canton Road, Suite 200
      Jackson, MS 39211
      Telephone: (601) 718-2087
      Facsimile: (601) 718-2102
      Email: cespy@forthepeople.com


HOSPITALITY VENTURES: Tom State Law Claims Dismissed with Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WAI MAN TOM on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HOSPITALITY VENTURES LLC doing
business as Umstead Hotel and Spa, SAS INSTITUTE INC., and NC
CULINARY VENTURES LLC doing business as An Asian Cuisine,
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-CV-98-FL (E.D. N.C.), Judge Louise W.
Flanagan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina, Western Division, (i) denied as moot the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional and class certification; (ii)
denied the Plaintiff's motion to seal, and (iii) granted in part
the Defendants' motion for summary judgment; and denied the
Defendants' motion for hearing.

Former named Plaintiff Brandon Kelly commenced the action on Feb.
21, 2017, asserting claims on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated against the Defendants, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act
("NCWHA"), based upon their alleged failure to pay adequate wages
and overtime compensation, as well as alleged acts of retaliation,
while operating a restaurant in Cary, North Carolina named Ãn
Asian Cuisine, between 2014 and January 2017.  Kelly sought damages
for unpaid minimum wages; overtime compensation; liquidated and
statutory damages; further damages and other relief for
retaliation; as well as fees, costs, and interest.

On Feb. 22, 2017, Kelly filed a consent to join the suit as a
"named Plaintiff," and he filed a consent to join the suit by
current Plaintiff Tom as an opt-in Plaintiff.  Between May 9 and
May 15, 2017, Kelly filed six additional consents to join the suit
by the following individuals as opt-in Plaintiffs: Shelley Thorne,
Elaina Tanski, Evelyn Hunter, Gregory J. Evenson II, Deion Dorsey,
and Anne-Yael Okale-Weeks.

On Sept. 5, 2017, the Court allowed in part Kelly's motion to amend
the complaint to substitute Tom for Kelly as the named Plaintiff
and to add new factual allegations.  In the first amended
complaint, filed Sept. 8, 2017, which is the operative complaint in
the action, Plaintiff Tom asserts claims on behalf of himself and
the opt-in Plaintiffs, as follows:

In his first claim for relief ("Count One"), the Plaintiff asserts
the Defendants improperly took a "tip credit" by using an invalid
tip pool comprised of employees who did not customarily and
regularly receive tips, and thus failed to the pay party Plaintiffs
the required minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, in violation of the
FLSA.  He asserts that the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wage
was willful, because the Defendants previously internally
investigated a similar practice and were subject to a similar
lawsuit pertaining, in part, to alleged improper tip credit
practices.

In his second claim for relief ("Count Two"), plaintiff asserts
defendants failed to pay the party Plaintiffs overtime wages of
$10.88 per hour for all hours worked over 40 in a single workweek,
in violation of FLSA, on the same basis as Count One, where he
asserts the Defendants willfully used an invalid "tip credit"
practice.

In his third claim for relief ("Count Three"), the Plaintiff
asserts the Defendants willfully took invalid or unauthorized
deductions from wages, in violation of the NCWHA, based upon the
invalid "tip pool" as asserted in Counts One and Two.  The
Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendants failed to pay the party
Plaintiffs for all paid time off ("PTO") hours due as part of their
final paycheck, upon closure of the restaurant, and failed to
continue insurance benefits for the final pay period, following
closure of the restaurant, in violation of the NCWHA.

In his fourth claim for relief ("Count Four"), he asserts the
Defendants retaliated against him and party Plaintiff Kelly after
they complained of the aforementioned minimum wage, overtime, and
tip pool issues, by reducing the amount of hours they were
permitted to work; by reducing the number of customers they served;
and by informing other prospective employers of the Plaintiff's and
party Plaintiff Kelly's complaints.

On Oct. 10, 2017, the Court entered case management order providing
for bifurcated discovery, with a Phase I of bifurcated discovery
addressing issues of conditional certification of class and
collective actions, with some expansion to accommodate discovery
regarding whether the Plaintiff and any potential party Plaintiffs
are subject to an exemption from overtime pay set forth in 29
U.S.C. Section 207(i).  The court set a Feb. 28, 2018, deadline for
Phase I discovery, and a deadline of March 31, 2018, for the
Plaintiff to file a motion for conditional certification of class
or collective action.  The court did not set any separate deadline
for dispositive motions.

The Plaintiff filed the instant motion for certification on March
15, 2018, seeking conditional certification of an FLSA collective
action and certification of a class action under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 for NCWHA claims.  He seeks an order directing
the Defendants to provide an updated listing of the names, last
known addresses, alternate addresses, telephone numbers, email
addresses, last four digits of their Social Security of all the
former putative Plaintiffs and Rule 23 class members who worked for
all the Defendants at any time during the period from Feb. 22, 2014
to Jan. 30, 2017 consistent with the Plaintiff's proposed class
notice definition.

The Plaintiff's propose the following class notice definition: All
former employees of Defendants Hospitality Ventures, LLC, doing
business as Umstead Hotel and Spa; NC Culinary Ventures, LLC, doing
business as An Asian Cuisine; and Sas Institute, Inc., who
performed work that involved direct interaction with customers as a
captain, server, server assistants, runner, and/or bartender whom
the named Plaintiff alleges jointly employed him and all of those
similarly situated employees as hourly-paid and customarily tipped
employees, and who suffered or permitted the named Plaintiff and
all similarly situated employees to be required to participate in
an illegal mandatory tip pool, illegally withholding their tips,
not being paid their appropriate minimum wage, straight-time,
overtime compensation for all hours worked, and who were not
compensated all of their promised, earned, and accrued earnings and
benefits, including paid time off (PTO) on their regular pay date
or as part of their final pay check, and at any time from Feb. 22,
2014, until the closure of the restaurant, or until approximately
Jan. 30, 2017.

In the instant motion, the Plaintiff further seeks to be designated
as the class representative and that the Law Offices of Gilda A.
Hernandez, PLLC, attorneys of record, for the said named Plaintiff,
be authorized to serve as the counsel for the classes in the
action.  He also requests to be able to email and send via text
message class notices.

The Defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment on May
1, 2018,6 asserting that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the Defendants are entitled to judgment as a
matter of law on all of the Plaintiffs claims.  On the same date,
the Defendants filed response in opposition to the Plaintiff's
motion for certification, relying upon a declaration of Clore.

Upon review thereof, the Court denied the Plaintiff's oral motion
at prior hearing to hold in abeyance briefing on the motion for
summary judgment pending ruling on the motion for certification.
The Plaintiff filed a response to the motion for summary judgment
and a reply in support of the motion for certification on May 31,
2018. The Defendants filed the instant motion for hearing and reply
in support of summary judgment on June 21, 2018.  The Plaintiff
filed a notice of supplemental authority on Sept. 7, 2018.

As to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, among other
things, Judge Flanagan finds (i) that the Plaintiff has not
demonstrated a genuine issue of material facts as to his
retaliation claim; (ii) the Plaintiff's FLSA claims for minimum
wage and overtime pay fail as a matter of law for all of those
workweeks where the Plaintiffs atisfy the requirements for the
Section 7(i) exemption and they were paid above the minimum wage
rate; (iii) the Plaintiff has not demonstrated a genuine issue of
material fact regarding the validity of the AN PM Tip Pool, under
29 U.S.C. Section 203(m); and (iv) neither party cites controlling
Fourth Circuit or North Carolina law regarding the interpretation
of the scope of the NCWHA in comparison to the FLSA.

Having determined that the Defendants' motion for summary judgment
should be granted with respect to the Plaintiff's federal law
claims and that the Plaintiff's state law claims will be dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(c), the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional and class certification will be
denied as moot.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Flanagan granted the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment with respect to the Plaintiff's federal
law claims.  She dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiff's state
law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(c).  She denied as
moot the Plaintiff's motion for conditional and class
certification, and denied the Plaintiff's motion to seal.

The Judge dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Accordingly, she denied the Defendants' motion for hearing.  She
directed the Clerk to close the case.

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

Wai Man Tom, Plaintiff, represented by Gilda A. Hernandez , The Law
Offices of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC, Emma J. Smiley , The Law
Office of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC, Jimmy D. Braziel , Lee &
Braziel, LLP & Travis Andrew Gasper, Lee & Braziel, LLP.

Hospitality Ventures LLC, doing business as Umstead Hotel and Spa,
SAS Institute Inc. & NC Culinary Ventures LLC, doing business as An
Asian Cuisine, Defendants, represented by Arch Y. Stokes --
astokes@stokeswagner.com -- Stokes Wagner, ALC, Kevin Michael
Ceglowski -- kceglowski@poynerspruill.com -- Poyner Spruill LLP,
John R. Hunt -- jhunt@stokeswagner.com -- Stokes Wagner, ALC,
Jordan Danielle Arkin -- jfishman@stokeswagner.com -- Stokes
Wagner, ALC & Susanna K. Gibbons -- sgibbons@poynerspruill.com --
Poyner Spruill LLP.


HOWARD E. FRIEDMAN: Leade Removed Teamster Case to Maryland Dist.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Martin R. Leade removes the action entitled Teamsters Local 677
Health Services & Insurance Plan, the Plaintiff, v. Howard E.
Friedman, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 03-c-18-12119, from the
Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore County, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland. The District of
Maryland Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-03868-DKC to the
proceeding.

On November 29, 2018, Fire and Police Retiree Health Care Fund-San
Antonio filed in this Court a Verified Stockholder Derivative
Complaint ("Federal Complaint") alleging breaches of fiduciary duty
on the part of the Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. ("Sinclair")
Board of Directors and chief executive officer. The Federal
Complaint named as defendants David D. Smith, Frederick G. Smith,
J. Duncan Smith and Robert E. Smith, Howard E. Friedman, Daniel C.
Keith, Martin R. Leader, Lawrence E. McCanna, and Christopher S.
Ripley (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"), and Sinclair,
as a nominal defendant. A week later, on December 6, 2018,
Teamsters Local 677 Health Services & Insurance Plan ("Plaintiff")
filed a Shareholder Derivative Complaint ("State Complaint")
alleging breaches of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment on the
part of the Individual Defendants. The State Complaint also names
Sinclair as a nominal defendant. The State Complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore County.

In the State Complaint, which is substantially similar to the
Federal Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company in
connection with the Sinclair Board of Directors' conduct relating
to an attempted merger with Tribune Media Co. ("Tribune"). The
Plaintiff alleges that as a direct and proximate result of the
Individual Defendants' failure to perform their fiduciary
obligations, Sinclair has sustained damages, both financially and
to its corporate goodwill and image. Plaintiff further claims that
the Individual Defendants were unjustly enriched at the expense of
and to the detriment of Sinclair. The Plaintiff seeks an order
disgorging all profits, benefits, and other compensation obtained
by the Individual Defendants, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Martin R. Leader:

          Philip M. Andrews, Esq.
          Allison M. Midei, Esq.
          K RAMON & G RAHAM , P.A.
          One South Street, Suite 2600
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 752-6030
          Facsimile: (410) 539-1269
          E-mail: pandrews@kg-law.com
                  amidei@kg-law.com

               - and -

          Aaron R. Marcu, Esq.
          Kimberly H. Zelnick, Esq.
          David Y. Livshiz, Esq.
          601 Lexington Avenue, 31st Floor
          New York, NY
          Telephone: 212 277-4000
          E-mail: aaron.marcu@freshfields.com
                  kimberly.zelnick@freshfields.com
                  david.livshiz@freshfields.com

HOYT LIVERY: Court Moots Bid to Enforce Settlement in Lassen Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
issued an Order mooting Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement
Agreement in the case captioned ROGER LASSEN JR., individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, v. HOYT
LIVERY, INC., et. al. No. 3:13-cv-1529 (VAB). (D. Conn.).

Roger Lassen, Jr., on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, brought this action against Hoyt Livery, Inc. (Hoyt
Livery), Santo Silvestro, and Lynda Silvestro (Defendants),
asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the
Connecticut Minimum Wage Act (CMWA).

Mr. Lassen seeks to enforce the settlement agreement and attorney's
fees for overdue payment.

In dispute is whether $200,000 of the $400,000 in attorneys' fees
became due on January 15, 2018, a date before court approval of the
settlement under Section 8(b) of the Settlement Agreement. The
parties failed to amend the Settlement Agreement to address this
timing of the payment issue, even though the Court urged the
parties to change the terms before the Court issued its final
approval.

The Court ordered the Defendants to pay no more than $400,000 in
attorneys' fees and costs to the Plaintiffs' Counsel. Of the
$400,000, the Defendants were to pay $200,000 within thirty days of
Final Approval of the settlement under the plain language of
Section 8(b) of the Settlement Agreement. Both parties have
interpreted the due date for the other $200,000 payment
differently.

Mr. Lassen argues that the Settlement Agreement set the payment
date as January 15, 2018 in Section 8(b), and Section 8(d)
converted the sum into a judgment that was untimely when Defendants
failed to pay by that date or by the time of the entering of the
Settlement Agreement.  

Mr. Lassen then argues that the Court should award post-judgment
attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which
authorizes attorney's fees and costs to prevailing plaintiffs.  Mr.
Lassen asserts that, while the Court encouraged the parties to
amend the provisions of the Settlement Agreement, the parties never
amended the agreement. So, under the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, the January 15, 2018 deadline in the Settlement
Agreement must stand.

In response, the Defendants argue that, while Connecticut law
allows the Court to summarily enter judgment against a party that
fails to comply with the settlement agreement, the Court's power is
limited to those situations where the terms are clear and
unambiguous.

Here, the settlement terms are ambiguous. While Mr. Lassen contends
that the payment was due January 15, 2018, the Court did not
approve the settlement until March 16, 2018. Under Mr.

Lassen's interpretation of the contract, the Defendants were
already two months late on their payments on the date of settlement
approval. That position makes little sense. It would require the
Court to interpret the settlement agreement as imposing a penalty
for failure to do something before the settlement agreement took
effect.  

Connecticut law limits the ability of the court to bind the parties
to the undisputed terms of the agreement. Here, the term in
question is not undisputed, therefore, the parties cannot be bound
to the purported January 15, 2018 deadline to the Hayber law firm.

Regardless of the Court's ability to bind the parties to the
agreement, the issue is moot. As the parties agreed at the November
28, 2018 hearing, the Defendants paid the disputed $200,000 in
attorney's fees to the Hayber Law Firm on November 19, 2018.

For these reasons, the Court thus finds Mr. Lassen's motion to be
moot.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 3, 2018 Ruling
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9mgbk94 from
Leagle.com.

Roger Lassen, Jr., individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Richard
Eugene Hayber, Hayber Law Firm LLC, Deborah L. McKenna, The Hayber
Law Firm, LLC & John J. Radshaw, III.

Francisco Sanchez, Petitioner, represented by Peter D. Goselin, The
Law Office of Peter Goselin.

Hoyt Livery Inc, Santo Silvestro & Lynda Silvestro, Defendants,
represented by Jan A. Marcus, Keidel, Weldon & Cunningham, LLP &
Candace Veronica Fay, Candace V. Fay - Attorney & Counselor at Law,
PC.


HUMANADENTAL INSURANCE: 7th Cir. Affirmed Certification Denial
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the judgment of the District Court denying
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the cases captioned
LAWRENCE S. BRODSKY, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HUMANADENTAL INSURANCE CO. d/b/a
HUMANA SPECIALTY BENEFITS, Defendant-Appellee. ALPHA TECH PET,
INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ESSENDANT CO., ESSENDANT
INC., and ESSENDANT MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 17-3067 & 17-3506. (7th Cir.).

In each case, the district court refused to certify the proposed
class, largely on the authority of the D.C. Circuit's decision in
Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. FCC, 852 F.3d 1078 (D.C. Cir.
2017).

Despite the decline and fall of the fax machine, litigation
continues between fax advertisers and unwilling recipients of their
messages. Behind all this is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA), as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 and as
implemented through FCC regulations. The lead plaintiffs in our
cases, Lawrence Brodsky and Alpha Tech Pet, Inc., received faxed
advertisements that did not comply with the TCPA and the FCC's
Solicited Fax Rule.

Because it sits at center stage in these controversies, the Court
begin by setting out the critical parts of the Solicited Fax Rule:

"(a) No person or entity may: (4) Use a telephone facsimile
machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited
advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine, unless (i) The
unsolicited advertisement is from a sender with an established
business relationship  with the recipient and(ii) The sender
obtained the number of the telephone facsimile machine through (A)
The voluntary communication of such number by the recipient
directly to the sender, within the context of such established
business relationship (iii) The advertisement contains a notice
that informs the recipient of the ability and means to avoid future
unsolicited advertisements.  A notice contained in an advertisement
complies with the requirements under this paragraph only if certain
criteria are met (iv) A facsimile advertisement that is sent to a
recipient that has provided prior express invitation or permission
to the sender must include an opt-out notice that complies with the
requirements in paragraph (a)(4)(iii) of this section."

The parties have engaged in a lengthy debate over the question
whether Bais Yaakov is formally binding on this court, or if our
obligation is only to give it that respectful consideration we
would accord to any of our sister circuits' decisions.  

The Court hold that the FCC's 2006 Solicited Fax Rule is unlawful
to the extent that it requires opt-out notices on solicited faxes.
The FCC's Order in this case interpreted and applied that 2006
Rule. We vacate that Order and remand for further proceedings.

If the Court's decision turned on the ultimate binding impact of
the D.C. Circuit's decision with respect to the 2006 Order, the
Court would pursue this matter further. But it does not, and thus
we do not need to decide whether we would read Bais Yaakov as
broadly as our sister circuits have done.

There is no doubt that the D.C. Circuit vacated the order before it
(i.e. the 2014 Anda Order) and held that the 2014 application of
the 2006 Order was unlawful. In the end, therefore, this was an as
applied decision, not an untimely attack on the 2006 Order. The
Court can therefore assume that the 2006 Order is still in effect
though drained of a great deal of force, it seems, but that it must
be construed consistently with the D.C. Circuit's decision on the
2014 Order, because that decision is binding on all courts of
appeals through the Hobbs Act. And the question in our case is even
narrower, because we are not reviewing the merits of either order.
Instead, we must determine only whether, against the backdrop of
these orders, the district courts here abused their discretion in
finding class treatment inappropriate.

For purposes of the class certification decision, this history
tells us that the legality of the defendants' actions may end up
depending on whether the fax was sent with permission legal or not
illegal and it may also turn on the adequacy of the opt-out notices
on the faxes in question. The consequences for a firm that violates
the TCPA can be dire when it is facing not just a single aggrieved
person, but a class. The statute provides a private right of action
to collect either actual damages or $500 per violation in statutory
damages. Whether that means $500 per fax, or $500 per transmission,
the dollars roll up quickly. The stakes for the defendants in our
cases are substantial.

The final questions are whether the waivers have any effect on the
availability of a private right of action and whether that issue is
better handled through individual litigation or a class. The TCPA
allows a person or entity to bring an action based on a violation
of this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this
subsection for injunctive relief, actual damages, or statutory
damages.  The alleged violation in our case is regulatory.

The Court rejects the plaintiffs' argument that the statute itself
requires opt-out notice on solicited faxes; it does not, and
nothing in Holtzman, Holtzman v. Turza, 728 F.3d 682 (7th Cir.
2013),  supports engrafting such language on the statute. As the
opening sentence of that opinion signals, the issue there had to do
with unsolicited faxes that had no opt-out language, not faxes sent
with advance permission that did include some opt-out language. In
addition, Holtzman arose at a time before the Solicited Fax Rule
was challenged. It thus has no bearing on the issues now before
us.

As a regulatory matter, the Solicited Fax Rule is subject to the
general rule regarding suspension, amendment, or waiver of rules.
That provides, in relevant part, that any provision of the rules
may be waived by the Commission on its own motion or on petition if
good cause therefore is shown. Concerned about the confusion that
the Rule had caused, the FCC invoked this authority when it issued
the Humana and United Stationers waivers. But once again, even if
the district court were eventually to conclude that the waivers are
invalid, that is just one question: issues concerning solicitation,
permission, pre-existing relationships, and the like, would remain
as obstacles to class treatment.

The Court does not rule out the possibility that some of the
recipients of Humana's or Essendant's faxes were the victims of the
practices prohibited by the TCPA as amended. Some may not have had
pre-existing contractual arrangements, some may not have signaled
their consent to receiving faxes, and some senders of faxes may not
have received waivers of the Solicited Fax Rule from the FCC or the
waivers might be flawed. The Court, thus express no opinion on the
ability of individual plaintiffs to go forward with these suits.
The Court holds only that neither of the district courts in these
cases abused its discretion when it concluded that the criteria for
a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) are not met.

The Court therefore affirms the orders of the district courts in
both Case No. 17-3067 and in Case No. 17-3506, denying class
certification.

A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's December 3, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7xp5dva from Leagle.com.

David J. Novotny -- dnovotny@cmn-law.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

William A. Chittenden, III -- wchittenden@cmn-law.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Phillip Andrew Bock -- phil@classlawyers.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Joseph Robert Jeffery -- jjeffery@cmn-law.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

David Max Oppenheim -- david@classlawyers.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Glenn L. Hara -- ghara@andersonwanca.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.


IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Hovermale FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for lack of
Article III standing the case captioned JENNIFER D. HOVERMALE, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
IMMEDIATE CREDIT RECOVERY, INC., Defendant. Civil No. 15-05646
(RBK/JS). (D.N.J.).

Plaintiff Jennifer Hovermale, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, brings claims against Defendant Immediate
Credit Recovery Inc. (ICR), for violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Hovermale sued debt collector ICR
after ICR sent her a letter about her defaulted federal Perkins
student loan, which helped finance Hovermale's education at Rider
University.

Claiming that Hovermale lacks standing, ICR moves to dismiss
Hovermale's claims under 15 U.S.C. Swection 1692e, which prohibits
the use of any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or
means in connection with the collection of any debt and provides a
nonexhaustive list of behavior that violates the prohibition.

An injury in fact is an invasion of a legally protected interest
that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not
conjectural or hypothetical.  

Here, the parties initially dispute the harm at issue. According to
ICR, the injury that results from use of the letter's language only
occurs if the balance stated in a letter will not change, as the
language creates a false sense of urgency for the obligor to pay
the balance. Thus, ICR argues, Hovermale has suffered no concrete
and particularized injury from the letter's late charges language
because Hovermale's balance changed daily given the loan's accruing
interest.

Hovermale, by contrast, argues that the letter's late charges
language caused her to suffer a concrete and particularized harm
because its inclusion violated her substantive right to receive
truthful, non-misleading, and non-deceptive information from ICR.


The Court agrees with Hovermale as to the framing of the harm at
issue because as courts have noted, the injury, for standing
purposes, is framed as a right to receive accurate and
nonmisleading information from ICR under Section 1692e of the
FDCPA.  

ICR argues that Hovermale's reliance on the late charges language
alleges only a bare procedural violation of the FDCPA divorced from
any concrete harm, which is insufficient to satisfy Article III's
injury in fact requirement.

Hovermale argues that the letter's late charges language caused her
to suffer a concrete informational harm because its inclusion
violated her substantive right to receive truthful, nonmisleading,
and non-deceptive information from ICR. Like the many other courts
in this district, the Court agrees with Hovermale.

When a debt collector violates Section 1692e by providing false or
misleading information, the informational injury that results,
i.e., receipt of that false or misleading information constitutes a
concrete harm under Spokeo, which directs courts assessing
intangible injuries to ask if the injury resembles harm
traditionally recognized in English or American courts and if
Congress elevated it to a legally cognizable injury. Section
1692e's prohibition on providing false statements to induce a
person to part with money bears a family resemblance to traditional
causes of action for fraud and deceit, and protects interests
previously recognized at law.

Accordingly, an overwhelming majority of the courts in this
district have found that various types of violations under Section
1692e give rise to concrete, substantive injuries sufficient to
establish Article III standing.

Thus, Hovermale's claim that ICR violated her substantive FDCPA
rights by sending her a letter including the materially misleading
late charges language when ICR had no lawful right to assess late
charges constitutes a concrete injury in fact. Hovermale's injury
is also particularized because she received the debt collection
communication.  Hovermale has thus shown a concrete and
particularized injury as required to satisfy the injury in fact
requirement of Article III standing.

In the end, ICR ignores what courts in this district overwhelmingly
recognize that Section 1692e of the FDCPA provides a substantive,
statutory right to be free from false or deceptive information in
connection with the collection of a debt. Yet instead of
acknowledging let alone attempting to distinguish this and the many
other in-district FDCPA standing cases, counsel doubles down on
rejected positions. These recycled arguments are neither persuasive
nor forthcoming.

Accordingly, ICR's motion to dismiss is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 3, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8ymbkxt from Leagle.com.

JENNIFER D. HOVERMALE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW T. THOMASSON,
Stern Thomasson LLP, DANIEL ADAM FRISCHBERG, LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW
B. FINBERG, LLC & PHILIP D. STERN, STERN THOMASSON LLP.

IMMEDIATE CREDIT RECOVERY INC., Defendant, represented by MONICA M.
LITTMAN -- mlittman@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN, KREKSTEIN &
HARRIS, PC & RICHARD J. PERR -- rperr@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN
KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, PC.


INUVO INC: D'Arcy Sues Over Sale to ConversionPoint
---------------------------------------------------
Peter D'Arcy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Inuvo, Inc., Richard Howe, G. Kent Burnett,
Gordon Cameron,  Charles Morgan, Patrick Terrell, ConversionPoint
Technologies, Inc., ConversionPoint Holdings, Inc., CPT Merger Sub,
Inc., and CPT Cigar Merger Sub, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-02023-UNA (D. Del., December 19, 2018) is a class action
brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated public stockholders of Inuvo, Inc. against the
above-captioned Defendants, including Inuvo and the members of the
Company's board of directors for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and United States Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the acquisition of Inuvo by
ConversionPoint Technologies, Inc. ("CPT").

On November 2, 2018, Inuvo Inc., ConversionPoint Technologies,
Inc., ConversionPoint Holdings, Inc., CPT Merger Sub, Inc., and CPT
Cigar Merger Sub, Inc., entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger. On December 17, 2018, in order to convince Inuvo's public
common stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
the parties filed a materially incomplete and misleading Form S-4
Registration Statement with the SEC, in violation of the Exchange
Act, asserts the complaint.

The Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning: (i) the valuation analyses prepared by the Company's
financial advisor, Canaccord Genuity LLC, in support of their
fairness opinion and (ii) the potential conflicts of interest faced
by the Board during the sales process leading up to the Proposed
Transaction, notes the complaint. Additionally, although the Proxy
does not yet set the date for the special meeting of Inuvo's
stockholders to vote on the Proposed Transaction, the Proxy does
state the merger parties' intention to conclude this merger during
the first quarter of 2019. It is therefore imperative that the
material information that has been omitted from the Proxy is
disclosed prior to the Stockholder Vote so Inuvo stockholders can
properly exercise their corporate suffrage rights, the complaint
asserts.

Plaintiff Peter D'Arcy is, and at all relevant times, has been an
Inuvo stockholder.

Inuvo, Inc., a Nevada corporation, is an Internet advertising
technology and digital publishing company. Inuvo common stock is
traded under the ticker symbol "INUV".

Defendant Richard Howe is, and has been at all relevant times, a
director of the Company, and currently serves as the Company's
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO").

Defendant G. Kent Burnett is, and has been at all relevant times, a
director of the Company.

Defendant Gordon Cameron is, and has been at all relevant times, a
director of the Company.

Defendant Charles Morgan is, and has been at all relevant times, a
director of the Company.

Defendant Patrick Terrell is, and has been at all relevant times, a
director of the Company.

ConversionPoint Technologies, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with
its principal executive offices located at 840 Newport Center
Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660, and is a party to the Merger
Agreement.

ConversionPoint Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and a
direct wholly-owned subsidiary of CPT, and a party to the Merger
Agreement.

CPT Merger Sub, Inc., is a Delaware corporation and a direct
wholly-owned Subsidiary of Parent, and a party to the Merger
Agreement.

CPT Cigar Merger Sub, Inc., is a Nevada corporation and a direct
wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, and a party to the Merger
Agreement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
     O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC
     901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone (302) 778-4000
     Facsimile: (302) 295-2873
     Email: rernst@oelegal.com

          - and -

     Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
     Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
     GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
     440 Park Avenue South
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 983-1300
     Facsimile: (212) 983-0380
     Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
            gegleston@gme-law.com


J R PUTMAN INC: Faces Scarano Suit in Sacramento
------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against J
R Putman Inc. The case is captioned as ANTHONY SCARANO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. J R PUTMAN INC.; JEFF WERTENS; and DOES 1-100,
Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00244753-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.,
Sacramento Cty., Nov. 16, 2018).

J R Putman Inc. provides home heating repair and maintenance. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Galen T Shimoda, Esq.


KAISER FOUNDATION: Court Narrows Claims in Gamble Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LUNELL GAMBLE AND SHEILA KENNEDY, Plaintiffs, v.
KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Case No.
17-cv-06621-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (1)
granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion dismiss
the complaint; (2) granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to strike allegations therein; and (iii) denied
Plaintiff Gamble's motion for Rule 11 Sanctions.

Gamble filed her complaint alleging claims of employment
discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
("FEHA"), in the Superior Court of Alameda County, California.
With a demurrer pending, Gamble filed a First Amended Complaint.
When a demurrer to the First Amended Complaint was sustained with
leave to amend, Gamble was permitted to file a Second Amended
Complaint which added claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1981.
Gamble's Second Amended Complaint was then removed to the Court on
Nov. 16, 2017 by Defendants Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
("Health Plan"), Kaiser Foundation Hospitals ("Hospitals"); and The
Permanente Medical Group.  Gamble then filed a new amended
complaint on Jan. 12, 2018, in the Court.  The Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss and a motion to strike.  Gamble filed a motion
for Sanctions under Rule 11 against the Defendants.

Thereafter, in April 2018 and before the Court ruled on the pending
motions, Gamble sought and was granted leave to file a new
iteration of the complaint, styled as a Second Amended Complaint,
adding new claims and a new Plaintiff, Sheila Kennedy.

Gamble and Kennedy allege that they worked for the Defendants which
they allege act as a single employer, "Kaiser."  The Plaintiffs are
African-American women over the age of 40 who allege they were
denied promotions and involuntarily terminated by Kaiser.  

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of African-Americans, and
subclasses of female African-Americans and older African-Americans,
who were employed at Kaiser in the northern California region, and
(1) were denied promotion, (2) were terminated, or (3) complained
internally or to a governmental entity regarding race or age
discrimination.

The SAC alleges that, beginning in 1997, Gamble worked in Kaiser's
Human Resources department.  Gamble alleges that she was denied
promotions and subjected to a pattern and practice of
discrimination, despite her qualifications and excellent
performance.  She alleges she also was subjected to harassment and
unreasonable scrutiny by the person who began supervising her in
July 2012, Rosa Grajeda.  Gamble asserts that Grajeda and Kaiser
determined to terminate her under false pretenses, and ultimately
terminated her on July 29, 2014.

Kennedy began working at Kaiser in October of 1997, and worked in
various positions in the Chemical Dependency and Rehabilitation
Program.  Kennedy alleges she was denied promotions, transfers, pay
raises, and other benefits that were given to non-African-American
employees, even though her performance and qualifications were
equal to or better than those employees.  She further alleges that
she was threatened, retaliated against, and ultimately terminated
because of her race and because she made complaints regarding
Kaiser's non-compliance with civil rights laws.  Ultimately,
Kennedy alleges that she was subjected to disciplinary proceedings
based on false information and was terminated in February 2016.

Presently pending before the Court are three motions: (1) the
Defendants' motion dismiss the complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6); (2) the Defendants' motion to strike allegations therein
under the California anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Code of Civil Proc.
section 425.16 and Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure; and (3) Plaintiff Gamble's motion for Rule 11 Sanctions.


Among other things, Judge Rogers finds that (i) the SAC alleges
exhaustion, and factual questions as to the truth of that
allegation are not resolved properly at this juncture; (ii) the
Plaintiffs' allegations of common management and centralized
control of labor relations among the Defendants are sufficient at
the pleading stage to allege that the administrative charges
sufficiently named all three Defendants; (iii) the allegations of
the SAC do not foreclose a discrete act concerning denial of a
promotion within the proper time frame for a claim under the FEHA,
Title VII, or the ADEA; and (iv) the Defendants have not
established that Kennedy failed to exhaust promotion claims
timely.

The Defendants seek to dismiss certain claims brought by Gamble and
Kennedy on the grounds of: (a) failure to exhaust their
administrative remedies; (b) untimeliness of the charge or suit;
and (c) failure to allege the claim sufficiently.
The Defendants move for an order striking paragraph 51, and the
FEHA claims that incorporate it, pursuant to California's
anti-SLAPP law.  Pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, they also seek to strike the Plaintiffs'
litigation tactics claim (Fifth Cause of Action), portions of the
SAC concerning litigation and settlement conduct, and all
allegations in the claims as to which Kaiser is moving to dismiss.
The motion to strike is redundant as to the matters covered in the
motion to dismiss, and will be denied as to those allegations.

The Plaintiffs separately moved for award of sanctions against the
Defendants in connection with their filing of the anti-SLAPP
motion, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  The Plaintiff argues the Defendants' motion to strike
is frivolous because: (1) because the California anti-SLAPP statute
applies only to state law claims, not federal claims; (2) it is
untimely; and (3) Gamble's claims under FEHA do not arise from
petitioning activity.  For the reasons stated in the Court's Order
on the anti-SLAPP motion, supra section III, the Judge finds that
the motion to strike, while not entirely successful, was not
frivolous.  The Rule 11 Motion therefore be denied.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Rogers granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss.  On the First Cause of
Action, insofar as it alleges a violation of section 1981, the
Judge granted the unopposed motion to dismiss.  To the extent that
the all the causes of action in the SAC are alleged under Title VII
and/or the ADEA, those claims are time-barred as to Gamble, and the
motion to dismiss on those grounds is granted with leave to amend.
The Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend to allege facts to avoid
the time bar on these claims.  She denied the motion to dismiss on
all other grounds.

The Judge granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion
to strike.  It is denied pursuant to the California anti-SLAPP
statute for failure to demonstrate that the claims are directed to
protected activity.  The motion to strike under Rule 12(f) is
granted with leave to amend as to paragraphs 22a-c, 40, 53, and 90,
and the Fifth Cause of Action; and granted without leave to amend
as to paragraph 51.

The Judge denied the Plaintiff's motion for Rule 11 sanctions (Dkt.
No. 35) in connection with the anti-SLAPP motion.

The Plaintiffs shall file any amended complaint no later than Jan.
15, 2019.  The Defendants shall file any response within 21 days
thereafter.

A full-text copy of the Order dated Dec. 18, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yc92g7tm for Leagle.com.

Lunell Gamble & Sheila Kennedy, Plaintiffs, represented by Jeremy
L. Friedman , Law Offices of Jeremy L. Friedman.

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals,
Inc. & The Permanente Medical Group, doing business as Kaiser
Permanente Medical Care Program, Defendants, represented by Claire
A. Hoffmann , GBG LLP, Heather Ann Morgan , GBG LLP & Amanda
Bolliger Crespo , GBG LLP.


KANE FURNITURE: Scharrer Sues over Deceptive Trade Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
LEE SCHARRER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KANE FURNITURE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 80908808 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., Nov. 16, 2018) is an
action against the Defendant for deceptive and unfair business
practices in violation of the Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practice Act.

In 2014, the Plaintiff purchased three items of furniture, a power
reclining sofa, a power reclining love seat, and a power console)
from Defendant. At that time, the Plaintiff signed the
Defendant’s Sales Contract, paying a total of $3,019.65. Within a
few months, the Plaintiff’s furniture began to peel, flake, and
deteriorate rapidly and he promptly notified the Defendant.
Thereafter, in late November 2014, Defendant inspected the
Plaintiff's furniture and failed and refused to honor its lifetime
guarantee.

Kane Furniture Corporation operates furniture retail stores. The
company provides furniture for living rooms, bedrooms, and dining
rooms; mattresses; home office furniture, such as bookcases, desks,
filing/storage cabinets, and office chairs; lamps and accessories;
display cabinets, curios, fireplaces, and other accent furniture;
and TV consoles and wall units. The company was founded in 1948 and
is based in Pinellas Park, Florida. It has store locations in St.
Petersburg, Sarasota, Port Charlotte, Melbourne, Ft. Myers, Naples,
Ocala, and Orlando, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Daniel Clark, Esq.
          CLARK & MARTINO, P.A.
          W. Kennedy Boulevard
          Tampa, FL 33609
          Telephone: (813) 879-0700
          Facsimile: (813) 879-5498
          E-mail: dclark@clarkmartino.com

               - and -

          V. Stephen Cohen, Esq.
          Pedro F. Bajo, Jr., Esq.
          BAJO CUVA COHEN & TURKEL, P.A.
          100 N. Tampa Street, Suite 1900
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 443-2199
          Facsimile: (813) 443-2193
          E-mail: scohen@bajocuva.com

               - and -

          Ricardo A. Roig, Esq.
          RICARDO A. ROIG, P.L.
          2803 Safe Harbor Dr.
          Tampa, FL 33618
          Telephone: (813) 964-7530
          Facsimile: (813) 441-6889
          E-mail: roiglawgmail.com

               - and -

          Matthew A. Crist, Esq.
          CRIST LEGAL PA
          606 East Madison Street
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 575-5200
          Facsimile: (813) 575-2520
          E-mail: cristm@cristlegal.com


KANSAS CITY: Faces Suit over Foster Care Practices
--------------------------------------------------
M.B. and S.E. through their next friend Katharyn McIntyre; V.A.
through his next friend Kathryn Ashburn; J.M. through his next
friend Ed Bigus; M.J. through his next friend Ed Bigus; R.M.
through his next friend Allan Hazlett; C.A. through his next friend
Allan Hazlett; Z.Z. through her next friend Ashley Thorne; B.B.
through her next friend Ashley Thorne; and M.L. through her next
friend Ashley Thorne, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JEFF COLYER in his official
capacity as Kansas Governor; GINA MEIER-HUMMEL in her official
capacity as Kansas Department for Children and Families Secretary;
JEFF ANDERSEN in his official capacity as Kansas Department of
Health and Environment Secretary; and TIM KECK in his official
capacity as Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services
Secretary, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02617 (D. Kan., Nov. 16,
2018) seeks declarative and injunctive relief compelling the
Defendants to remedy known dangerous practices and specific
structural deficiencies in the Kansas foster care system. The
Plaintiffs further seek to end violations of their federal rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and under
the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment
provisions of the federal Medicaid Act, and the resulting harms,
and risks of harm, to foster children in DCF custody.

According to the complaint, the Defendants maintain the dangerous
practice of subjecting children in foster care to extreme housing
disruption, also known as churning. Children in the Kansas
Department for Children and Families (DCF) custody needlessly move
from placement to placement more than 15 or 20 times, and some
children even move more than 50 or 100 times. Alarmingly, DCF
frequently subjects children to "night-to-night" or short-term
placements.  In a repetitive, destabilizing cycle, children are
regularly forced to sleep for a night or several nights anywhere a
bed, couch, office conference room, shelter or hospital can be
found. For days, weeks, or even months at time, they spend their
nights in these short-term placements and their days in agency
offices waiting to find out where they will sleep next, only to
repeat the same cycle again. DCF's practice of extreme housing
disruption inherently deprives children of basic shelter and
effectively renders them homeless while in state custody.

Kansas City sits on Missouri's western edge, straddling the border
with Kansas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Larry R. Rute, Esq.
          Benet Magnuson, Esq.
          KANSAS APPLESEED CENTER
          FOR LAW & JUSTICE, INC.
          211 East 8th Street, Suite D
          Lawrence, KS 66044
          Telephone: (785) 856-0917
          E-mail: larry@adrmediate.com
                  bmagnuson@kansasappleseed.org

               - and -

          Loretta Burns-Bucklew, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LORETTA BURNS-BUCKLEW
          401 West 89th Street
          Kansas City, MO 64114
          Tel: (816) 384-1198
          E-mail: loribblawkc@gmail.com

               - and -

          Leecia Welch, Esq.
          Freya Pitts, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW
          405 14th Street, 15th Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 835-8098
          Facsimile: (510) 835-8099
          E-mail: lwelch@youthlaw.org
                  fpitts@youthlaw.org

               - and -

          Ira Lustbader, Esq.
          Marissa C. Nardi, Esq.
          Jonathan M. King, Esq.
          Stephen A. Dixon, Esq.
          CHILDREN’S RIGHTS, INC.
          88 Pine Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 683-2210
          Facsimile: (212) 683-4015
          E-mail: ilustbader@childrensrights.org
                  mnardi@childrensrights.org
                  jking@childrensrights.org
                  sdixon@childrensrights.org


KENTUCKY: Rule 23 Class Certification Sought in Carver Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled Roy Anderson Carver, Jr. v. The
Commonwealth of Kentucky, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00164-JHM (W.D.
Ky.), moves for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Mr. Carver of Bowling Green, Kentucky, appears pro se.[CC]


KLONDEX MINES: Court Consolidates Lawon, Gunderson, and Baker Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, DAVID GUNDERSON, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. KLONDEX MINES LTD.,
RICHARD J. HALL, BLAIR SCHULTZ, RODNEY COOPER, MARK DANIEL, JAMIE
HAGGARTY, PAUL ANDRE HUET, WILLIAM MATLACK, CHARLES OLIVER, HECLA
MINING COMPANY, and 1156291 B.C. UNLIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,
Defendants, JOHN D. LAWSON, Plaintiff, v. KLONDEX MINES LTD.,
RODNEY COOPER, MARK DANIEL, JAMIE HAGGARTY, RICHARD J. HALL, PAUL
ANDRE HUET, WILLIAM MATLACK, CHARLES OLIVER, and BLAIR SCHULTZ,
Defendants, NELSON BAKER, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. KLONDEX MINES LTD., RICHARD J.
HALL, PAUL HUET, WILLIAM MATLACK, CHARLES OLIVER, BLAIR SCHULTZ,
RODNEY COOPER, MARK DANIEL, and JAMES HAGGARTY, Defendants, Case
Nos. 3:18-cv-00256-LRH-CBC, 3:18-cv-00284-LRH-CBC,
3:18-cv-00288-LRH-CBC (D. Nev.), Judge Larry R. Hicks of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada granted Plaintiff
Lawson's motion to consolidate, be appointed the lead Plaintiff,
and appoint the lead and the liaison counsel.  

The case is a federal securities class action filed by and on
behalf of investors of Klondex who allege violations of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission Rules based on the then proposed merger of
Klondex with Hecla and 1156291 B.C. Unlimited Liability Company.
The Plaintiffs allege the Definitive Proxy Statement filed by
Klondex was materially deficient and misleading and that it did not
provide stockholders with the necessary information to make an
informed vote on the merger.  As a result of the proposed sale,
five different federal securities class actions were filed against
the Defendants in the federal court between May and June, 2018.

Baker filed a motion to enjoin the vote on the proposed merger on
June 20, 2018.  Following oral argument, the Court found that Baker
had not demonstrated that he would suffer irreparable harm if the
preliminary injunction was not issued and declined to enjoin the
shareholder vote.

Baker now moves the Court to (1) consolidate the matter with the
two related cases before the court; (2) appoint him the Lead
Plaintiff; and (3) appoint his chosen counsel, Kahn Swick & Foti,
LLC and Monteverde & Associates PC, as co-lead counsel and
Muckleroy Lunt, LLC as the liaison counsel.

Plaintiff Lawson also moves the Court to consolidate these three
cases but moves to appoint himself the lead Plaintiff and his
chosen counsel Levi & Korsinsky, LLP ("LK") as the class counsel
and Aldrich Law as the liaison counsel.

Judge Hicks finds that consolidation is proper because the three
matters all allege the same or similar shareholder class action
claims against the Defendants for violations stemming from the same
proposed transaction.  Additionally, as none of these cases have
yet to begin discovery, consolidation at this stage will reduce
duplication and minimize expenditures for all parties.  Further,
neither the Plaintiffs nor the Defendants oppose consolidation.
The Judge therefore will consolidate the three matters based on the
overlapping questions of law and of fact and in the interests of
judicial economy and efficiency under Rule 42(a).

Undisputed by Baker, the Judge holds that the Plaintiff with the
largest financial interest is Lawson: he owns 28,325 shares, Baker
owns 12,014 shares, and Gunderson owns 1,905 shares of Klondex
stock.  He also finds that Lawson fits the requirements of
typicality and adequacy.  Finally, the Jude is not persuaded that
Lawson will not adequately protect the interests of the class or is
subject to a unique defense.  Accordingly, he will grant Lawson's
motion and appoint him the lead Plaintiff.

Lawson seeks to appoint LK as the lead counsel and Aldrich Law as
the liaison counsel.  The Judge finds no reason that Lawson's
choice of LK as class counsel and Aldrich Law as liaison counsel
will not fairly and adequately represent the interests of the
class, and therefore will approve both as motioned.

Based on thet foregoing, Judge Hicks granted Plaintiff Lawson's
motion to consolidate, be appointed the lead Plaintiff, and appoint
the lead and the liaison counsel.  He instructed the clerk of the
Court to consolidate the matter with Gunderson v. Klondex Mine LTD.
et al, case number 3:18-cv-00256-LRH-CBC, and Baker v. Klondex
Mines LTD., et al., case number 3:18-cv-00288-LRH-CBC.

All parties will file any actions pertaining to the class action in
Lawson, No: 3:18-cv-00284.  Lawson is to properly serve notice on
all defendants within 60 days of the Order.  

The Judge denied Baker's motion to consolidate, be appointed the
lead Plaintiff, and appoint the lead and the liaison counsel.

The court's additional holdings are described below:

In Gunderson and Baker, the Judge granted Plaintiff Lawson's
motion, and denied Baker's motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/vKcA5r from Leagle.com.

David Gunderson, individually and obo similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Marc L. Ackerman --
mackerman@brodsky-smith.com -- Brodsky & Smith, LLC, pro hac vice,
Evan Smith -- esmith@brodsky-smith.com -- Brodsk & Smith. LLC, pro
hac vice & John P. Aldrich -- jaldrich@aldrichlawfirm.com --
Aldrich Law Firm, Ltd.

John D. Lawson, Movant, represented by John P. Aldrich, Aldrich Law
Firm, Ltd.

Nelson Baker, Movant, represented by Martin Muckleroy & Michael J.
Palestina -- michael.palestina@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick & Foti,
LLC.


L'OREAL USA: Bid to Certify Class in Carter Suit Filed
------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled ANGELA CARTER, ELLA VALRIE,
and DORA BLACKMON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. L'OREAL USA, INC., and SOFT SHEEN-CARSON,
LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00508-TFM-B (S.D. Ala.), move for
certification of a class defined as:

     All resident citizens of the United States and its
     territories, except those of the State of New York, who
     purchased Soft Sheen-Carson Optimum Salon Haircare(R) brand
     Amla Legend "No-Mix, No-Lye" Rejuvenating Ritual Hair
     Relaxer for personal, family, or household use from
     December 1, 2012, to the present day.

     Excluded from the class are (i) any person who purchased
     Soft Sheen-Carson Optimum Salon Haircare(R) brand Amla
     Legend "No-Mix, No-Lye" Rejuvenating Ritual Hair Relaxer for
     resale and not personal, family, or household use, (ii) any
     person who signed a release of any Defendant in exchange for
     consideration, (iii) any officers, directors, or employees,
     or immediate family members of the officers, directors, or
     employees of any Defendant or any entity in which any
     Defendant has a controlling interest, (iv) any legal counsel
     of employee of legal counsel for any Defendant, and (v) the
     presiding Judges in this legal action, as well as the
     Judges' staff and their immediate family members.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
breached their legal duties by misbranding their Optimum Salon
Haircare(R) brand Amla Legend "No-Mix, No-Lye" Rejuvenating Ritual
Hair Relaxer (hereinafter "Amla Relaxer" or "the Product"):
misrepresenting the Product (1) contains "No-Lye" when its
packaging reflects Sodium Hydroxide (i.e., Lye) as a listed
ingredient, and (2) can "undo 2 years of [hair] damage in just 2
weeks", "rejuvenate" damaged hair and/or "reverse [hair] damage"
when it cannot and does not bestow such extraordinary benefits to
the foreseeable user.  The Product at issue is a cosmetic hair
relaxer intended to be used in one, single application to improve
an individual's appearance by altering their hair shape from curly
to straight.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
          William L. Bross, Esq.
          Brandy Lee Robertson, Esq.
          Honza J. Prchal, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          2224 First Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 326-3336
          Facsimile: (205) 380-8072
          E-mail: wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com
                  william@ghdlawfirm.com
                  brandy@hgdlawfirm.com
                  honza@hgdlawfirm.com

               - and -

          K. Stephen Jackson, Esq.
          Joseph L. "Josh" Tucker, Esq.
          JACKSON & TUCKER, P.C.
          2229 First Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 252-3535
          Facsimile: (205) 252-3536
          E-mail: steve@jacksonandtucker.com
                  josh@jacksonandtucker.com


LA FOX: Martinez Supports Claim for Damages in FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CLAUDIA MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LA FOX BP, INC and WAQAR QURESHI
individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-299 (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiff submitted with Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, in support of her claim for damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Martinez submits that she has executed a declaration detailing the
amount of wages owing and due to her.  She is owed $4,644 in unpaid
overtime wages by the Defendants.  The wages are owed to her since
April of 2017.

The Plaintiff also attaches to this filing a spread sheet which
totals the amounts of unpaid wages, liquidated damages in an amount
equal to the unpaid wages, and 2% interest per month for the time
the wages have gone unpaid.  The total damages which she seek the
Court to award her is $11,474 jointly and severally by the
Defendants.

Additionally, the Plaintiffs request that the Court enters an award
of attorneys' fees of $6162.5 which equals 14.5 hours of attorney
time spent by her counsel at a rate of $425/hour.  She attaches to
this motion as Exhibit C a declaration and supporting exhibits to
which go to the determination of the Counsel's hourly rate.

Finally, the Plaintiffs request that the Court issues an order
finding the Defendants liable for a total of $17.636.5 representing
$11,474 damages, penalties and interest to the Plaintiff and
$6162.5 in attorneys' fees.

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

Claudia Martinez, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jorge Sanchez --
jsanchez@lopezsanchezlaw.com -- Lopez & Sanchez, LLP.


LE BERNARDIN: Ramos Seeks Minimum Wage
--------------------------------------
PEDRO RAMOS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff(s), vs. LE BERNARDIN, INC., the Defendant(s),
Case No. 525195/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 14, 2018), seeks to
recover minimum wage under New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Mr. Pedro Ramos worked for Defendants
as a busser from 2011 through February 2015. The Defendant paid
Plaintiff the tip credit minimum wage, which was less than the New
York minimum wage. The Defendant was not entitled to pay Plaintiff
pursuant to a tip credit because they did not give him proper
notice of the minimum wage and tip credit each time the minimum
wage changed. The Plaintiff occasionally worked more than 40 hours
per week, as is reflected on his paystubs for the period covered by
this lawsuit. Because Defendant incorrectly used the tip credit to
determine the Plaintiffs regular rate, Plaintiffs overtime rate was
also incorrect, the lawsuit says.

Le Bernardin, Inc. was founded in 1986. The company's line of
business includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for
on-premise consumption.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and putative Class Members:

          Denise A. Schulman, Esq.
          Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
          32 Broadway, Suite 601
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 688-5640

LEMONLEAF THAI: Underpays Deliverymen, Gu Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
GUOPING GU, individually and on his own behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEMONLEAF THAI RESTAURANT MINEOLA
CORPORATION d/b/a LEMON LEAF THAI RESTAURANT; JIN HUI HE; and HENG
LIN Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06614 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2018)
seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Gu was employed by the Defendants as deliveryman.

Lemonleaf Thai Restaurant Mineola Corporation d/b/a Lemon Leaf Thai
Restaurant owns and operates a Thai restaurant. The company also
offers outside catering services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Court Dismisses R. Yates' Class Allegations
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas,
San Antonio Division, issued a Report and Recommendation granting
Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in the case
captioned RICHARD YATES, DANIEL YATES, Plaintiffs, v. LIBERTY
MUTUAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. No. SA-18-CV-01120-FB.
(W.D. Tex.).

The Defendant asks the Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs' class
allegations as insufficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23.

The Plaintiffs' Petition alleges that they were in an automobile
accident with an underinsured motorist, Chase Gallagher, and as a
result suffered serious and permanent injuries. The Plaintiffs
claim Gallagher was 100% at fault and yet their recovery from Mr.
Gallagher was insufficient to compensate them for their injuries.
The Plaintiffs sue the Defendant for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and
for violations of the Texas Insurance Code and Texas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act.

A court may dismiss class allegations where it is facially apparent
from the pleadings that there is no ascertainable class. Rule 23
requires four elements for class certification: (1) the class is so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable (2) there are
questions of law or fact common to the class (3) the claims or
defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or
defenses of the class and (4) the representative parties will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs fail to allege any of these
elements and do not sufficiently define the proposed class of
insured individuals. The extent of the Plaintiffs' class
allegations are that the Defendant violated unspecified provisions
of the Texas Insurance Code by misrepresenting the provisions of an
insurance policy. The Plaintiffs do not identify the proposed class
aside from stating that the Defendant may be liable to other
members of the buying public for these violations. The Plaintiffs'
summary allegations are inadequate to sustain a class action under
Rule 23 as the pleadings contain no ascertainable class. Nor have
the Plaintiffs attempted to clarify their allegations through the
filing of a response to the Defendant's motion. Accordingly, the
Court should grant the Defendant's motion for partial judgment on
the pleadings.

Having considered the Plaintiffs' Original Petition in light of the
arguments in the Defendant's motion, as well as the lack of any
response by the Plaintiff, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the
Defendant's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings be
granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 3, 2018 Report
and Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7u8whja
from Leagle.com.

Richard Yates & Daniel Yates, Plaintiffs, represented by Sean M.
Luchnick, Luchnick Law Firm.

Liberty Mutual General Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Carrie D. Holloway, Lindow Stephens Treat LLP & David R. Stephens,
Lindow Stephens Treat, LLP.


LINE LLC: Website not Accessible to Blind, Dennis Says
------------------------------------------------------
DERRICK U DENNIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE LINE LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-07151 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2018), seeks to put an end to
systemic civil rights violations committed by Defendant against
sight-impaired, disabled individuals pursuant to Title III of the
Americans with Disability Act, within the State of New York and
across the United States.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impaired
and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to
access and read website content using his computer. The Plaintiff
uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all
individuals with visual impairments who meet the legal definition
of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of
less than or equal to 20/200. Some blind individuals who meet this
definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a
2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million
individuals in the United States are visually impaired, including
2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation
for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually
impaired persons live in the State of New York. The Plaintiff
commences this civil rights action against the 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 (ADA). 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, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

LMB MORTGAGE: Cunningham Sues Over TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
John Cunningham, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LMB Mortgage Services, Inc. d/b/a
LowerMyBills.com, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-25323-DPG (S.D. Fla.,
December 19, 2018) seeks damages and other equitable and legal
remedies resulting from the unlawful conduct of LowerMyBills.com in
sending telemarketing messages to the cellular telephones of
Plaintiff and Class members without their prior express written
consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

On November 28, 2018, Plaintiff received a text message from
LowerMyBills.com encouraging Plaintiff to refinance his mortgage
with LowerMyBills.com. Plaintiff has never been a customer of
LowerMyBills.com and never consented to receive telemarketing text
messages from LowerMyBills.com. Plaintiff brings this class action
on behalf of himself and others who received Defendant's
telemarketing text messages without consenting to receive such
messages.

LowerMyBills.com is aware of the TCPA's prohibitions against the
use of automatic dialing systems and the use of artificial or
prerecorded voices to make calls to cellular phones without the
prior express consent of the called party. Yet, it intentionally or
willfully caused autodialed, telemarketing messages to be sent to
the cellular phones of Plaintiff and other consumers without their
prior express written consent, says the complaint.

Plaintiff John Cunningham resides in Miami Springs, Florida.

LMB Mortgage Services, Inc. is a Delaware corporation. The
LowerMyBills.com website identifies LMB Mortgage Services, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, as its owner. LMB Mortgage Services, Inc.'s
principal place of business is located at 12181 Bluff Creek Drive,
Suite 250, Playa Vista, California, 90094. The NMLS Consumer Access
website (to which consumers are directed by the LowerMyBills.com
website) includes "LowerMyBills" and "LowerMyBills.com" as "Other
Trade Names" for LMB Mortgage Services, Inc., and designates the
website for LMB Mortgage Services, Inc. as
"www.lowermybills.com".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
     Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
     Adam A. Schwartzb, Esq.aum, Esq.
     THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
     2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: (305) 740-1423
     Email: adam@moskowitz-law.com
            howard@moskowitz-law.com
            adams@moskowitz-law.com

          - and -

     Allan A. Joseph, Esq.
     Jeffrey J. Molinaro, Esq.
     Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph
     SunTrust International Tower
     One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 1800
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: (305) 350-5690
     Email: jmolinaro@fidjlaw.com
            ajoseph@fidjlaw.com

          - and -

     Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
     Simon S. Grille, Esq.
     GIRARD GIBBS LLP
     601 California Street, 14th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94108
     Phone: (415) 981-4800
     Email: dcg@girardgibbs.com
            sg@girardgibbs.com


LUMILEDS LLC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Chaudri's NJCFA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss plaintiff
Imran Chaudhri's complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), 12(b)(6), and 12(f) in the putative
class action styled IMRAN CHAUDHRI, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LUMILEDS LLC, Defendant.
Civ. No. 18-2167 (KM) (CLW). (D.N.J.).

Chaudhri has brought various claims sounding in fraud pertaining to
certain advertising of an automotive headlamp bulb that is
manufactured by Lumileds. The plaintiff, when he read the packaging
for defendant's X-TremeVision headlamp bulb, hoped it would satisfy
his Goethesque quest for more light.

The question here is whether the bulb's packaging represented that
the X-tremeVision headlamp bulb would project its beams (a) more
brightly in all directions, as measured by a laboratory luminous
flux test; or (b) farther, e.g., as measured from the front of a
car when the bulb is installed in the headlight lens/reflector
assembly.

Lumileds moves to dismiss Chaudhri's complaint on several grounds.
First, Lumileds moves to dismiss the fraud claims for failure to
state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and
for failure to plead fraud with specificity under Rule 9(b).  

Lumileds further claims that Chaudhri has insufficiently pled
reliance, a causal link between the misrepresentation and a
purported loss, and damages. As to the claims of negligent
misrepresentation and common law fraud, Lumileds asserts that the
complaint fails to plead Lumileds's knowledge of falsity.

Lumileds also moves to dismiss Chaudhri's complaint under Rule
12(b)(1), claiming that Chaudhri lacks standing to sue. Chaudhri,
says Lumileds, is a serial litigant whose claimed injuries are
self-inflicted, solely for the purpose of litigation.

Lumileds moves to dismiss Chaudhri's New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
(NJCFA) claim on the basis that he has insufficiently pled (1)
unlawful conduct on the part of defendants (2) a causal connection
between Lumileds's unlawful conduct and an ascertainable loss and
(3) damages.

To state a claim under the NJCFA, a plaintiff must allege the
following three elements: (1) unlawful conduct by the defendants
(2) an ascertainable loss on the part of the plaintiff and (3) a
causal relationship between the defendants' unlawful conduct and
the plaintiff's ascertainable loss.

Lumileds focuses on the representation in the middle of the package
card. It consists of an image of a car with its beams shining to
the right, well past a vertical line marked standard, leading the
eye to the message +100%. The message conveyed, says Lumileds, is
that its X-tremeVision bulbs, when installed, project light farther
down the road when compared to standard bulbs. In contrast,
Chaudhri focuses on the written, unillustrated representation of
+100% more light at the top of the package card.

The Court finds that Chaudhri has sufficiently pled a claim under
the NJCFA. He alleges that the +100% more light claim on the
package is a form of unlawful conduct specifically, an affirmative
act of misrepresentation. Lumileds knew the representation was
false, he says, the bulbs had to conform with federal regulations,
which would not have permitted them to be twice as bright. Luminous
flux measurement, like that conducted by Calcoast, would have
revealed that the number of Lumens produced by the bulbs is not
100% more than that of standard bulbs. The representation allegedly
was intended to, and did, induce consumers to buy. Chaudhri paid
approximately $59.99 for two Phillips X-tremeVision headlamp bulbs,
as opposed to $10.99 for a single standard bulb. He alleges that he
bought the more expensive X-tremeVision product based on the
representation that it would produce 100% more light.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 3, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaafppeo from Leagle.com.

IMRAN CHAUDHRI, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by BARRY R. EICHEN, Eichen
Crutchlow Zaslow & McElroy, LLP, EVAN J. ROSENBERG, EICHEN
CRUTCHLOW ZASLOW, LLC, THOMAS PACIORKOWSKI & JONATHAN DAVID SINGER,
Eichen Crutchlow Zaslow, LLP.

LUMILEDS, LLC., Defendant, represented by JEFFREY J. GREENBAUM --
jgreenbaum@sillscummis.com -- SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS P.C. & PATRICK
CHRISTOPHER GILMARTIN -- pgilmartin@sillscummis.com -- SILLS CUMMIS
& GROSS P.C.


LYONS DOUGHTY: NJ Court Dismisses G. Gross's FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion granting Defendant Lyons, Doughty & Veldhuis,
P.C.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Glenn D. Gross's putative class
action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) in the case captioned GLENN D. GROSS, Plaintiff, v. LYONS,
DOUGHTY & VELDHUIS, P.C., Defendant. Civil No. 18-07963 (RBK/AMD).
(D.N.J.).

The Defendant sent Plaintiff a written communication (Defendant's
letter) in connection with the collection of the alleged credit
card debt. The Defendant's letter was the first communication the
Plaintiff received from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff did not
receive any other communication from the Defendant within five days
of this letter. The Plaintiff argues that Defendant's letter
violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The
Plaintiff specifically charges that the letter violated the
validated notices requirement under Section 1692g(a)(2) for failing
to specify the name of the creditor to whom the Plaintiff's debt
was owed.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff has read Section
1692g(a)(2) too narrowly and that the letter contains the requisite
information pursuant to the FDCPA.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a court to dismiss
an action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. When evaluating a motion to dismiss, courts accept all
factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any
reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled
to relief.

To prevail on an FDCPA claim, a plaintiff must prove that (1) the
plaintiff is a consumer (2) the defendant is a debt collector (3)
the challenged conduct involves the defendant's attempt to collect
a debt as statutorily defined and (4) the defendant has violated a
provision of the FDCPA in attempting to collect the debt.  

Section 1692g(a)(2) describes the written notice requirement.
Specifically, within five days after the initial communication with
a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt
collector shall send the consumer a written notice containing the
name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed. The statute also
requires debt collectors to furnish a statement that, upon the
consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt
collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of
the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.

The Plaintiff argues that the letter does not effectively convey
the name of the creditor because the Defendant included the chain
of title of the debt rather than providing the name of the current
creditor alone. The thrust of the Plaintiff's argument focuses on
the letter's use of the word assignee and mention of more than two
entities.

Here, the Defendant's letter is sufficiently clear and complies
with 1692g(a)(2). First, the letter states at the beginning, Please
be advised that this office represents Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.
The letter also says, "THIS FIRM LYONS, DOUGHTY AND VELDHUIS, P.C.
IS A DEBT COLLECTOR. THIS LETTER IS AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT."

The Defendant's letter specifies the relationship between the
Defendant, the debt collector, and Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. as
assignee of the debt, the Defendant's client. The Plaintiff here
was therefore not left to guess who owned the debt because
Defendant's letter clearly indicated that Defendant was the debt
collector, whose office represents Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.  

In addition, the letter here specifies the name of the creditor in
both the subject line and the body of the letter and distinguishes
the creditor's name from the chain of title of the debt by
differentiating the capitalization. While this specification is not
itself dispositive, such clear declarations support a finding that
the content is fair notice, readable, and obviously relating to an
outstanding debt owed to the creditor  and whose recovery is sought
by a debt collector. Put simply, the letter complies with
1692g(a)(2) in that it provides the consumer a written notice
clearly indicating "the name of the creditor to whom the debt is
owed.

A sister court in our circuit reached a similar conclusion when
considering a seemingly identical letter to the one before the
Court. In Davis v. Lyons, Doughty & Veldhuis, P.A., the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware found that the
defendants the same Defendants in the instant case sufficiently
identified the current creditor. 855 F.Supp.2d 279, 284 (D. Del.
2012).

That letter, virtually indistinguishable from the one here,
included the creditor's name in the subject line and began the
letter with Please be advised that this office represents Midland
Funding LLC in connection with your account. The Davis court,
noting how the subject line highlighted the relationship of the
parties, specifically found that this language was not deceptive.
The Court noted further that hold differently would improperly make
all defendants liable for bizarre or idiosyncratic interpretations
of collection notices.

Because the Defendant's debt collection letter clearly identifies
the current creditor, and the Plaintiff does not allege that
Defendant's letter violates any other provision of the FDCPA, the
Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 3, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycuzskzt from Leagle.com.

GLENN D. GROSS, Plaintiff, represented by SETH ASHER NADLER --
seth@lawicm.com -- IMBESI LAW P.C.

LYONS, DOUGHTY & VELDHUIS, P.C., Defendant, represented by LAURIE
H. LYONS, LYONS, DOUGHTY & VELDHUIS, P.C.


MACADO'S INC: Spencer Asks to Certify Servers & Bartenders Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled Jeffery Spencer, Jr., Travis
E. Hostetter, and Cheyenne Williams, Individually, and on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated current and former
employees v. Macado's, Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00005-NKM-RSB (W.D.
Va.), move the Court to issue an order:

   (1) authorizing this case to proceed as a collective action
       against the Defendant to recover unpaid wages, unpaid
       minimum wage compensation, liquidated damages, unlawfully
       withheld wages, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and
       costs, and other damages owed, for minimum wage violations
       under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of
       Hourly-Paid Tipped Employees (servers and bartenders) of
       Defendant during the last three years;

   (2) directing the Defendant to immediately provide a list of
       names, last known addresses, and last known telephone
       numbers for all putative class members within the last
       three years;

   (3) providing that notice be prominently posted at each of
       the Defendant's restaurants in the Eastern United States
       where putative class members work, be attached to its
       current Hourly-Paid Tipped Employees' next scheduled pay
       check, and be mailed and emailed to each such current and
       former Hourly-Paid Tipped Employee who was so employed
       during the last three years so each can assess their
       claims on a timely basis as part of this litigation;

   (4) issue an order tolling the statute of limitations for the
       putative class as of the date this motion is granted
       (excluding those already have opted into this action); and

   (5) requiring that the opt in Plaintiffs' Consent Forms be
       deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are 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 -

          Johneal Moore White, Esq.
          GLENN ROBINSON CATHEY MEMMER & SKAFF, PLC
          400 Salem Avenue, S.W., Suite 100
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Telephone: (540) 767-2206
          Facsimile: (540) 767-2220
          E-mail: jwhite@glennrob.com


MAGNOLIA FLOORING: Ross et al Seek Overtime Pay under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT ROSS, JUSTIN JACKSON and DEVANTE FRANKLIN, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the PLAINTIFFS, vs.
MAGNOLIA FLOORING MILL, LLC, the DEFENDANT, Case No.
1:18-cv-01075-SOH (W.D. Ark., Dec. 14, 2018), seeks declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of
Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiffs and all others similarly
situated overtime compensation for all hours that Plaintiffs and
all others similarly situated worked in excess of 40 per workweek,
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage
Act.

According to the complaint, each Plaintiff worked more than 40
hours in at least one week in which they also earned a bonus, and
their bonuses were not included in the calculation of their
overtime pay rate. Other hourly-paid employees also worked more
than 40 hours in at least one week during the time period relevant
to this Complaint in which they also earned a bonus, and their
bonuses were not included in the calculation of their overtime pay
rate. The Defendant violated the FLSA and AMWA by not including
Plaintiffs' bonuses in their regular rates when calculating their
overtime pay, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiffs were originally opt-in plaintiffs in Franklin v.
Magnolia Flooring Mill, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-1073 (W.D. Ark.) under
Section 216(b), which requires the consent of the opt-in to
prosecute. Plaintiffs have withdrawn their consents in that case,
as they were only FLSA opt-ins, which meant that they did not have
the benefit of the AMWA's automatic three year statute of
limitations. The Plaintiffs have filed this case, seeking to
preserve their automatic three year statute of limitations, in
addition to a three year statute for the members of the Rule 23
class.

Defendant conducts business within the State of Arkansas, operating
and/or managing a flooring manufacturing and installation
company.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces Rapak Suit Over Data Breach at Starwood
-------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS J. RAPAK, individually and on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC.,
and STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-02005
(D. Conn., December 7, 2018), is brought on behalf of a class of
persons, who have suffered, and continue to suffer, financial
losses and increased data security risks as a direct result of the
Defendants' alleged failure to safeguard and protect their
customers' highly sensitive personally identifiable information,
including names, mailing addresses, phone numbers, e-mail
addresses, passport numbers, and Starwood Preferred Guest ("SPG")
account information.

On November 30, 2018, Marriott issued a press release announcing
that since 2014 unauthorized third parties had access to Marriott's
Starwood Guest Reservation database ("SGR Database"), and that up
to 500 million guests could be affected by the breach.

Marriott International Inc. is a publicly traded Delaware
corporation having its principal executive offices located at in
Bethesda, Maryland.  Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC, is
an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of MII.

Marriott owns and manages hotel properties located in various
states throughout the United States.  Marriott has more than 6,700
properties in 127 countries and territories, under 30 hotel brands,
including 3,150 lodging properties located in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          Christian Levis, Esq.
          Johnathan P. Seredynski, Esq.
          Anthony M. Christina, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601-2310
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
                  clevis@lowey.com
                  jseredynski@lowey.com
                  achristina@lowey.com


MARRIOTT INT'L: Golin Files Tort Class Suit in Connecticut
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marriott
International, Inc. The case is styled as Barry Golin and Laura
Gononian, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Marriott International, Inc. and Starwood Hotels &
Resorts Worldwide LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02080-AVC (D.
Conn., December 19, 2018).

The docket of the case states the cause of action as Tort Action.

Marriott International, Inc. operates, franchises, and licenses
hotel, residential, and timeshare properties worldwide. The company
operates through three segments: North American Full-Service, North
American Limited-Service, and Asia Pacific.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   David R. Schaefer, Esq.
   Brenner, Saltzman & Wallman
   271 Whitney Ave.
   New Haven, CT 06511-1746
   Tel: (203) 772-2600
   Fax: (203) 562-2098
   Email: dschaefer@bswlaw.com

      - and -

   Sean M. Fisher, Esq.
   Brenner, Saltzman & Wallman
   271 Whitney Avenue
   New Haven, CT 06511-1746
   Tel: (203) 772-2600
   Fax: (203) 562-2098
   Email: sfisher@bswlaw.com


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: DeMarco Sues Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
Sean DeMarco and David Johnson III, on Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Marriott International,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-10490 (C.D. Cal., December 18,
2018) seek for themselves and the Class, injunctive relief, actual
and other economic damages, consequential damages, nominal damages
or statutory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses and costs of suit.

On November 30, 2018, Marriott announced one of the largest data
breaches in history. The Marriott data breach, which was not
announced until at least four years after it first began, involves
some of the most sensitive and private information from
approximately 500 million consumers whose information was on
Marriott's Starwood guest reservation database.

As the result of Marriott's inadequate cybersecurity, the Data
Breach occurred and Plaintiffs' and the other Class members'
personal information was compromised and stolen, placing them at an
increased risk of fraud and identity theft, and causing direct
financial expenses associated with credit monitoring, replacement
of passports, compromised credit, debit and bank card numbers, and
other measures needed to protect against fraud arising from the
Data Breach, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Sean DeMarco resides in Torrance, California. Mr. DeMarco
provided Marriott with his confidential and highly sensitive
personal and private information in connection with making
reservations at Marriott's Starwood hotels.

Plaintiff David Johnson III resides in Port Richey, Florida.  Mr.
Johnson provided Marriott with his confidential and highly
sensitive personal and private information in connection with
making reservations at Marriott's Starwood hotels.

Marriott, International, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with its
headquarters and principal place of business located at 10400
Fernwood Road, Bethesda, Maryland 20817.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Leslie E. Hurst, Esq.
     Paula R. Brown, Esq.
     BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
     501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: 619/338-1100
     Fax: 619/338-1101
     Email: lhurst@bholaw.com
            pbrown@bholaw.com

          - and -

     Matthew Taylor Ernst, Esq.
     ERNST LAW GROUP
     1020 Palm Street
     San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
     Phone: 805/541-0300
     Fax: 805/541-5168
     Email: TE@ErnstLawGroup.com


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Erlbaum Sues Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Erlbaum, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Marriott International, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-03764 (D. Md., December 6, 2018), seeks
actual, statutory, punitive, exemplary and/or multiple damages,
disgorgement, restitution, preliminary or other equitable or
declaratory relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses and such other and
favorable relief resulting from negligence and for violation of
Maryland's Consumer Protection Act.

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

Marriott operates Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide. Erlbaum is
a Marriott customer who used the Starwood reservation system. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 973-0900
      Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
      Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

             - and -

      Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
      Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq.
      Julie B. Palley, Esq.
      BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
      One America Plaza
      600 West Broadway, Suite 900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 230-0800
      Fax: (619) 230-1874
      Email: jgolan@barrack.com
             sbasser@barrack.com
             jpalley@barrack.com


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Grady, Kleiman Sue Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Grady and Mark Kleiman, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Marriott International,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-07358 (N.D. Cal., December 6,
2018), seeks actual, statutory, punitive, exemplary and/or multiple
damages, disgorgement, restitution, preliminary or other equitable
or declaratory relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses and such other and
favorable relief resulting from negligence and violation of
Maryland's Consumer Protection Act.

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

Marriott operates Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide. Grady and
Kleiman are Marriott customers who used the Starwood reservation
system. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric A. Grover, Esq.
      Alexander S. Vahdat, Esq.
      KELLER GROVER LLP
      1965 Market Street
      San Francisco, CA 94103
      Telephone: (415) 543-1305
      Facsimile: (415) 543-7861
      Email: eagrover@kellergrover.com
             avahdat@kellergrover.com


MENARD INC: FLSA Class of Workers Certified in Astarita Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Roseann A. Ketchmark issued an order in the lawsuit titled
ALBERT J. ASTARITA, DIANA M. OWENS v. MENARD, INC., Case No.
5:17-cv-06151-RK (W.D. Mo.), conditionally certifying this class
under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act:

     All present and former hourly employees who worked or are
     working at Menard's retail home improvement stores and/or
     distribution centers throughout the United States at any
     time from December 21, 2014 to the present, and participated
     in the In-Home Training Program without compensation, who
     worked 40 or more hours per workweek including any time
     spent in in-home training, and whose employment agreement
     does not contain a class or collective action waiver.

Judge Ketchmark appointed Diana M. Owens as class representative
and McClelland Law Firm, P.C., as class counsel.  Judge Ketchmark
also ruled that:

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

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

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


MIAMI PERFECT TRAVEL: De Armas Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reinaldo De Aarmas, and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v.
Miami Perfect Travel, Corp., a Florida Corporation, and Roberto
Vasquez, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-25341-MGC (S.D.
Fla., December 19, 2018) is an action seeking to recover monetary
damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees
for willful violations of overtime wages under the laws of the
United States, and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed from on or about June 3, 2014 through April
30, 2018. Plaintiff worked approximately 88 hours per week.
Plaintiff was not paid overtime wages when he worked more than 40
hours per week. Accordingly, Plaintiff claims the halftime rate for
each hour worked over 40 hours weekly.

The complaint says the Defendants knew and/or showed reckless
disregard of the provisions of the FLSA concerning the payment of
overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants were aware of Plaintiff's work schedule and further
aware that Plaintiff was working more than 40 hours per week.
Defendants were aware of Plaintiff's pay records and the rate that
he was being paid for his hours. Defendants were aware of their
obligation to pay overtime and/or failed to conduct a reasonable
investigation as to whether they were obligated to pay overtime
wages. Despite the obligation to pay overtime and that Plaintiff
was working overtime, Defendants continued to fail to pay overtime
wages, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Miami
Perfect Travel is a Florida corporation which regularly conducted
business within the Southern District of Florida as a company that
provided local transportation services. Individual Defendant,
Roberto Vasquez, is the "employer".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Isaac Mamane, Esq.
     Mamane Law LLC
     10800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 350A
     Miami, FL 33161
     Phone (305) 773 - 6661
     Email: mamane@gmail.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in Adkins Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled STEPHANIE ADKINS and, DOUGLAS
SHORT, on behalf of themselves And all others similarly situated v.
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 5:17-cv-04107 (S.D.W.
Va.), ask the Court to certify this class of similarly situated
persons:

     All persons with West Virginia addresses to whom Midland
     sent a debt collection letter on or after July 4, 2017
     seeking to collect debt that Midland's records indicated had
     passed its statute of limitations, which letter failed to
     provide the following disclosure: "The law limits how long
     you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt,
     [Midland] cannot sue you for it."[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patricia M. Kipnis, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          923 Haddonfield Road, Suite 300
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Telephone: (856) 324-8219
          E-mail: pkipnis@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          E-mail: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Steven R. Broadwater, Jr., Esq.
          HAMILTON, BURGESS, YOUNG & POLLARD, P.L.L.C.
          P.O. Box 959
          Fayetteville, WV 25840
          Telephone: (304) 574-2727
          E-mail: sbroadwater@hamiltonburgess.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jason E. Manning, Esq.
          Megan E. Burns, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 2000
          Virginia Beach, VA 23462
          Telephone: (757) 687-7500
          E-mail: jason.manning@troutman.com
                  megan.burns@troutman.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: Dotson Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
LUIS DOTSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC; MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-16253-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., Nov. 16, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The
case is assigned to Chief Judge Jose L. Linares and referred to
Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson.

Midland Funding LLC provides debt collection services. The company
was incorporated in 2005 and is based in San Diego, California.
Midland Funding LLC operates as a subsidiary of Midland Portfolio
Services, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave Ste 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


MONINI NORTH: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Jessani Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, issued an Order
affirming the judgment of the District Court granting Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss the case captioned VINAY JESSANI and WENDY
BURNETT, individually, and on behalf of all others similarity
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MONINI NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee. No. 17-2504-cv. (2nd Cir.).

The Plaintiffs in this putative class action, Vinay Jessani and
Wendy Burnett, appeal from a judgment entered in favor of defendant
Monini North America, Inc. (Monini).  

The Plaintiffs argue that whether a reasonable consumer is likely
to be misled by a labeling claim is almost always an issue of fact
that is inappropriate for decision on a motion to dismiss.  But it
is well settled that a court may determine as a matter of law that
an allegedly deceptive advertisement would not have misled a
reasonable consumer. Accordingly, the plaintiffs must do more than
plausibly allege that a label might conceivably be misunderstood by
some few consumers.

According to the plaintiffs, truffles are the most expensive food
in the world. Unlike artificial truffle flavorin which the
plaintiffs describe as a distant cry from real truffles actual
truffles cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars per ounce.

In this context, representations that otherwise might be ambiguous
and misleading are not: it is simply not plausible that a
significant portion of the general consuming public acting
reasonably would conclude that Monini's mass produced,
modestly-priced olive oil was made with the most expensive food in
the world. This is particularly so given that the product's
ingredient list contains no reference to the word truffle and the
primary label describes the product only as being Truffle Flavored.
Accordingly, the plaintiffs' state law consumer protection claims
fail.

Thus, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's December 3, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybwtj8m2 from Leagle.com.

JOSHUA D. ARISOHN -- jarisohn@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A.,
New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

JEFFREY WARSHAFSKY -- jwarshafsky@proskauer.com -- Lawrence I.
Weinstein -- lweistein@proskauer.com -- on the brief), Proskauer
Rose LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.


MULLOOLY & JEFFREY: Final Certification of Settlement Class Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NILGUN GADIME, an
individual; on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. LAW OFFICE MULLOOLY, JEFFREY, ROONEY & FLYNN,
LLP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00777-JMA-AKT (E.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court on January 3, 2019, for an Order:

   1. granting final approval of settlement on the terms and
      conditions set forth in the parties' settlement agreement
      and the Court's Order granting preliminary approval;

   2. finally certifying a class, for settlement purposes only:

      "all persons with addresses in the State of New York, to
      whom The Law Office Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn, LLP
      mailed a written communication between February 10, 2016,
      and March 2, 2017, which sought to collect a medical debt
      from the parent of an adult child";

   3. releasing MJRF from all claims and dismissing with prejudice

      all claims of Class Members who did not timely exclude
      themselves from the Settlement;

   4. approving payments to Plaintiff, Class Members, and Class
      Counsel;

   5. retaining continuing jurisdictionover the settlement
      proceedings, to ensure the effectuation thereof in accor
      dance with the agreement and final approval order; and

   6. granting related orders and findings as are set forth in
      the Proposed Final Approval Order, to be submitted by the
      Parties.[CC]

Attorney for Plaintiff, Nilgun Gadime, and the certified class:

          Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
          K LEINMAN LLC
          626 RXR Plaza
          Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
          Telephone: (516) 522-2621
          Facsimile: (888) 522-1692
          E-Mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com

MUTUAL HOUSING: Rivera Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA, CMWA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA RIVERA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. MUTUAL HOUSING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWESTERN CONNECTICUT,
INC. d/b/a CONNECTICUT HOUSING PARTNERS and CREATIVE FINANCIAL
STAFFING, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-02006 (D. Conn., December 7,
2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of
the Defendants' willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.

Mutual Housing Association of Southwestern Connecticut, Inc., doing
business as Connecticut Housing Partners, is an entity created and
existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of
Connecticut and maintains a principal place of business in
Bridgeport, Connecticut.

Mutual Housing operates affordable housing for approximately "508
units in 15 developments" in areas, such as Bridgepoint, Fairfield,
Trumbull, Norwalk, Stamford and Wilton in the state of
Connecticut.

Creative Financial Staffing, Inc., is an entity created and
existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Delaware
and maintains a principal place of business in Boston,
Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew C. Sorokin, Esq.
          THE SOROKIN LAW FIRM
          9 Lewis Street
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 776-6017
          E-mail: mat@sorokinlaw.com

               - and -

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


MYLAN NV: Certification of Consumer Classes Sought in EpiPen MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Plaintiffs in the Consumer Class Cases in the
multidistrict litigation entitled In re EPIPEN (EPINEPHRINE
INJECTION, USP) MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2:17-md-02785-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan.), move to
certify five classes:

   1. Nationwide RICO Damages Class:

      All persons and entities in the United States who paid or
      provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase
      price of Branded or AB-rated generic EpiPens for the
      purpose of consumption, and not resale, by themselves,
      their family member(s), insureds, plan participants,
      employees, or beneficiaries, at any time from August 24,
      2011, until the effects of Defendants' unlawful conduct
      cease;

   2. State Antitrust Damages Class:

      All persons and entities in the Antitrust States who paid
      or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase
      price of Branded EpiPens at any time from January 28, 2013,
      until the effects of Defendants' unlawful conduct cease,
      for the purpose of consumption, and not resale, by
      themselves, their family member(s), insureds, plan
      participants, employees, or beneficiaries;

   3. Consumer Protection Damages Class:

      All persons and entities in the Consumer Protection States
      who paid or provided reimbursement for some or all of the
      purchase price of Branded EpiPens at any time from
      August 24, 2011, until the effects of Defendants' unlawful
      conduct cease, for the purpose of consumption, and not
      resale, by themselves, their family member(s), insureds,
      plan participants, employees, or beneficiaries;

   4. Unjust Enrichment Class:

      All persons and entities in the Unjust Enrichment States
      who paid or provided reimbursement for some or all of the
      purchase price of Branded or AB-rated generic EpiPens for
      the purpose of consumption, and not resale, by themselves,
      their family member(s), insureds, plan participants,
      employees, or beneficiaries, at any time from August 24,
      2011, until the effects of Defendants' unlawful conduct
      cease; and

   5. Nationwide Injunctive Relief Class:

      All persons and entities in the United States who paid or
      provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase
      price of Branded or AB-rated generic EpiPens for the
      purpose of consumption, and not resale, by themselves,
      their family member(s), insureds, plan participants,
      employees, or beneficiaries, at any time from August 24,
      2011, until the effects of Defendants' unlawful conduct
      cease.

These groups are excluded from all Classes:

   (a) Defendants and their officers, directors, management,
       employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates;

   (b) Government entities, other than government-funded employee
       benefit plans;

   (c) Fully insured health plans (i.e., plans that purchased
       insurance that covered 100% of the plan's reimbursement
       obligations to all of its members);

   (d) "Single flat co-pay" consumers who purchased EpiPens or
       generic EpiPens only via a fixed dollar co-payment that is
       the same for all covered devices, whether branded or
       generic (e.g., $20 for all branded and generic devices);

   (e) Consumers who purchased or received EpiPens or AB-rated
       generic equivalents through a Medicaid program only;

   (f) All persons or entities who purchased branded or generic
       EpiPens directly from Defendants; and

   (g) The Judges in this case and members of their immediate
       families.

The Class Plaintiffs are Local 282 Welfare Trust Fund, Rosetta
Serrano, Lesley Huston, Kenneth Evans, Christopher Rippy, Nikitia
Marshall, Elizabeth Huelsman, Stacee Svites, Raymond Buchta III,
Lee Seltzer, Linda Wagner, Vishal Aggarwal, Joy Shepard, Lorraine
Wight, Teia Amell, Todd Beaulieu, Anastasia Johnston, Annette
Sutorik, Heather DeStefano, Elizabeth Williamson, Shannon Clements,
Mark Kovarik, Laura Chapin, Michael Gill, Suzanne Harwood, Donna
Wemple, Sonya North, Jennifer Walton, April Sumner, Meredith
Krimmel, Landon Ipson, Kenneth Steinhauser, Donna Anne Dvorak,
Angie Nordstrum, and Carly Bowersock.

The Class Plaintiffs also move the Court for an order appointing
them as class representatives, and appointing as Class Counsel the
attorneys previously appointed by the Court in its Order Appointing
Counsel as Class Counsel, ECF No. 40 (with the respectful exception
of Eric Hochstradt, Counsel for Sanofi).[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
                  sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian O. O'Mara, Esq.
          Arthur L. Shingler, III, Esq.
          Lea Malani Bays, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-8498
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: bomara@rgrdlaw.com
                  ashingler@rgrdlaw.com
                  lbays@rggrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Gretchen S. Obrist, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                  dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
                  gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                  gobrist@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Warren T. Burns, Esq.
          Spencer Cox, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP
          900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (469) 904-4550
          Facsimile: (469) 444-5002
          E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
                  scox@burnscharest.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
          PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
          180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 692-0772
          Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
          E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com

               - and -

          Sharon Almonrode, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM
          950 West University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: ssa@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          W. Mark Lanier, Esq.
          Regan E. Bradford, Esq.
          Cristina Delise, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM
          6810 FM 1960 West
          Houston, TX 77069
          Telephone: (713) 659-5200
          E-mail: wml@lanierlawfirm.com
                  Reagan.Bradford@lanierlawfirm.com
                  cristina.delise@lanierlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Damien J. Marshall, Esq.
          Duane L. Loft, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          575 Lexington Avenue, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-2300
          Facsimile: (212) 446-2350
          E-mail: dmarshall@bsfllp.com
                  dloft@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com

               - and -

          Steven N. Williams, Esq.
          Jiamie Chen, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC
          601 California Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
                  jchen@saverilawfirm.com


NATIONAL RESPONSE: Faces Sullivan Suit in Sacramento
----------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
National Response Corporation. The case is captioned as KEVIN
SULLIVAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL RESPONSE CORPORATION; NRC
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC.; PAUL TAVEIRA; and DOES 1-100,
Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00244757-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.,
Sacramento Cty., Nov. 16, 2018).

National Response Corporation provides environmental, industrial,
and emergency response solutions worldwideNational Response
Corporation was incorporated in 1991 and is based in Great River,
New York with an additional headquarter in Milton Keynes, United
Kingdom. It has operations in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, the Caspian and Black Sea, the Mediterranean and North
Africa, Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Caribbean. National
Response Corporation is a former subsidiary of SEACOR Environmental
Services, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Galen T Shimoda, Esq.


NISSAN MOTOR: Hid Payments to CEO Ghosn, Retirement System Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JACKSON COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CARLOS
GHOSN, GREG KELLY, NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD., HIROTO SAIKAWA, HIROSHI
KARUBE and JOSEPH G. PETER, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01368
(M.D. Tenn., Dec. 10, 2018), is a securities fraud class action on
behalf of all purchasers of Nissan American Depositary Receipts
between December 10, 2013 and November 16, 2018, inclusive. Nissan
is an automobile manufacturer with its U.S. headquarters located in
Smyrna, Tennessee. The Company sells vehicles under the Nissan,
Infiniti and Datsun brands. Nissan sponsors its U.S. ADR program
and issues press releases to investors from its U.S. headquarters
in Tennessee. Unbeknownst to investors, Nissan has been materially
understating its expenses -- and overstating profits -- by
concealing half of the annual executive compensation it was
obligated to pay to its former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
of its Board of Directors, Carlos Ghosn. Over the past decade,
Nissan reported paying defendant Ghosn JPY1 billion per year in
compensation. In truth and in fact, Nissan paid defendant Ghosn an
additional JPY1 billion per year in the form of deferred
compensation I.O.U.s, but failed to disclose these payments in the
Company's publicly filed financial reports. As a result, Nissan
underreported defendant Ghosn's true pay over the last decade by an
estimated JPY10 billion. The Company also concealed from investors
the significant defects in its corporate governance and internal
controls that facilitated this false financial reporting, notably
while affirmatively emphasizing the Company's "strong ethics" and
"high transparency." In so doing, Nissan affirmatively failed to
heed the express direction of its outside auditors dating back to
at least 2013 to accurately report its executive compensation. Not
only did the underreporting deceive Nissan's investors, it violated
the pay cap Nissan shareholders approved, and so Nissan ordinary
shares are now under threat of being delisted.

The scheme to understate defendant Ghosn's executive compensation
was reportedly masterminded by former Nissan Board member defendant
Greg Kelly, a former Tennessee-based Senior Vice President of
Nissan. Defendants expressly undertook to underreport Ghosn's pay
in order to avoid shareholder scrutiny of Ghosn's inordinately high
executive compensation. Even still, shareholders consistently
chafed over just the disclosed portion of Ghosn's exorbitant
executive compensation. Beyond avoiding the scrutiny of Nissan's
shareholders over Ghosn's pay from Nissan, defendants were further
motivated to conceal the full extent of what Ghosn was being paid
by Nissan in order to avoid the scrutiny of the investors in
France-based Renault SA -- which includes the French government.
Ghosn was simultaneously serving as CEO and Chairman of Renault --
which owns 43% of Nissan's equity -- and the French government had
been viewing Ghosn's Nissan and Renault pay collectively in its
attempts to lower his Renault compensation, the lawsuit says.

Nissan Motor, usually shortened to Nissan, is a Japanese
multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Nishi-ku,
Yokohama. The company sells its cars under the Nissan, Infiniti,
and Datsun brands with in-house performance tuning products labeled
Nismo.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
          Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mary K. Blasy, esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: 615 244-2203
          Facsimile: 615 252-3798
          E-mail: jmartin@rgrdlaw.com
                  cwood@rgrdlaw.com
                  darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
          VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C.
          79 Alfred Street
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: 313 578-1200
          Facsimile: 313 578-1201
          E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com

NOBILIS HEALTH: Van 'T Hoofd Sues over Misleading Financial Report
------------------------------------------------------------------
LEO VAN 'T HOOFD, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NOBILIS HEALTH CORP., HARRY
FLEMING, DAVID YOUNG, and KENNETH J. KLEIN, the Defendants, Case
No. 4:18-cv-04727 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 14, 2018), seeks to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Nobilis securities between May 8,
2018 and Novembe 15, 2018, inclusive. Nobilis purports to own and
to manage specialty surgical hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers,
and multispecialty clinics. On August 2, 2018, the Company reported
that its revenue for the second quarter 2018 was reduced due, in
part, to a $2.4 million adjustment to its accounts receivable. On
this news, the Company's share price fell $0.20 per share, more
than 17%, to close at $0.95 per share on August 2, 2018, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

On November 9, 2018, the Company reported that it is "re-evaluating
the Net Realizable Value on its Accounts Receivable and intends to
make a significant adjustment to the carrying value of accounts
receivable, primarily on out of network claims greater than 365
days old." The Company filed for additional time to file its 10-Q
for the period ended September 30, 2018 while the Company and the
auditor completed their review of the financial statements. On this
news, the Company's share price fell $0.18 per share, more than
25%, to close at $0.52 per share on November 12, 2018, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

On November 15, 2018, the Company announced that it had received
notice from the NYSE that it is not in compliance with the NYSE's
continued listing requirements due to its failure to timely file
its 10-Q. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.07 per
share, more than 12%, to close at $0.48 per share on November 16,
2018, on usually heavy trading volume. The Defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose to investors: (1) that the Company's accounts receivable
was overstated; (2) that, as a result, the Company's revenue was
overstated; (3) that, as a result of the required adjustments, the
Company's quarterly report would not be timely filed; (4) that, as
a result, the Company would not be in compliance with NYSE listing
requirements; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says.

Nobilis Health is a full-service healthcare development and
management company, with more than 30 locations across Texas.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847
          Facsimile: (215) 638-4867

OCWEN FINANCIAL: Bid to Quash Subpoena under Advisement
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as DAVID WEINER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OCWEN FINANCIAL
CORPORATION; OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; and ALTISOURCE SOLUTIONS,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05303-TWT-AJB (N.D. Ga., Nov.
16, 2018), Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman conducted a telephone
conference on Dec. 20, 2018, and heard oral argument of counsel for
the parties on Altisource Solutions, Inc.'s motion to quash
subpoena.  The Court requested that the parties submit the
deposition of Jim Weld to the Court for review, and the deposition
will be filed by the Court under seal in this case.  The Motion to
Quash was taken under advisement.

The case is assigned to Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. and referred to
Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman.

Ocwen Financial Corporation, a financial services holding company,
originates and services loans in the United States, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, India, and Philippines. Ocwen Financial Corporation was
founded in 1988 and is headquartered in West Palm Beach, Florida.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James B. Matthews , III, Esq.
          BLASINGAME, BURCH, GARRARD & ASHLEY, P.C.
          440 College Ave., Suite 320
          Athens, GA 30601
          Telephone: (706) 354-4000
          Facsimile: (706) 453-7842
          E-mail: jmatthews@bbga.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark Adam Silver, Esq.
          Nathan Lewis Garroway, Esq.
          DENTONS US, LLP
          303 Peachtree St., N.E., Suite 5300
          Atlanta, GA 30308
          Telephone: (404) 527-4000
          Facsimile: (404) 527-4198
          E-mail: mark.silver@dentons.com
                  nathan.garroway@dentons.com


OHIO MULCH: Wolfe & Bailey Seek Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------
Jordan Wolfe and Shawn Bailey, On behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Ohio Mulch Supply, Inc.,
1600 Universal Rd. Columbus, Ohio 43207, and Jim Weber, II, 1600
Universal Rd., Columbus, Ohio 43207, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-01698-GCS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Dec. 14, 2018), alleges that
Defendants failed to pay employees overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff Wolfe was jointly employed by
Defendants beginning in April 2018 until July 2018.  Plaintiff
Wolfe primarily worked as an hourly, non-exempt delivery driver and
was also responsible for loading the delivery trucks with mulch and
assisting with Defendants' mulch yard operations. Plaintiff worked
out of Defendants' retail location at 5380 Riverside Dr., Columbus,
Ohio 43220 ("OMS – Riverside").

Ohio Mulch sells high quality mulch soil and stone products.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and those similarly situated:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: 614 949-1181
          Facsimile: 614 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Peter A. Contreras, Esq.
          CONTRERAS LAW , LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: 614 787-4878
          Facsimile: 614 923-7369
          E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com

PALM PAVILION: Borozny Files Suit under ADA in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
Palm Pavilion, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Austin Borozny, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Palm Pavilion, Inc., a Florida limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-03045 (M.D. Fla.,
December 19, 2018).

Palm Pavilion, Inc. is a beachfront boutique hotel located in
Clearwater Beach, Florida.

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


PRONAI THERAPEUTICS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Securities Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned MICHAEL GREGORY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, YESHAN
JAGROO, MINDY FROST, Plaintiffs-Appellants, PRONAI INVESTOR GROUP,
SHANNON LEE HOPKINS, Plaintiffs, v. PRONAI THERAPEUTICS INC., NICK
GLOVER, SUKHI JAGPAL, Defendants-Appellees. No. 18-1061-cv. (2nd
Cir.).

Michael Gregory, Yeshan Jagroo, and Mindy Frost, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated bring this securities
class action lawsuit against ProNAi Therapeutics Inc. (ProNAi), its
CEO and President Nick Glover, and its CFO Sukhi Jagpal
(Defendants).  

First, the plaintiffs argue that the district court erroneously
concluded that ProNAi had not materially misled its investors by
failing to disclose amendments to its clinical trial protocols.
The district court held that defendants' disclosure of those
amendments on a government website made them public for purposes of
the federal securities laws, precluding the plaintiffs'
nondisclosure claim. But even assuming that the district court
erred and that the protocol amendments were not public information
for purposes of the securities laws, plaintiffs still fail to
adequately allege scienter.  The Defendants warned investors that
these protocols may need to be revised based on unexpected early
results and then posted revisions on a public government website
that tracked protocols for clinical trials.  

Second, the plaintiffs argue that the defendants violated their
alleged duty to update investors when two of the final three
patients in the Pilot Phase II study (pilot) stopped treatment by
the end of 2015. The Court disagrees.

The company announced results of the pilot in December 2014. In
July, the company released updated results, disclosing the number
and severity of adverse events and the fact that ten of the
thirteen patients had discontinued treatment. In January 2016, with
the full Phase II trials well underway, the company again updated
investors on the pilot. The update showed that the patient who had
stable disease and remained under treatment as of July 2015 still
had stable disease and still remained under treatment while the
other two patients who had remained under treatment as of July 2015
were no longer receiving treatment. On the facts alleged,
defendants' failure to disclose the status of these patients prior
to January 2016 was not misleading, much less fraudulent.

Third, the plaintiffs argue that the company fraudulently failed to
disclose that eight of ten patients from the pilot who had
discontinued treatment by November 2015 experienced faster disease
progression on PNT2258.  But the defendants had no duty to disclose
information about disease progression because it never made any
affirmative representations that a patient's duration of response
on PNT2258 should be or was greater than his or her duration of
response on other therapies. The company at most stated that it
sought to enroll patients with prior therapy regimens, a statement
that expresses no view as to how patients should fare relative to
those prior regimens.

Fourth, the plaintiffs argue that they sufficiently alleged that
defendants knowingly, or at a minimum recklessly, misrepresented
the likelihood that DNAi and PNT2258 would succeed, given the
results of the company's internal studies, which failed to validate
DNAi's mechanism of action.  But the complaint includes no
allegations suggesting that anyone at the company thought that the
failure to confirm PNT2258's mechanism of action by the end of 2015
was dispositive of the drug's efficacy. Even plaintiffs'
confidential witness continued working to validate the drug's
mechanism of action until July 2016. Plaintiffs also overstate the
severity of the negative, undisclosed information available to
Glover when he publicly expressed optimism about DNAi and PNT2258.
On the facts alleged, then, the complaint does not plead that the
defendants acted with a knowing falseness or recklessly.

Last, the plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in denying
them leave to amend. Although the plaintiffs sought leave to amend
in a footnote at the end of their opposition to defendants' motion
to dismiss, they included no proposed amendments. And although the
plaintiffs proposed several amendments on appeal, they do not
explain how these amendments would cure the shortcomings that
resulted in dismissal or why they did not include these proposed
amendments previously.  The Court therefore concludes that the
district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing
plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's December 3, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yac73q5s from Leagle.com.

SHANNON L. HOPKINS, (James Grohsgal -- jgrohsgal@zlk.com --
Stephanie A. Bartone -- sbartone@zlk.com -- on the brief), Levi &
Korsinsky, LLP, Stamford, CT, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

PETER A. STOKES, (Robin D. Adelstein --
robin.adelstein@nortonrosefulbright.com -- on the brief), Norton
Rose Fulbright US LLP, Austin, TX and New York, NY, for
Defendants-Appellees.


RACK ROOM: Court Refuses to Stay Peralta's TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana issued an Order and Reasons denying defendant Rack Room
Shoes, Inc.'s Motion to Stay the case captioned CESAR PERALTA, v.
RACK ROOM SHOES, INC., SECTION: M (2). Civil Action No. 18-3738.
(E.D. La.).

This case is a putative class action alleging claims arising under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Peralta filed this
action against RRS alleging that RRS sent an unauthorized text
message advertisement to Peralta's cellular telephone using an
automated telephone dialing system (ATDS) in violation of the TCPA.
Peralta also alleges that RRS's actions violated the Louisiana
Unfair Trade Practices Act, (LUTPA).

RSS brings its motion to stay against this statutory, regulatory,
and jurisprudential backdrop, arguing that the FCC will soon rule
on what constitutes an ATDS, and that the FCC's guidance will
determine issues relevant in this case pertaining to the equipment
RSS used to send text message advertisements. RRS argues that this
guidance is critical to the resolution of this case because it
contends that it did not use an ATDS, as it is properly defined, to
send the allegedly offending text messages. RRS argues that a stay
is appropriate under either the primary jurisdiction doctrine or
this Court's inherent authority to manage its docket.

Peralta opposes the motion to stay arguing that a stay is not
warranted because the FCC's guidance will not change the applicable
law, which the Court can apply without such guidance. Peralta also
argues that there is no guarantee that the FCC will issue its
guidance in the near future; thus a stay could be indefinite.
Further, Peralta points out that most of the courts that have
considered whether to stay similar cases in anticipation of the
FCC's guidance have denied the motions to stay.

The primary jurisdiction doctrine is aimed at maintaining proper
relationships between the courts and administrative agencies' by
suspending judicial process pending the referral of certain issues
to an administrative agency for its views. The doctrine is not
related to the district court's subject-matter jurisdiction over an
action, but rather it presumes original federal subject-matter
jurisdiction.  

A district court has the power to stay proceedings to manage its
docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and
for litigants. The party moving for a stay bears a heavy burden to
demonstrate that it is appropriate.  Where a discretionary stay is
proposed, something close to genuine necessity should be the mother
of its invocation.

In the wake of ACA International, several district courts have
considered whether to stay similar proceedings pursuant to their
inherent authority, and nearly all of them of which this Court is
aware have declined to do so.  Similarly, this Court declines to
exercise its inherent authority to stay these proceedings pending
the FCC's guidance for the same reasons that it finds that a stay
is not warranted under the primary jurisdiction doctrine.

Accordingly, RRS's motion to stay is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 3, 2018 Order and
Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydzcbodx from
Leagle.com.

Cesar Peralta, Plaintiff, represented by Roberto L. Costales,
Costales Law Office, Jonathan Mille Kirkland, Beaumont Costales
LLC, & William Henry Beaumont, William H. Beaumont Law.

Rack Room Shoes, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sidney W. Degan,
III -- sdegan@degan.com -- Degan, Blanchard & Nash, Jena W. Smith
-- jsmith@degan.com -- Degan, Blanchard & Nash, Keith A. Kornman --
kkornman@degan.com -- Degan, Blanchard & Nash & Matthew F. Morgan
-- mmorgan@degan.com -- Degan, Blanchard & Nash.


RECKITT BENCKISER: Yamagata Moves to Certify 3 Purchaser Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled GORDON NOBORU YAMAGATA and
STAMATIS F. PELARDIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. RECKITT BENCKISER LLC, Case No.
3:17-cv-03529-VC (N.D. Cal.), move for an order certifying these
classes:

   * California Class:

     All persons who purchased in the state of California Move
     Free Advanced, Move Free Advanced Plus MSM or Move Free
     Advanced Plus MSM & Vitamin D between May 28, 2015 and the
     date notice is disseminated;

   * California Senior Class:

     All persons who at the time of purchase were 65 years or
     older who purchased in the state of California Move Free
     Advanced, Move Free Advanced Plus MSM or Move Free Advanced
     Plus MSM & Vitamin D between May 28, 2015 and the date
     notice is disseminated; and

   * New York Class:

     All persons who purchased in the state of New York Move Free
     Advanced, Move Free Advanced Plus MSM or Move Free Advanced
     Plus MSM & Vitamin D between May 28, 2015 and the date
     notice is disseminated.

     Excluded from each proposed Class are Reckitt Benckiser LLC,
     its officers, directors and employees, and those who
     purchased Move Free Advanced, Move Free Advanced Plus MSM or
     Move Free Advanced Plus MSM & Vitamin D for the purpose of
     resale.

This lawsuit is a prototypical false advertising class action. Move
Free Advanced ("MFA") is a glucosamine and chondroitin dietary
supplement manufactured by the Defendant.  MFA is advertised as
providing a singular health benefit -- improving joint health.  The
Plaintiffs contend that the active ingredients in Move Free cannot
-- and do not -- provide the advertised benefit and, thus, RB's
statements on MFA labels and packaging are false and misleading in
violation of California and New York consumer protection statutes.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Plaintiff Yamagata as
Class Representative for the California Class and California Senior
Class, and Plaintiff Pelardis as Class Representative for the New
York Class.  The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint
Timothy G. Blood, Esq., and Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq., of Blood
Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP, as Class Counsel in this action.

The Court will commence a hearing on February 28, 2019, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Thomas J. O'Reardon, II, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  toreardon@bholaw.com

               - and -

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-1910
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com


RISING SUN: Construction Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Moises Dominici, Jose Manuel Polanco Pujols, Renny Rivera Ramirez,
Eddy Garcia, Manuel Arriola Alvarez, Ismael Hernandez Milian, Juan
Marquez and Angel Alvarado, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rising Sun Construction LLC and
Brett Steinberg, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-11383 (S.D. N.Y.,
December 6, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime
wages, and statutory damages under the New York Labor Law and the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a New Jersey based construction company licensed
to do business in New York where Plaintiffs work as construction
workers. They claim to have rendered in excess of 40 hour per work
week but were not paid the appropriate overtime premiums. Rising
Sun also failed to provide them accurate wage statements, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JAMES F. SULLIVAN PC
     52 Duane St., 7th Floor
     New York, NY 11702
     Tel. (212) 374-0009
     Fax: (212) 374-9931
     Email: ls@jfslaw.net


SABER HEALTHCARE: M. Mullen's Suit Remanded to N.C. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, Western Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiffs'
Motion to Remand the case captioned MICHELLE MULLEN, Executrix of
the ESTATE OF CLAIRE M. MURPHY on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC, and
FRANKLIN OPERATIONS, LLC d/b/a Franklin Manor Assisted Living
Center, Defendants. No. 5:18-CV-317-BO. (E.D.N.C.) to Franklin
County Superior Court.

The Plaintiff alleges that the defendants' facilities have failed
and continue to fail to provide sufficient services to meet the
basic needs of their residents, including adequate bathing and
timely provision of medication, and that the defendants
consistently understaff the facilities to the detriment of the
residents and in violation of North Carolina law. The Plaintiff
brings claims for breach of contract arid unfair trade practices.

THe Plaintiff originally brought her claims in Franklin County
Superior Court alongside several other plaintiffs. That case,
Bartels v. Saber Healthcare Group, LLC, 5:16-CV-283-BO, was removed
to this Court and, on October 25, 2016, remanded to Franklin
County. On October 25, 2016, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her
claims in Franklin County Superior Court.  

The question before this Court is the same question that was before
the Court in Bartels v. Saber Healthcare Group, LLC,
5:16-CV-283-BO, 2018 WL 5410921, at *1 (Oct. 29, 2018): whether
plaintiff has demonstrated that defendants are bound to litigate in
Franklin County by a forum-selection clause such that the action
must be remanded. The Court concludes that plaintiff has carried
her burden and the motion to remand must be granted.

When a plaintiff seeks to establish that one of the statutory
exceptions to jurisdiction under CAFA applies, and thus that the
court should decline to exercise removal jurisdiction over the
case, the plaintiff must establish that the exception applies by a
preponderance of the evidence.  

Here, however, plaintiffs burden is instead to show that the
forum-selection clause contained in her contract with Franklin
Manor should apply not only to defendant Franklin Operations, LLC
(Franklin Operations), a party to the contract, but also to Saber
Healthcare Group, LLC (Saber).

CAFA provides that only one defendant need consent to removal, and
thus if one defendant is not bound by the forum-selection clause,
then removal to this Court was proper and remand should be denied.
Because whether a forum-selection clause applies does not implicate
the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction and because a
forum-selection clause merely determines in what court or court
system liability should be decided, the inquiry required here
should follow the standard for challenging venue under Rule 12.  

In this circuit, consideration of evidence outside the pleadings is
permitted when deciding a venue challenge and to survive a motion
to dismiss for improper venue when no evidentiary hearing is held,
the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of venue. If an
evidentiary hearing is held, a plaintiff must demonstrate proper
venue by a preponderance of the evidence.  

No evidentiary hearing has been granted, but the Court will
consider matters outside the pleadings-including exhibits attached
to the remand motion which were developed in Bartels,the companion
action-to determine whether plaintiff has made a prima facie
showing that venue in Franklin County Superior Court is proper. In
making that determination, the Court will view the facts in the
light most favorable to plaintiff.  

There are two defendants in this action: Saber and Franklin
Operations. Plaintiff brings claims arising from her stays at the
Franklin Manor facility and the Gabriel Manor facility. Saber is
the managing member of Franklin Operations, which in turn operates
Franklin Manor. Unlike in Bartels, in this case, plaintiff does not
need to establish that each of the three Saber facilities and their
operating companies are all alter egos of one another. Rather,
plaintiff need only establish that Franklin Operations and Saber
are alter egos of each other. Defendants concede that plaintiff and
Franklin Operations signed a contract containing the
forum-selection clause, so the only question is whether the
non-signatory Saber is also bound by that forum-selection clause.

Saber and Franklin Operations, the only remaining defendants, are
alter egos of each other.

Franklin Operations signed a contract with plaintiff that contained
a forum-selection clause requiring litigation to take place in
Franklin County Superior Court. Saber must also be bound by that
forum-selection clause. As venue is appropriate in Franklin County,
plaintiffs motion to remand must be granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 3, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yawpkcwo from Leagle.com.

Michele Mullen, Executrix of the Estate of Claire M. Murphy,
Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Richard Williams --
jeremy@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP & Matthew E.
Lee -- matt@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP.

Saber Healthcare Group, LLC & Franklin Operations, LLC, doing
business as Franklin Manor Assisted Living Center, Defendants,
represented by Robert A. Leandro -- robbleandro@parkerpoe.com --
Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, LLP, Stephen V. Carey --
stevecarey@parkerpoe.com -- Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP &
Scott Elliot Bayzle -- scottbayzle@parkerpoe.com -- Parker Poe
Adams & Berstein, LLP.


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Fife Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHERYL FIFE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SCIENTIFIC GAMES CORP.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00565-RBL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Ronald B.
Leighton of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma, granted in part the Defendant's  Request for
Judicial Notice and denied its Motion to Dismiss.

The underlying dispute is a class action to recover money lost
playing electronic gambling games available through mobile apps.
Scientific argues that the Complaint should be dismissed for
failure to state a claim.  Specifically, it contends that its apps
do not allow users to gamble for a "thing of value" and qualify for
the statutory exemption for bona fide business transactions.

The Defendant markets apps that allow players to partake in popular
gambling games, such as slot machine, on a phone or tablet.  The
apps allow users to play these games with "virtual coins" that may
be won or purchased in the app after users run out of the initial
free allotment.

Fife purchased $4.99 worth of coins that he subsequently lost
playing Scientific's Jackpot Party Casino app.  Despite the fact
that these coins cannot be redeemed for actual money, Fife alleges
that they are nonetheless valuable because they can be used to
continue playing.  Therefore, Fife alleges that the games on High
5's apps constitute gambling as defined by RCW 9.46.0285 in
violation of RCW 4.24.070.  Fife also alleges two derivative claims
for violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW
19.86.010, and unjust enrichment.

Scientific requests that the Court take judicial notice of several
forms of evidence regarding the gameplay in Jackpot Casino.
Specifically, it has supplied the Court with a copy of the game
itself, a video of someone playing the game, screenshots depicting
the gameplay, and screenshots of the Frequently Asked Questions
page from Scientific's website.  Scientific argues that these
documents are analogous to similar forms of electronic external
documents that courts have considered at the motion to dismiss
stage.  According to Scientific, Fife's entire Complaint relies on
the functionality and design of Scientific's apps, which allows the
Court to take judicial notice of these documents.

Judge Leighton finds that while Fife's Complaint may necessarily
rely on Scientific's game, it does not rely on second-hand
descriptions of it from the defendant's own website.  Such
documents thus are not incorporated by reference.  Judicial notice
is also inappropriate because the FAQ page's assertions do not
derive from a source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
questioned.  The Court may take judicial notice of the existence of
the FAQ page, but not the truth of the statements found therein.
Consequently, the Judge will consider Scientific's game, video, and
screenshots, but not the FAQ page.

Scientific also asks the Court to take judicial notice of several
documents from the Washington State Gambling Commission, including
a brochure, meeting minutes, a PowerPoint presentation, and two
press releases.  Fife does not object to the Court taking judicial
notice of these documents and they are public records whose
authenticity cannot reasonably be disputed.  The Judge will
therefore consider these documents.

Turning to the Motion to Dismiss, the Judge considers whether
Scientific's virtual coins are a "thing of value" under washington
law and whether its in-app purchases are "bona fide business
transactions."  He finds that the various Gambling Commission
materials submitted by Scientific are unpersuasive.  While the
pamphlet offered by Scientific does state that social gaming is not
gambling if there is no prize, it also purports to provide only
"general guidance" to consumers.  They do not express any specific
position with respect to the underlying issues.

He also finds that Scientific misconstrues the nature of the
"transaction" at issue in the case.  Whereas traditional gambling
consists of a single transaction (money for a chance to win), he
says Scientific's app divvies up this process between two connected
transactions.  Although the first transaction allows a user to
obtain the virtual coins, the second transaction of spending them
in Scientific's games is what fits the statutory definition of
gambling.  Consequently, regardless of whether purchasing coins
from Scientific is similar to buying securities or tickets to a
baseball game, buying coins and then using them to play
Scientific's games is not a "bona fide business transaction."

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Leighton denied Defendant
Scientific's Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/bug24R from Leagle.com.

Sheryl Fife, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin H. Richman --
brichman@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice, Cecily C. Shiel
-- cshiel@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, Eve-Lynn Rapp --
erapp@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice, Janissa Ann Strabuk
-- jstrabuk@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, Rafey S.
Balabanian -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice &
Todd Logan -- tlogan@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice.

Scientific Games Corp, a Nevada corporation, Defendant, represented
by Kathleen M. O'Sullivan -- KOSullivan@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS
COIE, Nicola Menaldo -- NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE &
Tyler S. Roberts -- TRoberts@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE.


SIGNATURE RESOURCES: Staples et al. Seek Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
ANDREW STAPLES and ELGENE CRESCINI, as individuals, on behalf of
themselves and proposed class members, the PLAINTIFFS, v. SIGNATURE
RESOURCES, INC.; MASSMUTUAL PACIFIC, INC.; and DOES 1 thru 50,
inclusive, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 37-2018-00062296-CU-0E-CTL
(Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 10, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages
and overtime pay under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have had a consistent
policy of failing to pay wages and/or overtime to all Proposed
Class Members when they work more than eight hours in a day or 40
hours in a week. The Plaintiffs and other Proposed Class Members
were not properly compensated for overtime at the appropriate rate
of pay. The Plaintiffs and all Proposed Class Members were
regularly required to work without being compensated at the minimum
wage rate, and work without being compensated for all hours worked
at the proper overtime rate for all overtime hours worked. The
Defendants willfully misclassified them and they were actually
employees of Defendants; and work without being reimbursed for
expenses. The Defendants willfully failed to compensate Plaintiffs
and all Proposed Class Members for wages at the termination of
their employment with Defendants. As a result of this conduct,
Defendants have engaged in unfair competition and unlawful business
practices, the lawsuit says.

Signature Resources operates as a mining exploration company in
Canada. It seeks base metal and gold projects in China, North
America and Africa.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class:

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
          E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                  liane@kingsleykingsley.com

               - and -

          Emil Davtyan, Esq.
          DAVTYAN PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 130
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 875-2008
          Facsimile: (818) 722-3974
          E-mail: support@davtyanlaw.com

SONNY-N-SON'S PAINTING: Underpays Painters & Carpenters, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE R. HERNANDEZ CACERES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SONNY-N-SON'S PAINTING, LLC; and
WILLIAM T. COGSWELL, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01427-TSE-MSN
(E.D. Va., Nov. 19, 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 Hernandez Caceres was employed by the Defendants as
painter and carpenter.

Sonny-N-Son's Painting, LLC is a limited liability company under
the laws of the State of Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew T. Sutter, Esq.
          Sutter & Terpak, PLLC
          7540 A Little River Turnpike, First Floor
          Annandale, VA 22003
          Telephone: (703) 256-1800
          Facsimile: (703) 991-6116
          E-mail: matt@sutterandterpak.com


SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT: Court Certifies 3 Classes in Caudle Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSHUA CAUDLE and KRYSTLE WHITE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a Kansas corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, Defendants, Case No. C 17-06874 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge
William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California granted the Plaintiff's motion to certify three
separate classes.

The Defendant sells mobile phone devices and services to retail
customers.  In February 2016, Sprint instituted a redesigned
incentive compensation plan called the Sprint Promoter Score
Adjustment program.  This program centered on calculating a monthly
"Sprint Promoter Score" for each Sprint retail store location.
Sprint based the Sprint Promoter Score -- which was designed to
improve customer service and calculated on a store-wide level -- on
the aggregated results of customer surveys given after a customer's
interaction with the store.

Sprint also calculated "target" Sprint Promoter Scores for each
retail location, which were calculated monthly at a national level
based on store type.  Under the program at issue, if a Sprint
retail store location's Sprint Promoter Score met or exceeded the
target score for that month, then the individual commissions of
that store's employees remained unaffected.  If, however, the
store's Sprint Promoter Score fell below the target score, then
Sprint decreased the individual commissions of that store's
employees by 10%.

In March 2017, Sprint eliminated the Sprint Promoter Score
Adjustment program due to negative feedback from employees and the
program's overall lack of impact.

Plaintiffs Caudle and White -- a former store manager and lead
retail consultant, respectively -- worked in various northern
California Sprint retail store locations.  They assert that the 10%
"across-the-board deduction from employees' individual earned
commission" was based on factors outside the individual employees'
control and unrelated to any individual employees' efforts
regarding a particular sale or transaction.  Thus, according to
them, these 10% deductions from employees' commissions under the
Sprint Promoter Score Adjustment program (in effect from February
2016 to March 2017) were unlawful deductions from earned wages
under California Labor Code Sections 221-23.

Based on this theory, the operative complaint asserted the
following five claims for relief: (1) unlawful deductions from
wages; (2) wage statement violations; (3) waiting time penalties;
(4) unfair competition practices; and (5) PAGA civil penalties.

The Plaintiffs now seek to represent current and former Sprint
employees in California and certify these three classes pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3):

     a. Class 1 (Unlawful Deductions - SPS Class): All current and
former employees of Sprint who worked at Sprint's retail store
location(s) in California and whose compensation was based in full
or in part on incentive compensation (also called commissions), and
whose commissions were reduced by a Sprint Promoter Score
Adjustment, at any time from February 2016 to March 2017.

     b. Class 2 (Wage Statement Class): All members of the Unlawful
Deductions - SPS Class whose commissions were reduced by a Sprint
Promoter Score Adjustment at any time from Sept. 29, 2016 through
March 2017.

     c. Class 3 (Waiting Time Class): All members of the Unlawful
Deductions - SPS Class who separated their employment from Sprint
at any time from Sept. 29, 2014 through the present.

The first class Plaintiffs seek to certify is directly based on
Sprint's policy at issue (i.e., the Sprint Promoter Score
Adjustment program).  The latter two classes the Plaintiffs seek to
certify are derivative of the first class.

Judge Alsup finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the
requirements of common questions and their predominance under Rule
23(a)(2) and (b)(3) for all three proposed classes.  He also finds
that the Plaintiffs have standing to bring the wage statement and
waiting time claims and satisfied the typicality requirement as to
all three proposed classes, and that a class action would be
superior to individual actions for the adjudication of the
Plaintiffs' claims.
Both sides request judicial notice of various documents previously
filed in three other cases involving class action settlements with
Sprint.  Neither side opposes. Accordingly, the requests for
judicial notice of documents are granted.

Sprint also objects to several items of evidence submitted with the
Plainitffs' motion. Because consideration of the objected-to
materials does not impact the outcome of the order, the Judge
overruled Sprint's objections as moot.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Alsup granted the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification, and vertified these classes:

     a. Class 1 (Unlawful Deductions - SPS Class): All current and
former employees of Sprint who worked at Sprint's retail store
location(s) in California and whose compensation was based in full
or in part on incentive compensation (also called commissions), and
whose commissions were reduced by a Sprint Promoter Score
Adjustment, at any time from February 2016 to March 2017.

     b. Class 2 (Wage Statement Class): All members of the Unlawful
Deductions - SPS Class whose commissions were reduced by a Sprint
Promoter Score Adjustment at any time from September 29, 2016
through March 2017.

     c. Class 3 (Waiting Time Class): All members of the Unlawful
Deductions - SPS Class who separated their employment from Sprint
at any time from September 29, 2014 through the present.

These class definitions will apply for all purposes, including
settlement.  

The Judge appointed Plaintiffs Joshua Caudle and Krystle White as
the class representatives; and the Plaintiffs' counsel from the
Haines Law Group, APC, as the class counsel.

By Jan. 4, 2019 at noon, the parties will jointly submit a proposal
for class notification with a plan to distribute notice, including
by first-class mail.  In crafting their joint proposal, the counsel
will please keep in mind the undersigned judge's guidelines for
notice to class members in the "Notice and Order Regarding Factors
to be Evaluated for Any Proposed Class Settlement."  The Judge
further reminded tbe counsel of the Plaintiffs' intention of
notifying class members of the tolling issue in connection with the
removed deactivation theory of liability.

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

Joshua Caudle & Krystle White, Plaintiffs, represented by Paul
Haines -- phaines@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group, APC,
Tuvia Korobkin -- tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group,
APC & Stacey Min Ha Shim -- sshim@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law
Group, APC.

Sprint/United Management Company, Defendant, represented by Lisa K.
Horgan -- lhorgan@littler.com --, Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Elisa
Nadeau --  enadeau@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC.


STAND UP: Townsend et al. Seek Payment of OT & Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES TOWNSEND, FLORZELL PIPPEN, and DIONE CHRISTIAN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
STAND UP MANAGEMENT, INC., DePERE CONCEPTS, INC., EXELON GENERATION
COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a CONSTELLATION ENERGY, BRIAN TIDWELL, and COLE
HEEG, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02884 (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 14,
2018), challenges policies and practices of Defendants that violate
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act, and the Ohio Wage Laws, concerning underpayment of overtime
and/or minimum wages to non-exempt employees.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and others
similarly-situated are typically required to check in with
Defendants regularly. The Plaintiffs and others similarly-situated
regularly work approximately 10 or more hours per day for
approximately five to six days a week, thereby regularly working
more than 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiffs and others
similarly-situated are not paid at least one and one-half times
their regular rates for hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek.

The Plaintiffs and others similarly-situated do not make actual
sales. Their duties only involve gathering information from
customers and/or potential customers, and providing that
information to Defendants, usually by sheets or computer tablet.
After Plaintiffs and others similarly-situated perform their
assigned and scripted tasks, the customer or potential customer
must contact another entity not within the control of Plaintiffs or
others similarly-situated before the customer is actually approved
for services. This subsequent contact by the customer or potential
customer to Defendants is typically by phone, and Plaintiffs and
others similarly-situated do not participate in the phone call or
control the results of the phone call, the lawsuit says.

Stand Up Management is a company that thrives on building
relationships for clients looking to expand.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          34 N. High St., Ste. 502
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 824-5770
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
                  hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

SYNERGY ENTERPRISES: Rodriguez et al. Seek Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
JOSE RODRIGUEZ and JOSE VEGA VILLALOBOS, as indiviuals, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs
SYNERGY ENTERPRISES, INC., a California Corporation; EAGLE SYSTEMS
INTERNATIONAL, INC., DBA SYNERGY COMPANIES, a Utah Corporation;
STEVEN R. SHALLENBERGER, an individual; DAVID CLARK, an individual;
and DOES 1 to 100, in inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2018-15374 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 1, 2018), alleges that
the Defendants failed to pay overtime wages, minimum wages, provide
meal periods and rest periods, failed to provide reimbursements,
and failed to provide accurate wage statements, under California
Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants
during 2015 to May 2018 as an hourly, non-exempt hourly employees.
The Defendants provide energy efficiency services to homeowners in
California. Similarly situated employees also worked for Defendants
as non-exempt hourly employees. The Plaintiffs and similarly
situated employees regularly worked 10 hours a day or more.
However, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and similarly
situated employees for all hours worked, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Galen Tadashi Shimoda, Esq.
          Justin P. Rodriquez, Esq.
          SHIMODA LAW CORP.
          9401 E Stockton Blvd Ste 200
          Elk Grove, CA 95624
          Telephone: (916) 525-0716
          Facsimile: (916) 760-3733
          E-mail: attorney@shimodalaw.com

TAMPA BAY RAYS: Certification of Class Sought in Fernandez Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned CHAD FERNANDEZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TAMPA BAY RAYS
BASEBALL LTD., a Florida limited partnership, Case No.
8:18-cv-02251-EAK-SPF (M.D. Fla.), seeks to certify a class of:

     all persons who, without having provided the required prior
     express written consent, were sent a text message from or on
     behalf of the Defendant Tampa Bay Rays Baseball, Ltd. or an
     affiliate, subsidiary, or agent thereof from the shortcode
     telephone number 420-86 (the "Class").

The Class excludes the Defendant, any entity in which Defendant has
a controlling interest or which has a controlling interest in the
Defendant, and any of Defendant's legal representatives, assigns or
successors, the judge presiding over this case and any member of
the Judge's immediate family.

The Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit in response
to the Defendant's alleged continuous practice of sending
advertisement and telemarketing text messages to his cell phone,
and the cell phones of many others, without their prior express
written consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Mr. Fernandez also asks the Court to appoint David P. Milian, Esq.,
and Ruben Conitzer, Esq., of Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya, LLP, as
Class counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David P. Milian, Esq.
          Ruben Conitzer, Esq.
          CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN GONYA LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 372-7474
          Facsimile: (305) 372-7475
          E-mail: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com
                  rconitzer@careyrodriguez.com


TARGET ENTERPRISE: First Circuit Appeal Filed in Carlson Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Gabrielle Carlson filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Carlson v. Target Enterprise, Inc., Case No.
4:18-cv-40139-TSH, in the U.S. District Court for the District
Court of Massachusetts, Boston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on August 16, 2018.  The suit alleges consumer credit
violation.

Target Enterprises manufactures and distributes plastic pipes and
fittings.

The appellate case is captioned as Carlson v. Target Enterprise,
Inc., Case No. 18-8025, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner GABRIELLE CARLSON, on behalf or herself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW LLC
          43 Danbury Rd.
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
          E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com

Defendant-Respondent TARGET ENTERPRISE, INC., is represented by:

          Brian Melendez, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          225 S 6th St., Suite 2800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 367-8734
          E-mail: brian.melendez@btlaw.com

               - and -

          Jordan S. O'Donnell, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          53 State Street, 27th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 213 7000
          E-mail: jodonnell@hinshawlaw.com


TARTE, INC: Products Contain Synthetic Ingredients, Patora Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeannie Patora, individually on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Tarte, Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. 7:18-cv-11760 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 14, 2018), seeks to remedy the
company's deceptive and misleading business practices with respect
to the marketing, labeling and sales of all products from Tarte's
"high-performance naturals" product line throughout the State of
New York and throughout the country, in violation of the New York
General Business Law, the consumer protection statutes of all 50
states, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures, sells, and
distributes the Products using a marketing and advertising campaign
centered around claims that appeal to health-conscious consumers,
i.e., that their Products are natural. Moreover, Defendant's
website states that, "We believe in high performance AND natural.
We never compromise when it comes to what we put on our skin and
neither should you... It's time to rethink Natural." However,
Defendant's advertising and marketing campaign is false, deceptive,
and misleading because the Products contain synthetic
ingredients.

The Plaintiff and those similarly situated relied on Defendant's
misrepresentations that the Products natural when purchasing the
Products. The Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the
Products over and above comparable products that did not purport to
be natural. Given that Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium
for the Products based on Defendant's misrepresentations that they
are natural, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered an injury in the
amount of the premium paid. The Defendant breached and continues to
breach their express and implied warranties regarding the Products.
The Defendant has been and continues to be unjustly enriched, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          Joseph Lipari, Esq.
          Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Telephone: (845) 483-7100
          Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
          E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com

TEACHERS FEDERAL: Dixon Suit Alleges Civil Rights Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Florence Dixon and Pauline Barbera, on behalf of themselves, and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Teachers Federal
Credit Union, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-7203 (E.D. N.Y., December
18, 2018) seeks to redress discrimination against Plaintiffs and a
class of similarly situated job applicants against Teachers Federal
Credit Union ("TFCU"), alleging violations of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the Civil Rights
Act of 1866, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

The complaint says TFCU has been a leading employer of Long
Islanders since its founding and is "one of the country's largest
credit unions and one of the largest employers on Long Island".
TFCU encourages prospective employees to apply for employment
positions if they "enjoy collaborating in a team atmosphere in an
organization that promotes growth and stability". However, what
TFCU's website does not say, is that it provides the benefits of
employment in an unequal manner -- systematically discriminating
against Black individuals in the hiring and promotion to its
coveted branch manager position known as Financial Services Manager
("FSM").

TFCU has systematically circumvented and excluded Black individuals
from promotion and hiring opportunities to the FSM position, the
complaint asserts. The resultant underrepresentation of Black
individuals in TFCU's FSM ranks is stark. TFCU never hired or
promoted a Black woman to the FSM position until after Plaintiffs
filed their Charges of Discrimination with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") in March 2018.

Despite repeatedly applying for the FSM position, and despite
having superior qualifications compared to the non-Black applicants
TFCU promoted and/or hired for the position, Plaintiffs were
rejected by TFCU for the FSM position, the complaint says. In light
of Plaintiffs' individual experiences and TFCU's pattern and
practice of disproportionately favoring non-Black applicants for
the FSM position, Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated FSM applicants in
order to end TFCU's discriminatory policies and/or practices and to
make themselves and the Class whole.

Plaintiff Dixon is a resident of the County of Suffolk, State of
New York. Plaintiff Dixon is a Black woman. Plaintiff Dixon was
employed by TFCU as a Financial Services Assistant Manager ("AM")
from September 2013 until April 2018.

Plaintiff Barbera is a resident of the County of Suffolk, State of
New York. Plaintiff Barbera is a Black woman. Plaintiff Barbera was
employed by TFCU as an AM from August 2006 until March 2016.

TFCU is a federally chartered credit union, with its principal
place of business in the County of Suffolk, State of New York. TFCU
maintains control, oversight, and direction over the operation of
its facilities, including its employment practices. TFCU's
headquarters is located at 102 Motor Parkway, Hauppauge, New York
11788.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
     Garrett Kaske, Esq.
     SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
     534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
     Melville, NY 11747
     Phone: (631) 499-9100
     Email: tkessler@shulmankessler.com
            gkaske@shulmankessler.com

          - and -

     Hope Pordy, Esq.
     SPIVAK LIPTON LLP
     1700 Broadway
     New York, NY 10019
     Phone: (212) 765-2100
     Email: hpordy@spivaklipton.com


TONY'S FINER: Figueroa Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charlene Figueroa, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tony's Finer Foods Enterprises,
Inc., Tony's Finer Foods No. 6, Inc., and Tony's Finer Foods No. 9
Inc., d/b/a Tony's Fresh Market a/k/a Super Tony's Finer Foods,
Defendants, Case No. 2018CH15728 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill.,
December 19, 2018) seeks to redress and curtail Defendants'
unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's
sensitive biometric data.

When Defendants hire an employee, he or she is enrolled in their
Kronos employee database using a scan of his or her fingerprint.
Defendants use the Kronos employee database to monitor the time
worked by their hourly employees. While many employers use
conventional methods for time tracking (such as ID badge or punch
clocks), Defendants' employees are required to have their
fingerprints scanned by a biometric timekeeping device.

The Defendants improperly disclose their employees' fingerprint
data to at least one third-party, Kronos, and likely others,
asserts the complaint.  Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
individuals are aggrieved because they were not: (1) informed in
writing of the purpose and length of time for which their
fingerprints were being collected, stored, disseminated and used;
(2) provided a publicly available retention schedule or guidelines
for permanent destruction of the biometric data; and (3) provided
(nor did they execute) a written release, as required by the
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Defendant also failed to destroy the biometric data when the
initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such data has been
satisfied or within three years of the employee's last interactions
with the company, says the complaint. These violations have raised
a material risk that Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated
individuals' biometric data will be unlawfully accessed by third
parties.

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself as well as the putative Class,
seeks an Order: (1) declaring that each Defendant's conduct
violates BIPA; (2) requiring each Defendant to cease the unlawful
activities discussed herein; and (3) awarding statutory damages to
Plaintiff and the proposed Class.

Plaintiff Charlene Figueroa is a natural person and a citizen in
the State of Illinois.

Tony's Finer Foods Enterprises, Inc. is an Illinois corporation
that is registered with the Illinois Secretary of State and
conducts business in the State of Illinois, including Cook County.

Tony's Fresh Market No. 6., Inc. is an Illinois corporation that is
registered with the Illinois Secretary of State and conducts
business in the State of Illinois, including Cook County.

Tony's Fresh Market No. 9., Inc. is an Illinois corporation that is
registered with the Illinois Secretary of State and conducts
business in the State of Illinois, including Cook County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
     Haley R. Jenkins, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone: 312.233.1550
     Fax: 312.233.1560
     Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
            aficzko@stephanzouras.com
            hjenkins@stephanzouras.com


TRAININGWHEEL: Consultants Hit Misclassification, Seek Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Katrina Freeman and Aireanne Clark, individually and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TrainingWheel
Corporation, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01932 (D. Del.,
December 6, 2018), seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

TrainingWheel provides training and support to medical facilities
in connection with the implementation of new electronic
recordkeeping systems. Freeman and Clark are consultants who
provide training and support services to their clients throughout
the United States. Plaintiffs allege that they were improperly
classified as independent contractors, and, as a result, did not
receive overtime pay for hours worked in excess of forty in a
workweek. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Daniel R. Miller, Esq.
      Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
      Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      Email: scarson@bm.net
             sschalman-bergen@bm.net
             apiazza@bm.net
             dmiller@bm.net

             - and -

      David M. Blanchard, Esq.
      BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
      221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
      Ann Arbor, MI 48104
      Telephone: (734) 929-4313
      Email: blanchard@bwlawonline.com

             - and -

      Harold Lichten, Esq.
      Olena Savytska, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 994-5800
      Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
      Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com
             osavytska@llrlaw.com


TRES DIAMANTE: Restaurant Staff Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Elsy Flores, Emma Garcia, Jonatan Orellana, Bernarda Martinez,
Erika Morales, Ingrid Sagastume, And Yolanda Martinez, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Tres Diamante Restaurant Inc., Rosabel Calderon and Jose Alfredo
Mancia, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-06949, (E.D. N.Y., December 6,
2018) seeks to recover overtime compensation for work in excess of
forty hours per week, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
costs, and such other legal an and New York Labor Law.

Defendants operate as "Tres Diamantes" and "La Jolla" restaurants
serving Latin American cuisine where Plaintiffs worked as
restaurant staff. They claim overtime for hours rendered in excess
of 40 hours per week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Sackowitz, Esq.
      KATZ MELINGER PLLC
      280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 460-0047
      Email: ajsackowitz@katzmelinger.com


U.S. BANCORP: Sued over Excessive Reductions to Pension Plan
------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Smith, Debra Thorne, Sonja Lindley and Pamela Kaberline, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. U.S. Bancorp, the Employee Benefits Committee and
John/Jane Does 1-5, the Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-03405 (D.
Minn., Dec. 14, 2018), is a class action under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 concerning the unreasonable,
excessive reductions to the pension benefits that Plaintiffs earned
under the U.S. Bank Pension Plan's final average pay formula when
they retired before age 65.

The Plan is the combination of numerous defined benefit plans
sponsored by U.S. Bank and its predecessors, some of which used
different formulae to calculate the accrual of benefits. Beginning
in 2002 for most, and by 2003 for all, participants began accruing
benefits under a new final average pay formula ("Final Average Pay
Formula"). The Plan's normal retirement age is 65, and the Plan's
normal retirement benefit assumes retirement at that age.
Participants who accrued benefits under the Final Average Pay
Formula can retire as early as age 55. When a participant retires
before age 65, the participant's benefits are reduced by a
prescribed early commencement factor ("ECF"), which represents the
percentage of that participant's normal retirement benefit that the
participant will receive when retiring early. For example, an ECF
of .90 means that participants receive 90% of the normal retirement
benefit they would have been entitled to at age 65.

ERISA section 204(c)(3), 29 U.S.C. section 1054(c)(3), provides
that an early retirement benefit must be actuarially equivalent to
the normal retirement benefit the participant would receive at age
65 under the terms of the plan based on reasonable actuarial
assumptions about future interest rates and life expectancies. The
ECFs applicable to the Final Average Pay Formula egregiously
violate this requirement. They are unreasonable, excessive and
incongruent with the interest rates and life expectancies that
existed throughout the Class Period. For example, the ECFs
improperly reduce participants' retirement benefits by as much as
22 percent compared to the current actuarial assumptions that the
Plan uses to calculate the "actuarial equivalent" of other benefits
and by as much as 32 percent compared to the ECFs that apply to the
Plan's other benefit accrual formulae. By reducing Plaintiffs'
benefits in greater amounts than are actuarially reasonable to
account for Plaintiffs' retirements before age 65, Defendants
caused Plaintiffs to forfeit part of their vested retirement
benefits in violation of ERISA Sections 203 and 204, 29 U.S.C.
sections 1053 and 204.

The Plan is an "employee pension benefit plan" within the meaning
of ERISA. The Plan covers eligible employees of U.S. Bancorp and
its subsidiaries. U.S. Bancorp is the Plan's sponsor. The Plan is
the result of the merger on January 1, 2002 of the U.S. Bancorp
Cash Balance Pension Plan (the "Old Cash Balance Plan") and the
Firstar Corporation Employees Pension Plan (the "Firstar Plan").

U.S. Bancorp is a financial services company headquartered in
Minneapolis, Minnesota that provides a full range of financial
services, including lending and depository services, cash
management, capital markets services, investment management, credit
card services and mortgage banking. U.S. Bancorp's banking
subsidiary is U.S. Bank, National Association, which has over $357
billion in deposits.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK LLP
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: 612 333-8844
          Facsimile: 612 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  awilliams@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

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

                    - and -

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

UNITED TRANZACTIONS: Lake Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Tranzactions,
LLC. The case is styled as Joshua Lake, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. United Tranzactions,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-01469-BKS-ATB (N.D. N.Y., December
19, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Fair Debt Collection Act.

United TranzActions, LLC provides payment solutions for automotive,
furniture, building materials and supplies, equipment sales and
rentals, trucking, retail, manufacturing, healthcare and
hospitality, and distribution industries. It offers payment
processing, electronic bill presentment and payment, credit card
merchant, ACH processing-guaranteed, check guarantee, and credit
card payment solutions, as well as customized financial services to
fit various platforms and integrated payment systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
   Marcus & Zelman, LLC
   701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
   Asbury Park, NJ 07712
   Tel: (845) 367-7146
   Fax: (732) 298-6256
   Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com





VANEGAS INT'L: Salazar Seeks to Recover Overtime & Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS EDUARDO SALAZAR, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. VANEGAS INTERNATIONAL GROUP LLC, MATELO
ENTERPRISES, INC., MONICA VANEGAS, ANASTACIO LORENTE, Case No.
1:18-cv-25143-KMM (S.D. Fla., December 7, 2018), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid overtime and minimum wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Vanegas International Group LLC is a corporation that regularly
transacts business within Dade County, Florida.  Matelo
Enterprises, Inc., is a corporation that regularly transacts
business within Dade County.  The Defendant Corporations are
Florida Profit Corporations headquartered in Key Biscayne, Florida.
The Individual Defendants are corporate officers, owners or
managers of the Defendant Corporations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Roper Sues Over Unpaid Off-the-Clock Work
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA ROPER and RENEE JOHNSON, for themselves and all others
similarly situated v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and CELLCO
PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, Case No. 5:18-cv-05270-EGS
(E.D. Pa., December 7, 2018), accuses the Defendants of violating
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act of 1968 and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law by knowingly
suffering or permitting certain full-time, hourly employees to:

   * perform approximately 15 minutes of off-the-clock pre-shift
     work;

   * approximately 30 minutes of off-the-clock meal break work;
     and

   * approximately 15 minutes of off-the-clock post-shift work
     each day without paying any wages for this work.

Verizon Communications, Inc., is a Delaware company with a
corporate headquarters in New York City, an operations headquarters
in Basking Ridge, New Jersey, and more than 150,000 employees
worldwide.  Verizon designs, builds and operates telecommunications
networks, information systems and mobile technologies and provides
a wide array of customer help, information and support services
relating to its various products and services from dozens of call
centers and offices in more than 20 states.

Cellco Partnership, doing business as Verizon Wireless, is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Verizon with a corporate headquarters in
Basking Ridge.  Verizon Wireless provides wireless, residential,
and business telecommunications products and services to over 150
million subscribers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David J. Cohen, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          604 Spruce Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 873-4836
          E-mail: dcohen@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

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


WELLS FARGO: $480MM Settlement in Hefler Suit Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GARY HEFLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO &
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-05479-JST (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted both (i) Union's motion for final
approval of the class action settlement and the plan of allocation;
and (ii) the Class Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees
and litigation expenses.

The Plaintiffs bring the federal securities class action against
Wells Fargo and several of its officers and directors for
violations of sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities and Exchange Commission's
Rule 10b-5.  Lead Plaintiff Union Asset Management Holding, AG
brings these claims on behalf of all persons who purchased Wells
Fargo common stock between Feb. 26, 2014 and Sept. 20, 2016,
inclusive.

The substance of Union's claims is set forth in greater detail in
the Court's prior order granting in part and denying in part the
Defendants' motions to dismiss.  In short, Union alleges that the
Defendants made repeated misrepresentations and omissions about a
core element of Wells Fargo's business: its acclaimed
'cross-selling' business model, artificially inflating Wells
Fargo's stock price.  Union seeks damages related to this inflation
of Wells Fargo's stock price and its subsequent decline when the
truth about Wells Fargo's practices came to light through a series
of disclosures in September 2016.

On July 31, 2018, Union filed an unopposed motion to certify a
settlement class and for preliminary approval of a settlement.  On
Sept. 4, 2018, the Court granted the motion for preliminary
approval, conditionally certified the class, and appointed BLB&G as
the Class Counsel.  Union has now filed a motion for final approval
of the class action settlement and the plan of allocation and Class
Counsel has filed a motion for an award of attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses.  The Court held a fairness hearing on Dec. 18,
2018.

The proposed settlement agreement resolves claims between Wells
Fargo and the class, which the Court conditionally certified as all
persons and entities who purchased Wells Fargo common stock from
Feb. 26, 2014 through Sept. 20, 2016, inclusive.

Under the Settlement, Wells Fargo has paid $480 million into the
Settlement Fund.  The following amounts will be subtracted from the
Settlement Amount: (1) taxes; (2) notice costs; and (3) attorneys'
fees and expenses.

Pursuant to the proposed plan of allocation, the class members who
submit timely claims will receive payments on a pro rata basis
based on the date(s) the class members purchased and sold Wells
Fargo common stock, as well as the total number and amount of
claims filed.  To calculate the amount that will be paid to each
class member, the Claims Administrator will determine each claim's
share of the Settlement Fund proceeds based upon the claimant's
recognized loss.  Before deducting any costs or attorneys' fees,
the Settlement represents an average recovery of $0.44 per eligible
share.  After deductions, the recovery will be approximately $0.35
per share.

No distribution will be made to Authorized Claimants who would
otherwise receive a distribution of less than $10; instead, those
funds will be included in the distribution to other Authorized
Claimants.  Nine months after the initial distribution, the Claims
Administrator will make additional re-distributions to class
members if it is cost effective to do so.  Any Settlement Funds not
distributed to the class will be paid to a cy pres recipient: the
Investor Protection Trust.

Wells Fargo reserves the right to terminate the Settlement in the
event that Settlement Class Members timely and validly requesting
exclusion from the Settlement Class meet the conditions set forth
in Wells Fargo's confidential supplemental agreement with the Lead
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiffs' Counsel moves the Court for 20% of the overall $480
million Settlement Amount.  This represents an award of
approximately $95.9 million in attorneys' fees.  Although the
Notice Packet informed the class members that the Plaintiffs'
Counsel would seek reimbursement of up to $750,000 in expenses, the
counsel are now seeking reimbursement of $469,795.22 in expenses.

Judge finds (i) that the counsel's requested fees and expenses are
reasonable; (ii) the class representatives and the class counsel
have adequately represented the class; and (iii) the Settlement was
the product of arm's length negotiations.  For these reasons, he
confirmed the certification of the class for settlement purposes
only, and the appointment of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman
LP as the Class Counsel.  He granted (i) final approval of the
proposed settlement and the plan of allocation; (ii) the 253
requests to be excluded from the class; and (iii) the motion for
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses.


WELLS FARGO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Garr Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA GARR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-06997-DMR (N.D. Cal., Nov. 19, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank
offers online and mobile banking, home mortgage, loans and credit,
investment and retirement, wealth management, and insurance
services. Wells Fargo Bank serves commercial, retail, and
institutional customers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Simon S. Grille, Esq.
          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Angelica M. Ornelas, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dgirard@girardsharp.com
                  aornelas@girardsharp.com
                  sgrille@girardsharp.com


WOLF APPLIANCE: Certification of Classes Sought in Kail Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuits captioned IVAN and MELANIE KAIL,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. WOLF
APPLIANCE, INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-03513-JS-GRB (E.D.N.Y.); BARRY
GARFINKLE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. WOLF APPLIANCE, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-03753-JS-GRB
(E.D.N.Y.); and FREDERICK I. SHARP, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. WOLF APPLIANCE, INC., Case No.
2:18-cv-01723-JS-GRB (E.D.N.Y.), move the Court for an order:

   (a) certifying the Plaintiffs' claims as a class action, under
       Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2)-(3) of the Federal Rules of
       Civil Procedure;

   (b) appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives for
       their respective classes;

   (c) appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel, the law firm of
       Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, as Class Counsel under
       Rule 23(g); and

   (d) ordering the Plaintiffs to provide the Court with a
       proposed form and manner of notice to the certified
       classes under Rule 23(c).[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          Vincent M. Serra, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  mreich@rgrdlaw.com
                  vserra@rgrdlaw.com


YELP INC: Spiegelman Sues over Unauthorized Use of Private Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN SPIEGELMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YELP INC.; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18STCV05378 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Nov. 16, 2018) is a class action against the
Defendant for unlawfully using the Plaintiff's personal data,
names, photographs, and private information for profit, without her
prior consent.

Yelp Inc. operates a platform that connects people with local
businesses in the United States, Canada, and internationally.  Yelp
Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Talin V. Yacoubian, Esq.
          Stewart J. Powell, Esq.
          YACOUBIAN & POWELL LLP
          725 South Figueroa St., Suite 1750
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 955-7145
          Facsimile: (213) 955-7146



                            *********

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 2019. 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 ***