CAR_Public/190108.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, January 8, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 6

                            Headlines

AAR MANUFACTURING: Faces Risley Labor Suit in Sacramento
ACCESS NATIONAL: Rubin Sues over Merger with Union Bankshares
AETHER LLC: Faces Delacruz ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AIRCONDITIONING & REFRIGERATION: Underpays Cashiers, Foster Claims
ALAMEDA HEALTH: Sosman Appeals N.D. California Ruling to 9th Cir.

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Faces Infuso Securities Suit in N.D. Calif.
ALLERGAN PLC: Klein Files Securities Class Suit in NY
ALLIANT ENERGY: US High Court Hears Iowa Property Owners' Appeal
AMF BOWLING: Underpays Operations Managers, Kimberling Claims
APHRIA INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Action Suit

APHRIA INC: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
APPTIO INC: Bushansky Securities Suit Challenges Sale to Vista
ARCHIPEL CAPITAL: Certification of Class Sought in Amerio Suit
ARIZONA: Cohn Appeals Decision in Parsons Suit to 9th Circuit
ARRIS INTERNATIONAL: Kent Seeks to Halt CommScope Merger Deal

ART VAN FURNITURE: Court Grants $5.875MM Bowman TCPA Settlement
BANK OF AMERICA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Fernandez Suit
BASS PRO OUTDOOR: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in McKeage Suit
BIG 5 CORP: Faces Brown Labor Suit in Sacramento
BIG MIKE'S: Class of Employees Certified in Fitzwater Suit

BIMBO BAKERIES: Faces Morones Labor Suit in Sacramento
BIRD ELECTRIC: Lopez Seeks Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
BLACKROCK INSTITUTIONAL: July 25 Class Cert Hearing in Baird Suit
BOEING COMPANY: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
BOEING COMPANY: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit

BRINKS INCORPORATED: Underpays Cashiers and Servers, Garcia Says
CANADA: Aug. 9 Claims Filing Deadline for 60s Scoop Survivors
CAREFUSION RESOURCES: Ramirez Suit Moved to S.D. California
CEMEX INC: Shortchanges Workers' Overtime Pay, Hopper Suit Says
CHEETAH MOBILE: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit

CHILDREN'S MERCY: MMPA Suit Remanded to Missouri State Court
CORECIVIC INC: Seeks 11th Circuit Review of Ruling in Ahmed Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Chen Securities Suit in W.D. Washington
CUYAHOGA, OH: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Winston v. CMHA
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Hilaire Suit Asserts TCPA Violation

EDISON INT'L: RM LAW Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
EDUCATION CORP: Litvine Seeks Unpaid Wages, Benefits Under WARN Act
ENERGY SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Dunn Alleges
EVENKO: Class Action Lawsuit Aims To End Electronic Delivery Fees
FANNIE MAY: Court OKs Bid to Dismiss Benson FDCA Suit

FERRARA CANDY: Patrick Sweeney Appeal Underway
FLINT, MI: Wright Appeals Decision in Waid Suit to 6th Circuit
FLY JAMAICA: Passengers File Class-Action Over Crash Landing
FURMANITE AMERICA: Boyd's FLSA Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
GEICO CHOICE: Court Narrows Claims in Johnson Suit

GENERAL MILLS: Court Dismisses Backus FDCA Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Ginebra Sues Over Faulty CP4 Fuel Injection Pumps
HARMAN MANAGEMENT: Court Denies Renewed Bid to Stay Larson
HOLY SMOKE BBQ: Class Status Sought in Conarton Lawsuit
IBI ARMORED SERVICES: Precil Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

IMPERVA INC: Faces Eliezer Suit over Merger Deal
INTERSECTIONS INC: Franchi Suit Challenges iSubscribed Merger
INTU CORP: Johnson Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
IOWA: Inmates Sue to Regain Access to Pornography
IPAYMENT INC: Faces Brims and Busch Labor Suit in Ventura County

JAMES T. VAUGHN: Dover Attorney In Class-Action Lawsuit
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Faces Correia Suit in C.D.California
JPMORGAN CHASE: Court OKs Conditional Certification in Rivenbark
JPMORGAN CHASE: Profited from Sale of Personal Info, Suit Says
KOHLER CO: Faces Delacruz ADA Suit in Southern District of New York

KPMG LLP: Judge Rules in Wide Sex Discrimination Suit
LATIUM NETWORK: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Solis Suit
LEGACY HEALTH: Nurses Sue Over Unlawful Pay Deductions
LOOP TRANSPORTATION: Houston Sues Over Unpaid Work-Related Costs
MAGNUSSEN IMPORTS: Soenardi Sues Over Unpaid Missed Meal Breaks

MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces Haley Class Suit in Md. Over Data Breach
MARRIOTT INT'L: Guests, Both Lawyers File First Class Action
MARRIOTT INT'L: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
MAXWELL TRAILERS: Fired Welders for Filing Labor Suit, Suit Says
MCKESSON CORP: Appeals 9th Cir. Ruling in True Health TCPA Suit

MIDLAND FUNDING: McCoy's Bid to Certify Class Entered and Cont'd
MINNESOTA: Black Elk et al. Suit vs. Sentencing Commission Underway
MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES: Handy Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
MONSANTO COMPANY: Barnes Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MULTINATIONAL SMITH: Hip Replacement Failures Trigger Suit Fears

N.A.R. INC: Vitrano Sues over Debt Collection Practices
NATIONAL SECURITIES: Ginzkey, et al. Sue for Loss on Investment
NEW DOMINION: Discloses Proposed Class Action Settlement
NORTHERN OIL: Court Junks Atkinson's 2nd Amended Securities Suit
OCEAN SPRAY: Committed Fraud, Massachusetts Lawsuit Says

ORANGE COAST: Cal. Affirms Reversal of Summary Judgment in Gerard
ORSCHELN FARM: Removes Hornbech et al. Suit to W.D. Missouri
OSCAR INSURANCE: Did Not Pay Insurance Claims, Patel Alleges
OVATIONS FOOD: Braxton Files Suit Over Time-Shaving Practices
PAPA JOHN'S: Seeks Ct. Nod to Notify Delivery Drivers re Suit

PEACHES BOUTIQUE: Alamo Wants to Notify Workers Class Under FLSA
PIONEER CREDIT: Ossipova Sues over Debt Collection Practices
PPDAI GROUP: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Action
PUERTOS TRANSPORT: Underpays Cashiers/Servers, Montero Claims
RHODE ISLAND: Faces Class Action Over Lack of Civics Education

RHODE ISLAND: Fails to Provide Adequate Education, Suit Says
RISTORANTE LA BUCA: Wright's Renewed Bid to Certify Class Denied
ROBERT FX SILLERMAN: Feb. 5 Conference Call in Guevoura Fund Suit
ROWAN COMPANIES: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
RUSSIAN DESSERTS: Lamaka Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

RYANAIR HOLDINGS: Jan. 7 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
SAFE HAVEN: Loses Bid to Junk Atilano Class Suit
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Holguin Sues over Debt Collection Practices
SCRIPPS HEALTH: Underpays Service Representatives, Cushion Says
SEALED AIR: Removes Martinez Suit to C.D. California

SENTOSA NURSING: Class-Action Status Granted in Human Trafficking
SERVICE COMPANIES: Removes Mijares et al. Suit to M.D. Florida
SHIRE PLC: Request for Withheld Docs in Intuniv Suit Narrowed
SHU HAN JU: Geng Seeks to Recoup Minimum and Overtime Pay
STOP ONE DELI: Laureano Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

TD AMERITRADE: Krukever's Revised Bid to Certify Class Denied
TENET HEALTHCARE: Norwood Suit Seeks Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
TERMAX CORP: Seeks Prelim. Approval of Settlement in Sosa Suit
TERNIUM SA: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
TERNIUM SA: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Fraud Class Action

TIGER NATURAL: Fishman Moves to Certify UCL/CLRA Class, Sub-Class
UNILEVER US: Wins Summary Judgment in Browning Consumer Suit
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA: Sued Over Underpaid Women Science Professors
VALLEY BROOK, OK: Police Accused of Acting Outside Jurisdiction
VENI-EXPRESS: Denied Workers Meal Break, Wage Statements, Says Suit

VERMILION PARISH: Removes Carr Suit to W.D. Louisiana
VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Mora Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers
WAL-MART INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, White et al. Claim
WELLS FARGO: Singh Asks Supreme Court to Revive Case
WHIPPLE LAW: Broom Sues Over FDCPA Violation

XANITOS INC: Lloyd Sues Over Biometrics Data Retention
YOGAWORKS INC: Salazar Sues over 40% Drop in Share Price

                            *********

AAR MANUFACTURING: Faces Risley Labor Suit in Sacramento
--------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
AAR Manufacturing Group. The case is captioned as DANIEL RISLEY,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. AAR MANUFACTURING GROUP; and DOES 1-100, Defendants,
Case No. 34-2018-00245478-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty.,
Nov. 28, 2018).

AAR Manufacturing, Inc. manufactures military mobility systems and
equipment. The company also focuses on three main product lines for
the military and OEM system development market: tactical shelter
systems, ISU® high mobility shipping containers, and air cargo
pallets and palletized systems. The company was incorporated in
1982 and is based in Wood Dale, Illinois. As on March 26, 2015, AAR
Manufacturing, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of TransDigm Group
Incorporated. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021


ACCESS NATIONAL: Rubin Sues over Merger with Union Bankshares
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL RUBIN, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ACCESS NATIONAL CORPORATION, JOHN C.
LEE IV, MICHAEL G. ANZILOTTI, J. RANDOLPH BABBITT, CHILDS F.
BURDEN, MICHAEL W. CLARKE, JOHN W. EDGEMOND, MARTIN S. FRIEDMAN,
THOMAS M. KODY, GARY D. LECLAIR, MARY LEIGH MCDANIEL, JANET A.
NEUHARTH, and ROBERT C. SHOEMAKER, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01563-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va., Dec. 18, 2018), is a class action
on behalf of the public stockholders of Access National Corporation
against Access and the members of its Board of Directors, for their
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On October 5, 2018, Access and Union Bankshares Corporation issued
a joint press release announcing they had entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Reorganization dated October 4. Pursuant to the terms
of the Merger Agreement, each share of Access common stock will be
converted into the right to receive 0.75 shares of Union common
stock. The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $610
million. On December 12, Access filed a Definitive Proxy Statement
on Schedule 14A with the SEC in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that Access
stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other things:
(i) the projections for Access and Union utilized by the Company's
financial advisor Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P. (Sandler) in its
financial analyses; (ii) the valuation analyses prepared by Sandler
in connection with the rendering of its fairness opinion; and (iii)
Sandler's potential conflicts of interest. The failure to
adequately disclose such material information constitutes a
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act as Access
stockholders need such information in order to cast a
fully-informed vote in connection with the Proposed Transaction. In
short, unless remedied, Access' public stockholders will be forced
to make a voting decision on the Proposed Transaction without full
disclosure of all material information concerning the Proposed
Transaction being provided to them, the lawsuit says.

Access National operates as the bank holding company for Access
National Bank that provides credit, deposit, mortgage, and wealth
management services to small and medium sized businesses,
professionals, and associated individuals primarily in the greater
Washington, D.C.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
          E-mail: etripodi@zlk.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
          Kelly K. Moran, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010

AETHER LLC: Faces Delacruz ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aether, LLC. The case
is captioned as EMANUEL DELACRUZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AETHER, LLC; and AETHER NY,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-11021-JGK (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 26,
2018). The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge John G. Koeltl.

Aether, LLC is an apparel retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
          Gottlieb & Associates
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (917) 796-7437
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com


AIRCONDITIONING & REFRIGERATION: Underpays Cashiers, Foster Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE FOSTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE AIRCONDITIONING & REFRIGERATION EXPERTS,
LLC; and MARVIN SCHUSTER, Defendant, Case No. 81291578 (Fla. Cir.,
Miami-Dade Cty., Nov. 27, 2018) is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as cashier and server.

The Airconditioning & Refrigeration Experts, LLC offers commercial
HVAC, refrigeration and ice machine services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALAMEDA HEALTH: Sosman Appeals N.D. California Ruling to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jas Sosman filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Jas Sosman v. Alameda Health System, Case No.
3:17-cv-06076-JD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

The appellate case is captioned as Jas Sosman v. Alameda Health
System, Case No. 18-17354, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by January 10, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on February 11, 2019;

   -- Appellant Jas Sosman's opening brief is due on March 21,
      2019;

   -- Appellee Alameda Health System's answering brief is due on
      April 22, 2019; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JAS SOSMAN, on behalf of herself, and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Howard Scott Leviant, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          E-mail: scott@setarehlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee ALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM, a public hospital
authority, is represented by:

          Fletcher C. Alford, Esq.
          Kevin Liu, Esq.
          GORDON REES LLP
          275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 986-5900
          E-mail: falford@grsm.com
                  kliu@grsm.com


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Faces Infuso Securities Suit in N.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID INFUSO, Individually and On Behalf Of All Other Similarly
Situated v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC., JOSEPH M. HOGAN, and JOHN F.
MORICI, Case No. 3:18-cv-07469 (N.D. Cal., December 12, 2018), is a
federal securities class action brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants, who purchased or
sold securities of Align, seeking to recover compensable damages
caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose to investors
that at the beginning of the year the Company changed its North
American Advantage Customer Loyalty Program by extending the
discount qualification period from quarterly to semi-annual and
created additional incentive tiers, which was intended to, and did,
result in "higher overall discounts" for its doctor customers and
substantial reduction of the average sales price (ASP).

The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants failed to disclose
to investors that in Q3 the Company initiated a new Invisalign
product promotion that resulted in substantial reduction of its
ASP, and that the promotions and discounts would materially impact
net income as a result of reduced profit margins.

Founded in 1997, Align is incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in San Jose, California.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.

Align is a global medical device company engaged in the design,
manufacture and marketing of brand name Invisalign(R) clear
aligners and iTero(R) intraoral scanners and services for
orthodontics, restorative and aesthetic dentistry.  The Company's
products are intended primarily for the treatment of misaligned
teeth.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael W. Stocker, Esq.
          Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
          Danielle Smith, Esq.
          Kristen McCulloch, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Ave., Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: mikes@hbsslaw.com
                  reed@hbsslaw.com
                  kristenm@hbsslaw.com
                  danielles@hbsslaw.com


ALLERGAN PLC: Klein Files Securities Class Suit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------
Steve Klein, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Allergan PLC, Brenton L. Saunders, and
Maria Teresa Hilado, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-12219 (S.D. N.Y.,
December 26, 2018) is a federal securities class action on behalf
of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Allergan shares between February 24, 2017, and December 19, 2018,
both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The 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) textured breast
implants manufactured by Allergan were linked to anaplastic large
cell lymphoma (ALCL); (ii) the foregoing link to cancer, when
revealed, would foreseeably force Allergan to recall those textured
breast implants from the market; and (iii) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.  Plaintiff
acquired Allergan shares at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the alleged
corrective disclosures.

Allergan is a pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures,
and commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic,
surgical, and regenerative medicine products worldwide with its
principal executive offices located at Clonshaugh Business and
Technology Park, Coolock, Dublin, D17 E400, Ireland. Allergan's
shares trade in an efficient market on the NYSE under the ticker
symbol "AGN.". The Company was formerly known as Actavis plc and
changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015.

Brenton L. Saunders has served as the President and Chief Executive
Officer of Allergan at all relevant times.

Maria Teresa Hilado has served as the Chief Financial Officer of
Allergan at all relevant times.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


ALLIANT ENERGY: US High Court Hears Iowa Property Owners' Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court is reviewing a case filed by
property owners who allege that more than $6 billion in property
damages occurred when the Defendants, Alliant Energy's (LNT)
CRANDIC Railway and Union Pacific Railroad (UNP), loaded weighted
and joined rail cars onto over century old, dilapidated rail
bridges ahead of a near annual minor flood (Griffioen et al. vs.
Alliant Energy, Union Pacific et al., Iowa District Court for Linn
County, Civil Case Class Action No. LACV078694).  Plaintiffs allege
this resulted in two rail bridges collapsing, leading to subsequent
catastrophic flooding. The case, involving flooding in 2008, has
been winding its way through state and federal courts for years.

The railroads claim that federal law preempts the property owners'
right to sue under state law, and since there is no remedy under
federal law, the railroads argue they are immune from being sued.

Lawyers representing the property owners, however, argue that when
Congress enacted the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination
(ICCTA), which deals with transportation issues like rates and
disagreements over damaged goods in transit, they did not intend to
immunize railroads from garden variety suits for property damage
like the present one.

According to an August 2007 GAO report on Railroad Bridges and
Tunnels - Federal Rule in Providing Safety Oversight and Freight
Infrastructure Investment Could Be Better Targeted, there are over
76,000 railroad bridges in this country, most of which are over 100
years old and the federal regulators at the Federal Railroad
Administration have only limited resources for inspecting the
bridges and ensuring their safety. The Property Owners submit that
a ruling that states should have no role at all in ensuring the
safety of the bridges within their borders would be poor public
policy.

In a June 22, 2018 decision, the Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed a
district court's order granting Defendants' motion for judgment on
pleadings based on federal preemption, Case No. 16-1462 (Iowa).  At
issue before the State Supreme Court was whether property owners'
state-law damage claims against the railroad bridge owners alleging
that the design and operation of the railroad bridges resulted in
flood damage to other properties were preempted by the Federal
Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA), 49 U.S.C.
10501(b).   The district court concluded that the ICCTA expressly
preempted Plaintiffs' state law claims. The State Supreme Court
held that the ICCTA did indeed preempt Plaintiffs' action.

In appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, attorneys for the property
owners noted: "We respectfully disagree with the Iowa Supreme
Court's ruling and look forward to seeking review of the decision
by the United States Supreme Court so that our clients can
hopefully get their day in court where we can present evidence, the
truth, and scientific facts to prove what caused the 2008 Flood in
Cedar Rapids while exposing the great lengths others took to hide
the truth from the public."

The Supreme Court case is, MARK GRIFFIOEN, JOYCE LUDVICEK, MIKE
LUDVICEK, SANDRA SKELTON, BRIAN VANOUS, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Petitioners, vs. CEDAR RAPIDS
AND IOWA CITY RAILWAY COMPANY, ALLIANT ENERGY CORPORATION, UNION
PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, and UNION PACIFIC CORPORATION, the
Respondents, Case No. 18-499 (U.S.).[BN]

Attorneys for Petitioners:

          Eric J. Ratinoff, Esq.
          ERIC RATINOFF LAW CORP
          401 Watt Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95864
          Telephone: (916) 473 1529
          E-mail: eric@ericratinoff.com

               - and -

          C. Brooks Cutter, Esq.
          John R. Parker, JR .
          CUTTER LAW P.C.
          401 Watt Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95864
          Telephone: (916) 290-9400
          E-mail: bcutter@cutterlaw.com
                  jparker@cutterlaw.com

               - and -

          Russel G. Petti, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RUSSELL G. PETTI
          466 Foothill Blvd., No. 389
          La Canada, CA 91011
          Telephone: (818) 952-2168
          E-mail: RPetti@petti-legal.com

               - and -

          Sam S. Heronick, Esq.
          SAM S HERONICK LAW FIRM , P.C.
          4125 Glass Road NE
          Cedar Rapids, IA 52402
          Telephone: (319) 366-8193
          E-mail: sam@samlawpc.com

               - and -

          Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          E-mail: EAW@wexlerwallace.com


AMF BOWLING: Underpays Operations Managers, Kimberling Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
FREDRICK KIMBERLING, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMF BOWLING CENTERS, INC. d/b/a
BOWLMOR AMF CENTERS; BOWLERO CORPORATION; EDWIN HERNANDEZ; FLORES
CARPIO a/k/a FLORAL CARPIO; and DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE, Case No.
18VECV00217 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 26, 2018) is an
action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Kimberling was employed by the Defendants as
operations manager.

AMF Bowling Centers Inc., doing business as Bowlmor AMF Centers,
owns and operates bowling venues worldwide. The company was founded
in 1946 and is based in Mechanicsville, Virginia with additional
offices in New York, New York. AMF Bowling Centers Inc. operates as
a subsidiary of Bowlmor AMF Corp. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas T. Hua, Esq.
          Giacomo Gallai, Esq.
          Steven C. Gonzalez, Esq.
          HUA GALLAI, LLP
          433 North Camden Drive, 4th Floor
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 279-5239
          Facsimile: (480) 393-4433
          E-mail: Nick@hua-gallai.com
                  gg@hua-gallai.com
                  steve@hua-gallai.com


APHRIA INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities
of Aphria Inc. ("Aphria" or the "Company") (NYSE: APHA) between
July 17, 2018 and December 4, 2018, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover Aphria shareholders'
investment losses.

If you purchased Aphria securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options, please visit Aphria Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Daniel Sadeh toll free at (877)
779-1414 or dsadeh@bernlieb.com.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Latin American assets acquired by the Company lacked
adequate licenses to operate and were overvalued; (2) the
acquisition of the Latin American assets would enrich the Company's
CEO and other insiders at the expense of shareholders; and (3) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

On December 3, 2018, Quintessential Capital Management and
Hindenburg Research published a report alleging, among other
things, that the Company's recent acquisitions in Latin America
were part of a series of transactions designed to enrich Company
insiders and that these acquisitions lacked established operations
and/or licenses to operate in the cannabis industry.

On this news, Aphria's stock fell $1.85 per share or approximately
23% to close at $6.05 per share on December 3, 2018, damaging
investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 4, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Aphria securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options, please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/aphria-inc-apha-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-99/.


         Daniel Sadeh, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Website: http://www.bernlieb.com
         Telephone: (877) 779-1414
         Email: dsadeh@bernlieb.com [GN]


APHRIA INC: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Aphria Inc. (NYSE: APHA) securities between July
17, 2018 and December 4, 2018 the ("Class Period"). Investors have
until February 4, 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 materially false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose to investors: (i) that Latin American assets acquired by
the company lacked adequate licenses to operate and were
overvalued; and (ii) that the acquisition of Latin American assets
would enrich the company's CEO and other insiders at the expense of
shareholders. The complaint further alleges that, as a result of
the foregoing, investors purchased Aphria's securities at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and suffered
investment losses as a result of defendants' conduct.

If you purchased Aphria securities on a US stock exchange, whether
the NYSE or over the counter, 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.

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


APPTIO INC: Bushansky Securities Suit Challenges Sale to Vista
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. APPTIO, INC. SUNNY GUPTA, THOMAS BOGAN, PETER
KLEIN, JOHN MCADAM, MATTHEW MCILWAIN, REBECCA JACOBY, RAJEEV SINGH,
and KATHLEEN PHILIPS, Case No. 1:18-cv-01954-UNA (D. Del., December
11, 2018), seeks to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction,
pursuant to which Apptio will be acquired by Vista Equity Partners
Management, LLC, through Vista's affiliates Bellevue Parent, LLC,
and Bellevue Merger Sub, Inc.

On November 11, 2018, Apptio issued a press release announcing it
had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated Nov. 9,
2018, to sell Apptio to Vista.  Under the terms of the Merger
Agreement, each Apptio stockholder will receive $38 in cash for
each share of Apptio common stock they own.  The Proposed
Transaction is valued at approximately $1.94 billion.  The
Plaintiff contends that the Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule
14A filed with the SEC in connection with the Proposed Transaction
omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things, the Company insiders' potential conflicts of interest and
the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses
that support the fairness opinion provided by Qatalyst Partners
LP.

Apptio is a Delaware corporation, with its principal executive
offices located in Bellevue, Washington.  The Company provides
cloud-based technology business management solutions to
enterprises.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers
of the Company.

Founded in 2007, Apptio is the business management system of record
for hybrid information technology ("IT"), a technique in which an
enterprise uses a combination of on-premises and cloud-based
services.  Apptio's cloud-based platform and Software as a Service
("SaaS") applications allow IT leaders to manage, plan and optimize
their technology spending across on-premises and the cloud.

Vista is a U.S.-based investment firm focused on software, data and
technology-enabled businesses. Vista has offices in Austin, San
Francisco, Chicago, and Oakland and over $43 billion in cumulative
capital commitments.  Parent is a Delaware limited liability
company and an affiliate of Vista.  Merger Sub is a Delaware
corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent, and an affiliate
of Vista.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
          O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC
          901 N. Market St., Suite 1000
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 778-4000
          E-mail: rernst@oelegal.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
          Kelly K. Moran, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
          E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com
                  mrogovin@weisslawllp.com
                  kmoran@weisslawllp.com


ARCHIPEL CAPITAL: Certification of Class Sought in Amerio Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled STEVEN AMERIO and ANDREW
GOLDBERG, Individually and as Co-Lead Plaintiffs on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GREGORY W. GRAY, JR.; GREGORY P.
EDWARDS; ARCHIPEL CAPITAL LLC; BIM MANAGEMENT LP; BENNINGTON
INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, INC.; and against all in a representative
and fiduciary capacity as acting GENERAL PARTNERS and CONTROL
MEMBERS of BENNINGTON-EVERLOOP LP,; ARCHIPEL CAPITAL-AGRIVIDA LLC;
ARCHIPEL CAPITAL-BLOOM ENERGY LP; ARCHIPEL CAPITAL-LATE STAGE FUND
LP; ARCHIPEL CAPITAL-LINEAGEN LP; ARCHIPEL CAPITAL-SOCIAL MEDIA
FUND LP, (1, 2, 3 4), and against each said funds Individually as
Limited Partnership Enterprises and as Attorneys and Publishers of
all Private Placement Memorandums in connection with each/any/or
all of the above entities; and Jane Does and Mary Roes (#1-10),
Case No. 5:15-cv-00538-DNH-TWD (N.D.N.Y.), ask the Court to certify
this class:

     All persons and entities who purchased securities sold by
     or through any of the Defendants named in this matter,
     including GREGORY W. GRAY, JR., GREGORY P. EDWARDS, ARCHIPEL
     CAPITAL, LLC, BIM MANAGEMENT, LP, BENNINGTON INVESTMENT
     MANAGEMENT, INC., BENNINGTON-EVERLOOP, LP, ARCHIPEL
     CAPITAL-AGRIVIDA, LLC, ARCHIPEL CAPITAL-BLOOM ENERGY, LP,
     ARCHIPEL CAPITAL-LATE STAGE FUND, LP, and ARCHIPEL CAPITAL
     SOCIAL MEDIA FUND, LP (1,2,3 & 4) from 2011 through 2014,
     inclusive.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Co-Class Counsel and,
pursuant to Rule 23(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to
approve the proposed program to give notice of Class certification
to the members of the Class via first-class mail.

The Court will commence a hearing on February 8, 2019, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin P. Roddy, Esq.
          James E. Tonrey, Jr., Esq.
          WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A.
          90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095
          Telephone: (732) 636-8000
          E-mail: kroddy@wilentz.com
                  jtonrey@wilentz.com

               - and -

          John C. Cherundolo, Esq.
          Patrick Lannon, Esq.
          CHERUNDOLO LAW FIRM, PLLC
          AXA Tower 1, 17th Floor
          100 Madison Street
          Syracuse, NY 13202
          Telephone: (315) 449-9500


ARIZONA: Cohn Appeals Decision in Parsons Suit to 9th Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Movant Michael J. Cohn filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Victor Parsons, et al. v. Charles Ryan, et al., Case
No. 2:12-cv-00601-ROS, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona, Phoenix.

The appellate case is captioned as Victor Parsons, et al. v.
Charles Ryan, et al., Case No. 18-17351, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Several appeals have been filed by various parties in the lawsuit.

Charles L. Ryan is the Director of the Arizona Department of
Corrections.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Magistrate
Judge David K. Duncan (i) granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion
for attorneys' fees, and (ii) granted in part and denied in part
their motion for reconsideration.

The Magistrate Judge awarded the Plaintiffs $1,107,361.40 in
attorneys' fees and $152,630.58 in costs, for a total of
$1,259,991.98 pursuant to the parties' Stipulation.  The Magistrate
Judge granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Reconsideration.

The District Court approved in 2015 a settlement agreement between
the Arizona Department of Corrections and inmates in its 10
state-run prisons, which should improve medical care for
prisoners.

Under the settlement, the Arizona Department of Corrections ask the
Legislature for increased funding for health care staffing and
institute plans to treat prisoners with chronic diseases.  The
agency, which admitted no wrongdoing, will also give annual flu
shots and provide colon cancer screenings and mammograms to inmates
of a certain age.  Corrections officers are to refrain from using
pepper spray on prisoners unless there is an "imminent threat"
present.

The settlement comes after a 2012 class action in which inmates
claimed they were subjected to "unnecessary pain and suffering,
preventable injury, amputation, disfigurement and death" in Arizona
prisons.  They also claimed prison staff were ill-prepared and
-trained to handle medical emergencies.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellant Michael J. Cohn's opening brief is due on
      February 11, 2019;

   -- Appellees Richard Pratt and Charles L. Ryan's answering
      brief is due on March 11, 2019; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Movant-Appellant MICHAEL J. COHN, at ASPC - Arizona State Prison
Complex - Tucson, in Tucson, Arizona, appears pro se.[BN]

Defendants-Appellees CHARLES L. RYAN, Director, Arizona Department
of Corrections; and RICHARD PRATT, Interim Division Director,
Division of Health Services, Arizona Department of Corrections, are
represented by:

          Nicholas D. Acedo, Esq.
          Rachel Love, Esq.
          Daniel Patrick Struck, Esq.
          STRUCK LOVE BOJANOWSKI & ACEDO PLC
          3100 W. Ray Road, Suite 300
          Chandler, AZ 85226
          Telephone: (480) 420-1600
          E-mail: nacedo@swlfirm.com
                  rlove@swlfirm.com
                  dstruck@swlfirm.com

               - and -

          Courtney Beller, Esq.
          Timothy Berg, Esq.
          Todd Stephen Kartchner, Esq.
          Shannon McKeon, Esq.
          FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C.
          2394 East Camelback Road, Suite 600
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 916-5402
          E-mail: cbeller@fclaw.com
                  tberg@fclaw.com
                  tkartchn@fclaw.com
                  smckeon@fclaw.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Gottfried, Esq.
          ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          2005 N. Central Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 542-7693
          E-mail: Michael.Gottfried@azag.gov


ARRIS INTERNATIONAL: Kent Seeks to Halt CommScope Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kent, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Arris International Plc, Robert J.
Stanzione, Bruce Mcclelland, Andrew W. Barron, J. Timothy Bryan,
James A. Chiddix, Andrew T. Heller, Jeong Kim, Barton Y. Shigemura,
Doreen A. Toben, Debora J. Wilson, David A. Woodle, And Commscope
Holding Company, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01960 (D. Del.,
December 11, 2018) seeks: to enjoin defendants and all persons
acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or
closing the proposed acquisition of ARRIS International PLC by
CommScope Holding Company, 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.

Pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement, Arris' stockholders
will receive $31.75 in cash for each share of common stock they
hold.

ARRIS is into IP, video, and broadband technology, and partners
with service providers and enterprises to provide core-to-edge
network connectivity.

The complaint asserts that the merger's proxy statement failed to
disclose all line items used to calculate non-GAAP EBITDA,
unlevered free cash flow and all underlying line items, a
reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics and projections for
years 2022 and 2023. Disclosure of such projected financial
information provides stockholders with a basis to project the
company's future financial performance, the complaint says. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (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 Dr., Ste. 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800
      Email: rm@maniskas.com


ART VAN FURNITURE: Court Grants $5.875MM Bowman TCPA Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting
Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in
the case captioned MICHAEL BOWMAN, on behalf of himself and a
similarly situated class, Plaintiffs, v. ART VAN FURNITURE, INC.,
Defendant. Case No. 17-11630. (E.D. Mich.).

THe Plaintiff alleges that he has received multiple prerecorded
calls from the Defendant to his telephone without prior consent, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

The settlement agreement includes both the creation of a Settlement
Fund in the amount of
$5,875,000 and prospective injunctive relief.   

The settlement class is defined as all individuals and entities who
were called by or on behalf of Art Van Furniture through the use of
pre-recorded voice technology between May 23, 2013 and the date of
entry of the Preliminary Approval Order.

Summary postcard notice was mailed via United States Postal Service
on August 10, 2018, to 1,162,166 physical addresses; 103,751
postcards were returned as undeliverable and of those, 77,372 were
re-mailed to updated addresses. Summary email notices were also
sent to settlement class members with valid email addresses. As of
October 9, 2018, Epiq has emailed and mailed Notices to 1,167,769
unique Settlement Class Members, with notice to 86,600 unique,
likely Settlement Class Members currently known to be
undeliverable, which resulted in an approximately 92.6% deliverable
rate to identified likely Settlement Class Members.

The Court finds that the method, form and content of the Notice
satisfies Rule 23 and due process.

The Defendant filed a declaration on implementation of CAFA notice.
The declaration was from the Legal Notice Manager for Epiq Class
Action & Claims Solutions Inc., stating that at the direction of
the Defendant's counsel, 57 officials, including the Attorney
General for the United States, and the Attorneys General of each of
the 50 states, the District of Columbia and the United States'
Territories were identified to receive CAFA notice (of proposed
settlement of class action) and on May 4, 2018, such notice
packages were sent by Epiq via certified mail to all, and
additionally sent by United Parcel Service to the Attorney General
of the United States .

This settlement was negotiated by adversarial parties and
experienced counsel, with the help and oversight of mediator Judge
Denlow of JAMS, Chicago. The parties engaged in a full day
mediation, then a series of follow-up telephone negotiations. The
parties reached an agreement in principle prior to a scheduled
hearing on Defendant's motion to dismiss.  Plaintiff's counsel
engaged in an investigation into Defendant and its alleged
telemarketing calls, and the parties exchanged some preliminary
factual details, followed by information regarding the potential
class size. Through this exchange of information, Plaintiff's
counsel asserts that class counsel were able to make an informed
decision regarding the appropriateness of the settlement. The
proposed settlement agreement appears to be the product of serious,
informed, noncollusive negotiation.  
Complexity, Expense And Likely Duration Of Litigation

The parties did not engage in formal discovery. Plaintiff argues
that this is not an obstacle to final approval, as long as the
parties have sufficient information to evaluate their positions.
The parties exchanged sufficient information to gauge class size,
Defendant's exposure, and the ability to reach class members;
Plaintiff investigated information related to Defendant's marketing
and the nature of the pre-recorded messages at issue. Given the
issues raised by the alleged TCPA violations, the parties had
enough information to evaluate their positions for purposes of
settlement.

The Plaintiff argues that the proposed settlement agreement is
reasonable and provides fair relief, both monetary and prospective,
to the class members. The $5,875,000 settlement fund would be
reduced by amounts for settlement administration expenses, an
incentive award to the class representative, and a fee award, with
the remaining amount to be divided by the total number of Award
Units (equal to the number of valid claims approved by the Court).
At the time of filing this motion, 31,471 class members had filed
claims and class counsel estimated that each claim would be worth
roughly $98.87. In his motion for preliminary approval, Plaintiff
provided a list of TCPA settlements that were deemed fair and
reasonable, in a range of award amounts per claimant.   

The Court finds that the proposed settlement offers fair and
reasonable relief when weighed against the risks of litigation and
likelihood of collecting a large jury award.

Class Counsel and Plaintiff Bowman support approval of the
settlement. The Court previously considered Class Counsels'
qualifications and experience in handling class action suits
similar to this one and gives some weight to their opinion that the
settlement is in the best interest of the Class.

Postcard and/or email notice was sent directly to 1,167,769 unique
settlement class members of which 86,600 are known to be
undeliverable, resulting in 1,081,769 class members noticed. Of
these, 31,471 class members filed claims, 348 opted out and only
three have filed objections. The number opting out is approximately
.03% of the number noticed. The claims response rate among those
who were noticed is approximately 2.9%. This response rate is among
those which courts have found acceptable. The claims response rate,
the numbers opting out, and the number objecting suggests a
favorable reaction by absent class members and weighs in favor of
approving the settlement.  

Class counsel addressed each of the objections in turn at the
fairness hearing. Counsel for one of the objectors appeared at the
hearing and was heard. Here is a brief summary of the objections:

When considering the substance of the objections and the number of
objections against the number of filed claims, the Court concludes
that the overall response to the settlement agreement was
favorable.

Due to the large size of the class it is in the public interest to
pursue this action through a settlement, to promote uniformity in
judgment, and the efficient administration of justice.

The Court finds that overall, the above factors weigh in favor of
final approval of the Settlement Agreement. The settlement
agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate. The action will be
dismissed with prejudice and the settlement agreement entered
without any admission of liability, fault or wrongdoing by
Defendant.  

The motion for approval of attorneys' fee and class representative
incentive award is addressed in a separate opinion and order.

Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendant's motion for final
approval of class action settlement. The parties are directed to
fund and distribute the Settlement Fund in accordance with the
Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 10, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb5otc4c from
Leagle.com.

MICHAEL BOWMAN, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick H. Peluso --
ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com -- Woodrow & Pelusco, LLC, Stefan
Coleman, Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, PLLC, Steven L. Woodrow --
swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com -- Woodrow & Peluso, LLC, Taylor True
Smith -- tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com -- Woodrow & Pelusco, LLC &
Bradley J. Friedman, Law Offices of Bradley J. Friedman.

Art Van Furniture, Inc, Defendant, represented by Cathrine F.
Wenger, Art Van, Jeremy S. Newman -- sangstreich@kellogghansen.com
-- Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C., Kevin B.
Huff -- khuff@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel &
Frederick, P.L.L.C. & Martin Wojslaw Jaszczuk --
mjaszczuk@jaszczuk.com -- Jaszczuk PC.


BANK OF AMERICA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Fernandez Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Joshua Boswell, Jose Fernandez and Alex Yong filed an
appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuits styled Jose Fernandez,
et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., Case Nos. 2:17-cv-06104-MWF-MWF-JC
and 2:17-cv-06120-MWF-RAO, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 17, 2018, the
Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald denied two motions for
certification filed by the Plaintiffs.  Judge Fitzgerald opined
that the Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification (the "Certification
Motion") is denied in its entirety because the Plaintiffs fail to
present clear evidence of any specific policy governing the
employment status (exempt versus non-exempt) of Bank of America's
lending officers.

Judge Fitzgerald also denied in its entirety the Motion for FLSA
Conditional Certification and for an Order Circulating 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b) Notice (the "FLSA Motion") because the Plaintiffs
fail to establish that they are "similarly situated" to other
members of the proposed collective action.

Plaintiffs Jose Fernandez and Alex Yong initiated this action on
August 17, 2017.  On April 6, 2018, this action was consolidated
with Boswell v. Bank of America Corp., et al., No. 2:17-cv-6120-MWF
(RAOx).  The Putative Lead Plaintiffs were previously employed by
Bank of America: Plaintiff Boswell as a mortgage loan officer from
September 2015 to March 2017, Plaintiff Yong as a mortgage lending
officer from October 2013 to September 2014, and Plaintiff
Fernandez as a mortgage originator from September 2013 to October
2014.

The appellate case is captioned as Jose Fernandez, et al. v. Bank
of America, N.A., Case No. 18-80187, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners JOSE FERNANDEZ, ALEX YONG and JOSHUA
BOSWELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          Mark Russell Thierman, Esq.
          THIERMAN BUCK LLP
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
          E-mail: josh@thiermanbuck.com
                  mark@thiermanbuck.com

               - and -

          Eileen Goldsmith, Esq.
          Michael Rubin, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          E-mail: egoldsmith@altshulerberzon.com
                  mrubin@altshulerberzon.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Paul Stevens, Esq.
          STEVENS, LC
          700 S. Flower Street, Suite 660
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (310) 597-5107
          E-mail: pstevens@stevenslc.com

Defendant-Respondent BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., is represented by:

          Apalla Chopra, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6000
          E-mail: achopra@omm.com

               - and -

          Adam P. KohSweeney, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 984-8700
          E-mail: akohsweeney@omm.com


BASS PRO OUTDOOR: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in McKeage Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Robert McKeage and Janet McKeage filed an appeal from
the District Court's order dated November 8, 2018, and judgment
dated November 14, 2018, entered in their lawsuit styled Robert
McKeage, et al. v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, et al., Case No.
6:12-cv-03157-GAF, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri - Springfield.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed against the Defendants alleging, among other things, that
they violated Missouri law by engaging in the unauthorized practice
of law when they charged document fees for the preparation of legal
documents.

The appellate case is captioned as Robert McKeage, et al. v. Bass
Pro Outdoor World, LLC, et al., Case No. 18-3633, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Robert McKeage, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, and Janet McKeage, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          David L. Baylard, Esq.
          BAYLARD, BILLINGTON, DEMPSEY & JENSEN, P.C.
          30 S. McKinley
          Union, MO 63084-0000
          Telephone: (636) 583-5103
          E-mail: dbaylard@bbd-law.com

               - and -

          Steve Brett Garner, Esq.
          Chandler Gregg, Esq.
          STRONG-GARNER-BAUER P.C.
          415 E. Chestnut Expressway
          Springfield, MO 65802
          Telephone: (417) 887-4300
          E-mail: sgarner@stronglaw.com
                  chandler@stronglaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC; TMBC, LLC; and
Tracker Marine Retail, LLC, are represented by:

          Derek A. Ankrom, Esq.
          Jason C. Smith, Esq.
          SPENCER FANE LLP
          2144 E. Republic Road, Suite B300
          Springfield, MO 65804
          Telephone: (417) 888-1000
          E-mail: dankrom@spencerfane.com
                  jcsmith@spencerfane.com

               - and -

          William R. Burns, Esq.
          Craig M. Warner, Esq.
          Michael W. Youtt, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 751-3200
          E-mail: bburns@kslaw.com
                  cwarner@kslaw.com
                  myoutt@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Telephone: (404) 572-4600
          E-mail: zmcentyre@kslaw.com


BIG 5 CORP: Faces Brown Labor Suit in Sacramento
------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Big 5 Corp. The case is captioned as CONNER BROWN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIG 5
CORP.; and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
34-2018-00245307-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 27,
2018).

Big 5 Corp. operates as a retailer of sporting goods in the western
United States. Its stores carry products from various brands. Big 5
Corp. was incorporated in 1997 and is based in El Segundo,
California. Big 5 Corp. operates as a subsidiary of Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corp. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554


BIG MIKE'S: Class of Employees Certified in Fitzwater Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Katherine P. Nelson issued an order in the
lawsuit titled WENDY FITZWATER v. MIKE COLE, SR, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-00137-N (S.D. Ala.):

   -- denying the Defendants' motion to stay proceedings; and

   -- granting the Plaintiff's "Motion for Expedited
      Court-Supervised Notice to the Putative Class and for
      Conditional Certification."

The Court conditionally certifies a class under 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b):

    "All current and former employees of Big Mike's Steakhouse
     for whom Defendants claimed a 'tip credit' by paying them a
     direct hourly wage of less than $7.25 per hour for any work
     week since September 10, 2015."

According to the Order, Ms. Fitzwater's counsel may notify all
putative class members of this action and their ability to opt into
it using Fitzwater's second amended form Notice of Collective
Action, but with a correction to Section 4 changing "September 10,
2018" to "September 10, 2015."  Her counsel is authorized to send
said notice to the putative class members via U.S. Mail and
electronic mail, and is also authorized to post the notice on Web
sites.

Judge Nelson also ruled that the Defendants shall provide to Ms.
Fitzwater's counsel information about all putative class members,
including full name; location(s) worked; current or last known home
address and all known e-mail addresses.

All putative class members shall have until April 1, 2019, to opt
into this action by returning to Ms. Fitzwater's counsel the form
"Consent to Become Party Plaintiff" form attached to the approved
Notice of Collective Action.  However, any putative class members
whose U.S. Mail notice is returned to counsel as undeliverable
shall have until May 1, 2019, to return their notice.

No later than May 13, 2019, Ms. Fitzwater shall file with the
Court, in a single document, (1) a list of the names of all
putative class members who have timely returned consent forms, and
(2) all timely returned consent forms.[CC]


BIMBO BAKERIES: Faces Morones Labor Suit in Sacramento
------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. The case is captioned as MARIA MORONES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BIMBO BAKERIES USA INC.; and DOES 1-50, Defendant,
Case No. 34-2018-00245481-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty.,
Nov. 28, 2018).

Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. offers baked goods and snacks. The company
provides breads, rolls, bagels, English muffins, and sweet baked
goods. The company was incorporated in 1993 and is based in
Horsham, Pennsylvania. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B. de C.V. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554


BIRD ELECTRIC: Lopez Seeks Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bird Electric Enterprises, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00231, (W.D. Tex., December 11, 2018)
seeks unpaid back wages due, liquidated damages equal in amount to
the unpaid compensation, taxable costs and allowable expenses of
this action, attorneys' fees, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, declaratory and injunctive relief and such other and
further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Bird is an electrical company that designs, constructs, maintains
and restores electric power infrastructure for the complete
electric supply chain. It provides electrical services across the
Permian Basin, including in Midland County where Lopez worked as an
electrician. He claims unpaid but compensable hours for his travel
time and compensable preparatory and concluding work before and
after his assigned shift. [BN]

Lopez is represented by:

      Daniel A. Verrett, Esq.
      MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      The Commissioners House at Heritage Square
      2901 Bee Cave Road, Box L
      Austin, TX 78746
      Tel: (512) 782-0567
      Fax: (512) 782-0605
      Email: daniel@morelandlaw.com

             - and -

      Edmond S. Moreland, Jr.
      MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      700 West Summit Drive
      Wimberley, TX 78676
      Tel: (512) 782-0567
      Fax: (512) 782-0605
      Email: edmond@morelandlaw.com


BLACKROCK INSTITUTIONAL: July 25 Class Cert Hearing in Baird Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, Oakland Division, issued an Order modifying case
schedule in the case captioned Charles Baird, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A., et al., Defendants.
Case No. 4:17-cv-01892-HSG. (N.D. Cal.).

The Court entered a stipulated order modifying the case schedule by
setting, among other dates, the close of fact discovery on
September 21, 2018; the close of expert discovery on class issues
on December 21, 2018; and the completion of briefing on the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March 14, 2019.

The Plaintiffs and the BlackRock Defendants have diligently pursued
discovery in this case for over a year, including by exchanging and
responding to numerous requests for production (RFPs),
interrogatories, and requests for admission, and by taking the
depositions of nine fact witnesses.
  
BlackRock has represented that, by December 21, 2018, it will have
completed the production of all responsive documents.

The Plaintiffs and Mercer had not engaged in any substantive
discovery at the time Mercer was added as a party in late August
2018, but have since worked diligently in their respective
discovery efforts.

The Plaintiffs and Mercer also have met-and-conferred multiple
times concerning an ESI protocol to govern Mercer's production of
documents and other electronically stored data, and they are
nearing final agreement on this protocol.

The Plaintiffs have issued, and Mercer has responded to, 11
requests for the production of documents; 16 interrogatories; and
41 requests for admission.

The Parties agree there is good cause for a modest extension of the
existing case schedule by forty-five (45) days, to allow all
Parties sufficient time to complete fact discovery and proceed with
expert discovery related to class certification.  

    Close of Fact Discovery   February 4, 2019

    Opening expert reports
    on class cert. issues     February 28, 2019

    Rebuttal expert reports
    on class cert. issues         April 1, 2019

    Close of expert discovery
    on class cert. issues        April 16, 2019

    Motion for class
    certification                  May 13, 2019

    Opposition to class
    certification motion          June 10, 2019

    Reply in support of
    class certification motion    June 28, 2019

    Class Certification Hearing   July 25, 2019
                                  at 2 p.m.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 10, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yasf46zg from Leagle.com.

Charles Baird, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the BlackRock Retirement Savings Plan,
Plaintiff, represented by Nina Rachel Wasow --
nina@feinbergjackson.com -- Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow
LLP, Daniel Ryan Sutter -- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll, PLLC,
pro hac vice, Julia Horwitz -- jhorwitz@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen
Milstein Sellers Toll, Julie S Selesnick --
jselesnick@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll,
PLLC, Karen L. Handorf -- khandorf@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen
Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Mary Joanne
Bortscheller -- mbortscheller@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein
Sellers Toll PLLC, Michelle C. Yau -- myau@cohenmilstein.com --
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice & Todd F. Jackson
-- todd@feinbergjackson.com -- Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman and
Wasow LLP.

BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A., Blackrock, Inc., The
BlackRock, Inc. Retirement Committee & The Investment Committee of
the Retirement Committee, Defendants, represented by Brian David
Boyle -- bboyle@omm.com -- O'Melveny Myers LLP, Adam Manes Kaplan
-- akaplan@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow
-- mvergow@omm.com -- OMelveny and Myers LLP, Michael John McCarthy
-- mmccarthy@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Randall W. Edwards
-- redwards@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Catherine Bolz, Chip Castille, Paige Dickow, Daniel A. Dunay,
Jeffrey A. Smith, Anne Ackerley, Nancy Everett, Joseph Feliciani,
Jr., Ann Marie Petach, Michael Fredericks, Corin Frost, Daniel
Gamba, Kevin Holt, Chris Jones, Philippe Matsumoto, John Perlowski,
Andy Phillips, Kurt Schansinger & Tom Skrobe, Defendants,
represented by Brian David Boyle , O'Melveny Myers LLP, Randall W.
Edwards , O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow , OMelveny
and Myers LLP & Michael John McCarthy , O'Melveny & Myers LLP.


BOEING COMPANY: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired The Boeing Company (NYSE: BA) securities between
February 8, 2017 and October 13, 2018 (the "Class Period").
Investors have until January 28, 2019 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period defendants
made 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) the company's new 737 MAX
automated stall-prevention system was susceptible to deadly
malfunctions; (ii) Boeing maintained inadequate internal controls
to ensure the timely reporting and dissemination of such
malfunctions; and (iii) as a result, the company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On November 12, 2018, post-market, The Wall Street Journal
published an article entitled "Boeing Withheld Information on 737
Model, According to Safety Experts and Others."  Citing "safety
experts involved in the investigation, as well as midlevel [Federal
Aviation Administration] officials," the article reported that
Boeing "withheld information about potential hazards associated
with a new flight-control feature suspected of playing a role in
last month's fatal Lion Air jet crash."

On this news, Boeing's stock price fell by more than 3%, closing at
$344.72 per share on November 14, 2018.  Over the 11 days following
the publication of the Wall Street Journal article, Boeing's stock
price fell a total of more than 12%, closing at $312.32 per share
on November 23, 2018.

If you purchased Boeing 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.

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


BOEING COMPANY: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of The Boeing Company (NYSE:BA) from February 8, 2017
through November 13, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Boeing investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Boeing class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1463.html or call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Boeing's new 737 MAX automated stall-prevention system
was susceptible to deadly malfunctions; (2) Boeing maintained
inadequate internal controls to ensure the timely reporting and
dissemination of such malfunctions; and (3) as a result, Boeing's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January
28, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1463.html or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll
free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.

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


BRINKS INCORPORATED: Underpays Cashiers and Servers, Garcia Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BRINK'S INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No.
81291703 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., Nov. 27, 2018) is an action
against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as cashier and server.

Brink's Incorporated provides security-related services for banks,
financial institutions, mines, retailers, diamond and jewelry
industries, pharmaceuticals, and governmental customers. The
company was founded in 1859 and is based in Richmond, Virginia,
with in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, the Middle
East, the Asia Pacific, and Australia. Brink's Incorporated
operates as a subsidiary of Brink's Holding Company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CANADA: Aug. 9 Claims Filing Deadline for 60s Scoop Survivors
-------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Diaczuk, writing for TBnewswatch, reports that survivors of
the Sixties Scoop can now apply for compensation as part of a
class-action lawsuit filed nearly 10 years ago.

The settlement agreement in the $1.3 billion lawsuit against the
federal government takes effect as of Dec. 1, entitling plaintiffs
an estimated $25,000. An additional $50 million will be used to
invest in a charitable foundation open to all Indigenous people to
support healing, wellness, education, language, culture, and
commemoration.

The class-action suit was first filed in February 2009 on behalf of
Indigenous children who were taken from their homes between the
early 1960s and mid-1980s and placed in non-Indigenous care. The
lawsuit cited years of psychological damage suffered by the
plaintiffs as a result of being removed from their families and
culture.

In February 2017, the Ontario Superior Court ruled in favour of the
plaintiffs. Beaverhouse Chief, Marcia Brown Martel, was one of the
lead plaintiffs in the suit and in February 2017, she said it was a
long process toward healing.

"The very first step on February 2009 was one of those healing
steps," she said. "This whole journey through these eight years
have been part of that healing journey. We have just reached a
plateau where we can gather things together and say: this healing
can continue."

According to a media release issued on behalf of Carolyn Bennett,
minister of Crown-Indigenous relations, the Sixties Scoop Healing
Foundation has been incorporated and received charitable status.

"In the coming months, under the guidance of a Development Board,
the Foundation will begin an engagement process to reach those
impacted by the Sixties Scoop," the media release reads. "This will
enable survivors, their families and communities to be involved in
determining the governance of the Foundation and the nature of its
work within the broad mandate created by the settlement."

Bennett states in the release that the Sixties Scoop is a dark and
terrible chapter in Canadian history.

"This settlement represents an important step forward for thousands
of Indigenous people," she said. "It is focused on the needs of
survivors, providing individual compensation and recognizing the
importance of language and culture and the harm done when children
are taken from their families and communities."

It is estimated that more than 16,000 Indigenous children in
Ontario, including members of NAN communities, were relocated
during the Sixties Scoop.

"We will continue to work with survivors and Indigenous partners to
advance reconciliation, promote Indigenous languages and culture,
and support the healing and commemoration of those affected by the
harmful policies of the past," Bennett said.

The government will continue to settle outstanding claims with
other Indigenous people affected by the Sixties Scoop, as well as
Metis and non-Indigenous people.

Collectiva, an independent firm, will be administering the claims.
Applicants must submit a claim before Aug. 30, 2019. [GN]


CAREFUSION RESOURCES: Ramirez Suit Moved to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, Lisa Ramirez an individual, on behalf of herself and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
CareFusion Resources, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, and DOES
1-50, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.:
37-02018-00D58078-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego) on Dec.
19, 2018. The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:18-cv-02852-BEN-MSB to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Roger T. Benitez.  The lawsuit alleges
violation of labor laws.

CareFusion is a subsidiary of Becton Dickinson specializing in two
areas: reducing medication errors and prevention of health
care-associated infections.[BN]

Attorneys for Lisa Ramirez:

          Shani O Zakay, Esq.
          SILLDORF & LEVINE LLP
          5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 115
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 625-3900
          Facsimile: (858) 625-3901
          E-mail: szakay@silldorf-levine.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Spencer C Skeen, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4370 La Jolla Drive, Suite 990
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 652-3100
          Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
          E-mail: spencer.skeen@ogletreedeakins.com

CEMEX INC: Shortchanges Workers' Overtime Pay, Hopper Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Hopper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Cemex, Inc., Cemex S.A.B. de C.V., Cemex
Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00419 (S.D. Tex.,
December 10, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Cemex is a Mexican company who manufactures and distributes cement
and ready-mix concrete and operates in the United States as CEMEX,
Inc. and CEMEX Management, Inc. Hopper worked as a Digital Advisor
for Cemex until November of 2018. Cemex allegedly excluded Hooper's
non-discretionary bonuses from the regular rate of pay used in the
computation of overtime for hours worked over 40 in a work week.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Richard M. Schreiber, 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
             rschreiber@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



CHEETAH MOBILE: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Cheetah Mobile Inc. ("Cheetah" or the "Company") (NYSE:
CMCM) and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in
United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and
indexed under 18-cv-0XXXXX, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities, other than Defendants and their
affiliates, who purchased or otherwise, acquired Cheetah securities
between April 26, 2017, and November 27, 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 Cheetah securities between
April 26, 2017, and November 27, 2018, both dates inclusive, you
have until January 29, 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.

Cheetah is a mobile Internet company with global market coverage.
It has attracted hundreds of millions of monthly active users
through its mobile utility products such as Clean Master and
Cheetah Keyboard, casual games such as Piano Tiles 2, Bricks n
Balls, and the live streaming product LiveMe.

The Company provides its advertising customers, which include
direct advertisers and mobile advertising networks through which
advertisers place their advertisements, with direct access to
highly targeted mobile users and global promotional channels. The
Company also provides value-added services to its mobile
application users through the sale of in-app virtual items on
selected mobile products and games.

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) Cheetah's
apps had undisclosed imbedded features which tracked when users
downloaded new apps; (ii) Cheetah used this data to inappropriately
claim credit for having caused the downloads; (iii) the foregoing
features, when discovered, would foreseeably subject the Company's
apps to removal from the Google Play store; (iv) accordingly,
Cheetah's Class Period revenues were in part the product of
improper conduct and thus unsustainable; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On November 26, 2018, BuzzFeed News reported that certain Cheetah
apps then available in the Google Play store were exploiting user
permissions as part of an ad fraud scheme. The BuzzFeed News
article stated that Cheetah's apps "tracked when users downloaded
new apps and used this data to inappropriately claim credit for
having caused the download." BuzzFeed News reported that two of
Cheetah's apps were removed from the Google Play store after
publication of the article.

On this news, Cheetah's American depositary receipt ("ADR") price
fell $3.32, or nearly 37%, over the next two trading sessions,
closing at $5.48 on November 27, 2018.

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Telephone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


CHILDREN'S MERCY: MMPA Suit Remanded to Missouri State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, Western Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiffs'
Motion to Remand the case captioned K. A., BY AND THROUGH HER NEXT
FRIEND B.W. INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED; Plaintiff, v. CHILDREN'S MERCY HOSPITAL, Defendant. No.
4:18-00516-CV-RK. (W.D. Mo.) to the Circuit Court of Jackson
County.

The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that a container with patient
records inside, owned and maintained by Children's Mercy, was
stolen from a Children's Mercy employee' vehicle,  the information
in the container includes, but is not limited to, patients' names,
dates of birth, phone numbers, appointment dates, medical records,
account numbers, and diagnoses.Plaintiff alleges the following
causes of action in the Complaint, inter alia, violations of
Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA).

The Plaintiff does not dispute the first two elements of federal
jurisdiction under Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). There is
minimal diversity as to all class members for claims that Plaintiff
and members of the class have (1) paid more for privacy and
confidentiality than they otherwise would have, and (2) paid more
for privacy protections that they did not receive.

In her motion to remand, the Plaintiff argues that this amount is
mere speculative and conjecture because the Defendant provides no
evidence to support the $2,000 even as a conservative estimate.   

In response, the Defendant maintains that the Court can reasonably
infer $2,000 per putative class member in calculating the amount in
controversy given the costs of health services nationally, that
Plaintiff was billed $253,870.15 for treatment, and Plaintiff's
allegation that she is typical of the class. Defendant claims that
Plaintiff makes clear in her motion that she includes the value of
medical services as part of the controversy in this matter.

The Court agrees with the Plaintiff that the Defendant's
disgorgement calculation is speculative. Using the Plaintiff's
medical bills as a guidepost and generally pointing to the costs of
health services nationally, without more, is insufficient to allow
the Court to reasonably infer that bills per class member amounted
to $2,000. Further, the Plaintiff alleges that she and the class
sustained similar injuries as a result of the personal information
that was included in the container stolen from a Defendant's
employee's vehicle, not that she and the class have similar medical
bills.

Therefore, the Defendant's proposed $478,000 figure for rescission,
restitution, and disgorgement of medical bills and/or the value of
medical services cannot be considered as part of the amount in
controversy calculation.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 10, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y77fvkvz from Leagle.com.

K. A., by and through her Next Friend B.W. individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Anne W. Schiavone, Holman Schiavone, LLC, Lucy McShane, McShane &
Brady LLC, Maureen M. Brady, McShane & Brady LLC & Wade A.
Schilling, Holman Schiavone, LLC.

Children's Mercy Hospital, Defendant, represented by Casie D.
Collignon -- ccollignon@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, pro
hac vice, Matthew C. Baisley -- mbaisley@bakerlaw.com -- Baker &
Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Owens, Husch Blackwell LLP,
Michael Thomas Raupp, Husch Blackwell LLP & Martin M. Loring, Husch
Blackwell LLP.


CORECIVIC INC: Seeks 11th Circuit Review of Ruling in Ahmed Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant CoreCivic Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Shoaib Ahmed, et al. v. CoreCivic Inc., Case No.
4:18-cv-00070-CDL, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Georgia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to end CoreCivic's alleged forced labor scheme intended to
force detained immigrants to work for nearly free, and remedy the
unjust enrichment resulting from CoreCivic's illegal labor
practices.

CoreCivic, Inc. is a for-profit corporation providing correctional
and detention services.

The appellate case is captioned as Shoaib Ahmed, et al. v.
CoreCivic Inc., Case No. 18-15081, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before
January 9, 2019, as to Appellees Shoaib Ahmed, Wilhen Hill
Barrientos and Margarito Velazquez-Galicia.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees SHOAIB AHMED, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; WILHEN HILL BARRIENTOS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and MARGARITO
VELAZQUEZ-GALICIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Priyanka Bhatt, Esq.
          Azadeh Shahshahani, Esq.
          PROJECT SOUTH
          9 Gammon Avenue SE
          Atlanta, GA 30315
          Telephone: (404) 622-0602
          Facsimile: (404) 622-4137
          E-mail: priyanka@projectsouth.org
                  azadeh@projectsouth.org

               - and -

          Warren Tavares Burns, Esq.
          Daniel H. Charest, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST, LLP
          500 N Akard St., Suite 2810
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (469) 904-4550
          E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
                  dcharest@burnscharest.com

               - and -

          Korey A. Nelson, Esq.
          Lydia A. Wright, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP
          365 Canal Street SE, Suite 1170
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 799-2844
          E-mail: knelson@burnscharest.com
                  lwright@burnscharest.com

               - and -

          Robert Andrew Free, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF R. ANDREW FREE
          PO BOX 90568
          Nashville, TN 37209
          Telephone: (844) 321-3221
          E-mail: andrew@immigrantcivilrights.com

               - and -

          Bryan Lopez, Esq.
          Meredith Blake Stewart, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 2000
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 486-8982
          E-mail: bryan.lopez@splcenter.org
                  meredith.stewart@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Laura Rivera, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          150 E Ponce De Leon Ave., Suite 340
          DECATUR, GA 30030
          Telephone: (404) 521-6700
          E-mail: laura.rivera@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Daniel Werner, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          1989 College Avenue NE
          Atlanta, GA 30317
          Telephone: (404) 221-5836
          E-mail: daniel.werner@splcenter.org

Defendant-Appellant CORECIVIC INC. is represented by:

          Stephen E. Curry, Esq.
          CURRY LAW FIRM
          3508 Professional Cir., Suite C
          Augusta, GA 30907-2220
          Telephone: (706) 724-0022

               - and -

          Daniel P. Struck, Esq.
          STRUCK LOVE BOJANOWSKI & ACEDO PLC
          3100 W Ray Rd., Suite 300
          Chandler, AZ 85226
          Telephone: (480) 420-1600
          E-mail: dstruck@strucklove.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Chen Securities Suit in W.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------
PHIL CHEN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, W. CRAIG JELINEK, and
RICHARD A. GALANTI, Case No. 2:18-cv-01779 (W.D. Wash., December
11, 2018), accuses the Defendants of violating the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Throughout the Class Period, the Plaintiff alleges, the Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Costco lacked
effective internal control over financial reporting; and (ii) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

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, according to the complaint.

Costco is incorporated in Washington and maintains its principal
offices in Issaquah, Washington.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

Costco engages in the operation of membership warehouses in the
United States (U.S.) and Puerto Rico, Canada, United Kingdom
(U.K.), Mexico, Japan, Australia, Spain, France, Iceland and
through majority-owned subsidiaries in Taiwan and Korea.  As of
September 3, 2017, Costco operated 741 warehouses worldwide.
Through the membership warehouses, Costco aims at offering low
prices on a limited selection of national products in certain
categories to produce high sales volumes and rapid inventory
turnover.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Drachler, Esq.
          ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
          1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 223-2053
          Facsimile: (206) 343-9636
          E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


CUYAHOGA, OH: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Winston v. CMHA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Davis Winston filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Davis Winston v. CMHA, Case No. 1:17-cv-01352, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at
Cleveland.

The lawsuit alleges civil rights violations.

The appellate case is captioned as Davis Winston v. CMHA, Case No.
18-4221, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant DAVIS WINSTON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Ellen Maglicic Kramer, Esq.
          COHEN, ROSENTHAL & KRAMER LLP
          700 W. St. Clair Avenue, Suite 400
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 781-77956

Defendant-Appellee CUYAHOGA METROPOLITAN HOUSING AUTHORITY is
represented by:

          J. Philip Calabrese, Esq.
          PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP
          950 Main Avenue, Suite 500
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 443-9000
          E-mail: pcalabrese@porterwright.com


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Hilaire Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Caridad Hilaire, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, a South
Carolina limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1
6:18-cv-02211 (M.D. Fla., December 26, 2018) is an action against
Defendant to secure redress for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

Plaintiff began receiving calls to her cellular telephone ending in
5903 from Defendant seeking to recover an alleged debt associated
with the medical attention she received at the local hospital. When
Plaintiff answered a call from Defendant, she would hear a brief
pause, and then an automated message telling her the call was from
Defendant. On information and belief, some or all of the calls
Defendant made to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number were made
using an "automatic telephone dialing system."

Despite the affirmative revocation of her consent, Defendant's
campaign of telephonic abuse continued. Defendant continued to
place autodialed calls to Plaintiff's number. What's more,
Defendant began placing autodialed calls to Plaintiff's other
cellular telephone number despite never receiving permission to do
so.  Defendant willfully and/or knowingly violated the TCPA with
respect to Plaintiff, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Caridad Hilaire is a natural person who, at all times
relevant to this action, was and is a resident of Osceola County,
Florida.

Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC is a South Carolina limited
liability company whose principal office is located at 135
Interstate Blvd., Suite 6, Greenville, SC 29615, and whose
registered agent for service of process in the State of Florida is
NRAI Services, Inc., 1200 South Pine Island Road, Plantation, FL
33324.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott D. Owens, Esq.
     Scott D. Owens, P.A.
     3800 S. Ocean Dr. Ste. 235
     Hollywood, FL 33019
     Phone: 954-589-0588
     Fax: 954-337-0666
     Email: scott@scottdowens.com

          - and -

     Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
     Kozonis & Klinger, Ltd.
     4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300
     Chicago, IL 60630
     Phone: 312.283.3814
     Fax: 773.496.8617
     Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com


EDISON INT'L: RM LAW Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Edison
International (NYSE: EIX) ("Edison" or the "Company") securities
between February 23, 2016 and November 12, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

Edison shareholders may, no later than January 15, 2019, move the
Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class.  If you
purchased shares of Edison and would like to learn more about these
claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to sign
up online, click here.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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) the company failed to maintain
electricity transmission and distribution networks in compliance
with safety requirements and regulations promulgated under state
law; (ii) consequently, the company was in violation of state law
and regulations; (iii) the company's noncompliant electricity
networks created a significantly heightened risk of wildfires in
California; and (iv) as a result, the company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On November 8, 2018, a wildfire started in the town of Pulga,
California, and subsequently incinerated the nearby town of
Paradise, killing at least 42 people.  On November 12, 2018, the
California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") launched an
investigation into Edison's subsidiary Southern California Edison
Company in order to "assess the compliance of electrical facilities
with applicable rules and regulations in fire-impacted areas."

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than January
15, 2019, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of
the class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that
the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or other
counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

         Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
         RM LAW, P.C.
         1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300
         Berwyn, PA 19312
         Telephone: 484-324-6800
                    844-291-9299
         Email: rm@maniskas.com [GN]


EDUCATION CORP: Litvine Seeks Unpaid Wages, Benefits Under WARN Act
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Litvine, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Education Corporation of America and
Virginia College LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02042 (N.D. Ala.,
December 11, 2018), seeks collection of unpaid wages and benefits
for sixty calendar days pursuant to the United States Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

Education Corporation of America was a privately held company that
operated several for-profit educational institutions and was
subsidiary of Virginia College. The company ceased operations in
December 2018.

Steve Litvine was employed in Defendants' facility at 488 Palisades
Boulevard in Birmingham, Alabama as an Admissions Representative
from approximately September 26, 2016 until he was terminated on or
about December 5, 2018, without the mandatory 60 days' notice.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jon C. Goldfarb, Esq.
      L. William Smith, Esq.
      WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER, & GOLDFARB LLC.
      The Kress Building
      301 19th Street North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone No.: (205) 314-0500
      Facsimile No.: (205) 254-1500


ENERGY SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Dunn Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN DUNN, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v.
ENERGY SERVICES GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/b/a BCP ENGINEERS AND
CONSULTANTS, Case No. 2:18-cv-13349 (E.D. La., December 11, 2018),
accuses the Defendant of failing to pay the Plaintiff and other
workers overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Headquartered in Gretna, Louisiana, Energy Services Group
International, Inc., doing business as BCP Engineers and
Consultants, provides engineering and business consulting for its
energy sector clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 925-5297
          Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
          E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                  scott@bohrerbrady.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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


EVENKO: Class Action Lawsuit Aims To End Electronic Delivery Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTV News Montreal reports that a class action lawsuit is trying to
do away with delivery fees for electronic tickets.

A Quebec superior court judge has authorized the lawsuit to go
ahead.

The case targets entertainment promoter evenko, and it could mean
money back for anyone who paid to see one of its shows in the last
three years.

That includes concerts, festivals and possibly even hockey games
for non-season ticket holders.

The plaintiff claims charging a fee to pick up tickets at a venue
or download them is exploitation.

"The electronic delivery tickets basically means you receive an
email sent to your inbox – a PDF that just gets computer
generated automatically and just sent to your inbox. For that, we
say there's basically no charge, and yet they're still charging
$5.75 for that," said Jeff Orenstein, Esq. -- jorenstein@clg.org --
lawyer for the plaintiff.

So far over 4,600 people have joined the class action.

Evenko has refused to comment, saying the matter is before the
courts.[GN]


FANNIE MAY: Court OKs Bid to Dismiss Benson FDCA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned CLARISHA BENSON
and LORENZO SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FANNIE MAY CONFECTIONS BRANDS,
INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant. No. 17 C 3519. (N.D.
Ill.)

Fannie May moves to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, arguing
that the Plaintiffs have not alleged a violation of the Food Drug
and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. and therefore, the Court must
dismiss all of their state-law claims on preemption grounds.

The Plaintiffs Clarisha Benson and Lorenzo Smith seek a "second
bite at the chocolate" and filed their First Amended Complaint. The
Plaintiffs allege that they were deceived into believing the opaque
candy boxes contained more chocolates than they in fact did because
the boxes were partially empty.

The Plaintiffs allege violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA)., seeking damages (Count
I). Plaintiffs also have two Illinois common-law claims for unjust
enrichment (Count II) and breach of implied contract (Count III).


Fannie May moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' FAC arguing that they
have failed to adequately allege a violation of the FDCA, that they
have failed to allege a deceptive act on the part of Fannie May,
and that they have failed to plead causation and damages, unjust
enrichment, or a breach of implied contract.

The FDCA does not provide a private right of action; therefore, the
Plaintiffs are only able to seek relief pursuant to related
state-law causes of action.  

Here, the Plaintiffs argue that the Products violate the FDA's
slack-fill regulations. Slack-fill is the difference between the
actual capacity of a container and the volume of product contained
therein. Slack-fill can be functional or nonfunctional, and
nonfunctional slack-fill in containers that do not allow consumers
to fully view their contents is impermissible.  

The Court finds this argument unpersuasive for two reasons. First,
in its guidance interpreting the slack-fill statute, the FDA
cautions against concluding slack-fill is nonfunctional based on
comparisons to other identical products, let alone similar products
packaged differently.   

This type of comparison tells the Court nothing about the
slack-fill in the containers in question. The fact that a different
container is filled to a different level is not only unsurprising,
it is what one would expect.  

Second, even if the FDA did not clearly disfavor such comparisons
for determining whether slack-fill is functional, the comparison
itself is of little value. There is no basis for determining that a
larger box should have proportionately the same amount of
slack-fill as a smaller box.

Fannie May could be using different machines that have differing
levels of precision to fill the boxes or could be using the same
machine to fill the boxes but it is a machine that is not able to
fill smaller boxes as accurately as larger boxes.   

The Plaintiffs allege nothing about how the fourteen-ounce box and
the seven-ounce boxes are filled, for example that they are
packaged using the same equipment and what the functionality of
that equipment is with respect to the two sizes. The Plaintiffs
simply state that the fourteen-ounce box has proportionately less
slack-fill and therefore the seven-ounce boxes must contain
nonfunctional slack-fill. This is not enough to state a violation
of the FDCA.

Thus, because the Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged a
violation of the federal regulations, they cannot state a
non-preempted claim under Illinois law, and the Court therefore
grants the motion to dismiss with prejudice. After previously
granting Fannie May's first motion to dismiss on the same basis,
the Plaintiffs are not closer to alleging a plausible violation of
the federal slack-fill regulations. Therefore, the Court finds that
after two opportunities to plead their best case, further amendment
would be futile.

Accordingly, the Court grants Fannie May's motion to dismiss the
complaint with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 10, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8ej8dq9 from
Leagle.com.

Clarisha Benson & Lorenzo Smith, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by James X.
Bormes -- jxbormes@bormeslaw.com -- Office of James X. Bormes,
Catherine P. Sons -- cpsons@bormeslaw.com -- Law Office of James X.
Bormes, P.C. & Kasif Khowaja, The Khowaja Law, LLC.

Fannie May Confections Brands, Inc., an Illinois corporation,
Defendant, represented by David Joel Chizewer --
david.chizewer@goldbergkohn.com -- Goldberg Kohn Ltd.


FERRARA CANDY: Patrick Sweeney Appeal Underway
----------------------------------------------
Patrick Sweeney has taken an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit from a court decision in the case, Iglesias
v. Ferrara Candy Co., Case No. 3:17-cv-00849 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 21,
2017).  The appellate case is captioned, Thomas Iglesias,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff – Appellee, vs. Patrick S. Sweeney, the Objector –
Appellant, and Ferrara Candy Co., the Defendant – Appellee, Case
No. 18-17269 (9th Cir.).

The Ninth Circuit Court has entered the following timeline:

  -- Fri., January 25, 2019

     Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record shall be
     served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1.

  -- Mon., February 25, 2019

     Appellee's answering brief and excerpts of record shall be
     served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1.

The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and served
within 21 days of service of the appellee's brief, pursuant to FRAP
31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of the appellant to comply with
the Time Schedule Order will result in automatic dismissal of the
appeal.

The class action lawsuit was brought on behalf of all purchasers of
Jujyfruits(R) brand candy products sold at retail outlets and movie
theaters throughout California and the United States.   The
Plaintiff contends that the Defendant intentionally misleads and
shortchanges consumers by falsely and deceptively misrepresenting
the amount of candy actually contained in each box of Product.  The
Defendant uniformly under-fills the opaque boxes by 41%.  Every box
is filled only 59% full with candy product.  The 41% balance is
empty space, or "slackfill," nearly all of which serves no
legitimate or lawful function.

In May 2018, Ferrara Candy agreed to pay $2.5 million to settle the
lawsuit.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
     Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
     Shalini M. Dogra, Esq.
     CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
     9255 Sunset Blvd., Ste. 804
     Los Angeles, CA 90069
     Tel: (213) 788-4050
     Fax: (213) 788-4070
     E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
             sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
             sdogra@clarksonlawfirm.com

Ferrara is represented by Michael Shephard at Hogan Lovells U.S.


FLINT, MI: Wright Appeals Decision in Waid Suit to 6th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Jeffrey Wright filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Luke Waid, et al. v. Rick Snyder, et al., Case No.
5:16-cv-10444, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan at Ann Arbor.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 26, 2018, several
parties have filed appeals from various decisions issued in the
lawsuit.

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

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

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

The appellate case is captioned as Luke Waid, et al. v. Rick
Snyder, et al., Case No. 18-2416, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Paul Francis Novak, Esq.
          Gregory Stamatopoulos, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
          Fisher Building
          3011 W. Grand Boulevard
          Detroit, MI 48202
          Telephone: (313) 800-4170
          E-mail: pnovak@weitzlux.com

               - and -

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

Defendant-Appellant JEFFREY WRIGHT is represented by:

          Matthew T. Wise, Esq.
          FOLEY & MANSFIELD
          130 E. Nine Mile Road
          Ferndale, MI 48220
          Telephone: (248) 721-4200
          E-mail: mwise@foleymansfield.com


FLY JAMAICA: Passengers File Class-Action Over Crash Landing
------------------------------------------------------------
CTVNews.ca staff report that passengers on a Toronto-bound flight
that crash landed in Guyana have filed a class-action lawsuit
against the airline alleging physical harm and loss of personal
belongings.

The lawsuit, filed on November 30, calls for "just compensation"
for passengers and their families -- 82 of them Canadians -- but
does not specify how much the group is seeking.

The Boeing 757 aircraft took off from Guyana in the early hours of
Nov. 9 but was forced to turn back 20 minutes later due to
hydraulic issues, the airline said.

The lawsuit alleges that the flight crew was unable to stop the
plane after it touched down on the runway, and the aircraft crashed
through a perimeter fence, "ripping off its right side landing-gear
and engine." Passengers say the plane came to rest at the edge of a
small cliff.

According to passengers, loose items flew about the cabin. One man
who arrived in Toronto wearing a neck brace said he suffered
injuries to his head and neck.

"Passengers reported a chaotic evacuation from the darkened smoke
filled aircraft," according to a statement from Rochon Genova, a
Toronto-based law firm representing passengers.

The airline reported that two elderly passengers were transported
to hospital as a precaution immediately after the crash, but said
that there were no serious injuries. Global Affairs later confirmed
that one Canadian citizen on board the flight later died.

The airline identified the victim as Rookia Kalloo. An airline
spokesperson said Kalloo "is not recorded as having been treated in
hospital for any injuries as a result of the accident," but added
that the airline was investigating the case further.

The lawsuit also alleges that the flight crew did not deem the
situation an emergency with air traffic control before the landing,
and that emergency personnel were delayed as a result.

On top of the alleged injuries, passengers said they had belongings
stolen after the plane touched down, including luggage containing
jewelry, cash, cellphones and tablets. One woman said her wedding
band was stolen.

According to Guyanese media, eight firefighters were arrested for
allegedly stealing items from passengers and crew members.

Four passengers from the Greater Toronto Area -- Invor Bedessee,
Shanta Persaud, Harpreet Singh and Zakran – are proposed
plaintiffs in the class-action suit.

"A timely and fair resolution of this case is of critical
importance to the victims and their families," the firm said in a
statement.

CTV News has reached out to Fly Jamaica about the class action.
This story will be updated once the airline responds.

In total, 128 passengers were on board the flight.[GN]


FURMANITE AMERICA: Boyd's FLSA Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Jeff Boyd on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Furmanite America Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 7:16-cv-06902, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District for New York to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Galveston) on
Dec. 18, 2018. The Southern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:18-cv-00433 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge George C Hanks, Jr.

The collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act is brought
to remedy widespread wage and hour violations by the Defendant that
have deprived the Plaintiff and all other current and former
pipeline inspectors throughout the country of overtime wages to
which they are entitled.[BN]

Attorneys for Jeff Boyd:

          David Wayne Hodges, Esq.
          Don Foty, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES LLP
          4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          E-mail: dhodges@kennedyhodges.com

               - and -

          Michael Antonio Faillace
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

Attorneys for Furmanite America Inc.:

          David Brian Feldman, Esq.
          Evan Benjamin Citron, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. (NY)
          1745 Broadway, 22nd Fl.
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 492-2500
          Facsimile: (212) 492-2501
          E-mail: evan.citron@ogletreedeakins.com

GEICO CHOICE: Court Narrows Claims in Johnson Suit
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court of the Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in
part and denying in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint in the case captioned
Daniel Johnson, Plaintiff, v. Geico Choice Insurance Company, et
al., Defendants. Case No. 1:18 CV 1353. (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Daniel Johnson purchased automobile insurance from
defendant Geico Choice Insurance Company. The policy contained
medical payments coverage in the amount of $10,000. Plaintiff
alleges that defendant cited Code 765 as the reason it did not pay
the remaining $665.00. Plaintiff alleges that defendant denied
coverage for a portion of services provided by a Dr. Hochman based
on Code 765.  

The Defendant moves to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiff lacks
standing to assert this claim.

According to the defendant, the complaint lacks any factual
allegations suggesting that the plaintiff incurred an
injury-in-fact. The Defendant claims that the complaint fails to
allege that plaintiff paid the $665.00 to the Cleveland Clinic or
that the Cleveland Clinic made any effort to collect the charges.

Nor does the plaintiff allege that he suffered damage to his credit
reputation. The Defendant points out that it raised this precise
issue in a previous motion to dismiss. Although the plaintiff filed
an amended complaint, he made no effort to supplement any of this
information.

In response, the plaintiff argues that he alleges that the
Cleveland Clinic billed him for services and that the defendant
failed to pay those charges. The Plaintiff further argues that
there is no provision in the policy that requires the plaintiff to
pay the Cleveland Clinic before the defendant pays the plaintiff
the coverage the policy provides.

The Court finds that an allegation that the plaintiff sought
medical services for which he received a bill from the provider is
sufficient to state a claim that plaintiff actually incurred
expenses.

Discovery may demonstrate that the Cleveland Clinic will legally
waive its right to collect for those expenses, but the Court finds
that plaintiff is not required to allege the inverse, i.e., that
the Cleveland Clinic has not waived its rights. Rather, the
allegations in the complaint sufficiently allege that plaintiff
actually incurred a medical expense.

Here, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant refused to pay
$665.00 of his medical bills on the grounds that the charges were
excessive in comparison of similar charges in the area.

The Defendant argues that the policy expressly permits the $665.00
deduction it took in this case. In response, plaintiff argues that
the policy and governing law prohibit defendant from reducing the
amount it pays based on a comparison of charges in the area.

Contrary to the plaintiff's argument, this statute does not require
that insurers pay the full amount of the medical bill submitted by
medical providers in all cases. Rather, it simply creates a
rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. If the insurer challenges
the medical bills by coming forward with evidence that the charges
are excessive for the geographic area, then the insurer need not
pay the charges. Thus, far from mandating the payment of the face
value of all medical bills in all cases, O.R.C. Section 2317.421
simply sets up the evidentiary mechanism to assess the
reasonableness of medical bills in personal injury or wrongful
death actions.

Next the plaintiff argues that the policy language is ambiguous and
therefore the defendant can never deny coverage based on the
grounds that it exceeds an average or customary amount. According
to the plaintiff, the policy contains no language permitting such a
deduction. In response, the defendant argues that the policy
provides coverage only for reasonable expenses. If an expense
charged by a medical provider exceeds the amount charged by similar
providers, then it is unreasonable and is not a covered expense.

The Court finds that plaintiff sufficiently alleges that defendant
breached the insurance contract in denying plaintiff's particular
claim. Plaintiff asserts that defendant refused to pay $665.00
based on a determination that the charge was unreasonable when
compared to the charges of other providers in the same geographic
area. Plaintiff further alleges that defendant paid the exact same
charge for the exact same service dozens of other times. In other
words, plaintiff alleges that the $665.00 charge was not
unreasonable. As such, defendant wrongfully denied coverage. Thus,
while plaintiff's claim cannot be based on the argument that the
policy always prevents such deductions, plaintiff's claim can be
based on the allegation that defendant wrongfully denied coverage
based on the specific facts of plaintiff's claim.

The Defendant moves to dismiss the plaintiff's bad faith claim on
the grounds that there is no plausible breach of the policy. The
Defendant claims that it had a proper basis to deny coverage for
unreasonable expenses. The Court, however, determined that the
plaintiff stated a claim for breach of contract by alleging that
the $665.00 reduction was not reasonable in that the defendant
often paid the full charge. As the defendant identified no other
basis for dismissal of the bad faith claim, the claim remains
pending.

The motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 10, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y9jw8c98 from Leagle.com.

Daniel Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by James S. Wertheim.

Government Employees Insurance Company, originally named as Geico
Insurance Company & GEICO Choice Insurance Company, Defendants,
represented by Jessica L. Fuller -- jfuller@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca
Rothgerber Christie, Joshua Grabel -- jgrabel@lrrc.com -- Lewis
Roca Rothgerber Christie & John C. West -- jwest@lrrc.com -- Lewis
Roca Rothgerber Christie.


GENERAL MILLS: Court Dismisses Backus FDCA Suit
-----------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Backus's remaining claims under the unlawful and unfair prongs of
the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), arguing that they are
preempted by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and
Section 754 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act in the case
captioned TROY BACKUS, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MILLS, INC., et al.,
Defendants. Case No. 15-cv-01964-WHO. (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Troy Backus brings this putative class action against
defendants General Mills, Inc. and General Mills Sales, Inc.
(General Mills) for the use of trans fats in the form of partially
hydrogenated oil (PHO) in their baking mix products.  

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court
must dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss, the counterclaimant must allege enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim is facially
plausible when the plaintiff pleads facts that allow the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.

General Mills argues that conflict preemption bars Backus's two
remaining UCL claims. It reasons that Section 754 dictates that
foods containing PHOs may not be deemed unsafe or adulterated until
the June 2018 compliance date.  

Conflict preemption applies when it is impossible to comply with
both federal and state law or when state laws stand as obstacles to
accomplishing federal objectives.

In opposition, Backus contends that: (1) General Mills has not met
its burden of overcoming the presumption against federal
preemption, (2) Section 754 regulates the FDA and not the states,
(3) Congress is capable of passing clear FDCA preemption provisions
when it intends to do so, (4) General Mills's cited authority
impermissibly relies on the legislative history of Section 754,1and
(5) Section 754, even if preempted California law, is not
retroactive and all of the claims in this action predate its
passage.  

General Mills Successfully Rebuts the Presumption Against
Preemption

Backus asserts that General Mills has failed to overcome the
presumption against federal preemption. There is a presumption
against preemption when the inquiry involves a field that has been
traditionally occupied by the States. A clear and manifest purpose
of Congress can rebut such presumption.

Backus contends that because the text of Section 754 says nothing
about the states or state law, it is plausible that it does not
preempt California law, which forecloses preemption under Bates v.
Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431, 449 (2005), even if its
alternative reading were just as plausible as our reading of that
text the Court would nevertheless have a duty to accept the reading
that disfavors pre-emption.

Backus's citation to Empacadora de Carnes de Fresnillo, S.A. de
C.V. v. Curry, 476 F.3d 326, 334 (5th Cir. 2007) is similarly
unpersuasive. There, the Fifth Circuit addressed whether the
Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) preempted the Texas Agriculture
Code Chapter 149, which prohibits the sale of horsemeat. In finding
that there was no conflict preemption between the FMIA and Chapter
149, the court noted that it was not physically impossible to
comply with both statutes and that Chapter 149 did not stand as an
obstacle to the FMIA's objectives of assuring that meat and meat
food products distributed to consumers are wholesome, not
adulterated, and properly marked, labeled and packaged. This
holding does not help Backus because, under Backus's reading of the
UCL, it would be impossible to comply with the FDA's mandate that
the use of PHOs would only become illegal upon the compliance
date.

Section 754 Regulates Both the Federal and State Governments

Backus argues that the language of the Section 754 demonstrates
that Congress intended that it only regulate the FDA and not the
states, thus lacking preemptive effect. In his view, Section 754
speaks only about the regulatory structure of the FDCA and only
prohibits enforcement by the FDA and no other entity.  

Backus tethers his unlawful UCL claim to General Mills' alleged
violation of the FDCA and the California Sherman Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Law, which adopts all FDA regulations as state
regulations. Even taking Backus's reading as correct, the very fact
that the California Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law
incorporates all FDA regulations would effectively preempt his
claim.  

Clear FDCA Preemption

Backus argues that when Congress intends to preempt state law, it
expressly does so in a clear manner. This argument focuses on
express preemption and ignores conflict preemption. Under this
argument, the doctrine of conflict preemption would cease to
exist.

Retroactivity

Backus contends that because this case was filed eight months
before the passage of Section 754, Section 754 does not apply to
this action.   

In enacting Section 754, Congress has done precisely that. By
setting the June 2018 compliance date, the FDA and Congress
established the reach of the statute to capture conduct before and
after the compliance date. Simply put, before June 18, 2018, the
use of PHOs in food was permissible; after June 18, 2018, the use
of PHOs in food would violate the FDCA. Accordingly, Section 754 is
clear and the use of PHOs in food before June 2018, the entirety of
the time period covered by the complaint, is not unlawful.

The Court grants General Mills' motion to dismiss. Backus's claims
are dismissed with prejudice and judgment will be entered
accordingly.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 10, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7fawfzw from Leagle.com.

Troy Backus, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory Weston, The Weston Firm
& Andrew Christopher Hamilton, The Weston Firm.

General Mills, Inc. & General Mills Sales, Inc., Defendants,
represented by David T. Biderman, Perkins Coie LLP, Charles
Christian Sipos, Perkins Coie LLP, pro hac vice & Joshua A. Reiten,
Perkins Coie LLP.


GENERAL MOTORS: Ginebra Sues Over Faulty CP4 Fuel Injection Pumps
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK GINEBRA, WILLIAM J. CRENSHAW, JR., EILEEN R. VAN FOSSEN,
STEPHEN J. MARTIN, JAMES AARON AUKES, CHRISTAFER MICHAEL WREN,
DANIEL B. BASS, WAYNE R. GILBERT, JR., MELODY ANNE DEARBORN, DUANE
DEE MESKE, IGNACIO CENTENO, NICHOLAS ALLEN MILLER, BILL HOFFMAN,
and GORDON MAC JOHNSON, each plaintiff is a citizen of the State of
Florida and each plaintiff individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 1:18-cv-25209-FAM (S.D. Fla., December 12, 2018), arises
from alleged Bosch-supplied CP4 high pressure fuel injection pumps
installed in certain GM vehicles.

The "Class Vehicles" consist of GM-manufactured diesel-fueled U.S.
automobiles, including 2011–2016 2500HD Silverado 6.6L V8 Duramax
Diesel Trucks with LML engines, 2011–2016 3500HD Silverado 6.6L
V8 Duramax Diesel Trucks with LML engines, 2010–2011 Chevrolet
Express van with Duramax LGH engines, 2010–2011 GMC Savana van
with Duramax LGH engines, 2010–2011 GMC Sierra trucks with RPO
ZW9 (chassis cabs or trucks with pickup box delete) with Duramax
LGH engines, and 2011–2012 Chevrolet 2500HD Silverado 6.6L V8
Duramax Diesel Trucks with LGH engines.

GM has sold millions of diesel-tank automobiles equipped with
high-pressure fuel injection pumps that are proverbial ticking time
bombs.  The Plaintiffs contend that GM promised consumers the
continued reliability of their diesel engines, but with increased
fuel efficiency and power at greater fuel efficiency.  The key was
the Bosch-supplied CP4 high pressure fuel injection pump, which
unbeknownst to consumers is a ticking time bomb when used in
American vehicles.  The Plaintiffs allege that Bosch's CP4 pump was
never compatible with American diesel fuel standards and is not
built to withstand the specifications for U.S. diesel fuel in terms
of lubrication or water content, and it struggles to lift a volume
of fuel sufficient to lubricate itself.

General Motors LLC is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
and principal place of business located in Detroit, Michigan.  The
sole member and owner of General Motors LLC is General Motors
Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in the state of Michigan.

GM, through its various entities, including Chevrolet and GMC,
designs, manufactures, distributes, and sells GM-brand automobiles
in this District and multiple other locations in the United States
and worldwide.  GM and/or its agents designed, manufactured, and
installed the engine systems in the Class Vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Parker Felix, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 North Orange Ave., Suite 1600
          P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 244-3204
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3334
          E-mail: Andrew@forthepeople.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


HARMAN MANAGEMENT: Court Denies Renewed Bid to Stay Larson
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order denying Defendant's Renewed Motion to
Stay the case captioned CORY LARSON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HARMAN MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION; 3SEVENTY, INC., Defendants. No. 1:16-cv-00219-DAD-SKO.
(E.D. Cal.).

According to the plaintiff's first amended complaint, defendants
HMC and 3Seventy set out on a telemarketing campaign in 2012 to
send coupons to consumers for restaurant food items via automated
text messages. Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), in part by using an
automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) to send the uninvited
text messages. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants'
system has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be
called, using a random or sequential number generator.  

Defendant HMC filed its first motion to stay proceedings in this
case, pending the issuance of the D.C. Circuit's decision in ACA
International, arguing that resolution of the issues in that case
would directly affect plaintiff's claims here.  The court issued an
order denying that motion to stay without prejudice.  

On February 1, 2018, defendant HMC filed a renewed motion to stay
all proceedings in this action, again pending the decision in ACA
International. While that motion to stay was under submission, the
D.C. Circuit issued its decision in ACA International, and on March
20, 2018, defendant HMC withdrew the motion to stay.  

The Defendant argues that the court should stay this case pending
the FCC's anticipated issuance of a regulation addressing the
definition of an ATDS, based on either the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction or the court's inherent authority to manage its
docket.   

The Plaintiff opposes the defendant's motion, contending that the
primary jurisdiction doctrine does not support a stay, largely
because after the decision in Marks, Marks, 904 F.3d at 1053,
controlling Ninth Circuit authority already exists as to that
question.  Plaintiff also argues that a stay will not simplify the
issues in this case in light of this binding authority, that
plaintiff will be prejudiced by a stay, and that denial of a stay
will not create a clear case of hardship or inequity for defendant.


The primary jurisdiction doctrine prescribes deference to an
administrative agency where (1) the issue is not within the
conventional experiences of judges, (2) the issue involves
technical or policy considerations within the agency's particular
field of expertise, (3) the issue is particularly within the
agency's discretion, or (4) there exists a substantial danger of
inconsistent rulings.

Here, the court concludes that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction
does not support a stay of this action pending the FCC's issuance
of a regulation defining an ATDS. In Marks, the Ninth Circuit held
that an ATDS means equipment which has the capacity (1) to store
numbers to be called or (2) to produce numbers to be called, using
a random or sequential number generator and to dial such numbers
automatically (even if the system must be turned on or triggered by
a person. Marks, 904 F.3d at 1053.  The opinion in Marks therefore
stands as the controlling authority on this issue in the Ninth
Circuit and is binding on this court.

The court is not at all convinced that a stay of this case would
necessarily be short and there is a significant risk that it would
be essentially indefinite, since there is no clear indication that
any FCC action is on the horizon. Thus, consideration of this
factor weighs against the granting of a stay.

Next, the court must examine whether defendant has made out a clear
case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward. Here,
defendant merely states that its hardship is being deprived of the
opportunity to wait for another decision on a potentially
controlling point of law.   

The Defendant does not identify any specific issues that would be
resolved by waiting for future action from the FCC. Where
defendants have not identified any specific harm beyond the cost of
litigation, it has been held that being required to defend a suit,
without more, does not constitute a `clear case of hardship or
inequity' within the meaning of Landis.

Accordingly, consideration of this factor also weighs against the
imposition of a stay.

Accordingly, Defendant HMC's renewed motion to stay is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 10, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8j62d89 from Leagle.com.

Cory Larson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Sergei Lemberg, Lemberg &
Associates, pro hac vice, Stephen F. Taylor, Lemberg Law, LLC, pro
hac vice & Trinette Gragirena Kent, Lemberg Law, LLC.

Harman-Management Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bruce J.
Boehm -- bboehm@joneswaldo.com -- Jones, Waldo, Holbrook &
McDonough, PC, David L. Bird , McKay Burton & Thurman, PC, pro hac
vice, Jeremy C. Sink , McKay Burton & Thurman, P.C., pro hac vice,
Martin W. Jaszczuk, Jaszczuk P.C., pro hac vice & Cameron Cutler --
ccutler@mohtrial.com -- Marshall Olson & Hull.

3Seventy, Inc, Defendant, represented by Adam D. Bowser --
adam.bowser@arentfox.com -- Arent Fox LLP, pro hac vice & Jeffrey
Robert Makin -- makin.jeffrey@arentfox.com -- Arent Fox LLP.


HOLY SMOKE BBQ: Class Status Sought in Conarton Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Holy Smoke BBQ and Catering LLC is defending against a lawsuit
filed in New York State Supreme Court after numerous guests
suffered food poisoning at a 2015 wedding reception.

According to a report by Elizabeth Doran of Syracuse.com | The
Post-Standard, citing lawyer Thomas Cerio, the court was scheduled
to decide Dec. 6 if the lawsuit should proceed as a class action.


Holy Smoke BBQ was the caterer that provided food for the
reception.  The bridge, Melissa Conarton filed a lawsuit in July
2018.  A second lawsuit was filed in October wherein the bride's
father, James Conarton, has been proposed to be the lead plaintiff.
Cerio represents the bride and the guests.  He said the bride
would be excluded from the class action suit.

Both lawsuits allege that Holy Smoke provided food -- specifically
macaroni and cheese -- for the July 31, 2015 wedding reception of
Conarton and Jesse Abbott that allegedly caused numerous wedding
guests to become violently ill, the report noted.  Numerous people
became ill, with 22 spending the night in the hospital.  According
to court papers, at least 45 guests (and potentially more than 100)
suffered food poisoning after consuming the dish, the report
added.

The case is captioned as JAMES E. CONARTON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOLY SMOKE
BBQ AND CATERING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2907306/2018 (N.Y. Sup.,
Onondaga Cty., Oct. 19, 2018).  The case is assigned to the Hon.
James P. Murphy.

The report said Holy Smoke's lawyers have disputed the number of
wedding guests (estimated at 220) and the need for a class-action
suit. The lawyers allege that only eight of the wedding guests
tested positive for the staphylococcus aureus, pathogen, while the
cause of illness in others who got sick is unknown.  Holy Smoke
originally agreed to cover the cost of the co-pays of the guests,
the report added, citing court papers.

Holy Smoke Bbq and Catering LLC is a restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rudolph William Sohl, Esq.
          407 S. Warren St., 5th Floor
          Syracuse, NY 13202
          Telephone: (315) 422-8769

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew Whritenour, Esq.
          KNYCH & WHRITENOUR
          300 S. State St., Suite 404
          Syracuse, NY 13202
          Telephone: (315) 472-1175

IBI ARMORED SERVICES: Precil Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Harold Precil, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. IBI Armored Services, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 719778/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Queens Cty., December 26, 2018)
are entitled to unpaid overtime wages from Defendant for working
more than forty hours in a week and not being paid an overtime rate
of at least 1.5 times their regular rate for such hours over forty
in a week; unpaid overtime wages from Defendant for working more
than forty hours in a week and not being paid an overtime rate of
at least 1.5 times the NYS Minimum wage rate for such hours over
forty in a week, and entitled to maximum liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees, pursuant to the New York Minimum Wage Act
("NYMWA").

Plaintiff Precil was employed by Defendant as a manual worker to
help protect and handle money and other valuables from customers.

Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the putative class members at
a rate of at least 1.5 times their regular rate for hours worked in
excess of 40 in a week, for each week in which such overtime was
worked, during the period of their employment with Defendant, notes
the complaint.

Plaintiff Harold Precil is an adult, over eighteen years old, who
currently resides in Nassau County in the State of New York.

IBI Armored Services, Inc., was a New York for-profit corporation
with a place of business in Queens County, New York at 37-06 61st
Street, Woodside, NY 11377.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
     Abdul Hassan Law Group, PLLC
     215-28 Hillside Avenue
     Queens Village, NY 11427
     Phone: 718-740-1000
     Fax: 718-740-2000
     Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com


IMPERVA INC: Faces Eliezer Suit over Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------
NIR BEN ELIEZER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IMPERVA, INC.; ALLAN TESSLER; CHRISTOPHER
HYLEN; ALBERT PIMENTEL; JAMES TOLONEN; RANDALL SPRATT; and ROGER
SIPPL, Defendants, Case No. 18CIV06387 (Cal. Super., San Mateo
Cty., Nov. 28, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for breach
of fiduciary duty as a result of the Defendants' efforts to sell
the Company to affiliates of Thoma Bravo, LLC, Imperial Purchaser,
LLC, and Imperial Merger Sub, Inc., as a result of an unfair
process for an unfair price. The Plaintiff also seeks to enjoin a
proposed stockholder vote on a proposed cash transaction valued at
$2.1 billion.

According to the complaint, the Defendants filed the materially
deficient Preliminary Proxy on November 7, 2018 with the SEC in an
effort to solicit stockholders to vote their Imperva shares in
favor of the Proposed Transaction. The Preliminary Proxy is
materially deficient and deprives Imperva stockholders of the
information they need to make an intelligent, informed and rational
decision of whether to vote their shares in favor of the Proposed
Transaction.

The Preliminary Proxy omits and misrepresents material information
concerning: (a) the sales process and in particular certain
conflicts of interest for management; (b) the financial projections
for Imperva, provided by Imperva to the Company's financial advisor
Qatalyst Partners LP, for use in its financial analyses; and (c)
the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses
that purport to support the fairness opinions provided by the
Company's financial advisor, Qatalyst.

Under the deal, Imperva stockholders will receive $55.75 per share
in cash upon the closing. The transaction is expected to close late
in the fourth quarter of 2018 or early in the first quarter of
2019, subject to approval by Imperva's stockholders and regulatory
authorities and the satisfaction of customary closing conditions.

The merger agreement provides for a 45-day "go-shop" period, during
which Imperva's Board and advisors may actively solicit alternative
acquisition proposals and enter into negotiations with other
parties, the companies said in an October 10 news statement. During
this period, Imperva will have the right to terminate the merger
agreement to enter into a superior proposal subject to the terms
and conditions of the merger agreement. There can be no assurance
this 45-day "go-shop" period will result in a superior proposal.
Imperva does not intend to disclose developments about this process
unless and until its Board has made a decision with respect to any
potential superior proposal.

Imperva, Inc. engages in the development, market, sale, and support
of cyber security solutions that protect business critical data and
applications in the cloud or on premises worldwide. The company was
founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Redwood Shores, California.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Ryan P. Cardona, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 534-2590
          Facsimile: (310) 247-0160
          E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com
                  rcardona@brodskysmith.com


INTERSECTIONS INC: Franchi Suit Challenges iSubscribed Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM FRANCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. INTERSECTIONS INC., JOHN M. ALBERTINE, THOMAS G. AMATO,
BRUCE L. LEV, DAVID A. MCGOUGH, MELVIN R. SEILER, MICHAEL R.
STANFIELD, WC SACD ONE PARENT, INC., AND WC SACD ONE MERGER SUB,
INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-01957-UNA (D. Del., December 11, 2018),
stems from a proposed transaction pursuant to which the Company
will be acquired by affiliates of iSubscribed, WndrCo, and General
Catalyst.

On October 31, 2018, Intersections' Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with WC SACD
One Parent, Inc. ("Parent") and WC SACD One Merger Sub, Inc.
("Merger Sub," and together with Parent, "WC SACD").  Pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender
offer to acquire all of Intersections' outstanding common stock for
$3.68 per share in cash.

The Plaintiff contends that the Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction omits
material information, which renders the Solicitation Statement
false and misleading and in violation of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Intersections is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Chantilly, Virginia.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Intersections
provides software solutions to help consumers and businesses manage
the potential risks associated with the proliferation of their data
in the virtual world.  Under its IDENTITY GUARD(R) brand, the
Company utilizes advanced data-enabled technologies, including
artificial intelligence, to help monitor, manage, and protect
sensitive information.

Parent is a Delaware corporation and a party to the Merger
Agreement.  Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Parent, and a party to the Merger Agreement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


INTU CORP: Johnson Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
KRYSTAL JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, an individual; SHANNON DELELLE, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, an individual v. INTU, a Nevada
corporation, Case No. 2:18-cv-02361 (D. Nev., December 12, 2018),
seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages in a sum to be proven at
trial, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and the costs of
litigation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

INTU is a corporation formed pursuant to the laws of the state of
Nevada with its principal place of business being in Las Vegas,
Nevada.

INTU offers spa and massage services, on-site massage, reflexology,
and other therapies.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ronald D. Green, Esq.
          LaTeigra C. Cahill, Esq.
          RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC
          2764 Lake Sahara Drive, Suite 109
          Las Vegas, NV 89117
          Telephone: (702) 420-2001
          E-mail: rdg@randazza.com
                  lcc@randazza.com

               - and -

          Maurice B. Verstandig, Esq.
          THE VERSTANDIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          9812 Falls Road, #114-160
          Potomac, MD 20854
          Telephone: (301) 444-4600
          Facsimile: (301) 576-6885
          E-mail: mac@mbvesq.com


IOWA: Inmates Sue to Regain Access to Pornography
-------------------------------------------------
Ben Oldach, writing for WHOTV.com, reports that a new law
implemented in November eliminates so-called "reading rooms" and an
inmate's access to check out pornography at state correctional
facilities.  It also outlaws the possession of explicit material
wholesale, even if it was privately acquired. Now inmates are suing
to get that access back.

Over 50 inmates cosigned the lawsuit. A metro lawyer says the class
action complaint, written by the inmates at the Fort Dodge
Correctional Facility, is difficult to read.

"The complaint itself doesn't make a whole lot of sense at all.
It's full of sort of half sentences, half paragraphs, definitions
that don't make any sense" said Attorney Nick Sarcone, Esq..

In order for the complaint to be taken seriously, Sarcone says the
inmates need to clearly allege the harm the new policy has caused
and laws it violates.

"I think it'll get tossed if they don't figure out a way to
reformulate their complaint" he said.

But now, Sarcone says, we get to a gray area.

"There have been cases in the past where prison inmates have filed
suit claiming a violation of their first amendment rights to access
items like pornography. A lot of people believe that if you commit
a crime you lose all of your rights that are guaranteed by the
constitution; that's just not correct" said Sarcone.

Sacrone says they could angle that the policy violates their
freedom of expression, which does still exist in prison to a lesser
degree.

"It will then fall to the state to present to the court some
rational reasons why they passed the law" he said.

A spokesman for the Department of Corrections released a statement
on their reasoning which reads:

There were several reasons that the change in legislation was
sought by the department. The department tries to be good stewards
of the taxpayer's dollars, and by our having to dedicate
significant amounts of staff resources to the screening,
maintaining, and supervising the use of this material, we were
sacrificing the time that staff could have been spent providing
security or rehabilitative programming. We also have a
significantly larger portion of incarcerated people that are
classified as sex offenders than in the past. Keeping the material
separate from those that should not have access becomes a challenge
when it's allowed in the institution. Additionally, we want our
institutional climate to be rehabilitative where those incarcerated
are focused on their education, job skills, developing pro-social
behaviors, and planning for their success upon reentry into the
community.

However, at least one state lawmaker says the inmates might have a
point. Democratic Senator Rich Taylor spent 27 years working in the
prison system. He voted against the bill when it came up, saying
inmates had to have a way to relieve their sexual needs.

"Without the availability of the pornography that leaves them very
little other options, and I don't remember any judge ever
sentencing anyone to go to prison to get raped; and believe me it
happens" said Taylor.

According to the Department of Corrections there were 34 reported
allegations of sexual assault in Iowa's prison system in 2017.

In addition to being allowed to possess pornography, if they win,
the prisoners want $25,000 dollars each deposited into their
accounts.

Senator Taylor does not agree with that.[GN]


IPAYMENT INC: Faces Brims and Busch Labor Suit in Ventura County
----------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
iPayment Inc.  The case is captioned as JONATHAN BRIMS; and DENARIO
BUSCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. IPAYMENT INC.; LEADERS INC.; and LEADERS MERCHANT
SERVICES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 56-2018-00520668-CU-OE-VTA (Cal.
Super., Ventura Cty., Nov. 26, 2018).

iPayment, Inc. provides credit and debit card payment processing
services to small merchants in the United States. It performs
various functions for small merchants, such as application
processing, underwriting, account set-up, risk management, fraud
detection, merchant assistance and support, and equipment
deployment and chargeback services. The company was founded in 1999
and is headquartered in New York, New York. iPayment, Inc. operates
as a subsidiary of iPayment Holdings, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021


JAMES T. VAUGHN: Dover Attorney In Class-Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Amy Cherry, writing for WDEL.com, reports that the abuse at the
hands of correctional officers which inmates said spurred a fatal
riot at the James T. Vaughn Correctional riot last year is
continuing, according to an attorney representing prisoners in a
class-action lawsuit.

"It's as if they've learned nothing," said Steve Hampton.  

Hampton told WDEL he's concerned because letters continue to pour
into his Dover office, revealing similar accounts of mistreatment
happening behind bars in various buildings. The accounts are eerily
similar even among men who haven't seen each other in years,
Hampton said.

"Most recently, I've been getting particular complaints from
inmates who were in C-19, and who might be witnesses in the
criminal trial, about particularly bad treatment, including not
getting adequate food, not being allowed to have their own personal
property, not having any toiletries, and basically not getting
anything because the correctional officers are refusing to get
anything for them or to assist them in any way."

He alleged correctional officers -- still reeling from the death of
one of their own, Lt. Steven Floyd -- have been verbally taunting
the inmates as well.  

"Telling them 'Look, you should be the one on trial; you're the one
responsible; criminal charges ought to be filed against you,' which
is really inappropriate...and it does not seem that anyone in the
management is willing to step up and do anything about it."  

He added the treatment isn't good for correctional officers.

"It's not going to end well, eventually, for some correctional
officer down the way, because there's always a lot more inmates
than there are correctional officers, and if they decide at some
point there's going to be a problem, there's going to be a problem,
and I don't want that to happen for anybody."

Since the first in a series of Vaughn trials began, two inmates
connected to the trial died while in Department of Correction
custody. WDEL was first to report the death of potential Vaughn
witness, convicted murderer Luis Cabrera, who, at 49, died on
November 8, 2018.

"He died of a ruptured, basically a perforated ulcer...which would
allow intestinal contents to spill into the abdominal cavity, cause
peritonitis, ultimately sepsis, and death, which is appears to what
have happened."

Hampton added Cabrera was sick over a period of time and wasn't
given the proper medical care, including his prescribed
medication.

"Eventually he fell over on the floor in one of the tiers, and
including the fact that they delayed even helping him after he
fell, rather than taking him to the hospital, they just took him to
their own infirmary. He stayed there until he died," said Hampton.
"This was something that was really, really preventable -- he was
not an old man."

Kelly Gibbs, 29, also died while in DOC custody on Thanksgiving Day
after having pleaded guilty to charges of riot, conspiracy, and
kidnapping in connection with the riot. He had originally been
scheduled to go to trial on murder charges. The Delaware DOC did
not elaborate on cause of death, but said foul play wasn't
suspected.

"The privacy issue is most often than not a way to protect
themselves; I don't believe they're terrible concerned about the
privacy of the inmates -- it's sort of a joke -- they treat them
like dirt, allow 'em to die, and then say they're concerned about
their privacy; I don't get that -- that's just an excuse to not
acknowledge what they've done," said Hampton.

Delaware Department of Correction spokeswoman Jayme Gravell had no
comment.

The Dover attorney said Gibbs faced at least three increased risks
of suicide, according to DOC's own procedures.

"Gibbs, from all accounts that we've gotten, hung himself. He had
just been to court, taken a plea, and court appearances and that
kind of thing are one of the risk factors, increased risk factors
for suicide. And he was on a tier where a lot of the inmates were
very hostile towards him because they perceived that he might be
working for the prosecution, and then almost certainly, he was in a
cell by himself -- generally, inmates with cellmates don't hang
themselves," said Hampton. "I'm relatively certain they did nothing
about that to address that increased risk. So, yeah, he committed
suicide because of his own initiative -- however, what they allowed
to continue greatly accelerated that desire, and it's something
that could've been prevented."

A third inmate also made what DOC spokeswoman Gravell called
"suicidal gestures" last week while behind bars at Howard Young,
but no one was injured. That inmate, Gravell told WDEL, was not
tied to the Vaughn case.

The ongoing abuse and inmates' deaths will become apart of
Hampton's class-action lawsuit which was filed during the first of
the Vaughn trials.  

"The medical care has been really, really, really bad the last
couple years; Connections is just doing a really bad job of it, so
that's not new," said Hampton.  "But I think that the inmate who
are from C-19 get even less deference when it comes to medical
care...although I'm getting plenty of complaints about inmates not
getting treated for serious illness, serious conditions,
potentially life-threatening conditions. So that's not just
revenge--that's also just really, really poor medical care."

Connections, which cares for inmates, had no comment on the pending
lawsuit.  

Hampton also has an issue with the way inmates, who are potential
witnesses in this case, are allegedly being held together at Howard
R. Young. Correctional Center.  

"It's crazy; I don't have any answer for why they've done that
because it puts the inmates at great risk from one another if
somebody perceives that someone else is going to testify for the
prosecution. It could be something that results in violence--inmate
against inmate--certainly puts a lot of fear into them," he said.
"And I don't know how that particularly helps the criminal case. It
seems to me, the last thing that you would do if you really care
about the criminal case because now you have inmates who if they're
called to testify are terrified to testify for fear of what will
happen to them when they come back on the tier....it's just crazy
that they're lumping them altogether."  

The goal of Hampton's lawsuit has been to effect change in the way
of more humane treatment for inmates. But it will take political
will.

"It never seems that we've had any politicians that step up and
insist that it be done right; we've had, unfortunately, sort of a
closed-shop . . . . the same guys are revolving around between
different positions in government and don't want to rock the boat
because they know if they rock the boat, they won't get the
promotion they won't get the judgeship, they won't get to be head
of homeland security...so nobody's been willing, really, to come
forward and rock the boat and say, 'This stuff isn't right, and
we've got to fix it.'"[GN]


JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Faces Correia Suit in C.D.California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Johnson & Johnson
Consumer Inc. The case is captioned as REBECCA CORREIA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. JOHNSON AND JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-09918-PSG-AS (C.D. Cal., Nov. 27, 2018). The case in
assigned to Judge Philip S. Gutierrez and referred to Magistrate
Judge AlkaSagar.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. produces and markets
over-the-counter (OTC) products to families, children, healthcare
professionals, and other consumers in the United States and
internationally. The company was founded in 1879 and is based in
Fort Washington, Pennsylvania. McNEIL-PPC, Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          Joshua Nassir, Esq.
          FARUQI AND FARUQI LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com
                  jnassir@faruqilaw.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Court OKs Conditional Certification in Rivenbark
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division, issued an Memorandum and Order granting
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification in the case
captioned SHANNON RIVENBARK, et al, Plaintiffs, v. JPMORGAN CHASE &
CO., Defendant. Civil Action No. 4:17-CV-3786. (S.D. Tex.).

The Plaintiffs brought this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) suit as
a putative collective action on behalf of themselves and other
employees of JPMorgan Chase call centers. In addition to alleging
violations of the FLSA, Plaintiffs seek recovery under Texas common
law, Ohio's Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt
Pay Act.

The Plaintiffs claim that call-center employees were not paid
overtime wages for the 2.5-5 hours of off-the-clock work they did
each week. The Plaintiffs allege that call-center employees are
required to start and log into their computer, open eight (8) to
ten (10) different Chase computer programs, log in to each Chase
program, and ensure that each Chase program is running correctly,
all of which can take up to thirty (30) minutes to one (1) hour to
have ready in order to take their first phone call.

The Plaintiffs seek to conditionally certify a class of all current
and former non-exempt call-center employees of JPMorgan Chase & Co.
who worked at any time from December 14, 2014 through the final
disposition of this matter.

The Plaintiffs believe the other employees are similarly situated,
because (1) they were all subject to the same early-arrival policy,
(2) they all performed the same type of work, (3) they were all
paid hourly, (4) they were all subject to a uniform company-wide
pay policy, (5) they all followed the same log-in procedure, and
(6) they were all required to arrive early so that they could be
call ready when their shift started.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) allows employees to sue
employers for violations of the Act's overtime provisions. Suits to
recover overtime pay may be maintained against any employer by any
one or more employees for and on behalf of himself or themselves
and other employees similarly situated.

There is a reasonable basis for crediting the assertions that
aggrieved individuals exist.

The Defendant urges the to adopt the approach of a district court
in Florida, which denied conditional certification in a case
alleging similar facts. The plaintiff claimed he was required to
arrive at work up to 15 minutes prior to his shift to ensure that
his computer was on, multiple programs were loaded, and that he had
read relevant emails and memorandum before taking his first
telephone case at the beginning of his shift. The court denied the
motion for conditional class certification on the grounds that the
plaintiff had not met his burden to show that other aggrieved
individuals existed and that those individuals were similarly
situated. The court ruled that there was insufficient evidence that
others existed, because

In contrast, the Plaintiffs in this case have submitted
declarations or depositions of forty putative class members. Almost
all of these witnesses allege that Chase violated their FLSA rights
in a similar way.  Among the witnesses is a former Chase
call-center manager, Mr. Henry, who stated that many of his
superiors emphasized the importance of ensuring employees followed
the early-arrival policy. The consistency of this focus across
different supervisors implies the existence of a corporate policy
instead of merely miscommunication or the idiosyncratic practices
of certain managers.  

The Plaintiffs have shown a reasonable basis for crediting their
assertions that aggrieved individuals exist.

Aggrieved individuals are similarly situated to the plaintiff in
relevant respects.

The Defendant alleges that any early-arrival policy is based on the
whims of individual managers flouting company-wide pay policies,
and thus each manager's team would be uniquely situated. While the
evidence submitted by the parties conflicts on this point, the
Plaintiffs have submitted enough evidence to meet their burden at
this stage in the case.

The declarations submitted by the Plaintiffs allege a set of
meaningful identifiable facts that bind the claims, across
different managers in different call centers in different states.
The declarations submitted by the Defendant do not defeat
conditional certification, because an employer should not be
allowed to escape class liability simply because some managers do
not commit FLSA violations.  

The Court decided a similar FLSA case in 2005. Falcon v. Starbucks
Corp., No. 4:05-CV-0792. In that suit, Starbucks employees claimed
the company failed to pay them overtime and encouraged them to work
off the clock. Falcon, No. 4:05-CV-0792, Doc. No. 53 (S.D. Tex.
Nov. 29, 2005). That class was conditionally certified after
providing only seven affidavits corroborating the plaintiffs'
allegations.  

The Plaintiffs in this case have provided more evidence supporting
their allegations than the Falcon plaintiffs, and from a greater
variety of locations and managers. The job duties in Falcon were
much less varied than those at issue here, but those differences in
job descriptions are not material to the overtime claims alleged.
Thus, Falcon supports a finding that the aggrieved individuals in
this case are similarly situated.

The Court finds that the aggrieved individuals are similarly
situated to the Plaintiffs in relevant respects.

Aggrieved individuals want to opt into the lawsuit

Courts do not always require plaintiffs to show interest before
conditionally certifying the class. Even if this showing is
mandatory, the almost eighty putative class members who have
already attempted to opt in to the lawsuit satisfies this prong.

The Plaintiffs have thus met their burden to show that conditional
class certification is appropriate.

NOTICE

Should notice be sent to individuals subject to an arbitration
agreement?

Assuming Defendant is correct that notice may only be sent out to
individuals who are able to join the litigation, the Court cannot
determine that there is no possibility that putative class members
will be able to join the suit until Defendant files a motion to
compel arbitration against specific individuals. Any
inconsistencies in Plaintiffs' prior statements about whether they
would challenge the arbitration agreements cannot bind putative
class members who had not yet opted into the litigation and were
not represented by Plaintiffs' attorneys. Thus, notice should be
sent out to all putative class members, including those who have
signed arbitration agreements.  

Form of notice

Posting Notice at Work Sites

Courts often approve posting notice at the job sites of putative
class members. The Court authorizes the posting of notice at the
job sites of putative class members, because posting notice would
not be unduly burdensome for Defendant under these circumstances.


Receiving Class Information Directly

Any confidentiality concerns can be managed with agreements between
the parties. The Court sees no reason to doubt Plaintiffs' promise
to keep putative class members' private information confidential.

Delivery via E-mail

Although many courts have taken the view that putative class
members' names and addresses are sufficient to ensure that notice
is received, email may now be a more reliable method of ensuring
that notice is in fact received by putative class members. Other
courts in the Fifth Circuit have approved email notice to putative
class members. The Court takes the same approach and authorizes
delivery of notice by email.

Electronic Signatures

When courts allow notice to be distributed via email, they
regularly allow opt-in plaintiffs to execute consent forms
electronically. The Court finds it appropriate to allow putative
class members to execute their consent forms electronically.

Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification. The Court conditionally certifies the
following class: all current and former non-exempt call-center
employees of JPMorgan Chase & Co, N.A. who worked at any time from
December 14, 2014 through the final disposition of this matter.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 10, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc67km4q
from Leagle.com.

Shannon Rivenbark & Kaylah Casuccio, Plaintiffs, represented by
William Clifton Alexander, Anderson Alexander, PLLC.

JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., Defendant, represented by Carrie Anne Gonell
-- carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis et al, Samuel S.
Shaulson -- sam.shaulson@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis et al,
Stefanie R. Moll -- stefanie.moll@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis
& Bockius & Thomas Cullen Wallace -- cullen.wallace@morganlewis.com
-- Morgan Lewis Bockus LLP.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Profited from Sale of Personal Info, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
CONNIE TABAS; ROBERT BARKER; TRISTAN YOUNG; and KASRA ELIASIEH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.; BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION;
and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-07129 (N.D. Cal., Nov.
22, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for damages,
restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief in relation to the
use by the Defendants of the Plaintiffs' personal financial
information.

The Plaintiffs alleges in the complaint that the Defendants
profited from the sale of the Plaintiffs' personal financial
information to third parties without the Plaintiffs' agreement. The
Defendants also did not share any of the profit from the sale of
the Plaintiffs' personal financial information.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Rosenberg-Wohl, Esq.
          HERSHENSON ROSENBERG-WOHL,
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          315 Montgomery St., 8th Fl.
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 829-4330
          E-mail: david@hrw-law.com


KOHLER CO: Faces Delacruz ADA Suit in Southern District of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kohler Co. The case
is captioned as EMANUEL DELACRUZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KOHLER CO., Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-11011-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 26, 2018). The lawsuit
alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case
is assigned to Judge Lorna G. Schofield.

Kohler Co., Inc. manufactures kitchen and bath products, engines
and power generation systems, furniture and decorative products,
tiles and home interiors, and golf and resorts. Kohler Co., Inc.
was formerly known as J. M. Kohler Sons Inc. and changed its name
to Kohler Co., Inc. in January 1913. The company was founded in
1873 and is based in Kohler, Wisconsin. It has manufacturing
locations worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
          Gottlieb & Associates
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (917) 796-7437
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com


KPMG LLP: Judge Rules in Wide Sex Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Burnson, writing for Bloomberg, reports that KPMG LLP
defeated an effort by female employees suing over alleged
discrimination to pursue their claims on behalf of a group of about
10,000 others going as far back as 2009.

KEY INSIGHTS

-- November 30 ruling by a Manhattan federal judge is a major blow
to the plaintiffs in a long-running case because it deprives them
of leverage to force a significant settlement, though it doesn't
stop them from pursuing claims as individuals.

-- The decision reflects the higher hurdles for winning
class-action status in employment discrimination cases imposed by
the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years. The judge found that the
KPMG women failed to show a uniform explanation for "the countless
individual employment decisions they challenge."

-- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. female employees who claim they didn't
get paid or promoted like their male counterparts won class-action
status this year, but women suing Microsoft Corp. and Twitter Inc.
were barred from proceeding as groups. [GN]


LATIUM NETWORK: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Solis Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned JOEVANNIE SOLIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LATIUM NETWORK, INC., DAVID
JOHNSON, and MATTHEW CARDEN, Defendants. Case No. 18-10255 (SDW)
(SCM). (D.N.J.).

The Plaintiff filed a two-count, putative class action alleging
that the Defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933 by offering
and selling unregistered securities in the form of LATX tokens.

As set forth in Howey, the three requirements for establishing an
investment contract are: (1) an investment of money, (2) in a
common enterprise, (3) with profits to come solely from the efforts
of others.

Here, the Plaintiff alleges that the LATX tokens are investment
contracts, and therefore should have been registered as securities.
The Defendants acknowledge that the first prong of the Howey test
is satisfied because participants in Latium's ICO invested either
U.S. dollars or Ether to purchase LATX tokens.  Therefore, this
Court will focus on the remaining two prongs of the Howey test.

A common enterprise can be established by showing horizontal
commonality, which is characterized by a pooling of investors'
contributions and distribution of profits and losses on a pro-rata
basis among investors. At this early stage of litigation, the
Plaintiff has sufficiently pled the existence of horizontal
commonality.  

The third prong of the Howey test requires that investors must be
attracted to the investment by the prospect of a profit on the
investment rather than a desire to use or consume the item
purchased.

Accepting the facts in the Complaint as true and giving the
Plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences in the light
most favorable to him, this Court concludes that the Plaintiff has
sufficiently alleged that LATX tokens are investment contracts
under the Howey test. Because the LATX tokens were never registered
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Plaintiff may
maintain a cause of action against Latium under Section 12 of the
Act. The Defendants' arguments to the contrary are better suited to
support a motion for summary judgment.

Pursuant to Section 15 of the Act, one who controls a violator of
Section 12 is subject to joint and several liability. To sustain a
claim against a controlling person, a plaintiff must establish that
one person controlled another person or entity and that the
controlled person or entity committed a primary violation of the
securities laws.

The Plaintiff has adequately pled his Section 12 claim against
Latium. The Plaintiff further alleges that as co-founders and
c-suite officers of the alleged primary violator, the Individual
Defendants had the power to influence and control. Latium's conduct
in offering the LATX token for sale.  

Considering their positions and public statements during Latium's
ICO, the Plaintiff has set forth enough facts to maintain a
controlling person claim against the Individual Defendants.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 10, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb6kgzag from Leagle.com.

JOEVANNIE SOLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Lead Plaintiff, represented by MARTIN BENJAMIN GANDELMAN
-- mgandelman@ck-litigation.com -- CALCAGNI & KANEFSKY LLP, SAMUEL
S. CORNISH -- sam@ck-litigation.com -- Calcagni & Kanefsky LLP &
ERIC TODD KANEFSKY -- eric@ck-litigation.com -- CALCAGNI & KANEFSKY
LLP.

LATIUM NETWORK, INC., DAVID JOHNSON & MATTHEW CARDEN, Defendants,
represented by GENE KYLE KASKIW -- Gene.Kaskiw@lewisbrisbois.com --
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLC.


LEGACY HEALTH: Nurses Sue Over Unlawful Pay Deductions
------------------------------------------------------
Julianne Hunter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Legacy Health, Legacy Emanuel Medical
Center, Legacy Emanuel Hospital & Health Center, Legacy Health
Partners, LLC, and Randall Children's Hospital at Legacy Emanuel,
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02219-AC (D. Ore., December 26, 2018)
is a class and collective action of individuals who have worked for
the Defendants as nurses, nurse aides, nurse assistants, and other
non-exempt hourly employees who were subject to an automatic time
deduction for meal periods at any time beginning three years before
the filing of this complaint until resolution of this action.

Throughout the relevant time period of this action, Plaintiff and
similarly situated nurses have been denied payment for all hours
worked, including overtime; were subject to improper deductions
from wages; and were denied meal and rest periods in compliance
with Oregon law, asserts the complaint. This case implicates the
longstanding policy of Legacy Health, which fails to properly
compensate non-exempt employees for work during meal periods and
for work performed while "off-the-clock".

The complaint says Defendants' policies and practices result in
nurses being denied wages due under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and Oregon law. Under these policies and practices, non-exempt
nurses involved in direct patient care were not completely relieved
of duties during meal periods and were denied pay for those on-duty
meal periods. Defendants continue to require nurses responsible for
direct patient care to remain on duty and subject to interruptions
during meal breaks.

The Defendants' conduct violated and continues to violate the FLSA
because of the mandate that non-exempt employees, such as Plaintiff
and the Collective members, be paid at one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty within
a single workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Julianne Hunter is an individual residing in Portland,
Oregon. Ms. Hunter was employed as a nurse by Defendants in
Portland, Oregon at the Legacy Emanuel Hospital location.

Legacy Health, previously known as Legacy Health System, previously
known as Healthlink, is a domestic, non-profit corporation.

Legacy Emanuel Medical Center is a domestic, non-profit
corporation.

Legacy Emanuel Hospital & Health Center is a domestic, non-profit
corporation.

Legacy Health Partners, LLC is a domestic limited liability company
with its principal place of business at 1919 NW Lovejoy Street,
Portland, Oregon 97209.

Randall Children's Hospital at Legacy Emanuel is a domestic,
non-profit corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dana L. Sullivan, Esq.
     BUCHANAN ANGELI AL TSCHUL & SULLIVAN LLP
     921 SW Washington Street, Suite 516
     Portland, OR 97204
     Phone: (503) 974-5023
     Fax: (971) 230-0337
     Email: dana@baaslaw.com

          - and -

     Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLA CE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNSLLP
     2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
     Emeryville, CA 94608
     Phone: (415) 421-7100
     Fax: (415) 421-7105
     Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com


LOOP TRANSPORTATION: Houston Sues Over Unpaid Work-Related Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEMAURAE HOUSTON, COREY FRANKLIN, LYANA BRANNER, and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. LOOP TRANSPORTATION, INC.; and DOES
ONE through TEN inclusive, Case No. RG18931616 (Cal. Super.,
Alameda Cty., December 11, 2018), alleges that Loop failed to
reimburse or indemnify the Plaintiffs' and other Class Members'
expenses for use of their own cell phones for work-related
communications throughout their shifts.

Loop Transportation, Inc., is a California corporation that is
conducting business in the County of Alameda.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiffs.

Loop is a transportation services company in California.  Loop
operates the eighth largest private bus fleet in the United States,
and provides private employee commuter bus services to tech giants
such as Google, Facebook, Apple and LinkedIn.  Loop also operates
airport shuttles at San Francisco International Airport and Oakland
International Airport.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
          Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
          Liliana Garcia, Esq.
          Staci L. Schoff, Esq.
          Natalia Ramirez Lee, Esq.
          MALLISON & MARTINEZ
          1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
          Oakland, CA 94612-3547
          Telephone: (510) 832-9999
          Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
          E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
                  HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
                  Lgarcia@TheMMLawFirm.com
                  Staci@TheMMLawFirm.com
                  NRamirezLee@TheMMLawFirm.com


MAGNUSSEN IMPORTS: Soenardi Sues Over Unpaid Missed Meal Breaks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harijono Soenardi, Ching Nguyen and Andy Dharmadi, individuals, on
behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Magnussen Imports, Inc., a California
Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
18CV340003 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., December 26, 2018)
is a Class Action on behalf of themselves and a California Class in
order to fully compensate the California Class for their losses
incurred during the California Class Period caused by Defendant's
uniform policy and practice which failed to lawfully compensate
these employees for all their missed meal breaks and unpaid rest
periods.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide all the
legally required off-duty meal breaks to them and paid rest periods
to them as required by the applicable Wage Order and Labor Code.
Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiffs for his missed meal and
rest breaks. The nature of the work performed by Plaintiffs did not
prevent them from being relieved of all of his duties for the
legally required off-duty meal periods. Further, Defendant failed
to provide Plaintiffs with a second off-duty meal period each
workday in which Plaintiffs were required by Defendant to work 10
hours of work. As a result, Defendant's failure to provide
Plaintiffs with the legally required second off-duty meal period is
evidenced by Defendant's business records. From time to time, and
as a result of Defendant not accurately recording all missed meal
and rest periods, and failing to pay minimum wages due for all time
worked, the wage statements issued to Plaintiffs by Defendant
violated California law. To date, Defendant has yet to pay
Plaintiffs all of their wages due to them and all premiums due to
them for missed meal and rest breaks and Defendant has failed to
pay any penalty wages owed to them under California Labor Code,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff Soenardi was employed by Defendant in California from
October of 2015 to August of 2018.

Plaintiff Nguyen was employed by Defendant in California from
December of 2015 to August of 2018.

Plaintiff Dharmadi was employed by Defendant in California from
March of 2016 to August of 2018.

Magnussen Imports, Inc. is a California Corporation and continues
to conduct substantial and regular business throughout the State of
California. Magnussen Imports, Inc. retails automobile vehicles.
The Company offers new and used cars, vans, trucks, sport utility
vehicles, parts, and accessories, as well as financing,
maintenance, and repair services.

Does 1 through 50, inclusive, are presently unknown to
Plaintiffs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
     Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
     Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
     BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
     2255 Calle Clara
     La Jolla, CA 92037
     Phone: (858)551-1223
     Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
     Website: www.bamlawca.com


MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces Haley Class Suit in Md. Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANNA L. HALEY, an Individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No.
8:18-cv-03834-PJM (D. Md., December 12, 2018), alleges that
Marriott allowed a massive data breach in which the sensitive
personal information of the Plaintiff and millions of other
consumers was stolen by unknown persons.

Marriott International, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its
headquarters and principal place of business located in Bethesda,
Maryland.

Marriott is the world's largest hotel chain, with over 30 hotel
brands, comprising more than 6,500 properties and 1.2 million rooms
in more than 127 countries and territories.  Many of its hotel
brands were acquired by Marriott in a 2016 merger with Starwood
Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mila F. Bartos, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          3201 New Mexico Avenue, NW, Suite 395
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 337-8000
          Facsimile: (202) 337-8090
          E-mail: mbartos@finkelsteinthompson.com

               - and -

          Gordon M. Fauth, Jr., Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 398-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 398-8704
          E-mail: gfauth@finkelsteinthompson.com


MARRIOTT INT'L: Guests, Both Lawyers File First Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.Com, reports that the first
lawsuit filed over Marriott International Inc.'s data breach comes
just hours after the hotel chain's November 30 announcement  of the
hack—and two lawyers are the plaintiffs.

The suit, filed in federal court in Maryland by attorneys Harry
Bell, Esq. and Ed Claffy, Esq. alleges that Marriott's failure to
invest sufficient resources in security programs caused the
cyberattack, which compromised the personal information of 500
million guests of its Starwood properties, such as the W Hotel and
Westin Hotels & Resorts, beginning in 2014. Morgan & Morgan filed
the class action on behalf of the two lawyers and a nationwide
class of Marriott consumers.

"I am highly disappointed in the fact these companies,
Marriott/Starwood, with whom I have had a loyal relationship with
for many years allowed this to happen," Bell wrote in an email. "I
reached out to John Morgan and his team due to their leadership and
experience in claims of this type. My private information should be
secure when I deal with companies such as these."

Morgan & Morgan's John Yanchunis, Esq. in Tampa, Florida, who was
lead counsel in the Yahoo data breach litigation that settled Oct.
22 for $85 million, filed the suit along with William Murphy, Esq.
of Murphy Falcon Murphy in Baltimore.

"Large, sophisticated companies like Marriott are not blind to the
risks posed by cyber criminals, who are constantly attempting to
infiltrate corporations that store sensitive consumer information,"
Yanchunis said. "The fact that a breach that began in 2014 went
undetected for four years is shocking and horrifying."

A Marriott spokesman did not respond to a request for comment about
the lawsuit.

On its website, Marriott said it had begun sending email
notifications on November 30 to all those affected and is offering
guests free enrollment for a year in WebWatcher, which monitors
Internet sites and alerts consumers if their personal information
appears.

"Marriott values our guests and understands the importance of
protecting personal information," the hotel said. "Marriott deeply
regrets this incident happened. From the start, we moved quickly to
contain the incident and conduct a thorough investigation with the
assistance of leading security experts. Marriott is working hard to
ensure our guests have answers to questions about their personal
information with a dedicated website and call center."

Marriott's announcement said it received a security alert Sept. 8
but did not discover what the specific compromised information was
until Nov. 19. The investigation found that hackers had accessed
the reservations database for its Starwood properties starting
beginning in 2014. Its investigation is ongoing, and the hotel has
notified regulatory authorities and been in touch with law
enforcement.

According to Marriott, the hack compromised the names, addresses
and other information of its guests, about 327 million of whom
might have had their passport numbers stolen. The hack also
involved credit card numbers "for some," despite encryption
measures.

According to the suit, plaintiff Claffy, a partner at Thompson
Flanagan in Chicago, stayed at Marriott hotels for the past eight
years, and plaintiff Bell, of Stewart Bell in Charleston, West
Virginia, "for decades."

The suit seeks punitive damages and reimbursement for fraudulent
credit or debit card charges, out-of-pocket expenses incurred due
to the breach, costs associated with not being able to use accounts
and "ascertainable losses in the form of deprivation of the value"
of plaintiffs' personal information. It also called Marriott's
WebWatcher offering "inadequate" and sought "appropriate credit
monitoring services."

The suit cites Federal Trade Commission guidelines, provided in a
2016 publication called Protecting Personal Information: A Guide
for Business, and the federal agency's enforcement actions against
businesses for violating Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission
Act.

"Marriott's failure to employ reasonable and appropriate measures
to protect against unauthorized access to confidential consumer
data constitutes an unfair act or practice prohibited by Section 5
of the FTC Act," the complaint says.

FTC Chairman Joe Simons has pushed this year for legislation that
would give the federal agency more power to levy fines over data
breaches. [GN]


MARRIOTT INT'L: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Marriott International, Inc. (NASDAQ: MAR) from
November 9, 2016 through November 29, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Marriott
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Marriott class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1461.html or call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Marriott's and
Starwood's systems storing their customers' personal data were not
secure; (2) there had been unauthorized access on Starwood's
network since 2014; (3) consequently, the personal data of
approximately 500 million Starwood guests and sensitive personal
information of approximately 327 million of those guests may have
been exposed to unauthorized parties; and (4) as a result,
Marriott's public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January
30, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1461.html or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen—firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm.

View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20181201005017/en/

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


MAXWELL TRAILERS: Fired Welders for Filing Labor Suit, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Hampton and James Pierce, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Maxwell Trailers and
Pick-Up Accessories, Inc. and Ironstar Beds LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-00110 (E.D. Mo., December 10, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime pay and redress for retaliation under of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law.

Maxwell Trailers is into manufacturing, selling and distributing
trailers, automobiles, trucks and wagons while Ironstar
manufactures steel products and sells these products to truck
equipment dealers and distributors. They jointly employed
Plaintiffs as welders. Hampton and Pierce claim to have worked in
excess of 40 hours per work week and were terminated because of
organizing their co-workers to file lawsuit. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony M. Pezzani, Esq.
      ENGELMEYER & PEZZANI, LLC
      13321 N. Outer Forty Road, Suite 300
      Chesterfield, MO 63017
      Tel: (636) 532-9933
      Fax: (314) 863-7793
      Email: tony@epfirm.com

             - and -

      Laura E. Reasons, Esq.
      DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
      Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 214-7900
      Email: lreasons@dlcfirm.com

             - and -

      Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq.
      Mark M. Abramowitz, Esq.
      DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
      7556 Mentor Avenue
      Mentor, OH 44060
      Telephone: (440) 953-8888
      Email: kabbarno@dlcfirm.com
             mabramowitz@dlcfirm.com


MCKESSON CORP: Appeals 9th Cir. Ruling in True Health TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corporation has filed a petition for writ of certiorari
with the U.S. Supreme Court from a Ninth Circuit court ruling in a
class action lawsuit filed against the company.  The case before
the Supreme Court is captioned, MCKESSON CORPORATION; MCKESSON
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., the Applicants,  vs. TRUE HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC,
INC.; MCLAUGHLIN CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCS., INC., the Respondents, Case
No. 18A525 (U.S.) filed Nov. 19, 2018.

The Hon. Justice Kagan granted an application extending the time to
file the petition for a writ of certiorari from Nov. 28, 2018 to
Jan. 25, 2019.

The appellate proceedings is captioned, TRUE HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC,
INC.; MCLAUGHLIN CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATES, INC., individually and as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MCKESSON CORPORATION; MCKESSON
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants-Appellees, No. 16-17123 (9th Cir.).

The Ninth Circuit panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the
district court's denial of class certification in an action under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.   True Health et al. sought
to represent a class of plaintiffs who allegedly received
unsolicited faxed advertisements from defendants in violation of
the TCPA. The district court denied class certification on the
ground that under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), individual issues
related to affirmative defenses would predominate over issues
common to the class. These "consent defenses" alleged that putative
class members in various ways gave defendants "prior express
invitation or permission" to send the faxes.

The Ninth Circuit panel concluded that the district court did not
impose an "ascertainability" or administrative feasibility
requirement for class certification. Agreeing with the Sixth
Circuit, the panel held that there is no requirement that all
faxes, whether consented or not, must contain an "opt-out" notice
because the FCC's Solicited Fax Rule has been held invalid by the
D.C. Circuit.

The panel nonetheless concluded that the district court erred in
part in holding that appellants' proposed class or subclasses
failed to satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3).
The panel held that in light of Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness
Grp., LLC, 847 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that "express
consent" is an affirmative defense to a claim brought under 47
U.S.C. Sec. 227(b)(1)(A), a provision of the TCPA dealing with
unsolicited telephone calls), "prior express invitation or
permission" under Sec. 227(b)(1)(C) is an affirmative defense on
which the defendant bears the burden of proof. The panel affirmed
the district court's denial of class certification with respect to
one possible subclass and reversed the district court's holding
that other possible subclasses could not satisfy the predominance
requirement.  The panel held that one subclass would satisfy
predominance, and it remanded for a determination whether another
subclass would also satisfy the requirement. The panel also
remanded to allow the district court to address the requirements of
Rule 23(a).[BN]

Counsel for McKesson Corporation and McKesson Technologies, Inc.:

          Tiffany Cheung, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA
          Telephone: (415) 268 7000

               - and -

          Joseph R. Palmore, esq.
          Seth W. Lloyd, esq.
          MORRISON & F OERSTER LLP
          2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 887-6940
          E-mail: JPalmore@mofo.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: McCoy's Bid to Certify Class Entered and Cont'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on December 17, 2018, in the case
styled Cheryl McCoy v. Midland Funding, LLC, et al. Case No.
1:18−cv−01035 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before
the Honorable Gary Feinerman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Motion for class certification is entered and continued;
   -- Defendants shall respond by January 11, 2019;
   -- Reply is due by January 24, 2019;
   -- Motion hearing set for December 20, 2018, is stricken.[CC]


MINNESOTA: Black Elk et al. Suit vs. Sentencing Commission Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Minnesota Sentencing
Commission. The case is captioned as AUSTIN BLACK ELK; MICHAEL
DEWAYNE PERSEKE; MICHAEL WHIPPLE; SHANNON D. HOLLIE; MARK DUNKER;
GARY SPICER; RODNEY THUNDERCLOUD; THOMAS MILTON; JUSTIN JACOBSON;
AUGUST KINGBIRD; NICK OLSON; GUY I. GREEN; JAMIE ALLEN ANDREWS; and
TERRANCE L. HOLLIDAY, Plaintiffs v. THOMAS ROY, in their official
and individually capacities; EMILY JOHNSON PIPER, in their official
and individually capacities; NANCY JOHNSTON, in their official and
individually capacities; LORI SWANSON, in their official and
individually capacities; MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL, in their
official and individually capacities; MINNESOTA SENTENCING
COMMISSION, in their official and individually capacities; and JANE
AND JOHN DOES, Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-03255-DWF-LIB (D.
Minn., Nov. 26, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Donovan W.
Frank and referred to Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois.  The case
alleges violation of prisoner civil rights.

Minnesota is a state in the Upper Midwest and northern regions of
the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES: Handy Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Handy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00419 (S.D. Tex., December 10, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mitsubishi specializes in the production and operation of
environmental systems and chemical plants, corrugating machinery,
tire machinery, and transportation systems where Handy worked as as
HSE Supervisor. Handy claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours
per week without being paid overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Richard M. Schreiber, 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
             rschreiber@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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Barnes Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BARNES and MARCIA BARNES, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00838-RGJ (W.D. Ky., Dec.
18, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tad Thomas, Esq.
          John Abaray, Esq.
          THOMAS LAW OFFICES
          9418 Norton Commons Blvd., Suite 200
          Louisville, KY 40059
          Telephone: 877 256-4296
          Facsimile: 877 955-7002
          E-mail: tad@thomaslawoffices.com

               - and -

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          865 S. Dixie Dr.
          Vandalia, OH 45377
          Telephone: 937 435-7500
          Facsimile: 937 435-7511
          E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com

MULTINATIONAL SMITH: Hip Replacement Failures Trigger Suit Fears
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Marin-Guzman, writing for Financial Review, reports that Ann
Clifton had already experienced the pain of one faulty hip
replacement. She never thought that she would have to experience a
second one.

Her story is an insight into the medical device industry and how
hip replacement technology led to million-dollar class actions in
the 2010s. Now, experts warn it could happen again.

The former nurse and accountant has suffered the effects of cobalt
and chromium poisoning for years as a result of her prosthetic hip
leaking metal into her tissue.

The first artificial hip Clifton had was implanted in 2005. It was
the widely used Birmingham Hip Resurfacing system, which was later
subject to hazard alerts due to alarmingly high rates of
complications.

The device was of a type known as "metal on metal" because it is
made up of a metal ball and metal socket that slide against each
during walking or running.

Problems with that implant made Clifton to change her gait and
overuse her other hip. That led to the implantation of a second hip
device in 2010, the Adept 12/14 Modular head – the metal ball
that tops the hip implant.

Multinational Smith & Nephew produced the Birmingham Hip
Resurfacing prosthesis while UK-based company Finsbury
Orthaeopedics produced the modular head. Clifton alleges both
failed with devastating consequences.

"I was in agony," she says. "I was limping, my leg was swollen. But
my doctor kept saying, 'X-rays didn't detect abnormalities and
you're walking so well. There are no clinical signs and symptoms.
Birmingham hips are faultless, they're for everybody.'"

A year-and-a-half later, following a CAT scan, doctors realised
that the Birmingham hip was leaching chromium into her tissue
because all the bone surrounding the implant had died. When the
device was eventually removed they found the hip, which should have
stayed in position, was shifting 3cm every time she moved.

Experts later concluded the hip should not be used for women with
previous hip injuries, small frames or a history of corticosteriod
injections; Clifton had all these characteristics.

Complications with metal-on-metal hips arose in the late 2000s and
early 2010s and affected about a million people, including tens of
thousands in Australia. While the majority of patients with
metal-on-metal replacements have well-functioning hips, many
devices were taken off the market and the consequences are still
being felt.

                       Corporate Restructure

At the end of 2009, just as the issues with metal-on-metal hips
became public, Finsbury was acquired by medical device giant
Johnson & Johnson subsidiary DePuy. By 2011 the company had halted
sales of Adept hip products, although thousands of devices had been
implanted in patients across the world, including at various
hospitals in Australia.

Less than two years after the purchase, Johnson & Johnson sold its
Adept products and assets back to Finsbury chief Mike Tuke who had
founded a new company called MatOrtho. MatOrtho rehired many of the
staff from Finsbury, set up at the same site, established an
Australian arm, and sought, as the company said on its website, to
continue the "pioneering work of Finsbury Orthopaedics".

Despite Australia's joint replacement registry picking up on higher
than expected rates of revision surgery with the Adept modular head
from at least October 2011, the Therapeutic Goods Administration,
which regulates medical devices, did not issue a hazard alert on
the product until 2013.

The TGA said there had been insufficient information to draw a firm
conclusion on whether increased revision rates recorded by the
registry were related to the device. By 2012 the revision rates had
increased to 7.1 per cent after three years of use. The UK joint
registry indicated revision rates of 12.1 per cent at seven years.

The TGA recommended that surgeons contact patients who had received
the implant but it stopped short of a recall after Johnson &
Johnson said it no longer sold the product in Australia.

The next year MatOrtho released a brochure promoting its Adept
resurfacing products, pointing to revision rates in the 2014
Australian joint registry were the lowest reported. A spokesman
said the company was not selling the Adept 12/14 modular head and
referred questions to DePuy.

Clifton is now struggling to make a claim against Finsbury. Despite
doctors implanting the Adept modular head after Johnson & Johnson's
acquired Finsbury, the actual hip was produced before the
acquisition so that Johnson & Johnson can not be held liable.

That leaves her lawyers at Canberra firm Maliganis Edwards Johnson,
which represents others affected by the Adept modular head, facing
off against the remnants of the original Finsbury entity located in
England.

                       'Industrial Poisons'

Dr Robin Higgs has seen it all before. He started as a medical
device designer who became an orthopaedic surgeon, who later turned
to the law, specialising in medical devices.

Higgs introduced ceramic hips to Australia and is a strong opponent
of metal-on-metal hips, which first emerged in the 1940s and '50s
and resurfaced in the late 1990s.

"They thought they had improved the design so that these things
could be successfully used," he says. "What had happened was the
surgical and manufacturing community had made the mistake in the
early days and forgotten all about it and along come these new
people who reinvented the wheel."

Higgs says the problem is not faulty hip designs but the inherent
risk of using cobalt and chromium metals. "These are industrial
poisons," he says. "Sure things will wear out, but you don't expect
them to wear out and produce industrial poisons."

Part of the problem, he says, is that the pathway for regulatory
approval does not require evidence of safety and efficacy before
the devices are marketed. Provided the devices resemble what has
been approved previously – so that they are of "substantial
equivalence" – they could be approved again.

The system allowed for the approval of the ASR hip, which was
subject to class actions and approved based on metal on metal
devices approved in the '70s that were abandoned because they did
not work.

"History's repeated itself," Higgs says. "The first time in the
'50s, '60s and '70s. The second time in the 2000s. We've gone
through this experience all over again and the industry
demonstrably failed a second time."

                    'It Could Happen Again'

The Australian Orthopaedic Association opposes a blanket ban on
metal-on-metal implants, arguing it will lead to the removal of
implants that are safe and performing as intended.

The association says the best way to regulate the matter is a case
by case assessment using post-market data from the national joint
registry. And Australia's joint registry, run by the AOA, is seen
as a model of post-market surveillance.

However, the director of the joint registry, Professor Stephen
Graves, says that, despite improvements in the regulatory
environment, the fiasco surrounding the metal-on-metal hip implants
could happen again.

"I'm sure there will be a repeat of mistakes that occurred in the
past. That is made more likely by the current regulatory system,
which allows the use of substantial equivalence."

Professor Graves and other experts in the field argue that
regulators should require clinical testing of a device with a
limited number of patients before it's released into the wider
community.

"Unfortunately what can happen is new devices are released into the
community and then really large damage can be done before the
problems are identified," he says. "It's like a new drug released
into the market without being tested. I think the Australian
community would be surprised that devices are being used that
haven't been tested. That needs to change."

An investigation by the International Consortium of Investigative
Journalists this week has brought pressure on regulators globally
to review how medical devices are brought to market, including the
substantial equivalence test.

Without further change, like Clifton's second implant, the hip
device industry could see history repeat itself. [GN]


N.A.R. INC: Vitrano Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
JULIE ANN VITRANO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. N.A.R., INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-06754-JMA-SIL (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 28, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The
case is assigned to Judge Joan M. Azrack and referred to Magistrate
Judge Steven I. Locke.

N.A.R., Inc. operates as a professional debt collection agency in
the United States. It provides debt collection and recovery
services for retail, commercial, healthcare, and consumer accounts.
The company is headquartered in West Valley City, Utah. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Mauro, Esq.
          The Law Office of Joseph Mauro, LLC
          306 McCall Avenue
          West Islip, NY 11795
          Telephone: (631) 669-0921
          Facsimile: (631) 669-5071
          E-mail: JoeMauroesq@hotmail.com


NATIONAL SECURITIES: Ginzkey, et al. Sue for Loss on Investment
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Ginzkey, Richard Fitzgerald, Charles Cerf, Barry Donner and
on behalf of the class members, Plaintiffs, v. National Securities
Corporation, a Washington Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-01773 (W.D. Wash., December 10, 2018), seeks actual,
compensatory and/or statutory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees,
costs and prejudgment and post-judgment interest resulting from
negligence and unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs are investors of a company, Beamreach, a
California-based company that produced low-cost solar energy
production for the residential and commercial solar energy markets.
Since 2008, Beamreach has switched its core business model three
times and has never met a single sales projection or quota. Despite
these red flags, its broker, National Securities Corporation (NSC),
pressed on with its nationwide sales campaign for Beamreach's
Series D securities. The stock sold in the Series D Offering was
offered at a value of $1.499 per share and at this time,
Beamreach's valuation was set at $250 million. NSC raised an
additional $8 million from investors for the Series D Offering,
bringing NSC's total capital raise for the Beamreach Series D
preferred stock offering to $26.5 million. Still, Beamreach
generated no revenue, and was losing about $2 million a month.

Plaintiffs suffered a complete loss on their investment following
Beamreach's Chapter 7 bankruptcy in February 2017. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Neuman, Esq.
      ISRAELS NEUMAN PLC
      10900 NE 8th Street, Suite 1000
      Bellevue, WA 98004
      Tel: (720) 599-3505
      Email: dave@israelsneuman.com

             - and -

      Alexander Loftus, Esq.
      Joseph Wojciechowski, Esq.
      Jeffrey Dorman, Esq.
      Ryan Moore, Esq.
      STOLTMANN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      233 S. Wacker, 84th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 332-4200
      Email: alex@stoltlaw.com
             joe@stoltlaw.com
             jeff@stoltlaw.com
             ryan@stoltlaw.com

             - and -

      Joshua B. Kons, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA B. KONS, LLC
      939 West North Avenue, Suite 750
      Chicago, IL 60642
      Tel: (312) 757-2272
      Email: joshuakons@konslaw.com


NEW DOMINION: Discloses Proposed Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Angeion Group and Poynter Law Group of Little Rock, AR disclosed
that a proposed settlement has been reached in a class action
lawsuit entitled Cooper v. New Dominion, Spess Oil Company, et al.,
Case No. CJ-2015-24, District Court of Lincoln County, Oklahoma.
This class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons who
experienced property damage due to the earthquakes near Prague,
Oklahoma, that occurred between November 5, 2011 and November 8,
2011.  New Dominion, LLC is a Defendant in the case, but it
continues to defend the allegations and is not part of this
proposed Settlement.

The parties settling the lawsuit include Spess Oil Company, Equal
Energy US, Inc., and Fairfield Oil & Gas Corp. ("Settling
Defendants"). The Settling Defendants dispute and deny all of the
allegations, and the Court has not decided who is right. The
Settling Defendants have chosen to settle all claims of property
damage due to earthquakes within 15 miles of Prague, Oklahoma,
between November 5, 2011, and November 16, 2018.   

              What Are the Terms of the Settlement?

Subject to the Court's approval, the Settling Defendants will
collectively provide $925,000 into a Settlement Fund to be used to:
(1) Fund cash payments to Settlement Class Members who submit
timely and valid Claim Forms; (2) Pay reasonable fees and expenses
of the Settlement Administrator; (3) Pay reasonable fees and
expenses incurred by the Special Master; (4) Pay those sums awarded
by the Court, if any, in connection with Class Counsel's Fees and
Costs Application and Incentive Award Application.

               Am I a Settlement Class Member?

The Settlement Class includes:  All persons who own or owned
commercial or residential real property in any or some combination
of Lincoln, Payne, Logan, Oklahoma, Cleveland, Pottawatomie,
Seminole, Okfuskee, and/or Creek counties in Oklahoma or have or
had a property interest therein between November 5, 2011 through
November 16, 2018, and which suffered earthquake damages from
earthquakes with epicenters within 15 miles of Prague, Oklahoma,
including but not limited to, those occurring between November 5,
2011 and November 8, 2011.

              How Do I Receive Settlement Benefits?

To qualify for a payment, Class Members must complete and submit a
valid Claim Form either by mail, email or through the Settlement
Website no later than April 29, 2019 and provide proof of your
earthquake damages.

                  What Are My Other Rights?

Class Members who do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement
must exclude themselves by December 31, 2018. Class Members who do
not exclude themselves will release their claims against the
Settling Defendants, as more fully described in the Settlement
Agreement. Class Members who stay in the Settlement may object to
it. Your objection, along with any supporting material you wish to
submit, must be filed with the Court, with a copy delivered to the
Settlement Administrator, Class Counsel, and Settling Defendant's
Counsel received no later than January 8, 2019. The Court is
scheduled to hold a hearing on January 18, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. to
consider whether to approve the Settlement, Class Counsel's request
for attorneys' fees up to 40% of the Settlement Fund, and expenses
not to exceed $75,000, and a service award for the Class
Representative of up to $7,500. If there are objections, the Court
will consider them. You may appear at the hearing but are not
required to do so.  You can hire your own attorney, at your own
expense, to appear or speak for you at the hearing.

How Can I Get More Information About the Settlement?

This notice is only a summary. If you have questions or would like
more information, please visit www.OklahomaQuakes.com or call the
Settlement Administrator toll-free at 1-877-450-8811.  Please do
not contact the Court, the Settling Defendants, New Dominion or
their respective counsel with questions regarding this lawsuit.
[GN]


NORTHERN OIL: Court Junks Atkinson's 2nd Amended Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss Matthew Atkinson's Second Amended Complaint for failure to
state a claim in the case captioned JEFFREY FRIES, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. NORTHERN
OIL AND GAS, INC., MICHAEL L. REGER, and THOMAS W. STOELK,
Defendants. No. 16 Civ. 6543 (ER). (S.D.N.Y.).

This case is a putative class action on behalf of everyone who
purchased or acquired securities in Northern Oil and Gas, Inc.,
claiming that defendants Northern Oil, Michael L. Reger, and Thomas
Stoelk (Defendants) violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by making false and misleading statements in their
public filings and disclosures.  

The Court agrees with the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff still
fails in the SAC to allege that they made a material
misrepresentation or omission.  The Plaintiff argues that Northern
Oil's Code of Business Conduct and Ethics was misrepresentative
because it failed to detect or prevent Reger's misconduct. Breaches
of a corporate code of ethics do not render that code misleading
unless the company assures investors that individuals do in fact
comply with the code.  

The Plaintiff also argues that Defendants misled investors by
omitting to disclose certain facts, thus rendering other public
statements misleading. First, Plaintiff argues that Defendants had
to disclose Reger's misconduct because they emphasized his positive
qualities and value to Northern Oil. Second, Plaintiff argues that
Defendants had to disclose that Northern Oil had, among other
things, improperly comingled its resources with Dakota Plains
because they publicly stated that Northern Oil was not an SEC
subject. Defendants argue that they were under no such legal
obligations.

The failure to disclose material information does not amount to an
actionable misrepresentation, absent a duty to disclose.  One duty
to disclose arises when a corporation makes a disclosure, whether
voluntary or required, and additional information is necessary to
make the disclosure complete and accurate.  

THe Defendants were under no obligation to disclose Reger's
misconduct at Dakota Plains. The Plaintiff made the same argument
in his First Amended Complaint (FAC).  He argued that the
Defendants' representations that Reger had a wealth of knowledge
and expertise in Northern Oil's industry and that Reger was
instrumental to Northern Oil's success created a misleading
impression of Reger that Defendants had to correct by disclosing
facts which made Reger an unfit CEO. The Court disagreed, as the
omitted fact of Reger's alleged misconduct did not render
Defendants' representations as to his role in Northern Oil untrue.


The Court continues to reject the Plaintiff's argument for the same
reason.

Accordingly, the Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted with
prejudice.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 10, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybxpp5jc from
Leagle.com.

Jeffrey Fries, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Louis Carey Ludwig --
lcludwig@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross
LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz
LLP.

Matthew Atkinson, Movant, represented by Joseph Alexander Hood, II,
Pomerantz LLP & Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz Grossman Hufford
Dahlstrom & Gross LLP.

Richard Miller, Movant, represented by Joseph Alexander Hood, II,
Pomerantz LLP.

Vittorio Franceschi, Movant, represented by Jason Allen Zweig --
jasonz@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Northern Oil and Gas, Inc. & Thomas W. Stoelk, Defendants,
represented by Jeff G. Hammel -- jeff.hammel@lw.com -- Latham and
Watkins, Serrin Andrew Turner -- serrin.turner@lw.com -- Latham &
Watkins LLP & Blake Thomas Denton -- blake.denton@lw.com -- Latham
& Watkins LLP.

Michael L. Reger, Defendant, represented by David Anthony Scheffel
-- scheffel.david@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP, James K.
Langdon -- langdon.jim@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Michael
E. Rowe, III -- rowe.michael@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP.


OCEAN SPRAY: Committed Fraud, Massachusetts Lawsuit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Alex Berezow, writing for American Counsel For Science And Health,
reports that Ocean Spray, the company that makes several popular
cranberry juice drinks, is battling a class-action lawsuit brought
by two plaintiffs who claim to be representing just about every
living, breathing human in the United States1.

Filed in Massachusetts, the lawsuit accuses Ocean Spray of
committing fraud, negligent misrepresentation (of its product),
breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment. In other words, Ocean
Spray is the Bernie Madoff of cranberry juice. What evil thing has
it done to deserve this? According to the plaintiffs, Ocean Spray
uses artificial flavors, even though the front of its packaging
explicitly states otherwise.

The crux of the lawsuit revolves around malic acid, one of the
chemicals that makes green apples sour. In nature, malic acid only
exists in one form, known as L-malic acid. Its mirror image, called
D-malic acid, is not found in nature2. When it's chemically
synthesized in the laboratory, malic acid is made as a 50/50
mixture of its D and L forms. Unfortunately for Ocean Spray, adding
commercially produced malic acid to its drink means that it's
technically not natural; the D form is not made by plants.

Plaintiffs Want a Big Bag of Money

Does this matter in any relevant way? No. About 99% of the vanilla
in the world is at least partially synthesized; there simply isn't
enough natural vanilla to flavor all the cookies and ice cream we
consume. So, chemists have to make it. Similarly, about 70,000
metric tons of malic acid are made every year for use in all sorts
of products.

There are zero safety issues. The 50/50 synthesized form of malic
acid has been known to be completely safe for a very long time. (A
paper published in 1969 showed that rats metabolized L-malic acid
and the D/L mixture equally.) Furthermore, the FDA says that malic
acid is a safe additive3.

So, what's the lawsuit based on? That technicality mentioned above.
Although D- and L-malic acid molecules are basically the same thing
(from your body's viewpoint), the D-form is not natural4. The
plaintiffs claim that (1) the FDA defines anything as "artificial"
if it is not derived from food products, and (2) commercially
produced malic acid is made from petroleum.

Therefore, the plaintiffs claim that Ocean Spray lied about not
using artificial flavors, and the only restitution is for the
company to hand over a big bag of money. How big? Very big. They
want a jury to award them "statutory, compensatory, treble, and
punitive damages" -- all due to a technicality that hasn't affected
their lives one iota.

The Insanity of the "Artificial vs. Natural" Debate

This lawsuit is yet another example of the insanity of the
"artificial vs. natural" debate. Pretty much anything we find in
nature can be replicated in the laboratory. That doesn't mean the
synthesized product is no longer natural. And since, in this case,
the D and L forms of the molecule are (essentially) identical, then
recognizing one form as natural and the other as synthetic is a
distinction without a difference.

The laws discriminating artificial from natural products should be
scrapped and this lawsuit dismissed. The plaintiffs should also be
punished by being forced to sit through two semesters of organic
chemistry. [GN]


ORANGE COAST: Cal. Affirms Reversal of Summary Judgment in Gerard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of California issued an Opinion affirming the
judgment of the Court of Appeals reversing the Order of the Trial
Court granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
captioned JAZMINA GERARD et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
ORANGE COAST MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant and Respondent. No.
S241655. (Cal.).

The Court of Appeal initially reversed the trial court, holding
that although the meal period waivers were obtained in conformity
with the applicable wage order, that wage order violated a
provision of the Labor Code generally prohibiting second meal
period waivers for employees working shifts longer than 12 hours.

The Plaintiffs, according to their complaint, usually worked
12-hour shifts and sometimes worked shifts longer than 12 hours. A
Hospital policy allowed health care employees who worked shifts
longer than 10 hours caring for patients to voluntarily waive one
of their two meal periods, even if their shifts lasted more than 12
hours. The Plaintiffs alleged they signed second meal period
waivers and occasionally worked shifts longer than 12 hours without
being provided a second meal period. The Plaintiffs contended that
these second meal period waivers violated the Labor Code and they
sought penalties, unpaid wages, and injunctive relief for those and
other violations.  

The Hospital moved for summary judgment against Gerard on all of
her individual and PAGA claims, asserting that there was no
disputed issue of material fact as to the cause of action for meal
period violations because the plaintiffs were provided meal periods
as required by law. The trial court granted the Hospital's motion
for summary judgment and its subsequent motion to deny class
certification.

THe Plaintiffs appealed.

Wage and hour claims, including claims regarding the availability
and timing of meal breaks, are governed by two complementary and
occasionally overlapping sources of authority: the provisions of
the Labor Code, enacted by the Legislature, and a series of 18 wage
orders, adopted by the IWC.

In June 1993, at the urging of the health care industry, the IWC
amended Wage Order 5-1989 to add subdivision 11(C), which permitted
health care employees who worked shifts longer than eight hours to
waive a second meal period.   

As the IWC's Statement as to the Basis of Amendments explained: The
petitioner requested the IWC to allow employees in the health care
industry who work shifts in excess of eight (8) total hours in a
workday to waive their right to 'any' meal period as long as
certain protective conditions were met. The vast majority of
employees testifying at public hearings supported the IWC's
proposal with respect to such a waiver, but only insofar as waiving
a meal period or one' meal period, not any meal period. Since the
waiver of one meal period allows employees freedom of choice
combined with the protection of at least one meal period on a long
shift, on June 29, 1993, the IWC adopted language which permits
employees to waive a second meal period provided the waiver is
documented in a written agreement voluntarily signed by both the
employee and the employer, and the waiver is revocable by the
employee at any time by providing the employer at least one day's
notice.

In 1999, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 60 (AB 60),
known as the Eight-Hour-Day Restoration and Workplace Flexibility
Act of 1999. This bill was passed in response to IWC wage orders
that had eliminated overtime for employees working more than eight
hours per day. The legislation repealed five wage orders, including
Wage Order No. 5 covering the health care industry, and required
the IWC to review its wage orders and readopt orders restoring
daily overtime.

The Legislature amended Labor Code section 510 to explicitly
provide that any work in excess of eight hours in one workday shall
be compensated at the rate of no less than one and one-half times
the regular rate of pay for an employee. Section 511 was added to
allow employers and employees to agree on an alternative workweek
that permitted employees to work up to 10 hours per day within a
40-hour week without the obligation to pay overtime. AB 60 also
added section 512, which for the first time set out statutory meal
period requirements.

Subdivision (a) of section 512 (section 512(a)) states in relevant
part:An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of
more than 10 hours per day without providing the employee with a
second meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except that if the
total hours worked is no more than 12 hours, the second meal period
may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and the employee
only if the first meal period was not waived.

To summarize this chronology: The IWC in 1993 amended Wage Order 5
with section 11(C), allowing health care employees who work more
than eight hours in a shift to waive a second meal period. In 1999,
AB 60 provided in Labor Code section 512 that employees could only
waive the second meal period if they worked 12 hours or less, but
also provided in former section 516 that the IWC could adopt or
amend wage orders with respect to meal periods notwithstanding any
other provision of law as long as the order was consistent with the
health and welfare of the employees.

In 2000, the IWC adopted section 11(D), which, like 11(C),
permitted health care workers who work more than eight hours to
waive a second meal period. Also in 2000, after section 11(D) was
adopted but before it went into effect, the Legislature enacted SB
88, which required IWC wage orders to be consistent with section
512. Eight years later, this litigation challenged the validity of
the second meal period waivers of health care employees working
shifts greater than 12 hours.  

Plaintiffs do not dispute the distinction between the adoption of a
wage order and its effective date, or that the amended version of
section 516 does not apply to wage orders that had already been
adopted. Indeed, the text of amended section 516 qualifies the
IWC's authority to adopt wage orders going forward, but it contains
no terms invalidating wage orders already adopted: Except as
provided in Section 512, the IWC may adopt or amend working
condition orders with respect to break periods and meal periods.

But the plaintiffs contend that the IWC lacked authority to adopt
section 11(D) because even under the version of section 516 in
effect at the time the wage order was adopted, section 512(a)
limited the IWC's authority to permit meal period waivers.

The Plaintiffs' argument is based principally on section 517's
language that IWC wage orders adopted by July 1, 2000, must be
consistent with this chapter, that is, consistent with the
provisions of AB 60.  Consistent with this chapter, the plaintiffs
contend, included a requirement that the IWC wage order be
consistent with section 512 from the moment the Eight-Hour-Day
Restoration and Workplace Flexibility Act of 1999 was enacted.
Section 516 specifically granted the IWC authority to adopt wage
orders related to meal periods, but did not grant authority to
disregard the minimum standards established in the Act in section
512.

This reading of the statutory language is unpersuasive. It ignores
the broad sweep of the phrase notwithstanding any other provision
of law. The Court need not define the outermost parameters of the
phrase in order to conclude that there is no reason to read it in
former section 516 to exclude from its scope the law regarding meal
periods found in section 512(a). The two provisions were adopted
simultaneously as part of the same legislation and in order to
further a common purpose.

Moreover, at the time the IWC adopted the disputed wage order, the
phrase consistent with this chapter in section 517 meant
consistency not only with section 512(a) but also with former
section 516, which by its terms authorized the IWC to make rules
about meal periods notwithstanding any other provision of law.

Whether an amendment represents a change in the law or merely a
declaration of existing law is a question of interpreting existing
law, a task that ultimately belongs to the judiciary. A legislative
statement that a statute declares or amends existing law is not
binding on courts, which must make their own determination.   

In this case, it is clear that SB 88's amendment of former section
516 worked a change in the law. Before the amendment, the IWC had
the authority to adopt orders concerning meal periods
notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 512.
After the amendment, the IWC could no longer deviate from the meal
period requirements of section 512.  

Moreover, although SB 88 was an urgency statute, there is no
indication that the reason for the urgency was to prevent section
11(D) from going into effect. The restriction on the IWC's
authority with respect to meal period waivers was only one part of
SB 88; the bill also addressed, among other things, the exemption
of certain computer software professionals and a certain class of
certified nurse midwives, nurse anesthetists, and nurse
practitioners from overtime pay. The stated reason for the urgency
legislation was to enact these exemptions: In order, at the
earliest possible time, to protect businesses that rely on the
computer industry as well as certain vital health care professions,
it is necessary for this act to take effect immediately.

Since 2000, the Legislature has amended section 512 several times
to exempt various classes of employees covered by collective
bargaining agreements from the prohibition against the waiver of
second meal periods for employees working more than 12 hours. These
include certain classes of bakery workers  Thus, although the
Legislature has determined that waiver of a second meal period for
employees working more than eight hours is generally contrary to
public policy, it has not applied that rule inflexibly to all
categories of employees. This is consistent with our conclusion
that the Legislature, in prospectively requiring IWC wage orders to
be consistent with section 512(a), did not intend to disturb the
extant exemption for health care workers based on the IWC's
determination that the exemption promoted the health and welfare of
those workers.

The Court affirms the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

A full-text copy of the state Supreme Court's December 10, 2018
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycjblmft from
Leagle.com.

Law Offices of Mark Yablonovich, Mark Yablonovich --
mark@yablonovichlaw.com -- Capstone Law, Glenn A. Danas --
gdanas@robinskaplan.com -- Robert K. Friedl --
robert.friedl@capstonelawyers.com -- Arlene M. Turinchak, and Ryan
H. Wu -- Ryan.Wu@CapstoneLawyers.com -- for Plaintiffs and
Appellants.

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Richard J. Simmons --
rsimmons@sheppardmullin.com -- Derek R. Havel -- dhavel@smrh.com --
Daniel J. McQueen -- dmcqueen@sheppardmullin.com -- Robert J.
Stumpf, Jr. -- rstumpf@sheppardmullin.com -- and Karin Dougan Vogel
-- rstumpf@sheppardmullin.com -- for Defendant and Respondent.

Seyfarth Shaw, Jeffrey A. Berman, James M. Harris and Kiran A.
Seldon for California Hospital Association as Amicus Curiae on
behalf of Defendant and Respondent.


ORSCHELN FARM: Removes Hornbech et al. Suit to W.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of SHAWN HORNBECK; and MONTE BURGESS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. ORSCHELN FARM AND HOME, LLC doing business as:
Orscheln Farm and Home; and CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION,
Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Court of
the State of Missouri, County of Cass (Case No. 18CA-CC00106) to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on
November 28, 2018. The clerk of court for the Western District of
Missouri assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-00941-BP. The case is assigned
to Judge Beth Phillips.

Orscheln Farm and Home LLC operates farm stores in Arkansas,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, and
Oklahoma. The company was founded in 1960 and is based in Moberly,
Missouri. Orscheln Farm and Home LLC operates as a subsidiary of
Orscheln Group. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryan White, Esq.
          Gene P. Graham , Jr., Esq.
          WHITE GRAHAM BUCKLEY &CARR, LLC
          19049 East Valley View Parkway, Suite C
          Independence, MO 64055
          Telephone: (816) 373-9080
          Facsimile: (816) 373-9319
          E-mail: bwhite@wagblaw.com
                  ggraham@wagblaw.com

               - and –

          Dirk L. Hubbard, Esq.
          Thomas V Bender, Esq.
          HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC
          2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 421-0700
          Facsimile: (816) 421-0899
          E-mail: dhubbard@hab-law.com
                  tbender@hab-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Abby L. Risner, Esq.
          John C Drake, Esq.
          Robert L. Duckels, Esq.
          Peter W Mueller, Esq.
          GREENSFELDER HEMKER & GALE, PC
          10 South Broadway, Suite 2000
          St. Louis, MO 63102-1774
          Telephone: (314) 241-9090
          Facsimile: (314) 241-8624
          E-mail: alr@greensfelder.com
                  jdrake@greensfelder.com
                  rld@greensfelder.com
                  pmueller@greensfelder.com

               - and -

          Devan Calleen Rittler, Esq.
          Russell J. Shankland, Esq.
          Todd W. Ruskamp, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY & BACON, LLP
          2555 Grand Boulevard
          Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
          Telephone: (816) 474-6550
          Facsimile: (816) 421-5547
          E-mail: drittler@shb.com
                  rshankland@shb.com
                  truskamp@shb.com


OSCAR INSURANCE: Did Not Pay Insurance Claims, Patel Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
N. PATEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OSCAR INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
DC-18-18066 (Tex. Cir., Dallas Cty., Nov. 28, 2018) is an action
against the Defendant for failure to pay the full amount of the
insurance claim under the insurance policy.

Oscar Insurance Corporation provides health insurance plans and
related services. The company was founded in 2012 and is
headquartered in New York, New York. Oscar Insurance Corporation
operates as a subsidiary of Mulberry Health Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth A. Fuller, Esq.
          SETH A. FULLER, ESQ., ATTORNEY AT LAW
          1003 Dallas Dr.
          Denton, TX 76205
          Telephone: (214) 380-9650
          Facsimile: (972) 692-7364
          E-mail: sf@sethafuller.com

               - and -

          Naval H. Patel, Esq.
          PATEL LAW, PLLC
          1211 E. 15th St.
          Plano, TX 75074-6207
          Telephone: (214) 810-3120
          Facsimile: (214) 722-6809
          E-mail: np@patelpllc.com


OVATIONS FOOD: Braxton Files Suit Over Time-Shaving Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn D. Braxton, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Ovation Food Services, L.P., a Foreign Limited Partnership, d/b/a
Spectra Food Services & Hospitality, Defendant, Case No.
6:18-cv-02209-RBD-TBS (M.D. Fla., December 26, 2018) is a
collective action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938, to recover unpaid overtime wages and unpaid regular wages
on behalf of Plaintiff and all others similarly-situated to him who
were formerly, or are currently, employed as hourly paid employees
by Defendant.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has had policies and
practices in place to systemically shave time off of its employee's
compensable hours worked solely designed to reduce labor costs and
avoid payment of overtime at the expense of its employees.
Specifically, Defendant's upper management accesses employees'
clock in and clock out times, and systemically manipulates those
computerized records to reflect less time than the employee has
actually worked, it says.

Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime wages, unpaid regular wages,
liquidated damages or pre judgment interest, post-judgment interest
and attorneys' fees and costs from Defendant.

Braxton was, at all material times, a resident of Orange County,
Florida. Braxton, at all material times, was a covered, non-exempt
employee of Defendant within the meaning of the FLSA.

Ovation Food Services, L.P., d/b/a Spectra Food Services &
Hospitality is a Foreign Limited Partnership with operational
headquarters in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and conducts business
in various locations throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PAPA JOHN'S: Seeks Ct. Nod to Notify Delivery Drivers re Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit captioned AUSTIN BURNHAM, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. PAPA JOHN'S PADUCAH,
LLC and ROBERT WORKMAN, individually, Case No. 5:18-cv-00112-TBR
(W.D. Ky.), jointly ask the Court to approve the Notice of
Collective Action Lawsuit and Consent to Join forms to be sent to
current and former delivery drivers employed by the Defendants.

The Plaintiff filed his Original Complaint under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and requested that the case proceed as a collective
action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) on behalf of all delivery
drivers of the Defendants, who consent to join this action.

Following discussions after the Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, as a
means of facilitating potential settlement, the Parties have agreed
to certain terms, including:

   a. Defendants consent to an Order conditionally certifying
      this case as a collective action under the FLSA and
      authorizing that notice be sent to all current and former
      delivery drivers employed by Defendants within three (3)
      years preceding the Court's Order approving notice.  The
      Parties agree that Defendants' agreement to conditional
      certification shall not be construed as an admission that
      liability exists for any period of time, including, but not
      limited to, the third year;

   b. Notwithstanding this agreement to conditional
      certification, the Parties acknowledge that, in the event
      this case does not settle, the Plaintiff retains the burden
      to move for and obtain final collective action
      certification, and Defendants reserve the right to oppose
      that motion, and to file their own motion to decertify the
      collective action;

   c. The Parties agree that only one copy of the Notice and
      Consent forms shall be sent by U.S. Mail to all current and
      former delivery drivers employed by Defendants within the
      three (3) years preceding the Court's Order approving
      notice;

   d. The Parties have consented to Plaintiff filing an amended
      complaint, which dismisses his Rule 23 and Kentucky state
      law claims with prejudice; and

   e. The Parties respectfully request that the Court stay these
      proceedings (including Defendants' obligation to file an
      Answer to the Amended Complaint) and cancel any upcoming
      in-Court scheduling and management conferences while they
      attempt to reach a settlement.  If settlement is not
      achieved, the Parties request the Court set a date for a
      proposed scheduling order and case management conference
      after they notify the Court that settlement efforts were
      unsuccessful.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David O'Brien Suetholz, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          515 Park Avenue
          Louisville, KY 40208
          Telephone: (502) 636-4333
          E-mail: davids@bsjfirm.com

               - and -

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew Haynie, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC
          1701 North Market Street, Suite 210
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (212) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (212) 346-5909
          E-mail: matthew@foresterhaynie.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Timothy J. Weatherholt, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          220 West Main Street, Suite 1700
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 561-3990
          Facsimile: (502) 561-3991
          E-mail: tweatherholt@fisherphillips.com


PEACHES BOUTIQUE: Alamo Wants to Notify Workers Class Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit titled ALIESHA ALAMO, on behalf of
herself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and
unknown v. PEACHES BOUTIQUE LLC, AN ILLINOIS LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY, ROY SURDEJ, INDIVIDUALLY, AND BARBARA SURDEJ,
INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 1:18-cv-04394 (N.D. Ill.), file with the
Court their agreed motion to begin notice to members of the
plaintiff class.

On behalf of herself and all other past and present similarly
situated employees of the Defendants, Ms. Alamo has filed her claim
for alleged unpaid wages and other relief pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and
supporting case law, she moves the Court to approve and allow
sending of Notice to other similarly situated past and present
employees, who have worked for the Defendants as hourly employees,
within the pertinent statutory time period.

The Parties have negotiated the content of the Notice and Consent,
both of which reflect content which has been approved on numerous
occasions within this jurisdiction and which is appropriate to
accomplish proper Notice to potential opt-in Plaintiffs who are
entitled to the same.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John W. Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450
          E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David Dale, Esq.
          STAUB ANDERSON LLC
          55 W. Monroe St., Suite 1925
          Chicago, IL 60603-5079
          Telephone: (312) 345-0545
          E-mail: ddale@staubanderson.com


PIONEER CREDIT: Ossipova Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
EKATERINA OSSIPOVA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PIONEER CREDIT RECOVERY, INC.; and
JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-11015-GHW (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 26, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assited to
Judge Gregory H. Woods.

Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. provides collection services on
defaulted debt. The company was founded in 1980 and is based in
Arcade, New York with additional offices in Florida, Indiana, and
New Jersey. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. operates as a subsidiary
of Navient Solutions, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Jarret Wolf, Esq.
          JONES WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          60 East 42st, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (646) 459-7971
          Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
          E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com

               - and -

          Daniel Chaim Cohen, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: dan@cml.legal

               and -

          Joseph Karl Jones, Esq.
          JONES WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          555 Fifth Avenue Ste 1700
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 459-7971
          Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


PPDAI GROUP: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased PPDAI
Group Inc. ("PPDAI" or the "Company") (NYSE: PPDF) securities
pursuant and/or traceable to PPDAI's November 2017 Initial Public
Offering ("IPO"). PPDAI investors have until January 25, 2019, to
file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their PPDAI investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

The Company conducted its initial public offering of 17 million
American depositary shares in November 2017 at $13 per share.

Shortly after the IPO, however, Chinese regulators banned the
issuance of new online peer-to-peer licenses, citing illegal
practices by companies such as PPDAI. On this news, PPDAI's share
price fell $2.62 per share, or more than 24%, to close at $8.18 per
share on November 22, 2017, thereby injuring investors.

Then, on December 1, 2017, Chinese regulators issued an order
outlining specific guidelines meant to correct improper practices
among online lenders such as PPDAI. On this news, PPDAI's share
price fell $2.44, or more than 25%, over several trading days, to
close at $7.16 per share on December 7, 2017, thereby further
injuring investors.

The Complaint filed in this class action alleges that Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) PPDAI Group was engaged in predatory lending practices
that saddled subprime borrowers and those with poor or limited
credit histories with high interest rate debt they could not repay;
(2) many of PPDAI Group's customers were using PPDAI Group-provided
loans to repay existing loans they otherwise could not afford to
repay, thereby inflating PPDAI Group's revenues and active borrower
numbers and increasing the likelihood of defaults; (3) PPDAI Group
was experiencing increasing delinquency rates, negatively affecting
PPDAI Group's reserves; (4) PPDAI Group's purported "rapid growth"
in the number and amount of loans had materially dropped off; (5)
PPDAI Group was providing online loans to college students despite
a government ban on the practice; (6) PPDAI Group was engaged in
overly aggressive and improper collection practices; and (7) as a
result of its improper lending, underwriting, and collection
practices, PPDAI Group was subject to heightened risk of adverse
actions by Chinese regulators.

If you purchased shares of PPDAI, have information or 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

         Howard G. Smith, Esq.
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
         Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
         Telephone: (215) 638-4847,
         Toll-free: (888) 638-4847, or by
         Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN]


PUERTOS TRANSPORT: Underpays Cashiers/Servers, Montero Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS MONTERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PUERTOS TRANSPORT CORP.; IVAN L. PUERTO; and
RONNIE ACOSTA, Defendants, Case No. 81291927 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade
Cty., Nov. 27, 2018) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid
overtime compensation, interest, maximum liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as cashier and
server.

Puertos Transport Corp. is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RHODE ISLAND: Faces Class Action Over Lack of Civics Education
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Marco, writing for CNN, reports that Rhode Island is failing
to teach civics and prepare students to be "capable citizens," a
federal class-action lawsuit alleges.

The 14 students in the suit say the state provided such a
substandard education that it violates their rights under the US
Constitution.

"The state defendants have failed to provide the named plaintiffs
and tens of thousands of other students in the state of Rhode
Island an education that is adequate to prepare them to function
productively as civic participants," says the complaint.

It's about civics

The suit says students' public education should prepare them to
vote, sit on a jury, and participate in the political process.

Aleita Cook, 17, a student and one of the plaintiffs, told the New
York Times that she has never taken a class in government, civics
or economics.

Rhode Island has no civics requirement, no civics teachers training
program, and no state testing of civics, attorney Michael Rebell,
Esq. -- mar224@columbia.edu -- said.

The Rhode Island Department of Education and Gov. Gina Raimondo are
among those named in the suit, which is asking for "meaningful
educational opportunities adequate to prepare them to be capable
voters and jurors." All of these would enable students to
participate in the political system intelligently, says the
complaint.

"While I cannot comment on the specifics of pending litigation, I
am supportive of efforts to secure more legal protections for
student access to a quality education. Education rights are civil
rights," Rhode Island Commissioner Ken Wagner said in a statement.
The state's Attorney General declined to comment on pending
litigation.

CNN has reached out to Raimondo but has not heard back.

Lawyer speaks of 'heightened importance'

A civics education is particularity important today because many
perceive government "is almost non-functional on many levels,"
Rebell told CNN. "How are we going to get out of that? We need to
give students the skills that are needed."

The suit says it's of "heightened importance today" to prepare
students to be "capable citizens" who know the importance of
democratic institutions.

"In this climate, schools serve a vital function; they remain one
of the few places in our highly polarized society where people from
diverse political, economic and cultural backgrounds can come
together in a setting where rational discussion and understanding
of differing views can be prized and rewarded."

The suit points to a 2014 study of eighth graders in the US by the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). That study
found that 23% of students had a "proficiency" in civics. Another
study mentioned in the suit showed eighth graders didn't know the
historical purpose of the Declaration of Independence.

Goal is get to the Supreme Court

Rebell says he wants the Supreme Court to answer a question that
arose from a 1973 case about students from a poor school district
in Texas who said they were not getting the same education and
being denied their right to adequate education because wealthy
school districts got more money.

In that case, the Supreme Court raised but didn't answer the
question of whether students have a fundamental right under the
14th Amendment to education which provides them "the basic minimal
skills necessary for the enjoyment of the rights of speech and full
participation in the political process," according to the
complaint.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that the State of Texas had not
violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. But the
court also agreed that if education inequality prevents students
from their right to speak or vote, it may violate the Constitution.
[GN]


RHODE ISLAND: Fails to Provide Adequate Education, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
A.C., a minor, by her parent and guardian ad litem, Torrence S.
Waithe; A.C., a minor, by her parent and guardian ad litem, Nicolas
Cahuec; A.F. and R.F., minors, by their parent and guardian ad
litem, Aletha Forcier; I.M. and L.M., minors, by their parents and
guardians ad litem Jessica Thigpen and Anthony Thigpen; K.R., a
minor, by her parent and guardian ad litem, Marisol Rivera Pitre;
J.R., a minor, by her parents and guardians ad litem, Moira
Hinderer and Hillary Reser; M.S., a minor, by his parent and
guardian ad litem Mark Santow; M.S., a minor, by his parent and
guardian ad litem; Amie Tay, M.S., a minor, by her parents and
guardians ad litem; Maruth Sok and Lap Meas; A.W. and J.W., minors,
by their parent and guardian ad litem, Chanda Womack; and N.X., a
minor, by her parents and guardians ad litem, Youa Yang and Kao
Xiong, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. GINA RAIMONDO in her official capacity as Governor
of the State of Rhode Island; NICHOLAS A. MATTIELLO, in his
official capacity as Speaker of the Rhode Island House of
Representatives; DOMINICK J. RUGGERIO, in his official capacity as
President of the Rhode Island Senate; KEN WAGNER in his official
capacity as Commissioner of Education of the State of Rhode Island;
RHODE ISLAND STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; and the COUNCIL ON
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00645 (D.R.I., Nov. 28, 2018) alleges that the Defendants
have failed to carry out their responsibilities under the United
States Constitution to provide all students a meaningful
opportunity to obtain an education adequate to prepare them to be
capable citizens.

Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants' failure to
provide the Plaintiffs and the numerous other students who are
similarly situated an adequate education for capable civic
participation violates their constitutional rights under the Equal
Protection, Privileges and Immunities and Due Process Clauses of
the Fourteenth Amendment, the Sixth and Seventh Amendments and
violates the guarantee that they will live in a state with a
republican form of government under Article Four, Section Four of
the United States Constitution.

Rhode Island, a U.S. state in New England, is known for sandy
shores and seaside Colonial towns. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael A. Rebell, Esq.
          CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL EQUITY
          TEACHERS COLLEGE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
          Box 219, 525 W. 120th St.
          New York, NY 10027
          Telephone: (646)745-8288
          E-mail: mar224@columbia.edu

               - and -

          Jennifer L. Wood, Esq.
          Jordan Mickman, Esq.
          R.I. CENTER FOR JUSTICE
          One Empire Plaza, Suite 410
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 491-1101
          E-mail: jwood@centerforjustice.org
                  jmickman@centerforjustice.org

               - and -

          Stephen Robinson, Esq.
          ROBINSON & CLAPHAM
          123 Dyer Street, Suite 135
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 331-6565
          E-mail: srobinson@smrobinsonlaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel D. Zurier, Esq.
          55 Dorrance St., Suite 400
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 861-0200
          E-mail: sdz@zurierlaw.com


RISTORANTE LA BUCA: Wright's Renewed Bid to Certify Class Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Mark A. Kearney denies the Plaintiff's renewed motion to
certify class in the lawsuit entitled NICHOLAS J. WRIGHT v.
RISTORANTE LA BUCA INC., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02207-MAK (E.D.
Pa.).

According to the Court's order-memorandum, upon considering the
Plaintiff's renewed motion to certify class permitted under the
Court's October 26, 2018 Order and finding the Plaintiff has not
adduced evidence to warrant class certification of Pennsylvania
wage claims for twenty or twenty-two employees under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is ordered that the
Plaintiff's Renewed Motion is denied.

Mr. Wright sues Ristorante La Buca claiming from 2015 to August
2018, it paid tipped employees a flat "shift pay" below minimum
wage, violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment Collection Law.
He alleges that in August 2018, after he sued La Buca, it changed
its policy and began paying tipped employees $2.83 per hour plus
tips.  He moved for summary judgment arguing La Buca's policy of
paying a flat "shift pay" violated the FLSA and the Minimum Wage
Act.

"We deny Mr. Wright's renewed Motion since he again fails to
present sufficient evidence to satisfy the numerosity requirement
under Rule 23.  He makes many of the same conclusory arguments from
his first motion for certification. We address each argument in
turn," Judge Kearney opines.[CC]


ROBERT FX SILLERMAN: Feb. 5 Conference Call in Guevoura Fund Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as GUEVOURA FUND LTD., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBERT
FRANCIS XAVIER SILLERMAN aka Robert F.X. Sillerman, aka Robert F.
Sillerman, aka Robert X. Sillerman, Case No. 15-cv-07192 (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 11, 2015), the Court will hold a Pre-Conference Telephone
Call on Feb. 5, 2019, at 10:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Ona T.
Wang.

The matter has been referred to Judge Wang for discovery
supervision and settlement purposes.

On Oct. 24, 2018, Guevoura Fund asked the District Court to
withdraw the reference of an adversary proceeding filed with the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, Adv.
Pro. No. 18-01572 (MKV).  The Adversary Proceeding was filed as
part of Sillerman's involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy case (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:17-bk-13633, Dec. 26, 2017).

According to the Plaintiff's motion, the Adversary Proceeding and
the Securities Litigation will both require resolution of the same
underlying issues and are premised on the same underlying facts,
all involving the violation of the federal Securities Laws. The
securities fraud alleged in the Adversary Proceeding has already
survived a motion to dismiss by Sillerman in the Securities
Litigation before the District Court which has been pending for
over three years. In addition, both will eventually require
certification of the same Proposed Class under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Absent withdrawal of the reference, the parties will be required to
engage in unnecessary and duplicative proceedings in the District
Court and in the Bankruptcy Court which would be a waste of both
judicial and litigants' resources.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael S. Etkin, Esq.
          Gabriel L. Olivera, Esq.
          LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
          One Lowenstein Drive
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 597-2500
          Facsimile: (973) 597-2400
          E-mail: metkin@lowenstein.com
                  golivera@lowenstein.com

               - and -

          David A.P. Brower, Esq.
          Daniel Kuznicki, Esq.
          BROWER PIVEN
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          136 Madison Avenue, 5 th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 501-9000
          Facsimile: (212) 501-0300
          E-mail: brower@browerpiven.com
                  kuznicki@browerpiven.com


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

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

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

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

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


RUSSIAN DESSERTS: Lamaka Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mikalai Lamaka, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Russian Desserts Inc. and Rafael Ibragimov,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07354 (E.D. N.Y., December 26, 2018)
is action seeking redress for Defendants' failure to pay minimum
wage and overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and failure to
furnish accurate wage statements in violation of NYLL.

Plaintiff on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons who were/are employed by Defendants as bakers and
positions who were/are not paid minimum wage and overtime at a rate
of one and one- half times their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek for the period of
December 2017 to the date of the final disposition of this action,
the complaint asserts.

Members of the FLSA Collective are similarly situated because they
were all subject to Defendants' common policy and/or practice that
resulted in not paying minimum wage and overtime at a rate of one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per workweek during the FLSA Collective
Period. Plaintiff's and the class members were and are entitled to
be paid minimum wage plus overtime at one and one-half times their
respective regular rates of pay for each hour in excess of forty
hours that they worked in any workweek pursuant to the FLSA and
NYLL and implementing regulations, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Mikalai Lamaka is an adult resident of the State of New
York and current employee of Defendants. At all relevant times, he
was and still is an "employee" within the meaning of all applicable
statutes.

Russian Desserts Inc. is a domestic corporation operating in the
City and State of New York, County of Kings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Isl David A. Feinerman, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. FEINERMAN
     2765 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11235
     Phone: (718) 646-4800


RYANAIR HOLDINGS: Jan. 7 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors that they have until January 7, 2019 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against
Ryanair Holdings plc (NasdaqGS: RYAAY), if they purchased the
Company's American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") between May 30, 2017
and September 28, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").  This
action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

                            Get Help

Ryanair investors should visit us at
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-ryanair-holdings-plc-securities-litigation
or call toll-free (844) 367-9658.  Lawyers at Kahn Swick & Foti,
LLC are available to discuss your legal options.

                         About the Lawsuit

Ryanair and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

In the summer of 2018, worsening labor relations continued to
negatively affect Ryanair's performance, despite its statements
otherwise, causing significant expenses from flight cancellations.
On July 23, 2018, the Company revealed quarterly profits had
decreased 20% partly due to a 34% increase in staffing costs. Then,
on October 1, 2018, Ryanair disclosed that strikes and flight
cancellations had caused increasing costs such that it was unable
to meet its annual profit guidance.

On this news, the price of Ryanair's ADSs plummeted.

                      About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]


SAFE HAVEN: Loses Bid to Junk Atilano Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on December 12, 2018, in the case
titled Jose Atilano v. A Safe Haven LLC, et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-00758 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied;

   -- Plaintiff's motion for step one certification is granted;

   -- The mode of service for opt ins should be by e−mail and
      mail;

   -- Parties are to confer and submit an agreed form of notice,
      which to be red−lined from Plaintiff's proposed notice if
      no agreed form can be reached;

   -- Parties are to exchange Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures by
      January 11, 2019;

   -- Parties may issue formal discovery once they have complied
      with initial disclosures;

   -- This case is referred to Magistrate Judge Kim for further
      discovery scheduling and supervision; the referral will
      also include the authority to conduct a settlement
      conference as needed.[CC]


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Holguin Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS HOLGUIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC. d/b/a CHRYSLER
CAPITAL; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
18STCV06083 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 26, 2018) seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.

Santander Consumer USA Inc., a consumer finance company, provides
vehicle finance and unsecured consumer lending products. The
company offers new and used car loans, and auto and cash-back
refinance services. It provides products through dealers in the
United States. The company was incorporated in 1981 and is based in
Dallas, Texas. Santander Consumer USA Inc. operates as a subsidiary
of Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan Kemnitzer, Esq.
          Kristin Kemnitzer, Esq.
          KEMNITZER BARRON & KRIEG, LLP
          445 Bush St., 6th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 632-1900
          Facsimile: (415) 632-1901


SCRIPPS HEALTH: Underpays Service Representatives, Cushion Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARA CUSHION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCRIPPS HEALTH; SCRIPPS HEALTH PAYROLL;
SCRIPPS CLINIC; JOHN R. ANDERSON V MEDICAL PAVILION; SCRIPPS
HEALTHCARE, INC.; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
37-2018-00059921-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., Nov. 28,
2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours,
overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest
periods.

The Plaintiff Cushion was employed by the Defendants as patient
service representative.

Scripps Health operates as a non-profit, community-based health
care network. The Hospital provides audiology, behavioral health,
cardiology, cosmetic surgery, critical care, elbow surgery, foot
care, hand therapy, heart failure treatment, x-rays, and other
medical services. Scripps serves the patients and communities of
San Diego, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Turley, Esq.
          David Mara, Esq.
          Jill Vecchi, Esq.
          THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234-2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4048


SEALED AIR: Removes Martinez Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of BRIAN MARTINEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEALED AIR
CORPORATION (US); and DOES 1-100, Defendants, filed a notice to
remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 18STCV01624) to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
November 26, 2018.  The clerk of court for the Central District of
California assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-09881-DSF-GJS.  The case is
assigned to Judge Dale S. Fischer and referred to Magistrate Judge
Gail J. Standish.

Sealed Air provides food safety and security, and product
protection solutions worldwide. Sealed Air was founded in 1960 and
is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Thomas Mara, Esq.
          Jill Marie Vecchi, Esq.
          Matthew Evan Crawford, Esq.
          William David Turley, Esq.
          TURLEY AND MARA LAW FIRM APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234-2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
          E-mail: dmara@turleylawfirm.com
                  jvecchi@turleylawfirm.com
                  mcrawford@turleylawfirm.com
                  bturley@turleylawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Keith Joseph Rasher, ESq.
          Bradley E Schwan, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          2049 Century Park East 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
          Telephone: (310) 553-0308
          Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
          E-mail: krasher@littler.com
                  bschwan@littler.com


SENTOSA NURSING: Class-Action Status Granted in Human Trafficking
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marty Stempniak, writing for McKnight's Long - Term Care News,
reports that a judge has given nurses from the Philippines the
go-ahead to move forward with a class-action lawsuit, which alleges
they were forced to continue working at nursing homes or face a
$25,000 "contract termination fee."

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
November 28 certified the complaint, and a notice is now being sent
to more than 200 Filipino nurses who were previously recruited by
Sentosa Nursing Recruitment Agency and a related entity, Prompt
Nursing Employment Agency LLC, Bloomberg Law reported.

The suit alleges that nurses started work at two New York-based
nursing homes — Golden Gate Rehabilitation Center in Staten
Island and Spring Creek in Brooklyn — in 2008. One of the nurses,
Rose Ann Paguirigan, sued the companies in March 2017, alleging
they abused the legal system and violated the Trafficking and
Violence Protection Act by forcing nurses to pay a $25,000 fee if
they left their positions before the end of a three-year term.

Paguirigan signed one of those contracts in 2015 to work for Golden
Gate, but her contract was later transferred to Spring Creek, in
Brooklyn, and she quit her job in March 2016 after the homes
allegedly failed to pay her wages. She's accused the operators of
frequently re-assigning contracts to avoid paying promised wages.

Notices sent to nurses specify that the defendants have denied all
allegations, and the court hasn't yet determined which party is
correct.[GN]


SERVICE COMPANIES: Removes Mijares et al. Suit to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of MANUEL MIJARES; MARIAN GODOY;
JOANDERSON BENCOMO; and ANOAS DIONICIO, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly sitauted, Plaintiff v. THE SERVICE
COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit
from the Circuit Court of the State of Florida, County of Osceola
(Case No. 2018CA003551) to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on November 26, 2018. The clerk of court for
the Middle District of Florida assigned Case No.
6:18-cv-02024-RBD-TBS. The case is assigned to Judge Roy B. Dalton,
Jr. and referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith.

The Service Companies, Inc. provides managed services to the
hospitality industry in the United States, the Caribbean, and
Mexico. The company was founded in 1987 and is based in Miami
Lakes, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300
          Tampa, FL 33602-3343
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lindsay Dennis Swiger, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
          50 N Laura St., Suite 3900
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 353-2000
          Facsimile: (904) 358-1872
          E-mail: lindsay.swiger@hklaw.com

               - and -

          Erika R. Royal, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
          515 E Las Olas Blvd Suite 1200
          Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-1000
          Facsimile: (954) 463-2030
          E-mail: erika.royal@hklaw.com


SHIRE PLC: Request for Withheld Docs in Intuniv Suit Narrowed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
issued a Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in part
Plaintiffs' Request to Compel Production of various documents that
Defendants Actavis and Shire have withheld or produced with
redactions under claims of attorney-client privilege, work product
protection, or irrelevance in the case captioned In re INTUNIV
ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Civil Action No. 16-cv-12653-ADB (Direct);,
No. 16-cv-12396-ADB (Indirect). (D. Mass.).

This case involves allegations that the Defendants settled patent
litigation concerning the ADHD drug Intniv on anticompetitive
terms. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants engaged in sham
litigation over Intuniv, and then settled that litigation on terms
that delayed competition for both brand Intuniv, manufactured by
Shire, and generic Intuniv, manufactured by Actavis. The Plaintiffs
bring claims on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect
purchasers of brand and generic Intuniv.

The Plaintiffs claim that Actavis has improperly withheld or
redacted four categories of responsive, non-privileged documents:
(1) generic operations meeting minutes and charts, containing
projected launch dates and other business information (2) documents
concerning business or financial matters, such as product
development and testing (3) documents containing information
Actavis shared with third parties without an exception to the
third-party privilege waiver rule and (4) documents for which
Actavis' privilege log entries provide overly limited
descriptions.

The Court finds that considering that the information at issue
relates to Actavis' generic portfolio generally, as opposed to the
generic at issue here, that Actavis has already provided
un-redacted launch date information for the generic relevant to
this litigation (guanfacine ER), and that the Plaintiffs' asserted
rationales for needing the information are unpersuasive, Actavis
has shown that it properly redacted confidential business
information associated with generics other than Intuniv.

The Court also finds that the Plaintiffs' argument that documents
concerning topics such as product development, testing, and sales
should not be privileged is unpersuasive, particularly considering
the realities of the pharmaceutical industry. Given the
explanations provided in Actavis' privilege logs, the process that
Actavis undertook to review and log privileged documents, and the
importance and complexities of legal compliance within Actavis'
business, Actavis has demonstrated that it properly withheld the
documents at issue.

In relation to the Plaintiffs' claim that Actavis has improperly
withheld business documents, the Court finds that Actavis'
privilege logs were sufficient, with the possible exception of one
entry for a document that Actavis has agreed to produce.  

Moreover, the Court says Shire has already produced all documents
that were disclosed in the underlying patent litigation, but it has
not represented that Plaintiffs have received a historical version
of all the attachments listed in, which it claims are covered by
the work product protection. Shire cannot shield historical
documents from discovery simply because the only available version
was attached to a privileged communication. Shire has not shown
that the historical versions it did not produce will reveal an
attorney's opinion. Shire shall therefore produce every historical
attachment listed in that is independently responsive to
Plaintiffs' requests and for which no substantially identical
historical document has been produced in this litigation.

The documents at issue required significant legal judgement to
draft and revise, and most relate to disclosures in regulatory
filings and public statements about litigations with obvious
prospective legal effects, as evidenced by this action. In these
circumstances, Shire was well-advised to obtain confidential legal
advice and to involve its in-house attorneys in drafting the
documents at issue.

The parties last dispute concerns a redacted email sent from a
Shire attorney to Peak Consulting Jury Consultant David McNeff that
relates to the underlying Intuniv litigation. Considering Mr.
McNeff's occupation and the non-redacted text of the email chain in
question, Shire has demonstrated that the redacted email was
necessary or highly useful to the Shire attorney's provision of
legal advice and was made for that purpose.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 10, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y74nyfjs
from Leagle.com.

Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., Consolidated Plaintiff,
represented by Caitlin G. Coslett -- ccoslett@bm.net -- Berger
Montague PC, pro hac vice, David F. Sorensen -- dsorensen@bm.net --
Berger Montague PC, pro hac vice, Joseph T. Lukens --
jlukens@faruqilaw.com -- FARUQI & FARUQI, pro hac vice, Peter Kohn
-- pkohn@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas
M. Sobol -- tom@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Kristie A. LaSalle -- kristiel@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Lauren G. Barnes -- lauren@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Shire PLC, Defendant, represented by Nicholas F. Giove , Haug
Partners LLP, pro hac vice &Joshua S. Barlow, Haug Partners LLP.

Shire, LLC & Shire U.S., Inc., Defendants, represented by Amanda J.
Hamilton, Haug Partners LLLP, pro hac vice, David S. Shotlander,
Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLLP, pro hac vice, David A. Zwally, Haug
Partners LLLP, pro hac vice, Michael F. Brockmeyer, Frommer
Lawrence & Haug LLP, pro hac vice, Nicholas F. Giove, Haug Partners
LLP, pro hac vice, Fred A. Kelly, Jr., Haug Partners, Joshua S.
Barlow, Haug Partners LLP & Tarae L. Howell, Nixon & Peabody, LLP.


SHU HAN JU: Geng Seeks to Recoup Minimum and Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Lijun Geng, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Shu Han Ju Restaurant II Corp d/b/a Hui Fu
Chinese Cuisine and d/b/a Shu Han Ju; and Shu Han Ju Restaurant,
LLC d/b/a Shu Han Ju; Tai Hung Chiu, and John Hwang, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-12220-PAE (S.D. N.Y., December 26, 2018) is an
action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself as well as
other employees similarly situated, against the Defendants for
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, (FLSA) and New
York Labor Law (NYLL), arising from Defendants' various willfully
and unlawful employment policies, patterns and practices.

Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread
violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in pattern and practice
of failing to pay its employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wage
for each hour worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked
over 40 each workweek, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff alleges pursuant to the FLSA, that he is entitled to
recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post judgment interest, and or attorney's
fees and cost, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Lijun Geng was employed from on or about July 1, 2014, to
November 27, 2018, by Defendants to work as a deliveryman at 685
Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10025.

Shu Han Ju Restaurant II Corp d/b/a Hui Fu Chinese Cuisine and
d/b/a Shu Han Ju is a domestic business corporation organized under
the laws of the State of New York with a principal address at 58
Third Avenue, New York, NY 10003. It is a business engaged in
interstate commerce that has gross sales in excess of five hundred
thousand dollars ($500,000) per year. It purchased and handled
goods moved in interstate commerce.

Shu Han Ju Restaurant, LLC d/b/a Shu Han Ju is a domestic business
corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York with
a principal address at 465 Sixth Avenue, New York, NY 10011. It is
a business engaged in interstate commerce that has gross sales in
excess of five hundred thousand dollars per year. It purchased and
handled goods moved in interstate commerce.

Tai Hing Chiu and New York Alcoholic Beverage Control was principal
for Shu Han Ju Restaurant II Corp d/b/a Hui Fu Chinese Cuisine and
d/b/a Shu Han Ju and Shu Han Ju Restaurant, LLC d/b/a Shu Han Ju.
Tai Hing Chiu is an employer pursuant to FLSA.

John Hwang is an employer pursuant to FLSA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STOP ONE DELI: Laureano Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Laureano (a.k.a. Jose), individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Stop One Deli & Grocery
Inc II (d/b/a Stop One Deli & Grocery Inc II), Ahmed Zokari, Abdul
Doe, Sammy Doe, and Habibi Doe, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07351
(E.D. N.Y., December 26, 2018) seeks unpaid overtime wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the
N.Y. Labor Law and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders
of the New York Commissioner of Labor codified including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff Laureano worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate overtime and spread of hours compensation
for the hours that he worked, notes the complaint. Rather,
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Laureano appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff Laureano the required "spread of hours" pay for any day
in which he had to work over 10 hours a day.

Plaintiff Laureano is a former employee of Defendants and was
employed as a deli worker at the deli located at 1222 Bushwick
Ave., Brooklyn NY 11221. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from
approximately March 26, 2017 until on or about November 2018.

Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located at 1222
Bushwick Ave., Brooklyn NY 11221 under the name "Stop One Deli &
Grocery Inc II".

Ahmed Zokari, Abdul Doe, Sammy Doe, and Habibi Doe, serve or served
as owners, managers, principals, or agents of Defendant Corporation
and, through this corporate entity, operate or operated the deli as
a joint or unified enterprise.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 317-1200
     Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


TD AMERITRADE: Krukever's Revised Bid to Certify Class Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Cecilia M. Altonaga denied the Plaintiffs' Revised Motion
for Class Certification in the lawsuit entitled DIEGO KRUKEVER, et
al. v. TD AMERITRADE, FUTURES & FOREX LLC, Case No.
1:18-cv-21399-CMA (S.D. Fla.).

The Defendant's Motions to Exclude, which seek to preclude the
Court from considering the opinions and testimony of the
Plaintiffs' experts, are denied as moot.

Judge Altonaga opined that individual issues predominate over
common issues, particularly with respect to the calculation of
damages.  Judge Altonaga added that class action treatment is not a
superior method for adjudication of this controversy.

The Plaintiffs have sought to certify a proposed class of 231
persons:

     All persons, corporations and other legal entities that held
     "short put" positions in ES Options with TDAFF on
     February  5, 2018, who were damaged by TDAFF's forced
     liquidation of their ES Options between the hours of
     3:15 p.m. Central time on February 5, 2018, and 8:30 a.m.
     Central time on February 6, 2018.[CC]


TENET HEALTHCARE: Norwood Suit Seeks Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laticia Norwood, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Tenet Healthcare Corp. and Baptist Health
System, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01294 (W.D. Tex., December 11,
2018), seeks to recover payment for all hours worked, including
overtime, improper deductions from wages, compensation for work
during meal periods and off-the-clock time, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants jointly own and operate a network of hospitals and
medical care facilities throughout Texas and the United States.
Norwood was employed as a nurse by Defendants at their Northeast
Baptist Hospital in San Antonio from October 2002 through March
2018. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     William M. Hogg, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 3000
     Houston, TX 77098
     Telephone: (713) 338-2560
     Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
     Email: whogg@schneiderwallace.com

            - and -

     Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     2000 Powell Street, Ste. 1400
     Emeryville, CA 94608
     Tel: (415) 421-7100
     Fax: (415) 421-7105
     Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com


TERMAX CORP: Seeks Prelim. Approval of Settlement in Sosa Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit titled HERMINIA SOSA, on behalf of
herself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and
unknown v. TERMAX CORPORATION, Case No. 1:17-cv-06423 (N.D. Ill.),
move the Court for an order:

   * preliminarily granting the parties' joint motion for
     preliminary approval of the their joint stipulation and
     agreement to settle class action claims and for approval of
     class certification for settlement purposes;

   * approving the form and manner of class notice; and

   * scheduling a fairness hearing for final approval of
     settlement.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John W. Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450
          E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Antonio Caldarone, Esq.
          LANER MUCHIN, LTD.
          515 N. State Street, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 467-8900
          E-mail: acaldarone@lanermuchin.com


TERNIUM SA: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notified investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Ternium S.A. ("Ternium" or
the "Company")(TX) and its directors, on behalf of shareholders who
purchased Ternium securities between May 1, 2014 and November 27,
2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged
to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/tx.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
bgandg.com/tx or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Ternium
you have until January 28, 2019 to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Telephone: 212-697-6484
         Email: info@bgandg.com [GN]


TERNIUM SA: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Ternium S.A. ("Ternium" or
the "Company")  (TX) and its directors, on behalf of shareholders
who purchased Ternium securities between May 1, 2014 and November
27, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
bgandg.com/tx.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
bgandg.com/tx or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Ternium
you have until January 28, 2019 to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. [GN]


TIGER NATURAL: Fishman Moves to Certify UCL/CLRA Class, Sub-Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Fishman and Susan Faria, Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled
EMILY FISHMAN, et al., v. TIGER NATURAL GAS, INC. et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-05351-WHA (N.D. Cal.), move the Court for a supplemental
order regarding class certification, certifying a Class and
Sub-Class as defined in the Plaintiffs' Corrected Trial Plan with
respect to the Plaintiffs' claims for violations of California's
Unfair Competition Law and California's Consumers Legal Remedies
Act.

The Class and Sub-Class are defined as:

   * Tiger/PG&E Customer Class:

     All California consumers and businesses that were customers
     of Pacific Gas & Electric Company for gas supply and/or gas
     delivery at the time they enrolled in Tiger Natural Gas,
     Inc.'s ("Tiger") capped rate price protection program (the
     "Program") after receiving a telemarketing Sales Call
     advertising the Program, at any time from August 18, 2013 to
     the present.

   * Tiger/PG&E Consumer Sub-Class:

     All California consumers, but not businesses, that were
     customers of Pacific Gas & Electric Company at the time they
     enrolled in Tiger Natural Gas, Inc.'s ("Tiger") capped rate
     price protection program (the "Program") after receiving a
     telemarketing Sales Call advertising the Program, at any
     time from August 18, 2013 to the present.

The Court will commence a hearing on January 24, 2019, at 8:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kimberly A. Kralowec, Esq.
          Kathleen Styles Rogers, Esq.
          KRALOWEC LAW P.C.
          750 Battery Street, Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 546-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 546-6801
          E-mail: kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com
                  krogers@kraloweclaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Balsam, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL BALSAM
          2601C Blanding Avenue #271
          Alameda, CA 94501
          Telephone: (415) 869-2873
          Facsimile: (415) 869-2873
          E-mail: legal@danbalsam.com

               - and -

          Jacob Harker, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JACOB HARKER
          582 Market Street, Suite 1007
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 624-7602
          Facsimile: (415) 684-7757
          E-mail: jacob@harkercounsel.com


UNILEVER US: Wins Summary Judgment in Browning Consumer Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Andrew J. Guilford grants the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment in the lawsuit styled KAYLEE BROWNING, ET AL. v.
UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., Case No. 8:16-cv-02210-AG-KES (C.D.
Cal.).

Judge Guilford denies the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and the Defendant's motions to strike experts as
moot.

Plaintiffs Kaylee Browning and Sarah Basile are users of the
Defendant's St. Ives Apricot Scrub.  This "Scrub" is an exfoliant
and like all such products is necessarily abrasive.  The Plaintiffs
claim that the Scrub causes "micro-tears" and speeds up the aging
process.  The Plaintiffs allege Unilever failed to disclose the
scrub's negative side effects before selling it to the public and
misled consumers into believing it was dermatologist recommended.

The Plaintiffs claims are for (1) unfair and deceptive acts and
practices in violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act ("CLRA"); (2) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"); (3) fraud; (4) deceptive acts or practices in violation of
New York General Business Law ("GBL"); (5) false advertising in
violation of New York GBL; and (6) breach of the implied warranty
of merchantability.

The Defendant has moved for summary judgment on all six remaining
claims by Plaintiffs Kaylee Browning and Sarah Basile.  The
Plaintiffs later moved for class certification, and the Defendants
seek to strike three experts' testimony.[CC]


UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA: Sued Over Underpaid Women Science Professors
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mikayla Mace, writing for Arizona Daily Start, reports that a $20
million class-action lawsuit has been filed by a UA chemistry
professor against the Arizona Board of Regents, alleging a pattern
of sex discrimination that she said resulted in her being paid less
than male colleagues at the school's College of Science.

The complaint alleges that compared to men, the University of
Arizona underpays female faculty by tens of thousands of dollars
per year, does not adequately promote women and denies equal access
to work resources. It also claims the school retaliates against
women who complain about discrimination.

The federal lawsuit was filed on behalf of Katrina Miranda, UA
associate professor in chemistry and biochemistry, who joined the
school in 2002, and all other female faculty members within the
College of Science who have been with the school for at least three
years, said Andrew Melzer, Esq. -- amelzer@sanfordheisler.com --
one of the attorneys representing Miranda.

University spokesman Chris Sigurdson said the school is not
commenting on the lawsuit.

It was filed by the national civil-rights law firm Sanford Heisler
Sharp, which is the same firm that filed the $2 million
gender-based pay discrimination lawsuit against the regents in
January on behalf of Patricia MacCorquodale, a former Honors
College dean at the UA. Two additional female UA deans have joined
that suit.

November 29 filing was brought under the federal Equal Pay Act,
which makes wage disparity based on sex illegal, and Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which more broadly prohibits
discrimination.

In terms of pay, the lawsuit alleges the university has denied
Miranda and other women significant raises since at least 2011,
while providing raises of tens of thousands of dollars to men in
the same department with similar lengths of service.

In 2011, Miranda made $91,500; her salary for the 2017-18 school
year was $99,714.

"These are small cost-of-living adjustments," Melzer said. "What
she's being denied are substantial raises that men are getting."

The suit states the UA paid a male professor of chemistry $130,500
for the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 academic years — $30,000 more
than Miranda, even though he was hired and received tenure at the
same time as she.

"Through publicly available salary information, Dr. Miranda learned
she has been underpaid by $9,000 to $36,000 per year from 2016 to
2018 alone compared to her male colleagues who have similar or
lesser seniority and performance," the lawsuit states.

She has held leadership positions -- she served as assistant chair
in the department -- and published more than some male colleagues
who have worked at the university for a similar amount of time yet
have gotten the significant raises she had been asking for,
according to the suit.

"When you're making about $30,000 less than a man of similar
qualifications and experience, you're taking a hit. That affects
people's lives," Melzer said.

Miranda was denied promotion to full professor in 2016 by College
of Science Dean Joaquin Ruiz and former Provost Andrew Comrie
despite recommendations from the department head, the lawsuit
states.

Additionally, while about half of the associate professors are
female within her department, only one out of eight of those
holding full professorship status are women, according to the
suit.

Resources are also not offered equitably to female faculty, the
suit claims.

"For example, female professors routinely receive fewer research
assistants and lesser mentoring opportunities than their male
counterparts," according to the suit.

When Miranda complained about the perceived discrimination, she
claims the school retaliated last month by reducing her lab space,
which is needed to do her work, by about 25 percent, Melzer said,
although he said he didn't know the reason cited for the
reduction.

Lastly, the complaint accuses the university of not only
perpetuating these practices, but of doing so knowingly while
failing to correct its discriminatory practices.

"There is heightened attention to the area of gender inequality in
all sorts of institutions," Melzer said. "We hope these (suits)
will achieve results for a more equitable society." [GN]


VALLEY BROOK, OK: Police Accused of Acting Outside Jurisdiction
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Shaw, writing for News9.com KWTV, reports that the town of
Valley Brook found itself in front of an Oklahoma County Judge on
November 30.

Attorneys representing some motorists who have been pulled over by
Valley Brook Police over the past several months say those stops
were illegal.

Attorneys Marvel Lewis, Esq. and Jeff Box, Esq. say Valley Brook
Police have a long-standing practice of arresting motorists on a
stretch of Southeast 59th Street that is actually in Oklahoma City.


That stretch of roadway is populated by a handful of "Gentlemen's
Clubs."  

Lewis and Box filed a class action lawsuit against Valley Brook
three months ago.

They say while Valley Brook is a tiny town of less than 800
residents, four percent of all misdemeanor arrests in Oklahoma
County come from Valley Brook cops.

However, Judge Aletia Haynes Timmons ruled against Lewis and Box's
motion on November 30 to dismiss an obstruction charge against one
of their clients.  She said neither side in the dispute could say
exactly where that original arrest took place.   

Lewis says he'll see Valley Brook again in court soon.

"I think they have taken advantage of what they argued here today.
I think they've hidden behind that statement, and have taken
advantage of nobody challenging that.  So yes, they did get a lot
of revenue from traffic stops along SE 59th street no doubt," Lewis
said.

In September, just after Lewis and Box filed their class action
lawsuit, Valley Brook Attorney Ray Vincent, Esq. told News 9's
Steve Shaw that "an interlocal agreement" between Valley Brook and
Oklahoma City allows Valley Brook Police to arrest motorists on
streets that border Oklahoma City. The Oklahoma City Clerk told
Shaw that was not true.  

After November 30 afternoon's court hearing in Oklahoma City,
Vincent challenged Shaw, and denied he ever said that in the first
place.[GN]


VENI-EXPRESS: Denied Workers Meal Break, Wage Statements, Says Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Karla Leyva, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Veni-Express, Inc. and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00062278 (Cal. Super.
December 11, 2018), seeks redress for Defendants' failure to pay
overtime and minimum wages, failure to provide meal breaks and
proper wage statements and failure to pay earned wages upon
discharge including waiting time penalties under the Unfair
Business Practices statures of the California Business and
Professions Code, the California Labor Code and applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Orders.

Leyva worked for Veni-Express at their Escondido office from May
25, 2015 until her terminationon June 15, 2018.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David G. Spivak, Esq.
      Maralle Messrelian, Esq.
      THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
      16530 Ventura Blvd, Suite 312
      Encino, CA 91436
      Telephone: (818) 582-3086
      Facsimile: (818) 582-2561
      Email: david@snivaklaw.com
             maralle@spivaklaw.com

             - and -

      Walter Haines, Esq.
      UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
      5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201
      Huntington Beach, CA 92649
      Telephone: (562)256-1047
      Facsimile: (562)256-1006
      Email: walter@uelglaw.com


VERMILION PARISH: Removes Carr Suit to W.D. Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case captioned as, NERISSA CARR, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
VERMILION PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, Defendant, filed a notice to remove
the lawsuit from the 15th Judicial District Court for the Parish of
Vermillion, State of Louisiana (Case No. 105801) to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana on November
27, 2018. The clerk of court for the Western District of Louisiana
assigned Case No. 6:18-cv-01547. The case is assigned to Judge
Robert R Summerhays and Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna.

Vermilion Parish School Board is a school district headquartered in
Abbeville, Louisiana. It was established in 1876. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Lindsey, Esq.
          Robert M. Kallam, Esq.
          102 Versailles Boulevard, Suite 400
          Post Office Drawer 94-C
          Lafayette, LA 70509
          Telephone: (337) 237-6062
          Facsimile: (337) 237-9129
          E-mail: rkallam@preisplc.com
                  blindsey@preisplc.com


VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Mora Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned JENNIFER MORA, etc. v.
VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 8:18-cv-00335-JSM-JSS (M.D.
Fla.), seeks certification of this class:

     All consumers who purchased eyeglasses from Visionworks in
     Florida pursuant to a "Buy One, Get One Free" offer between
     February 8, 2014, and February 27, 2016.

Jennifer Mora moves for class certification pursuant to Rules 23(a)
and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to pursue on a
class-wide basis her consumer-protection claims against
Visionworks.

The central question in this litigation is whether, in connection
with its sale of eyeglasses in Florida, Visionworks used the word
free for more than six months during any twelve-month period and/or
without 30 days between such offers.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Drew Legando, Esq.
          Jack Landskroner, Esq.
          Edward S. Jerse, Esq.
          Tom Merriman, Esq.
          LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
          1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 522-9000
          Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
          E-mail: drew@lgmlegal.com
                  jack@lgmlegal.com
                  edjerse@lgmlegal.com
                  tom@lgmlegal.com

               - and -

          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
          P.O. Box 1870
          Lady Lake, FL 32158
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
          E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
                  jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com


WAL-MART INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, White et al. Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROSA WHITE; CARMEN FRANCO; and KEARIA JACKSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAL-MART,
INC.; WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants,
Case No. 37-2018-00059628-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty.,
Nov. 27, 2018) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime
compensation, prejudgment interest, maximum liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

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

Walmart Inc. operates discount stores, supercenters, and
neighborhood markets. The Company offers merchandise such as
apparel, house wares, small appliances, electronics, musical
instruments, books, home improvement, shoes, jewelry, toddler,
games, household essentials, pets, pharmaceutical products, party
supplies, and automotive tools. Walmart serves customers worldwide.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alex Asil Mashiri, Esq.
          MASHIRI LAW FIRM
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          11251 Rancho Carmel Drive #500694
          San Diego, CA 92150
          Telephone: (858) 348-4938
          Facsimile: (858) 348-4939
          E-mail: alexmashiri@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Tamim Jami, Esq
          THE JAMI LAW FIRM P.C.
          3525 Del Mar Heights Rd #941
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 284-0248
          Facsimile: (858) 284-0977
          E-mail: tamim@jamilaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Singh Asks Supreme Court to Revive Case
----------------------------------------------------
Raghvendra Singh filed with the U.S. Supreme Court a petition for
writ of certiorari from a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit in Singh's lawsuit against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
The Supreme Court case is, Raghvendra Singh, the Petitioner vs.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., the Respondent, Case No.: 18-6922 (U.S.).

The response for petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis was due Jan. 7, 2019.

The Ninth Circuit had upheld a district court's decision adopting a
magistrate judge's proposed Findings and Recommendations dated
August 17, 2017, and granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim is granted, and denying
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.

Attorneys for Petitioner:

          Raj Singh, Esq.
          P.O. Box 162783
          Sacramento, CA 95816


WHIPPLE LAW: Broom Sues Over FDCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------
Wayne Broom, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Whipple Law, P.A., MSW Capital, LLC and
John Does 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01515-HES-JBT (M.D.
Fla., December 26, 2018) is a class action on behalf of a class of
Florida consumers under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA").

On or around January 4, 2018, Defendant Whipple sent a collection
letter to Plaintiff on behalf of Defendant MSW. The letter
threatens "If you fail to contact this offices, our client has
authorized our attorneys to review this account and determine if a
lawsuit should be filed". This language is threatening, and
coercive, and only used with the intent of scaring Plaintiff into
making payment.

Specifically, though, this language was false since once year later
Defendant Whipple has not brought legal action against Plaintiff
for collection on this account, notes the complaint. The letter is
additionally false because Defendant Whipple is not authorized to
practice law in the Plaintiff's home state of Florida and,
therefore, cannot bring suit against him to collect alleged debt.
As a result of Defendants' false deceptive, misleading and unfair
debt collection practices, plaintiff has been damaged, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Florida, County of
Columbia, residing at 8214 SW County Road 242, Lake City, Florida
32024.

Whipple is a "debt collector" as the phrase is defined in the FDCPA
with an address at 233 Mt. Airy Road, Basking Ridge, New Jersey
07920.

MSW is a "debt collector" as the phrase is defined in the FDCPA
with an address at 1900 Main Street, Suite 750, Sarasota, Florida
34236.

John Does 1-25, are fictitious names of individuals and businesses
alleged for the purpose of substituting names of Defendants whose
identities will be disclosed in discovery and should be made
parties to this action.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin Zeig, Esq.
     ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
     3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
     Hollywood, FL 33021
     Phone: 754-217-3084
     Facsimile: 954-272-7807
     Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


XANITOS INC: Lloyd Sues Over Biometrics Data Retention
------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Lloyd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Xanitos, Inc., a Delaware corporation,,
Defendants, Case No. 2018CH15351 (Ill. Cir., December 11, 2018),
seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to destroy her biometrics
in its possession, to cease all unlawful activity related to the
capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics; as well
statutory damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act.

Xanitos is a management company that provides housekeeping, patient
transport, and central laundry services to hospitals throughout the
United States. Lloyd alleges that the Defendants implemented a
timekeeping system that relied on the collection, storage, and
usage of employees' fingerprints and biometric information without
informed consent in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay Edelson, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 N. LaSalle, 13th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Tel: (312) 589-6370
      Email: brichman@edelson.com
             jedelson@edelson.com
             ewadescott@edelson.com

             - and -

      David J. Fish, Esq.
      Kim Hilton, Esq.
      THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
      200 E. 5th Ave., Suite 123
      Naperville, IL 60563
      Tel: (630) 355-7590
      Fax: (630) 778-0400
      Email: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
             kunze@fishlawfirm.com


YOGAWORKS INC: Salazar Sues over 40% Drop in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------
EVAN SALAZAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. YOGAWORKS, INC.; GREAT HILL EQUITY PARTNERS
V, L.P.; GREAT HILL INVESTORS, LLC; ROSANNA C. MCCOLLOUGH; VANCE Y.
CHANG; PETER L. GARRAN; MICHAEL A. KUMIN; BRIAN T. COOPER; MICHAEL
J. GEREND; COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC; STEPHENS INC.; GUGGENHEIM
SECURITIES, LLC; ROTH CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC; IMPERIAL CAPITAL, LLC;
and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18STCV06084 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 26, 2018) is a class action on
behalf of all persons who purchased and acquired YogaWorks common
stock in connection with the Defendants' initial public offering on
August 2017, and seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Act
of 1933.

According to the complaint, on August 2017, the Defendants
commenced the IPO, issuing approximately 7.3 million shares of its
common stock to the investing public at $5.50 per share, all
pursuant to the Registration Statement.

The Registration Statement contained untrue statements of material
fact regarding the Company's ability to grow through acquisitions
and omitted lo state material facts both required by governing
regulations and necessary to make the statements made not
misleading. In particular, the Registration Statement claimed that
YogaWorks was "uniquely positioned to grow via acquisition" due to
its "well-respected brand among studio operators," "leverageable
infrastructure" "experienced management team" "studio acquisition
experience" and "tested integration procedures" the Registration
Statement was replete with references to Yoga Works "proven
integration process and solid operational infrastructure," and to
YogaWorks maintaining "a compelling platform for growth through
acquisitions."

A year after the IPO in August 2018, the Company admitted that it
would be unable to carry out its acquisition strategy in the
near-term. On August 14, 2018, the Company filed its Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the second quarter of 2018 with the SEC and
held a conference call with investors and analysts to discuss its
financial and operating results. The Company announced it had
lowered the midpoint of earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation, and amortization ("EBITDA") guidance by roughly $2.5
million, to ($6.95 million) and ($4.95 million), citing changes in
its promotional activities as well as planned training and brand
building initiatives. During the conference call, the Defendants
further disclosed that the Company would be pivoting from its much
touted acquisition strategy and refocusing on its base business and
improving the profitability of its revenue stream.

On this news, the price of YogaWorks slock plummeted over 40%.
wiping out millions of dollars investors provided to the Company in
the IPO.

YogaWorks, Inc. operates yoga studios under the YogaWorks and Yoga
Tree brand names in the United States. It primarily provides yoga
classes, workshops, teacher training programs, and yoga-related
retail merchandise. The company offers online yoga instruction and
programming services through its MyYogaWorks Web platform. As of
May 10, 2018, it operated 69 locations. The company was formerly
known as YWX Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to YogaWorks, Inc.
in April 2017. YogaWorks, Inc. was founded in 1987 and is
headquartered in Culver City, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail:  brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
                   soddo@robbinsarroyo.com



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 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 ***