CAR_Public/190107.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, January 7, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 5

                            Headlines

ABC CORP: Gonzalez Files FLSA Suit in New York
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action
APHRIA INC: Florence Hits Share Price Drop from Operational Flaws
APPLE INC: Woman Fails to Find Card Offer Terms, Launches Suit
APT-ABILITY LLC: Hindi Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts

ASH SOUND: Falls Festival Crowd Crush Victims to Get Compensation
ASPEN INSURANCE: Makes Move Amid Class Action Over Sale
ATHENAHEALTH INC: Kent Files Securities Class Action in Del.
AUTOMOBILE WORKFORCE: Naraine Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
B. COLEMAN FLOORING: Zapata Moves to Certify Class of Installers

BAY AREA REGIONAL: Williams Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages
BEIERSDORF INC: 9th Cir. Reverses Class Action Dismissal
BEIERSDORF INC: Class Action Over Skin Firming Loan Revived
BLUE CROSS: Must Defend Antitrust Class Action
BLUE CROSS: Winston & Strawn Discusses Class Action Ruling

BOSTON PUBLIC: Faces Tsai Suit Over Unfair Pay Practices
C&S CONSTRUCTION: Jones Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Jones Day Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces Clayton Securities Class Action in NJ
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S: Aquilina Files Fraud Class Suit

CRYSTAL CLEAR: King Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
DELTA AIR LINES: McGarry Suit Moved to C.D. California
DIAMOND RESORTS: Jocson Files FCRA Suit in California
DOVER DOWNS GAMING: Raul Files Suit Over Merger With Twin River
EAST WISCONSIN SAVINGS: Doberstein Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces Casas Suit over Background Checks
EQUILIBRIUM HOMES: Hutchinson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
FIRST AMERICAN: Simons Sues over Debt Collection Practices
FIVE 6: Taxi Driver Files Class Action Over FLSA Violation
FOXY LADY: Faces Closure, Exotic Dancers' Class Action Ongoing

FREEDOM DOVE: Xia Suit Alleges NYLL Violation
GOOGLE INC: Rhode Island Pension System Files Class Action
GRAND BAHAMA: Court Certifies Class Under TCPA in Kron Suit
GROSSE POINTE, MI: Seeks Review of Order in Thompson Class Suit
HEALTH NET INC: Removes Poe Suit to C.D. California

HF MANAGEMENT: Denied Workers Overtime Pay, Butt Suit Says
HILTON GRAND: 11th Circuit Appeal Filed in Glasser TCPA Suit
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Faces Majestic Class Action in Ohio
JAMES HARDIE: Home Owners Can Pursue Claims Against Irish Parent
JAMES SQUARE: Judge Hears Class Action Against Former Owners

JARDINE LLOYD: Cowra Council Won't Join Insurance Class Action
KAM FUNG WONG: Denied Guzman Overtime, Wage Statements, Suit Says
KEAY & COSTELLO: Hobar Sues Over Vague Collection Letter
KELLOGG CO: Faces Class Action Over Nutri-Grain Breakfast Bar
LAZY DOG: Fails to Pay Straight Time and OT Wages, Delgado Claims

LEE COUNTY, FL: Caiazza Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
LG&E: Judge Hears arguments in Coal Ash Class Action
LORD & TAYLOR: Accused by Mulhearn of Not Paying OT Under FLSA
LOS ANGELES, CA: Ferguson and Vandenberg Suits Consolidated
LOVED ONES: Mayhew Seeks Final Class Certification Under FLSA

MACKENZIE FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action over Trailer Commissions
MARRIOT INT'L: Canadians File Suits Over Starwood Data Breach
MARRIOTT INT'L: Crabtree Sues Over Data Breach
MARRIOTT: Doesn't Intend to Enforce WebWatcher Subscriber Terms
MARYLAND TRANSIT: Bus Drivers File Class Action Over Unpaid OT

MATCO TOOLS: Does Not Properly Pay Distributors, Suit Says
MAZUMA CREDIT: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $.14MM
MICHIGAN: CSC Appeals Order in Bell Discrimination Suit
MISSISSIPPI: Faces Turnage et al. Suit in S.D. Mississippi
MOBILE DESTINATION: Honea Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

MOTORCYCLE COMPANY: Underpays Specialists, Bell et al. Claim
NIKE: Refiles Motion to Dismiss Gender, Pay Discrimination Case
NPP INC: Arakelyan Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
NVIDIA CORPORATION: Iron Workers Fund Files Securities Class Suit
OHIO: Certification of Minors Class With Non-Citizen Parents Sought

PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action
PACIFIC GAS: Derington Files Suit Over Fire-related Damages
PALO ALTO, CA: Class Action Over Utility Users Tax Certified
PANERA BREAD CO: Izquierdo Files Fraud Class Suit in New York
PG&E CORP: Residents File Suit Over Exposure to Wildfire Smoke

PIRAMAL CRITICAL: Underpays Production Operators, Suit Says
PROPERTY WEST: Hernandez Seeks Overtime Pay for Hrs. Worked Over 40
QUEEN CITY ROOFING: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Verne Suit
RABOBANK USA: Recovery Fund II Files RICO Class Suit in Delaware
RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Faces Landrum Class Suit in Calif.

SAFARICOM: Subscriber Mulls Class Action Over M-Pesa Downtime
SAGAR FOOD: Husen Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
SIX FLAGS: Hinshaw Attorneys Discuss BIPA Class Action Ruling
SOLID BIOSCIENCES: Nutter Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
SPARTAN ENERGY: Gibson Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

TANGOE: Court Denies Directors' Motion to Dismiss Under Corwin
TELADOC HEALTH: Feb. 11 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
TENARIS SA: Feb. 11 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
TGI FRIDAYS: Williams' Bid for Workers Class Certification Denied
TICKETMASTER: Sued for Allegedly Incentivizing Ticket Scalping

TRUSTMARK NATIONAL: McDonald Questions Illegal Fees
UNITED HEALTH: Judge Won't Stay Overbilling Lawsuits
UNITED STATES: Liviz Sues SCOTUS & Justices Over Video Recording
UNIVERSAL SURVEY: Machonis Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action

USC: Detectives Investigate Nude Photos Linked to Tyndall
USC: Numerous Naked Photos Found in Tyndall Rental Storage Unit
VICTIM SERVICES: Class Certified Under FDCPA in Solberg Suit
VIRGINIA: Certification of Inmates Class Sought in Ofori Suit
VOLT MANAGEMENT: Edwards Seeks OT Pay, Expense Reimbursement

WORTHINGTON PJ: O'Connor Suit Settlement Gets Final Nod
YORK RISK: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violation
[*] American Tort Foundation Issues Judicial Hellholes Report
[*] Class Action in Australia Over Mortgage Loan Contracts Dropped
[] Weil Gotshal Issues December 2018 Class Action Monitor


                            *********

ABC CORP: Gonzalez Files FLSA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ABC Corp. The case is
styled as Juan Carlos Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABC Corp. doing business
as: Golden House, Keiju Chen and John Does 1-10, Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-07302 (E.D. N.Y., December 21, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Golden House falls under the Jacksonville Chinese restaurant
category, specializing in Sichuan/Szechuan style dishes.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.



ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, a national investor-rights law
firm headquartered in Seattle, Washington with 10 offices across
the country, on Dec. 12 disclosed that it has filed a new class
action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased or sold Align
Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: ALGN) securities between April 25, 2018
and October 24, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action,
David Infuso vs. Align Technology, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-07469 is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The complaint alleges Align Technology,
Inc. and its Chief Executive Officer (Joseph M. Hogan) and Chief
Financial Officer (John F. Morici) violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The Complaint in this action expands the Class Period of a
previously filed related action with a shorter class period of July
25, 2018 through October 24, 2018, inclusive.  Nonetheless, the
Lead Plaintiff deadline is still January 4, 2019 for both of these
related securities class actions.

Hagens Berman is continuing its investigation of disclosure
violations on behalf of Align investors who purchased or acquired
Align securities before and including the current class period.  If
you invested in Align between April 25, 2018 and October 24, 2018
and suffered losses contact Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.  For
more information, and to view a copy of the complaint visit:

          https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/ALGN

or contact Reed Kathrein -- reed@hbsslaw.com -- who is leading the
firm's investigation, by calling 510-725-3000 or emailing
ALGN@hbsslaw.com.

On October 24, 2018, Align and management announced the Company's
3Q 2018 earnings.  They reported clear-aligner sales of $427.1
million, up 25% over the prior-year period but a sequential decline
of 1.4%.  This drop stemmed primarily from lower average selling
prices ("ASPs") in the U.S. and internationally.  Align and
management blamed the Company's lower ASPs in part on two separate
promotional discounts.

This news drove the price of Align shares down as much as $87.71,
or about 30%, during intraday trading on October 25, 2018.

"We're focused on investors' losses and on the extent to which
management's statements concerning competition, sales, and
promotions were misleading," said Hagens Berman partner Reed
Kathrein.

Whistleblowers:  Persons with non-public information regarding
Align should consider their options to help in the investigation or
take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.  Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC.  For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 510-725-3000 or email ALGN@hbsslaw.com.

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a national
investor-rights law firm headquartered in Seattle, Washington with
80+ attorneys in 10 offices across the country.  The Firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. [GN]  


APHRIA INC: Florence Hits Share Price Drop from Operational Flaws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Florence, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Aphria Inc., Victor Neufeld and Carl
Merton, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-11453, (S.D. N.Y., December 7,
2018) seeks to recover damages caused by violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas L. Laughlin IV, Esq.
      Rhiana L. Swartz, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      The Helmsley Building
      230 Park Ave., 17th Floor
      New York, NY 10169
      Tel: (212) 223-6444
      Fax: (212) 223-6334
      Email: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
             rswartz@scott-scott.com


APPLE INC: Woman Fails to Find Card Offer Terms, Launches Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Malcolm Owen, writing for Apple Insider, reports that a dubious
class action lawsuit against Apple accuses the company of
misleading customers during its recent Black Friday shopping event
by supposedly promoting products not covered by a gift card
promotion, but the basis of the suit itself appears to stem from a
consumer failing to read the terms and conditions of the sale.

The Apple Shopping Event took place from Black Friday until Cyber
Monday, offering gift cards worth between $25 and $200 with the
purchase of specific models of iPhone, iPad, and Mac devices. The
sale is annual and has featured a similar promotion in previous
years, with certain products like new releases or low-cost items
not typically included.

According to a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on November 29, Apple
"advertised and marketed certain of its products in a manner that
falsely and misleadingly led customers to believe that the purchase
of such products included the applicable gift card."

By way of proof, screenshots of the Apple Store app show the Apple
Shopping Event link at the top of the page, promoting the offer. By
clicking that link, consumers are "led to believe" the products
featured on that page are part of the shopping event, including the
gift card values associated with each item.

After selecting one of the items, the suit asserts Apple further
represents the item is included in the offer by adding text at the
top of the configuration screen, such as "Get a $200 Apple Store
Gift Card when you buy select Mac models today*" when ordering a
MacBook Air. Even though the banner at the top of the pages
references the sale in general, the woman filing the suit believes
it indicated the product being ordered was applicable to receive a
gift card.

                     "Select" And Buried Terms

The suit also claims Apple acted in an "intentionally deceptive
manner" for products "for which it had no intention actually to
provide gift cards upon purchase," due to the use of the word
"select" in its marketing. Apple then "concealed" what the term
actually meant in terms of the promotion by "hiding the explanation
at the bottom of three separate layers of terms and conditions."

In this case, the suit refers to text at the bottom of the page
that explains where and when the offer is valid, the purchase of
"select Apple products," and a link to terms and conditions.
Clicking the link took users to an external page outside the app on
the Apple website that offered the same text, and a link to the
terms and conditions page.

On this final page, Apple includes the full terms and conditions of
the sale, including "a few parenthetical statements that
cryptically indicate that certain Apple products might have been
excluded" from the sale. As some of the products were apparently
accessible by the Apple Shopping Event link and were interpreted by
the woman as "represented" as being eligible for a gift card, the
suit declares "Apple engaged in clearly false, deceptive, and
misleading marketing and advertising."

The suit adds the plaintiff, named as California resident Jessica
Lee, bought a MacBook Air with Retina display via the link, but did
not receive a $200 gift card she expected would be provided with
the purchase. The Retina MacBook Air was not included in the gift
card offer -- which was spelled out in the terms and conditions of
the sale.

The case seeks class action status for all customers in the United
States that bought products during the promotion that did not
receive the card, as well as a subclass representing all
Californian citizens.

The suit includes a number of claims for relief, accusing Apple of
violating the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's
Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, breach of Express
Warranty, breach of Implied Warranty, and Common Law Fraud, as well
as a seventh claim under "Quasi-contract/Restitution."

While a specific monetary amount for relief is not suggested, the
suit does demand damages, prejudgement interest, interest on any
economic losses, and an order of restitution. A trial by jury is
also demanded.

It is probable that the suit won't be too much of a worry for
Apple, as while the accusations suggest the terms are buried in
successive links making them harder to see on a mobile device, the
terms are ultimately offered to consumers. It is also doubtful that
many people would have seen the banner advertising the sale on the
configuration pages and immediately assumed it related to the
in-progress order for items not covered by the sale.

Additionally, the gift card would have been listed on the final
page of the ordering process before clicking buy, making it more
apparent that the device in question may or may not qualify for the
offer.

It is also reasonable to expect that a consumer tempted by a $200
gift card would query with Apple directly about it being missing,
or even return the purchase for a full refund, before resorting to
legal action. It is unclear if either route was taken by the
plaintiff before the filing was made. Given that it has been seven
days after the sale began, Lee is still well within the time limits
of Apple's return policy -- which were recently extended for
holiday purchases. [GN]


APT-ABILITY LLC: Hindi Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
------------------------------------------------------
Jamil Hindi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Apt-Ability LLC, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-63008 (S.D. Fla., December 7, 2018), seeks statutory damages
and any other available legal or equitable remedies for violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Apt-Ability operates as MobileSentrix, a wholesaler of mobile phone
parts. At no point in time did Hindi provide them with his express
written consent to receive text advertisements from an automated
dialer. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
      HIRALDO P.A.
      401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 400-4713
      Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

             - and -

      Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
      EDELSBERG LAW, PA
      19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 975-3320
      Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com

             - and -

      Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
      SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone: 305-479-2299
      Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


ASH SOUND: Falls Festival Crowd Crush Victims to Get Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Colangelo, writing for The Age, reports that Falls Festival
organisers could be forced to pay millions of dollars in
compensation depending on the outcome of medical reports into
victims' injuries following a crowd crush at the 2016 event.

Organisers Ash Sounds Pty Ltd admitted negligence for the crowd
crush at the Supreme Court in November, with lawyers gathering on
Dec. 12 to hear if 80 people suing in a class action would need
medical proof of "significant injury" to claim substantial
damages.

Justice Michael McDonald ruled that medical proof was necessary to
receive substantial damages for significant injury, however those
that do not meet that threshold can still be compensated for loss
of income, damage to property and medical expenses.

"Significant injury" damages could cost Falls Festival up to
$200,000 per case, with lawyers for the class action estimating
between 20 and 30 of the 80 parties could be considered to have
suffered over the required threshold.

"The more serious injuries included compound fractures, significant
permanent scarring, and many with horrific psychological impacts,"
Maddens Lawyers senior principal Brendan Pendergast --
bfp@maddenslawyers.com.au -- said. "That's the result of fear and
terror during the incident at the anticipation they might die."

Hundreds were caught in the crush about 9:50pm on December 30,
2016, as they left the Grand Theatre tent to rush from DMA's
performance to London Grammar's set on the Valley Stage.
Twenty-nine people were taken to hospital at the time, while
Ambulance Victoria assessed 80 people at the festival.

WorkSafe ruled in November 2017 that there was "insufficient
evidence to prosecute" the event organiser and that "all the
conditions imposed by various bodies in relation to the event, such
as crowd control, crowd size, and positioning and size of exits,
had been met".

Lead plaintiff in the dispute Michela Burke was still recovering
from injuries sustained in the crowd crush some 10 months after the
incident, barrister Min Guo told an earlier hearing in September
2017.

"She has a condition with the nerves in one of her arms, which
prohibits her from physical activity," Mr Guo said. "She's lost
feeling and sensation in her arm."

Claims for loss of income, property or medical expenses could be
anywhere from hundreds of dollars each or into the thousands,
depending on the case.

Another victim, 19-year-old Olivia Jones, thought she was going to
die. She had bruised ribs, legs and deep cuts to her knee.

"There were people lying there, unconscious, not moving. I thought
the people around me were dead."

Anyone involved in the incident can still apply to be a part of the
class action. Lawyers for the defendant had previously lost a bid
to dissolve the class action and make each individual sue
separately.

The 2018 Falls Festival will be held in Lorne, Marion Bay, Byron
Bay and Fremantle from December 28

Falls Festival organisers said they could not comment on the matter
as it was still before the court. [GN]  


ASPEN INSURANCE: Makes Move Amid Class Action Over Sale
-------------------------------------------------------
Terry Gangcuangco, writing for Insurance Business UK, reports that
back in August a number of law firms initiated probes into whether
the announced US$2.6 billion sale of Bermuda-headquartered Aspen
Insurance Holdings Limited was fair to shareholders. Now Aspen has
released further information on the analyses provided by its
financial advisors amid a putative class action complaint.      

Filed in the United States District Court of the District of New
York, the Kent v. Aspen Insurance Holdings Limited, et al case
names Aspen and the members of its board of directors as
defendants. The lawsuit centres on the firm's November 06
definitive proxy statement, which the complaint alleges omitted or
misstated various facts concerning the financial analyses performed
by Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Securities.

In response, Aspen put forward a supplemental disclosure to the
definitive proxy statement. Contained in its latest filing with the
US Securities and Exchange Commission, the additional information
includes discount rates and cost of equity estimates.

"Using a range of discount rates from 6.73% to 7.81%, reflecting
estimates of Aspen's cost of equity, Goldman Sachs discounted the
estimated dividend streams from Aspen for the period 2018 through
2020 as reflected in the forecasts and the range of terminal values
of approximately $2.22 billion to approximately $2.96 billion to
derive present values, as of June 30, 2018, of Aspen," read the
filing seen by Insurance Business.

It also noted: "J.P. Morgan conducted a dividend discount analysis
to determine a range of equity values for the company's 60,489,422
fully diluted ordinary shares outstanding (as provided by Aspen's
management), assuming the company continued to operate as a
standalone entity."

The deal involves Highlands Holdings, Ltd., which is held by
affiliates of certain investment funds managed by affiliates of
alternative investment manager Apollo Global Management, LLC.[GN]



ATHENAHEALTH INC: Kent Files Securities Class Action in Del.
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kent, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. athenahealth, Inc., Amy Abernethy, Brandon
H. Hull, Jeffrey E. Immelt, Dev Ittycheria, John A. Kane,
Jacqueline B. Kosecoff, Brian McKeon, Ed Park, and Thomas J.
Szkutak, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02035-UNA (D. Del., December
21, 2018) is a complaint against Defendants for violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On November 11, 2018, athenahealth's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with May
Holding Corp. and May Merger Sub Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, athenahealth's stockholders will receive $135.00
in cash for each share of athenahealth common stock they hold. On
December 4, 2018, defendants filed a proxy statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
the Proposed Transaction.

The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges herein that defendants
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
Proxy Statement, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is, and has been continuously throughout all times
relevant hereto, the owner of athenahealth common stock.

Athenahealth is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices at 311 Arsenal Street, Watertown, Massachusetts
02472. athenahealth's common stock is traded on the NasdaqGS under
the ticker symbol "ATHN".

Defendant Amy Abernethy is a director of the company. Defendant
Brandon H. Hull is a director of the company. Defendant Jeffrey E.
Immelt is Chairman of the Board of the company. Defendant Dev
Ittycheria is a director of the company. Defendant John A. Kane is
a director of the company. Defendant Jacqueline B. Kosecoff is a
director of the company. Defendant Brian McKeon is a director of
the company. Defendant Ed Park is a director of the company.
Defendant Thomas J. Szkutak is a director of the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


AUTOMOBILE WORKFORCE: Naraine Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Shankar Naraine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Automobile Workforce LLC dba General Workforce, Case
No.  1:18-cv-06696 (E.D. N.Y., November 23, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed and willfully
failed to pay Plaintiff, and all those similarly similarly-situated
class members, overtime compensation at rates not less than 1.5
times their regular rate of pay for each and all hours worked in
excess of forty hours in a work week.

The Plaintiff Shankar Naraine is a resident of Queens County, New
York. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from in or around
April 2018 to on or about November 19, 2018.

The Defendant Automobile Workforce LLC was a New York for-profit
Limited Liability Company with a place of business located at 96-16
101st Avenue, Ozone Park, NY 11416. The Defendant employs manual
workers like Plaintiff to perform services at various companies
under contract with Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


B. COLEMAN FLOORING: Zapata Moves to Certify Class of Installers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled RONALD ZAPATA, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. B. COLEMAN FLOORING,
INSTALLATION, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01134-TJK (D.D.C.),
moves for conditional certification of this collective:

     All individuals who, during any time in 2017, worked as tile
     installers or tile installer helpers for Defendant B.
     Coleman Flooring, Installation, LLC ("B. Coleman") at "The
     Warf" project located on the Southwest Waterfront in
     Washington, D.C.

Ronald Zapata moves for class certification pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Revision
Act and the District of Columbia Wage Payment and Wage Collection
Law.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Markovitz, Esq.
          JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A.
          6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
          Greenbelt, MD 20770
          Telephone: (301) 220-2200
          E-mail: bmarkovitz@jgllaw.com

               - and -

          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          Twining Office Center, Suite 211
          715 Twining Road
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          E-mail: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Linda Hitt Thatcher, Esq.
          Wayne B. Wiseman, Esq.
          Lindsay A. Freedman, Esq.
          THATCHER LAW FIRM, LLC
          Belle Point Office Park
          7849 Belle Point Drive
          Greenbelt, MD 20770
          Telephone: (301) 441-1400
          E-mail: lht@thatcherlaw.com
                  wbw@thatcherlaw.com
                  laf@thatcherlaw.com


BAY AREA REGIONAL: Williams Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Clemetean Williams, Nakia Holmes, Terri Griffice, Janet Khalil, and
Christina Tamayo, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bay Area Regional Medical
Center, LLC and Stephen K. Jones, Jr., Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-04819 (S.D. Tex., December 21, 2018) is a collective action
under the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and
a class action asserting state law claims for unpaid straight-time
compensation owed at a contractual hourly rate.

Plaintiffs and class members worked as hourly paid Registered
Nurses at Bay Area Regional Medical Center, a medical facility
located at 200 Blossom St., Webster, Texas 77598. Plaintiffs and
class members did not receive bona fide meal break periods.
Instead, they were required and permitted to work off-the-clock for
Defendants during their meal break periods and were not paid for
such time, notes the complaint.

Defendants' practice of failing to relieve nurses of their duties
during meal periods, while simultaneously using timekeeping
software to automatically deduct half an hour from the total time
paid per shift (on the pretext of accounting for meal periods which
nurses were not in fact free to take without constant
interruption), had the effect of depriving nurses of overtime
compensation due to them under the FLSA in the weeks in which they
worked more than 40 hours in a week, and of depriving them of
straight-time compensation at their contractual hourly rate in
weeks in which they worked fewer than 40 hours in a week. On
information and belief, all of BARMC's non-exempt, direct patient
care nurses were subjected to these illegal pay practices, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Clemetean Williams is an individual residing in Harris
County, Texas.

Plaintiff Nakia Holmes Jupiter is an individual residing in Fort
Bend County, Texas.

Plaintiff Terri Griffice is an individual residing in Galveston
County, Texas.

Plaintiff Janet Khalil is an individual residing in Galveston
County, Texas.

Plaintiff Christina Tamayo is an individual residing in Galveston
County, Texas.

Bay Area Regional Medical Center, LLC ("BARMC") is a Texas
corporation located at 200 Blossom St, Webster, Harris County,
Texas.

Defendant Stephen K. Jones, Jr. is a Texas resident.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Todd Slobin, Esq.
     Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
     SHELLIST, LAZARZ, SLOBIN LLP
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: (713) 621-2277
     Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
     Email: tslobin@eeoc.net
            rprieto@eeoc.net

          - and -

     Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
     KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
     4409 Montrose Blvd. Suite 200
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: (713) 523-0001
     Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
     Email: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com


BEIERSDORF INC: 9th Cir. Reverses Class Action Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan News Company reports that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals on Dec. 11 reversed a district court judge's sua sponte
dismissal of a putative class action, with prejudice, against the
makers of the Nivea brand of cosmetics, holding that the plaintiff
has standing and adequately pled the $5 million damages necessary
to establish jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.

The plaintiff, Ashley Franz, sued two American entities related to
German skin-care company Beiersdorf, alleging that the companies'
NIVEA Skin Firming Hydration Body Lotion -- which represents on the
bottle that it "Improves Skin's Firmness in as little as 2 weeks"
and contains a substance called coenzyme Q10 ("CoQ10") -- does not,
in fact improve skin firmness. The lotion, she maintains, contains
only negligible levels of CoQ10.

Ms. Franz brought her claim in the Southern District of California
under the state's unfair competition law ("UCL"), on behalf of
similarly-situated California consumers. U.S. district courts have
jurisdiction over class actions, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1332(d), when the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, the
putative class has at least 100 members, and there is a diversity
of citizenship between any class member and any defendant.

District Court Judge Larry A. Burns, who dismiss the plaintiff's
second amended complaint without leave to amend, declared:

"Franz is no longer asking for an injunction or certification of a
nationwide class. Instead, she's only asking for restitution of the
'full purchase price' of the Lotion–$10. She believes the class
of California consumers may contain 'thousands of purchasers,' but
Franz needs to allege that roughly 500,000 purchasers each suffered
$10 injuries to get to $5 million. Even including attorney fees
(which, it seems this case is really about), Franz hasn't provided
the Court plausible facts from which it could infer that this sum
of money is on the table."

The Dec. 11 memorandum opinion responds:

"Nivea CoQ10 retails for approximately $10. During the applicable
class period, Defendant-Appellee Beiersdorf, Inc. allegedly sold
Nivea CoQ10 'online and in virtually every major food, drug, and
mass retail outlet.' It is easily conceivable that Defendant sold
the product 500,000 times in a state the size of California over a
multi-year period. Defendant does not dispute that the amount in
controversy exceeds $5,000,000.  . . . The district court erred by
sua sponte dismissing Plaintiff's claim on the ground that
Plaintiff did not adequately allege that the amount in controversy
exceeds the jurisdictional minimum."

Federal Violation Alleged

Ms. Franz claims that CoQ10 is a drug, and that, under the federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, it requires a new drug approval
before being sold. Because Beiersdorf did not obtain such approval,
she argues, the sale of the cream is violative of the UCL's
"unlawful" prong.

Judge Burns saw no connection between the alleged violation and
Franz's decision to buy the product. He said:

"If Franz was a Nivea competitor selling a similar skin-firming
lotion, but had spent extra time and money obtaining FDA approval
for her rival lotion so that she could make skin-firming claims,
then the Court would have no problem implying a causal
connection.…But here, Franz hasn't shown there's a plausible
'causal connection' between her decision to buy and the 'conduct
complained of'—namely, Nivea's decision to sell the Lotion as a
cosmetic, rather than obtaining approval to sell it as a drug."

The Dec. 11 opinion states:

"Plaintiff alleges that Defendant sold a 'drug'—Nivea
CoQ10—without FDA approval. Plaintiff contends that doing so
violates the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.…Plaintiff alleges
that, as a result, she spent money on a product that should not
have been on the market. Those allegations are sufficient to
establish standing under the UCL."

Plaintiff Has Standing

Judge Burns also dismissed the action, without leave to amend,
based on Franz's supposed lack of standing. The memorandum opinion
says:

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

The case is Franz v. Beiersdorf, Inc., No. 17-55646. [GN]  


BEIERSDORF INC: Class Action Over Skin Firming Loan Revived
-----------------------------------------------------------
Martina Barash, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Beiersdorf
Inc. faces a revived class action alleging its Nivea Skin Firming
Hydration Body Lotion is falsely labeled and actually an unapproved
"drug" that shouldn't have been on the market.

A federal appeals court reinstated the suit Dec. 11 finding both
enough money at issue in federal court, and that the consumer who
filed the suit alleged sufficient injury for standing.

Beiersdorf allegedly sold its Nivea Skin Firming Hydration Body
Lotion with CoQ10 Plus formulated with Co-Enzyme Q10 and Hydra-IQ
with a label stating that it "Improves Skin's Firmness in as little
as 2 weeks," according to the lower court's opinion.

That label claim makes the lotion a drug that requires Food and
Drug Administration approval, Franz alleges.

Would-be class representative Ashley Franz easily met the $5
million minimum amount in controversy, given she alleges multiple
years of sales of the $10 lotion in California, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said.

Even Beiersdorf didn't dispute that point, the Ninth Circuit said.
The trial court raised the issue on its own.

But the company sold the lotion without FDA approval, in violation
of federal and state law, she says.

Those alleged violations mean Franz doesn't need to show her
reliance on Beiersdorf's marketing statements, the appeals court
said. Thus, Franz has standing to sue under California
consumer-protection law, the Ninth Circuit panel said.

She also has constitutional standing, the court said.

Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC and others represented
Franz.

Sidley Austin LLP represented Beiersdorf.

The case is ASHLEY FRANZ, On behalf of herself and v. BEIERSDORF,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee., 2018 BL 457699,
9th Cir., No. 17-55646, 12/11/18. [GN]  


BLUE CROSS: Must Defend Antitrust Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Harris Meyer, writing for Modern Healthcare, reports that a federal
appeals court on Dec. 12 ruled that Blue Cross and Blue Shield
insurers must defend themselves against a major class action case
accusing them of anticompetitive practices on much less favorable
legal grounds.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal district
judge's April ruling that the combination of the Blues plans'
exclusive territories, in which they agreed not to compete, and the
agreement to limit competition on non-Blues branded products is a
per se violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The 11th Circuit panel's one-sentence memorandum opinion denying
the Blues' interlocutory appeal of U.S. District Judge R. David
Proctor's ruling is a significant legal blow for the insurers. It
makes it easier for providers and plan members to prove that the
plans impede competition by offering insurance coverage in
exclusive markets.

The ruling means the plaintiffs don't need to offer extensive
economic evidence of the anticompetitive nature of the Blues
organizations' conduct, lessening the need for a long and
complicated trial. It could boost the chances of the Blues
organizations moving to settle the case.

Health care technology investment in 2017 appeared to be all about
convergence. In fact, there were no health tech IPOs at all that
year.1 The focus seemed to be squarely on expanding industry
footprints to gain economies of scale and more control over the
continuum of health services.

"The Blues will have to do some things to increase competition in
order to address this order," said Joe Whatley, the lead attorney
for the providers. "I hope they will now sit down and have a
dialogue with us to come up with ways to do exactly that."

But Barak Richman, an antitrust law expert at Duke University, said
he isn't convinced the appellate decision will force the Blues to
the table.

"Maybe -- it means they've lost one delay tactic," he said. "But
the trial will be a long slog, and then they might be optimistic
that the 11th Circuit will reverse the per se ruling once they
finally get a review."

In April, Proctor found that healthcare providers and consumers
showed that some of the practices of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Association and its 36 member plans should be reviewed as a per se
violation of federal antitrust law if the case goes to trial.

The Blues had hoped Proctor would look at their practices and all
the circumstances surrounding them before determining during trial
if they violated federal antitrust law.

Proctor wrote there are disputed issues of fact over whether the
Blues organization is a single entity that will have to be tried.
If the Blues prevailed in a trial on that issue, they can't be
found to have conspired to restrain trade under the law.

The Blues got a more favorable ruling on the issue of whether their
collaboration to offer national insurance plans under the BlueCard
program is an antitrust violation. The judge said that will require
another motion with more briefing and evidence.

The next step in the litigation, which has been pending for six
years, is deciding on certifying the class of plaintiffs. The
potential class of provider plaintiffs includes most hospitals and
physicians in the country, plus most other healthcare professionals
who bill Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans.

If the Blues organizations now proceed to trial, they would have to
defend their agreement not to compete with each other in selling
insurance, administering employee benefit plans and contracting
with providers under a legal standard that those actions are
antitrust violations.

The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association said the 11th Circuit
ruling was not unexpected, because acceptance of pre-trial appeals
are rare.

"This is another step in a very long process and we look forward to
continuing to defend our case in the U.S. District Court," said
Scott Nehs, the association's senior vice president and general
counsel, in a written statement. "We remain confident that we will
ultimately prevail."

If the plaintiffs ultimately prevail, however, the Blues plans
could be forced to compete with each other within their current
state and substate territories.

Mr. Richman said if the case results in greater insurance
competition, that would be good for consumers but wouldn't
necessarily bring down premiums. [GN]  


BLUE CROSS: Winston & Strawn Discusses Class Action Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Amy M. Gordon, Esq., and Jamie a. Weyeneth, Esq., of Winston &
Strawn LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that in the past few
years, nearly a dozen proposed class actions have challenged health
plans' alleged failure to cover wilderness therapy as a means of
treatment for mental health and substance use disorders. Wilderness
therapy seeks to treat young people with behavioral or substance
abuse issues by combining traditional therapy methods with outdoor
activities such as hiking and camping. Costs for such care can
exceed $500 per day for programs lasting weeks, months, and
sometimes years.

The plaintiffs brought a putative class action against Blue Cross
and Blue Shield of Massachusetts HMO Blue, Inc. and Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. (collectively BCBS) alleging
that BCBS improperly denied claims for the costs of treating their
children's mental health issues in wilderness therapy programs. The
plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint set out the three following
claims: (Count I) plan enforcement under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), (Count II) breach of
protections under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity
Act, and (Count III) breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA and the
Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act.

BCBS moved to dismiss Counts I and III, and the court agreed, see
Cotten v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mass. HMO Blue, Inc., No.
16-12176-RGS, 2018 BL 451218 (D. Mass. Dec. 06, 2018). The ruling
is noteworthy because the court followed the rationale used in
dismissing similar lawsuits against Harvard Pilgrim Health
Insurance Co. and Aetna Life Insurance Co.

BCBS stressed to the court that the language in the plan
specifically excludes coverage for residential or other care that
is "custodial care," which includes services that are performed in
educational, vocational, or recreational settings, and outward
bound-type, wilderness, camp, or ranch programs.

BCBS must still defend the allegation that it breached the
protections provided by the Mental Health Parity and Addiction
Equity Act (Count II). We will keep you apprised of any court
decisions on this count. [GN]


BOSTON PUBLIC: Faces Tsai Suit Over Unfair Pay Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
Kim Tsai, Priya Tahiliani, and all others similarly situated v.
Boston Public Schools, Case No. 18-3652E (Mass. Super., November
23, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for gender-based pay
disparity in violation of the Multi-Ethnic Placement Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant have a practice of paying
female executive directors over 30% less than their similarly
situated male counterparts.  After trying for over a year to fix
this discriminatory practice internally to avail, the Plaintiffs
bring this case on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated women who have been forced to do equal work for the
Defendant without equal pay.

The Plaintiff Kim Tsai is a resident of Suffolk County,
Massachusetts and worked as an executive director in the Office of
Language Learners for the Defendant starting 2015 and continuing to
date.

The Plaintiff Priya Tahiliani is a resident of Suffolk County,
Massachusetts and worked as an executive director in the Office of
Language Learners for the Defendant, which ended in May 2018.

The Defendant Boston Public Schools is a political subdivision of
the City of Boston located in Suffolk County, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Philip Gordon, Esq.
      Benjamin Flam, Esq.
      GORDON LAW GROUP, LLP
      585 Boylston Street
      Boston, MA 02116
      Tel: (617) 536-1800
      E-mail: pgordon@gordonllp.com
              bflam@gordonllp.com


C&S CONSTRUCTION: Jones Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Walter Jones, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
C&S Construction, Case No. 4:18-cv-00261 (N.D. Ga., November 27,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that during his employment with the
Defendant, and continuing through the date of the filing of this
Complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours a week
but was not paid time and one-half his regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per work week during one or more work
weeks.

The Plaintiff worked as a construction worker for the Defendant out
of the Defendant's worksite located at 8274 Calhoun Road,
Adairsville, GA 30103. The Plaintiff was an employee of the
Defendant from April 2011 through September 2018.

The Defendant is a Georgia domestic Corporation that operates and
conducts construction business in, and among others, Floyd County,
Georgia.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jaime L. Duguay, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Tel: (404) 965-1685
      Fax: (470) 639-6872
      E-mail: jduguay@forthepeople.com


CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Jones Day Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
William F. Dolan, Esq. -- wdolan@jonesday.com -- J. Todd Kennard,
Esq. -- jtkennard@jonesday.com -- and Brandy Hutton Ranja, Esq. --
branjan@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day, in an article for Lexology,
report that a federal court in California recently considered
whether it had jurisdiction over defendants in a class action under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") based on the
presence in California of the defendants' agent, which had
developed the platform used to generate the allegedly unlawful text
at the heart of the lawsuit.

The Result: The court determined that there was no jurisdiction
over the defendants, holding that there was insufficient evidence
to establish that the acts of a business associate of the
defendants conferred jurisdiction over the defendants.

Looking Ahead: This ruling could create a precedent making it more
difficult for plaintiffs to assert jurisdiction in TCPA cases.

The Facts

In Castillo v. Caesars Entertainment Corp. et al., the plaintiff
brought a putative class action in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California against defendants Caesars
Entertainment Corporation and Desert Palace, LLC (collectively,
"Caesars"). The plaintiff, who resides in Los Angeles, received a
text message about 30 minutes after he checked into the Caesars
Palace hotel in Las Vegas. At the time he received the text
message, he had not authorized Caesars to send marketing-related
text messages, according to the complaint. Castillo thereafter
filed the putative class action complaint.

The Law

A primary issue the court considered was whether it could exercise
personal jurisdiction over Caesars. Castillo did not claim that the
court had general jurisdiction over Caesars, so the court only had
to consider whether specific jurisdiction existed in the Northern
District of California. In answering that question, the court noted
that a "critical element of specific jurisdiction is that the
defendant must have purposely availed itself of the privilege of
conducting activities in the forum state or purposely directed its
activities toward the forum state" based on prior caselaw.

The court noted that "Caesars, which is located in Nevada, did not
take any action itself in California" and that "its conduct was not
aimed or directed at California." The jurisdictional issue,
therefore, came down to the question of whether another entity,
GoMoment, "took action" in California on Caesars' behalf that would
confer jurisdiction over Caesars in California. GoMoment was the
California-based company that developed the software platform used
to generate the message to the plaintiff.

The court found that although the "current state of the law is not
entirely clear on the issue of whether and, if so, when an agent's
contacts may be attributed to its principal for jurisdictional
purposes," the plaintiff nevertheless failed to make out a prima
facie case of specific jurisdiction. While GoMoment assisted
Caesars in developing and maintaining the platform used to transmit
the allegedly unlawful text, "nothing in the complaint indicates
that GoMoment played anything more than this very limited role" and
that the "actual implementation of the platform and the use of the
platform were all done by Caesars in Nevada." Given, among other
things, the "attenuated" role of GoMoment in the effectuation of
the contact with the plaintiff, the court concluded that there was
no jurisdiction in the district court over Caesars. Finally, rather
than dismissing the action, the court transferred the matter to the
District of Nevada.

Two Key Takeaways
The Castillo decision may assist a TCPA defendant in a jurisdiction
where the defendant does not have sufficient contacts to confer
personal jurisdiction and where the plaintiff therefore attempts to
rely on the actions of a purported "agent" of the defendant as a
basis for jurisdiction.

The decision in Castillo is consistent with other recent decisions
where courts have rejected plaintiffs' efforts to widely assert
jurisdiction in TCPA matters. [GN]


CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces Clayton Securities Class Action in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------
Charles W. Clayton, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Campbell Soup Company, Denise M. Morrison,
and Anthony P. Disilvestro, Case No. 1:18-cv-16476 (D. N.J.,
November 27, 2018), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Campbell securities between
February 17, 2017 and May 17, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Plaintiff alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company’s business, operations, and prospects.  As a result of
the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages.

The Plaintiff Charles W. Clayton purchased Campbell securities
during the Class Period.

The Defendant Campbell is incorporated under the laws of New Jersey
with its principal executive offices located at One Campbell Place,
Camden, New Jersey 08103.  Campbell's common stock trades on the
New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "CPB." Campbell is a food
company that sells soups, packaged meals, beverages, snacks, and
packaged fresh goods.  

The Defendant Denise M. Morrison was the President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company from 2011 to May 18, 2018.

The Defendant Anthony P. DiSilvestro was the Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company at all relevant times.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.  
      609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
      South Orange, NJ 07079
      Tel: (973) 313-1887
      Fax: (973) 833-0399
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S: Aquilina Files Fraud Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Certain Underwriters
At Lloyd's London. The case is styled as Stephen G. Aquilina,
Lucina J. Aquilina, Audra M. Lane and Scott K. Lane, individually
and as Trustees of the Lane Family Trust, dated March 28, 1998, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Certain
Underwriters At Lloyd's London, Lloyd's Syndicate #2003, Lloyd's
Syndicate #318, Lloyd's Syndicate #4020, Lloyd's Syndicate #2121,
Lloyd's Syndicate #2007, Lloyd's Syndicate #1183, Lloyd's Syndicate
#1729, Borisoff Insurance Services, Inc. doing business as: Monarch
E&S Insurance Services, Specialty Program Group, LLC doing business
as: SPG Insurance Solutions, LLC, Pyramid Insurance Centre, Ltd.,
Ilikea LLC doing business as: Moa Insurance Services Hawaii and
Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00496-ACK-KJM (D. Haw.,
December 21, 2018).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Fraud.

Certain Underwriters At Lloyd's London is the service provider to
and regulator of a market of independent insurers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey E. Foster, Esq.
   Foster Law Office, LLC
   79-7591A Mamalahoe Hwy
   Kealakekua, HI 96750
   Email: fosterlaw@gmail.com


CRYSTAL CLEAR: King Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAMIAN KING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CRYSTAL CLEAR CONCEPTS, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-03237-G
(N.D. Tex., December 10, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Crystal Clear Concepts, LLC, is a Texas limited liability
corporation.  The Defendant sells and installs residential water
purification systems.

To provide services to its customers, the Defendant employs workers
to install the water purification systems on its behalf.  These
workers include Installment Helpers, such as the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  litkin@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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


DELTA AIR LINES: McGarry Suit Moved to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled TERESA J. McGARRY, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DELTA AIR
LINES, INC.; and [24]7.AI, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02794, was
removed from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on November 21, 2018. The District Court Clerk for the
Central District of California assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-09827-JAK-KS to the proceeding.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. provides scheduled air transportation for
passengers and cargo in the United States and internationally.
Delta Air Lines, Inc. was founded in 1924 and is headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cale Conley, Esq.
          Ranse M. Partin, Esq.
          CONLEY GRIGGS PARTIN LLP
          4200 Northside Parkway, NW
          Building One, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Telephone: (404) 467-1155
          E-mail: cale@conleygriggs.com
                  ranse@conleygriggs.com

               - and -

          Denis F. Sheils, Esq.
          Barbara L. Gibson, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7225
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          E-mail: dsheils@kohnswift.com
                  bgibson@kohnswift.com

               - and -

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


DIAMOND RESORTS: Jocson Files FCRA Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diamond Resorts
International Club, Inc. The case is styled as Neri Jocson and Fe
Jocson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Diamond Resorts International Club, Inc., Experian
Information Solutions, Inc. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-10604 (C.D. Cal., December 21, 2018).

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

Diamond Resorts International, Inc. owns and operates vacation
ownership resorts worldwide. It also offers vacation ownership
program, and markets and sells vacation interests that provide
access to its resort network. Diamond Resorts International, Inc.
was incorporated in 2013 and is headquartered in Las Vegas,
Nevada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Amir J Goldstein, Esq.
   Amir J Goldstein Law Offices
   8032 West Third Street Suite 201
   Los Angeles, CA 90048
   Tel: (323) 937-0400
   Fax: (866) 288-9194
   Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com


DOVER DOWNS GAMING: Raul Files Suit Over Merger With Twin River
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Raul, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Dover Downs Gaming & Entertainment, Inc.,
Henry B. Tippie, Denis McGlynn, Timothy R. Horne, R. Randall
Rollins, Patrick J. Bagley and Jeffrey W. Rollins, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-11506 (S.D. N.Y., December 10, 2018), seeks to enjoin
defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating or closing the proposed merger of
Dover Downs in a stock-for-stock transaction with Twin River
Worldwide Holdings, Inc., rescinding it in the event defendants
consummate the merger, rescissory damages, costs of this action,
including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Dover Downs entered into an agreement with Twin River and its
indirect wholly-owned subsidiary Double Acquisition Corp. to merge
with Dover Downs continuing as the surviving corporation and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Twin River. Each share of the Dover
Downs common stock, par value $0.10 per share, and Class A common
stock, par value $0.10 per share, issued and outstanding
immediately prior to the effective time will be cancelled and
converted into the right to receive a number of shares of validly
issued, fully paid and non-assessable shares of common stock of
Twin River.

Dover Downs is a diversified gaming and entertainment company whose
operations consist of the Dover Downs Hotel & Casino and Dover
Downs Raceway.

The complaint says the Defendants agreed to lock up the merger with
preclusive and onerous deal protection devices that preclude other
bidders from making successful competing offers for the company.
Company board members and executive officers will be getting
lucrative change-in-control agreements upon the termination of
their employment. Moreover, the registration statement filed in
line with the transaction omitted the sales process and particular
certain conflicts of interest for management, as well as financial
projections provided by Houlihan Lokey Capital, Inc., adds the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
      LIFSHITZ & MILLER LLP
      821 Franklin Ave, Suite 209
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 493-9780
      Facsimile: (516) 280-7376
      Email: jml@jlclasslaw.com


EAST WISCONSIN SAVINGS: Doberstein Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Doberstein on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. East Wisconsin Savings Bank, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-01931 (E.D. Wis., December 7, 2018), seeks unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive
relief and/or any such other relief pursuant to Wisconsin's Wage
Payment and Collection Laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

East Wisconsin Savings Bank hired Doberstein as Member Relations
Advisor from June 2016 to November 8, 2018. She claims overtime pay
for time worked beyond 40 hours per work week. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      James A. Walcheske, Esq.
      Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
      Matthew J. Tobin, Esq.
      WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
      15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
      Brookfield, WI 53005
      Phone: (262) 780-1953
      Fax: (262) 565-6469
      Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
             sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
             mtobin@walcheskeluzi.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces Casas Suit over Background Checks
------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN CASAS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC; VERIZON
WIRELESS; and JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-04444 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 21, 2018) alleges violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EQUILIBRIUM HOMES: Hutchinson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Hutchinson on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Equilibrium Homes of St. Louis, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02127 (E.D. Mo., December 21, 2018) is
an action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated against Defendant for failing to pay them
overtime wages owed in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law ("MMWL").

Plaintiff and other caregivers regularly worked more than 40 hours
per week and were not paid overtime compensation, asserts the
complaint. Plaintiff typically worked in excess of 60 hours per
week. Through its unlawful actions, Defendant deprived Plaintiff
and other caregivers of overtime wages owed to them. Defendant
acted willfully in failing to pay overtime compensation to
Plaintiff and other caregivers for hours they worked over 40 in a
workweek. Defendant knew or should have known that caregivers were
non-exempt employees under the FLSA and were required to be paid
overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, the
complaint says.

Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other relief
to which he and similarly situated employees are entitled.

Plaintiff Victoria Hutchinson is an adult resident of St. Louis,
Missouri. Hutchinson worked for Defendant as a caregiver.

Equilibrium Homes of St. Louis LLC is a Missouri limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Florissant,
Missouri. Defendant is a provider of support services for
individuals with developmental disabilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
     Tamra Givens, Esq.
     LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C.
     43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor
     Wilton, CT 06897
     Phone: (203) 653-2250
     Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
     Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com


FIRST AMERICAN: Simons Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
RUSSELL SIMONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY DOING
BUSINESS AS: FIRST AMERICAN, Defendant, Case No.
6:18-cv-02002-RBD-KRS (M.D. Fla., Nov. 21, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The
case is assigned to Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. and referred to
Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding.

First American Title Insurance Company provides title insurance
protection and professional settlement services. First American
Title Insurance Company was formerly known as First American Title
Insurance Company of New York and changed its name to First
American Title Insurance Company in September 2010. The company was
founded in 1889 and is based in New York, New York with additional
offices in Uniondale and Rochester, New York. First American Title
Insurance Company operates as a subsidiary of First American Title
Insurance Company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian P. Parker, Esq.
          DC CAPITAL LAW, LLP
          700 12th Street NW, Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 888-1144
          Facsimile: (248) 642-8875
          E-mail: brianparker@collectionstopper.com


FIVE 6: Taxi Driver Files Class Action Over FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Alex Wilson, writing for Key West Citizen, reports that a taxi
driver is suing the Five 6's Cab Company in a collective action
complaint, alleging that the taxi cab company has violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 by incorrectly classifying its drivers
as independent contractors.  The suit was filed on Oct. 20. [GN]


FOXY LADY: Faces Closure, Exotic Dancers' Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Amaral, writing for Providence Journal, reports that the Foxy
Lady strip club was ordered closed until Dec. 13 after three
employees were arrested on solicitation of prostitution charges on
Dec. 11.

The decision was made on Dec. 12 by the Providence Board of
Licenses after city police said they believed the establishment was
aware of what was happening in the private "VIP" lounge.

"This is a prostitution parlor," Maj. David Lapatin said after the
emergency hearing on the fifth floor of Providence City Hall.
"We're not going to allow it."

Melissa McNeely, 32, of Madison, Connecticut; Lindsay Hoffmann, 30,
of Waterbury, Connecticut; and Neish Rivera, 25, of Providence,
were charged in the prostitution investigation on Dec. 11, the
police said.

Maj. Lapatin said the investigation at the Chalkstone Avenue club
was an undercover operation by intelligence and narcotics officers.
It started after a sexual assault was reported there in November.
In that case, a male patron was arrested Nov. 9 after a dancer told
police she was sexually assaulted in a private room, police said.
Police said they have not charged the man, but the case is going to
a grand jury.

Police investigating the reported sexual assault became suspicious
about what else was happening at the Foxy Lady,
Maj. Lapatin said. Maj. Lapatin said the woman who was assaulted
was not charged.

According to redacted police reports that led to the three
prostitution arrests on Dec. 12, all three Foxy Lady workers asked
undercover officers if they wanted to go downstairs to the private
"VIP" room. Rivera and Hoffmann told the undercover officers that
for $300, they would get "anything you want" for half an hour, the
report said.

Rivera groped an undercover officer and then said for another $100,
they could have sex, the report said.

McNeely told the undercover officer that for $300, the officer
could perform oral sex on her, the report said.

The emergency closure order will last until the Board of Licenses
meets again Dec. 13 at 5 p.m. and decides what to do next.

The Foxy Lady is a longtime Providence establishment known for its
neon-hued contributions to city nightlife and its Friday morning
"Leggs 'n' Eggs" breakfast buffet.

The self-described "gentleman's club" allegedly was also one of the
Providence strip clubs that mob figures shook down for protection
payments, as prosecutors detailed in a 2011 indictment. Luigi "Baby
Shacks" Manocchio and Anthony L. DiNunzio were among the
high-profile mob figures who served time for their roles in the
scheme.

And in 1993, a state grand jury indicted 26 people, including
mobster Robert P. DeLuca and bookmaker Gaythorne "Poochie" Angell
Jr., on charges of running an illegal gambling operation based at
the Foxy Lady.

A man who identified himself as Foxy Lady's manager, Richard
Angell, attended the Dec. 12 emergency hearing, and denied
accusations that the club was aware of prostitution happening
there.

"That's not the way we run our business," Mr. Angell said.

The owners, identified in legal and corporate documents as Thomas
and Patricia Tsoumas, could not be reached for comment on Dec. 12
through their lawyers or via a message left in person at the club.
The documents also show Florida resident Dawn DeRentiis as director
of the club. DeRentiis couldn't be reached for comment. The Foxy
Lady has been in business for 38 years, according to its website.

A story in The Providence Journal examining the Foxy Lady after the
gambling charges in 1993 drew protests for what some readers
considered its lurid indecency. The newspaper was flooded with
enraged letters to the editor. One subscriber was arrested for
burning a copy of the newspaper outside the newspaper's Fountain
Street offices.

Listeners of the podcast series "Crimetown," which chronicled
Providence's illicit underbelly, heard the story of Michelle, a
Foxy Lady dancer of yesteryear who crossed paths with the
celebrities, professionals and professional criminals -- like
Charles "The Ghost" Kennedy -- who went there.

But the club's owners have faced a different sort of legal trouble
lately: A class-action lawsuit filed in 2015 alleging that the Foxy
Lady wasn't paying its exotic dancers in line with federal and
state laws. The club, the suit said, improperly charged its dancers
fees and failed to pay the federal minimum wage.

The case is still being litigated, but the dancers have won a
series of legal victories, including a ruling from federal District
Judge William E. Smith earlier in 2018 that they are employees, not
independent contractors. (Employees generally have more labor
rights than independent contractors.)

They were also allowed to fight the case as a class action, a big
legal victory. Companies strenuously resist having their aggrieved
workers band together as classes in part because people in the
class -- Foxy Lady exotic dancers, in this case -- don't have to
file suit to recover damages if the suit is successful.

Maj. Lapatin, the police major, said authorities likely will seek
to permanently close the Foxy Lady.

City officials said that the Foxy Lady had not been under scrutiny
for prostitution before the report of a sexual assault in November.
But Maj. Lapatin said similarities in the three prostitution
arrests led investigators to believe that management was aware of
what was happening.

"Everything about that showed a routine that had probably been
going on for a long time," Maj. Lapatin said. [GN]  


FREEDOM DOVE: Xia Suit Alleges NYLL Violation
---------------------------------------------
Chunfeng Xia, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Freedom Dove and "John" Huang (first name
unknown), Case No. 718099/2018 (N.Y. Sup., November 27, 2018),
seeks to recover minimum and overtime wages under the New York
Labor Law.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of NYLL by engaging in a pattern and practice
of failing to pay its employees, including Plaintiff, compensation
for all hours worked and minimum wage, asserts the complaint.

The Plaintiff Chunfeng Xia was employed on a full-time basis by
Defendants from October 9, 20I7 to November 5, 20I7 as a delivery
person for Defendants' restaurant business. The Plaintiff is a
resident of New York State, County of Queens.

The Defendant Freedom Dove is a domestic for Profit Company with
principal place of business at 9053 Corona Avenue, Flushing, NY
11373. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant business in New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ken H. Maeng, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-20 38th Ave., Suite# 1OG
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718) 353-8588
      E-mail: kmaeng@hanglaw.com


GOOGLE INC: Rhode Island Pension System Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Donita Naylor, writing for Providence Journal, reports that Rhode
Island is suing the parent company of Google for hiding a security
breach that affected 52.5 million users, state General Treasurer
Seth Magaziner stated in a news release on Dec. 11.

"Google had an obligation to tell its users and investors that
private information wasn't being protected," Magaziner stated in
the release. "Instead, Google executives decided to hide the
breaches from its users and continued to mislead investors and
federal regulators. This is an unconscionable violation of public
trust by Google."

Whistleblowers alerted the public, and in October the company
announced it was shutting down Google+, a social media platform.

A motion to combine Rhode Island's suit and two others into a
class-action suit and to name the Rhode Island pension fund as lead
plaintiff was filed on Dec. 10 by a San Diego class-action law firm
engaged by Magaziner's office. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd filed
the motion in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. Google and Alphabet, its parent company, are based in
Mountain View, a Northern California city at the heart of the
Silicon Valley, at the southern end of San Francisco Bay.

As of Dec. 11, a day after Google announced the number of users
whose personal information was exposed, the Rhode Island pension
fund owned 37,000 shares in Google, now traded as Alphabet shares,
worth about $40 million, said Evan England, a spokesman for
Magaziner.

The state treasurer monitors companies in its investment portfolio,
England said. If a company's practices are less than satisfactory,
the treasurer's office might petition at a shareholders' meeting
for better governance.

Calling the breach a "systemic vulnerability," England said that in
the Google case, "we felt it was appropriate to seek restitution."
Among other assertions, the motion states that "damage to the
Company's reputation and operating results and loss of customers
from this failure of the Company's security measures were imminent
and inevitable."

A hearing on combining the cases and naming the Rhode Island
retirement system as lead plaintiff is set for Feb. 8 in federal
court in San Fransisco. [GN]


GRAND BAHAMA: Court Certifies Class Under TCPA in Kron Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jose E. Martinez grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification in the lawsuit styled SCOTT A. KRON, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GRAND BAHAMA CRUISE
LINE, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Case No.
1:15-cv-23807-JEM (S.D. Fla.).

The Court certifies this class under the TCPA:

     (i) all persons in the United States; (ii) to whom GB Cruise
     Line (or any agent, contractor or employee working on its
     behalf) placed a telephone call; (iii) to said person's
     cellular telephone; (iv) using an automatic telephone
     dialing system; (v) from the date of GB Cruise Line's June
     2014 formation through the date of class certification.

     Excluded from the class are (i) GB Cruise Line, GB Cruise
     Line's agents, subsidiaries, parents, successors,
     predecessors, and any entity in which the GB Cruise Line or
     its parents have a controlling interest and their current
     and former employees, officers, and directors; (ii) the
     Judge or Magistrate Judge to whom this case is assigned and
     the Judge or Magistrate Judge's immediate family; (iii)
     persons who execute and file a timely request for exclusion;
     (iv) the legal representatives, successors, or assignees of
     any such excluded person', and (v) Plaintiff's counsel and
     GB Cruise Line's counsel

The Court appoints John Crabtree, Esq., of Crabtree & Auslander,
LLC, Brian Torres, Esq., of Brian M . Torres, P.A., and Mark
Morrison, Esq., of Morrison + Associates as class counsel.

Class counsel shall submit to the Court, on or before two weeks
from the date of this Order, a proposed schedule for providing the
class members the requisite notice, as outlined in Rule 23(c)(2) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Mr. Kron filed this putative class action against the Defendant for
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  He
alleges that the Defendant is in the cruise line business and
utilizes automatic telephone dialing systems known as "robodialers"
to make "robocalls" in order to increase sales.[CC]


GROSSE POINTE, MI: Seeks Review of Order in Thompson Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Grosse Pointe filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled JAMES THOMPSON, et al. v. CITY OF GROSSE
POINTE, Case No. 16-015427-NZ, in the Wayne County Circuit Court.

The appellate case is captioned as JAMES THOMPSON v. CITY OF GROSSE
POINTE, Case No. 346568, in the Michigan Court of Appeals.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees JAMES THOMPSON and HENRY MISTELE/ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED are represented by:

          Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
          LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C.
          975 East Jefferson Ave.
          Detroit, MI 48207
          Toll Free: (800) 536-0045
          Telephone: (313) 392-0015
          Facsimile: (313) 392-0025
          E-mail: sliddle@mlclassaction.com

Defendant-Appellant CITY OF GROSSE POINTE is represented by:

          Caryn A. Ford, Esq.
          GARAN LUCOW MILLER P.C.
          1155 Brewery Park
          Boulevard, Suite 200
          Detroit, MI 48207
          Telephone: (800) 875-1530
          E-mail: cford@garanlucow.com


HEALTH NET INC: Removes Poe Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of WILLIAM POE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTH NET,
INC.; HEALTH NET COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS, INC.; HEALTH NET OF
CALIFORNIA, INC.; CENTENE CORP.; CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC;
and DOES 1-100 INCLUSIVE, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the
lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles (Case No. BC719420) to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on November 21, 2018. The clerk
of court for the Central District of California assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-09792. The case is assigned to Judge Manuel L. Real and
referred to Magistrate Charles F. Eick.

Health Net, Inc. provides managed health care services through
health and government-sponsored managed care plans in the United
States. Health Net, Inc. was founded in 1979 and is based in
Woodland Hills, California. As of March 24, 2016, Health Net, Inc.
operates as a subsidiary of Centene Corp. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          John M. LeBlanc, Esq.
          Ileana M. Hernandez, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
          11355 W. Olympic Blvd
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310)312-4228
          Facsimile: (310)914-5855
          E-mail: JLeBlanc@manatt.com
                  IHemandez@manatt.com

               - and -

          Brendan V. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
          William R. Murray, Jr., Esq.
          Steven M. Cady , Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20005-5901
          Telephone: (202) 434-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 434-5029
          E-mail: bsullivan@wc.com
                  bmurray@wc.com
                  scady@wc.com


HF MANAGEMENT: Denied Workers Overtime Pay, Butt Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Amir Butt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. HF Management Services, LLC, and Healthfirst PHSP,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-07017, (E.D. N.Y., December 10,
2018), seeks redress for the violations of wage and overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York
Labor Law.

Defendants operate a provider-sponsored health insurance company
that offers Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, Child Health Plus and
Managed Long Term Care health insurance plans. Butt was employed by
HF as a Marketing Representative from in or about February 2017
until April 27, 2018. Butt claims to have consistently worked
longer hours than they were paid for and denied overtime wages for
all hours in excess of 40 in a workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Harrison, Esq.
      Julie Salwen, Esq.
      HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES
      110 State Highway 35, 2nd Floor
      Red Bank, NJ 07701
      Tel: (718) 799-9111
      Fax: (718) 799-9171
      Email: nycotlaw@gmail.com


HILTON GRAND: 11th Circuit Appeal Filed in Glasser TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Melanie Glasser filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Melanie Glasser v. Hilton Grand Vacations
Company, LLC, Case No. 8:16-cv-00952-JDW-AAS, in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The appellate case is captioned as Melanie Glasser v. Hilton Grand
Vacations Company, LLC, Case No. 18-14947, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 3, 2018, Ms.
Glasser filed an appeal from a court ruling in her lawsuit.  That
appellate case is captioned as Melanie Glasser v. Hilton Grand
Vacations Company, Case No. 18-14499.

In this action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), the Plaintiff alleges that Hilton Grand
Vacations Company, LLC, used an automated telephone dialing system
(ATDS) to make telemarketing calls to her cell phone without her
consent.  The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant placed calls to
her cell phone using an ATDS without her consent in violation of
the TCPA.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MELANIE GLASSER, Individually And On Behalf Of
All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
          William Peerce Howard, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM
          4030 Henderson Blvd.
          Tampa, FL 33629
          Telephone: (813) 500-1500
          E-mail: Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
                  Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com

               - and -

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD
          55 W Monroe St., Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
          E-mail: Keith@Keoghlaw.com
                  TSostrin@KeoghLaw.com

               - and -

          Geoffrey E. Parmer, Esq.
          DOGALI LAW GROUP, PA
          401 E Jackson St., Suite 1825
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 289-0700
          E-mail: gparmer@dogalilaw.com

Defendant-Appellee HILTON GRAND VACATIONS COMPANY, LLC, is
represented by:

          Angela Christine Agrusa, Esq.
          David B. Farkas, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 400N
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704
          Telephone: (310) 595-3000
          E-mail: angela.agrusa@dlapiper.com
                  david.farkas@dlapiper.com

               - and -

          Sandra Jessica Millor, Esq.
          Lawrence D. Silverman, Esq.
          AKERMAN, LLP
          3 Brickell City Ctr.
          98 SE 7th St., Suite 1100
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 982-5600
          E-mail: sandra.millor@akerman.com
                  lawrence.silverman@akerman.com


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Faces Majestic Class Action in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
Majestic Building Maintenance, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Huntington Bancshares Incorporated dba
The Huntington National Bank, Case No. 2:18-cv-01512 (S.D. Ohio,
November 23, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation
of the Anti-Tying provision of the Bank Holding Company Act.

The complaint says Huntington ties its bank account services to the
purchase of its fraud-prevention services in contravention of
federal law. Huntington does not provide the full protections and
services required by the Uniform Commercial Code and state law to
bank accounts unless that customer agrees to purchase additional
Huntington services. These actions and policies are in
contravention of the Bank Holding Company Act's Anti-Tying
provision.

The Plaintiff is one of the many victims of Huntington's practices
and policies of ties its fraud-prevention services to its bank
account products and services. Here, even after timely notifying
Huntington of errors regarding forged and fraudulent payment and
check activity, Huntington refused to reimburse Plaintiff in
accordance with its legal obligations under the UCC and applicable
state law, notes the complaint.

The Plaintiff Majestic Building Maintenance, Inc. is a company
specializing in commercial cleaning services for businesses.
Majestic's corporate headquarters are located in Dublin, Ohio.

The Defendant Huntington Bancshares Incorporated, whose banking
affiliate does business as The Huntington National Bank, is a
Maryland corporation with its principal place of business in
Columbus, Ohio.  Huntington's headquarters are located at
Huntington Center, 41 South High Street, Columbus, Ohio 43287,
which is within this Court's jurisdiction.  Huntington also
regularly conducts business in this District and throughout Ohio,
Michigan, Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John A. Zervas, Esq.
      Troy J. Doucet, Esq.
      Andrew J. Gerling, Esq.
      Sean M. Kohl, Esq.
      DOUCET & ASSOCIATES CO., LPA
      700 Stonehenge Parkway, Suite 2B
      Dublin, OH  43017
      Tel: (614) 944-5219
      Fax: (818) 638-5548
      E-mail: John@Doucet.Law
              Troy@Doucet.Law
              Andrew@Doucet.Law
              Sean@Doucet.Law


JAMES HARDIE: Home Owners Can Pursue Claims Against Irish Parent
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer Adina Thorn has welcomed the Court of Appeal decision that
allows the hundreds of home owners she acts for to continue
claiming against the Ireland-registered parent company of the James
Hardie Group, James Hardie Industries PLC, and two other James
Hardie companies. These companies sought to be removed from the
claim and appealed the High Court's decision that they should
remain in.

The Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court's decision.

"We see the decision as a significant step forward in bringing
James Hardie to justice. The owners believe the parent company of
the Group should be called to account".

Thorn acts for over 1000 home owners. The claim against James
Hardie is said to be approximately $250M.

"The owners say that James Hardie negligently manufactured and
supplied Harditex, Monotek and Titan products. We believe the
parent company has a key part to play in this. The owners also say
James Hardie had a duty to warn consumers of alleged problems with
the products."

"There was a risk due to the massively complicated company
structure that PLC would be able to escape this claim. James Hardie
has been no stranger to litigation in NZ and in Australia for
asbestos claims. We believe it should be called to account for its
conduct".

"The decision means we are entitled to know about the role of
management of PLC in this and what steps it took and what knowledge
it had of the real problems in New Zealand".

Thorn says "We want to know what happened here. No company in a
corporate group really operates in a silo. We need to know what PLC
knew and did".

Thorn says "now we can focus on the real case in the High Court
with the three companies as part of it".

The owners have suffered more than just damage to their homes. Many
hundreds are said to have suffered from stress, depression, and
health conditions due to mould.

"Finding justice for these James Hardie victims is what this is
about. We have funding and are able to pursue this claim. Acting
for the victims is our top priority."

The decision means the funded class action led by Adina Thorn
Lawyers is against the following James Hardie companies: James
Hardie New Zealand, Studorp Limited, James Hardie NZ Holdings, RCI
Holdings Pty Limited, James Hardie Australia Pty Limited, James
Hardie Research Pty Limited and James Hardie Industries PLC. [GN]



JAMES SQUARE: Judge Hears Class Action Against Former Owners
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Donovan, writing for WSYR-TV, reports that for two days in a
row, the class action attorney representing patients of the former
James Square Nursing and Rehabilitation Centre and lawyers
representing the past and present ownership stood before a State
Supreme Court Justice.

In both cases, on Dec. 11 and Dec. 12, the Justice ruled on the
side of the class action attorney.

On Dec. 11, the judge formally finalized a settlement reported by
NewsChannel 9 over the summer, between the action class and the
current owners of James Square, who have renamed it Bishop Health
and Rehabilitation Center.

With the previous owners out of the legal battle and moving forward
with improvements at the facility, the Dec. 12 hearing focused on
the previous owner, accused of running the facility into the
ground.

The judge ruled the class action lawsuit can now personally name
previous owners, along with the corporations they're accused of
using the hide a scheme to lay off works, yet still rake in
profits. [GN]  

JARDINE LLOYD: Cowra Council Won't Join Insurance Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nadine Morton, writing for Cowra Guardian, reports that Cowra
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 recently 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 Shire Council saved around $230,000 a year on insurance
since leaving JLT while Mid-Western saved around $300,000 on the
first year alone.

Cowra Council general manager Paul Devery said council had been a
part of Statewide Mutual for some years.

"Council is not intending to join the class action at this time,"
he said.

We will be calling tenders to test the market prior to the
2019/2020 financial year.

Mr Devery did however confirm that council would look elsewhere
when its current insurance policy ended.

"We will be calling tenders to test the market prior to the
2019/2020 financial year," 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 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 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.

Bathurst, Cabonne, Dubbo and Hilltops councils confirmed to Fairfax
Media that they would not join the class action.

More information is available on the JLT Local Council Class Action
website. [GN]


KAM FUNG WONG: Denied Guzman Overtime, Wage Statements, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel A. Guzman, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Kam Fung Wong Inc., New Phoenix
Distributor Inc., Am Le Chang, Henry Doe, Michelle Doe and Abraham
Doe, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-06998, (E.D. N.Y., December 6,
2018) seeks to recover unpaid minimum, overtime and spread-of-hours
wages and redress for Defendants' failure to provide itemized wage
statements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New
York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a poultry and meats market,
located at 4008 3rd Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11232 under the name
"Kam Fung Wong Poultry" where Guzman was employed as a delivery
driver. He worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the
hours that they worked. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate
record-keeping of the hours worked, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KEAY & COSTELLO: Hobar Sues Over Vague Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosemary Hobar, individually and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Keay & Costello, P.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-08382 (N.D. Ill., December 21, 2018)
seeks damages, costs of suit, and other suitable relief from
Defendant for its violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act ("FDCPA").

During the 12 month prior to the date of filing of this action,
Defendant mailed at least 100 collection letters in an attempt to
collect allegedly overdue homeowner assessments from unit owners.
Under the FDCPA, a collection letter must be effectively
communicated, and may not be overshadowed, confounded, or
eviscerated by other language or words as seen from the perspective
of the reasonably unsophisticated consumer. The Collection Letter
sent to Plaintiff failed to properly explain the apparent conflict
in the statements, and therefore overshadowed, eviscerate, and
confounded the validation notice requirement in violation of the
FDCPA, asserts the complaint.

Failure to provide an effective notice of rights under the FDCPA
caused Plaintiff and the class members to suffer a concrete injury
in fact, says the complaint.

Plaintiff resides in Schaumburg, Illinois, within this district.
Plaintiff is a "consumer" under the FDCPA.

Keay & Costello, P.C. is a law firm incorporated as a professional
corporation under the laws of Illinois. Defendant regularly engages
in the business of collecting debts, including homeowner
assessments, purportedly owed or due to third parties from the unit
owners, through e-mail, letters, and telephone calls.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kenneth M. DucDuong, Esq.
     KMD Law Office, Ltd.
     4001 West Devon Avenue, Suite 332
     Chicago, IL 60646
     Phone: 312.997.5959
     Email: kducduong@kmdlex.com


KELLOGG CO: Faces Class Action Over Nutri-Grain Breakfast Bar
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Davis, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a
California man says Kellogg's Nutri-Grain breakfast bars contain a
known pesticide -- glyphosate -- in a class action lawsuit against
the food giant.

Lead plaintiff Mason Kein alleges in his Nutri-Grain class action
lawsuit that the pesticide glyphosate is a possible carcinogen.

Despite knowing this, Kellogg's includes oat bran contaminated with
the pesticide in various types of its breakfast bars, including
strawberry Nutri-Grain Soft Baked Breakfast Bars and Cracklin' Oat
Bran cereal.

Glyphosate rocketed into public awareness after consumers
complained that they developed cancer after using the popular weed
killer, Roundup, which contains the substance as its active
ingredient.

According to the Kellogg's breakfast bar class action lawsuit, the
World Health Organization has deemed the chemical is "probably
carcinogenic to humans."

"Because it is a probable carcinogen with no nutritional value, the
presence of any amount of glyphosate in the products, no matter
whether above or below regulatory limits, is material to reasonable
consumers," contends the Nutri-Grain class action lawsuit. "No
reasonable consumer would purchase the products knowing that they
contained glyphosate."

Kellogg's, according to the Nutri-Grain bars class action lawsuit,
fails to properly clean the pesticide off ingredients it uses to
make its breakfast bars and cereals, leaving consumers to ingest
the substance.

"Glyphosate is one of the most widely used weed killing poisons in
the United States," alleges the Kellogg's Nutri-Grain class action
lawsuit citing a report from the Environmental Working Group. "It
is also sprayed on wheat, barley, and oats as a preharvest
desiccant to dry the grain faster. Each year, more than 250 million
pounds of glyphosate is sprayed on American crops, including wheat,
barley, and oats just before they are harvested. Glyphosate adheres
to the crops and Defendant's cleansing process fails to remove the
glyphosate residue."

According to the Kellogg's Nutri-Grain breakfast bar class action
lawsuit, the company fails to warn consumers that the products
contain glyphosate.

"Nowhere on the product packages -- inside or out -- does defendant
disclose that the products contain or likely contain glyphosate,
such that defendant's product health representations are false,
deceptive, or, at minimum, misleading half­truths," alleges the
Nutri-Grain Soft Baked Breakfast Bars class action lawsuit.

The plaintiff points out that children often eat the Kellogg's
breakfast bars and cereals that are allegedly laced with
glyphosate. Their small size, alleges the Kellogg's class action
lawsuit, makes kids more susceptible to being affected by the
chemical.

The Kellogg's Nutri-Grain breakfast bar class action lawsuit seeks
to represent consumers who purchased Kellogg's Nutri-Grain Soft
Baked Breakfast Bars – Strawberry; and (2) Kellogg's Cracklin'
Oat Bran oat cereal in the following states: California, Florida,
Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey,
New York and Washington.

The plaintiff is seeking restitution and disgorgement of profits,
as well as a court order stopping Kellogg's from using glyphosate
contaminated ingredients in its products.

Mr. Kein and the proposed Class are represented by Patricia N.
Syverson, Manfred P. Muecke, Elaine A. Ryan and Carrie A. Laliberte
of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, and Stewart M. Weltman,
Todd L. McLawhorn and Michael Chang of Siprut PC.

The Kellogg's Nutri-Grain Soft Baked Breakfast Bars Class Action
Lawsuit is Kein v. Kellogg Co., Case No. 3:18­cv-02759, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. [GN]



LAZY DOG: Fails to Pay Straight Time and OT Wages, Delgado Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LIZ DELGADO on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated,
and on behalf of the general public v. LAZY DOG RESTAURANTS, LLC;
and DOES 1-100, Case No. 30-2018-01037104-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super.,
Orange Cty., December 10, 2018), accuses the Defendants of
violating the California Labor Code by failing to pay all straight
time wages and overtime wages, among other things.

Lazy Dog Restaurants, LLC, doing business as Lazy Dog Restaurant &
Bar, operates as a restaurant in California.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are presently unknown to the
Plaintiff.

The Company offers main, kids, and bar menus, as well as online and
take away.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Turley, Esq.
          David Mara, Esq.
          Jamie Serb, Esq.
          Tony Roberts, Esq.
          THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234-2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
          E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com
                  dmara@turleylawfirm.com
                  jserb@turleylawfirm.com
                  troberts@turleylawfirm.com


LEE COUNTY, FL: Caiazza Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Caiazza, on his own behalf and those similarly situated v.
Lee County Sheriff's Office, Case No. 2:18-cv-00784 (M.D. Fla.,
November 27, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation
of the overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that from at least June 12, 2012 and
continuing to June 7, 2018, the Defendant failed to compensate the
Plaintiff at a rate of one and one-half times Plaintiff's regular
rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single work
week.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Lee County, Florida. The Plaintiff
worked as a non-exempt "Road Deputy" for the Defendant on or about
June 12, 2012.

The Defendant Lee County Sheriff's Office is a public agency.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Tel: (954) WORKERS
      Fax: (954) 327-3013
      E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com


LG&E: Judge Hears arguments in Coal Ash Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Wave3News reports that a judge is hearing arguments regarding class
action lawsuit pending against LG&E.

Four residents that live near the Cane Run power plant filed the
suit, seeking monetary damages after coal ash plagued their
neighborhood for years. [GN]


LORD & TAYLOR: Accused by Mulhearn of Not Paying OT Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUSANNAH MULHEARN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LORD & TAYLOR, LLC, Case No. 7:18-cv-11531
(S.D.N.Y., December 10, 2018), accuses the Defendant of violating
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State Labor Law by
failing to pay overtime compensation.

Lord & Taylor is a Delaware limited liability company authorized to
do business in New York.  Lord & Taylor is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Lord & Taylor Holdings, LLC, which, in turn, is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Hudson's Bay Company.  Lord & Taylor's
principal place of business is located at 424 5th Avenue, in New
York City.

Lord & Taylor operates retail and clothing stores throughout New
York and the United States that offer, among other things, women's
clothing, men's and ladies' shoes, handbags, home goods, jewelry
and accessories, beauty items, men's clothing, and children's
clothing.  Lord & Taylor also sells these items online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard Schragin, Esq.
          SAPIR SCHRAGIN LLP
          399 Knollwood Road, Suite 310
          White Plains, NY 10603
          Telephone: (914) 328-0366
          Facsimile: (914) 682-9128
          E-mail: hschragin@sapirschragin.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: Ferguson and Vandenberg Suits Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Dale S. Fischer entered an order granting consolidation,
preliminary certification and notice in the lawsuits captioned
THOMAS FERGUSON, et al. v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Case No.
2:18-cv-06861-DSF-KK (C.D. Cal.), and PIETER VANDENBERG, et al. v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Case No. EDCV 18-1625 DSF (KKx) (C.D.
Cal.).

The Plaintiffs in the lawsuits have moved for conditional
certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Plaintiffs
have argued that the County failed to properly pay them for all
overtime owed as required by the FLSA.

According to the Order, the parties in these two virtually
identical cases having so stipulated, the cases are consolidated
for all purposes.  The single consolidated action is Ferguson v.
County of Los Angeles, CV 18-6861 DSF (KKx).  All future filings
should be made in that case. All participants in the Vanderberg
case will be considered to have joined the consolidated Ferguson
case. The Clerk is ordered to close Vanderberg, EDCV 18-1625 DSF
(KKx).

As there are similarly situated individuals raising at least some
common issues of law or fact, the case merits preliminary
certification under 29 U.S.C. Section 216, Judge Fischer states.
The parties, however, disagree on the scope of the collective group
to be certified and who should receive notice.  The Defendant
wishes to limit the certified collective to participants in
Defendant's "Choices" plan and would exclude participants in its
"Options," "MegaFlex," and "Flex" plans.

Limiting preliminary certification and notice in this way is not
warranted, Judge Fischer notes.  While the Court has no reason to
doubt that there are differences in the plans, the factual and
legal issues presented by this case would seem to be similar across
the plans.

Judge Fischer also opines, among other things, that there is no
reason not to send notice to individuals, who participated in a
plan after August 1, 2018, because the Plaintiffs contend the
Defendant's attempts to resolve the issue and provide past
compensation are not sufficient under the law.

The Court will provide 120 days to file consents.  The very large
number of potential members in this case raises the possibility of
administrative complications, and it is sensible to provide
sufficient time to account for that.  As for e-mail notice, the
Defendant claims it does not maintain e-mail addresses for its
employees.

The Plaintiffs have made no showing that e-mail notice is
especially desirable in this case for any particular reason or that
e-mail notice would be more likely to provide actual notice than
notice by mail.  Therefore, the Court will not further prolong the
apparent dispute between the parties regarding whether the
Defendant has valid e-mail addresses for the employees.  Notice
will be provided through the United States Postal Service.

The Court's approved notice is provided as Attachment A to the
Order with appropriate dates to be filled as noted.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jacob A. Kalinski, Esq.
          RAINS LUCIA STERN ST. PHALLE & SILVER, PC
          1428 2nd Street, Suite 200
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 393-1486
          Facsimile: (310) 395-5801
          E-mail: jkalinski@rlslawyers.com

               - and -

          William B. Aitchison, Esq.
          PUBLIC SAFETY LABOR GROUP
          3021 NE Broadway
          Portland, OR 97232
          Telephone: (866) 486-5556
          Facsimile: (866) 401-2201
          E-mail: will@pslglawyers.com


LOVED ONES: Mayhew Seeks Final Class Certification Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled PAMELA MAYHEW, BETSY
FARNSWORTH on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
LOVED ONES IN HOME CARE, LLC and DONNA SKEEN, Case No.
2:17-cv-03844 (S.D.W. Va.), move to convert the conditional
certification of this action as a Fair Labor Standards Act
collective into a final certification.

All discovery necessary to resolve the question of FLSA
certification is complete, the Plaintiffs inform the Court.  That
discovery -- together with the Defendants' own admissions in Court
filings -- demonstrate the "similarly situated" nature of all
collective Plaintiffs under the FLSA and the propriety of final
certification of the collective class, the Plaintiffs contend.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark A. Toor, Esq.
          MARK A. TOOR, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          10 Hale Street, 2nd Floor
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 380-2111
          E-mail: mark@marktoor.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Richard Neely, Esq.
          NEELY & CALLAGHAN
          159 Summers St.
          Charleston, WV 25301-2134
          Telephone: (304) 343-6500
          E-mail: RNeely@NeelyCallaghan.com


MACKENZIE FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action over Trailer Commissions
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Langton, writing for Investment Executive, reports that
Toronto-based Mackenzie Financial Corp. is the latest financial
services firm to face a proposed class-action lawsuit in connection
with the practice of offering mutual funds through discount
brokerages that pay trailer commissions. The lawsuit seeks $175
million in damages on behalf of fund investors.

Law firm Siskinds LLP of Toronto filed a proposed class-action
lawsuit against Mackenzie on Dec. 6 on behalf of discount brokerage
clients who own any of the firm’s mutual funds, alleging that
these funds charged excessive management fees to fund trailer
commissions to discount brokerages that are paid, in part, for
ongoing advice to clients that these organizations are not allowed
to provide under securities rules.

The proposed representative plaintiff in the case is an investor
who has held various Mackenzie funds in an account at TD Direct
Investing since 2001. The lawsuit has not been certified as a class
action, and none of the allegations have been proven.

This latest proposed lawsuit against a mutual fund firm follows
earlier cases that have been brought, on similar grounds, against
bank-owned fund firms, including TD Asset Management Inc. in April;
Bank of Nova Scotia’s 1832 Asset Management LP in June; and
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce in September.

Since those lawsuits were brought, securities regulators have
proposed rule changes that would ban the practice of mutual funds
paying trailers to discount brokerages for advice. The comment
period on those proposals closes on Thurs. Dec. 13.

As with the other cases and the regulators’ proposals, this
latest lawsuit focuses on the financial impact the mutual funds
caused on investors by the payment of trailers to discount
brokerages.

"The payment of trailing commissions to discount brokers in respect
of the Mackenzie mutual funds is improper, unreasonable and
unjustified," the lawsuit alleges. "Consequently, the payment by
[Mackenzie] of the unearned management fees on account of those
trailing commissions, and their receipt by [Mackenzie], is
improper, unreasonable and unjustified." [GN]  


MARRIOT INT'L: Canadians File Suits Over Starwood Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Deschamps, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that
Canadians who stayed at Marriott International Inc. and subsidiary
Starwood Canada ULC hotels are taking legal action against the
companies following a security breach.

At least three proposed class-action suits have been launched in
Toronto and Montreal against the U.S.-based parent company that
recently revealed hackers stole contact, credit card, passport and
travel information belonging to as many as 500 million guests over
four years.

The plaintiffs in the actions, which have yet to be certified, are
accusing the company of negligence because they say Marriott and
Starwood were "reckless" with and did not safeguard personal
information.

"It is deeply concerning that Marriott appears to have failed in
implementing or maintaining reasonable security measures to protect
the integrity of its guests' personal information," said Sajjad
Nematollahi -- sajjad.nematollahi@siskinds.com -- a lawyer at
Siskinds LLP, in an e-mailed statement.

"The businesses' failure to protect the individuals' personal
information come at grave costs and result in significant risks to
ordinary citizens, for which we believe the wrongdoers must be held
accountable."

Mr. Nematollahi is representing Glen Winder, an Ontario-based
member of Starwood's Preferred Guest loyalty program, in a
class-action filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The suit is seeking damages and a declaration that Marriott and
Starwood "intentionally or recklessly ... invaded the private
affairs" of Mr. Winder and other Canadians in a "highly offensive
way" that caused "distress, humiliation or anguish."

Marriott declined to discuss the cases or accusations, saying the
company does not comment on pending litigation.

Meanwhile, Zachary Schnarr of Toronto and lawyers at Koskie Minsky
LLP are asking for damages on behalf of all Canadian Marriott
customers whose data were improperly accessed.

In a court filing, Mr. Schnarr said he provided the company with
his personal information when a reservation was made for him at the
Westin Hotel in Toronto in September and that Marriott and Starwood
were aware their actions would have a "significant adverse impact"
on guests. [GN]


MARRIOTT INT'L: Crabtree Sues Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------
Matthew Crabtree and Betty Robinson-Harris, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Marriott
International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-03779 (D. Md.,
December 7, 2018), seeks actual, statutory, punitive, exemplary
and/or multiple damages, disgorgement, restitution, preliminary or
other equitable or declaratory relief, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses and such other and favorable relief resulting from
negligence, breach of contract and violation of Maryland's Consumer
Protection Act.

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

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

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq.
      John Roddy, Esq.
      Michael L. Murphy, Esq.
      Cary Joshi, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
      Washington, DC 20007
      Tel: (202) 463-2101
      Fax: (202) 463-2103
      Email: BBailey@baileyglasser.com
             JRoddy@baileyglasser.com
             MMurphy@baileyglasser.com
             CJoshi@baileyglasser.com

             - and -

      David T. Rudolph, Esq.
      Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
      LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Tel: (415) 956-1000
      Fax: (415) 956-1008
      E-mail: msobol@lchb.com
              drudolph@lchb.com

             - and -

      Jason L. Lichtman, Esq.
      Sean A. Petterson, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10013
      Telephone: (212) 355-9500
      Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
      Email: spetterson@lchb.com
             jlichtman@lchb.com


MARRIOTT: Doesn't Intend to Enforce WebWatcher Subscriber Terms
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Kirk, writing for Bank Info Security, reports that there's
often been a cheeky devil in the details when data breach victims
sign up for free fraud-monitoring services from breached
organizations: In return for accepting one year of prepaid identity
theft monitoring, consumers must often waive their right to join
class-action lawsuits or pursue other court actions against a
breached business.

Just such a situation arose in 2017 with Equifax, which on Sept. 7,
2017, disclosed that it had suffered a massive breach that it
eventually found had compromised data for at least 148 million
people in the U.S., 15 million in the U.K. and about 20,000 in
Canada.

To get signed up for Equifax's fraud-monitoring service, TrustedID,
consumers had to agree to an arbitration clause. The inclusion of
the clause, however, caused outrage, with lawmakers and attorneys
general promising to crack down. Under fire, Equifax eventually
removed the offending terms of service, later in September 2017.

Following Marriott International's disclosure of its data breach,
this situation appears to be happening again. But according to
documents filed in federal court in Maryland on Dec. 11, Marriott
-- like Equifax -- now appears to be backing away from what breach
victims, and their attorneys, say are the onerous conditions under
which the company is offering fraud monitoring to victims of a
breach that Marriott failed to spot, and which ran unchecked for
four years.

Plaintiffs Call Move 'Underhanded'
Marriott's breach exposed up to 500 million accounts for customers
of its Starwood line of hotels, which include brands such as W,
Sheraton and Westin. The breach, which affected the Starwood guest
reservation database, started in 2014 and ran through Sept. 10,
2018.

The breach was one of the largest such incidents to have come to
light in 2018, and exposed a significant amount of personal
information. For 327 million accounts, the breach exposed a
combination of name, postal address, phone number, email address,
passport number, birth date and travel data. For some of those
accounts, encrypted payment card numbers and expiration dates were
also exposed, as was potentially the information attackers would
have needed to decrypt the payment card data. For the other 173
million accounts affected by the breach, the information exposed
was limited to name and sometimes other data such as mailing
address, email address or other information, the hotel giant
reports.

The class-action complaint filed against Marriott over its data
breach

As is customary, it didn't take long for a class-action complaint
over the breach to emerge. On Dec. 6, a breach victim filed a
lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Maryland that alleges that the
hotel giant has put people at risk of identity theft. The complaint
seeks unspecified damages.

Marriott is offering all breach victims a one-year, prepaid
subscription to WebWatcher, a fraud-monitoring service offered by
risk consultancy Kroll. But the lawsuit contends that the terms and
conditions for using WebWatcher mandate that disputes go to
mandatory arbitration and that by signing up, consumers forfeit
their rights to jury trials or class actions. In other words, from
a legal-rights perspective, the service would hardly appear to be
"free."

From the complaint: "Marriott engaged in an underhanded attempt to
induce putative class members to waive and limit their legal
rights, creating both uncertainty about whether to accept the
WebWatcher product and whether they were still permitted to pursue
legal claims in court through a class action vehicle," the
plaintiffs allege. "The net result of this conduct is dissuading
consumers from taking all steps to vindicate their rights."

Forced Arbitration: Illegal, Sometimes
Now, however, it appears that Marriott is backing off those terms
and conditions. In recently filed court documents, Marriott says it
doesn't intend to enforce those terms upon WebWatcher subscribers.

"It's pretty significant -- and rare -- for a company to agree to
this," according to a spokeswoman for Edelson PC, the law firm that
filed the class-action complaint.

A declaration filed by an Edelson attorney says that Marriott has
"clarified and confirmed" that the terms of the WebWatcher
agreement would not apply to "putative class members."

A Marriott International spokesman says the company doesn't comment
on pending litigation and didn't answer a question about whether it
has yet revised the terms and conditions that breach victims are
signing if they enroll with WebWatcher. Kroll officials couldn't
immediately be reached for comment.

But forced arbitration and the banning of court actions have
historically been one strategy that organizations -- and especially
financial institutions -- have employed to try and reduce their
legal exposure. The practice, however, has been criticized for
limiting what have been customary legal rights for consumers to
seek redress.

How did we get here? A series of Supreme Court decisions previously
paved the way for arbitration clauses, which were shaping consumer
litigation, writes Matthew H. Adler, a partner with Pepper Hamilton
LLP, in an October 2017 blog post.

"No courts, no massive suits -- just individual versus business on
a single issue and contract," Adler writes.

Although organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce support
arbitration, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created a
rule that banned financial services companies from using
arbitration clauses in order to prevent consumers from pursuing
legal action as a group.

The CFPB rule became law on Nov. 1, 2017. But companies outside of
the financial services sector are still allowed to use arbitration
clauses. [GN]  


MARYLAND TRANSIT: Bus Drivers File Class Action Over Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Campbell, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that six bus
drivers are suing the Maryland Transit Administration in federal
court, claiming they have been denied overtime pay since October
2015.

The drivers say their class-action suit, initially filed in in
Baltimore City Circuit Court late last month, could apply to as
many as 200 current drivers. The state moved the case to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland on Dec. 10.

Each driver is seeking more than $75,000, and they are collectively
seeking a court order to require the MTA to pay overtime as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

"The MTA has repeatedly failed to pay overtime to its operators and
continues to pay hours in excess of forty (40) hours at an
operator/s regular straight time," the lawsuit says. "The MTA's
failure to pay overtime earned by the Plaintiffs and the members of
the class was in bad faith and was not the result of a bona fide
dispute."

The MTA said on Dec. 10 it cannot comment on matters in
litigation.

David McClure, president of the Amalgamated Transit Union Local
1300, which represents the MTA's bus, metro and light rail drivers,
said on Dec. 10 that the union was not part of the lawsuit.

"We have no knowledge of the lawsuit," he said. "We're looking into
it."

The six drivers are Joseph Johnson, John C. Poteat, Lynette
Everett, Lamont D. Jackson, Marshall E. Gwynn and Erika Bannister.

Their attorney, James M. Ray II -- jray@mallonandmccool.com -- of
the Baltimore firm Mallon & McCool, said the union's collective
bargaining agreement with the MTA only requires the agency to pay
drivers "straight time" beyond 40 hours, not the federally required
time-and-a-half.

"You can't contract around federal law, or state law for that
matter," Mr. Ray said. "The [Fair Labor Standards Act] is pretty
clear on what it requires and what it doesn't."

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Catherine C.
Blake. [GN]


MATCO TOOLS: Does Not Properly Pay Distributors, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Emanuel Aguilera, Rocio Aguilera and Simon Goro, individually and
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. Matco Tools Corporation and Does 1-100, Defendant, Case No.
RG18931359, (Cal. Super., December 7, 2018), seeks redress for
failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to provide
itemized wage statements, reimbursement of business-related
expenses and failure to pay wages on a timely basis, interest
thereon at the statutory rate, actual damages, all wages due
terminated employees, costs of suit, prejudgment interest and such
other and further relief pursuant to the California Labor Code and
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders.

Matco is a manufacturer and distributor of professional automotive
repair tools and related equipment where Plaintiffs worked as
"distributors," performing on-site advertising, sales, delivery,
and maintenance-related tasks. Matco refused to recognize them as
employees thus denying them overtime pay and business-related
expenses, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
      Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
      Shaun Markley, Esq.
      NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
      225 Broadway, 19th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 325-0492
      Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
      Email: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
             atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
             smarkley@nicholaslaw.org


MAZUMA CREDIT: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $.14MM
------------------------------------------------------------
Palash Ghosh, writing for Credit Union Journal, reports that Mazuma
Credit Union in Overland Park, Kan., agreed to pay almost $1.4
million to settle a class action lawsuit related to its overdraft
fees.

The suit alleged that the $662 million-asset Mazuma was in breach
of contract by charging members overdraft fees for transactions
when there were sufficient funds in the checking accounts to cover
the purchases. A number of other credit unions have also faced
class action litigation with similar allegations related to their
overdraft practices.

In the lawsuit against Mazuma, the credit union was accused of
using the "available balance" instead of "current balance" in
determining the funds in members' accounts. Using the "available
balance" to assess overdraft fees contradicted the language of
member account agreements, the lawsuit alleged.

Any credit union member who had a checking account at Mazuma
between April 2011 and Sept. 30, 2015, and was charged overdraft
fees is eligible to receive compensation, according to the
settlement agreement.

Mazuma also agreed that as of the beginning of this year to assess
overdraft fees based on the "current balance" in a member's account
instead of the "available balance" as the credit union had done
before the lawsuit. Mazuma and the plaintiffs agreed that this
change would have reduced the total amount of overdraft fees
charged by about $3 million over the previous four years.

In a statement emailed to Credit Union Journal, attorneys for the
credit union wrote: "Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against
Mazuma alleging that Mazuma improperly charged overdraft fees based
on a member's available account balance. While Mazuma denies any
wrongdoing, the parties have agreed to settle the claims to avoid
the uncertainty, expense and inconvenience associated with
continued litigation. Mazuma believes that this settlement is in
the best interest of Mazuma and its members, and will allow Mazuma
to continue to focus on the future and providing innovative
services to its members."

In court documents, lead plaintiff Joy L. Bowens alleged Mazuma
also coerced consumers into opting into its overdraft program. The
original complaint, which was filed in September 2015 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The suit
sought monetary damages, restitution, punitive damages and
injunctive relief against the credit union.

According to the suit, Bowens opened her Mazuma credit union
account at a branch in Kansas City in July 1998. Bowens alleged
that Mazuma's automated program incorrectly determined she had
insufficient funds in her account and charged a fee.

For example, the complaint alleges that on Jan. 12, 2015, Bowens
had a balance of $96.98 in the morning. She then posted two
transactions, including a debit card transaction for $20 at a Shell
and a $7.99 Netflix charge. Despite the fact that the plaintiff had
sufficient funds to cover both of those transactions, Bowens was
charged a $28 overdraft fee for each transaction.

In its response to the complaint, Mazuma denied the accuracy of
those allegations. [GN]


MICHIGAN: CSC Appeals Order in Bell Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Civil Service Commission filed an appeal from a court order
entered in the lawsuit titled CARLOS BELL v. CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION, Case No. 17-003861-CZ, in the Wayne County Circuit
Court.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 12, 2018, a Wayne
County judge has certified a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf
of more than 600 black applicants who wanted to work as state
police or conservation officers but failed the required Michigan
civil service exam.

The lawsuit alleges that two different civil service exams the
state has used since 2014 -- one of which remains in use today --
violate the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and discriminate
against black applicants, who have a higher failure rate than white
applicants do.

"The Michigan Civil Service Commission engaged in a pattern and
practice of race discrimination in its hiring process through
testing that had a disparate adverse impact on African-Americans,"
the suit alleges.  "This illegal policy . . . was furthered by
command officers'/officials' failure to monitor the adverse impacts
of the employment policies in place."

The suit doesn't allege the state intentionally discriminated --
just that the exam produced racially disparate results in ways that
weren't necessary to determine which test writers could best do the
job.  The suit alleges there are alternative tests that could
screen applicants just as effectively without producing
discriminatory results.

The commission -- a bipartisan panel whose four members are
appointed by the governor to oversee state hiring and employment

The appellate case is captioned as CARLOS BELL v. CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION, Case No. 346562, in the Michigan Court of Appeals.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee CARLOS BELL/ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED is
represented by:

          Leonard Mungo, Esq.
          THE MUNGO LAW FIRM, PLC
          333 West Fort Street, Suite 1500
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 963-0407
          Facsimile: (313) 963-0200
          E-mail: lmungo@mungoatlaw.com

Defendant-Appellant CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION is represented by:

          Christopher W. Braverman, Esq.
          STATE OF MICHIGAN, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          G. Mennen Williams Building, 7th Floor
          525 W. Ottawa St.
          P.O. Box 30212
          Lansing, MI 48909
          Telephone: (517) 373-1162
          E-mail: miag@michigan.gov


MISSISSIPPI: Faces Turnage et al. Suit in S.D. Mississippi
----------------------------------------------------------
RAY C. TURNAGE; REVEREND D. FRANKLIN BROWNE; DENNIS D. HENDERSON;
CARLOS WILSON; FRED BURNS; CHARLES BARTLEY; CLARENCE MAGEE; LINDA
PATRICK-CRAFTON; BARBARA YOUNG; JUANITA J. GRIGGS; and CHERNISE
SEAPHUS, Plaintiffs v. SAM BRITTON, Mississippi Public Service
Commissioner; CECIL BROWN, Mississippi Public Service Commissioner;
BRANDON PRESLEY; and MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY, Defendants, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00818-CWR-FKB (S.D. Miss., Nov. 21, 2018). The case is
assigned to District Judge Carlton W. Reeves and referred to
Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball.

The Mississippi Public Service Commission regulates
telecommunications, electric, gas, water and sewer utilities in the
U.S. state of Mississippi. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ellis Turnage, Esq.
          P.O. Box 216
          Cleveland, MS 38732-0216
          Telephone: (662) 843-2811
          Facsimile: (662) 843-6133
          E-mail: eturnage@etlawms.com


MOBILE DESTINATION: Honea Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Honea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Mobile Destination, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 4:18-cv-04807 (S.D. Tex., December 21, 2018) is an action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") for declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and
costs, including a reasonable attorney's fee, as a result of
Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other hourly-paid
employees lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess
of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff began working for Defendant in January of 2018, as a
Sales Associate in Defendant's Beebe, Arkansas, store. Sometime
after being promoted to Manager in Training, Plaintiff was
transferred to Defendant's store in Maumelle, Arkansas.

As both a Sales Associate and a Manager in Training, for at least
one workweek, Defendant failed to include Plaintiff's commissions
in the calculation of Plaintiff's overtime rate for weeks in which
Plaintiff earned a commission and worked more than forty hours per
week. Defendant knew, or showed reckless disregard for whether, the
way it paid Plaintiff and other hourly employees violated the FLSA,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a resident and domiciliary of the State of Arkansas.
Plaintiff is a current employee of Defendant.

Defendant is an authorized retailer for Verizon with 39 locations
in Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. Defendant's staff offers a full
range of wireless devices including phones, tablets, mobile
broadband, wearable technology, accessories and product
insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOTORCYCLE COMPANY: Underpays Specialists, Bell et al. Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTIN BELL; and JAVIER SOLORIO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE MOTORCYCLE COMPANY,
LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
30-2018-01033602-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., Nov. 21,
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 specialists.

The Motorcycle Company, LLC is engaged in selling motorcycle.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


NIKE: Refiles Motion to Dismiss Gender, Pay Discrimination Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Kish, writing for Portland Business Journal, reports that
Nike has refiled a motion to dismiss in class-action gender, pay
discrimination lawsuit.

The new filing restates the basic arguments of the first motion to
dismiss. Nike's attorneys argue the lawsuit is overly broad and
lacks sufficient facts. [GN]


NPP INC: Arakelyan Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------
Armenui Arakelyan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NPP, Inc. dba Titan Merchant Services, Case
No. 9:18-cv-81615 (S.D. Fla., November 26, 2018), is brought
against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Defendant knowingly and willfully violated of the TCPA by
making unsolicited prerecorded telemarketing calls in violation of
consumers' privacy rights, asserts the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida.

The Defendant is a California corporation with its principal place
of business located at 2389 W March Ln Ste 200, Stockton, CA
95207-5247. The Defendant directs, markets, and provides its
business activities throughout the State of Florida. The Defendant
is a corporation that provides payment processing systems to
individuals and businesses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
      EDELSBERG LAW, PA
      19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Tel: (305) 975-3320
      E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com


NVIDIA CORPORATION: Iron Workers Fund Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NVIDIA Corporation, Jensen
Huang, and Collette Kress, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-07669-HSG
(N.D. Cal., December 21, 2018) is a securities class action brought
on behalf of purchasers of NVIDIA stock between August 10, 2017 and
November 15, 2018. The claims asserted in the complaint are alleged
against NVIDIA and certain of the Company's senior executives and
arise under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Defendants assured investors that the Company followed the market
closely and could adjust to rapid changes in the cryptocurrency
markets. Even as analysts increasingly began to question the
Company's ability to manage inventory in the face of an uncertain
cryptocurrency market, Defendants touted that NVIDIA and its
executives are "masters at managing our channel, and we understand
the channel very well." NVIDIA also repeatedly assured investors
that sales to cryptocurrency related customers made up a small
portion of the Company's revenues, and that strong demand for GPUs
by NVIDIA's core customer base of computer gamers would compensate
for any decline in demand from cryptocurrency users.

However, these statements were materially false and misleading,
asserts the complaint. In truth, revenue growth attributed to
NVIDIA's gaming GPUs was driven, in significant part, by surging
demand among cryptocurrency miners. In addition, contrary to its
assertions, NVIDIA did not have visibility into its inventory
channel and was unable to adapt to changes in the cryptocurrency
markets. Moreover, as cryptocurrency prices began to plummet,
NVIDIA masked slowing growth by continuing to push mid-range GPUs
into the channel, which caused inventory levels to skyrocket and
ultimately left NVIDIA with over three months of excess inventory
in its channel, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds provides, among other
things, pension and health benefits to both active and retired
participants in the iron working industry, as well as their
dependents and beneficiaries. Plaintiff purchased shares of NVIDIA
stock on the public market during the Class Period and suffered
damages as a result of the violations of the federal securities
laws.

NVIDIA is a multinational technology company. Incorporated in
Delaware, the Company maintains its corporate headquarters at 2788
San Tomas Expressway, Santa Clara, California. NVIDIA stock trades
on the NASDAQ, which is an efficient market, under ticker symbol
"NVDA".

Jensen Huang is, and was at all relevant times, President and Chief
Executive Officer of NVIDIA, as well as a member of the Company's
Board of Directors.

Collette Kress is, and was at all relevant times, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of NVIDIA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David R. Stickney, Esq.
     BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
     12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
     San Diego, CA 92130
     Phone: (858) 793-0070
     Fax: (858) 793-0323
     Email: davids@blbglaw.com

          - and -

     Hannah Ross, Esq.
     Avi Josefson, Esq.
     1251 Avenue of the Americas
     New York, NY 10020
     Phone: (212) 554-1400
     Fax: (212) 554-1444
     Email: hannah@blbglaw.com
            avi@blbglaw.com


OHIO: Certification of Minors Class With Non-Citizen Parents Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned INTERCOMMUNITY JUSTICE AND
PEACE CENTER, Erlin Lorena RODRIGUEZ ENAMORADO, individually and as
next friend of J.G.R., Maria MONJARAZ, individually and as next
friend of A.M., Maria Del Rosario CABRERA, individually and as next
friend of K.I.A., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Don Petit, Registrar, Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles, in
his official capacity, Case No. 2:18-cv-01247-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio),
ask the Court to certify this class:

     All 16- and 17-year-olds residing in Ohio who are U.S.
     citizens or otherwise "legally present," and whose parents
     are non-citizens and do not possess the required USCIS
     documentation to co-sign the minors' driver's license or
     state identification card applications.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Emily Brown, Esq.,
Kathleen Kersh, Esq., Mark Heller, Esq., and Eugenio Mollo, Esq.,
of Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc., and Caroline Gentry,
Esq., and Ana P. Crawford, Esq., of Porter Wright Morris & Arthur
LLP as class counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Emily M. Brown, Esq.
          Kathleen C. Kersh, Esq.
          Mark R. Heller, Esq.
          Eugenio Mollo, Jr., Esq.
          ADVOCATES FOR BASIC LEGAL EQUALITY, INC.
          130 West Second St., Suite 700E
          Dayton, OH 45402
          Telephone: (937) 535-4408
          Facsimile: (937) 535-4600
          E-mail: ebrown@ablelaw.org
                  kkersh@ablelaw.org
                  mheller@ablelaw.org
                  emollo@ablelaw.org

               - and -

          Caroline H. Gentry, Esq.
          Ana P. Crawford, Esq.
          David P. Shouvlin, Esq.
          PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP
          One South Main Street, Suite 1600
          Dayton, OH 45402
          Telephone: (937) 449-6748
          Facsimile: (937) 449-6820
          E-mail: cgentry@porterwright.com
                  acrawford@porterwright.com
                  dshouvlin@porterwright.com


PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Dec. 12 disclosed that
it has filed a class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of holders
of Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. ("PACB") (NASDAQ: PACB)
common stock in connection with the proposed acquisition of PACB by
Illumina, Inc. ("Illumina"), announced on November 1, 2018 (the
"Complaint"). The Complaint, which alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against PACB and its Board of
Directors (the "Board"), is captioned Wang v. Pacific Biosciences
of California, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-07450-WHA (N.D.
Cal.).

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 9, 2019.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

On November 1, 2018, PACB entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Illumina. Pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of PACB will receive
$8.00 per share in cash upon the closing of the acquisition (the
"Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issue materially incomplete disclosures in a   Proxy Statement
("Proxy") filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) on December 5, 2018. The Complaint alleges that
the Proxy omits material information with respect to, among other
things, PACB's financial projections, the analyses performed by
PACB's financial advisor, and background of the Proposed
Transaction. The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief
and damages on behalf of holders of PACB common stock.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Gloria Kui Melwani, at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by
telephone at (212) 545-4600 or by e-mail at melwani@whafh.com.

Founded in 1888, Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the
prosecution of complex class actions in state and federal trial and
appellate courts across the country.  The firm's attorneys have
expertise in various practice areas, including securities
litigation.  Wolf Haldenstein's reputation and expertise in class
litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have
appointed it to major positions in complex multi-district and
consolidated litigations. [GN]  


PACIFIC GAS: Derington Files Suit Over Fire-related Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maxine Derington on behalf ofherse1f and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Pacific Gas & Electric. Co., PG&E Corporation, and
Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. CGC-18-572284 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
San Francisco Cty., December 21, 2018) seeks damages for: damage to
and loss of use of real and personal property; loss of income; loss
of business; consequential and incidental damages; emotional
distress; and other harm caused by Defendants' wrongful conduct.

On November 8, 2018, a fire ignited at Camp Creek Road in Paradise,
Butte County, California, which quickly became the most destructive
fire in California history, burning more than 153,000 acres,
destroying more than 19,000 structures, and killing at least 86
people. The Camp Fire began after sparks from a PG&E transmission
line near Butte County, California, ignited the surrounding
vegetation.

PG&E had a duty to properly maintain its electrical infrastructure
and ensure surrounding trees and vegetation were trimmed and kept
at a safe distance. PG&E violated that duty by knowingly operating
aging, improperly maintained infrastructure that it "ran to
failure." In fact, PG&E has caused fires before, and PG&E has been
sanctioned numerous times for its dangerous conduct. Nonetheless,
PG&E refused to take steps to protect the public because PG&E's
corporate culture emphasizes cutting comers and putting profits
over safety. Had PG&E acted responsibly, these fires could have
been prevented, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff Maxine Derington is 94 years old and lived in her home at
1319 Honey Run Rd., Chico, California, 95928 for more than fifty
years. The Camp Fire completely destroyed Ms. Derington's home,
garage, and all of her personal belongings.

PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas & Electric Company were
corporations authorized to do business, and doing business, in the
State of California, with their principal place of business in the
County of San Francisco, State of California. Defendant PG&E
Corporation is an energy-based holding company headquartered in San
Francisco. It is the parent company of Defendant Pacific Gas &
Electric Company. PG&E Corporation subsidiaries provide customers
with public utility services, and services relating to the
generation of energy, generation of electricity, transmission of
electricity and natural gas, and the distribution of energy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephen E. Morrissey, Esq.
     Bryan Caforio, Esq.
     Kathryn P. Hoek, Esq.
     Davida Brook, Esq.
     SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
     1900 A venue of the Stars, Suite 1400
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
     Phone: (310) 789-3100
     Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
     Email: smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com
            bcaforio@susmangodfrey.com
            khoek@susmangodfrey.com
            dbrook@susmangodfrey.com

          - and -

     Vineet Bhatia, Esq.
     1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 51 00
     Houston, TX 77002-5096
     Phone: (713) 651-9366
     Facsimile: (713) 654-6666
     Email: vbhatia@susmangodfrey.com


PALO ALTO, CA: Class Action Over Utility Users Tax Certified
------------------------------------------------------------
If you paid a Utility Users Tax to the City of Palo Alto as part of
your monthly phone bill, your rights may be affected by a class
action lawsuit.

Girardi Keese and Slovak, Baron, Empey, Murphy & Pinkney, LLP
("Class Counsel") on Dec. 11 announced the certification of a class
action lawsuit claiming that the City of Palo Alto unlawfully added
a Utility Users Tax ("UUT") to the monthly phone bills of City
taxpayers. The lawsuit, Staats v. City of Palo Alto, Case No.
2015-1-cv-284956, is in the Superior Court of California, County of
Santa Clara. There is no money available now and no guarantee that
there will be.

Generally, you are a "Class Member" if you paid the City of Palo
Alto UUT on flat-rate mobile or flat amount long distance landline
telephone or per-minute mobile or long distance landline telephone
services between August 1, 2006 and December 18, 2014. The
Plaintiff, Eileen Staats, on behalf of herself and Class Members,
claims that between August 1, 2006 and December 18, 2014, the
City's UUT could not be legally applied to, and was unlawfully
collected on, the four types of telephone service. The lawsuit
seeks UUT refunds for Class members, and reasonable attorneys'
fees, costs and expenses. The City denies any and all wrongdoing
and denies that collecting the UUT is or has been unlawful. The
Court has not ruled on the merits of the claims. The lawyers for
the Class will have to prove their claims at a trial.

The Court has appointed Class Counsel to represent the Class in
this case. You will not be charged for these lawyers. If you do not
want Class Counsel to represent you, you may hire your own lawyer
at your expense.

You may choose to do nothing or exclude yourself from the Class. If
you do nothing, you are choosing to stay in the Class. If you do
not want to stay in the Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion by sending a letter to the address below, postmarked by
January 19, 2019. More information about the lawsuit and specific
instructions about how to exclude yourself from the Class are
available at www.UtilityUsersTaxClassAction.com.

For more information, including the full notice, go to
www.UtilityUsersTaxClassAction.com, call 1-866-561-6117, or write
to Staats v. City of Palo Alto Class Action Administrator, P.O. Box
505024, Louisville, KY 40233-5024. [GN]


PANERA BREAD CO: Izquierdo Files Fraud Class Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Panera Bread Company.
The case is styled as Jose Izquierdo, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Panera Bread Company
also known as: St. Louis Bread Co., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-12127 (S.D. N.Y., December 21, 2018).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Fraud.

Panera Bread Company is a chain store of bakery-cafe fast casual
restaurants with over 2,000 locations, all of which are in the
United States and Canada. Its headquarters are in Sunset Hills,
Missouri, a suburb of St. Louis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
   30 East 39th Street
   2nd Floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Fax: (212) 465-1181
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com




PG&E CORP: Residents File Suit Over Exposure to Wildfire Smoke
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry Edington, Stuart Langford and Alissa Nutt, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PG&E
Corporation and Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Defendants, Case
No. 18CV03954, (Cal. Super., December 7, 2018) seeks redress for
negligence and costs of medical monitoring due to exposure to toxic
wildfire smoke.

PG&E Corporation is an energy-based holding company and is the
parent company of Pacific Gas & Electric Company. PG&E is into the
generation, distribution and transmission of electricity and
natural gas. In November 2018, a destructive wildfire razed across
parts of Butte and Plumas Counties, destroying homes, businesses,
and lives. Said fire was allegedly caused by unsafe electrical
infrastructure owned, operated and maintained by PG&E Corporation
and Pacific Gas & Electric Company.

Plaintiffs are residents who claim to be exposed to smoke or
contaminants during the said fire. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Pedro de la Cerda, Esq.
      MATTHEWS & ASSOCIATES
      250 Vallombrosa Ave Ste. 266
      Chico, CA 95926
      Telephone: (530) 212-8345
      Facsimile: (530) 433-5677


PIRAMAL CRITICAL: Underpays Production Operators, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
CALLUM SAVAKUS-MALONE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PIRAMAL CRITICAL CARE, INC.; MASIS
STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
5:18-cv-05063-JFL (E.D. Pa., Nov. 21, 2018) is an action against
the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum
wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Savakus-Malone was employed by the Defendants as
production operator.

Piramal Critical Care Inc. develops, produces, and markets inhaled
and intravenous anesthetic products. Piramal Critical Care Inc. was
formerly known as Minrad, Inc. and changed its name to Piramal
Critical Care Inc. in December 2009. The company was incorporated
in 1994 and is based in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania with manufacturing
facilities in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania and Digwal, India. Piramal
Critical Care Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Piramal Enterprises
Limited. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas R. Anapol, Esq.
          Shayna Slater, Esq.
          ANAPOL WEISS, PC
          130 N. 18th Street, Suite 1600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-1130
          E-mail: tanapol@anapolweiss.com
                  sslater@ anapolweiss.com

               - and –

          Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
          Jennell K. Shannon, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436-1600
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
                  jshannon@johnsonbecker.com


PROPERTY WEST: Hernandez Seeks Overtime Pay for Hrs. Worked Over 40
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cristian Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Property West,
Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2018-00061867, (Cal. Super., December 7, 2018), seeks monetary
damages and restitution, penalties/premium pay for missed meal and
rest periods, restitution and restoration of sums owed and property
unlawfully withheld, statutory penalties, declaratory and
injunctive relief, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under
the California labor code and applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission Orders.

Defendants hired Plaintiff and classified him as non-exempt
employee and failed to compensate him for all hours worked, missed
meal periods and/or rest breaks, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas Han, Esq.
      Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
      Daniel J. Park, Esq.
      JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
      411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Tel: (818) 230-7502
      Fax: (818) 230-7259


QUEEN CITY ROOFING: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Verne Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Douglas Harpool grants the Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment in the lawsuit captioned CORY VERNE v. QUEEN CITY ROOFING
& CONTRACTING CO., Case No. 6:17-cv-03051-MDH (W.D. Mo.).

Queen City Roofing & Contracting Company Voluntary Employee Benefit
Association, Inc., is a non-profit corporation organized and
registered under the laws of Missouri.  QCR VEBA is a health and
welfare payment plan within the meaning of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 that provides fringe benefits to
employees of QCR and their eligible dependents.  Queen City Roofing
is a roofing company located in Springfield, Missouri.  Currently,
the VEBA's plan provides health, dental, vision, life, and accident
benefits to participants. It also provides holiday and vacation pay
as well as an annual "Employee Appreciation Party." Since 2011,
that party has cost an average of about $18,000 a year.

In its Motion for Summary Judgment, the Defendant asked the Court
to enter an Order and Judgment dismissing Counts I, II, and III of
the Plaintiff's Claim with prejudice.

For the reasons explained in its Order, the Court grants
Defendant's Motion as to Count III but deny Defendant's Motion as
to Counts I and II.  As a consequence of the dismissal of Count
III, the Court also denies as moot the Plaintiff's Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment on Liability under the Missouri Prevailing
Wage Act and denies Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

Because the Court does not find a genuine issue of material fact as
to whether QCR's VEBA contributions provided actual fringe benefits
or were irrevocable, and because it does not find that a
"reasonable relationship" requirement between VEBA contributions
and VEBA benefits exists under Missouri law, the Court grants QCR's
Motion for Summary Judgment as to its Missouri Prevailing Wage Law
claims and orders Count III of Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed
with prejudice.

Because the Court finds there to be a genuine issue of material
fact as to whether QCR implemented a "morning time" policy
requiring employees to show up to work early and perform
uncompensated labor, the it denies QCR's Motion for Summary
Judgment on Counts I and II.  The Court also denies QCR's Motion
for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's straight time claims.
However, the Court grants QCR's Motion for Summary Judgment to the
extent that it limits Plaintiff's Fair Labor Standards Act and MMWL
claims to weeks for which he has already produced data that do not
fall before February 15, 2015.

Furthermore, because Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 23 Class
Certification with Suggestions in Support is premised on Count III
of Plaintiff's Petition, which the Court has dismissed, the Court
denies as moot Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.  The
Court also denies as moot Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment on Liability under the Missouri Prevailing Wage Act.[CC]


RABOBANK USA: Recovery Fund II Files RICO Class Suit in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rabobank USA
Financial Corp. The case is styled as Recovery Fund II USA LLC, on
behalf of itself and all other similarly situated former unsecured
creditors in certain other actions brought pursuant to chapter 7 of
the Bankruptcy Code, Plaintiff v. Rabobank USA Financial Corp.
doing business as: Rabobank, National Association, Bankruptcy
Management Solutions, Inc., Eric Kurtzman, Stone Point Capital,
LLC, ABC Companies 1-10 and John and Janes Does 1-10, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-02039-UNA (D. Del., December 21, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO).

Rabobank USA Financial Corp. offers diversified banking services.
The company was incorporated in 1992 and is based in Wilmington,
Delaware. Rabobank USA Financial Corp. operates as a subsidiary of
Coöperatieve Rabobank U.A.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bruce E. Jameson, Esq.
   Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A.
   1310 King St.
   P.O. Box 1328
   Wilmington, DE 19899
   Tel: (302) 888-6500
   Email: bejameson@prickett.com


RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Faces Landrum Class Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
Don Landrum, an individual, on behalf of himself and other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rubio's Restaurants, Inc. and
Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00062043
(N.D. Cal., December 10, 2018), seeks damages and injunctive relief
over fraud, breach of contract and for violation of California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law.

Rubio's Restaurants does business as "Rubio's Coastal Grill"
selling Baja-Mexican-style fast food including tacos, burritos,
bowls, salads, nachos and quesadillas with an option to add protein
at a certain price.

Landrum purchased salad with two protein servings on it. He alleges
that he had been charged double the advertised price for the second
serving of protein without his knowledge.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ray E. Gallo, Esq.
     Dominic R. Valerian, Esq.
     GALLO LLP
     1604 Solano Ave., Suite B
     Berkeley, CA 94707
     Phone: (415) 257-8800
     Email: rgallo@gallo.law
            dvalerian@gallo.law


SAFARICOM: Subscriber Mulls Class Action Over M-Pesa Downtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Telecompaper reports that Kenyan operator Safaricom is facing a
possible class action after M-Pesa went down on 08 December,
reports The Star. Subscriber Martin Ndung'u has given the mobile
provider until 13 December to admit culpability for the disruption
and said it should pay its 24 million subscribers KES 10,000 each
in reparation for the inconvenience. Ndung'u said if Safaricom does
not honour the demand, it will be sued for contravening the
Customer Protection Act of 2012. [GN]


SAGAR FOOD: Husen Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Bablu Husen, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v.  Sagar Food USA Inc dba Sagar Chinese, Sagar
Chinese, Inc. dba Sagar Chinese, Shamiur Rahman, and Afruja Akter
July, Case No. 1:18-cv-06693 (E.D. N.Y., November 23, 2018), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violate the minimum wage
and overtime wage requirements, spread-of-hours pay, unlawful
retention of gratuities, and notice and record-keeping
requirements.

The Plaintiff Bablu Husen is an adult individual residing in the
State of New York, County of Kings. The Plaintiff was formerly
employed by Defendants from in or around June 2017 to in or around
October 30, 2018, and worked at their two restaurants located at
87-47 Homelawn Street, Jamaica, NY 11432, and 74-19 37th Ave,
Jackson Heights, NY 11372.

The Defendant Sagar Food USA Inc operates a Chinese restaurant with
the name "Sagar Chinese", located at 87-47 Homelawn Street,
Jamaica, NY 11432.

The Defendant Sagar Chinese operates a Chinese restaurant with the
name "Sagar Chinese", located at 74-19 37th Ave, Jackson Heights,
NY 11372.

The Individual Defendants are owner, principal, authorized
operator, manager, shareholder and/or agent of the two Corporate
Defendants.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ariadne Panagopoulou, Esq.
      PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP
      950 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (718) 777-0400
      Fax: (718) 777-0599
      E-mail: ari@pnlawyers.com


SIX FLAGS: Hinshaw Attorneys Discuss BIPA Class Action Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Whitney Goldin, Esq. -- wgoldin@hinshawlaw.com -- and John Ryan,
Esq. -- jryan@hinshawlaw.com -- of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, in an
article for JDSupra, report that on November 20, 2018, the Illinois
Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA) in Rosenbach v. Six Flags
Entertainment Corporation, et al. BIPA governs how entities may
collect, use, and retain biometric data, such as fingerprints and
retinal scans. Specifically, the Illinois Supreme Court will rule
on whether a plaintiff is an "aggrieved party" to state a claim
under BIPA without suffering any actual injury. If the Supreme
Court rules the way that they indicated at oral argument, then BIPA
will become a large consumer issue.

Rosenbach claimed Six Flags violated BIPA when it scanned her son's
thumbprint for his season pass without written consent. The
Illinois Appellate Court held that a plaintiff must demonstrate
more than a technical violation of BIPA in order to state a claim.
There have been conflicting decisions about whether actual harm is
required since "person aggrieved" is not defined in the statute.

During oral arguments before the Illinois Supreme Court, both
parties heavily relied on legislative intent and statutory
interpretations to support their definitions of the term "aggrieved
party." Rosenbach contended the plain meaning of "aggrieved party"
should be broadly construed to mean the infringement of a legal
right, such as a legal right created by BIPA. In response, Six
Flags argued Rosenbach was not an "aggrieved party" because neither
she nor her son suffered an injury from this technical violation.

BIPA provides for liquidated damages of $1,000 for each negligent
violation, and $5,000 for each willful violation. BIPA also allows
a prevailing plaintiff to recover litigation costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees.

Illinois has seen a surge of BIPA cases filed as class actions.
Most of the filed lawsuits have arisen in the employer/employee
context. However, the law acts more like a consumer protection
statute rather than a labor law. There are obvious differences in
defending a consumer class action as compared to an employment
class action. With that said, the Illinois Supreme Court will soon
tell us what a plaintiff must allege to qualify as an "aggrieved
party" in order to state a claim under BIPA. [GN]


SOLID BIOSCIENCES: Nutter Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eric P. Magnuson, Esq. -- emagnuson@nutter.com -- and Nehal
Khorraminejad, Esq. -- nkhorraminejad@nutter.com -- of Nutter
McClennen & Fish LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that Judge
Kaplan stayed a securities litigation filed in the BLS in favor of
a securities litigation filed in federal court. The plaintiff in
Lowinger v. Solid Biosciences Inc. filed his putative class action
in the BLS. A day earlier, the plaintiff in Watkins v. Solid
Biosciences Inc. filed his putative class action in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Both cases
alleged that the defendant, Solid Biosciences Inc. (SBI), had
violated the Securities Act of 1933 when shares of SBI stock were
sold to SBI investors.

SBI did not have the option of removing the BLS case to federal
court because earlier this year the Supreme Court, in Cyan, Inc. v.
Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, ruled that state and
federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over claims asserting
violations of the Securities Act of 1933. With that option off the
table, SBI pursued a different procedural maneuver: SBI moved to
stay the Lowinger case in favor of the Watkins case.

Judge Kaplan allowed the motion.

Judge Kaplan recognized that "often there is no basis to deprive
either plaintiff of its choice of forum." But he ruled that there
was "an overriding factor"—namely, "a due-process
limitation"—that made litigation of the dispute "in a
Massachusetts state court impracticable."

Plaintiff brings this action as a putative class action on behalf
of all purchasers of SBI shares who can trace their shares to the
IPO. As the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) held in Moelis v.
Berkshire Life Ins. Co., 451 Mass. 483 (2008) (Moelis), generally,
a nationwide class of plaintiffs may not be certified in
Massachusetts state courts because due process requires that a
class member must be provided with "the opportunity. . . to remove
himself or herself from the class," (id. at 487) and Mass. R. Civ.
P. 23 does not include an "opt out" provision."

Judge Kaplan also wrote that, "without a nationwide class
purchasers of SBI shares absent from this litigation could not be
bound by a judgment entered in this case, or by a settlement."
"Under these circumstances," Judge Kaplan continued, "the court
does not see a workable alternative to a stay of this litigation in
favor of [the Watkins case].

Lowinger v. Solid Biosciences Inc. (June 22, 2018) [GN]


SPARTAN ENERGY: Gibson Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Randall Gibson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Spartan Energy Services, LLC and Spartan
Flow Control Services, LLC, Case No. 18-cv-01286 (W.D. Tex.,
December 7, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Spartan is an oil and gas service company providing flow control,
well testing and thru tubing services to the oil and gas industry
where Gibson worked as a Flowback Operator. Spartan classified
Gibson as an independent contractor and paid him on a day-rate
basis. Gibson worked 12 or more hours a day for as many as seven
days in a week without being paid overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 352-1100
      Fax: (713) 352-3300
      Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
             adunlap@mybackwages.com

             - and -

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


TANGOE: Court Denies Directors' Motion to Dismiss Under Corwin
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis H. Lazarus, Esq. -- llazarus@morrisjames.com -- of Morris
James, in an article for Law.com, reports that the Corwin doctrine
provides substantial protection to directors of companies engaged
in a sale process. Once a transaction closes, if a stockholder
cannot allege that a majority stockholder vote approving a
transaction was uninformed or coerced, then the court will dismiss
a complaint attacking the fairness of the transaction under the
business judgment standard of review. The rationale is that
majority disinterested stockholder approval via a vote or a
majority tender cleanses the transaction unless plaintiff can meet
the high burden of pleading waste. Directors are also protected if
a company's charter contains protections under Section 102(b)(7) of
the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) and a plaintiff cannot
allege that a majority of the directors acted disloyally or in bad
faith. The Court of Chancery's well-reasoned decision in In re
Tangoe Stockholders Litigation, Cons. C. A. No. 2017-0650-JRS
(Del. Ch. November 20, 2018), provides important guidance for
directors seeking protection under either Corwin or Section
102(b)(7) when a board of a publicly traded company runs a sale
process while it is attempting to restate its financials, its stock
has been de-listed, and the Securities and Exchange Commission is
threatening de-registration.

Court Finds Uninformed Stockholder Tender Rendered 'Corwin'
Inapplicable at the Pleadings Stage

The Tangoe court denied directors' motion to dismiss under Corwin.
It held that, in the context of a failed attempt by the board to
accomplish a restatement of its financials (restatement) and the
board's decision to focus instead on a sale of the company, the
board's failure to provide audited financial statements and an
adequate explanation of the status of the restatement were material
omissions. While acknowledging that audited financial statements
are not per se material, the court held that the company's prior
disclosure of financial information being sporadic, the failure of
the board to disclose a quality of earnings reports it had received
from a third-party adviser, the failure to file multiple 2016
quarterly reports and the failure to hold an annual stockholders
meeting for three years, "support[ed] a reasonable inference that
stockholder approval of the Transaction was not fully informed in
the absence of adequate financial information about the company and
its value. The court also held that the board failed "to take
special care to explain to stockholders what was happening with the
restatement" in light of the delisting and threatened
de-registration. Simply stated, "when deciding whether to tender
their shares, Tangoe stockholders did not know whether the company
would ever complete the restatement, let alone when."

Court Finds Complaint Adequately Alleged Disloyal Conduct
The specific facts alleged in the complaint also supported the
court's conclusion that plaintiff pleaded a non-exculpated claim
for breach of fiduciary duty. The context mattered to this
conclusion, i.e., the fact that the board created and issued
alternative compensation for directors because the normal issuances
of equity under an existing equity incentive plan became impossible
while the restatement was unfinished. The new compensation awards
vested on an accelerated basis upon a change in control. These
facts supported plaintiff's allegation that the new compensation
"incentivized the director defendants as beneficiaries of those
awards to steer Tangoe into a sale of the company, not because a
sale was in the best interests of stockholders, but because a sale
was the most likely means by which the director defendants would
receive generous [compensation] that approximated the generous
equity awards they would have received if only the company could
complete the restatement." That the board adopted the new
compensation awards shortly after the company failed to meet the
NASDAQ's deadline to earn regulatory compliance led the court to
"reasonably infer a temporal connection between the adoption of the
[new compensation awards] and the board's decision to shift course
toward an allegedly ill-advised sale of the company." The court
found that the new awards provided "reasonably conceivable material
benefits to the director defendants" totaling $5.0 MM upon
consummation of the sale versus the "increasingly chimerical" prior
equity issuances as the restatement remained unfinished. Finally,
while again acknowledging that generally the mere existence of a
looming proxy contest does not by itself remove business judgment
protection to subsequent board conduct, the looming proxy contest
becomes more relevant in light of other pleaded facts concerning
the inability to complete the restatement, the timing of the
adoption of the alternative compensation awards, and that the board
recommended that stockholders accept steadily decreasing offers.

Lesson Learned
Directors wishing to obtain business judgment review of their
conduct in a sale process under Corwin must ensure that any
stockholder vote is informed. Context matters. Thus, while audited
financial statements are not per se required to be disclosed, the
failure to provide such information can become material when the
company has been unable to restate its financials, the company has
been de-listed, the board has failed to convene an annual meeting
of stockholders for three years, the company's prior financial
disclosures have been sporadic, and the board declines to fill the
information vacuum by not sharing a quality of earnings report it
had received. These pleaded facts also caused the court to give
greater weight to the existence of a looming proxy contest in
weighing whether directors' potential self-interested motives
rendered business judgment rule deference inappropriate and
prevented a Section 102(b)(7) defense at the pleadings stage. The
existence of the Corwin doctrine and Section 102(b)(7) continue to
provide protections to directors but a plaintiff who can plead a
failure to make adequate disclosure and specific facts creating
inferences of self-interested and disloyal conduct can survive a
motion to dismiss.

Lewis H. Lazarus -- llazarus@morrisjames.com -- is a partner at
Morris James in Wilmington and chair of the corporate and
commercial litigation group. His practice is primarily in the
Delaware Court of Chancery in disputes, often expedited, involving
managers and stakeholders of Delaware business organizations. [GN]



TELADOC HEALTH: Feb. 11 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Dec. 12 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against, Teladoc Health, Inc. ("Teladoc" or the
"Company") (NYSE: TDOC) and certain of its officers.   The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of
New York, and indexed under 18-cv-11603, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and
their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise, acquired Teladoc
securities between March 3, 2016, and December 5, 2018, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Teladoc securities between
March 3, 2016 and December 5, 2018, both dates inclusive, you have
until February 11, 2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact Robert
S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

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

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

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

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

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

Following publication of the SIRF article, Teladoc's stock price
fell $4.00 per share, or 6.69%, to close at $55.81 per share on
December 6, 2018.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later,
the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established,
fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has
recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of
class members. [GN]  


TENARIS SA: Feb. 11 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. on Dec. 12 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired Tenaris S.A. (NYSE: TS)
securities between May 1, 2014 and November 27, 2018 (the "Class
Period").  Investors have until February 11, 2019 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

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

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

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- to https://bespc.com -- is a New
York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and securities
litigation. [GN]  


TGI FRIDAYS: Williams' Bid for Workers Class Certification Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly denies the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification without prejudice to filing another motion to
certify a class in the lawsuit titled GABRIELLE WILLIAMS and TONYA
O'DONOVAN, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown v. TGI FRIDAYS, INC., Case No.
1:16-cv-04286 (N.D. Ill.).

Gabrielle Williams and Tonya O'Donovan are former employees of TGI
Fridays, Inc.  They allege that Fridays violated the Illinois Wage
Payment Collection Act by failing to timely compensate them for
unused paid vacation benefits due to a payroll error, and they have
moved to certify a class of similarly situated plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs initially defined the proposed class as:

     All persons employed by Defendant on an hourly basis in
     Illinois who separated from employment between March 1, 2006
     and November 2015 who worked at least 1,300 hours in their
     final anniversary or vacation year but who did not receive
     vacation pay as part of their final compensation.

According to the Court's memorandum opinion and order, the
Plaintiffs' claims in this case differ importantly from those in
McCaster (citing McCaster, 845 F.3d at 801) in that the Plaintiffs
have pointed to evidence that a single payroll error was
responsible for denying a large number of employees their vacation
pay; no such common theory was advanced in McCaster.  But the
proposed classes as currently defined do not reflect that
distinction, since neither one is limited to plaintiffs who
experienced the Infosync payroll error.  By the plaintiffs' own
admission, the payroll data show that vacation pay was withheld
from some employees for reasons unrelated to the Infosync error.

Judge Kennelly states that these discrepancies show that simply
computing earned vacation time according to the policy's terms and
comparing it with the amounts actually paid is insufficient to
establish that the class members' claims share a common issue of
fact.  As in McCaster, the individualized inquiry that would be
required to resolve each of these claims precludes class
certification.  See 845 F.3d at 801 ("The plaintiffs' failure to
satisfy the commonality requirement is fatal to their request for
class certification.").

The Court does not conclude, however, that there is no possible
class the plaintiffs could propose that would satisfy the
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A
class limited to the employees who did not receive vacation pay as
part of their final compensation because of the Infosync error --
rather than, for example, idiosyncratic payment practices by
restaurant managers -- may have the required commonality under
McCaster, Judge Kennelly notes.  "But plaintiffs did not seek
certification of such a class in their motion or even in their
reply," Judge Kennelly adds.[CC]


TICKETMASTER: Sued for Allegedly Incentivizing Ticket Scalping
--------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Ticketmaster
LLC facilitates ticket scalping, resulting in artificial ticket
shortages and inflated prices, consumers allege in a proposed class
action filed Dec. 10.

Ticketmaster, which is a subsidiary of Live Nation Entertainment
Inc. after a merger with Live Nation, specifically prohibits
creating fake accounts to circumvent ticket limits.

But it "has in fact created an incentive for scalpers to acquire
large quantities of tickets through its reseller program,
TradeDesk, whereby scalpers get a reduction in the commission fee.
[GN]


TRUSTMARK NATIONAL: McDonald Questions Illegal Fees
---------------------------------------------------
CRYESHA MCDONALD and CHANTAL LEWIS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. TRUSTMARK NATIONAL BANK, Case No.
3:18-cv-00852-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss., December 10, 2018), arises from
the Bank's alleged routine practices of:

   (a) assessing overdraft fees ("OD Fees") on transactions that
       did not actually overdraw the account;

   (b) adopting a policy that results in accountholders being
       assessed two out-of-network  Automated Teller Machine
       ("ATM") fees ("OON Fees") on a single cash withdrawal; and

   (c) adopting a policy that results in accountholders being
       assessed three OON Fees on out-of-network ATM withdrawals
       immediately preceded by a purported "balance inquiry."

The Plaintiffs contend that each of these practices breaches
contractual promises; violates the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing; and/or results in the Bank being unjustly enriched.  The
Plaintiffs add that Trustmark's customers have been injured by its
improper practices to the tune of millions of dollars bilked from
their accounts in violation of their agreements with Trustmark.

Trustmark is engaged in the business of providing retail banking
services to consumers, including the Plaintiffs and members of the
putative Classes, which includes the issuance of debit cards for
use by its customers in conjunction with their checking accounts.
Trustmark Operates banking centers, and thus conducts business,
throughout the states of Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee
and Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher J. Weldy, Esq.
          WELDY LAW FIRM, PLLC
          105 North College Street
          Brandon, MS 39042
          Telephone: (601) 624-7460
          Facsimile: (866) 900-4850
          E-mail: Chris@WeldyLawFirm.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL, PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielpllc.com


UNITED HEALTH: Judge Won't Stay Overbilling Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------
Matt Fair, writing for Law360, reports that a Pennsylvania federal
judge has shot down a bid to pause a cluster of shareholder
lawsuits over alleged overbilling by United Health Services Inc.
[GN]


UNITED STATES: Liviz Sues SCOTUS & Justices Over Video Recording
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Jurist ILYA LIVIZ D.L.D., National Academy for Jurists, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JOHN G. ROBERTS, chief
justice of the Supreme Court of The United States CLARENCE THOMAS,
associate justice of the Supreme Court of The United States RUTH
BADER GINSBURG, associate justice of the Supreme Court of The
United States; STEPHEN G. BREYER, associate justice of the Supreme
Court of The United States SAMUEL A. ALITO, Jr., associate justice
of the Supreme Court of The United States SONIA SOTOMAYER,
associate justice of the Supreme Court of The United States ELENA
KAGAN, associate justice of the Supreme Court of The United States
NEIL M. GORSUCH, associate justice of the Supreme Court of The
United States BRETT M. KAVANAUGH, associate justice of the Supreme
Court of The United States; in official capacities, Case No.
1:18-cv-12532 (D. Mass., December 10, 2018), asks the Court to
issue declaratory relief, temporary injunction followed by
permanent injunction from allowing use of court proceeding to
create precedent based on fake facts.

Mr. Liviz also asks the Court to find that SCOTUS has damaged the
United States Government, integrity of the judiciary, and
availability of due process of fair and meaningful access to the
court by allowing or preventing such conduct within the court that
they are in charge of.  He contends that to make video recording
available at courts is the best evidence for use by the litigants
for re-trials, re-hearing, preservation of record, and appellate
review.

The Supreme Court of The United States is the highest court of the
United States of America judiciary made up with one Chief Justice
and eight Associate Justices: 1) Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.;
2) Associate Justice Clarence Thomas; 3) Associate Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg; 4) Associate Justice Stephen Breyer; 5) Associate
Justice; Samuel Alito; 6) Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor; 7)
Associate Justice Elena Kagan; 8) Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch;
9) Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.[BN]

The Plaintiff represents himself:

          Ilya Liviz D.L.D., Esq.
          NATIONAL ACADEMY FOR JURISTS
          LIVIZ LAW OFFICE
          200 Central St., No. 1
          Lowell, MA 01852
          Telephone: (978) 606-5326
          E-mail: ilya.liviz@gmail.com


UNIVERSAL SURVEY: Machonis Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn M. Machonis, O.T., PLLC, and on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Universal Survey Center, Inc. dba
OpinionSite, Case No. 1:18-cv-10978 (S.D. N.Y., November 26, 2018),
is brought against the Defendant for sending unsolicited fax
advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The Defendant sent the faxes at issue to the Plaintiff and the
Class without their consent and without an established business
relationship with them, notes the complaint.

The Plaintiff Carolyn M. Machonis, O.T., PLLC is a New York
professional limited liability company with its principal place of
business in Mahopac, New York.

The Defendant OpinionSite is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in New York, New York. The Defendant is
a for-profit company that provides data collection services for
companies by, among other things, conducting consumer and
professional surveys. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stefan Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
      5 Penn Plaza, 23rd Floor
      New York, NY 10001
      Tel: (877) 333-9427
      Fax: (888) 498-8946
      E-mail: Law@stefancoleman.com


UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Trager, writing for Chemistry World, reports that an
associate chemistry professor at the University of Arizona has
filed a $20 million (£15.7 million) class action gender
discrimination lawsuit against the Arizona Board of Regents, which
is the governing body for the state's public university system. The
legal action, which alleges that women faculty members are denied
commensurate salaries and promotions, comes amid an increased
recognition of widespread gender inequity and salary disparities in
the chemical sciences and other scientific fields.

Katrina Miranda, a tenured professor at the university's Tucson
campus who has worked there since 2002, charges that Arizona's
flagship research institution routinely pays female science
professors significantly less than their male counterparts.
Specifically, Miranda calculates that the school underpaid her by
tens of thousands of dollars each year from 2016 to 2018, compared
to male professors with equal or less experience and
accomplishments.

While Ms. Miranda's annual salary was approximately $100,000 from
2016 to 2018, her lawsuit cites public salary data showing that a
male chemistry professor at the school earned $130,500 per year for
the last two academic years even though he was hired two years
after her. Further, Miranda claims that the university retaliated
against her after she complained about such pay disparities,
reducing her laboratory space and preventing her from teaching a
course that she had created.

According to the lawsuit, female professors at the University of
Arizona also regularly receive fewer research assistants and less
mentoring opportunities. In addition, Miranda accuses the school of
failing to promote women within its College of Science. For
example, nearly 50% of associate professors in the chemistry and
biochemistry department are female, but women comprise only 12.5%
of full professors, according to the complaint.

A picture of the exterior of the Old Main building on the campus of
the University of Arizona

Ms. Miranda's legal action is on behalf of herself and female
science professors at the university who are in similar situations.
It's the second lawsuit filed recently by female faculty against
the Arizona Board of Regents. Earlier this year, current and former
female deans at the University of Arizona sued the board for $2
million, claiming the school dramatically underpaid them compared
to their male equivalents.

"Despite Dr Miranda's strong record of research, service to the
university, and contributions to the scientific community, the
university has undercompensated and underpromoted her for years,"
said her lawyer, Andrew Melzer. "The lawsuit seeks to correct these
ongoing wrongs, both for Dr Miranda and for other female professors
like her."

Interestingly, data released by the US National Science Foundation
in January shows that the pay gap between the sexes is
significantly smaller among US chemistry doctorate recipients than
for those in other science and engineering fields -- at just 4% --
even though men receive more than 60% of chemistry PhDs in the US.

The backdrop of Miranda's lawsuit is a growing focus on the need to
increase gender diversity in the chemical sciences, including
implementing efforts to curb sexual harassment. The Royal Society
of Chemistry, which publishes Chemistry World, released an action
plan last month to address gender inequality and cultural barriers
for women in chemistry. One of the impetuses behind that strategy
is that females represent 44% of undergraduate chemistry students
in the UK, but only 9% of chemistry professors in the country are
female. [GN]


USC: Detectives Investigate Nude Photos Linked to Tyndall
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that detectives were trying to
determine whether nude photographs linked to a former University of
Southern California gynecologist show any of the hundreds of women
who allege he sexually harassed them during examinations.

The collection found in a self-storage unit rented by Dr. George
Tyndall appeared to include homemade pornography -- some of it
decades old and featuring Tyndall with women apparently unconnected
to the university -- but also photos of unclothed women in what
appeared to be a medical exam room, police Capt. Billy Hayes told
the Los Angeles Times for an article published on Dec. 11.

The cache was found shortly after the Los Angeles Police Department
launched an investigation into Tyndall last spring, the Times
reported.

Police are looking into accusations by women that Tyndall took
inappropriate photos and groped students under the guise of medical
treatment during his three decades as a campus physician. Some
students also said he made crude and inappropriate remarks.

Hundreds of current and former USC students have made allegations
against Tyndall to the university, filed police reports or taken
part in at least a dozen pending state lawsuits against the school.
In October, USC agreed to settle a federal class-action suit on
behalf of Tyndall's patients for $215 million.

Tyndall, 71, resigned in 2017. He has denied wrongdoing and said
any photographs he took were for legitimate clinical and other
medical purposes. He has not been charged with a crime.

Detectives are trying to determine whether any of the photographs
found in the storage facility show patients at campus clinic
appointments.

Detectives have asked about the color scheme of examination rooms
and identifying features for the students, such as tattoos or
jewelry they wore during their examinations, the Times said.

"He's telling these young ladies that he is taking photographs for
a study," Hayes said. "If they are . in his storage facility, it
doesn't give credence to his statements to them that he was using
(the photos) for research or to publish studies."

John Manly, an attorney representing many former Tyndall patients,
told the Times that between 10 and 20 of his clients were asked
questions by police that seemed designed to identify them in
photos.

"This plays into the worst nightmares of women," Mr. Manly said.

The Times said Tyndall's lawyer, Leonard Levine, declined to answer
questions about the photos but said in a statement that Tyndall "is
adamant that he has never sold, traded or shared any images of
patients he examined while conducting medical examinations at
USC."

The LAPD investigation is ongoing and a dozen detectives are
traveling the country to interview former patients, the Times said.
Detectives have presented cases involving 85 women to the sex
crimes unit of the Los Angeles County district attorney's office,
which will determine whether to file criminal charges.

A county grand jury also is hearing evidence about Tyndall. It has
yet to issue any indictments.

In a statement on Dec. 10, USC said it is cooperating with the
investigation. [GN]  


USC: Numerous Naked Photos Found in Tyndall Rental Storage Unit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBSLA reports that detectives found numerous naked photographs of
women in a rental storage unit belonging to former longtime
University of Southern California gynecologist Dr. George Tyndall,
who is at the center of a sexual misconduct scandal which has
rocked the university and involves hundreds of victims.

Some of the photos were of women who appeared to be in a medical
exam room, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times on Dec.
11. They were found in a raid of a storage unit owned by Tyndall.

The discovery was made while L.A. police detectives were tailing
the 71-year-old Tyndall, the Times reports. Their investigation
began in the spring of 2017. It's unclear exactly where the unit is
located.

Police told CBSLA a search warrant was served last summer at the
location, and that investigators uncovered additional evidence, but
would not offer details on the ongoing investigation.

Tyndall served as the only full-time gynecologist at the USC
Engemann Student Health Center for nearly 30 years. In 2016, the
school began investigating him over allegations of improper pelvic
exams and making racist and sexually inappropriate remarks. Former
colleagues had questioned his methods of pelvic exams,
specifically, his practice of digital insertion before using a
speculum.

Numerous women have stated Tyndall watched them undress and
proceeded to violate them during pelvic exams.

USC didn't terminate Tyndall's employment until June 2017. The
Times had been looking into Tyndall for months prior to the
university's public acknowledgment in May of 2018 that the school
had been investigating him.

Since the revelation, hundreds of women with misconduct complaints
against Tyndall have come forward and filed lawsuits against the
school, claiming that USC tried to cover up his sexual abuse.

As a result of the scandal, USC President C. L. Max Nikias
officially resigned his position in August. Two longtime student
health clinic administrators were also fired.

On Oct. 18, 93 more patients filed lawsuits against USC, bringing
the total number of women who have accused Tyndall of misconduct to
more than 400.

The following day, Oct. 19, USC announced it had reached a $215
million settlement in principle on a class-action lawsuit brought
against Tyndall. As part of the settlement, all class-action
members will receive compensation of $2,500, with some potentially
receiving more.

It is unclear how many of the more than 400 patients who have
accused Tyndall of misconduct will be part of the settlement for
the class-action lawsuit.

Tyndall, who has maintained his innocence, has never been arrested
or criminally charged. However, the L.A. County district attorney's
office is currently reviewing dozens of cases for possible
sex-crimes charges. A grand jury is currently hearing evidence
against Tyndall, the Times reports. [GN]


VICTIM SERVICES: Class Certified Under FDCPA in Solberg Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Vince Chhabria granted in large part the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled KAREN
SOLBERG, et al. v. VICTIM SERVICES, INC. D/B/A CORRECTIVESOLUTIONS,
et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-05266-VC (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs may pursue their Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
claims on behalf of a Rule 23(b)(3) class defined as:

     All persons in California to whom the defendants sent a
     collection demand in connection with a returned check from
     whom the defendants attempted to collect or collected money
     for checks written for personal, family, or household
     purposes, from December 1, 2013, to May 7, 2015.

The Class is limited to people who were sent the "old" version of
the letter before the Defendants entered into a consent decree with
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  In response to the
consent decree, the Defendants made several non-trivial changes to
the bad check diversion program that went into effect on May 8,
2015.

For starters, Judge Chhabria notes, the relevant district attorney
must now approve the list of people to whom the Defendants send
letters.  Because the Defendants are exempt from the FDCPA if,
among other requirements, they only contact someone following a
district attorney's determination of probable cause, a shift in the
district attorney's role could be significant for liability.  The
revised letters also no longer use the district attorney's
signature and they identify the Defendants by name, both changes
that might impact whether the letters are misleading.  Regardless
of whether these changes are ultimately dispositive, they are
surely material to the analysis.

As a result, Judge Chhabria adds, the named Plaintiffs -- all of
whom received the old letter -- cannot represent a class of people
who were subject to the revised program.

The analysis of whether class certification is appropriate for the
restitution claim under California's Unfair Competition Law is
otherwise comparable to the analysis for the FDCPA Class, Judge
Chhabria says.  The Defendants had previously argued that the UCL
class was not sufficiently cohesive because only some of the class
had been harmed by the letter, but the class is now limited to
people who "all suffered the same injury" by virtue of having paid
fees to the Defendants.

Accordingly, Judge Chhabria rules that the Plaintiffs may represent
a UCL class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) with this definition:

     All persons in California to whom the defendants sent an
     initial collection demand in connection with a returned
     check at any time from September 1, 2011, to May 7, 2015,
     and who subsequently paid any fees to the defendants in
     response to that letter.

Judge Chhabria declares that the separate FDCPA and UCL Classes are
created under Rule 23(d) for case management purposes; they are not
formally distinct subclasses that require separate representation,
citing See Am. Timber & Trading Co. v. First Nat'l Bank of Or., 690
F.2d 781, 786-87 (9th Cir. 1982); see also 3 Newberg on Class
Actions Section 7:32 (5th ed.).[CC]


VIRGINIA: Certification of Inmates Class Sought in Ofori Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled Terry K. Ofori, et al. v.
Harold W. Clarke, et al., Case No. 7:18-cv-00587-EKD-RSB (W.D.
Va.), moves for class certification.

Harold W. Clarke is the Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections.

The Plaintiffs allege that they and other inmates were subjected to
retaliation(s) for challenging several unlawful conducts or
policies and practices at the prison and with the VDOC.

Terry K. Ofori, who is currently incarcerated at the Wallens Ridge
State Prison, in Big Stone Gap, Virginia, appears pro se on behalf
of all the plaintiffs.[CC]


VOLT MANAGEMENT: Edwards Seeks OT Pay, Expense Reimbursement
------------------------------------------------------------
Evelynne Edwards, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Volt Management Corporation, Pegatron USA,
Inc., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
30-2018-01036644 (Cal. Super., December 7, 2018), seeks unpaid
overtime wages and interest thereon, redress for failure to
authorize or permit required meal periods, statutory penalties for
failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties
in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay
employees all wages due upon separation of employment and failure
to maintain time-keeping records, reimbursement of business-related
expenses, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable
attorney's fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code and
applicable Industrial Wage Orders.

Volt and Pegatron jointly operate a labor-contracting agency based
in Orange County where Edwards worked as an hourly, non-exempt
employee. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      Mikael H. Stahle, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
      1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Telephone: (310) 531-1900
      Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
      Email: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
             mstahle@maternlawgroup.com


WORTHINGTON PJ: O'Connor Suit Settlement Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Sheri Polster Chappell issued an opinion and order in the
lawsuit titled RONALD O'CONNOR, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. WORTHINGTON PJ, INC., Case No.
2:16-cv-00608-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla.), accepting and adopting United
States Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy's Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly, Judge Chappell:

   (1) granted the Joint Motion for Final Approval of Settlement,
       Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel,
       and Certification of Rule 23 Settlement Class and the
       Joint Supplemental Submission to the Motion for Final
       Approval;

   (2) accepted the parties' proposed order as modified by the
       Report and Recommendation.  Before the Court will enter
       the proposed order and judgment in this case, however, the
       parties are directed to file a modified proposed order
       consistent with this Opinion and Order and the Report and
       Recommendation; and

   (3) granting in part the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for an
       Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs:

       a. Plaintiffs are awarded $57,409 in attorneys' fees; and
       b. Plaintiffs are awarded $400 in costs.[CC]


YORK RISK: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Bree Gonzales, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
Georgia resident and Lyft driver has filed a class-action lawsuit
against a New Jersey-based insurance provider over allegations it
sends unwanted text messages.

Anthony Oliver filed a complaint individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals on Nov. 26 in Cook County
Circuit Court against York Risk Services Group Inc. alleging
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the defendant has a contract with Lyft
and attempts to contact Lyft drivers who have submitted an incident
report via text message. The plaintiff alleges that between Aug.
29, and Nov. 1, he received automated text messages from the
defendant regarding an incident report the defendant was managing,
and he responded with "stop," "no more texts," and "stop these
messages right now" in an attempt to unsubscribe. He alleges the
unauthorized texts invaded his privacy.

The plaintiff alleges the defendant sent unsolicited and
unauthorized automated text messages using an automatic telephone
dialing system in violation of the TCPA.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks an order
certifying the class; actual and statutory damages; an injunction
requiring the defendant to cease all unauthorized automated
telephone activities; attorney fees and costs; and other and
further relief the court deems just and equitable. He is
represented by Eugene Y. Turin of McGuire Law P.C. in Chicago.

Cook County Circuit Court case number 2018CH14581 [GN]


[*] American Tort Foundation Issues Judicial Hellholes Report
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sherman Joyce, writing for The Washington Examiner, reports that
the American Tort Reform Foundation issued its annual Judicial
Hellholes, identifying courts or legislatures in California,
Florida, New York, Missouri, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
Illinois, and Minnesota among the nation's "most unfair" in their
handling of civil litigation.

In this year's Judicial Hellholes, judges failed to reject "junk
science" and allowed consumer class-action lawsuits to proceed with
no actual injury or loss demonstrated. These same courts loosely
applied venue laws and allowed blatant "forum shopping." Lawyers
flocked to these jurisdictions to file cases, taking advantage of
plaintiff-friendly rules and procedures.

Injury used to be a core requirement of filing a lawsuit, but trial
lawyers chip away at that requirement every day. Claims brought are
based on speculation, risk of future harm, or creative theories of
potential financial loss. Courts in California, New York City, St.
Louis, and St. Clair County, Illinois, are filled with lawsuits
challenging food advertising and packaging, but no one was harmed
or misled. Lawyers filing these claims have a lucrative practice
and misuse vague consumer protection laws. Meanwhile, judges are
reluctant to dismiss absurd claims.

Judges in Judicial Hellholes further stack the deck against
defendants by refusing to adopt the Daubert standard for expert
testimony, allowing "junk science" to infiltrate courtrooms. The
U.S. Supreme Court directed judges to serve as "gatekeepers" to
weed out "junk science" and prevent its use as evidence, but many
judges fall short.

Supreme Courts in Minnesota and Florida rejected the Daubert
standard this year, refusing to align themselves with federal
courts and more than 30 state courts. Florida's legislature enacted
an expert evidence statute in 2013 based on the Daubert process,
but in October, Florida's Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional.
A month later, Minnesota's Supreme Court refused to enact an
evidence rule based on Daubert, even after the court's advisory
committee recommended adoption.

California and St. Louis judges allowed "junk science" to support
massive damage awards this year. St. Louis was home to a
multibillion-dollar judgment against Johnson & Johnson in a class
action lawsuit claiming asbestos in talcum powder caused ovarian
cancer, though the American Cancer Society has stated the link is
"mixed" and "biased." Then a California jury handed down a $289
million damage award in a case based on the unsubstantiated theory
that Roundup causes cancer.

Trial lawyers flock to these jurisdictions and depend on judges'
failure to enforce venue rules, thereby permitting blatant forum
shopping. For example, in St. Louis, 17 of 22 plaintiffs in the
recent talc case were from out-of-state, and in the Philadelphia
Court of Common Pleas, more than 80 percent of the plaintiffs in
their Complex Litigation Center are not residents of Pennsylvania.
This unfair practice robs taxpayers of their right to a speedy
trial and unnecessarily clogs local courts with out-of-state cases,
draining state resources.

Like other businesses, trial lawyers market their services. In the
second quarter of this year, trial lawyers spent $186 million
nationwide on TV advertisements, focusing heavily on California,
New York, Missouri, and Florida. California Bay Area and Los
Angeles trial lawyers spent a combined $9.4 million to subject
viewers to nearly 60,000 ads, while in New York City, they spent
$6.4 million on a smaller barrage of 22,000 TV ads inviting New
Yorkers to join class action lawsuits. The larger the class, the
more pressure on defendants to settle — and without needing to
show injury or loss, it becomes easier to find potential class
members.

More than a mere irritant, these ads are unexpectedly harmful. The
Food and Drug Administration documented that 61 patients stopped
using their prescribed blood-thinner medications in 2016 after
viewing these commercials. Six of those 61 patients died -- three
from stroke, one from cardiac arrest, one from a pulmonary
embolism, and one from an unreported cause.

Where does it end? Trial lawyers pour millions of dollars into
advertisements to find potential plaintiffs just to file abusive
lawsuits.

Let's restore integrity to these unfair civil justice systems and
encourage legislatures to adopt reforms and prevent further abuses.
It is ATRA's hope that this year's Judicial Hellholes report serves
as a catalyst for change in the nation's most imbalanced courts.

Sherman "Tiger" Joyce is president of the American Tort Reform
Association in Washington, D.C. [GN]


[*] Class Action in Australia Over Mortgage Loan Contracts Dropped
------------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Kane, writing for The Adviser, reports that a class action
lawsuit that was being planned on behalf of "Australian bank
customers that have entered into mortgage finance agreements with
banks since 2012" has been dropped due to a lack of a "clear cause
of action".

Law firm Chamberlains has announced that its major class action
against various Australian banks will no longer proceed despite
interest in the matter.

In May of 2018, it was announced that law firm Chamberlains had
been appointed to act in the planned class action lawsuit, which
was instructed by Roger Donald Brown of MortgageDeception.com to
represent various Australian bank customers that had been
"incurring financial losses as a result of entering into mortgage
loan contracts with banks since 2012".

The law firm had been calling on bank customers to join the class
action, led by Stipe Vuleta, if they had "incurred financial losses
due to irresponsible lending practices".

In an update to interested parties, seen by The Adviser,
Chamberlains commented: "Over the last few months, we have been
busy investigating the scope of a potential legal claim, which
could be commenced as a class action against various Australian
banks.

"During this process, we have engaged with senior and junior
counsel to assist with the questions of law to be raised if an
action were to be commenced in the Federal Court of Australia.

"Despite our efforts, we have been unable to identify a clear class
of claimants who have a clear cause of action against a particular
Australian bank."

It continued: "As a result, we are unable to take this process
further."

While the law firm has said that some may still have "an individual
case arising from [their] dealings with the banks, which may have
merit outside of the framework of a class action", it would
encourage those people to "seek independent legal advice about
[their] claim".

Class actions in focus

Several class actions against major lenders have already been
initiated following some of the revelations from the royal
commission, including four separate class actions against AMP on
the grounds that the company breached its obligations to customers
and engaged in "misleading and deceptive representations to the
market".

The legal action was announced after senior AMP executives appeared
before the royal commission as witnesses. Some of the executives
admitted to a number of potential crimes and suggested that these
were repeatedly mischaracterised to the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission (ASIC) and to its customers as being
"administrative errors".

These included providing false and misleading statements to the
regulator and charging customers for services that were not
provided.

The ASX-listed lender, which announced the immediate resignation of
its CEO and apologised "unreservedly for the misconduct and
failures in regulatory disclosures" earlier in 2018, has lost more
than $1 billion in shareholder value since March and could
potentially face criminal charges.

"His only crime was being black," said Jacky Eric Salvant, lawyer
for the Black Coalition of Quebec.

"The police the City of Montreal -- no one wants to spend money (on
this)," said Mr. Salvant, explaining that it is a measure in hopes
that they start taking racial profiling seriously. [GN]  


[] Weil Gotshal Issues December 2018 Class Action Monitor
---------------------------------------------------------
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP issued its Class Action Monitor for
December 2018.

In This Issue:

   -- Amendments to Rule 23 and New Procedural Guidance from N.D.
Cal. May Impact Class Action Settlements

   -- Will Article III Standing Prevent the Supreme Court from
Providing Clarity on Class Action Cy Pres Settlements?

   -- The Supreme Court Revisits Class Arbitration Yet Again —
Varela v. Lamps Plus, Inc. and New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira

A copy of the full publication is available at:

          https://is.gd/K0CZ2D [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 ***