CAR_Public/190103.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, January 3, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 3

                            Headlines

ACOSTA SALES: Settles Overtime Pay Class Action for $3MM
ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued over Monopoly of Bosentan Drug
ALABAMA: Suit Challenges Rule on Suspension of Driver's License
ALEX'S AUTO: Freddy Macas Seeks Overtime Pay
ALEXANDRE FINE: Faces Tucker Suit Alleging ADA Violation

ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces Romonoyske Suit in E.D. New York
ALLURA USA: Removes Lowe et al. Suit to D. South Carolina
ALPHABET INC: El Mawardy Suit Moved to N.D. California
AMERICAN BOARD: Internists File Antitrust Class Action
AMERICAS BEST: Faces Honeywell Suit in N.D. Ohio

AMP: Judge Reserves Ruling in Bid for Lead Counsel in Class Action
ANTHEM BLUE: Must Still Face Eating Disorder Coverage Lawsuit
APHRIA: Faces Shareholder Class Actions
ARTEX RISK: Faces Class Action Over Captive Insurance Tax Shelter
AUSTRALIA: Sued Over Crimes Against Manus, Nauru Asylum Seekers

BAD BOY: Martinez Case Moved to Southern District of Florida
BETHESDA: Legal Situation Over Fallout 76 Still Uncertain
BITMAIN INC: Gevorkyan Sues over Use of Crypto Currency Devices
BLUM & POE: Tucker Files Suit under ADA in S.D. New York
BOEING: Appeals Court Overturns Injunction to Stop Embraer Tie-Up

BOERS WEI GALLERIES: Tucker Files Suit under ADA in S.D. New York
BRADLE COUNTY, TN: Sued Over Inadequate Health Care at Jail
C.C.M. CORPORATION: Faces Rambeau Suit in Sacramento California
CALIFORNIA FACULTY: Professor Files Class Action Over Union Fees
CALIFORNIA MARINE: Marin Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code

CANADA: 60s Scoop Survivors Eligible for Compensation
CANADA: Halifax Orphanage Ill-Equipped to Meet Children's Needs
CANADA: Settlement Reached in Indian Day Schools Lawsuit
CASTELLI GALLERY: Tucker Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
CAT5 RESOURCES: Louviere Seeks Overtime Compensation

CHEMOURS: Consent Order Insufficient to Rectify Damage
CONAGRA FOODS: Must Face Parkay Spray Class Action
COSMETIC INSTITUTE: Class Action Over Botched Surgery Promising
CPP ENTERPRISES: Rivera Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium
CRAIG F. STARR: Tucker Files Suit under ADA in New York

CUMBERLAND EXCAVATION: Underpays Construction Workers, Gill Says
D. WIGMORE FINE: Faces ADA Class Action in S.D. New York
DAVID TUNICK: Tucker Files ADA Class Action in NY
DAVID ZWIRNER GALLERY: Violates Disabilities Act, Tucker Suit Says
DENMARK, SC: Citizens File Class Action Over Use of HaloSan

DI DONNA GALLERIES: Tucker Files Suit in New York under ADA
DICKINSON ROUNDELL: Gallery Hit With ADA Class Suit
DIDIER AARON: Violates ADA, Tucker Suit  Says
DIRECT ENERGY: Voussefi Seeks Lost Wages for Sales Representatives
DYNAMIC PRESENCE: Kelley Macey Seeks Overtime Premium

EDWARD TYLER NAHEM: Tucker Files Suit under ADA in New York
ENCORE HEALTH: Pierce Suit Transferred to Southern Dist. of Texas
EQT CORP: Royalty Owners' Class Action Nears Conclusion
ERIK THOMSEN LLC: Violates Disabilities Act, Tucker Suit Asserts
EVANS TIRE: Sanchez et al. Seek Minimum & Overtime Wages

FACEBOOK INC: ICA Imposes Fine Amid Personal Data Class Action
FIFTH THIRD: Unlawfully Deducts Funds from Bank Account, Suit Says
FIG & OLIVE: Vazquez et al. Seek Minimum Wage & Overtime Pay
FINA: Class Action Mulled in Australia Over Monopoly of Swimming
FIORELLA INSURANCE: Hackett Files Consumer Credit Class Suit

FORUM GALLERY: Violates ADA, Tucker Suit Says
FRANCIS M. NAUMANN: Faces ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
FRANKLIN PARRASCH: Tucker Files Suit Under Disabilities Act
FRANKLIN TEMPLETON: Settles Proprietary Fund Lawsuit
GAGOSIAN GALLERY: Faces Tucker Class Action Under ADA

GALERIE ST. ETIENNE: Violates ADA, Tucker Suit Says
GALVESTON COUNTY, TX: Class Action Challenges Bail System
GENERAL DYNAMICS: Freeman Seeks Certification of FLSA Collective
GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Diesel Fuel Injection Pumps
GITTERMAN GALLERY: Tucker Files Suit under ADA in New York

GREEN DESK: Workspace Firm Faces Class Suit
GREENSKY INC: Coombs Sues over Misleading Financial Report
HANS P. KRAUS: Faces Tucker Suit Alleging ADA Violation
HAWAII: ACLU Files School Athletics Discrimination Class Action
HELENA AGRI-ENTERPRISES: Proctor Suit Moved to S.D. California

HELLY NAHMAN GALLERY: Tucker Files Suit under Disabilities Act
HOMESTREET BANK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Parseghian et al. Say
HOTELQUICKLY: Class Action Mulled Over Booking Cancellations
INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Feb. 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
IOOF: Class Action Lawyers Circling in Wake of APRA Action

IPASS INC: Rosenblatt Balks at Merger Deal with Pareteum Corp.
ISLE OF CAPRI CASINOS: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Larson
JARDINE LLOYD: Bathurst Regional Council Won't Join Class Action
JARDINE LLOYD: Law Firms Invite More Councils to Join Class Suit
JARDINE LLOYD: Orange City Council Joins Insurance Class Action

JARIWALA & CO: Lambert Seeks Overtime Pay
JC TREE: Berger Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
JELD-WEN INC: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Price-Fixing
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Must Face Antitrust Class Action
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Kristel-Papp Suit in New York

KB HOME: Sued over Breach of Contract
KELLER LENKNER: Faces Brown Suit in the District of Massachusetts
KELLOG CO: 2nd Cir. Revives Cheez-Its "Whole Grain" Class Action
KIMBERLY-CLARK: Supreme Court Won't Hear Flushable Wipes Dispute
LINCOLN PROPERTY: Sandoval Seeks Overtime Pay

MARQUETTE, MI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Collins et al. Say
MARRIOTT INT'L: Koskie Minsky Commences Data Breach Class Action
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Mendez et al. Sue over Data Breach
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Vapnek Sues over Data Breach
MDL 2873: Grande vs. 3M Company over AFFF Products Consolidated

MEC GENERAL: Oscar Londono Seeks Overtime Wages
MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Vedernikov Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
MINEBEAMITSUMI: Jan. 22 Bearings Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
MISSION TRAIL: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Drivers, Villareal Says
NET2SOURCE INC: Removes Johns Suit to C.D. California

NEW JERSEY: 2 Teachers Sue Over Involuntary Union Payments
NISEN SUSHI: Yu Peng Lu Seeks Overtime Pay
NISSAN MOTOR: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Tennessee
NISSAN N.A.: Turner Sues over Defective Emergency Braking System
NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Rite Aid Suit in S.D. New York

OHIO NATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Trailing Commissions
OVASCIENCE, INC: Faces Aubets Suit over Proposed Merger
PRIORITY PAYMENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Fabricant Claims
QUICKEN LOANS: Hackett Asserts Consumer Credit Suit in Fla.
REED'S INC: Mason Sues over Sale of Mislabeled Soda Products

REGIS CORP: Receipt Disclosed Credit Card Number, Cone Claims
RGS FINANCIAL: Vedernikov Files Suit in D. New Jersey
RIPPLE LABS: Class Action Over XRP Ongoing
RIPPLE LABS: Plaintiffs Wants Class Action Moved to State Court
SAKS FIFTH: Rice Sues over Unlawful Text Messaging

SETERUS INC: Wenger Files Suit for Breach of Contract
STATEWIDE TRANSPORT: Randle Seeks Overtime Pay for Drivers
SUNRISE CREDIT: Vedernikov Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
SURNAIK HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Claims in Callihan Suit
TELADOC HEALTH: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims

TELLTALE: Launches Final Walking Dead Episode Amid Class Action
TIGER BRANDS: First Listeriosis Claims Payout Expected in 2020
TRADER JOE'S: Lima Sues over Deceptive Branding of Honey Nut O's
TRUSTMARK NATIONAL: Sued for Improperly Charging Overdraft Fees
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: 12,501 Drivers Sue Over Arbitration Agreement

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Lawyers File More Arbitration Demands at JAM
UNITED STATES: ACLU Sues ICE Over Asylum-Seekers' Detention
UNITED STATES: Judge to Likely Advance Travel Ban Waiver Case
VICTORIA'S SECRET: Lambey Seeks Overtime Wages
WAL-MART STORES: Mays Moves to Certify Wage Statement Classes

WALT DISNEY: Home-Video Distributors File Class Action
WELLMONT HEALTH: Class Action Jury Trial Expected to Wrap Up
WILLIAMSBURG LAUNDROMAT: Viano et al. Seek Overtime Pay
WINMILL & CO: Appeals Delaware Court Ruling in Ravenswood Case
WORKPAC: Adero Prepares to File Suit Over "Double Dipping"


                            *********

ACOSTA SALES: Settles Overtime Pay Class Action for $3MM
--------------------------------------------------------
Braden Campbell, writing for Law360, reports that an Acosta Sales &
Marketing unit has agreed to pay $3 million to end a class action
alleging it stiffed thousands of workers on overtime pay. [GN]


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-03571-CCB (D. Md., Nov. 20, 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:

          E. David Hoskins, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF E. DAVID HOSKINS, LLC  
          16 East Lombard Street, Suite 400
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 662-6500
          Facsimile: (410) 662-7800
          E-mail: davidhoskins@hoskinslaw.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@rawlingsandassociates.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


ALABAMA: Suit Challenges Rule on Suspension of Driver's License
---------------------------------------------------------------
LAKENDRA COOK; CHRISTOPHER GRAY; and SHARON MOTLEY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAL
TAYLOR, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Alabama Law
Enforcement Agency, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-977-WKW-SRW (M.D.
Ala., Nov. 19, 2018) seeks to challenge the constitutionality of
Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.11(i)(3) which authorizes the
suspension of an individual's driver's license for nonpayment of
traffic tickets.

The complaint seeks the following: a declaration that Alabama Rule
of Criminal Procedure 26.11(i)(3) which authorizes the suspension
of an individual's driver's license for nonpayment of traffic
tickets, is unconstitutional; an injunction preventing Alabama Law
Enforcement Agency from effectuating any driver's license
suspension pursuant to Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure
26.11(i)(3); an injunction requiring Alabama Law Enforcement Agency
to reinstate any driver's license previously suspended under
Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.11(i)(3) without requiring a
reinstatement fee, if there are no other independent reasons for
suspension; and an injunction requiring Alabama Law Enforcement
Agency to provide notice of reinstatement to individuals with
suspended driver's licenses for nonpayment.

The Alabama Law Enforcement Agency, abbreviated as "ALEA", is a law
enforcement agency serving the U.S. state of Alabama. It exists
within the Executive Branch of State Government to coordinate
public safety in Alabama. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Micah West, Esq.
          Sara Zampieren, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          400 Washington Avenue
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 956-8200
          Facsimile: (334) 956-8481
          E-mail: samuel.brooke@splcenter.org
                  micah.west@splcenter.org
                  sara.zampierin@splcenter.org

               - and –

          Danielle Davis, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2000
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 526-8982
          Facsimile: (504) 486-8947
          E-mail: danielle.davis@splcenter.org


ALEX'S AUTO: Freddy Macas Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------
FREDDY V. MACAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ALEX'S AUTO BODY I, INC.; and
ALEXANDER KHAIMOV, individually and as officer, director, and or
principal of ALEX'S AUTO BODY I, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-07184 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2018), seeks to recover damages
and other legal and equitable relief against Defendants, for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law,
the Wage Theft Prevention Act.  The Plaintiff also brings this
action for Defendants' conduct, which amounts to the tort of
conversion.

According to the complaint, the case is a putative collective and
class action brought by Plaintiff challenging acts committed by the
Defendants against Plaintiff and those similarly situated, which
amount to violations of federal and state wage and hour laws. The
Defendants employed Plaintiff and all others similarly situated as
mechanics, which includes the positions of assembly workers,
painters, painters' assistants, alignment workers, bodywork
workers, and electrical workers, to repair automobiles at their
Brooklyn, New York facility. Mechanics often rotated what position
they were in (e.g., one week they performed electrical work while
the next they performed auto body work). Plaintiff was employed by
Defendants primarily as an alignment workers.

brings this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf
of himself and a collective of persons who are and were employed by
Defendants as Mechanics during the past three years through the
final date of the disposition of this action who were not paid the
proper statutorily required rate of one and a half times their
hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek and
are entitled to recover: (i) unpaid and incorrectly paid wages for
all hours worked in a workweek, as required by law, (ii) unpaid
overtime, (iii) liquidated damages, (iv) interest, (v) attorneys'
fees and costs, and (vi) such other and further relief as this
Court finds necessary and proper.

Plaintiff also brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23,
on behalf of himself and two classes of persons who are and were
employed by Defendants as Mechanics during the past six years
through the final date of the disposition of this action who were:
(I) not paid the statutorily required rate of 1-1/2 times their
hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek; and
(ii) not issued the proper wage statements and notices pursuant to
the WTPA, which violates the NYLL and are entitled to recover: (i)
unpaid and incorrectly paid wages for all hours worked in a
workweek, as required by law, (ii) unpaid overtime, (iii)
liquidated damages, (iv) penalties, (v) interest, (vi) attorneys'
fees and costs, and (vii) such other and further relief as this
Court finds necessary and proper.

Plaintiff also brings this action for Defendants' unauthorized
exclusive dominion over Plaintiff's equipment and tools, which
amounts to the tort of conversion and seeks to recover: (i) the
value of the property at the time of its conversion, (ii) lost
profits, (iii) interest, (iv) punitive damages, and (v) such other
and further relief as this Court finds necessary and proper, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Robert R. Barravecchio, Esq.
          Alexander M. White, Esq.
          VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
          600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7180
          Facsimile: (516) 706-0248

ALEXANDRE FINE: Faces Tucker Suit Alleging ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Alexandre Fine Art Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Alexandre Fine Art Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-11725 (S.D. N.Y., December 14, 2018).

Alexandre Fine Art Inc. is an art Gallery located in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces Romonoyske Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial,
LP. The case is styled as Sharon Romonoyske, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alltran
Financial, LP, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-07138 (E.D. N.Y.,
December 14, 2018).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices 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 is represented by:

   David M. Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 741-4799
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com

      - and -

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




ALLURA USA: Removes Lowe et al. Suit to D. South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of DOMINIC LOWE, and AMANDA LOWE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ALLURA USA LLC; PLYCEM USA LLC doing business as:
ALLURA; PLYCEM USA INC.; ELEMENTIA USA INC.; and ELEMENTIA SA DE
CV, Defendants, filed a notice of removal of the lawsuit from the
Court of Common Pleas of the State of South Carolina, County of
Berkeley (Case No. 2018-CP-08-01578) to the U.S. District Court for
the District of South Carolina, and assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-03160-DCN. The case is assigned to Honorable David C
Norton.

Plycem USA, Inc. manufactures and sells fiber cement exterior trims
for construction projects in the United States and Costa Rica. Its
projects include sustainable concept houses, single family homes
and attached villas, and condominiums. The company serves
contractors. It offers its products through distributors. The
company was founded in 2008 and is based in Alpharetta, Georgia.
Plycem USA, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Elementia, S.A. de
C.V. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amanda Morgan Blundy, Esq.
          Phillip W Segui , Jr., Esq.
          SEGUI LAW FIRM
          864 Lowcountry Blvd, Suite A
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 884-1865
          Facsimile: (843) 884-1465
          E-mail: ablundy@seguilawfirm.com
                  psegui@seguilawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Edward D Buckley , Jr., Esq.
          YOUNG CLEMENT RIVERS
          PO Box 993
          Charleston, SC 29402
          Telephone: (843) 724-6686
          Facsimile: (843) 724-6600
          E-mail: ebuckley@ycrlaw.com


ALPHABET INC: El Mawardy Suit Moved to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled KHALED EL MAWARDY, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALPHABET,
INC.; LAWRENCE PAGE; and RUTH PORAT, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-05704, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on November 19, 2018. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-07018 to the proceeding.

Alphabet Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides online
advertising services in the United States and internationally.
Alphabet Inc. was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Mountain
View, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN BOARD: Internists File Antitrust Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Ken Terry, writing for Medscape, reports that four internists from
around the country recently filed a class-action antitrust suit on
behalf of over 100,000 internal medicine physicians against the
American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), alleging that the ABIM
illegally ties its initial board certification to maintenance of
certification (MOC) exams that internists and internal-medicine
subspecialists must pay for in order to keep their certification.

Filed in the federal court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, the suit claims that ABIM has tied its MOC product to
initial board certification to prevent competition. [GN]


AMERICAS BEST: Faces Honeywell Suit in N.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------
CHERI HONEYWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAS BEST VALUE INN CLEVELAND AIRPORT,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02697-DAP (N.D. Ohio, Nov. 20, 2018)
alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case
is assigned to Judge Dan Aaron Polster.

Americas Best Value Inn operates a chain of hotels, inns, and
suites in North America. It also offers family vacation, weekend
getaway, sports, business travel, and group packages. The company
is based in Westlake Village, California. Americas Best Value Inn
operates as a subsidiary of Vantage Hospitality Group, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc E. Dann, Esq.
          Emily C. White, Esq.
          DANN LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 6031040
          Cleveland, OH 44103
          Telephone: (216) 373-0539
          Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
          E-mail: mdann@dannlaw.com
                  ewhite@dannlaw.com


AMP: Judge Reserves Ruling in Bid for Lead Counsel in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Misa Han, writing Australian Financial Review, reports that on  May
9, a day before AMP's annual general meeting, boutique class-action
specialist Quinn Emanuel filed the first class action against the
wealth giant in the NSW Supreme Court. Less than a month prior, AMP
had had a spectacular blow-up at the banking royal commission which
saw its market value fall by $2 billion.

It had the potential to be one of Australia's largest shareholder
claims, Quinn Emanuel said in a media release, less than two hours
after filing the court documents.

It turns out Quinn Emanuel wasn't the only law firm working towards
a tight deadline. At 10.56 that night, another boutique
class-action firm, Phi Finney McDonald, electronically filed its
class action against AMP, this time in the Federal Court.

After that a flurry of filings followed. By June 7 there were three
more law firms -- Maurice Blackburn, Slater & Gordon and Shine
Lawyers -- in the Federal Court, all wanting not just a slice but
the whole cake that is the AMP class action.

"We've seen competing class actions before but we haven't seen this
sort of frenzy," Chris Pagent, head of class actions at law firm
Corrs Chambers Westgarth, says.

AMP represents the perfect storm of opportunities for class-action
lawyers and litigation funders. The hard work that precedes a
shareholder class action -- preliminary discovery of documents --
has already been done by the Hayne royal commission. And the sworn
evidence of AMP's star witness, the wealth giant's departed head of
advice Jack Regan, and AMP's documents are available on the banking
royal commission website for all to see. Even though AMP has
previously said it will defend the class actions, has filed a
defence to that effect and has not set aside an amount for
settlement, the expectation is the matter will settle before it
goes to court.

As much was said by Phi Finney McDonald's barrister Alec Leopold,
SC, who said AMP's admissions at the royal commission were
"explicit", "damning" and "extensive" and the case had a good
prospect of settling at an early mediation because there was no
need to wait for discovery.

'IMF and daylight'
There are external factors at play too. There are more global
litigation funders than ever before circling around the Australian
class-action scene.

One source close to the case said that two years ago "it was IMF
[ASX-listed litigation funder] and daylight", but that had
changed.

The contest over the GetSwift shareholder class action was a prime
example. In that case three law firms -- Phi Finney McDonald,
Squire Patton Boggs and Corrs Chambers Westgarth -- all competed in
a so-called "beauty parade" for the prize of running the class
action. Each of these firms were backed by global funders Therium,
International Litigation Partners and Vannin Capital respectively.
Phi Finney McDonald eventually won the contest, but not before it
went all the way to the full bench of the Federal Court.

There is another beauty contest in the Quintis action too, with law
firms Piper Alderman, Gadens and Bannister Law all fighting for the
prize.

But the stakes for the AMP action are much higher and the
competition more fierce. The two-day "beauty contest" in room 8A of
the NSW Supreme Court was so well attended by lawyers on
Dec. 6 and Dec. 7 that Justice Julie Ward had to adjourn the
hearing briefly to bring in more chairs.

The beauty parade took an ugly turn when Justice Ward interrupted
Maurice Blackburn's shopping list of its past achievements to ask:
Wasn't Quinn Emanuel's lead partner in this case, Damian Scattini,
also involved in some of these actions as a former partner at
Maurice Blackburn?

His experience was "on any view more limited and not as extensive
as Mr Watson's [Maurice Blackburn's head of class actions Andrew
Watson]," Maurice Blackburn's barrister Cameron Moore, SC, said,
prompting Quinn Emanuel's barrister Richard Lancaster, SC, to
respond: "Mr Scattini and Quinn Emanuel also have vast experience
with class actions."

Meanwhile, Phi Finney McDonald in its submission argued its funder
IMF is a superior funder to Shine's funder Augusta and barrister
Alec Leopold, SC, boasted the other firms would be "jealous of our
number [of 4600 investors it has already signed up]".

Price war
It is not just each other's reputation the law firms are intent on
cutting. They are engaging in a serious price war. Typically a
funder lays a claim to about 25 to 35 per cent of a settlement or
court-ordered compensation, but in the case of AMP the beauty
parade is driving down commissions, to the benefit of
shareholders.

In this case Quinn Emanuel's funder Burford Capital will take a 10
per cent commission if the case is settled before June 2020, and is
offering to waive $300,000 in legal fees that have already been
incurred to fight the beauty parade.

Phi Finney McDonald's funder IMF will take a 10 per cent cut or
$2.50 for every dollar IMF spends.

Shine Lawyer's funder Augusta has capped its commission at 8 per
cent, which Shine's barrister Ian Pike, SC, says is the "lowest
rate that have been offered in class actions in Australia".

Maurice Blackburn, which has now formed an alliance with Slater &
Gordon, has cut the funder out of the equation altogether and is
running the case on a no-win, no-fee basis.

"My learned friend, Mr Pike, said [Shine's funder IMF] has the
lowest funding commission rate in history. We point out that we
have a zero rate," Maurice Blackburn's barrister Mr Moore said.

"Well, perhaps arithmetic wasn't Mr Pike's strong form," Justice
Ward quipped.

"Clearly not, Your Honour," Mr Moore said.

Justice Ward has reserved the decision. [GN]


ANTHEM BLUE: Must Still Face Eating Disorder Coverage Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Anthem Blue
Cross Life & Health Insurance Co. notched a victory in a proposed
class action seeking coverage for eating disorder treatments, but
the lawsuit is moving forward.

A federal judge Dec. 7 dismissed the original plaintiff -- who
claimed more than $75,000 in wrongfully denied medical bills
--after finding she was no longer covered by an Anthem health plan.
This meant she lacked standing to seek forward-looking relief,
including a court order forcing Anthem to change its claims
processing guidelines. [GN]


APHRIA: Faces Shareholder Class Actions
---------------------------------------
Sean Williams, writing for Fool.com, reports that in just a little
over three weeks, the marijuana industry will wrap up its most
impressive year ever.

Even without pot stocks soaring into the stratosphere, as they did
in 2016 and 2017, investors have to be pretty happy. That's because
Canada gave the industry long-term validation by becoming the first
industrialized country in the world to legalize recreational
marijuana. This potentially paves a path for other industrialized
countries to follow suit, and could open the door to billions in
added annual sales for the legal cannabis industry.

Lawyers are licking their chops

But there are two sides to every coin, and investors have learned
in recent months that the marijuana space can have a dark side,
too.

The cannabis industry, like every high-growth industry before it,
has all the makings of a bubble. We've witnessed similar
share-price gains and volatility in the past from the likes of
internet stocks, business-to-business commerce companies, genomics
stocks, 3D-printing stocks, and even blockchain businesses. And
what each of these bubbles had in common was the desire of
opportunistic law firms to pounce on any instance where a company's
management team was perceived as not having operated in the best
interests of investors. In some cases, something as simple as a bad
earnings report has been enough to draw a class-action lawsuit.

With marijuana stocks highly volatile and investors expecting the
world from the weed industry, it was only a matter of time before
pot stocks began to contend with the legal side of being publicly
traded companies.

Aphria becomes an all-too-easy class-action target

Ontario-based Aphria (NYSE:APHA) shed 43% of its value in a span of
two days after noted short-seller Gabriel Grego, the founder of
Quintessential Capital Management, referred to the company as a
"black hole" and implied it was worth "zero." According to
Bloomberg, which broke the news, Quintessential released a damning
report that suggested Aphria grossly overpaid for three Latin
American and Caribbean assets purchased from SOL Global
Investments, which in turn had purchased the assets for very little
from three separate Canadian shell companies. The chairman of SOL
Global Investments is Andy DeFrancesco, who also happens to be an
Aphria advisor.

As truly pointed out following this report, this isn't the only
time that an Aphria acquisition has been called into question. Back
in March, Aphria acquired Nuuvera for 425 million Canadian dollars,
which seemed like a steep price to pay for a company that didn't
add any production capacity. Rather, Aphria purchased Nuuvera to
gain access to its infrastructure in eight new markets. But the red
flag was that CEO Vic Neufeld and other members of Aphria's
management team disclosed stakes in Nuuvera just a day prior to the
deal closing. Though not unheard of for the management team of one
company to have a vested interest in a company being acquired,
investors would like to know about it more than one day prior to
the deal closing.

On Dec. 4, a slew of class-action lawsuits were filed against
Aphria on behalf of shareholders that concerned Aphria's recent
acquisitions, Quintessential's subsequent report, and the huge
share-price decline. It could take a long time for Aphria to regain
the trust of investors, and it'll be a costly process to do so.

But wait -- there's more

And Aphria certainly isn't the only pot stock to draw the ire of
lawyers. Before Aphria had a bull's-eye on its back, Las Vegas,
Nev.-based CV Sciences (NASDAQOTH:CVSI) was a go-to for
class-action law firms.

CV Sciences has two means of generating sales. First, it produces
and sells consumer products containing cannabidiol (CBD) oil.
Cannabidiol is the nonpsychoactive cannabinoid best known for its
perceived medical benefits. With the global CBD market expected to
grow by 147% per year through 2022, it's not hard to understand why
investors are a bit excited about this company.

And second, CV Sciences is attempting to create a drug that
combines CBD and nicotine as a smokeless tobacco-cessation
solution. This initial drug candidate is where those lawsuits have
originated.

You see, back in August, noted short-seller Citron Research
released a report showing that patent application requests for this
CBD-nicotine combo had been rejected by the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office. Yet, per the lawsuits and Citron, this rejection
was never disclosed to shareholders.

Oddly enough, shares of CV Sciences have held up relatively well
despite the allegations. In fact, shares are up more than 630% on a
year-to-date basis through Dec. 4. Nevertheless, CV Sciences could
be facing extensive legal fees to save face moving forward.

The reality of every fast-growing, volatile industry over the past
quarter century has been the presence of class-action lawsuits, and
it's unlikely that the marijuana movement will be any different.
[GN]


ARTEX RISK: Faces Class Action Over Captive Insurance Tax Shelter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Adkisson, writing for Forbes, reports that a class action
lawsuit for selling abusive tax shelters has been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona, captioned as Shivkov v.
Artex Risk Solutions, Inc., Case No. 18-CV-4514. You can read the
Complaint here.

The class action has numerous representative plaintiffs, which are
the former clients of Arthur G. Gallagher & Co.'s subsidiary, Artex
Risk Solutions, Inc., and its predecessor, Tribeca Strategic
Advisors, LLC. Gallagher, Artex and Tribeca are named as defendants
in the lawsuit. Also named in the lawsuit are TBS LLC, the Huish
brothers Karl and Jeremy who were involved with Tribeca and later
Artex, Debbie Inman, Epsilon Actuarial Solutions, LLC, Julie A.
Ekdom, AmeRisk Consulting, LLC and Provincial Insurance, PCC.

The Complaint alleges that Tribeca was formed in 1999, and then
Gallagher's Artex acquired Tribeca's assets in 2010. Under the
Gallagher/Artex scheme, abusive tax shelters disguised as
legitimate 831(b) captive insurance companies were sold to wealthy
individuals across the United States. Essentially, Artex formed the
captive insurance companies and charged management fees to the
clients.

In an attempt to create the facade of risk distribution, the Artex
clients would purchase insurance policies from Provincial
Insurance, PCC, which is claimed to have been indirectly owned by
Karl Huish and a family member. From Provincial, the clients'
premium dollars would then flow by way of a reinsurance agreement
back into the clients' respective captives, less any losses -- of
which there were in many years none, and in other years next to
none. In other words, the Complaint suggests, the use of Provincial
as a risk pool was a complete sham.

Ultimately, says the Complaint, the IRS concluded that the myriad
insurance transactions involving Artex's clients lacked economic
substance and were not insurance for tax purposes, in addition to
other defects. The IRS thus concluded that the moneys paid to the
Artex clients' captives were not deductible to the same clients'
businesses that paid them. Many of the Artex clients were then
assessed back taxes, penalties, and interest, according to the
Complaint, in addition to being charged in the neighborhood of
$40,000 to form the captive and around $30,000 per year for each
year of the tax shelter.

The Complaint alleges a conspiracy involving the named defendants
and "Other Participants", being other professionals such as tax
attorneys, CPAs, and financial advisors who steered their clients
into the Artex scheme in exchange for referral fees paid by Artex
or another defendant. These other professionals either knew the
Artex captive shelter would not pass IRS muster, the Complaint
says, or were willfully ignorant of the glaring defects to the
Artex program. Think of these folks as the "players to be sued
later".

The Class of plaintiff includes all those clients who had captives
through either Tribeca or Artex beginning in 2005, and are alleged
to have common damages, including their formation and management
fees paid to Tribeca or Artex, other fees such as those for
actuarial services of dubious benefit, and of course the penalties
and fees paid to the IRS.

Allegations are made that the acts of the named defendants violate
both the federal and Arizona RICO statutes. According to the
Complaint, all the defendants and "Other Participants" colluded and
conspired for the purpose of extracting substantial moneys from
their clients by way of selling them a bogus tax shelter
arrangement masquerading as a legitimate 831(b) captive insurance
company.

Of all the defendants, the largest is Gallagher. According to the
Complaint:

Gallagher is the parent company of Artex. Gallagher established
Artex for the purpose of, among other things, expanding its captive
insurance business. Artex was therefore directed by its parent
Gallagher to focus on the captive insurance industry and, in
furtherance of these efforts, Artex acquired Tribeca. Gallagher
also steered its existing clients to Artex. In connection with
these efforts, individuals employed by Gallagher could and did
receive referral bonuses or commissions when they referred existing
Gallagher clients to Artex.

Also sued as defendants are the underwriters, actuaries, and their
firms who are alleged to have simply targeted the premium price
desired by the client for a tax deduction, rather than act as
anything like a true neutral and do what they should have done,
which was to apply ordinary underwriting and actuarial principles
to facts before them.

In addition to RICO claims, the Complaint also alleges breach of
fiduciary duty, professional negligence, negligent
misrepresentation by the defendants, breach of contract, fraud,
aiding and abetting, and civil conspiracy by and between the
defendants. The Complaint also seeks disgorgement by the defendants
of all the fees they received from their clients.

This class action is being brought by Dallas attorney David Deary.

ANALYSIS

Buying Love Canal

I remember when I heard that Gallagher via Artex had acquired
Tribeca, and thought at the time, "What were the folks at Gallagher
smoking?" At least among some folks in the captive sector at the
time, Tribeca was thought of as little more than a tax shelter
captive shop with very aggressive marketing practices -- for
Gallagher to purchase Tribeca was like Gallagher acquiring the
captive insurance version of Love Canal. [For folks who don't
recall Love Canal, it was a notorious toxic chemical disaster area
near Niagara Falls.]

In my opinion, somebody at Gallagher made a really bad decision to
purchase Tribeca, and then a bunch of other somebodies at Gallagher
failed horrendously at due diligence. Then, at the very least,
Gallagher should have figured out a way to cut loose of Artex by at
least 2014 when the heavy storm clouds were starting to form for
the tax shelter captive business. As it is, Gallagher has
senselessly ridden the Artex deal over the cliff to where Gallagher
itself now faces serious liability exposure.

Presumably, smarter folks at Gallagher will soon make the decision
to terminate or at least cut loose Artex -- which, amazingly,
reportedly still continues to aggressively market 831(b)
risk-pooled captives -- and at least Gallagher can then start
cutting its losses. For a company like Gallagher, any monetary loss
that it will suffer probably pales in comparison to the potential
for reputational loss, since no otherwise reputable and profitable
insurance broker wants to be viewed as a purveyor of aggressive if
not evasive tax schemes.

Again, what were the Gallagher folks smoking when they decided to
acquire Tribeca via Artex?

When Tax Shelters Die

Otherwise, the class action lawsuits represent just another phase
in what happens when a tax shelter implodes. The class action
lawsuits are the next-to-the-last phase, with very last phase being
the bankruptcies of the promoters and those clients who can't
afford to pay the back taxes, interest and penalties. This is an
old movie that is perpetually re-run: From the corporate shelters
(BLIPS, CARDS, SON OF BOSS, etc.) of the 1997-2002 period, to the
412(i), 419A(f)(6) and 419(e) welfare benefit plans of the
mid-2000s, to the syndicated conservation easements and 831(b)
risk-pooled captives of today, the outcome is always about the
same: Pain and misery for all involved, except the litigators.

The IRS Takes A Hard Line On Penalties

Speaking of the penalties, the IRS now seems to be adopting a
rule-of-thumb in assessments, where tax years up to and including
2010 are being hit with 20% penalties, and those after 2010 are
being assessed penalties at the 40% rate. This position is quite
understandable since the IRS is currently batting 1.000 after the
two major U.S. Tax Court wins in the Avrahami and Reserve
Mechanical cases.

So, let's say that a business owner was talked into an abusive
831(b) captive shelter in 2008 and paid $1 million in premiums
through 2016, when good sense finally prevailed and the business
owner thereafter shut down the captive. In that case, the captive
owner would get hit with $200,000 in penalties for each of 2008,
2009 and 2010, and then $400,000 in penalties for each of the six
years of 2011 through 2016. This would amount to a $3 million in
penalties ($600,000 plus $2.4 million) for the life of the captive.
Ouch!

The class action lawsuits (whether this one or numerous other ones
certainly to follow) would sue the promoter for the return of this
$3 million, plus management fees and other costs expended during
this same timeframe, which would tack on at least another
half-million. Then consider that some of the captive managers were
managing hundreds of captives and one can get a handle on the
magnitude of the liability involved -- although the numbers and
years may vary, the odds are poor that a captive manager who gets
hit with a successful class action lawsuit will be able financially
survive.

Caveat: Not Every 831(b) Captive Is Bad

So who is being targeted by the IRS, and thus by extension the
class action lawsuits? The answer is not every captive insurance
manager, or anything like that. The vast majority of legitimate
captive managers and their clients are completely unaffected by any
of this. Instead, the IRS is currently conducting so-called
"promoter audits" of only a dozen or so captive managers that were
perceived to be the most abusive in their marketing and sales of
831(b) risk-pooled captives as tax shelters.

A promoter audit is a very serious thing, since it inherently
includes a determination by the IRS that the group selling the deal
is a bad actor. Usually, before the IRS engages in a promoter
audit, the IRS will have accumulated substantial evidence (enough
to make their case in court) that the promoter has engaged in the
selling of unregistered tax shelters.

Here, Artex has been under an IRS promoter audit, they have seen
their clients have their premium deductions be denied by the IRS
and assessed penalties, and so Artex was a natural and easy target
for a class action lawsuit. Again, there are about a dozen or so
similarly-situated captive managers under promoter audit who will
find themselves on the wrong side of a class action lawsuit just
like Artex and Gallagher.

At least Artex did the right thing and advised its clients upon
receiving notice that it was under promoter audit. Some other
high-profile captive managers who are under a promoter audit have
engaged in nothing short of fraud and deceit in telling their
clients the falsehood that they are not under a promoter audit.
Their clients are renewing their captive management contracts and
issuing insurance policies and taking deductions, blissfully aware
that their captives are D.O.A. as to not just their past years in
the deal but their future years too. But, so long as their clients'
checks keep cashing, these promoters have a powerful financial
incentive not to let their clients know that their train ran off
the tracks a long time ago.

Which is to say that some of the captive managers in desperation
have started to openly deceive and defraud their clients to the
true state of affairs -- and to try to hold on to the client's
management fees and moneys stuck in the captive or the risk pool as
long as possible. These managers have figure out that the 831(b)
tax shelter days are over and are simply trying to extract as much
money out of their clients as they can before they are forced to
shut down. Some of these same managers are also holding up their
client's from getting back their moneys from the risk pools for no
other real reason than that they want to soak their clients for
fees as long as they can.

As anytime a major tax shelter collapses, it is gets ugly out
there. Clients want to put this bad experience behind them, wind up
their captive and get their money back, and get compensated for
their losses. But the captive managers who are under promoter
audits have different ideas entirely. since they want to generate
fees until the last second so as to build their own war chest for
when the IRS assesses very likely massive promoter penalties
against them. It is a classic conflict of interest, and why captive
owners should be represented by truly independent counsel, and not
just merely rely upon the captive manager to do right or the
professionals who got them into the deal in the first place. In the
meantime, clients should be careful not to waive their rights to
sue the promoters by way or releases, indemnification agreements,
or to enter into arbitration agreements with the promoter, etc.

Underwriters And Actuaries Get Sued Too

To a very substantial degree, the 831(b) risk-pooled captive
industry exists only because there are insurance underwriters and
actuaries out there who will, for a fee, fabricate absurd risks and
make bizarre calculations of future losses so as to artificially
increase the premiums the captive clients will pay and thus
correspondingly increase the deductions taken by those clients'
operating businesses. Then, when the odorous excrement hits the
fan, the captive manager steps back and says, "We relied upon their
underwriting estimates and actuarial studies," no matter how far
detached from reality they may be.

This class action complaint illustrates that these supporting
professionals should not expect to escape liability for the
clients' losses. Named in the complaint are the underwriters and
actuaries who came up with these bogus risks and premium numbers
upon which the clients relied. These are not large firms, and very
likely they will not be able to come up with enough dough to pay
their legal defense in what portends to be protracted litigation,
and so themselves will have to find a way to come up with money to
fund an early settlement or else take bankruptcy. [Whether these
sorts of claims are even dischargeable in bankruptcy is another
matter entirely, and probably not.]

At the very least, this class action should substantially chill
industry wide those underwriters and actuaries of the "What premium
numbers do you want?" varietal and make them start to think about
their own liability when it comes to making pie-in-the-sky
projections.

This Is Only The Beginning Of The Class Actions

This case is remarkable because it is the first in what will likely
be a long series of class actions brought against each and every
captive manager who is under a promoter audit and their related
professionals, and who have had a captive client suffered the
denial of deductions and penalties.

Very simply, once class actions begin, they take on a life of their
own with certain class action law firms smelling the blood (really,
money) in the water, and aggressively started rounding up clients
so that they get a bigger share of the fees. Think of it as a
piranha attack -- one piranha will take a single bite, and then 200
other piranhas will start biting until all the subject has
disappeared. If what happened with the firms that marketed the
welfare benefit shelters is replayed here, it ends with all the
promoters' companies taking bankruptcy and their principals dodging
debtor exams for the next decade. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Sued Over Crimes Against Manus, Nauru Asylum Seekers
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Elton-Pym, writing for SBS, reports that a legal advocacy
group has launched two class actions in the High Court on behalf of
the roughly 1,200 remaining refugees and asylum seekers in offshore
processing centres on Manus Island and Nauru.

George Newhouse, director of the National Justice Project, told SBS
News the legal team led by well-known QC Julian Burnside had lodged
court documents on Dec. 7.

The case will be brought against the Commonwealth of Australia,
rather than the Home Affairs Department or the minister
specifically.

The group will claim they have been subjected to "torture, crimes
against humanity and the intentional infliction of harm by the
Australian government," Mr Newhouse said.

SBS News has contacted the Home Affairs Department for a response.

Legal challenges on behalf of individual asylum seekers are
relatively common, but not class actions of this scale. [GN]


BAD BOY: Martinez Case Moved to Southern District of Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Ernesto F. Martinez and other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. Bad Boy, Inc., doing business as:
Bad Boy Mowers, Inc., a Foreign Profit Corporation, the Defendant,
vs. Phillip Pulley, the Defendant, Case No. 18-038932-CA-01, was
removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on Dec. 17,
2018. The Southern District of Florida assigned Case No.
1:18-cv-25273-UU to the proceeding.  The suit alleges Fair Labor
Standards Act. The case is assigned to the Judge Ursula Ungaro.

Bad Boy, Inc. manufactures and sells commercial lawn mowers and
accessories. It engineers, fabricates, finishes, and assembles lawn
mowers.[BN]

Attorneys for Ernesto F. Martinez:

          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          Miriam Brooks, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Courthouse Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
                  jremer@rgpattorneys.com
                  mcolmenarez@rgpattorneys.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Barbara Cabrera Lewis, Esq.
          HARKE CLASBY, BUSHMAN LLP
          9699 NE 2nd Avenue
          Miami Shores, FL 33138
          Telephone: (305) 536-8220
          Facsimile: (305) 536-8229
          E-mail: blewis@harkelaw.com

               - and -

          Craig Salner, Esq.
          CLARKE SILVERGLATE P.A.
          799 Brickell Plaza, 9th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 377-0700
          Facsimile: (305) 377-3001
          E-mail: csalner@cspalaw.com

               - and -

          Francisco Ramos, Jr., Esq.
          CLARKE SILVERGLATE
          WILLIAMS & MONTGOMERY
          799 Brickell Plaza, 9th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 377-0700
          Facsimile: (305) 377-3001
          E-mail: framos@csclawfirm.com

BETHESDA: Legal Situation Over Fallout 76 Still Uncertain
---------------------------------------------------------
Austin Suther, writing for TechRaptor, reports that Fallout 76
launched and received heavy criticism from gamers and shortly
thereafter game journalists. Gamers were so discontent that a law
firm launched an investigation and a class action lawsuit against
Bethesda.

Migliaccio & Rathod LLC is the law firm suing Bethesda for
deceptive trade practices, which has gained the attention of gamers
and journalists alike. When the news came out that Bethesda bait
and switched a nylon bag in place for the canvas bag that was
supposed to be included in the $200 Power Armor Edition of Fallout
76, they expanded their investigation to now include that issue.

Now many are left wondering what route the investigation could
take. The legal issue regarding the bags is less clear after
Bethesda announced plans to manufacture it. Bruno Ortega-Toledo,
paralegal for M&R told me "'Replacement canvas bags' does not
necessarily equate to the bag that they originally advertised, so
we'll have to see what they actually deliver—and when, since
there is no mention of a delivery date, only a cut-off date to file
claims."

The original case, however, remains relatively unchanged. The
primary plaintiffs of the case are still to be decided, according
to Bruno Ortega-Toledo:

"For the moment we are sifting through responses that we have
received to our online questionnaire, so no word yet on the primary
plaintiffs. As we mentioned in your last set of questions, we are
looking to achieve what consumers want: a refund. We continue to
receive calls and emails, build a client list, and research the
issue."

When TechRaptor's Suther asked Orega-Toledo about the process of a
class action lawsuit, he said:

". . . we will reach out to Bethesda to see if they're interested
in reaching an informal resolution. If not, we'll move forward with
the class action. In layman's terms, that means putting together a
complaint with named plaintiffs, summarizing the issues with the
game, detailing the potential legal violations, and filing it in
court."

To determine the viability of this case, Mr. Suther reached out to
several law firms. Ryan Morrison, known in the gaming community as
the Video Game Lawyer, talked with me over the phone so he could
get his opinion on the case. Mr. Suther also talked with Zachary
Strebeck of Strebeck Law, who provides legal services for game
developers and tech companies.

Mr. Suther had informed Morrison about the bag issue, which at the
time was breaking news, and he said "If you're doing a switch like
that, that's much more egregious." Although, we know now that this
will likely not be actionable any longer.

Mr. Suther asked both lawyers if there were any other cases similar
to the Fallout 76 situation. The case that came to both of their
minds was the Sega and Gearbox case pertaining to Aliens: Colonial
Marines. Mr. Morrison said:

"That game was advertised everywhere with the caption at the bottom
that said, 'actual gameplay footage,' and then when they bought the
game none of that gameplay existed. It was a different interface,
the levels didn't exist, different game entirely. And that's very
different than a game putting up a trailer promo and then saying
'actual gameplay may vary.'"

Mr. Morrison himself had not played Fallout 76 at that point
(although he is a fan of the series), so he could not speak from
experience how poor a shape the game might be in. ". . . but I
would imagine everyone in the industry learned from that Sega and
Gearbox case," said Morrison, "so I would have a hard time
believing they have an easy case here by any means."

Mr. Strebeck, however, had some thoughts on the game's state on
release. He said: "There's always a delicate balance of what's
going to be an acceptable state for releasing a game. Given the
difficulties of QA with such a huge, online game, there are always
going to be problems. In this case, it appears that the problems
were more than the general gaming public could handle." He told me
he understood the gaming community's anger, but also that the fact
that Bethesda is making efforts to patch the issues (see the
"Inside the Vault" blog posts) counts for something.

This is, of course, one of the reasons why there is a lawsuit.
Morrison says it's important to remember that in a class action
lawsuit, you go in as an injured party.  It will depend on how the
judge defines the class in the Fallout 76 case. In the Sega and
Gearbox case, the judge defined the class as anyone who purchased
the game day one or prior, since there were no review copies
shipped. While Bethesda didn't send review copies, the pre-order
B.E.T.A., among other things, complicates matters.
Mr. Morrison continued:

". . .  when you're in a class like this, you're suing someone,
you're going after damages to be made whole again. So that's
basically your 60 dollars that you paid whole on the game, that's
the most you're getting here. There's not going to be extra
damages, it would be nearly impossible to imagine a scenario where
you're getting money for time loss or emotional damages or anything
like that, you're just going to get your money for the game back,
except the lawyer is going to take their cut out of it.

Mr. Morrison also cited an "age-old saying" that the only person
who wins a class action lawsuit is the lawyer. Another complication
in this case that differs from the Aliens one is a matter of
objectivity and subjectivity. Not only did Gearbox and Sega fail to
deliver their promise of advertised gameplay footage, missions, and
UI elements that were seen before release, but the game was just
bad.

Mr. Morrison said he has seen a lot of people both hating and
defending Fallout 76 on the internet.

"I see a lot of people defending the game too, which worries me for
the case as well because if this is subjectively bad, not
objectively bad, that's different. If it's completely different
than what they advertised, that's different than the game's not fun
or there's a couple bugs in it, you know?"

M&R included the denial of refunds in their blog post outlining
their investigation. Mr. Strebeck told Mr. Sutherit would hinge on
three elements: whether there was misleading advertisement about
the product, if buyers relied on said misleading advertisements,
and lastly, if the consumer was damaged or injured. Mr. Strebeck
said:

"I guess that last one is where we might run into problems. If they
purchased the game, and it was patched very quickly and
continuously improved, have they really been injured? I understand
the need for gamers to get into the game right away and play, but
I'm not sure courts or federal agencies would see such a need for
immediacy as damaging enough to impose liability."

Morrison told me he does not see this case as being a great remedy
for the player, but rather profit for the law firm. The law firm
takes a cut of the money in a case like this if they win. "99.9
percent of cases settle, or never see actual judgement," said Mr.
Morrison, 'so I would expect this to be dismissed almost
immediately or settled eventually." This is how legal procedures
often go in cases like this, and it isn't accusing M&R of anything
either. In fact, most have had a very positive reception towards
M&R for "holding Bethesda accountable."

Mr. Strebeck left Mr. Suther with a few valuable nuggets. First, if
there is truly an issue of false advertising, this can be reported
to the FTC. He also said that legal relief from small purchases
(like Fallout 76) is an uphill battle. Small claims courts are
another option for litigation, but usually the cost of the game is
not worth the legal trouble.

"Ultimately," said Mr. Strebeck, it's a "caveat emptor" situation
– make smart purchases and wait for reviews before buying. Don't
pre-order games. Be a smart consumer and you can hopefully avoid a
lot of this."

It's a long process and there won't likely be a verdict any time
soon. The case is changing near daily, with the developments of the
collector's edition bag issue and patches to fix the game. For now,
stay tuned to TechRaptor when more details come to light. [GN]


BITMAIN INC: Gevorkyan Sues over Use of Crypto Currency Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
GOR GEVORKYAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BITMAIN, INC.; BITMAIN TECHNOLOGIES, LTD.
and DOES 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-07004-VKD (N.D.
Cal., Nov. 19, 2018) is a class action against the Defendants in
connection with the marketing and sale of the crypto currency
mining devices known as Application Specific Integrated Circuits or
the "ASIC devices."

According to the complaint, in the past, Bitmain ASIC devices could
be configured and initialized in low-power mode that did not mine
crypto currency for Bitmain. However, after Bitmain established
itself as one of the world's largest crypto currency miners in the
last several years, the Defendants redesigned their ASIC devices to
mine crypto currency for the benefit of itself rather than its
customers who purchase the Products. Conveniently, Bitmain cashes
in on every second it takes to get the ASIC configured with the
customers' specifications and lays the substantial costs of
operating the ASIC devices at the feet of its customers.

Bitmain Technologies Limited develops and markets computing chips,
server equipment, and parallel computing software. The company was
founded in 2013 and is based in Beijing, China. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Karo Karapetyan, Esq.
          Robert Starr, Esq.
          Adam Rose, Esq.
          FRONTIER LAW CENTER
          23901 Calabasas Rd, Suite 2074
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 914-3433
          Facsimile: (818) 914-3433
          E-mail: robert@frontierlawcenter.com
                  adam@frontierlawcenter.com
                  karo@frontierlawcenter.com


BLUM & POE: Tucker Files Suit under ADA in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Blum & Poe New York, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Blum & Poe New York, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-11843 (S.D. N.Y., December 17, 2018).

Blum & Poe New York, LLC is a Contemporary art gallery with a
minimal space showcasing sculpture, paintings & photography.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BOEING: Appeals Court Overturns Injunction to Stop Embraer Tie-Up
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ghim-Lay Yeo, writing for FlightGlobal, reports that a Brazilian
federal appeals court has overturned the injunction issued to stop
the commercial aviation tie-up between Embraer and Boeing.

Embraer says the "provisional measure" was revoked by a panel of a
federal appeals court.

"The company will keep its shareholders and the market informed on
any material developments related to the class action," it adds.

A federal court in Brazil issued an injunction to block the
proposed commercial aviation joint venture between the two
companies, following a class action lawsuit brought against the
planned deal by a group of Brazilian lawmakers in July.

Boeing and Embraer have yet to finalise a deal, which requires
approval from Brazil's government and company shareholders.

Embraer had said it planned to secure Brazil government approval
for the partnership within the current administration of Brazil
president Michel Temer, whose term ends on 31 December. Incoming
president Jair Bolsonaro is reportedly supportive of the planned
partnership between the two companies.

The two companies plan to close the deal by end-2019. Under the
proposed tie-up, Boeing will purchase an 80% share of Embraer's
commercial aircraft business for $3.8 billion, leaving Embraer with
the remaining 20%.[GN]


BOERS WEI GALLERIES: Tucker Files Suit under ADA in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Boers Wei Galleries, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Boers Wei Galleries, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-11844 (S.D. N.Y., December 17, 2018).

Boers Wei Galleries, Inc. is an art gallery in New York City, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BRADLE COUNTY, TN: Sued Over Inadequate Health Care at Jail
-----------------------------------------------------------
Autumn Hughes, writing for Cleveland Banner, reports that a local
attorney is using billboards in an effort to find potential
participants for a class action lawsuit centering on alleged
inadequate healthcare at the Bradley County Jail.

J. Allen Murphy Jr. said he has heard from several people, who have
called based on seeing the billboards and hearing radio ads.

"I'm fielding phone calls every day," he said, adding he would like
to see at least 20 participants to ensure the class certification.
"We're still trying to get as many individual cases as possible."

The lawsuit was filed on Sept. 18 in Chattanooga's U.S. District
Court on behalf of Darrell Eden "and all others similarly
situated." The plaintiff and members of the putative class "are
current and former inmates or pretrial detainees of the Bradley
County Justice Center, who were or could be denied constitutionally
adequate medical care by the BCSO specifically, and Bradley County
more generally."

The defendants in the suit are Bradley County, former Sheriff Eric
Watson, BCSO Support Services Division Capt. Gabe Thomas, an
unidentified male BSCO officer and an unidentified BCSO female
officer. Watson, Thomas, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe" are all named in
both their official and individual capacities.

The complaint centers on medical care offered to inmates at the
jail, as well as claims related to prisoner deaths, jail
overcrowding, failure of jail inspections and funding for medical
care, among others.

Calling medical care offered to inmates at the jail as "woefully
inadequate," the legal filing noted "numerous prisoner deaths and
dozens of lawsuits, many of which have resulted in settlements";
the "repeated failure of state jail certification inspections" for
reasons including overcrowding and the provision of medical care;
and county leaders, including the county mayor and Bradley County
Commission, failing "to take corrective action" to address
deficiencies and permitted the deficiencies to continue.

The lawsuit claims Mr. Eden "was unconstitutionally denied medical
care at the jail . . ." In the legal filing, Eden is listed as a
Chattanooga resident who is a former pretrial detainee booked into
the jail on or about Sept. 20, 2017, on a charge of driving under
the influence, in connection with a car accident. The charge was
subsequently dismissed.  

In Mr. Eden's case, Mr. Murphy said "he was just completely denied
medical care," but added there are other classes, like medical
indifference, that could be included.

"We're going to see how the classes divide up," he said, adding he
has heard from people who were denied medication or weren't taken
for treatment.

Mr. Murphy said he assumes there are hundreds of people who have
been denied healthcare and medication while inmates at the jail.
Among the claims, Murphy said he has heard of people not given
colostomy bags or diabetes medication.

"We know there's been four deaths" as well as drug overdoses, Mr.
Murphy added.

"We know that the quality of care is abysmal," Mr. Murphy said.
"We've been contacted by ex-employees, by at least two dozen people
who have had issues with healthcare while incarcerated."

Mr. Murphy said he has from one year before the filing date and "it
goes on perpetually" to find additional plaintiffs. There are 12 to
16 billboards throughout Bradley County and Mr. Murphy is also
running radio ads. He believes "people will be identified through
discovery" during inspection of jail records, and those people will
be contacted later.

No dollar amount was listed in the legal filing, but relief in the
form of "an award to each plaintiff class member of compensatory
damages in an amount to be proved at trial," as well as punitive
damages, attorney's fees, and other costs, including "an award to
plaintiff and Inmate Class members of all such further relief as
the Court may deem just and proper."

At the time of the legal filing, Bradley County Attorney Crystal
Freiberg said she could not confirm if this is the first-class
action lawsuit filed against Bradley County, the former sheriff, or
BCSO. [GN]


C.C.M. CORPORATION: Faces Rambeau Suit in Sacramento California
---------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
C.C.M. Corporation.  The case is captioned as JEREMY RAMBEAU,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. C.C.M. CORPORATION; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case
No. 34-2018-00244842-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Nov.
19, 2018).

CCM Corporation doing business as Meek's Building Center; operates
as a lumber company. The company was founded in 1919 and is based
in Sacramento, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Kenneth S Gaines, Esq.


CALIFORNIA FACULTY: Professor Files Class Action Over Union Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys
have filed a federal class action lawsuit for a California
professor to reclaim union fees California Faculty Association
(CFA) officials unconstitutionally seized from him and similarly
situated employees. The class action complaint potentially includes
thousands of affected individuals and seeks to enforce the
Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Janus v. AFSCME decision, which
held that the First Amendment prohibits mandatory union fees for
public sector employees.

William D. Brice, a professor at California State University
Dominguez Hills (CSU), filed the complaint against the CFA. The
complaint, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California, claims that by forcing Brice and other
public sector workers under the monopoly bargaining representation
of CFA to pay union fees without their affirmative consent, CFA
union officials violated their First Amendment rights as protected
by the Janus precedent.

Mr. Brice exercised his right to resign his membership in CFA
around November 2014. However, he and other union nonmembers were
forced to pay union fees as a condition of employment under state
law. California's law requires CSU to deduct union fees from
nonmembers' wages and transfer them to CFA.

In the Foundation-won Supreme Court Janus v. AFSCME decision on
June 27, 2018, the Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to
require government workers to pay any union dues and fees as a
condition of employment. Additionally, the Court clarified that no
union dues or fees can be taken from workers without their
affirmative consent and knowing waiver of their First Amendment
right not to financially support a labor union.

In the class action lawsuit, Mr. Brice claims that CFA union
officials violated his and other nonmembers' rights under the Janus
decision by compelling them to subsidize the union and
automatically seizing fees without their clear consent. He asks
that the statutes that compelled nonmembers to pay union fees to
CFA as a condition of employment be declared unconstitutional.

The complaint requests that the court certify a class that includes
all individuals who at any time within the applicable limitations
period were forced to pay union fees to CFA without their
affirmative consent and knowing waiver of their First Amendment
rights, so they can all receive refunds of the money taken from
them in violation of their constitutional rights.

"Independent-minded workers are standing up for their rights," said
National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. "In the
Foundation-won Janus decision, the Supreme Court finally upheld
public sector workers' First Amendment right to choose whether or
not to support a union without the threat of being fired. Further,
the High Court made it clear that fees cannot be collected without
a clear waiver of First Amendment rights, something the CFA never
received from Professor Brice and his colleagues, which is why the
complaint seeks refunds of millions of dollars of fees seized in
recent years."

The Foundation has created a special website, MyJanusRights.org, to
assist public employees in exercising their rights under Janus,
which was successfully argued by National Right to Work Foundation
staff attorney William Messenger.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit,
charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose
human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism
abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at
1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in more than 250
cases nationwide per year. [GN]


CALIFORNIA MARINE: Marin Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
LUZ MARIN, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CALIFORNIA MARINE
CLEANING, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1-50 Inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00063483-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super.
Ct., Dec. 17, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation under
the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by the
Defendant in California as a non-exempt employee entitled to
overtime pay and meal and rest periods from March of 2007 to August
of 12 2017. The Plaintiff was classified by the Defendant as a
non-exempt employee paid in whole or in part on an hourly basis.
Pursuant to the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, the
Defendant required to pay Plaintiff and the California Class
members for all their time worked, meaning the time during which an
employee is subject to the control of an employer, including all
the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work.

The Defendant required Plaintiff to work while clocked out during
what was supposed to be Plaintiff's off-duty meal break. As a
result, the Plaintiff and other California class members forfeited
minimum wage and overtime compensation by the Defendant, the
lawsuit says.

The Defendant provides the military, MARAD, Cruise Lines and
industrial/commercial businesses with services of tank cleaning,
mechanical cleaning, and oil flushing & hydro-blasting.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
          ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
          5850 Oberlin Drive, Suite 230A
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619)255-9047
          Facsimile: (858) 404-9203
          Website: www.zakaylaw.com

               - and -

          Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
          JCL LAW FIRM, A.P.C.
          3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite C204
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 559-8292
          Facsimile: (619) 599-8291
          Website: www.icl-lawfirm.com

CANADA: 60s Scoop Survivors Eligible for Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------
Randy Shore, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that First Nations
and Inuit people who were placed in the care of non-Indigenous
foster or adoptive parents between 1951 and 1991 may be eligible
for compensation between $25,000 and $50,000.

Michael Sadler was just an infant when he was taken from his
teenage mother.

Half Native, he was adopted by a Caucasian couple who knew next to
nothing of his First Nations heritage.

"My parents told me I was part First Nations, but they said Indian
back in those days," he said.

Mr. Sadler's biological mother was considered white, but her family
shipped her off to live with her great aunt to separate her from
her First Nations boyfriend.

She soon discovered she was pregnant. After she gave birth, her
mother gave Mr. Sadler to children's services.

There, he was caught up in a government-sanctioned program that
removed First Nations children from their homes and placed them
with white foster families for adoption, now called the Sixties
Scoop.

At least 20,000 First Nations children across Canada were stripped
of their family names, their language and their culture under
provincial child welfare policies beginning in the 1950s and
persisting in some cases all the way up to 1991.

Mr. Sadler's adoptive family lived in Vancouver and Prince George
until his parents split up. He would eventually finish high school
while living with his father in southern Alberta.

At no time did he have meaningful contact with other First Nations
people.

"I felt different," he recalled. "I was dark, they were light. My
sister was white. There was a lot of stigma, so I wasn't proud of
being an Indian kid.

"Mostly people associated First Nations with what they saw
downtown, where people were struggling with alcohol addiction and
looking down and out. I would lie to people and tell them I was
Hawaiian or something like that because I was ashamed."

Mr. Sadler reconnected with his heritage as an adult, while
pursuing a career in teaching and then First Nations social
development. He holds a Master's degree in education from Simon
Fraser University.

"At my first teaching job at the Native Education Centre, people
would ask me where I was from and I couldn't tell them," he said.
"People would ask me if I was a Status Indian and I didn't even
know what that meant."

He found his biological family with a single phone call to the
Gitxsan reconnection society.

"The lady I spoke with said, 'We know all of our lost children and
I know your story. We've been waiting for you to call,'" he
recalled. "It was really overwhelming."

He met his parents a month later and talks to them and his
biological siblings regularly.

Mr. Sadler is also rediscovering his culture.

"My work path took me into First Nations communities working in
education, housing, health, all with our people," he said.

Today, Mr.  Sadler is a member of the Kispiox First Nation.

He has three daughters and works hard to be active in their lives,
but Mr.  Sadler has struggled with relationships and trust.

"I've had trouble maintaining relationships with my partners and I
think being adopted and then seeing my parents divorced contributed
to that," he said. "I ended up living with my dad, so I learned not
to make close relationships."

Those are hard lessons to unlearn, he said.

For Scoop survivors, reconnecting with family can mean dredging up
hurt feelings and even re-experiencing trauma in cases where their
adoptive upbringing was abusive.

"People get into fostering kids for a whole variety of reasons,
they aren't always the right reasons and the vetting process wasn't
that great," he said "Some kids had a really shitty experience."

"That might be physical and sexual abuse and if they take off, they
are in another home and lack any kind of stability," he said.
"Those kids end up on the street and it's a terrible cycle."

Last year, the federal government set aside $750 million in a class
action settlement to compensate children apprehended in the Sixties
Scoop, along with $50 million for healing services and $75 million
for legal fees.

Like the residential school system, the Scoop has been denounced by
First Nations leaders as an attempt to blend Natives into the
Canadian mainstream and as organized "cultural eradication."

First Nations and Inuit people who were placed in the care of
non-Indigenous foster or adoptive parents between 1951 and 1991 may
be eligible for compensation between $25,000 and $50,000, depending
on how many people register.

An information session for potential registrants will be held Dec.
17 in Vancouver. Check sixtiesscoopsettlement.info for details. You
do not need to have documentation to register, the administrators
will seek necessary records if they are needed. [GN]


CANADA: Halifax Orphanage Ill-Equipped to Meet Children's Needs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Doucette, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that a new
report from an ongoing public inquiry into decades of abuse at a
Halifax-area orphanage says a fragmented system of care wasn't
equipped to address the needs of children who were vulnerable.

The interim report, released on Dec. 7 by the Nova Scotia Home for
Colored Children Restorative Inquiry, says the story of the home
illustrates a social system that works in isolation.

"Across the many sessions of the inquiry, participants acknowledged
that social systems failed to provide the support and care that
children and young people in the home required and deserved," says
the report.

"This included the failure to properly protect former residents and
respond to experiences of abuse and neglect. They recognized that
current systems and structures remain ill-equipped to fully respond
to people's needs."

Inquiry co-chairwoman Pamela Williams, who is chief judge of the
provincial and family courts, said people's experiences that
pointed to shortcomings within the system consistently emerged as
the inquiry conducted its work over the past three years.

"There is an absolute need to build stronger trusting relationships
as we move forward and make better and lasting changes for the
future," she said.

The report also says the system's inability to connect with the
black community complicated a relationship that was already
overlaid with overt and systemic racism.

The Nova Scotia Home for Colored Children opened in 1921 and was
initially seen as a "significant achievement" by the African Nova
Scotian Community. The institution looked after children who
weren't accepted by the Protestant and Roman Catholic orphanages of
the time.

More than 3,000 people turned out to celebrate the opening of a
home that would eventually see more than 1,000 children live there
over its lifespan.

"This is not a simple story of bad individuals or bad intentions,"
said Jennifer Llewellyn, a member of the inquiry council and a
professor at Dalhousie University's Schulich School of Law.

"This home was created out of an incredible act of care, and yet
resulted in a failure of care for those who lived there," said
Llewellyn.

The report said economic disparity that limited opportunities in
the African Nova Scotian community also played a role in what
happened at the home.

During its early period, many female staff took jobs to support
their families, placing them in a vulnerable position "were they to
lose their income by reporting abuse," the report says. Economic
inequality also led to children being placed in the home by
families who couldn't afford to raise them.

Inquiry co-chairman Tony Smith, a former resident of the home, said
overt racism also effected how the system dealt with children like
him.

As a "fair complected kid," Smith said he went to the home at the
age of five and was told after a few weeks that he was white, not
black.

"So they put me into a white orphanage and after being there for a
few weeks they said you're not white, you're black, and you have to
go back to a colored home," he said. "It was very clear that racism
played a major role."

A report released by the inquiry in January also pointed to a
culture of silence and shame that contributed to the abuse at the
home.

The Dec. 7 interim report precedes the inquiry's final report,
which is expected in March. That report is expected to focus on
planning and action for the current care system.

The restorative inquiry is made up of former residents of the
orphanage, community members and the provincial government.
Launched in late 2015, it has a mandate to examine the experiences
of former residents and systemic discrimination and racism
throughout the province.

Premier Stephen McNeil issued a formal apology to the residents of
the orphanage in 2014 for physical, psychological, and sexual abuse
up until the 1980s.

Class action lawsuits against the home and the province ended in
settlements totalling $34 million. [GN]


CANADA: Settlement Reached in Indian Day Schools Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that the federal government announced a deal has
been reached on a potentially multibillion-dollar settlement for
former students of Indian Day Schools. About 200,000 Indigenous
children attended the federally-operated schools across the country
beginning in the 1920s.

The agreement in principle includes individual compensation in an
amount that has not yet been made public, as well as $200 million
for healing, wellness, language, culture and commemoration, and
funding for legal fees. [GN]


CASTELLI GALLERY: Tucker Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Castelli Gallery, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Castelli Gallery, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-11845 (S.D. N.Y., December 17, 2018).

Leo Castelli is an owner of Castelli Gallery, Inc. (born Leo
Krausz; September 4, 1907 – August 21, 1999) was an
Italian-American art dealer. His gallery showcased contemporary art
for five decades.  Among the movements which Castelli showed were
Surrealism, Abstract Expressionism, Neo-Dada, Pop Art, Op Art,
Color field painting, Hard-edge painting, Lyrical Abstraction,
Minimal Art, Conceptual Art, and Neo-expressionism.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAT5 RESOURCES: Louviere Seeks Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------
DELLA JEAN LOUVIERE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND, ON BEHALF OF THOSE
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, vs. CAT5 RESOURCES, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00625 (E.D. Tex., Dec. 17, 2018), seeks
to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest,
reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938.

The Plaintiff brings this claim individually and as part of a
collective action under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on
behalf of those individuals who were non-exempt hourly workers of
the Defendant and who were suffered or permitted to work in excess
of 40 hours per workweek without payment of overtime wages in
compliance with the FLSA, the lawsuit says.

According to the complaint, the Defendant negligently and willfully
failed to pay the Plaintiff and Class Members wages for all hours
worked over 40 at the compensation rate of one and one-half times
their appropriate hourly rate in violation of the FLSA. The
Defendant failed to keep adequate records of actual hours worked by
the Plaintiff and Class Members, also in violation of the FLSA.

The Defendant is in the business of providing labor and services
related to disaster recovery services, and including preparation
and planning for disasters that cause interruptions in various
industries and utilities -- including but not limited to fuel
services, electrical services, communications (cell phone
providers), transportation and logistics.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Mark Frasher, Esq.
          John Werner, Esq.
          REAUD, MORGAN & QUINN, L.L.P.
          801 Laurel Street
          P. O. Box 26005
          Beaumont, TX 77720-6005
          Telephone: (409) 838-1000
          Facsimile: (409) 833-8236
          E-mail: jwerner@rmqlawfirm.com
                  mfrasher@rmqlawfirm.com

CHEMOURS: Consent Order Insufficient to Rectify Damage
------------------------------------------------------
In an opinion posted at Star News Online, Kathleen D.H. Pawlowski a
Wilmington attorney and Dr. James T. Pawlowski, a Wilmington
physician, stated "As 25-year residents of Wilmington who have
raised two children here, we are concerned that the proposed
Chemours Consent Order is woefully insufficient to rectify the
damage to the Wilmington area and community from Chemours' knowing
contamination of the area's water supply for the past 30 years.

Chemours is a $6.1 billion/yr company, with a profit of $765
million last year, $682 million from GenX, and is a recent spin-off
of DuPont, a $48.1 billion/yr company. Penalties such as the
proposed $13 million penalty for GenX contamination are determined
based on the company's ability to pay. Even using Chemours'
revenues and profits alone to determine the penalty for its
corporate misconduct, $13 million is nowhere near sufficient to
deter Chemours from continued contamination of the Wilmington
area's water supply.

The $13 million penalty is grossly below the amount of $46 million
needed by New Hanover County and the more than $100 million needed
by Brunswick County to upgrade their respective water-treatment
plants to provide safe water in the wake of Chemours'
contamination. Nor is the amount of the proposed Consent Order
anywhere close to the $671 million paid by Chemours and DuPont last
year to settle a class-action lawsuit related to discharges into
the water at its Parkersburg, West Virginia, plant. The chemical at
question was C-8, the predecessor to GenX.

For Chemours and DuPont to have profited so handsomely for so long
at the expense of the safety of the Wilmington water supply,
endangering the health of its residents, particularly those without
the resources to purchase water from elsewhere, Chemours, with much
greater resources, should bear the cost of the remediation required
by its pollution of the Wilmington water supply.

Clean water for the Wilmington area is imperative for the vitality
of its residents, educational and health care institutions, varied
businesses, tourist trade and many visitors. But for Chemours,
Wilmington could provide clean water to its residents with
confidence and at a reasonable price. What Chemours polluted,
Chemours must be required to clean up, completely, and be required
to pay a penalty sufficient to deter it from further wrongdoing.

At this point, it is too early to know the extent of possible
medical costs that may be incurred by Wilmington area residents,
particularly those raised on contaminated water. For that reason
alone, it is premature to approve a Consent Order that does not
fully account for the myriad of damages caused by Chemours'
contamination of the area's water supply. Not until a penalty in
line with the damage caused by Chemours, its ability to pay and
much closer to the real costs to make our water safe again, as well
as funds available for related medical expenses, should a Consent
Order be approved.

The current proposed Consent Order fails on all those counts and is
unacceptable.

It's time to speak up. [GN]


CONAGRA FOODS: Must Face Parkay Spray Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge refused to dismiss a class action accusing ConAgra
Foods of deceptively marketing its Parkay Spray by using
artificially small serving sizes to claim servings contain zero
calories and zero fat, though each bottle allegedly contains 832
calories and 93 grams of fat.

The case is Allen, et al. v. Conagra Foods, Inc. (Case No.
3:13-cv-01279 (N.D. Cal.).

A copy of the Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is available at https://is.gd/vChUcA


COSMETIC INSTITUTE: Class Action Over Botched Surgery Promising
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Berry, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
the use of "cosmetic surgeon" to describe providers of a range of
procedures should be discontinued, according to the Australasian
Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, who have warned "cosmetic
surgery sweatshops" have become "rampant".

The society's president, Dr Naveen Somia, said some providers of
invasive cosmetic procedures, including breast augmentation, have
chosen to "misrepresent their abilities", putting consumers at
risk.

The Supreme Court granted permission for up to 1000 women claiming
botched breast surgery to take on The Cosmetic Institute in a class
action. The case begins on December 14.

Dr Somia said the lawsuit against one of Australia's biggest
cosmetic surgery "sweatshops" is promising and he hopes tighter
regulation of the cosmetic enhancement industry will follow.

The industry -- which spans minimally invasive injectables to more
invasive treatments including breast augmentation -- is still not
as well regulated as other forms of medicine, Dr Somia said, partly
because it has grown fast in the last two decades.

He put the rapid expansion down to newer technologies making
procedures accessible to a wider number of people, increasing
affluence and social media growth boosting demand as "influencers"
promote products and treatments.

"This emerging market allowed commoditisation and non-medical
entrepreneurs to have a go. Underqualified and unqualified
practitioners saw a career opportunity and started to misrepresent
their abilities and qualifications on social media platforms," he
said.

"The Regulatory oversight has not kept up with the pace of growth
and has failed to regulate the practitioners use of the fabricated
title 'cosmetic surgeon'."

Dr Somia said that since cosmetic procedures are not covered by
Medicare or private health insurance, "they have escaped two
additional levels of scrutiny that the rest of the medical industry
has".

This has meant the proliferation of what ASAPS calls "sweatshops"
which, Dr Somia warns, are not required to adhere to safety
standards, employ registered surgeons or practice ethical
marketing.

"Social media platforms do not verify or check what the
accreditations are," he adds. "It's up to your ethics what you call
yourself or how you represent yourself. Patients will be misled.

"We don't know how many [sweatshops] there are at present. Sadly
the growth is exponential. The volume of demand means the number of
people catering to demand has increased."

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons Report estimates about
17.5 million cosmetic procedures in the past year, and Australians
usage is higher per capita.

Lower prices are the only determinant for sweatshops, Dr Somia
says, adding that costs in the industry vary greatly, but he
"guesstimates" the average saving is about $3000 for breast
implants.

While cut prices may be tempting to the consumer, they are paying
the price for discount surgery.

In recent years complications from procedures performed in
sweatshops are happening with "alarming frequency", Dr Somia says,
and include cardiac arrest, seizures, lung punctures, blindness,
physical deformities and ongoing psychological distress.

The cost of complications from breast augmentation alone in
Australia was over $10 million between 2001 and 2014.

Along with a lack of government regulation is consumer confusion
about medical titles and qualifications.

Dr  Somia explains that the title "cosmetic surgeon" is not an
official Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA)
title.

Choosing a practitioner with an AHPRA registered title is a
"guarantee" to the public that the person is legally registered as
a specialist.

"With a 'cosmetic surgeon' that guarantee and accreditation is not
there," Dr Somia says.

The Council of Australian Governments' (COAG) is currently
reviewing submissions on how to better regulate the industry
including one from ASAPS calling for tighter regulations and
requesting that the title "cosmetic surgeon" be banned so that
patients being treated by an unqualified doctor are no longer
misled.

In the meantime, he advises consumers to look for the title
"specialist plastic surgeon" and the letters FRACS after their
name. These letters mean they are a Fellows of the Royal
Australasian College of Surgeons and, Dr  Somia adds, it is "like a
safety rating before you buy a car".

For less invasive procedures, Dr Somia warns against "mobile
freelancers" and instead advises choosing a reputable clinic and
asking questions. [GN]


CPP ENTERPRISES: Rivera Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium
-----------------------------------------------------
MAGDALENO RIVERA, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CPP ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a VILLA ROSA
PIZZA and THOMAS J. PIEPRZYCA, Jointly and Severally, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-08266 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 17, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime premium pay pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants operate a pizza
restaurant doing business as Villa Rosa Pizza in Chicago, Illinois.
Mr. Rivera was employed as a dishwasher and prep cook for the
Defendants. The Plaintiff was paid straight-time for all hours
worked, despite working in excess of 40 hours per week throughout
his employment. The exact number of employees who have suffered the
same unpaid overtime wage injury as Plaintiff, and have yet to
receive redress is unknown at this time.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Brandon A. Thomas, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC
          1 Glenlake Parkway, N.E., Suite 650
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (678) 330-2909
          Facsimile: (678) 638-6201
          E-mail: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com

CRAIG F. STARR: Tucker Files Suit under ADA in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Craig F. Starr Associates, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Craig F. Starr Associates, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11848 (S.D. N.Y., December 17, 2018).

Craig F. Starr Gallery specializes in 19th- and 20th-Century
American and European fine art, paintings, prints, drawings,
lithographs, screenprints, etchings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



CUMBERLAND EXCAVATION: Underpays Construction Workers, Gill Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL GILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CUMBERLAND EXCAVATION, LLC; BRYAN
KRABOUSANOS; and FRANK BELCHER, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01302
(M.D. Tenn., Nov. 20, 2018) seeks to recover from the Defendant
unpaid overtime compensation, prejudgment interest, maximum
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Gill was employed by the Defendants as construction worker.

The Defendant is a limited liability company which engages in the
construction, grading, and demolition business in the Middle
Tennessee area and maintains its principal place of business in
Nashville, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trevor Howell, Esq.
          HOWELL LAW, PLLC
          P.O. Box 158511
          Nashville, TN 37205
          Telephone: (615) 406.1416
          E-mail: Trevor@howelllawfirmllc.com

               - and -

          Autumn Gentry, Esq.
          Peter F. Klett, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
          Fifth Third Center
          424 Church Street, Suite 800
          Nashville, TN 37219-2392
          Telephone: (615) 244.6538
          E-mail: agentry@dickinsonwright.com
                  pklett@dickinsonwright.com


D. WIGMORE FINE: Faces ADA Class Action in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
D. Wigmore Fine Art Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. D. Wigmore Fine Art Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-11850 (S.D. N.Y., December 17, 2018).

D. Wigmore Fine Art, Inc. is an American art gallery located in
Midtown Manhattan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



DAVID TUNICK: Tucker Files ADA Class Action in NY
-------------------------------------------------
David Tunick, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Henry
Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. David Tunick, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11858
(S.D. N.Y., December 17, 2018).

David Tunick, Inc. offers a wide selection of artworks by leading
artists.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



DAVID ZWIRNER GALLERY: Violates Disabilities Act, Tucker Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Zwirner Gallery, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. David Zwirner Gallery, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-11859 (S.D. N.Y., December 17, 2018).

David Zwirner, Inc. owns and operates art galleries. It features
various artists who work in a range of media, including drawing,
painting, photography, sculpture, videos, and installation. The
company is based in New York, New York. It has locations in New
York, New York; and London, United Kingdom.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DENMARK, SC: Citizens File Class Action Over Use of HaloSan
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ron Baxley Jr., writing for Times and Democrat, reports that
volunteers with Denmark Citizens for Safe Water, with the help of
the Orangeburg and Barnwell Walmart stores, have distributed nearly
2,000 cases of donated bottled water to residents worried about the
quality of the city's water in the past two weeks.

Residents had complained about the discolored water coming from
their spigots for years, many of them showing up seeking answers at
Denmark City Council meetings with bottles of the nasty-looking
brown water.

The S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control had
repeatedly assured Denmark officials and citizens that the water
was safe to drink. However, a CNN report, following a year-long
investigation, recently revealed that the chemical HaloSan was used
in one of Denmark's wells for a decade even though it is not
approved for such usage by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Rep. Justin Bamberg, D-Bamberg, has said he and Sen. Brad Hutto,
D-Orangeburg, met with DHEC officials to determine how the decision
was made to use the non-EPA approved product in drinking water.

A group of Denmark citizens has filed a class-action lawsuit
against the city over the use of HaloSan.

Activist Deanna Berry, who helped organize Denmark Citizens for
Safe Water, said the volunteers distributed more than 900 cases of
bottled water to 510 residents on Nov. 23. The tractor-trailer-load
of water was donated by the Barnwell and Orangeburg Walmart stores,
she said.

In addition, Ms. Berry said the volunteers distributed another
1,000 cases of bottled water to Denmark residents on Nov. 28. That
truckload of water was purchased by Bakari Sellers of the
Columbia-based Strom Law Firm and Wilson & Luginbill of Bamberg,
two of the law firms representing the Denmark citizens who filed
the class-action lawsuit against the City of Denmark.

Also assisting with the distribution was the Denmark-Olar High
School basketball team, Berry said.

Denmark residents were grateful for the donated water, "but
concerned as to how long we would be able to provide safe drinking
water," she said.

"You have to think these citizens have been poisoned for 10 years
by our local government and our state officials. So they don't
trust them at all. How can you blame them?" Ms. Berry said.

" . . . People are afraid of what will happen if we aren't able to
get any more donations and if they would be forced to use water
that's still not being treated properly," she added.

"We can't afford to fight the way other cities have," Berry said.
"We need people's help. Send us water. We are not collecting or
asking for money. We are asking for water ... "

Ms. Berry said she is working with disaster relief agencies from
Georgia, New Jersey and surrounding areas to provide water
distribution in Denmark at least once a week, " . . . at least
enough where citizens can use that water to cook and drink.
Especially those new mothers who have to fix a bottle in the middle
of the night and not have to worry about what's coming out of her
faucet," Ms. Berry said.

She said it is her "prayer" that major businesses and corporations
from neighboring cities, counties and states will come to the aid
of the citizens of Denmark.

"I can provide them with the costs on what a truckload of water
will cost from Walmart or our local Piggly Wiggly in Denmark," Ms.
Berry said. [GN]


DI DONNA GALLERIES: Tucker Files Suit in New York under ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Di Donna Galleries,
LLC. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Di Donna Galleries,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11861 (S.D. N.Y., December 17,
2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Di Donna Galleries is an American art gallery in New York City. It
specializes in Modern and Surrealist art. The gallery was initially
located on the second floor of The Carlyle Hotel at 981 Madison
Avenue, New York City, the former home of Ursus Books.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DICKINSON ROUNDELL: Gallery Hit With ADA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Dickinson Roundell, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Dickinson Roundell, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-11863 (S.D. N.Y., December 17, 2018).

Dickinson Roundell, Inc. is an art gallery in New York City, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



DIDIER AARON: Violates ADA, Tucker Suit  Says
---------------------------------------------
Didier Aaron, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Henry
Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Didier Aaron, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11865
(S.D. N.Y., December 17, 2018).

Didier Aaron, Inc. is an art gallery in New York City, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



DIRECT ENERGY: Voussefi Seeks Lost Wages for Sales Representatives
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALEX VOUSSEFI; on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs DIRECT ENERGY BUSINESS, LLC; and
DIRECT ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 18-3809 (Dec.
10, 2018, Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty.) seeks lost wages, treble
damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees as result of
Defendants' violations of the Massachusetts Wage Act and the
Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law.

The Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, namely all individuals who provided services to
Defendants as sales representatives. The Defendants use various
means to sell electricity to their customers. The Defendants sell
electricity directly to customers through a website they jointly
operate, and over the telephone. The Defendants obtain the services
of its door-to-door sales representatives by entering partnerships
with third parties. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and other
sales representatives all of the wages owed to them. The Defendants
did not pay Plaintiff and other sales representatives an hourly
rate equal to minimum wage for all of the hours that they performed
services for Defendants, the lawsuit says.

Direct Energy, a retail energy supplier, provides energy and
energy-related services in North America.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Brook S. Lane, 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: brook@fairworklaw.com
                  hillary@fairworklaw.com

DYNAMIC PRESENCE: Kelley Macey Seeks Overtime Premium
-----------------------------------------------------
Kelley Macey, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Dynamic Presence, Inc. and Presence
Marketing, Inc., doing business as "Presence Marketing/Dynamic
Presence," the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-08263 (N.D. Ill., Dec.
17, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation and other relief
relating to violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employ "sales
representatives" who are responsible for calling on chain natural
grocery accounts. The Plaintiff and the sales representatives
routinely worked more than 40 hours in a workweek without receiving
an overtime premium for hours worked over 40.

As sales representatives, the Plaintiff and the similarly situated
individuals were responsible for calling on chain natural grocery
accounts and performing duties including presenting new product
introductions, presenting promotional opportunities through the
retailers' advertising vehicles on/or off shelf, stocking
shelves/cold boxes, tweaking shelf sets and displays or building
displays and performing resets, checking for accurate shelf tags,
rotating stock, applying POS and coupons, participating in trade
shows/table top shows, and conducting retail audits. The Defendants
suffered and permitted Plaintiff and the similarly situated
individuals to work more than 40 hours per week without overtime
pay, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          500 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com

EDWARD TYLER NAHEM: Tucker Files Suit under ADA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Edward Tyler Nahem Fine Art, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Edward Tyler Nahem Fine Art, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11952 (S.D. N.Y., December 18, 2018).

Edward Tyler Nahem Fine Art, LLC is an art gallery in New York
City, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENCORE HEALTH: Pierce Suit Transferred to Southern Dist. of Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, NANCY PIERCE, individually, and on behalf of other members
of the general public and all persons similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. ENCORE HEALTH RESOURCES, LLC, and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-04097, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas (Houston) on Dec. 17, 2018. The Southern District of Texas
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-04736 to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Sim Lake.

The Plaintiff and Class members sought restitution of their unpaid
wages, unpaid overtime, itemized wage statement penalties, and
waiting time penalties, in addition to interest, attorneys' fees,
and costs, as necessary and according to proof. The Plaintiff seeks
the appointment of a receiver, as necessary, to establish the total
monetary relief sought from Defendants.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Andrew Christopher Ficzko, Esq.
          Catherine Mitchell, Esq.
          James Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560

               - and -

          Eric M. Epstein, Esq.
          ERIC M. EPSTEIN, APC
          1901 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 552-5366
          Facsimile: (310) 556-8021

               - and -

          Joshua David Buck, Esq.
          THIERMAN BUCK, LLP
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 703-5027

               - and -

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          THIERMAN BUCK, LLP
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 703-5029

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Paul James Hall, Esq.
          Kevin David Harlow, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          555 Mission Street, Suite 2500
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
          Telephone: (415) 836-2531
          Facsimile: (415) 659-7431

               - and -

          Damien Paul DeLaney, Esq.
          JeeHyun Yoon, Esq.
          Joy Gowoon Kim, Esq.
          Shannon Bettis Nakabayashi, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 630-8252
          Facsimile: (213) 689-0430

EQT CORP: Royalty Owners' Class Action Nears Conclusion
-------------------------------------------------------
David Beard, writing for The Dominion Post, reports that an oil and
gas class-action lawsuit that will affect the way many West
Virginia royalty owners are paid is nearing its conclusion in
federal court.

The Kay case, as it's called, challenges how producer EQT deducts
various post-production charges and severance taxes from royalty
checks. It's set to go to trial Dec. 17. But a status conference on
a motion to dismiss the case has been held and people familiar with
the case said settlement talks are in process.

Attorneys for EQT were not at liberty to comment on the case and
attorneys for the plaintiffs did not respond to requests for
comment.

Valerie Antonette, local chapter president of the National
Association of Royalty Owners (NARO), gave an update on the case at
a recent NARO town hall. Asked if she had any insight into the
progress of the talks, she said in an email, "As we are not a class
member I am not privy to all of the settlement negotiations and I
have no new info at this time."

The case is in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
West Virginia, before Judge John P. Bailey, Here are some case
highlights and recent developments.

It was first filed in Jan 2013. The plaintiffs -- the Kay Co. and
individual royalty owners H. Dotson Cather and James E. Hamric III,
on behalf of a class of royalty owners -- amended the complaint in
2014. The defendants are EQT Corp. and five of its subsidiaries.

The plaintiffs signed leases that entitled them to 12.5 percent
royalties. They allege that EQT and its midstream and downstream
chain of subsidiaries wrongly take deduct post-production expenses
and severance taxes form their checks, and do not report the sale
of natural gas liquids.

They charge breach of contract and fiduciary duty, fraud, and that
EQT used its subsidiaries to sell gas to itself at reduced value,
thereby depriving them of their full due royalty.

In a series of November rulings, Judge Bailey dealt EQT a series of
setbacks.

He denied EQTs motion for judgment on it deducting of severance
taxes. He said that state law is clear that EQT, as the entity
severing the gas from the ground, is subject to the tax, not the
royalty owners, unless the lease expressly provides for the
deduction.

He also denied EQT's motion for judgment on fraud and punitive
damage claims. He said EQT had the duty to inform the lessors of
sales, revenues and deductions and determine what deductions are
permissible.

He wrote that evidence provided by the plaintiffs shows EQT
"decided that it was taking whatever it wanted to take and was not
going to provides its lessors with enough information tat they
could tell what they were taking, and then, refused to provide
sufficient information that anyone could ever determine what all
they were taking. The conduct was intentional."

Perhaps most significant is a ruling connected to recent action by
the Legislature and the state Supreme Court. Royalty owners
familiar with the case said this could affect an EQT court
challenge to a pro-royalty owner bill, SB 360, passed during the
last session.

SB 360 was a response to the state Supreme Court's about-face in a
case called Leggett. In answering a question form a federal court,
the Supreme Court in 2016 determined in "Leggett 1" that EQT could
not deduct post-production expenses from royalties on leases
converted from flat rate to 12.5 percent. Then in 2017, with a new
justice on bard, in changed its answer in "Leggett 2" and said
that's OK.

The court also urged the legislature to clarify the law on that
matter, and SB 360 resulted, prohibiting those deductions.

In Kay, EQT wanted to rely on Leggett 2 for the trial but Bailey
said that SB 360 served as an amendment to existing law and was
therefore retroactive, effectively nullifying Leggett 2. SB 360
"confirms that the law all along was that post-production costs
could not be deducted" from the leases in question.

NARO and other royalty owners speculate that this could have a
bearing on EQT's lawsuit against the state Department of
Environmental Protection that challenges SB 360 in order to allow
deductions. EQT was not at liberty to comment on this speculation.

Judge Bailey did grant EQT one boon in one ruling. He denied a
motion by the plaintiffs to require EQT to pay royalties on unsold
gas -- meaning gas lost somewhere in the pipeline between
extraction and sale: "Lessees have no general duty to pay for lost
volumes." However, if plaintiffs believe the producer is
negligently losing gas, they are free to sue for damages on that
matter. [GN]


ERIK THOMSEN LLC: Violates Disabilities Act, Tucker Suit Asserts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Thomsen LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Henry
Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Erik Thomsen LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11953
(S.D. N.Y., December 18, 2018).

Erik Thomsen Gallery specializes in Japanese paintings and screens,
early tea ceramics, Japanese gold lacquers, and signed ikebana
bamboo baskets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EVANS TIRE: Sanchez et al. Seek Minimum & Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
MARCO SANCHEZ AND CARLOS VEAL, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated employees of Defendants in the State of
California, the Plaintiffs, vs. EVANS TIRE AND SERVICE CENTERS,
INC., and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, inclusive, Case No.
37-2018-00063516-CU-0E-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 17, 2018),
alleges that Defendants decreased Plaintiffs' employment-related
costs by systematically violating California wage and hour laws and
engaging in unlawful and unfair business practices.

According to the complaint, Defendants' systematic pattern of Labor
Code and IWC Wage Order violations toward Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated employees in California include, but are not
limited to:

-- Failure to provide a first off-duty meal period of at least
   30-minutes before the commencement of the sixth hour of work;

-- Failure to provide a first off-duty meal period of at least
   30-minutes before the commencement of the tenth hour of work;

-- Failure to authorize and permit off-duty paid rest periods;

-- Failure to pay all minimum and regular wages for all hours
   worked;

-- Failure to pay all overtime wages;

-- Failure to reimburse for all business expenses;

-- Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and

-- Failure to timely pay all wages due upon separation of
   employment.

Evans Tire & Service Centers, Inc. retails automotive parts and
accessories.  The Company offers tires, wheels, brakes, shocks,
struts, and batteries.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Marco Sanchez and Carlos Veal,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees of
Defendants in the State of California:

          Graham S.P. Hollis, Esq.
          Vilmarie Cordero, Esq.
          Hali M. Anderson, Esq.
          GRAHAMHOLLIS APC
          3555 Fifth Avenue Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692 0800
          Facsimile: (619) 692 0822
          E-mail: ghollis@grahamhollis.com
                  vcordero@grahamhollis.com
                  handerson@grahamhollis.com

FACEBOOK INC: ICA Imposes Fine Amid Personal Data Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Xinhua News Agency reports that the Italian Competition Authority
(ICA) has fined Facebook with two penalties worth 10 million euros
(11.3 million U.S. dollars) overall for improper use of its
subscribers' personal data, the authority said in a statement on
Dec. 7.

After an investigation was launched in April and closed on November
29, the ICA concluded that Facebook used subscribers' data in a way
that breached the country's consumer code.

The first fine was imposed because Facebook "deceptively persuades
users to register on the platform" without informing them properly
and immediately in the signup phase that their data would be
collected for commercial purposes.

The authority explained the information provided by the company in
that phase were "generic and incomplete" since they did not
adequately distinguish between the use of data needed to
personalize the service, and that made to carry out targeted
advertising campaigns.

The second financial penalty was due to the fact the social media
giant passed users' data to third parties.

According to the ICA, the network uses "an aggressive practice,
since it exerts an undue influence on registered consumers, who
suffer without explicit and prior consensus... the transmission of
their data for commercial purposes from Facebook to third-party
apps and websites."

In addition to the fines, Facebook would now be required to publish
a corrective statement on its website and app to inform consumers,
the Italian antitrust specified.

The investigation had been open after a class action lawsuit
against the company for alleged improper use of personal data was
filed by three Italian consumer advocacy groups. [GN]


FIFTH THIRD: Unlawfully Deducts Funds from Bank Account, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN STARACE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff vs. FIFTH THIRD BANK; and DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01602-AWI-EPG (E.D. Cal., Nov. 19,
2018) alleges violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.

In or around December 2017, the Plaintiff contacted the Defendant
in an attempt to make payments for a car that the Plaintiff
purchased for his daughter. The Defendant's agent informed the
Plaintiff that he could initiate service with the Defendant by
providing his routing and checking account information.

The Plaintiff provided the Defendant's agent with his routing and
checking account information. However, due to a miscommunication,
the payments that the Plaintiff agreed to make were never made.
When the Defendant's agent tried to notify the Plaintiff, the
Plaintiff did not respond due to the fact that his cell phone was
lost.  When the Plaintiff did learn of the late payments, he
immediately overnighted payment in the form of personal checks to
the Defendant. The Plaintiff tried vigorously to contact the
Defendant and explain the situation of why he could not be
contacted, however, the Defendant refused to accept his excuse and
the Defendant reported a late payment on his credit score.

However, without the Plaintiff's knowledge or consent, the
Defendant continued to deduct funds from the Plaintiff's account
multiple times on a reoccurring basis, without providing the
Plaintiff a written authorization to do so. The Plaintiff never
provided Defendant with any authorization to deduct these sums of
money on a regular recurring basis from the Plaintiff's banking
account.

Fifth Third Bank provides banking products and services for
personal and business needs. Fifth Third Bank was formerly known as
Fifth Third Union Trust Company and changed its name to Fifth Third
Bank in March 1969. The company was founded in 1927 and is
headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio with locations in Ohio, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, North
Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Fifth Third
Bank operates as a subsidiary of Fifth Third Financial Corporation.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


FIG & OLIVE: Vazquez et al. Seek Minimum Wage & Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERTO VAZQUEZ, ROGELIO RAMOS, and FRANCISCO CORTE, on behalf of
themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, the
Plaintiffs, vs. FIG & OLIVE FOUNDERS LLC, FIG & OLIVE USA INC., FIG
& OLIVE HOLDING LLC, FIG & OLIVE FIFTH AVENUE LLC d/b/a FIG & OLIVE
FIFTH AVENUE, FIG & OLIVE THIRTEEN STREET LLC d/b/a FIG & OLIVE
MEATPACKING, and FIG & OLIVE INC. d/b/a FIG & OLIVE UPTOWN, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-11846 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2018), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime, and liquidated damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs and the Class were paid below the minimum wage at an
invalid "tip credit" minimum wage.  The Defendants were not
entitled to claim any tip credit allowance under the FLSA or NYLL
because Defendants (i) failed to properly provide tip credit notice
in violation of the FLSA; (ii) failed to inform them that the tip
credit claimed by Defendants cannot exceed the amount of tips
actually received by them in violation of the FLSA; (iii) failed to
inform that all tips received by them are to be retained by them
except pursuant to a valid tip pooling arrangement in violation of
the FLSA; (iv) failed to inform that tip credit will not apply
unless they have been informed of the foregoing tip credit notice
requirement in violation of the FLSA, (v) claimed tip credit for
all hours worked despite having caused tipped employees to engage
in non-tipped duties for hours exceeding 20% of the total hours
worked each workweek in violation of the FLSA and NYLL, (vi) failed
to accurately track daily tips earned or maintain records thereof,
(vii) failed to properly provide tip credit notice at hiring and
annually thereafter in violation of the NYLL, (viii) failed to
provide a proper wage statement with every payment of wages
informing Plaintiffs and other tipped employees of the amount of
tip credit deducted for each payment period, in violation of the
NYLL, and (ix) illegally retained gratuities.

Fig & Olive Holding LLC owns and operates restaurants. The company
was incorporated in 2013 and is based in New York, New York.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the
Class:

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

FINA: Class Action Mulled in Australia Over Monopoly of Swimming
----------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Lord, writing for The Times, reports that the billionaire
behind a planned revolution in swimming has launched a legal
challenge to end Fina's monopoly of sport and also plans to turn
track and field on its head with a promise to ensure athletes
receive proper financial rewards for their efforts.

It comes as Australian Olympic swimming champion Kyle Chalmers
revealed he plans to quit the sport because he receives an annual
grant of just GBP14,700.

Hungarian triple Olympic champion Katinka Hosszu, world champion
Michael Andrew and USA teammate Tom Shields are among plaintiffs in
a proposed class action in which the International Swimming League
(ISL) run by Ukraine power-sector tycoon Konstantin Grigorishin
intends to test Fina under anti-trust laws in the United States.

Similar action is planned in Europe. [GN]


FIORELLA INSURANCE: Hackett Files Consumer Credit Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fiorella Insurance
Agency, Inc. The case is styled as Bradley Hackett, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Fiorella Insurance Agency, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants,
Case No6:18-cv-02150-PGB-GJK (M.D. Fla., December 17, 2018).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
over Restrictions on Use of Telephone Equipment.

Fiorella Insurance Agency, Inc. is an Insurance agency in Stuart,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Zeig, Esq.
   Zeig Law Firm, LLC
   3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
   Hollywood, FL 33024
   Tel: (754) 217-3084
   Fax: (754) 217-3084
   Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


FORUM GALLERY: Violates ADA, Tucker Suit Says
---------------------------------------------
Forum Gallery Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Henry
Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Forum Gallery Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11955
(S.D. N.Y., December 18, 2018).

Forum Gallery Inc. offers a wide selection of artworks by leading
artists.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FRANCIS M. NAUMANN: Faces ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Francis M. Naumann Fine Art, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Francis M. Naumann Fine Art, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11954 (S.D. N.Y., December 18, 2018).

Francis M. Naumann Fine Art specializes in American Art of the 20th
Century, as well as European Art from the Dada and Surrealist
periods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FRANKLIN PARRASCH: Tucker Files Suit Under Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Parrasch Gallery, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Franklin Parrasch Gallery, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11957 (S.D. N.Y., December 18, 2018).

Franklin Parrasch Gallery, Inc. is an art gallery in New York City,
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



FRANKLIN TEMPLETON: Settles Proprietary Fund Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Nevin E. Adams, JD, writing for NAPA, reports that with a trial
date looming, Franklin Templeton has settled a proprietary fund
suit brought by participants in the firm's own 401(k) plan.

Both parties had just had their respective attempts to obtain
summary judgment without going to court largely rebuffed by Judge
Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, who find that triable issues of fact remained. The
one item in which she had ruled -- that plaintiffs had failed to
show that a $70 per-participant fee wasn't reasonable and not
comparable to similar plans. The case was set to go to trial in
January.

The suit was actually two separate suits brought by participants in
Franklin Templeton's 401(k) plan that were combined earlier this
year. Lead plaintiffs Nelly Fernandez and Marlon H. Cryer had
alleged similar fiduciary breach claims (and claims similar to
those common to the recent wave of proprietary fund suits),
including claims that the plan invested in funds offered and
managed by Franklin Templeton, when "better-performing and
lower-cost funds were available," motivated to do so by the
benefits to Franklin Templeton's investment management business.

The suits had also alleged that the plan fiduciaries decided to
replace allocation funds of the plan with target date funds shortly
before or during 2014, at which time they chose the "untested,
expensive Proprietary Target Date Funds" and criticized the plan
for offering a proprietary money market fund rather than a stable
value fund.

For all its similarities with other proprietary fund suits, this
one presented a unique argument by the defendants: that since one
of the plaintiffs had signed a class action waiver in favor of
arbitration after leaving employment (rather than as a condition of
that employment), he was barred from bringing a class action.
However, in October 2017, Judge Wilken ruled that the plaintiffs
here were bringing the class action not as employees, but in their
position as participants in the 401(k) plan, and thus the class
action was not barred by that waiver.

Franklin Templeton is the latest financial company to agree to
settle such claims, joining BB&T ($24 million), Deutsche Bank
($21.9 million), American Airlines Group Inc. ($22 million),
Allianz SE ($12 million) and TIAA ($5 million).

As for the terms of the Franklin Templeton settlement, those are
not yet known. The filing indicates the parties anticipate needing
60 days to file a motion for preliminary approval. [GN]


GAGOSIAN GALLERY: Faces Tucker Class Action Under ADA
-----------------------------------------------------
Gagosian Gallery, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Gagosian Gallery, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-11958 (S.D. N.Y., December 18, 2018).

Gagosian is a contemporary art gallery owned and directed by Larry
Gagosian. The gallery exhibits some of the most influential artists
of the 20th and 21st centuries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GALERIE ST. ETIENNE: Violates ADA, Tucker Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------
The Galerie St. Etienne, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Galerie St. Etienne, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11959 (S.D. N.Y., December 18, 2018).

Galerie St. Etienne is a Expressionism art gallery operating in the
United States, founded in Vienna in 1923 by Otto Kallir (originally
Otto Nirenstein) as the Neue Galerie.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GALVESTON COUNTY, TX: Class Action Challenges Bail System
---------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
a class action challenging Galveston County's bail system as rigged
to keep poor arrestees in jail has the same legitimate due process
claims as litigation that transformed pretrial detention in
Houston, a federal magistrate ruled on Dec. 10.  

Police arrested Aaron Booth, 37, in the early morning of April 8 on
felony drug possession charges, set his bail at $20,000 on the
recommendation of a prosecutor and booked him into Galveston County
Jail.

Without asking if Mr. Booth could afford it, a magistrate judge
rubberstamped the bail amount at a hearing later that morning after
Mr. Booth asked for a court-appointed attorney and signed a
pauper's oath stating he could not pay for one.

Mr. Booth went back to a jail cell and the American Civil Liberties
Union of Texas immediately took his case and ran with it to federal
court.

The ACLU claims Galveston County's use of a schedule to set bail
based on the charges and failure to provide defense counsel for
arrestees at bail hearings is an unconstitutional "wealth-based
imprisonment" system.

Unless they plead guilty, the ACLU says, poor Galveston County
inmates spend at least a week in jail before they have a hearing
before a judge where they can lobby for lower bail.

And a week in jail can be disastrous as inmates cannot work and are
at risk of being fired from their jobs, can miss rent payments and
be evicted, or lose custody of their children, the ACLU argues in
court filings.

The arguments are not novel. The ACLU is piggy-backing on a similar
class action that led to a landmark ruling in April 2017 in which
U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal held that the bail system of
Harris County, home to Houston, unconstitutionally favors people
who can afford to pay their way out jail.

The ACLU is also leading a court challenge of Dallas County's
bail-setting practices.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew Edison refused on Dec. 10 to dismiss
Mr. Booth's first amended lawsuit, which named as defendants
Galveston County, its District Attorney Jack Roady, six state
judges who preside over felony courts, three county criminal judges
with jurisdiction over misdemeanor cases, and three magistrates.

In a motion to dismiss, the county said changes it made after
Mr. Booth sued moot his claims.

Galveston County says arrestees now have the option of filling out
an affidavit about their finances that magistrates must review
before setting their bail; those still in custody 48 hours after
their arrests are appointed an attorney to help them make their
case for reduced bail; and magistrates must also write statements,
or make them on the record, about why they declined to lower the
bail.

But Judge Edison was not convinced the reforms are in place.

"Although the county contends that 'steps have been taken to put in
place additional procedural safeguards to ensure an arrestee's
ability to pay is taken into consideration,' the record is not
altogether clear as to what actual changes have been made to the
county's bail setting process," he wrote in a 45-page order.

He wrote it's unclear from deposition testimony from a local
magistrate -- who said she doesn't believe that "anybody is
ordering me to follow [the new procedures]" -- whether all the
judges and magistrates are following the new procedures.  

Asked on Dec. 10 if the new bail guidelines are being applied
uniformly, the county's outside counsel, Joseph Nixon --
joseph.nixon@akerman.com -- with Akerman LLP in Houston, said, "I
know that they are. They are, absolutely."

Mr. Nixon said Judge Edison's 45-page memorandum and recommendation
is not the last word on the dismissal motions, as U.S. District
Judge George Hanks will make that call.

Mr. Booth pleaded guilty to felony drug possession in August and
was sentenced to 100 days in jail. A judge credited the 56 days he
had already spent in jail, court records show.

His defense attorney declined to say what kind of drugs were
involved.

Judge Edison also brushed aside the county's argument that Booth's
release from jail mooted the class action because he now has no
personal stake in the outcome.

"The Supreme Court has expressly held on several occasions that, in
a class action challenging procedures for pretrial detention, the
release of the named plaintiff from jail does not moot the action,"
he wrote.

ACLU of Texas Attorney Trisha Trigilio praised the order and said
the county needs to prove its bail reforms are for real.  

"We're pleased with this thoughtful report and recommendation,
which carefully evaluates the way each defendant contributes to
Galveston County's wealth-based pretrial detention system. While
the county claims that it has adopted new procedures, it has filed
almost no evidence to demonstrate how things have changed on the
ground," she said. [GN]


GENERAL DYNAMICS: Freeman Seeks Certification of FLSA Collective
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled CHRISTI FREEMAN and KIMBERLEY
SHOCKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No.
8:18-cv-00855-CEH-TGW (M.D. Fla.), renew their motion to
conditionally certify an FLSA collective action and authorize
notice to putative opt-in plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs seek entry of an order conditionally certifying a
Fair Labor Standards Act collective of, and permitting
Court-supervised notice to, all similarly situated current and
former Customer Service Representatives ("CSRs") throughout the
United States who worked for Defendant General Dynamics Information
Technology, Inc. ("General Dynamics") from three years preceding
the filing of this action (April 10, 2015) to July 31, 2017 (the
"Material Period"), regarding their opt-in rights (the "FLSA
Collective").

The Motion also moves the Court to enter an order: (a) requiring
General Dynamics to produce in an electronic or computer-readable
format the full name, address(es), and e-mail address(es) for each
of the collective members; and (b) authorizing notice to the
members of the FLSA Collective.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Logan A. Pardell, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  lpardell@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (800) 616-4000
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Troy Kessle, Esq.
          Garrett Kaske, Esq.
          Tana Forrester, Esq.
          SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
          534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 499-9100
          Facsimile: (631) 499-9120
          E-mail: tkessler@shulmankessler.com
                  gkaske@shulmankessler.com
                  Tforrester@shulmankessler.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gregory W. Kehoe, Esq.
          Catherine H. Molloy, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
          101 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1900
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 318-5700
          Facsimile: (813) 318-5900
          E-mail: kehoeg@gtlaw.com
                  molloyk@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Christine E. Howard, Esq.
          FISHER PHILLIPS LLP
          101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2350
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 769-7500
          Facsimile: (813) 769-7501
          E-mail: choward@laborlawyers.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Diesel Fuel Injection Pumps
-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action claims General Motors' high-pressure diesel
fuel injection pumps are "ticking time bombs" because they run dry
and send metal shavings and debris through the fuel system, causing
catastrophic failure.

The case is Ginebra, et al. v. General Motors, LLC, Case No.
1:18-cv-25209 (S.D. Fla).

A copy of the Complaint is available at https://is.gd/PWbs3P


GITTERMAN GALLERY: Tucker Files Suit under ADA in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Gitterman Gallery, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Gitterman Gallery, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-11960 (S.D. N.Y., December 18, 2018).

Gitterman Gallery LLC is in the Art Gallery business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



GREEN DESK: Workspace Firm Faces Class Suit
--------------------------------------------
Green Desk LLC is facing a class action lawsuit pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Thomas
Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Green Desk LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-07193 (E.D. N.Y., December 17, 2018).

Green Desk offers workspace for entrepreneurs and local businesses
in Brooklyn.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GREENSKY INC: Coombs Sues over Misleading Financial Report
----------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against GreenSky,
Inc., on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased GreenSky
Class A common stock on or traceable to the Company's May 25, 2018
initial public offering (the "IPO").

On April 27, 2018, GreenSky filed a registration statement for the
IPO on Form S-1 which, after two amendments on May 7, 2018 and on
May 14, 2018, was declared effective on May 23, 2018. On May 25,
2018, GreenSky filed a prospectus for the IPO on Form 424B4, which
incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement. By
means of the Offering Documents, GreenSky offered and sold 43.7
million Class A common shares (including the underwriters'
greenshoe option to purchase up to an additional 5,700,000 shares)
at $23.00 per share for over $1 billion in gross proceeds. The
Offering Documents contained false and misleading statements and/or
omitted to disclose material information. The Defendants have
violated Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933 Act, the lawsuit says.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff purchased GreenSky shares
traceable to the IPO and has been damaged thereby. The Defendant
GreenSky is a financial technology company that provides merchants
and banks with technology to facilitate financed consumer sales
transactions in several market segments. Its Class A common shares
trade on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "GSKY." Specifically,
the Registration Statement failed to disclose that GreenSky had
substantially changed its business mix such that its transaction
fee percentage had substantially declined at the time of the IPO
and that GreenSky would not only continue this business mix shift
but was in the process of accelerating it.

The case is captioned as William Coombs, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 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 INCORPORATED, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CREDIT
SUISSE SECURITIES USA LLC, RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES, LLC, SANDLER O'NEILL & PARTNERS, L.P., FIFTH
THIRD SECURITIES, INC. and DOES 1-25, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 656134/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 10, 2018).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
          BOTTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914-2001
          Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
          E-mail: achang@bottinilaw.com

HANS P. KRAUS: Faces Tucker Suit Alleging ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Hans P. Kraus, Jr., Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Hans P. Kraus, Jr., Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-11962 (S.D. N.Y., December 18, 2018).

Hans P. Kraus, Jr., Inc. is an art gallery in New York City, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HAWAII: ACLU Files School Athletics Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trudy Ring, writing for Advocate, reports that the state of Hawaii
is violating federal law by discriminating against girls in
athletics, a new class action lawsuit contends.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii, representing female
athletes in the state's public schools, filed suit on Dec. 6
against the state's Department of Education and the Oahu
Interscholastic Association, saying the girls receive "grossly
unequal treatment" compared to male athletes, in violation of Title
IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex
discrimination in education. The suit was filed in U.S. District
Court in Honolulu.

The named plaintiffs are students as James Campbell High School in
Honolulu, but they represent all similarly situated students,
according to the suit. Female athletes at the school face numerous
inequities and indignities, the ACLU contends.

The school has a boys-only locker room for student athletes, the
suit says, so girls have to "lug their athletic gear around all
day" and find other places to change clothes, with some changing on
the field or at a nearby Burger King. Also, the nearest girls'
restrooms are much farther away than the boys' rooms. The school's
pool is reserved for the boys' water polo team, so the girls' team
must practice on an ocean beach or dry land, neither of which
prepares them appropriately for pool competition.

The inequities continue across the state, according to the suit.
The best time slots for games – usually Friday nights – are
reserved for boys' sports. So are the best facilities. Boys' sports
receive a disproportionate share of travel funds, and money
intended for coaches of girls' sports has been diverted to increase
the pay of the boys' coaches, the ACLU says.

The Department of Education has promised to address the disparities
but has failed to do so, the suit says.

"Litigation is always our last resort," ACLU of Hawaii executive
director Joshua Wisch said at a press conference on Dec. 6, local
station KITV reports. "But unfortunately, nearly half a century
after Title IX was passed and after almost 10 months of trying to
work with the DOE, it still failed to produce a substantive plan to
comply with the law. And unfortunately, some schools have doubled
down on violating Title IX. As noted in our complaint, after the
plaintiffs complained formally to Campbell's administrators, the
school retaliated by threatening to 'cancel' the girls' water polo
program and even withheld funding and other support from it. This
is unacceptable."

The press conference was held in Honolulu near a statue of the late
U.S. Rep. Patsy Mink, the author of Title IX.

The Department of Education and the Oahu Interscholastic
Association have so far declined comment on the suit. [GN]


HELENA AGRI-ENTERPRISES: Proctor Suit Moved to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Jorge Proctor, individually, and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Helena
Agri-Enterprises, LLC doing business as: Helena Chemical Company, a
Delaware company, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No.: 37-02018-00057894-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Cal.
Super. Ct., County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (San Diego) on Dec. 17, 2018. The
Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-02833-JLS-NLS.  The suit alleges labor-related violation.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Janis L. Sammartino.

Helena Chemical Company distributes of crop protection and crop
production inputs and services for agricultural, turf and
ornamental, forestry, and aquatics.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
          E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com

Attorneys for Helena Agri-Enterprises, LLC:

          John E Fitzsimmons, Esq.
          DLA Piper LLP (US)
          401 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 699-2972
          Facsimile: (619) 699-2701
          E-mail: john.fitzsimmons@dlapiper.com

HELLY NAHMAN GALLERY: Tucker Files Suit under Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Helly Nahman Gallery Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Helly Nahman Gallery Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-11963 (S.D. N.Y., December 18, 2018).

Helly Nahmad Gallery is a Modern and Impressionist art gallery
founded by Helly Nahmad in 2001 and is located at 975 Madison
Avenue, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HOMESTREET BANK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Parseghian et al. Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARAZ PARSEGHIAN; and DARLENE DRAVIS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HOMESTREET BANK, and
DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 18STCV05776 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 20, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid,
non-exempt employees.

HomeStreet Bank, Inc. provides consumer and commercial banking
products and services to customers on the West Coast and Hawaii.
HomeStreet Bank, Inc. was formerly known as Continental Savings
Bank and changed its name to HomeStreet Bank, Inc. in May 2000. The
company was founded in 1921 and is based in Seattle, Washington
with deposit branches and lending centers in the Western United
States and Hawaii. HomeStreet Bank, Inc. operates as a subsidiary
of HomeStreet, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Douglas Han, Esq.
           Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
           Arsine Grigoryan, Esq.
           JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
           411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
           Glendale, CA 91203
           Telephone: (818) 230-7502
           Facsimile: (818) 230-7259


HOTELQUICKLY: Class Action Mulled Over Booking Cancellations
------------------------------------------------------------
Sean O'Neill, writing for Skift, reports that it's a matter of
probability that some companies will face cash crunches. It appears
HotelQuickly has. But global travel search companies need to detect
problems sooner. They must quickly put a pause on referring
consumers to troubled companies before too many victims pile up.

Paul Katsen of New York was set to begin a trip to South Africa
when he received a message from HotelQuickly saying his hotel
bookings were canceled. The online travel agency gave him a voucher
for a future HotelQuickly purchase. When Mr. Katsen contacted the
hotel, it said an agency had canceled his reservation on December
5.

Mr. Katsen wasn't alone. Social media and consumer forums lit up in
recent days with hundreds of complaints as HotelQuickly left
hundreds of travelers stranded

Rakeesha Chetty of South Africa was a week away from her trip to
Zambia with friends and family when she received a notice from
HotelQuickly that her booking had been canceled. Again, she
received a voucher for future travel. But she questioned the value
of the voucher.

The Skift Daily newsletter puts you ahead of everyone about the
future of travel. Subscribe now.

As of Dec. 8 and Dec. 9, Skift's random test searches on
HotelQuickly were not turning up any availability for properties in
various cities, suggesting the site had suspended operations.

Company officials failed to answer reporters late last week at The
Straits Times in Singapore, where HotelQuickly's parent company is
registered.

Update: The Travel Industry Council of Hong Kong says that
HotelQuickly's travel agent license expired on November 12, 2018,
according to an email forwarded by a customer to Skift. That news
makes this potentially a criminal matter, as it may be illegal to
sell travel and fail to deliver the reservations without proper
licensing.

The parent company of HotelQuickly, Rising Sun Merchant Services,
was slow to respond.

But on Monday December 10 CEO Jerôme Cle, who has doubled as
executive chairman of HotelQuickly since he finalized the
transition of the startup mid-last year, provided a statement:

"I have reached out to HQ management, and I was informed that due
to an unforeseen issue with their main provider which has affected
many reservations, many bookings have been canceled," Mr. Cle
said.

"This had nothing to do with the financial situation of the
company," Mr. Cle said. "But while multiplying the revenue by 5
times this year, compared to last year. The company did suffer huge
losses since the beginning of this year with one of their main
supplier, and it took them 8 months to get to the table and
negotiate the losses and the damages."

"HQ spent an enormous amount of money and energy to build its brand
but couldn't work anymore with this supplier until all issues were
dealt with," Cle said. "Abruptly the supplier did put pressure on
HQ to terminate the relationship while HQ was negotiating the
damages with them hence HQ had no other choices to sadly cancel a
lots of their customer's booking until it could fix this."

"HQ had offered to each client a voucher for the same amount booked
originally and is doing everything to return to normal as soon as
possible," Cle said. "HQ is already renegotiating new agreements
which will bring stability and better services to its clients and
is deeply sorry for any inconvenience caused."

SNOWBALLING COMPLAINTS
In the past week, complaints about HotelQuickly snowballed on
user-generated review platform Trustpilot and TripAdvisor's budget
travel forum.

QUESTIONS FOR THE TRAVEL SEARCH GIANTS
HotelQuickly was the second online travel player to collapse in the
past six months. This summer, Greek online travel agency Tripsta,
which also operated as Air Tickets, faced a liquidity problem that
forced it to suspend its business indefinitely.

In both cases, many travelers had been referred to the small,
little-marketed brands by doing searches on major price-comparison
search engines, such as TripAdvisor and Trivago, according to their
online complaints.

The consumer stories raise questions about how rapidly those global
tech companies respond to problems at advertising partners.

In HotelQuickly's case, the response seems to have been too slow.
Over the weekend, consumers added new complaints about HotelQuickly
to Trustpilot every half hour, on average. In recent days, someone
even found the time to set up a website trying to spark class
action litigation. But as long ago as January, complaints had been
piling up in forums like TripAdvisor.

More backchannel communication among companies might have helped.
Other companies that did business with HotelQuickly appeared to
have discovered a problem recently.

Rather than book directly with hotels, HotelQuickly often sourced
rooms from booking agents, such as third-party wholesalers. Several
emails angry travelers forwarded to us for review suggest that
third-party companies suspended HotelQuickly for non-payment,
though we were unable to reach those companies for confirmation by
the publication deadline.

HOTEL TONIGHT CLONES STRUGGLE
HotelQuickly, founded in 2012 and based in Bangkok, had raised $10
million, with German startup incubator and now public company
Rocket Internet as one of its major backers. But it apparently
faced difficulties in sustaining itself.

In early 2016, the company had slimmed down to try to become
profitable, and it also rebranded. But profits proved elusive.

In August 2017, the backers finalized a sale of HotelQuickly to
Rising Sun Merchant Services, and the founders departed. Terms of
the deal weren't disclosed.

HotelQuickly's content blog promoting travel stopped producing new
posts at the end of November.

A side note: Years ago, one of the critiques against last-minute
mobile booking pioneer Hotel Tonight was that its model would be
too easy for companies like Rocket Internet to build copycats of.
In hindsight, competitors large and small to Hotel Tonight, which
continues to thrive, had misguided priorities and many have either
flat-lined or crashed. [GN]


INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Feb. 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Motley Rice LLC
regarding the class action In re Investment Technology Group, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 15 Civ. 6369 (JFK) (S.D.N.Y.)

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
ANY INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC. ("ITG" OR THE "COMPANY")
COMMON STOCK FROM FEBRUARY 28, 2011, THROUGH AND INCLUDING AUGUST
3, 2015 (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), AND WHO WERE DAMAGED THEREBY (THE
"CLASS")

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that the above-captioned
action has been certified as a class action for purposes of
settlement only and that a settlement for $18,000,000 has been
proposed.  A hearing will be held on February 21, 2019 at 11:00
a.m., before the Honorable John F. Keenan at the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel
Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 20C,
New York, NY 10007 for the purpose of determining:  (1) whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the Final Judgment Approving
Class Action Settlement should be entered by the Court dismissing
the Action with prejudice, and the releases specified and described
in the Amended Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated
October 26, 2018, should be granted; (3) whether the proposed Plan
of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be
approved; and (4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an
award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses in connection with
this Action should be approved.  The Court has reserved the right
to reschedule the hearing without further notice.

If you are a member of the Class described above, your rights may
be affected by this Action and the proposed Settlement thereof.  If
you have not received the detailed Notice of (i) Pendency of Class
Action, Certification of Class, and Proposed Settlement; (ii)
Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (iii) Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the
"Notice") or the Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), you may
obtain them by contacting the Claims Administrator:

         ITG SECURITIES SETTLEMENT
         c/o GCG
         P.O. Box 10602
         Dublin, OH  43017-9202
         Info@ITGSecuritiesSettlement.com
         ITGSecuritiesSettlement.com
         (888) 312-0818

Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of
a claim, also may be made to Lead Counsel:

          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          Gregg S. Levin, Esq.
          Lance V. Oliver, Esq.
          28 Bridgeside Boulevard
          Mt. Pleasant, SC  29464
         (843) 216-9000
          www.motleyrice.com

Further information may also be obtained by directing your inquiry
in writing to the Claims Administrator, GCG, at the address listed
above.

If you are a member of the Class and wish to share in the
Settlement proceeds, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no
later than April 4, 2019, establishing that you are entitled to
recovery.  As further described in the Notice, you will be bound by
any judgment entered in the Action, regardless of whether you
submit a Claim Form, unless you exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class, in accordance with the procedures set forth in
the Notice, no later than January 31, 2019.  Any objections to the
Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's request for
attorney's fees and litigation expenses must be filed and served,
in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, such
that they are received no later than January 31, 2019.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE ABOUT THIS
NOTICE.

DATED: December 10, 2018                             

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK [GN]


IOOF: Class Action Lawyers Circling in Wake of APRA Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Sydney Morning Herald reports that the superannuation and banking
regulator has been sharpening its knives to take IOOF to court for
months, after chief executive Chris Kelaher's combative appearance
at the Hayne royal commission and new evidence emerged that IOOF
has allegedly lied to the regulator.

Late on Dec. 6 the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority took
IOOF, chief executive Chris Kelaher, chairman George Venardos and
three executives to court, causing a market value wipeout of $900
million on Dec. 7 and triggering a major fund manager to call for a
renewed board and management team.

Class action lawyers are circling around IOOF in the wake of the
APRA action, while the corporate regulator ASIC is understood to be
pursuing its own investigation into the wealth company. Meanwhile
the action has thrown into doubt ANZ's divestment plan of its
OnePath superannuation business via a sale to IOOF. [GN]


IPASS INC: Rosenblatt Balks at Merger Deal with Pareteum Corp.
--------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. IPASS INC., MICHAEL J.
TEDESCO, GARY A. GRIFFITHS, DAVID PANOS, JUSTIN R. SPENCER, NEAL I.
GOLDMAN, PARETEUM CORPORATION, and TBR, INC., the Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-02004-UNA (D. Del., Dec. 18, 2018), stems from a
proposed transaction announced on November 12, 2018, pursuant to
which iPass Inc. will be acquired by Pareteum Corporation and TBR,
Inc.  On November 12, iPass's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Pareteum.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced
an exchange offer to acquire all of iPass's outstanding common
stock for 1.17 shares of Parent common stock for each share of
iPass. The Exchange Offer is set to expire on January 3, 2019. On
December 4, 2018, the Defendants filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Solicitation Statement omits material information
with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the
Solicitation Statement false and misleading, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
          E-mail: rm@maniskas.com

ISLE OF CAPRI CASINOS: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Larson
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Ortrie D. Smith entered an order and opinion in the
lawsuit entitled CYNTHIA D. LARSON v. ISLE OF CAPRI CASINOS, INC.,
et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-00902-ODS (W.D. Mo.), ruling that:

   -- IOC's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted with regard to
      all of Plaintiff's claims against IOC;

   -- Defendants' four Motions to Strike declarations submitted
      in support of Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional and Class
      Certification are granted in part and denied in part;

   -- Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify collective
      actions is granted in part and denied in part;

   -- Plaintiff's motion to certify a class action is denied;

   -- pursuant the Interim Scheduling Order, the parties shall
      submit a joint proposed scheduling order within twenty-one
      days of the date of this Order.

In August 2016, the Plaintiff filed this matter on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, alleging IOC and IOC-KC
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage
Law, and IOC and IOC-KC were unjustly enriched by receiving the
benefit of unpaid work.  The Plaintiff moves to conditionally
certify two collective actions:

   (1) Nationwide Timekeeping Policy Collective Action:

       All hourly employees who worked at IOC or IOC's subsidiary
       properties or casinos in the United States at any time
       from three years prior to the filing of the Complaint, who
       clocked-in and clocked-out on an automated timeclock; and

   (2) Nationwide Tip Credit Notice Policy Collective Action:

       All hourly employees who worked at IOC or IOC's subsidiary
       properties or casinos in the United States at any time
       from three years prior to the filing of the Complaint, and
       who were paid a direct hourly wage that was less than the
       federal minimum wage at that time.

According to the Order and Opinion, while her burden is not onerous
at this stage, the Court finds the Plaintiff has not demonstrated
all hourly employees at all IOC subsidiaries are similar in
important respects.  Specifically, she has not shown all hourly
employees at all IOC subsidiaries were subjected to similar
policies or circumstances.  The same is true with regard to all
table games dealers at all IOC subsidiaries, Judge Smith
added.[CC]


JARDINE LLOYD: Bathurst Regional Council Won't Join Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nadine Morton, writing for Western Advocate, reports that Bathurst
Regional Council will not be joining a class action by other
Central West councils who are attempting to recoup millions of
dollars due to alleged excessive insurance premiums.

The class action was filed against multinational insurance broker
Jardine Lloyd Thompson (JLT) who was acting on behalf of many of
the state's 128 local councils through Statewide Mutual.

Some councils, including Orange, Parkes and Mid-Western, have
joined the class action and claim that since leaving JLT they have
saved hundreds of thousands of dollars each year in insurance
costs.

Parkes council has saved around $230,000 a year on insurance since
leaving JLT while Mid-Western saved around $300,000 on the first
year alone.

Bathurst council general manager David Sherley said council had
utilised JLT as a broker for more than 14 years.

"Council is aware of the class action but has no intention to take
part," he said.

Law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan (QE) lodged the class
action on behalf of all local councils and managing partner Michael
Mills said many of them were still with Statewide Mutual.

"They've been overpaying for many years," he said of the mutual's
member councils.


Mr Mills said it was not uncommon or large corporations and
businesses to seek out a broker to secure competitively-priced
insurance policies due to the complex nature of the premiums
needed.

He alleges that JLT did not "shop around" for better priced
insurance policies for councils and that it may have had a
"conflict of interest" in selecting higher cost premiums that led
to commissions for JLT.

Mid-Western Regional Council director community Simon Jones
confirmed on Dec. 7 that they had joined the class action against
JLT.

"In 2016, Mid-Western Regional Council began the process of
tendering for its insurance brokerage services," he said.

"This resulted in savings of around 30 per cent on the insurance
premiums that we had been paying previously.

"It is estimated that there was a saving of around $300,000 for the
first year alone as a result of going through the tender process,
leaving Statewide Mutual and changing brokers.

"Mid-Western believes we may have been overpaying for insurance
premiums for many years based on the advice of JLT."

Cabonne, Cowra and Dubbo councils have confirmed to Fairfax Media
that they will also not be joining the class action. [GN]


JARDINE LLOYD: Law Firms Invite More Councils to Join Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Insurancenews.com.au reports that law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan has invited more councils to join a class action it filed
against Jardine Lloyd Thompson.

The NSW Supreme Court action, supported by litigation funder
Harbour, is led by Richmond Valley Council, while the law firm says
six other local governments have also expressed interest.

But JLT says it will "vigorously defend" the action, which is open
to councils provided with broking services from January 1 2009 to
December 3 this year and which obtained cover through membership of
the NSW mutual liability scheme.

Leo Demer, JLT's Global Head Public Sector, says claims in the
Quinn Emanuel action are "utter and absolute nonsense".

"It has absolutely no merit and we will be vigorously defending the
action," he told insuranceNEWS.com.au.

JLT provides insurance services to more than 500 councils across
Australia and has highlighted its strong track record in providing
cover through mutual schemes.

"Every scheme produces an audited set of accounts that clearly
define the significant surpluses sitting in those schemes for the
benefit of members," Mr Demer said earlier this year.

"Mutual schemes were created because councils in Australia could
not buy any cover in the open market. The suggestion that councils
have paid excessive premiums is not supported by the facts."

The class action alleges JLT breached general law and contractual
obligations, plus fiduciary duties, in its provision of insurance
broking and advisory services.

"We believe a vast majority of NSW councils have used JLT's
services and, as a result, may have overpaid on their insurance
premiums, some for a number of years," Quinn Emanuel Managing
Partner Michael Mills said.

Mr Mills alleges many councils have made substantial premium
savings since leaving JLT, often about 30-50%, indicating the
company may not have acted in councils and ratepayers' best
interests.

The law firm has flagged the potential for similar class actions in
other states.

Richmond Valley GM Vaughan Macdonald says the council last year put
its insurance out to tender and obtained a saving of 53% on the
premium it had been paying.

"For that year alone, the saving was $300,000, and this has been
going on for many years," he said. [GN]


JARDINE LLOYD: Orange City Council Joins Insurance Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Central Western Daily reports that Orange City Council has joined a
class action following what it claimed is a loss of "several
hundred thousand dollars" due to alleged excessive premiums charged
for insurance policies.

The class action was filed against multinational insurance broker
Jardine Lloyd Thompson who was acting on behalf of many of the
state's 128 local councils through Statewide Mutual.

The council's communications officer Allan Reeder confirmed the
council had joined the class action against JLT.

"Along with councils across the state, Orange City Council received
insurance services through JLT as the broker for 16 years, which
ended in 2018," he said.

Orange City Council put its insurance requirements out to tender,
and during the first year with a new firm there were significant
savings of several hundred thousand dollars.

Orange City Council's communications officer Allan Reeder
"Orange City Council put its insurance requirements out to tender,
and during the first year with a new firm there were significant
savings of several hundred thousand dollars."

Mr Reeder said council had joined the class action on a
no-win-no-fee basis, and there would be no direct cost to
ratepayers.

Meanwhile, Cabonne Council spokesperson Dale Jones said it had a
"long-standing relationship with Statewide Mutual" which it said
was an insurance group that was "specifically tailored for local
government and underwritten by Jardine Lloyd Thompson".

"Council has enjoyed a good relationship with Statewide and is
happy with the cover we currently have," he said.

"Cabonne is aware of the class action, but does not have any plans
to join that class action at this stage."

However Mr Jones said that while the council was happy with its
current arrangement, it was still possible that it might undertake
"market testing when the current premiums are to be renewed".

Law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan lodged the class
action on behalf of all local councils, and managing partner
Michael Mills said many of them were still with Statewide Mutual.

"They've been overpaying for many years," he said of the mutual's
member councils.

Mr Mills said it was not uncommon for large corporations and
businesses to seek out a broker to secure competitively-priced
insurance policies due to the complex nature of the premiums
needed.

He alleged that JLT did not "shop around" for better priced
insurance policies for councils and that it may have had a
"conflict of interest" in selecting higher cost premiums that led
to commissions for JLT.

Orange council was not the only one to have paid excessive fees,
with Parkes Shire Council also joining the action to try and claw
back the estimated $2 million it paid in excessive premium charges
during a 10-year period.

Parkes council director of corporate services Les Finn said it was
only when council left Statewide Mutual and put their insurance
costs out to tender that they realised money could be saved.

"In the first year we received a 42 per cent decrease in our
insurance policy [cost], this was equivalent to $230,000,"
Mr Finn said.

"We estimate it's been around $230,000 a year for 10 years that we
paid too much." [GN]


JARIWALA & CO: Lambert Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Jariwala & Co., LLC, challenges the
policies and practices of Defendants that violate the Fair Labor
Standards Act and concerns the non-payment of overtime to
non-exempt employees.  The Plaintiff and those similarly-situated
routinely worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, often working 60
or more hours, and sometimes more than 100 hours in a workweek.
Though Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees routinely
worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, they were not paid by
Defendants at least one and one-half their regular rates for hours
worked in excess of 40, the lawsuit says.

The case is captioned as CARLA LAMBERT 2503 Pinehurst Estates
Lakehurst, NJ 08733, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JARIWALA & CO., LLC, d/b/a J
& CO. HOTELS GROUP 1600 Matso Drive Toms River, NJ 08753; G MATSS,
LLC 1406 Vincenzo Drive, Toms River, NJ 08753; RHR 121, LLC 1211
Boulevard Seaside Heights, NJ 08751; BOARDWALK SEAPORT INN 1119
Ocean Terrace Seaside Heights, NJ 08751; C Z GABHERAJ LLC 1406
Vicenzo Dr. Toms River, NJ 08753; CGABHERAJ LLC, 133 Carteret Ave.,
Seaside Heights, NJ 08751; RAJ JARIWALA, a/k/a RAJAN JARIWALA 27
Nelson Ave., Jersey City, NJ 07307; GAURANG JARIWALA, a/k/a GREG
JARIWALA 1600 Matso Drive Toms River, NJ 08753; REX JARIWALA 1600
Matso Drive Toms River, NJ 08753; RAM PAL 150 Carlton Ave. Apt 2F
Jersey City, NJ 07306; and AHMED AL HADDAD 413 E 51 st St. New
York, NY 10022, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-17295 (D.N.J.,
Dec. 17, 2018).

Jariwala & Co. LLC (trade name J & Co Business Management) is in
the real estate investment industry.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated:

          Ravi Sattiraju, Esq.
          THE SATTIRAJU LAW FIRM, P.C.
          Princeton, New Jersey
          116 Village Blvd #200
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 216-7042
          Facsimile: (609) 799-1267
          E-mail: rsattiraju@sattirajulawfirm.com

               - and -

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES.DRAHER.LLC
          7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
                  hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

JC TREE: Berger Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------
ANTHONY LAMAR MARTE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JC TREE CARE NY CORP.,
MARTHA VELASCO, and JUAN CARLOS, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-07165 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to recover from
Defendants overtime compensation for all hours in excess of 40
hours per week; any and all relief due and owing to Plaintiff for
Defendants' failure to maintain employment records; interest all
compensation Defendants withheld; an award of $5,000.00, the
maximum penalty for violations of NYLL; liquidated damages; and
attorneys fees and cost where available by stature.

JC Tree Care offers safe tree removal and trimming in Albuquerque,
New Mexico.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Christopher K. Cellotta, Esq.
          ZABELL & COLLOTTA, P.C.
          1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103
          Bohemia, NY 11716
          Telephone: (631) 589 7242
          Facsimile: (631) 563 7475
          E-mail: Ccollotta@laborlawsny.com

JELD-WEN INC: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Price-Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Sawbill Companies claims in a federal antitrust complaint that
Jeld-Wen and Masonite, which dominate the interior molded door
market, conspire to fix prices and have already lost a $56 million
antitrust lawsuit because of it.

The case is Knight, et al. v. Jeld-Wen Inc., et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-00850 (E.D. Va.).

A copy of the Complaint is available at https://is.gd/v0uCkH


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Must Face Antitrust Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge refused to dismiss the Rochester Drug Cooperative's
claim that Johnson & Johnson violated more than a dozen states'
consumer-protection laws by monopolizing the market for Remicade,
an arthritis drug, via exclusive agreements and coercive bundled
rebates.

The case is In Re Remicade Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
2:18-cv-00303, (E.D. Pa.).

A copy of the Memorandum is available at:

          https://is.gd/vtvTlN


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Kristel-Papp Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A. The case is captioned as KRISTINE KRISTEL-PAPP, individually
and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
655788/2018 (N.Y. Sup., Nov. 19, 2018).

JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association provides various banking
and other financial services to corporate, institutional, and
governmental clients in the United States and internationally.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association is a subsidiary of
JPMorgan Chase & Co. [BN]


KB HOME: Sued over Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------
AIIRAM LLC and MARIIA KRAVCHUK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. KB HOME, a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
18CV339557 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 17, 2018), asserts breach of
contract; breach of implied covenant of fair dealing; intentional
interference of economic advantage; negligence interference of
economic advantage; and bad faith denial of contract.

According to the complaint, on or about July 26, 2017, Plaintiff
Kravchuk and an individual named Artem Koshkalda electronically
signed a Purchase Agreement and Escrow instructions with the
Defendant for Tract 10377, Lot/Unit 8, at 1035 Giacomo Lane No. 7,
San Jose, California 95130, for a total purchase price of
$943,367.00 (the "Lot 8 Contract"). The Plaintiffs are informed and
believe that Defendant KB Home South Bay Inc. executed the Lot 8
Contract on or about August 3, 2017. On or about August 4, 2017,
$27,240 was deposited into escrow for the purchase of Lot 8. The
Lot 8 Contract set forth an estimated closing date of November 27,
2017.

On or about July 27, 2017, Artem Koshkalda and an individual named
Vladimir Westbrook electronically signed a Purchase Agreement and
Escrow instructions with Defendant for Tract 10377, Lot/Unit 11, at
1035 Giacomo Lane No. 4, San Jose, California 95130, for a total
purchase price of $876,427.00 (the "Lot 11 Contract"), and that
Defendant KB Home South Bay Inc. executed the Lot 11 Contract on or
about August 4, 2017. On or about August 4, 2017, $25,440 was
deposited into escrow for the purchase of Lot 11. The Lot 11
Contract set forth an estimated closing date of November 30, 20
2017.

On or about July 28, 2017, AIIRAM LLC, through its sole owner
Plaintiff Kravchuk, electronically signed a Purchase Agreement and
Escrow instructions with Defendant for Tract 10377, Lot/Unit 14, at
1035 Giacomo Lane No. 1, San Jose, California 95130, for a total
purchase price of $932,028.00 ("Lot 14 Contract"). The Plaintiffs
are informed that Defendant KB Home South Bay Inc. executed the Lot
14 Contract on or about August 26 3, 2017. On or about August 4,
2017, $27,240 was deposited into escrow for the purchase of Lot 14.
The Lot 14 Contract set forth an estimated closing date of November
30, 2017.

Lot 8, Lot 11  and Lot 14 are referred to as the "Properties."  The
Plaintiffs' loans were approved prior to November 30, 2017, and
Plaintiff Kravchuk made arrangements to fly into California on
November 30 to sign the escrow papers and to deposit the balance of
the funds required to purchase the Properties. Kravchuk flew to
California on November 30, 2017, and went to First American Title,
which was handling the escrow, to sign the final paperwork.
Plaintiffs were advised by the escrow officer that the final
paperwork had to be corrected. While escrow worked on correcting
the closing papers, Plaintiffs went to the bank to obtain cashier's
checks for the purchase of the Properties. While Plaintiffs were at
the bank, the escrow officer spoke with Plaintiff Kravchuk by phone
and advised her that "there is no point to get the checks because
the contracts were canceled by KB Home." Even though at that time
-- on November 30, 2017 -- Plaintiffs' lender and Plaintiffs were
ready, willing and able to transfer all funds necessary into escrow
to purchase the Properties, and even though the escrow officer
confirmed that if the funds were deposited into escrow on November
30 then escrow would close on December 1, 2017, KB Home had
instructed the escrow company not to allow Plaintiffs to sign the
closing documents. That evening, on November 30, 2017 at
approximately 7 p.m., only two hours after instructing escrow not
to allow Plaintiffs to sign the closing papers and to cancel the
escrows, Defendant left a voicemail for Westbrook as the real
estate agent for Plaintiffs advising him that the Properties were
available for purchase at "market prices". The Plaintiffs are
informed that Defendant's then-market prices for the Properties was
as follows: Lot 8 - $1,166,669; Lot 11 – $1,095,760; Lot 14 -
$1,155,448.

The Plaintiffs and other class members were ready, willing and able
to deposit all funds into escrow within 3 business days of delivery
of Defendant’s default letters. The Defendant refused to allow
Plaintiffs and other class members to close escrow on the real
properties and represented that they had no contractual obligation
to allow Plaintiffs and other class members to purchase the real
properties. The Defendant thus denied of the existence of their
Contracts with Plaintiffs and other class members in bad faith and
without probable cause. The Defendant's bad faith denial of the
existence of a contract caused harm to Plaintiffs and other class
members. The Plaintiffs and other class members have suffered
damages in an amount to be proven at trial.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs AIIRAM LLC and MARIIA KRAVCHUK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated:

          Michael J. Hassen, Esq.
          REALLAW, APC
          1981 N. Broadway, Suite 280
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 359-7500
          Facsimile: (925) 557-7690
          E-mail: mjhassen@reallaw.us

KELLER LENKNER: Faces Brown Suit in the District of Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keller Lenkner LLC.
The case is captioned as DERRICK BROWN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KELLER LENKNER LLC;
and THE DAMPIER LAW FIRM PC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-12423 (D.
Mass., Nov. 20, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Nathaniel M.
Gorton.

Keller Lenkner LLC is a national law firm that represents a broad
array of clients as plaintiffs in complex litigation at the trial
and appellate levels. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELI, COLLERAN & WILLIAMS, PA
          376 Trapelo Road
          Belmont, MA 02478
          Telephone: (617) 484-7031
          Facsimile: (617) 484-7032
          E-mail: Lawyer2@earthlink.net


KELLOG CO: 2nd Cir. Revives Cheez-Its "Whole Grain" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emilee Larkin, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
reviving a federal class action over healthful branding that
appears on boxes of Cheez-Its, the Second Circuit found on
Dec. 11 that the "whole grain" slogan could mislead consumers.

While Cheez-Its usually come in a package that says either "Whole
Grain" or "Made with Whole Grain," the ingredients list puts
enriched white flour at the top. Because the snack contains just 5
to 8 grams of whole grain, lead plaintiffs Kristen Mantikas,
Kristin Burns and Linda Castle claimed in a 2016 lawsuit that the
labeling was deliberately deceptive.

U.S. District Judge Sandra Feuerstein dismissed the case last year
for failure to state a claim, but a three-judge panel of the Second
Circuit decided on Dec. 11 that the case should go to trial.

"The representation that a cracker is ‘made with whole grain'
would thus plausible lead a reasonable consumer to conclude that
the grain ingredient was entirely, or at least predominantly, whole
grain," U.S. Circuit Judge Pierre Leval wrote for the court.

Kellogg, which makes Cheez-Its, failed to sway the court that the
cracker's mere inclusion of at least some whole grain means that
the labeling is not misleading,

"Such a rule would permit Defendant to lead consumers to believe
its Cheez-Its were made of whole grain so long as the crackers
contained an iota of whole grain, along with 99.999 percent white
flour," the 16-page opinion states.

Michael Reese, who represents the consumers, applauded the Dec. 11
reversal.

"This is a very important decision for consumers," Mr. Reese said
in an email. "It holds you cannot promise consumers something on
the front of a package, and then try to disclaim that on the back.
It requires truth in labeling."

Kenneth Lee -- klee@jenner.com -- an attorney for Kellogg with the
firm Jenner & Block, did not respond to email seeking comment.

The case is Mantikas, et al. v. Kellogg Company, Case No. 17-2011
(2nd Cir.).

A copy of the ruling is available at https://is.gd/HdGIOK


KIMBERLY-CLARK: Supreme Court Won't Hear Flushable Wipes Dispute
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lydia Wheeler, writing for The Hill, reports that the Supreme Court
on Dec. 10 declined to hear an appeal from a lower court ruling
that allows a customer to sue the manufacture of flushable wipes
over false advertising.

The case stems from a class-action lawsuit brought by Jennifer
Davidson after she purchased Scott Naturals Flushable Moist Wipes
in 2013 and noticed they "felt sturdy and thick" and "did not break
up in the toilet like toilet paper," according to court documents.
Though the wipes did not clog Davidson's home plumbing, she argued
the manufacturer's use of the term "flushable" in its marketing was
deceptive and claimed the company had violated California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, its False Advertising Law and the
Unfair Competition Law.

A district court granted a motion from the manufacturer --
Kimberly-Clark Corp. -- to dismiss the case, ruling that Davidson
lacked standing to sue for relief because she clearly will not
purchase the product again, so there's no future harm or risk.

The 9th Circuit reversed that ruling, saying a consumer may suffer
an "actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical" threat of
future harm because "knowledge that the advertisement or label was
false in the past does not equate to knowledge that it will remain
false in the future."

The manufacturer appealed to the Supreme Court, but the justices
declined to take the case. They did not provide any explanation for
their decision, as is customary.

At least four of the nine justices need to agree to hear an appeal
in order for it to be taken up.

Kimberly-Clark manufactures an array of consumer products which it
sells under some of the most recognized names in America, including
Huggies diapers, Cottonelle toilet paper, Scott paper towels and
Kleenex tissues. [GN]


LINCOLN PROPERTY: Sandoval Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------
Michael Sandoval, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Lincoln Property Company
Commercial, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-11796 (S.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 17, 2018), seeks unpaid wages including overtime pay under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges on behalf of himself, and other similarly
situated current and former hourly employees who worked for the
Defendant and who elect to opt into this action pursuant to the
FLSA, that he and the other employees are (i) entitled to unpaid
wages from Defendant for working more than 40 hours in a week and
not being paid an overtime rate of at least 1.5 times the regular
rate for each and all such hours over forty in a week, and (ii)
entitled to maximum liquidated damages and attorneys' fees pursuant
to the FLSA.

Lincoln Property Company develops, operates, and manages
residential community apartments and commercial real estates.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          215-28 Hillside Avenue
          Queens Village, NY 11427
          Telephone: 718 740-1000
          Facsimile: 718 740-2000
          E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com

MARQUETTE, MI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Collins et al. Say
------------------------------------------------------------
TODD COLLINS; and MATHIAS MUNGER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF MARQUETTE,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-206 (W.D. Mich., Nov. 20, 2018) seeks
to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime compensation,
prejudgment interest, maximum liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as law enforcement
officer in the K-9 Unit.

Marquette is a city in the U.S. state of Michigan and the county
seat of Marquette County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wendy E. Leukuma, Esq.
          PENCE LAW
          102 W. Washington Street, Suite 217
          Marquette, MI 49855
          Telephone: (906) 273-2261


MARRIOTT INT'L: Koskie Minsky Commences Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky LLP has commenced a $450 million class action against
Marriott International, Inc.

The claim alleges that Marriott failed to adequately protect its
customer's data and failed to discover the breach at an earlier
date. Marriott's failures have jeopardized the personal information
of millions of Marriott's customers and have left them exposed to
abuse or other misuse of their personal information, including
identity theft.

On November 30, 2018 Marriott announced that approximately 500
million hotel guests who made reservations at Marriott's Starwood
properties may have had their information stolen.

According to Marriott, Starwood brands include: W Hotels, St.
Regis, Sheraton Hotels & Resorts, Westin Hotels & Resorts, Element
Hotels, Aloft Hotels, The Luxury Collection, Tribute Portfolio, Le
Méridien Hotels & Resorts, Four Points by Sheraton and Design
Hotels, and Starwood branded timeshare properties.

The claim is brought on behalf of all Canadian residents whose
personal information was improperly accessed as a result of the
Marriott Data Breach.

"All companies have a duty to safeguard and protect their
customer's information. This obligation is not limited to just
financial institutions or social media companies" says Kirk Baert
counsel at Koskie Minsky LLP. "The Marriott data breach is the
second largest breach of its kind in history and one that would
likely not have occurred if Marriott had taken adequate steps to
protect its customer's information."

A Notice of Action was issued in this case on December 7, 2018

If you are a class member:
Website: https://kmlaw.ca/cases/marriott-data-breach-class-action/
[GN]


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Mendez et al. Sue over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MENDEZ and TOBIAS HINSCH, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL, INC., and STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE, LLC,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-25292-RNS (S.D. Fla., Dec. 17,
2018), assert claims for breach of implied contract and negligence,
and seek monetary damages, statutory damages, and all other relief
as authorized in equity or by law, in relation to a data breach.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs bring this action on
behalf of a proposed class of approximately 500 million travelers
from around the world who stayed at Marriott properties between
January 1, 2014, and September 10, 2018. For nearly four years,
Marriott failed to secure and safeguard its customers' credit and
debit card numbers and other payment card data ("PCD"), and other
personally identifiable information ("PII"), which Marriott
collected at the time Plaintiffs and Class members made hotel
reservations at its properties. On November 30, 2018, Marriott made
a public announcement that it had "determined that there was
unauthorized access to" its guest reservation and database system
on or before September 10, 2018, and that there may have been
unauthorized access as early as 2014 (the "Data Breach"). This
unauthorized access was designed to retrieve PCD and PII from
Marriott guests. The Plaintiffs' and Class members' PCD and PII was
stolen by hackers after Plaintiffs and Class members stayed at the
affected Marriott branded hotels, or created Starwood loyalty
program accounts, during this period.

Marriott's security failures enabled the hackers to steal
Plaintiffs' and Class members' PCD and PII from within Marriott's
guest reservation and database system, and to subsequently make
unauthorized purchases on Plaintiffs' credit and debit cards. The
failures also put Plaintiffs' financial information and interests
at serious, immediate, and ongoing risk and, additionally, caused
costs and expenses to Plaintiffs attributable to responding,
identifying, and correcting damages that were reasonably
foreseeable as a result of Marriott's willful and negligent
conduct. The hackers continue to use the information they obtained
as a result of Marriott's inadequate security to exploit and injure
Plaintiffs and Class members around the world.

The Data Breach was caused and enabled by Marriott's knowing
violation of its obligations to abide by best practices and
industry standards concerning the security of payment systems.
Marriott failed to comply with security standards and allowed its
customers' financial information to be compromised by cutting
corners on security measures that could have prevented or mitigated
the Data Breach that occurred. The Data Breach was the inevitable
result of Marriott's inadequate approach to data security. The
deficiencies in Marriott's data security were so significant that
the malware installed by the hackers remained undetected and intact
for years. Marriott disregarded the rights of Plaintiffs and Class
members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently
failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data
systems were protected, failing to take available steps to prevent
and stop the breach from ever happening, and failing to disclose to
its customers the material fact that it did not have adequate
security practices that could protect customers' data.

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

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          Benjamin J. Widlanski, Esq.
          Javier A. Lopez, Esq.
          Evan J. Stroman, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON, LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
          Miami, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 372-1800
          Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
          E-mail: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com
                  jal@kttlaw.com
                  estroman@kttlaw.com

               - and -

          Brad R. Sohn, Esq.
          THE BRAD SOHN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2600 S. Douglas Rd., Ste. 1007
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (786) 708-9750
          Facsimile: (305) 397-0650
          E-mail: brad@sohn.com

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Vapnek Sues over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
BARI VAPNEK 5535 North Military Trail Boca Raton, Florida 33496, On
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff.
vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC. (a Montgomery County, Maryland
Resident) 10400 Fernwood Road Bethesda, Maryland 20817, Case No.:
8:18-cv-03889-PX (D. Md., Dec. 17, 2018), seeks equitable relief
enjoining Marriott from engaging in wrongful conduct pertaining to
the misuse and/or disclosure of Plaintiff and Class members'
Personally Identifiable Information, and from refusing to issue
prompt, complete, and accurate disclosures to the Plaintiff and
Class members.

According to the complaint, Marriott is a global lodging company
with more than 6,700 properties across 130 countries and
territories, reporting revenues of more than $22 billion in the
fiscal year 2017. Marriott also operates and franchises hotels and
licenses vacation ownership. In 2016, Marriott acquired Starwood
Hotels & Resorts (SPG), creating the resorts.  To book reservations
for an SPG property, customers are required to provide Marriott
with "Personally Identifiable Information" or "PII," which can
include a combination of: guest names, addresses (both postal and
email), credit card information and/or debit card and/or payment
information, date and place of birth, nationality, passport, visa,
or other government-issued identification data, travel itinerary,
social media account information. PII can be used on its own or
with other information to identify, contact, or locate a single
person, or to identify an individual in context.

On November 30, 2018, Marriott announced that a breach of the
company's Starwood computer network resulted in hackers obtaining
access to over 500 million accounts, and all of the information
accessible in and through those accounts (the "Data Breach"). The
Plaintiff brings this class action against Marriott for its failure
to secure its customers' PII.

Marriott failed to maintain reasonable and adequate data security,
thereby allowing the Data Breach affecting at least 500 million
customers worldwide. Numerous hacks targeting consumers' PII have
put Marriott on notice that identity thieves target PII and that
hackers will go to great lengths to attain PII. Recent large-sale
data breaches have targeted PII held by Equifax, Yahoo, Anthem,
Premera, Target, and many other companies. According to Statista,
there were 169 million records exposed in 2015 -- more than double
the number exposed in 2014 (85,610,000), many of them pertaining to
the compromise of PII.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Hassan Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 417-3658
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950

               - and -

          Ariana J. Tadler, Esq.
          Henry J. Kelston, Esq.
          Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
          Jennifer Czeisler, Esq.
          MILBERG TADLER PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1920
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          Facsimile: (212) 868-1229

MDL 2873: Grande vs. 3M Company over AFFF Products Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Leonard Grande, Keith Clerkin, Dina Clerkin, Paul Lutz,
Darlene Lutz, James Seacrease, Valarie Seacrease, Patrick D.
Enwright, Barbara Ann Garcia, Jeffrey Smith, Gloria Smith, and
Kathleen M. Clapp, the Plaintiffs, vs. The 3M Company formerly
known as: Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co., The Ansul
Company; Buckeye Fire Protection Co.; Chemguard; National Foam; and
Angus Fire, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-05380 (Filed Oct. 13,
2016), was transferred from U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District Pennsylvania, to the the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina (Charleston) on Dec. 17, 2018. The
District of South Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-03477-RMG to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Honorable Richard M Gergel. The lead case is Case No.
2:18-mn-02873-RMG.

The Plaintiffs bring this cause of action for medical monitoring
and property damage as a result of their exposure to water
contaminated with toxic chemicals resulting from Defendants'
harmful and defective products, aqueous firefighting foams ("AFFF")
and other materials containing perfluorochemicals (PFCs) including
perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related fluorochemicals
that can degrade to perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") or PFOS, which
were released onto the ground, into the environment and infiltrated
the groundwater and Plaintiffs' drinking/potable water.

The Grande case is being cosolidated with MDL 2873 in RE: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Heather Anne Thomas, Esq.
          Joseph L. Feliciani, Esq.
          CREEDON & FELICIANI PC
          29 E Marshall St.
          Norristown, PA 19401
          Telephone: (610) 239-9630
          E-mail: hthomas@cflawpc.com
                  jfeliciani@cflawpc.com

Attorneys for 3M Company:

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

Attorneys for Ansul Chemical Company and Chemguard:

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

Attorneys for Buckeye Fire Protection Company:

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

Attorneys for National Foam:

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

MEC GENERAL: Oscar Londono Seeks Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------
OSCAR LONDONO, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MEC GENERAL CONSTRUCTION
CORP., MEC General Development Corporation, MEC General, Inc., MEC
General Dry Wall Corp., Edmilson Delima a/k/a Eddie, Roselia
Delima, and Marcos Benigno, the Defendants, Case No. 712944/2018
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 18, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wages,
damages for failure to provide wage statements, damages for failure
to provide wage notice at the time of hiring, liquidated damages,
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees for violations of the New York
Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate compensation for
the hours worked over 40 per week that he worked. The Defendants
failed to maintain accurate records of the hours Plaintiff worked,
failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked over
40, whether at the straight rate of pay, or for any additional
premium, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants own, operate and/or control construction companies
that provide construction services throughout the State of New
York.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Lorena P. Duarte, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 30th Avenue, Suite 10G
          Telephone: (718) 353 8588
          Facsimile: (718) 353 6288

Attorneys for Defendants:

          RABINOWITZ & GALINA
          94 Willis Ave
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 739-8222

MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Vedernikov Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercantile Adjustment
Bureau LLC. The case is styled as Igor Vedernikov, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mercantile
Adjustment Bureau LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-17364 (D. N.J., December 18, 2018).

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

Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC provides collection and accounts
receivable management services to lenders, debt purchasers, and
universities in the United States. The company offers services in
the areas of dismissed bankruptcy, pre legal and legal, and other
collection; call center, legal and compliance, client policy and
procedures certification, skip tracing, and reminder dunning
notice, and more; confidentiality, ongoing, and other training, as
well as client services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Yaakov Saks, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext 101
   Fax: (201) 282-6501
   Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


MINEBEAMITSUMI: Jan. 22 Bearings Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Did you purchase small-size ball bearings or products equipped with
small-size ball bearings between June 1, 2003 and October 31, 2011
in Canada? If so, your legal rights could be affected.

A settlement has been reached in the small-size ball bearings class
actions

Class action lawsuits have been commenced in Quebec, British
Columbia and Ontario ("Class Actions"). Small-size ball bearings
("Bearings") are notably used in communication devices, household
appliances, video cameras, personal computers, printers, air
conditioning units, vacuum cleaners, fishing reels and power tools.
The plaintiffs allege that the manufacturers of Bearings and their
related entities conspired to fix prices in the Bearings market,
causing buyers to overpay for Bearings and the products equipped
with Bearings bought in Canada.

Settlement

A settlement has been reached with the defendants MinebeaMitsumi
Inc. (formerly Minebea Co. Ltd.), NMB Korea Co., Ltd., NMB (USA)
Inc., and NMB Technologies Corporation (the "Settling
Defendants").

The settlement class members are defined as any persons in Canada
who purchased Bearings and/or products equipped with Bearings,
between June 1, 2003 and October 31, 2011 (the "Settlement Class
Members").

As a condition of the settlement, the Ontario and British Columbia
plaintiffs and the Settling Defendants have agreed to have this
action dismissed as against New Hampshire Ball Bearings Inc.,
concurrently with the settlement approval motion.

The Class Actions are continuing against NSK Ltd. and NSK Canada
Inc. (the "Non-Settling Defendants").

The Settling Defendants agreed to settle the Class Actions by
paying CDN $1,500,000 for the benefit of Settlement Class Members
and agreed to provide co-operation to the plaintiffs in the Class
Actions against the Non-Settling Defendants (the "Settlement"). In
exchange, the Settling Defendants will be provided with a full
release of the claims against them relating to the alleged
price-fixing of Bearings. The Settlement is a resolution of
contested claims, and the Settling Defendants do not admit any
liability, wrongdoing or fault.

Settlement Approval Hearings

The settlement approval hearings will take place in the Quebec
Superior Court, in Montreal, on January 22, 2019 at 10h00, the
British Columbia Supreme Court, in Vancouver, on March 7, 2019 at
10h00 and the Ontario Superior Court, in Goderich, on February 25,
2019 at 3h30. The Courts will then decide if the Settlement is
fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of the Settlement Class
Members.

At the settlement approval hearings, the lawyers for the class will
ask the Courts to approve payment of legal fees to them valued at
up to 25% of the funds from the Settlement, plus disbursements and
applicable taxes. Any approved legal fees will be paid out of the
settlement funds.

Settlement Class Members who do not oppose the proposed Settlement
do not need to appear at the settlement approval hearing or take
any other action at this time.

If you want to make an objection to the Settlement or if you want
to intervene and speak to the Courts at the hearings, you must send
your written submission to class counsel representing the members
of your province received no later than January 7, 2019.

Distribution of Settlement Funds

At this stage of the proceedings, the settlement funds (the
"Settlement Funds") (minus Court approved fees and expenses) will
be held in an interest-bearing trust account. At a later date, the
Courts will decide how the Settlement Funds will be distributed and
how you can apply to receive money from the Settlement.

Opting Out

If you do not want to be a member of the Class Actions and
participate in the Settlement, you can opt-out.

If you opt-out, you will not be eligible to participate in the
Settlement, or receive money from the Class Actions, but you may be
able to start or continue your own case regarding the claims at
issue against the defendants. Applicable limitation periods
concerning your claim will resume running against you.

If you do nothing, you will be eligible to participate in the
Settlement, and may receive money from the Class Actions, but you
will not be able to start or continue your own case regarding the
claims at issue against the defendants.

If you wish to opt-out of the Class Actions, you must submit a
notice to opt-out received no later than February 6, 2019. For
Quebec class members and Settlement Class members domiciled in
Quebec, you must send your exclusion notice to the clerk of the
Superior Court. For others, please contact one of the law firms
listed below.

This is your only chance to exclude yourself from the Class Actions
in Quebec, Ontario or British Columbia. The certification orders
and the associated opt-out process outside of Quebec are only valid
if the Settlement is approved. If the Settlement is not approved or
if it otherwise fails to take effect, the certification orders will
not stand and any opt-out notice submitted by any person outside of
Quebec will be set aside, and the litigation will continue against
the Settling Defendants. If certification orders outside of Quebec
are granted by the court in the future, an opt-out process will
take place at that time.

Lawyers

Belleau Lapointe, s.e.n.c.r.l. (Attention: Maxime Nasr) represents
Quebec class members and Settlement Class Members domiciled in
Quebec. (info@belleaulapointe.com)

Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman LLP (Attention: David G.A. Jones)
represents Settlement Class Members in British Columbia.
(smallbearings@cfmlawyers.ca)

Harrison Pensa LLP (Attention: Jonathan Foreman) represents
Settlement Class Members in Ontario, and in provinces other than
British Columbia or Quebec. (smallbearings@harrisonpensa.com) [GN]


MISSION TRAIL: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Drivers, Villareal Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS VILLAREAL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MISSION TRAIL WASTE SYSTEMS, INC.,
and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18CV338479
(Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Nov. 19, 2018) is an action against
the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum
wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Mr. Villareal was employed by the Defendants as driver.

Mission Trail Waste Systems, Inc., a franchised hauling company,
provides garbage, recycling, and organics collection services for
residential, commercial, and industrial customers. It serves
general public and other jurisdictions in Santa Clara and Los
Altos, California. Mission Trail Waste Systems, Inc. was founded in
1986 and is based in Santa Clara, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robin G. Workman, Esq.
          Rachel E. Davey, Esq.
          WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC
          177 Post Street, Suite 800
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 782-3660
          Facsimile: (415) 788-1028
          E-mail: robin@workmanlawpc.com
                  rachel@workmanlawpc.com


NET2SOURCE INC: Removes Johns Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of JEFFREY JOHNS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NET2SOURCE
INC.; DCR WORKFORCE, INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50,
INCLUSIVE, Defendants, filed a notice of removal of the lawsuit
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles (Case No. BC722124) to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on November 20, 2018, 2018. The
clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned Case
No. 2:18-cv-09761-ODW-MRW. The case is assigned to Judge Otis D.
Wright, II and referred to Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner.

Net2Source Inc. operates as a global workforce management solutions
company that provides IT consulting and staffing solutions. The
company was founded in 2007 and is based in New Brunswick, New
Jersey with additional offices in Toronto, Canada; Burj Khalifa,
Dubai; Singapore; Noida, India; London, United Kingdom; Mexico
City, Mexico; Bangkok, Thailand; and Cyberjaya, Malaysia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexandria R Kachadoorian, Esq.
          Anthony J Orshansky, Esq.
          Justin K Kachadoorian, Esq.
          COUNSELONE PC
          9301 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 650
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 277-9945
          Facsimile: (424) 277-3727
          E-mail: alexandria@counselonegroup.com
                  anthony@counselonegroup.com
                  justin@counselonegroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Yitz E Weiss, Esq.
          KAPLAN WEISS LLP
          355 S Grand Avenue Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 553-4550
          Facsimile: (213) 553-4590
          E-mail: yweiss@kaplanweiss.com

               - and -

          Anton Nasri Handal, Esq.
          GREENSPOON MARDER LLP
          401 West A Street Suite 1150
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 544-6400
          Facsimile: (619) 696-0323
          E-mail: tony.handal@gmlaw.com


NEW JERSEY: 2 Teachers Sue Over Involuntary Union Payments
----------------------------------------------------------
Laura Waters, writing for the74, reports that Susan G. Fischer
teaches Italian in New Jersey public schools. All in all, she
calculates that she's involuntarily ceded about $30,000 of
hard-earned salary to union dues during her 30-year teaching
career. Mandatory payments increase annually; her tab last year was
$1,222. While she harbors no resentment toward the $25 a year she
pays to her local bargaining unit at Ocean Township Public Schools
and the $50 per year she pays to the Monmouth County unit, praising
the collegial relationships and professional development
opportunities, she's always resented the $200 per year she pays to
the National Education Association and, most adamantly, the $800
per year -- Ms. Fischer calls it "highway robbery" -- that goes to
the state union, the New Jersey Education Association.

This system of involuntary payments to support lobbying that she
mostly disagrees with was supposed to end with the Supreme Court's
ruling this past June in Janus v. AFSCME, which bars union shops
from mandating membership and dues payments. Mandatory union
membership, said SCOTUS, is a violation of the Constitution's First
Amendment right to free speech. But this system didn't end in New
Jersey, because legislators, with a heavy assist from NJEA
sycophant Gov. Phil Murphy, preemptively circumvented the Janus
ruling through a law called the Workplace Democracy Enhancement
Act. Now, Fischer and her colleague Jeanette Speck have filed a
class-action lawsuit in federal court against Murphy, NJEA, and the
Township of Ocean Education Association.

Ms. Fischer told me, "I grew up in Italy. There, we call this
'extortion.' Pay if you join, pay if you don't join. There's no
choice."

This conflict is bigger than a lawsuit filed by two teachers, and
the law has nothing to do with enhancing "workplace democracy." On
the contrary, it's about the political cudgel NJEA wields over
Murphy, as well as a fairly large contingent of state legislators.
(The New Jersey Globe just named NJEA president Marie Blistan the
13th most powerful person in the state.) Politics, after all, is an
enterprise that seeks power, not righteousness. How this case is
resolved will tell us a lot about whether an organization
accustomed to controlling the Legislature in particularly
child-unfriendly ways can be tamed.

Or even compelled to abide by the U.S. Constitution.

According to the lawsuit, Ms. Fischer and Ms. Speck are suing
because:

"The State of New Jersey is defying Janus by maintaining and
enforcing a law that compels public employees who previously signed
dues deduction authorizations to pay union dues as a condition of
their employment unless and until the employee provides written
notice of revocation during an annual ten (10) day window period.
In other words, New Jersey law prohibits many employees from
exercising their First Amendment rights under Janus for 355-56 days
of the year."

Case in point: Ms. Fischer and Ms. Speck tried to resign from NJEA
in early July, right after the June 27 Janus ruling, but they
couldn't because NJEA said the 10-day window created by the new law
doesn't start until September, when they both (in different years)
were first hired. In September, they both again attempted to revoke
their membership. NJEA said they had to wait, according to the
lawsuit, until the "30th day after the anniversary date of
employment."

Seriously? A union with 203,520 members and $125.1 million in
annual dues (2017), in which last year the collective salaries of
the president, vice president, and secretary-treasurer were $1.44
million, plus another $1.2 million in deferred compensation, is
nickel-and-diming two veteran teachers who have been forced to
contribute to a cause they've rejected for 30-odd years?

Ms. Fischer and Ms. Speck are asking that the court issue a
"declaratory judgment that New Jersey's revocation law is
unconstitutional under the First Amendment," that the court rule
that NJEA violated their constitutional rights by forcing them to
pay dues post-Janus, and that the defendants pay them back the dues
that have been collected post-Janus, plus pay their attorneys'
fees. (The teachers are represented by the same law group that
represented Mark Janus, the National Right to Work Legal Defense
Foundation.)

The law itself is shaky on a number of grounds. Mr. Murphy, in his
May 18 signing statement, noted that Bill 3686 may "conflict in
some manner with the legal parameters anticipated to be set forth"
in Janus, and "I will work closely with the sponsors to enact any
required changes," with particular attention paid to "the privacy
concerns of our public employees." The New Jersey School Boards
Association has multiple concerns: "A3686, in its current form,
constitutes an overreach into matters that have traditionally been
addressed through the collective negotiations process"; the bill
"does not include sufficient assurances that district operations
will not be adversely impacted by union activity on school
property"; and the bill "violates employee privacy rights."

Ms. Wates said "I'm not a lawyer. I am a lifelong Democrat, as well
as the daughter of two members of the United Federation of Teachers
(the New York City arm of the American Federation of Teachers), and
it troubles me that Mr. Murphy appears in thrall to rich lobbyists.
Sure, he's relatively new at this, and sure, this is the way the
world works. But the new state law, which is all about protecting
union coffers, reveals NJEA's and the governor's coordinated
scripts in other educational areas that are unfurling in
particularly child-unfriendly ways."

Consider NJEA's insistence that the governor institute a moratorium
on the expansion of charter schools, despite waiting lists of
35,000 students and parent pleas for more seats. (Indeed, no
charters were approved in the most recent round, and the state
Department of Education failed to follow its own process of
authorization.)

Consider the way NJEA pressure and legislature cowardice have
turned a widely heralded tenure and teacher evaluation reform law
into a nothing-burger. (Last year, 98.9 percent of teachers were
rated effective or highly effective.)

Consider the way Mr. Murphy and his political appointee Education
Commissioner Lamont Repollet are kowtowing to NJEA's insistence
that they radically reduce standardized tests ("I'll eliminate
PARCC Day One," Murphy promised NJEA members) and undermine
accountability. This politically calculated sop will primarily hurt
low-income families, mostly of color, whose children, once again,
won't count because their academic growth won't be carefully
monitored.

Consider the $5 million in union dues NJEA spent (unsuccessfully)
to unseat state Senate President Steve Sweeney, a union man himself
and one of New Jersey's most educationally literate legislators,
because he publicly acknowledges that the teacher pension system is
broken.

It's one thing to parcel out political favors to supporters. It's
another thing entirely when those political favors harm New Jersey
teachers and the children they educate, especially those with the
odds stacked against them.

Ms. Fischer told me, "I'm proud to be an American. This is so
un-American." [GN]


NISEN SUSHI: Yu Peng Lu Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------
Yu Peng Lu, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NISEN SUSHI OF COMMACK, LLC
d/b/a Nisen Sushi, TOM LAM, and ROBERT BEER, the Defendants, Case
No.: 1:18-cv-07177 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest; and/or attorneys' fees and costs, under the
Federal Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL
by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their
employees, including Plaintiffs, compensation for all hours worked,
overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek
and spread of hours, as well failing to provide their employees,
including Plaintiff, with wage notice at the time of hiring and
wage statements.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Xiaoxi Liu, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353 8588
          E-mail: xliu@hanglaw.com

NISSAN MOTOR: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Tennessee
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 10 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced by an institutional investor on behalf of
purchasers of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (OTC:NSANY) American
Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") during the period between December 10,
2013 and November 16, 2018 (the "Class Period"). This action was
filed in the Middle District of Tennessee and is captioned Jackson
County Employees' Retirement System v. Ghosn, et al.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Nissan ADRs during the Class Period to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from
December 10, 2018. If you wish to discuss this action or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A.
Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as
filed at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/nissan/.

The complaint charges Nissan and certain of its current and former
officers and/or directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Nissan is an automobile manufacturer with its
U.S. headquarters located in Smyrna, Tennessee.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse
information regarding Nissan's business and financial condition.
Specifically, according to the complaint, Nissan has been
materially understating its expenses -- and overstating profits --
by concealing half of the annual executive compensation it was
obligated to pay its former Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") and
Chairman of its Board of Directors ("Board"), defendant Carlos
Ghosn ("Ghosn"), in order to avoid shareholder scrutiny of Ghosn's
inordinately high executive compensation. Over the past decade,
Nissan reported paying defendant Ghosn ¥1 billion per year in
compensation. In truth, Nissan paid defendant Ghosn an additional
¥1 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 decade by an estimated ¥10
billion. The Company also concealed from investors the significant
defects in its corporate governance and internal controls that
facilitated this false financial reporting, and 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. As
a result of defendants' false statements and/or omissions, the
price of Nissan ADRs was artificially inflated to more than $22 per
share during the Class Period.

Then on November 19, 2018, investors learned that defendants Ghosn
and Greg Kelly, a former member of the Board and Senior Vice
President of Nissan, had been arrested by Japanese law enforcement.
A statement from Tokyo prosecutors said defendant Ghosn was being
held for violating a Japanese law that prohibits false financial
filings. Defendants Ghosn and Kelly were reportedly arrested as a
result of information provided by an unidentified non-Japanese
executive in Nissan's legal department acting as a whistleblower.
It was later disclosed that an internal investigation at Nissan
found that defendant Ghosn had also improperly filed expenses and
used Company assets for his private use for many years. On news of
these arrests, the price of Nissan ADRs declined precipitously,
closing down more than more than 5% on November 19, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Nissan ADRs during the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in
prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving
financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents investors in
securities litigation. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins
Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history. For five consecutive years, ISS Securities
Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50
Report as one of the top law firms in both amount recovered for
shareholders and total number of class action settlements. Robbins
Geller attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and
recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved
victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded
investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in implementing
corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial
markets for investors worldwide. [GN]


NISSAN N.A.: Turner Sues over Defective Emergency Braking System
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. and NISSAN
MOTOR CO., LTD., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01361 (M.D.
Tenn., Dec. 10, 2018), seeks damages and equitable relief over
alleged defective emergency braking system.

According to the complaint, as advertised by Nissan, its Forward
Emergency Braking/Automatic Emergency Braking technology
("Emergency Braking System") uses radar to detect the possibility
of a collision with vehicles or pedestrians. In its intended
functionality, the Emergency Braking System will apply an emergency
brake, causing the vehicle to decelerate and stop, in the event
that an imminent collision is detected. Nissan first offered
Forward Emergency Braking technology on the model year 2015 Nissan
Murano. In recent years, in an effort to appear at the forefront of
emerging autonomous driving technology, it has expanded the
application of that technology to other models, and has re-branded
this same technology as Automatic Emergency Braking technology.
Beginning with model year 2018 vehicles, Nissan made what is now
called Automatic Emergency Braking a standard feature on its Rogue,
Rogue Sport, Murano, Altima, Maxima, Armada, Pathfinder, Leaf and
Sentra vehicles. Nissan's Emergency Braking System, however, is not
road ready. It suffers from a serious defect, wherein the Emergency
Braking System engages suddenly and unexpectedly when no collision
is imminent and a driver has no intention of stopping her vehicle.
This defect is referred to herein as the Emergency Braking Defect.

Due to the Emergency Braking Defect, owners and lessees of Class
Vehicles have experienced sudden and unexpected braking on railroad
tracks, on bridges, in intersections, and other driving situations
that have placed them at serious and unreasonable risk of side-on
or rear-end collision. The Emergency Braking Defect is a uniform
defect, existing within all Class Vehicles, and is often
experienced at extremely low mileages, within Nissan's 36,000 mile
limited warranty period. Nissan knew of the Emergency Braking
Defect prior to the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles. This is
evidenced by the reports of owners and lessees complaining about
the Emergency Braking Defect to Nissan and Nissan dealers, as well
as the multitude of consumer complaints collected by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s ("NHTSA") Office of
Defects Investigation ("ODI"). Despite this knowledge, Nissan
failed to disclose and actively concealed the Emergency Braking
Defect from Class members and the public, and continued to market
and advertise the Class Vehicles.

Nissan sold hundreds of thousands of Class Vehicles despite knowing
that the Emergency Braking System engages suddenly and
unexpectedly, posing a safety hazard to Plaintiff, the other Class
members, and others sharing the road with Class Vehicles.
Purchasers and lessees who have complained to Nissan about the
Emergency Braking Defect have been told that their vehicle is fine
and have been refused repair or other adequate remedy. The
Emergency Braking Defect inhibits Plaintiff’s and the other Class
members' expected, comfortable, and safe use of their Class
Vehicles, and exposes them to the risk of serious injury resulting
from sudden brake failure. As a result of Nissan's selling and
leasing vehicles with the Emergency Braking Defect, Plaintiff and
the other Class members were damaged in that they purchased Class
Vehicles that they would not have purchased, or at least paid more
for their Class Vehicles than they would have paid, had they known
about the Emergency Braking Defect, the lawsuit says.

Nissan NA is a California corporation with its principal place of
business in Franklin, Tennessee. Nissan NA engages in the design,
manufacturing, advertising, and marketing of Nissan automobiles,
including the Class Vehicles. It markets and sells the Class
Vehicles nationwide, including in Texas and Massachusetts.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
          Tricia Herzfeld, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
                  beng@bsjfirm.com
                  triciah@bsjfirm.com

               - and -

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          272 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
          clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          John E. Tangren, Esq.
          Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: alevitt@dlcfirm.com
                  jtangren@dlcfirm.com
                  dferri@dlcfirm.com

               - and -

          Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Boggs, Esq.
          Michael L. Murphy, Esq.
          BAILEY GLASSER LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          E-mail: bbailey@baileyglasser.com
                  jboggs@baileyglasser.com
                  mmurphy@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq.
          SCHLANGER LAW GROUP, LLP
          9 East 40th Street, Suite 1300
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 250-6114
          E-mail: dschlanger@consumerprotection.net

               - and -

          Kim E. Richman, Esq.
          RICHMAN LAW GROUP
          81 Prospect Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (212) 687-8291
          E-mail: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, Tenth Floor
          Washington DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com

NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Rite Aid Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit is filed against Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.
The case is captioned as Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs.
Corp., the Plaintiff, vs. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation,
Novartis AG, Novartis Corporation, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Endo
International plc, and Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-11835 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2018).

The Rite Aid case is related to the earlier filed case titled
DROGUERIA BETANCES, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Novartis Pharmaceuticals
Corporation, Novartis AG, Novartis Corporation, Par Pharmaceutical,
Inc., Endo International plc, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No.: 1:18-cv-04361-AKH.

Novartis researches, develops, manufactures & markets innovative
prescription drug treatments for diseases and conditions.[BN]

OHIO NATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Trailing Commissions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Meyer Wilson on Dec. 10 disclosed that come December 13, 2018,
thousands of advisors will be out tens of millions of dollars as a
result of Ohio National Life Insurance Company's termination of
trailing commission payments on its variable annuities with
guaranteed minimum income benefit (GMIB) riders. Many advisors
seeking accountability are turning to a recently filed class action
lawsuit by Meyer Wilson to recover what they claim they are
rightfully owed.

The uproar stems from Ohio National's September 28th announcement
that it is terminating trailing commissions to broker-dealers and
securities representatives for variable annuity policies with
(GMIB) riders, with December 12th marked as the date the company
will officially stop paying commissions on sold and existing
policies. In recent years, Ohio National has issued billions of
dollars' worth of GMIB variable annuity policies through a network
of numerous broker-dealer representatives across the country,
thousands of whom will be out tens of millions of dollars due to
Ohio National's actions.  

The announcement hasn't just been tough for those advisors. It's
also impacting policyholders who see no reduction in expenses,
despite their annual fees including costs of ongoing advice. Those
customers, many of whom are retirement-aged investors, may be
cut-off from expert advice by their trusted advisors about their
next steps, whether that means managing existing contracts,
annuitizing, or analyzing buyout offers for values they may not be
able to calculate.

Those harms are what led to the filing of a federal class action
lawsuit by securities attorneys Attorneys David Meyer and Dennis
Concilla on behalf of Lance Browning, a financial advisor from
Texas, and other similarly situated advisors. Shortly after the
lawsuit was filed, Ohio National announced its Chief Distribution
Officer had been laid off, and that its President and Chief
Operating Officer would be stepping down.

The class-action, filed on November 6, 2018 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Case No. 1:18-cv-00763),
claims that Ohio National is "trying to change the rules after the
game has already started," and that the Cincinnati-based mutual
insurance company does not have the right to unilaterally terminate
its contractual obligation to pay trailing commissions on existing
policies. In addition to other causes of action, it also claims
unjust enrichment in regard to Ohio National pocketing the
proceeds.

Advisors affected by Ohio National's decision, many of whom are
small business owners, are now leveraging the power of the civil
justice system to make their voices heard and to pursue the
recovery of their monetary damages. The lawsuit is currently
pending and can be viewed here.

David Meyer and Dennis Concilla are Ohio securities lawyers
recognized nationally as leaders in the field of securities
recruiting law and investment-related matters. The two attorneys
filed the first class action lawsuit against Ohio National on
behalf of advisors who are owed trialing commissions from Ohio
National Life for its existing GMIB variable annuities. For more
information about the lawsuit, visit: www.ohiocommissions.com.
[GN]


OVASCIENCE, INC: Faces Aubets Suit over Proposed Merger
-------------------------------------------------------
JORDI CUENCA AUBETS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OVASCIENCE, INC.; CHRISTOPHER
KROEGER; RICHARD ALDRICH; JEFFREY CAPELLO; MARY FISHER; JONATHAN
HOWE; MARC KOZIN; and JOHN SEXTON, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-10882 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2018) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated public stockholders of OvaScience, Inc. against OvaScience
and the members of the Company's board of directors for their
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection
with the acquisition of OvaScience by Millendo Therapeutics, Inc.

According to the complaint, to convince OvaScience's public common
stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the
Defendants on November 6, 2018, authorized the filing of a
materially incomplete and misleading Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy
Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  In
particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading
information concerning: (i) the valuation analyses prepared by the
Company's financial advisor, Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc., 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.

As of December 7, 2018, OvaScience was acquired by Millendo
Therapeutics, Inc., in a reverse merger transaction. OvaScience,
Inc., a fertility company, discovers, develops, and commercializes
fertility treatment options for women and families struggling with
infertility worldwide. The company was formerly known as Ovastem,
Inc. and changed its name to OvaScience, Inc. in May 2011.
OvaScience, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in
Waltham, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC  
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 971-1341
          Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
          Email: mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com
                 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


PRIORITY PAYMENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Fabricant Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRIORITY PAYMENT SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, LLC;
PRIORITY PAYMENT SYSTEMS, LLC; BRIAN JENKINS; and ASSISTED
ALTERNATIVE MERCHANT STRATEGIES LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-05336-SCJ (N.D. Ga., Nov. 20, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Priority Payment System Holdings, LLC provides payment solutions in
the United States. The company is based in Georgia. Priority
Payment System operates as a subsidiary of Priority Technology
Holdings, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven H. Koval
          THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
          3575 Piedmont Road
          Building 15, Suite 120
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 513-6651
          Facsimile: (404) 549-4654
          E-mail: shkoval@aol.com


QUICKEN LOANS: Hackett Asserts Consumer Credit Suit in Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quicken Loans, Inc.
The case is styled as Bradley Hackett, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. D. Quicken Loans,
Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-02151-PGB-DCI
(M.D. Fla., December 17, 2018).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
over Restrictions on Use of Telephone Equipment.

Quicken Loans Inc., is a mortgage lending company headquartered in
the One Campus Martius building in the heart of the financial
district of downtown Detroit, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Zeig, Esq.
   Zeig Law Firm, LLC
   3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
   Hollywood, FL 33024
   Tel: (754) 217-3084
   Fax: (754) 217-3084
   Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


REED'S INC: Mason Sues over Sale of Mislabeled Soda Products
------------------------------------------------------------
DENIS MASON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REED'S INC. d/b/a VIRGIL'S SODAS, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-10826 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2018) is an action
seeking redress to stop the Defendant's unfair and deceptive
practice of advertising and marketing its line of soda products as
"Made Naturally," "Made with Natural Ingredients," "Brewed with
100% Natural Ingredients" and having "No Preservatives."

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's
representations are false, deceptive and misleading because the
products contain the preservative, citric acid. The labeling
deceives consumers into believing that they are receiving healthier
preservative-free soda even though these products cannot live up to
these claims.

Reed's, Inc. develops, manufactures, markets, and sells natural
hand-crafted beverages and candies in the United States, Canada,
Asia, Europe, Australia, and South America. The company was
formerly known as Original Beverage Corporation and changed its
name to Reed's, Inc. in 2001. Reed's, Inc. was founded in 1987 and
is based in Norwalk, Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Gabrielli, Esq.
          GABRIELLI LEVITT LLP
          2426 Eastchester Road, Suite 103
          Bronx, NY 10469
          Telephone: (718) 708-5322
          Facsimile: (718) 708-5966
          E-mail: michael@gabriellilaw.com


REGIS CORP: Receipt Disclosed Credit Card Number, Cone Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE CONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REGIS CORPORATION d/b/a SUPERCUTS,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05329-TCB-JFK (N.D. Ga., Nov. 26, 2018)
alleges violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
("FACTA").

According to the complaint, on October 9, 2018, the Plaintiff made
a purchase with her personal credit/debit card at the Supercuts
store located in Smyrna, Georgia. The Defendant provided the
Plaintiff with a paper receipt at the point of sale which displayed
the first four and last four digits of the Plaintiff's personal
credit/debit card, in violation of FACTA's requirements.

Regis Corporation owns, operates, and franchises hairstyling and
hair care salons. Regis Corporation was founded in 1954 and is
headquartered in Edina, Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Thomas A. Withers, Esq.
           GILLEN WITHERS & LAKE, LLC
           8 E. Liberty Street
           Savannah, GA 31401
           Telephone: (912) 447.8400
           Facsimile: (912) 629-6347
           E-mail: twithers@gwllawfirm.com

               - and -

           Anthony C. Lake, Esq.
           GILLEN WITHERS & LAKE, LLC
           3490 Piedmont Road, N.E.
           Atlanta, GA 30305
           Telephone: (404) 842.9700
           Facsimile: (404) 842.9750
           E-mail: aclake@gwllawfirm.com

               - and -

           T. Christopher Tuck, Esq.
           Robert S. Wood, Esq.
           T.A.C. Hargrove, II, Esq.
           RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
           1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Bldg. A
           Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
           Telephone: (843) 727-6500
           Facsimile: (843) 216-6509

               - and -

           Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
           Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
           CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER
           1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
           Pittsburgh, PA 15222
           Telephone: (412) 322-9243
           Facsimile: (412) 231-0246


RGS FINANCIAL: Vedernikov Files Suit in D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RGS Financial Inc.
The case is styled as Igor Vedernikov, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RGS Financial Inc.
and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-17353 (D. N.J.,
December 18, 2018).

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

RGS Financial, Inc. provides financial services. The Company offers
business process outsourcing, third party debt collection, asset
location, consulting, and data security services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Yaakov Saks, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext 101
   Fax: (201) 282-6501
   Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com



RIPPLE LABS: Class Action Over XRP Ongoing
------------------------------------------
Ronald Tichenor, writing for Crypto.IQ, reports that with the
recent SEC announcement, fear has spread through an already weak
market, fear that many ICO's of the last few years will meet an end
at the hands of the SEC as each is deemed an unregistered
security.

Ripple Labs, the creators of XRP, has been staving off that
accusation for some time, swatting it away like an annoying bug.
But alas, the SEC has cast its encircling net, and XRP lies
somewhere within it awaiting agency scrutiny. How Ripple is
handling that reality leaves something to be desired.

In 2018, Ripple Labs started trying to co-opt the narrative around
the creation of XRP and the relationship between Ripple and XRP to
defuse the idea that XRP is a security. Investors ought to be
concerned about this because Ripple Labs' attempts sound less like
cooperation with the SEC and more like misdirection and denial.

In June, CEO Brad Garlinghouse specifically made these arguments
regarding whether XRP is a security:

"If Ripple the company shuts down tomorrow, the XRP ledger would
continue to operate. It's open-source, decentralized technology
that exists independent of Ripple."

Yes, if Ripple shut down, XRP would still exist. But the same could
be said of any coin or token with even a single motivated proponent
with a computer. Decentralized? The fact that Ripple still owns 60
percent of all the XRP it created disputes that claim.

"The people buying XRP, they don't think they're buying shares of
Ripple. There's a company called Ripple. We are a private company.
We have investors, . . . but buying XRP doesn't give you ownership
of Ripple. It doesn't give you access to dividends or profits that
come from Ripple."

I'm pretty sure that making a blanket statement about what people
"think they're buying" isn't going to convince the SEC of anything.
More importantly, he's also making a fundamental mistake in
thinking that how the coin functions (whether investors retain
rights of ownership, dividends, or profits) is the only thing that
may make it a security. Nobody has made this case against XRP. In
fact, the SEC has specifically stated that it is more concerned
with how money is raised.

"XRP is solving a problem. There's no utility in a security."
Is his argument that securities don't solve problems? That if a
coin has utility it can't then be a security? That's not how this
works. He should have consulted a securities lawyer before
talking.

There is a very large and very vocal Ripple community who will come
out en masse to defend it. They will repeat these arguments and
more, but their repetitive arguments always leave questions
unanswered.  

"Ripple Labs didn't create XRP. It was gifted to them."

Sure, it was gifted to them by themselves. The founders of XRP
created it then gifted it to themselves as Ripple Labs. Back in the
day, Ripple's founders proudly claimed they created XRP. Then,
years later, they disavowed it after realizing they'd put
themselves in jeopardy. The distinction between the creation and
"gifting" of billions of dollars of XRP will be lost on the SEC.

"Ripple Labs and XRP are not the same thing." Yes, but then why has
Ripple Labs continuously promoted XRP since the beginning? Because
they have something to gain from its rise in value. But that would
make it a security, so they won't say it that way. If they have to
be careful how they answer that question, it's because they have a
problem.

"XRP didn't have an ICO." Perhaps. But the SEC doesn't have any
language in its regulations about the term ICO. It doesn't care
what you want to call a coin. The SEC only cares about what
investment you're selling and how.

There are other arguments, but they are all either incomplete or
irrelevant. What it comes down to is the Howey Test.

Is it an investment of money? Yes.

Is there an expectation of profit? Duh.

Is it a common enterprise? Yes.

Does the investment rely on the efforts of a promoter or third
party? Yes — Ripple Labs.

They've developed it, and they're promoting it. The XRP defenders
will repeat ad nauseum how many banks are trying out Ripple's
protocol and why that will make the price of XRP moon. Doesn't that
sound like the investment depends on the efforts of Ripple Labs?

How about Ripple's own words on this:

"Ripple Labs is the creator of Ripple. We developed the protocol
and its distributed payment network, and we now work to support and
promote its growth."

"The company will retain a portion with the hope of creating a
robust and liquid marketplace in order to monetize its only asset
sometime in the future."

Ripple created the coin and then sold it to build its platform and
fund its operations. That's a security by the SEC's definition.
It's a security according to the Howey Test. Ripple's attempts to
distort or otherwise obfuscate this truth betrays the fact that
they know it should be a security.

If the bulk of these transgressions ended back in 2014 or 2015 then
it might be a moot point and not a security anymore, like Ethereum.
But the fact that they currently own the majority of XRP, and they
continue to promote it, and they still sell it to fund their
operations (to the tune of $163M last quarter), is a big problem.

If the SEC does determine XRP is a security, it will require
compliance, including registering with the agency as a security and
paying a fine. Ripple should be able to do all that without too
much difficulty. However, the SEC is also requiring issuers to pay
back investors. Ripple may have a much harder time with that,
depending on how the SEC wants to handle it.

And the optics of this process would be bad for the price of XRP.

For its own sake, Ripple Labs better be in close contact with the
SEC about this. If they are waiting for the SEC to make the first
move, it might end up far more costly for them.

For investors in XRP, be prepared for a price shock if the SEC
issues an enforcement ruling against Ripple. The market is shaky
and is likely to over react to anything negative right now.

Investors should also be concerned with how Ripple is handling this
publicly. There is an ongoing class action lawsuit by XRP investors
against Ripple Labs over whether XRP is a security.

Ripple should be openly acknowledging the perception of a problem
rather than being dismissive of it. Ripple should be proactively
engaged with the SEC, and the public needs to see that. There are
too many ways Ripple could lose right now. This is the narrative it
needs to control. It could lose in court or lose to the SEC, and
XRP could still survive. If Ripple loses public opinion, instead of
the moon, Ripple Labs' "only asset," XRP, goes to the abyss. [GN]


RIPPLE LABS: Plaintiffs Wants Class Action Moved to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Priyamvada Singh, writing for AMBCrypto, reports that on 8th
December, Jake Chervinsky -- jake.chervinsky@kobrekim.com -- Lawyer
at Kobre & Kim LLP, tweeted about a development in the previously
filed class-action lawsuit against Ripple. Here, he informed his
followers that the plaintiffs claiming XRP as a security, have
filed a motion to remand in federal court, asking to go back to
state court. He added:

"They also say Ripple should pay their legal fees, saying the
removal to federal court was "frivolous" & had "no basis in law or
fact"."

A few weeks back, the lawsuit was removed to the Federal Court as
the attorneys at Ripple defended the company stating:

"Plaintiffs do not allege that they lacked information about the
nature of these transactions. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs claim that
they were somehow injured because the Defendants were allegedly
required to register XRP as a 'security' with the Securities &
Exchange Commission ('SEC') but failed to do so."

In a series of previous tweets, Mr. Chervinsky explained in detail,
the legal situation that is being faced by the leading blockchain
fintech firm. In August, the lawyer mentioned that Ripple is
defending four cases in California courts -- two of them were in
state courts [San Mateo County, filed by Zakinov and Oconer] while
the other two were being fought in the apex court [Northern
District of California, filed by Coffey & Greenwald]. Furthermore,
all of the mentioned cases are based on securities.

He continued the explanation in his third tweet, stating that all
the allegations pointed to a common case: XRP is a security wherein
Ripple violated State and Federal law by failing to register the
digital asset before offering, promoting and selling it to retail
investors.

Mr. Chervinsky also speculated the expected scenarios, one of them
being the case if the plaintiffs lose. Regarding this, he wrote:

"If the plaintiffs lose, the SEC will have saved a lot of time &
money. Keep in mind that they have limited resources for the
#crypto space, and they have their hands full prosecuting ponzi
schemes and outright frauds. Staying quiet now may simply be good
resource management."

As the combined Ripple lawsuit keeps dodging between the State and
Federal Court, a decision on the same is yet to be heard by the
authorities. [GN]


SAKS FIFTH: Rice Sues over Unlawful Text Messaging
--------------------------------------------------
LENORA RICE, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SAKS FIFTH AVENUE LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-08255 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 17, 2018), seeks an
injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unlawful text messaging
activities.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is the company behind the
popular chain of retail clothing stores named "Saks Fifth Avenue."
In order to solicit more business, Defendant sends unlawful
telemarketing and/or advertising text messages to thousands of
consumers’ cellular telephones nationwide. The Defendant does not
obtain the required consent from such consumers to make such text
message calls and, therefore, repeatedly violates the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant also violates the TCPA by failing to provide in every
text message advertisement an automated mechanism to opt out of
receiving such messages. In order to make the unauthorized phone
calls at issue in this case, the Defendant duped consumers into
agreeing to receive those calls. In so doing, Defendant made
material misrepresentations to consumers and intended consumers to
rely on those misrepresentations. Because these misrepresentations
caused the Plaintiff and class members actual harm, the Defendant
violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Lenora Rice and the Proposed Class:

          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          Jonathan Mille Kirkland, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          3151 W. 26th Street, Second Floor
          Chicago, IL 60623
          Telephone: (773) 831-8000

SETERUS INC: Wenger Files Suit for Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seterus, Inc.
asserting breach of contract. The case is styled as Kay Wenger, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Seterus, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02393-MWB (M.D. Penn.,
December 18, 2018).

Seterus, Inc., is a fully integrated loan servicing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
   Chimicles & Tikellis LLP
   One Haverford Centre
   361 W. Lancaster Avenue
   Haverford, PA 19041
   Tel: (610) 642-8500
   Email: bfj@chimicles.com

      - and -

   Asa C. Edwards, Esq.
   Maginnis Law, PLLC
   4801 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 310
   Raleigh, NC 27612
   Tel: (919) 526-0450

      - and -

   Edward H. Maginnis, Esq.
   Maginnis Law, PLLC
   4801 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 310
   Raleigh, NC 27612
   Tel: (919) 526-0450

      - and -

   Scott C Harris,Esq.
   Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP
   900 West Morgan Street
   Raleigh, NC 27603
   Tel: (919) 600-5000
   Email: scott@wbmllp.com


STATEWIDE TRANSPORT: Randle Seeks Overtime Pay for Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROY JOSEPH RANDLE, Sr., and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. STATEWIDE TRANSPORT, INC., Case No.
6:18-cv-01627 (W.D. La., Dec. 18, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, Statewide Transport failed to pay
Randle and other workers like him overtime as required by federal
law. Instead, Statewide Transport paid them the same hourly rate
for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a
workweek, the lawsuit says.

Statewide Transport is a motor carrier located in Hammond,
Louisiana. Randle began working for Statewide Transport in 2017.
Randle was employed as a driver for Statewide Transport.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

          Kenneth St. Pe, Esq.
          ST. PE LAW
          311 West University Ave., Ste. A
          Lafayette, LA 70506
          Telephone: (337) 534-4043
          Telecopier: (337) 534-8379
          E-mail: kds@sptpelaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          800 Sawyer St.
          Houston, TX 77007
          Telephone: 713 999 5228
          Facsimile: 713 999 1187
          E-mail: matt@parmet.law

SUNRISE CREDIT: Vedernikov Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunrise Credit
Services Inc. The case is styled as Igor Vedernikov, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Sunrise Credit Services Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 3:18-cv-17363 (D. N.J., December 18, 2018).

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

Sunrise Credit Services, Inc. provides credit and accounts
receivables management services for credit grantors in the United
States. It offers third party accounts receivable management
programs; cash flow early out/cure programs; account receivables
billing programs; skip tracing solutions; over-the-limit calls and
reminder solutions; attorney network solutions; and credit and
collections training services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Yaakov Saks, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext 101
   Fax: (201) 282-6501
   Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com




SURNAIK HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Claims in Callihan Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia, Charleston Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and
Order granting Defendant SABIC Innovative Plastics US LLC's Motion
to Dismiss the case captioned TIMOTHY CALLIHAN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. SURNAIK HOLDINGS OF WV, LLC, et al., Defendants. Civil Action
No. 2:17-cv-04386. (S.D.W.V.).

The Plaintiffs allege that the Surnaik Defendants owned, operated,
occupied, and/or managed the warehouse as a dump site for hazardous
waste. They assert that in the weeks and months leading up to the
fire, SABIC and Kuraray shipped hazardous materials to the
warehouse but did not instruct Surnaik Defendants about proper
storage of such substances.

SABIC's motion to dismiss is granted; Surnaik Defendants' motion to
dismiss is granted in part and denied in part; and Kuraray's motion
to dismiss is granted.  The Plaintiffs' claims for gross negligence
against SABIC, private nuisance, public nuisance, negligent
infliction of emotional distress, and medical monitoring are
dismissed without prejudice.
The Plaintiffs' claims for trespass, failure to warn, unjust
enrichment, and veil-piercing are dismissed with prejudice.  The
Plaintiffs' claims for negligence against Surnaik Defendants and
gross negligence against Kuraray remain.

If Plaintiffs desire to file an amended complaint in order to
address the claims this Court has dismissed without prejudice, the
Plaintiffs can do so.  As the new complaint will be Plaintiffs'
fourth amended complaint in this action, no further amendments will
be permitted absent compelling circumstances.

Negligence and Gross Negligence (Counts I and IX)

The Defendants SABIC contends that it did not own or operate the
warehouse where the fire occurred, nor was it engaged in a joint
venture with Surnaik Defendants to do so.   

The Plaintiffs allege that Surnaik Defendants not SABIC owned,
operated, occupied, and/or managed the warehouse. Plaintiffs
further allege that Surnaik Defendants were engaged in a joint
venture with the remaining Defendants, including SABIC, allowing
them to improperly house, store, and/or improperly dispose of their
hazardous waste.

The Plaintiffs' assertion that SABIC was in a joint venture with
Surnaik Defendants, is a legal conclusion that this Court is not
required to accept as true for purposes of ruling on the motion to
dismiss. Instead, to establish a joint venture, Plaintiffs must
plead facts showing that Surnaik Defendants and SABIC entered into
a contractual relationship to carry out a single business
enterprise for profit, for which purpose they combined their
property, money, effects, skill, and knowledge. Plaintiffs allege
that SABIC shipped materials to the warehouse. There are no facts
in the complaint from which this Court may infer that Surnaik
Defendants and SABIC agreed to share profits and losses with regard
to the transfer of these materials or exercised equal active
management or control over the operations at the warehouse.
Plaintiffs have not adequately pled the existence of a joint
venture between SABIC and Surnaik Defendants.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 3, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y95afpxr from Leagle.com.

Timothy Callihan, Thomas Dent, Marcus Drake, John Jackson, Gloria
Hall, Jan Drake Robinson, Thelma Barnett-Guinn, Doris Satterfield &
Wonetta Rose, Plaintiffs, represented by David A. Sims, LAW OFFICES
OF DAVID A. SIMS.

Surnaik Holdings of WV, LLC, a West Virginia limited liability
company, Sirnaik, LLC, a West Virginia limited liability company,
Polymer Alliance Services, LLC, a West Virginia limited liability
company, Green Sustainable Solutions LLC, a West Virginia limited
liability company & Intercontinental Export Import, Inc., a
Maryland corporation, Defendants, represented by Bradley K. Shafer
-- bshafer@defensecounsel.com -- MINTZER SAROWITZ ZERIS LEDVA &
MEYERS, Isaac Ralston Forman, HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN RITCHIE, Jason
G. Wehrle -- jwehrle@defensecounsel.com -- MINTZER SAROWITZ ZERIS
LEDVA & MEYERS, Jennings L. Hart, III -- jhart@defensecounsel.com
-- MINTZER SAROWITZ ZERIS LEDVA & MEYERS, Jonathan Zak Ritchie,
HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN RITCHIE, Michael B. Hissam, HISSAM FORMAN
DONOVAN RITCHIE & Ryan McCune Donovan, HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN
RITCHIE.


TELADOC HEALTH: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 8
disclosed that it is investigating potential securities claims on
behalf of shareholders of Teladoc Health Inc. (NYSE: TDOC)
resulting from allegations that Teladoc Health may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.

On December 5, 2018, the Southern Investigative Research Foundation
("SIRF") published an article reporting that Teladoc Health's chief
financial officer, Mark Hirschhorn, had engaged "in an affair with
. . . an employee many levels below him on the company's
organizational chart." The SIRF article continued that "during
their relationship, [the employee] received a series of promotions
over colleagues with either more industry experience or better
credentials that stunned her former colleagues." In addition, the
SIRF article reported that the employee and Hirschhorn "liked to
trade Teladoc Health's stock together," with Hirschhorn "tell[ing]
her when he thought there were good opportunities to sell some
shares." Following this news, Teledoc Health's stock price fell
$6.40 per share or approximately 10.7% over the next two trading
days to close at $53.41 per share on December 7, 2018.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by Teledoc Health investors. If you purchased
shares of Teledoc Health please visit the firm's website at
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1469.html to join the class
action. You may also contact Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen
Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. [GN]


TELLTALE: Launches Final Walking Dead Episode Amid Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Levine, writing for mxdwn.com, reports that there is no doubt
that one of the saddest and most controversial stories of 2018 was
the closure of Telltale studios, which resulted in over 250
employees losing their jobs back in September. Then, the company
laid off the remaining staff as a full liquidation was underway.
Things got ugly very quickly, as most of those employees who were
now without employment launched a class-action lawsuit against
Telltale, for not receiving any severance pay, and only had health
insurance till the end of that month.

While the livelihood of those affected by this was the most
important thing, let's not forget that all of the games that were
in development were essentially canceled, including The Walking
Dead: The Final Season, which had already released two episodes.
Luckily, Skybound Entertainment, which is run by The Walking Dead's
creator, Robert Kirkman, came in to save the series, and as of last
month, began producing the final episodes for the season. Finally,
there seems to be some light at the end of this dark tunnel, as the
company has announced that the next installment of the series,
Episode 3: Broken Toys, will launch for all platforms on January
15, 2019.

The announcement came with a brand new trailer, narrated by Season
1's beloved main protagonist, Lee. While it doesn't go into any
details of the stories plot, it paints a somber picture of the
state of Clementine, AJ, and the rest of the group, while also
gives us hope that they might end up surviving in the end. In the
blog post, Skybound's Social Media Manager, Johnny O'Dell, stated
that "We're extremely thankful to the team working on this game to
make sure the season is finished with the quality the game and the
fans deserve. We are #stillnotbitten."

Still not bitten referring to Clementine being one of the few
people in the series to not be bitten by a Walker. O'Dell goes on
to mention that The Walking Dead: The Final Season's previous
episodes, Done Running and Suffer the Children, are back on "almost
all platforms", as they were removed from all digital storefronts
following Telltales liquidation. There was no information given on
the Final Episode, but we can safely assume that Skybound will work
on that once Episode 3 is released.

The Walking Dead: The Final Season Episode 3 launches on January
15, 2019 for the PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and PC. [GN]


TIGER BRANDS: First Listeriosis Claims Payout Expected in 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Brown, writing for City Press, reports that the first claims
associated with the listeriosis class action could be paid out in
mid to late 2020 at the earliest.

So said Richard Spoor Attorneys lawyer Thami Malusi on Dec. 7.

If Tiger Brands settled the matter rather than going to court, that
would shorten the process, he added.

The listeriosis outbreak killed 216 people, according to the
National Institute for Communicable Diseases.

Earlier, the listeriosis class action was certified by Deputy Judge
President Phineas Mojapelo in the Johannesburg High Court.

The action is being brought by three law firms: Richard Spoor
Attorneys, LHL Attorneys and Marler Clark LLP.

The three law firms have agreed to take 20% of the total claims
paid out to class members as their fee, Mr. Malusi said.

The two respondents to the class action are Tiger Brands Consumer
Foods and Enterprise Foods, a Tiger Brands subsidiary.

Mr. Malusi said that in terms of the class action certification,
complainants had until March 3 2019 to opt out of being represented
by the three law firms that have brought the action.

The next step was for summons to be issued against the two
respondents, and this was expected to happen in January.

Thereafter, the respondents would have 20 days to reply, Malusi
said.

The two respondents would also be subpoenaed to provide
information, including on testing done at the Enterprise Foods
factory in Polokwane, to see what went wrong, he added.

Tiger Brands has agreed to co-fund the communication campaign that
will notify prospective claimants of their rights in the class
action.

"Tiger Brands reiterates that no liability has been established
against the company for the listeriosis outbreak. The legal process
of the class action must still take its course," said Tiger Brands
in a statement.

It coincided with the reopening of the Enterprise Foods facility in
Polokwane, which was determined as the source of the listeriosis
outbreak.

This means that Enterprise ready-to-eat chilled processed meats,
such as polony and viennas, will again be on sale.

Capricorn Municipality's environmental health department provided
the company with an official Certificate of Acceptability for the
Polokwane factory after "rigorous assessments were completed,
giving the company licence to resume production", Tiger Brands
said.

"This certificate endorses the factory's standards and operating
procedures for the safe production of food products," the company
added. [GN]


TRADER JOE'S: Lima Sues over Deceptive Branding of Honey Nut O's
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANITA S. LIMA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-12591-ADB (D. Mass., Dec. 18, 2018), seeks to
recover compensatory damages, restitution, punitive and special
damages (including but not limited to treble damages), reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs and injunctive or declaratory relief.

The Plaintiff sues on behalf of herself and persons similarly
situated who purchased one or more boxes of "Trader Joe's Honey Nut
O's," a breakfast cereal manufactured and marketed by Defendant. By
making false, deceptive, and misleading representations, and by
omitting material information, Defendant's branding and packaging
of "Trader Joe's Honey Nut O's" convey that honey -- and not sugar
-- is its primary sweetener. In truth, however, sugar (also
referred to as white sugar) and brown sugar are the most prevalent
sweeteners, and on information and belief the product contains only
a miniscule amount of honey. The Plaintiff and all members were
harmed by paying more to purchase the product than they would have
been willing to pay had its honey content not been misrepresented
by the Defendant.

Trader Joe's is an American chain of grocery stores based in
Monrovia, California. By 2015, it was a competitor in "fresh
format" grocery stores in the United States. As of October 12,
2017, Trader Joe's had 474 stores nationwide in 43 states and in
Washington, D.C.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes:

          Kenneth D. Quat, Esq.
          QUAT LAW OFFICES
          929 Worcester Rd.
          Framingham, MA 01701
          508-872-1261
          E-mail: ken@quatlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93 rd St., 16 th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          212-643-0500
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
                 cramirez@reesellp.com

TRUSTMARK NATIONAL: Sued for Improperly Charging Overdraft Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action claims Trustmark National Bank bilked
customers for millions of dollars by improperly charging overdraft
fees on transactions that did not overdraw the account, sometimes
twice or three times, including for a mere balance inquiry.

The case is Tabas, et al. v.  JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al., (Case
No. 3:18-cv-07129-LB (N.D. Cal.).

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

         https://is.gd/TJKovL


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: 12,501 Drivers Sue Over Arbitration Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Rapier and Michael Selby-Green, writing for Business
Insider, report that like thousands of other companies, Uber
requires most drivers to sign an arbitration agreement that
requires disputes to be resolved directly with the company, and not
through a court.

There is an option to opt-out of the clause, as outlined in the
company's 21-page terms and conditions, but it must be done in
writing within 30 days of signing the agreement.

Now, fed up with falling pay and their status as contractors rather
than employees, 12,501 drivers have filed a lawsuit in California
accusing Uber of ignoring their requests for arbitration. The suit
was first reported by Motherboard.

Of the 300 pages of partners requesting arbitration, the plaintiffs
claim only 47 have been appointed arbiters and only six have seen
the process move forward.

"They're not using what they used as a shield as a sword,"  Stephen
Larson, an attorney for the petitioners, told Business Insider.
"We're essentially calling their bluff. This has been the trend for
corporations for decades across the country, of inserting this
clause specifically to block class action lawsuits."

An Uber spokesperson declined to comment.

The case was originally brought as a class action lawsuit in
multiple states regarding drivers status as contractors. Their
complaints in five states range from failure to pay minimum wage,
lack of overtime compensation, no paid sick leave, and other things
that would be required if drivers were considered employees.

"The essential issue is whether they're employees or contractors,"
said Larson, representing the drivers. "They're all making the same
complaint."

In order for a request for arbitration to proceed, Uber is
responsible for paying a fee to JAMS -- one of the largest
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) providers in the country.

"It has been more than three-and-a-half months since the first
Petitioners served their individual arbitration demands," the suit
reads. "Yet Uber has refused to pay the necessary fees to commence
and administer arbitration in all but a handful of cases."

At this rate, the plaintiffs estimate in filings that "it would
take approximately 10 years before the last Petitioners'
arbitration even commenced."

Uber has previously touted the benefits of arbitration. "The entire
purpose of arbitration is to provide an inexpensive and expeditious
means of resolving disputes," the company argued in a separate case
in 2015, citing a court decision from 1985.

Even if drivers were considered employees, they could still be
subject to strict arbitration rules. Some 60 million American
employees are now barred from using the courts for an array of
claims against their employers, including race discrimination,
short pay, workplace safety, and class-action litigation, according
to research by the Economic Policy Institute.

The number of US employees covered by mandatory arbitration
agreements now exceeds 55%, up from 2% in 1992, and 80% of Fortune
100 companies have used arbitration since 2010, including Amazon,
Nike, and Exxon Mobil.

On Dec. 7, the case was moved to The US District Court in San
Francisco from San Jose. Uber has 21 days from its receipt of the
original summons to respond. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Lawyers File More Arbitration Demands at JAM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boingboing reports that binding arbitration agreements were
formalized in 1925, allowing two corporate entities of roughly
equal size to resolve their disputes outside of a court, saving
both parties a lot of money, but since then, the primary use of
arbitration is to force employees, customers, patients and other
comparatively weak parties to surrender their right to sue (or join
class actions) as a condition of going to work, seeking care, or
simply shopping.

Instead, people who have been crammed into binding arbitration
"agreements" are forced to argue their cases one at a time in a
privatized courtroom, where the "judge" is often a contractor for
the corporation whose conduct gave rise to the complaint.

A notorious example of this is the gig economy, where employees are
turned into "contractors" through a legal fiction and then deprived
of their right to join class action suits over unfair treatment
thanks to the arbitration clauses in the farcically long license
agreement they click through when they sign up (Uber drivers can
technically opt out within 30 days, but they'd have to read
thousands of words of impenetrable legalese to discover this).

As is so often the case, Uber is the granddaddy of the worst
practices of the gig economy. When the company went to the court to
argue that its employees weren't employees, it defended its binding
arbitration, saying that the company would of course pay for the
arbitration fees in the states that required it.

12,501 Uber drivers took the company at its word and filed
arbitration claims in California. Under the terms of the contract
that Uber crammed down these drivers' throats, it must now pay
$1,500 per driver to JAMS, the arbitration service it uses -- a
total of $18.7m.

But Uber has only paid the filing fees for 296 of these drivers;
and of those, only 47 have had arbitrators appointed to them. Uber
has paid the retainers for only six of those arbitrators.

As Larson O'Brien, a lawyer for the drivers, wrote in a motion, "At
this point, it is fair to ask whether Uber's previous statements to
the 9th Circuit about its desire to facilitate arbitration with its
drivers were nothing more than empty promises to avoid litigating a
class action. Uber's actions make clear it does not actually
support arbitration; rather, it supports avoiding any method of
dispute resolution, no matter the venue."

On the one hand, fuck Uber, which is in the midst of an IPO that
will make the people who designed this system unfathomably rich. On
the other hand, these drivers are amazing and inspiring: having
been stripped of their right to work as a group to seek justice
from Uber and having been corralled into a narrow chute with no
options, they rushed the chute and filled it, overflowed it, and
forced Uber to reckon with them anyway: as human beings with legal
rights, not as squishy, inconvenient stopgaps that the company
grudgingly pays for while it races to perfect self-driving cars.

The drivers' lawyers said in their filings that they proposed an
alternative to arbitrating thousands of individual cases at a cost
of no less than $1,500 apiece. After filing an initial batch of 400
arbitration demands in August, the drivers' lawyers suggested a
bellwether process in which the two sides would select nine cases
to be arbitrated, with mediation to follow. According to the
drivers, Uber rejected that proposal and instead suggested four
representative arbitrations and no mediation. Larson O'Brien said
that plan was unworkable and proceeded to file more than 12,000
additional arbitration demands at JAMS.

"At bottom, our clients are entitled to a resolution of their
disputes," said drivers' lawyer Stephen Larson in an email. "By
robbing its drivers of a forum to resolve their disputes, I believe
Uber is charting a dangerous course, and if its strategy is
successful, it would have significant repercussions for all workers
in the gig economy." In addition to an order compelling Uber to pay
the arbitration fees, the drivers are seeking a sanction against
the company under the court's equitable powers.

Uber declined to comment on the drivers' filings, which are before
U.S. Magistrate Judge Kandis Westmore of Oakland. (The drivers have
asked for the case to be deemed related to previous litigation
before U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of San Francisco.) [GN]


UNITED STATES: ACLU Sues ICE Over Asylum-Seekers' Detention
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that in
a concise history of U.S. immigration-detention policies, the ACLU
claims in a federal complaint that Immigration and Customs
Enforcement is detaining thousands of asylum-seekers in violation
of its own directives.

The case is American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants' Rights
Project & Center for Gender & Refugee Studies at the University of
California Hastings College of the Law v. U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, Case No. 3:18-cv-07449 (N.D. Cal.).

A copy of the Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief is
available at https://is.gd/3NVMsl


UNITED STATES: Judge to Likely Advance Travel Ban Waiver Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge hinted on Dec. 13 that he will likely advance a
lawsuit claiming the U.S. government uses a "sham" process to deny
waivers to nearly every immigrant coming from five Muslim-majority
nations under President Donald Trump's travel ban.

"A citizen has the right to say the government is putting up a sham
policy," U.S. District Judge James Donato said during a
motion-to-dismiss hearing.

Thirty-six plaintiffs filed a class action against the Trump
administration in March, claiming the government failed to create
proper guidelines and procedures for reviewing travel ban waiver
requests as required by law.

According to the suit, the waiver denials have prevented parents
from attending their children's weddings and being present for the
births of grandchildren. They have also separated sick and dying
parents from children in the U.S., blocked scientists from working
and doing research at U.S. universities, and made those who
invested $500,000 or more in U.S. businesses ineligible for visas
under the EB-5 immigrant investor program.

According to data cited in the lawsuit, the State Department
granted only two waivers for 6,500 applicants as of Jan. 8, 2018.
In March, the State Department said it had granted 100 waivers, but
the rejection rate remained higher than 98 percent.

Despite those statistics, a U.S. government lawyer argued in court
on Dec. 13 that the lawsuit should be thrown out because courts
lack the power to review case-by-case visa determinations.

"They are envisioning a kind of micromanagement of those consular
decisions," Justice Department attorney August Flentje said.

Judge Donato disagreed, noting that the lawsuit alleges a "sham"
policy and guidelines that create the illusion of fairness while
giving the government cover to reject nearly every waiver request.

"I don't see why I'd have to look at any specific waiver
decisions," Judge Donato said.

To obtain a waiver, applicants must show they do not pose a
national security threat, that a waiver denial would cause "undue
hardship," and that their entry into the U.S. would "be in the
national interest."

According to the lawsuit, several plaintiffs submitted documents
showing they meet the requirements, including scientists with
special expertise whose research at U.S. universities would "be in
the national interest." But the government rejected all of their
waiver requests.

Class attorney Sirine Shebaya of the Washington, D.C.-based group
Muslim Advocates said the government has failed to make clear how
one can apply for a waiver, submit supporting documentation and
prove that one meets the requirements.

"They haven't given you any clue about what the [eligibility
criteria] definitions are, but it's your burden to show that you
meet those definitions," Ms. Shebaya said.

Mr. Flentje countered the U.S. does follow clear guidelines for
meeting the requirements, but some of those guidelines are hidden
from the public for national security reasons.

"The [presidential] proclamation for issuing guidance doesn't say
it's all outward facing, and a lot would need to be confidential to
avoid manipulation of the process," Mr. Flentje said.

Trump's third version of the travel ban was introduced in September
2017 and upheld by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote in June.

On Dec. 13, Judge Donato cited Justice Stephen Breyer's dissent in
that decision, which focused on whether the waiver program is being
administered as stated in the president's proclamation.

Judge Breyer noted that if the government was not granting waivers
to those that meet the three requirements, then arguments in favor
of the travel ban would be "significantly weaker."

"Denying visas to Muslims who meet the proclamation's own security
terms would support the view that the government excludes them for
reasons based upon their religion," Judge Breyer wrote in an 8-page
dissent.

Judge Donato recalled a footnote in Chief Justice John Roberts'
opinion upholding the travel ban, which cited a lack of evidence to
support Breyer's concern that the government was categorically
denying waiver requests.

"Frankly, he's skeptical that it's a sham, but we have to see the
evidence," Judge Donato said. "Why isn't that the case here? Why
shouldn't this go to an evidentiary hearing?"

Before ending the hearing, Judge Donato said he would issue a
written ruling "fairly soon," and that he will let the plaintiffs
amend their complaint if any claims are dismissed.

After the hearing, opponents of the travel ban gathered outside the
courthouse. Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates,
encouraged people to contact their congressional representatives
and urge them to use their oversight powers to investigate the
travel ban waiver system.

Countries subject to the travel ban include Iran, Libya, North
Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.

The case is Emami, et al. v. Nielsen, et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-01587 (N.D. Cal.).

A copy of the Defendants' Notice Of Motion, Motion To Dismiss, And
Memorandum In Support is available at:

          https://is.gd/DCdQcZ


VICTORIA'S SECRET: Lambey Seeks Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------
Tiffany Lambey, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 719284/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 17, 2018),
seeks maximum liquidated damages and interest for being paid
overtime wages and non-overtime wages later than weekly, pursuant
to the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff complains on behalf of
herself and a class of other similarly-situated current and former
employees were employed by Defendant within the State of New York
as manual workers.

The Defendant had a policy and practice of failing to pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for all time spent
attending required training sessions and courses – the Plaintiff
was required to attend training sessions and courses of about 2-4
hrs. per month and was not paid for such time in violation of NYLL,
the lawsuit says.

Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC retails apparel, lingerie, and
personal care products for women. It also sells products online.
The company was founded in 1977 and is based in Reynoldsburg, Ohio.
Victoria's Secret operates as a subsidiary of L Brands, Inc.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          215-28 Hillside Avenue
          Queens Village, NY 11427
          Telephone: 718 740-1000
          Facsimile: 718 740-2000
          E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com

WAL-MART STORES: Mays Moves to Certify Wage Statement Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled LERNA MAYS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WAL-MART STORES,
INC., a Delaware Corporation and DOE ONE through and including DOE
ONE-HUNDRED, Case No. 2:18-cv-02318-AB-KK (C.D. Cal.), asks the
Court to certify these Class and Subclass defined as:

   * The Wage Statement Class:

     All Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. California workers who received
     one or more wage payments during the period from Friday,
     December 16, 2016, to the date on which this Motion may be
     decided.

   * Final Wage Statement Subclass:

     All former non-exempt employees who worked for Wal-Mart
     Stores, Inc. in California and whose employment terminated
     (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) at any time from
     January 10, 2018, to the date on which this Motion may be
     decided.

Ms. Mays also asks the Court to appoint her as class
representative, to appoint Harris & Ruble as class counsel, and to
order the parties to meet and confer with respect to the form of
notice.

The Court will commence a hearing on February 8, 2019, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan Harris, Esq.
          Priya Mohan, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          655 N. Central Ave., 17th Floor
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (323) 962-3777
          Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
          E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com
                  pmohan@harrisandruble.com


WALT DISNEY: Home-Video Distributors File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Neversink Productions claims in a class action that Walt Disney
Pictures cheats home-video distributors by including only 20
percent of its home-video revenue when calculating royalties for
profit participants, in L.A. Superior Court.


WELLMONT HEALTH: Class Action Jury Trial Expected to Wrap Up
------------------------------------------------------------
Lurah Spell, writing for Bristol Herald Courier, reports that the
third week of a jury trial over a $83 million class-action lawsuit
filed against Wellmont Health System was set to begins Dec. 10.

The suit was filed in 2016 by Highlands Physicians Inc. and 2,100
people, including at least 1,500 doctors. It alleges that Wellmont
breached contract, fiduciary duty, and a network access agreement
and owes payments to providers.

The jury trial is being presided over by Sullivan County Chancery
Court Judge E.G. Moody in Bristol Law Court. It began on Nov. 27
and was scheduled to wrap up on Dec. 14.

In 1993, Bristol's hospital -- Wellmont's predecessor -- and
Highlands Physicians formed what is now called Highlands Wellmont
Health Network. Both own 50 percent of the network with the power
to elect half of the network's directors, according to the suit.

The suit also accuses Wellmont of deceiving, defaming and lying to
HPI; failing to disclose decisions intended to harm the network and
HPI; tortious interference with business advantages and contracts;
and intentional misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment that
caused HPI to suffer damages.

In court on Dec. 7, Judge Moody compared the case to a divorce
proceeding. He said an "amicable resolution" is needed so Ballad
Health can maintain good relationships with HPI's medical
providers. Ballad was formed earlier this year through the merger
of Wellmont and Mountain States Health Alliance.

"This is like having a family feud that will never end," he said.

Judge Moody added that patients are the ones who will suffer if a
resolution isn't found because doctors will be "against" Ballad
Health. A jury verdict, he said, may not even resolve the issues.

Judge Moody ordered attorneys to mediate toward a settlement on
Dec. 11.

Ballad Health, Wellmont Health System's attorneys and Highlands
Physicians' attorneys declined comment on the lawsuit.

In addition to seeking millions in punitive and compensatory
damages, attorney fees, costs and interest, the suit asks that
judicial rulings be made to clarify Wellmont and Highlands
Physicians' mutual contractual and fiduciary obligations. [GN]


WILLIAMSBURG LAUNDROMAT: Viano et al. Seek Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Lidia Viano and Adriana Viano individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Williamsburg Laundromat
LLC, (d/b/a The Laundry Taxi) and Salvatore Occhipinti (a/k/s Sal
Occhipinti), Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07187 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 17,
2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation, spread-of-hours pay,
unlawful deductions and breach-of-contract and quantum meruit
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York
Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Prevention Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are former employees of
Defendants who were employed to wash, fold, iron at The Laundry
Taxi, in Brooklyn. The Defendants have intentionally, willfully and
repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice and/or policy of
violating the FLSA with respect to Plaintiffs and the FLSA
Collective. This policy and pattern or practice includes, but is
not limited to willfully failing to pay overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week; willfully failing to keep
records that satisfy statutory requirements; and making unlawful
deductions, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          42 Broadway, Suite 12-126
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212)-203-2417
          www.FightForUrRights.com

WINMILL & CO: Appeals Delaware Court Ruling in Ravenswood Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Winmill & Co. Incorporated and other defendants in a lawsuit by The
Ravenswood Investment Company, L.P., have taken an appeal from a
Delaware state court ruling in that case.  The appellate case is
pending before the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware and
captioned, The Ravenswood Investment Company, L.P., individually,
derivatively and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, vs The Estate of
Bassett S. Winmill, Thomas B. Winmill, and Mark C. Winmill, and
Winmill & Co. Incorporated, Defendants, Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
Case No. 496,2018 (Del.).  Specifically, the defendants are taking
an appeal from the final judgment order of the Court of Chancery,
in and for New Castle County, by the Honorable Joseph R. Slights,
III, dated August 29, 2018, which incorporates all prior rulings of
the Court of Chancery, including its transcript ruling dated April
27, 2017 on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court of
Chancery's post-trial Memorandum Opinion dated March 21, 2018
(revised March 22, 2018) and the Court of Chancery's transcript
ruling dated August 15, 2018.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Appellant/Cross-Appellee:

          R. Bruce McNew, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR P.A.
          The Brandywine Building, 10th Floor
          1000 West Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801

Attorneys for Defendants, Appellees/Cross-Appellants:

          David A. Jenkins, Esq.
          Kelly A. Green, Esq.
          SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP
          1000 West Street, Suite 1501
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 652 8400
          E-mail: djenkins@skjlaw.com
                  kag@skjlaw.com

WORKPAC: Adero Prepares to File Suit Over "Double Dipping"
----------------------------------------------------------
Dana McCauley, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
Industrial Relations Minister Kelly O'Dwyer is under pressure to
fix casual worker "double dipping" before Christmas, as lawyers
prepare to file a massive class-action suit and employers fear they
could be exposed to liabilities of up to $8 billion across the
economy.

Ms O'Dwyer is understood to be considering a bold solution to the
situation created by the Federal Court when it ruled that Paul
Skene, a casual truck driver employed at a Rio Tinto mine through
labour hire firm WorkPac, was entitled to annual leave and sick
pay.

Under the plan being considered, the minister would use her
executive powers to create a regulation to ensure that employers
are not hit twice by having to pay entitlements on top of the
casual loadings designed to compensate for them.

It comes as class-action law firm Adero prepares to file suits
against WorkPac and fellow mining industry labour hire firms Hays
recruitment, Programmed and One Key Resources, on behalf of
thousands of workers who say they are in the same position as
Mr Skene.

Employer groups have been lobbying the minister to fix what she has
described as an "absurd" situation, but with slim prospects of
getting legislation through a hostile Senate, an alternative has
emerged.

Employment lawyer Luis Izzo said dealing with the issue by way of a
regulation would be easier than getting legislation through --
although it could be challenged once Parliament resumes in
February, when "either house has the ability to overrule it".

"The process is the regulation is made, and it's binding -- it
takes effect -- but an MP or senator can object to it," Mr Izzo
said.

"If there's a majority in the Senate or House to overrule it, the
regulation is dead."

But, he said, the government could gain a political advantage as,
"from an optics perspective, it might take a little bit more
momentum to overturn something that's already in place".

Once rubber stamped by the Governor-General, the regulation would
take effect and the government could use the summer break to sell
it as a sensible fix.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has promised legislation to ensure
workers employed through labour hire firms get the same pay and
conditions as workers hired directly, if Labor wins government.

Sydney University constitutional law professor Anne Twomey said the
rules in the Senate -- where most disallowance motions took place
-- provided that a regulation could be challenged within 15 sitting
days of being tabled.

Mr Izzo said the regulation would be "a step in the right
direction" for the government to clarify the position of casual
workers.

"It would then take a significant counter-manoeuvre by MPs in the
Senate or House of Representatives to overturn it," he said.

Third parties, such as trade unions, would also be able to
challenge the regulation in court if they could argue its creation
was beyond the power of the executive and constitutionally
invalid.

Mr Izzo said the risk of this happening would likely be greater if
the regulation attempted to insert a definition of a casual worker
into the act.

The minister has the power to make regulations for any purpose
"necessary or convenient" to carry out or give effect to the
provisions of the Fair Work Act, but not to modify the act.

"I think the pressing desire is to at least address the double
dipping, because that's where there is a particular level of
outrage," he said.

Ms O'Dwyer has intervened on behalf of the Commonwealth in a test
case that seeks to clarify the double dipping issue, but an outcome
is not expected before the election, due by May next year.

The Federal Court case, brought by WorkPac against a former worker
called Robert Rossato, is expected to end up in the High Court.

Workplace law expert Andrew Stewart, a professor at the University
of Adelaide, said the double dipping issue needed "a legislative
fix" -- but that this was unlikely.

"If they introduce a bill to deal with this issue, they would have
to face an immediate set of amendments," Professor Stewart said.

"And that might not only produce effects very different from the
one they wanted, but would almost certainly also involve Labour
trying to reverse last year's penalty rate cuts."

He said there was "a desperate need" for a resolution as "the
situation that we've got at the moment is completely
unsustainable".

"You've got potentially more than a million Australian employees
who have casual status but arguably are not true casuals ... and
therefore would be entitled to annual leave, sick leave etc.

"That clearly is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue; it
has to be sorted out one way or the other."

Professor Stewart said it was unclear whether it would possible to
address the issue retrospectively.

ACTU Secretary Sally McManus said workers were finding themselves
"stuck for years in casual roles while they do the same work as a
full time or part time employee" and that employers should pay a
price for "decades of abusing loopholes in our broken system to rip
off workers".

"The Minister should be more concerned with ensuring that workers
who are forced into casual work have access simple and effective
recourse so that they can claim their correct entitlements," Ms
McManus said.

A spokesman for Ms O'Dwyer said the government "is concerned about
the potential impact of double dipping on small business and the
cost to jobs, and continues to consider options to address these
concerns".[GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 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 ***