CAR_Public/190109.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, January 9, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 7

                            Headlines

& HAIR LOUNGE: Yuan Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
795 FIFTH AVENUE: Fischler Says Website not Blind-friendly
AIM DIRECTIONAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Hargrave Says
ALKERMES PUBLIC: Karimian Sues Over Misleading, False Reports
ALLAIRE REHAB: Griffin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation

ALLURA USA: Asks Court to Extend Deadline to Respond to Complaint
AMAZON.COM INC: Ct. Strikes ClassClaims in Miller Wage & Hour Suit
AMERICAN INCOME: Hamilton Files Wage-and-Hour Class Action
APHRIA INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action
APHRIA INC: Kaskela Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit

APOGEE ENTERPRISES: Kirby McInerney Files Class Action Lawsuit
APPLE INC: Ahern, et al. File Suit Over Filter Defect in Computers
ARBELLA MUTUAL: Russo Sues over Vehicle Storage Charges
BANK OF AMERICA: Pender et al File Petition for Writ of Certiorari
BIG PICTURE: Weddle Moves to Quash Subpoena in Williams Suit

BLUE MARLIN: Morales Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
BOJANGLES' INC: Faces Boyette Suit Over Walker Parent Merger
BORO PARK: Yvonne Williamson Seeks Unpaid Wages
BYL COLLECTION: Faces Consumer Credit Class Action in NY
CALHOUN, GA: 11th Cir. Ruling in Walker Suit under Appeal

CARNIVAL CORP: Colgate Seeks Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
CENDANT CORP: Arbitration Award in Franchisees' Suit Affirmed
CHAMPION PETFOODS: Weaver Sues over Contaminated Pet Food
CLAY LLC: Lantino Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
COMENITY BANK: Williams Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls

CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Saks Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
DAIKIN AMERICA: Brown Suit Alleges ERISA Violation
DANIEL Q. SULLIVAN: Parker Seeks to Certify Class
DRIVELINE RETAIL: Faces Burns Suit in California Superior Court
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Cabrera Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation

E.N. MODERN STYLE: Lopez Suez Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
ESTENSON LOGISTICS: Parsons Files Suit for Breach of Employment
FACEBOOK INC: Removes Licea Suit From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif.
FCA US: Ohio App. Reverses Post-Judgment Order in Etcheson
FFE TRANSPORTATION: Underpays Drivers, Thomas Suit Alleges

FINANCIAL ASSET: Jones' FDCPA Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Dagata Disputes Collection Letter Validity
FIRST AMERICAN: Brackens Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
FLEETPRIDE, INC: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Coleman Says
FORD MOTOR: Kasper's ADA Suit Moved to Northern District of Ohio

GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: Court Dismisses Emerson Securities Suit
GOODTIME TOWNE: Cameron Seeks to Recover Min. Wages, Pay Deductions
GREEN ECO CLEAN: Noohi Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
H&M: Slater Suit Asserts Biometric Information Privacy Act Breach
HEARTLAND EMPLOYMENT: Mason Sues over Use of Biometric Identifiers

HUKARIASCENDENT INC: McClure Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Flaherty Sues Over Cars With Defective GDI Engines
IDEAL IMAGE: Catherine Esteppe Seeks OT Pay for Sales Consultants
ILLINOIS: Court Dismisses Croom's Inmate Civil Rights Suit
INTELIDENT SOLUTIONS: McGuire Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime

IPASS INC: Boswell Suit Seeks to Halt Sale to Parateum Corp.
JEFFERSON COUNTY, NY: Court OKs Site Inspection, Doc Production
KUMHO TIRE: Hog Wild Trucking Sues Over Defective Tires
LACI TRANSPORT: Stingley et al. Seek to Notify Class Members
LAFRANCA ENTERPRISES: King Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA

M&A PROJECTS: Construction Workers' Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Service of Subpoena Duces Tecum Sought
MARRIOTT INT'L: Bank of Louisiana Credit Cards Compromised
MARRIOTT INT'L: Cervantes Sues Over Data Breach
MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces Bittner Suit Over Data Breach

MARRIOTT INT'L: Siskinds LLP Files Privacy Breach Class Action
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Car Owners Sue Over  Defective Aircon Systems
MESSERLI & KRAMER: Gajewski et al. File Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
METAS FINANCIERAS: Bravo Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
MIDLAND CREDIT: Bass Disputes Vague Collection Letters

MINI MINT: Carmona Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Jan. 14 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
MONSANTO COMPANY: Hetheringtons Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Richardson Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Shobe Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MRS BPO LLC: Faces Thompson FDCPA Suit in Alabama
NAVARRE CONSTRUCTION: Faces Dollesin Suit in California Super. Ct
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Berger Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
OHIO: Class Certification in Pivonka Affirmed
PACESETTER CLAIMS: Tapley-Smith Seeks Unpaid Back Wages

PAPA JOHN'S: Houston Suit Challenges No-Poach, No-Hire Policy
PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Garcia's FCRA Suit Moved to N.D. California
PEPSICO INC: Shortchanges Retirees on Pension Benefits, Says Suit
PER DIEM STAFFING: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Junkersfeld Says
PETER THOMAS ROTH: Miller Sues Over False Marketing Campaigns

PEVATOR COMPANIES: Court Allows Amendments in Radford FLSA Suit
PRISONER TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert. Bid in Groover Suit Denied
QUALITY CONTAINER: Sued Over Termination of Union Health Benefits
QUALITY FACILITY: Cordero Seeks Overtime Compensation
RELIANT CAPITAL: Avila Appeals Rulings in FDCPA Suit to 2nd Cir.

ROCKWATER ENERGY: Tuggle's Labor Suit Transferred to S.D Texas
RODENBURG LLP: 8th Circuit Appeal Filed in Carroll FDCPA Suit
SC CLEANING SERVICE: Padilla Files FLSA Suit in New York
SERVICE CORPORATION: Court Denies Bid to Strike Class Allegations
STATE FARM: Gregory Haskin Seeks Reimbursement for Medical Services

SUNDOWN RANCH: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Holland Alleges
T&R MARKET: Dejolie Settlement Has Final Court Approval
TORONTO-DOMINION BANK: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
TOUCHPOINT 360: Court Certifies Employee Class in Arugu Suit
TRADER JOE'S: Robin Ryan Alleges Product Liability

UNITED STATES: Court Upholds Class Status for Missouri Inmates
UNITED STATES: Faces Lewis Suit Over Denial of Coverage for CGMs
URBAN COMPASS: Delacruz Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website
VIRGINIA COLLEGE: Students Seek Damages Over Campus Closures
WORLD HYUNDAI: Adams et al. Sue over Use of Biometric Identifiers

WPX ENERGY: Garcia-Maldonado Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
ZENG RESTAURANT: De Huang Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

                            *********

& HAIR LOUNGE: Yuan Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
Dong Yuan, individually and on behalf of all other Employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff(s), vs. & HAIR LOUNGE INC., HAIR
LOUNGE II INC., MIN FEI CHEN a/k/a. Wendy Chen, and CHEN LUNG LU
a/k/a Edison Lu, John Doe No. 1-10 and Jane Doe No. 1-10, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-11905-AT (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys’ fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL
by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their
employees, including Plaintiff, overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 each workweek.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff(s):

          Hui Chen, Esq.
          HUI CHEN AND ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          136-20 38th Ave., Suite 9E
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 463-2666
          E-mail: hui.chen@alum.cardozo.yu.edu

795 FIFTH AVENUE: Fischler Says Website not Blind-friendly
----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 795 Fifth Avenue Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04876, (S.D. N.Y., December 12, 2018),
seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory
and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, costs and expenses of this action together with
reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further
relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State
Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

Defendant owns and operates The Pierre Hotel, located at 2 East
61st Street, New York, New York. It also provides a website that
offers features to the public that should allow all consumers to
access the facilities and services that it offers in its hotel and
is heavily integrated with the hotel, serving as its gateway.
Fischler browsed and intended to avail of their services. However,
Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that Defendant's website
cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
      Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
      LIPSKY LOWE LLP
      630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
      New York, NY 10017-6705
      Tel: (212) 392-4772
      Fax: (212) 444-1030
      Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
             chris@lipskylowe.com


AIM DIRECTIONAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Hargrave Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCUS HARGRAVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AIM DIRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00449
(S.D. Tex., December 14, 2018), alleges violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Hargrave alleges that he and other workers like him, were
typically scheduled for 12 hour shifts, seven days a week, for
weeks at a time.  He contends that AIM does not pay all of these
workers overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single
workweek.

AIM Directional Services, LLC, was founded in 2008.  The Company's
line of business includes drilling wells for oil or gas field
operations.  AIM operates throughout the United States, and in
Texas and New Mexico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@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


ALKERMES PUBLIC: Karimian Sues Over Misleading, False Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Simin Karimian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Alkermes Public Limited Company, RICHARD F.
POPS, and JAMES M. FRATES, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07410 (E.D.
N.Y., December 27, 2018) is a federal securities class action on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded
securities of Alkermes from February 17, 2017 through November 1,
2018, both dates inclusive. Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

On February 17, 2017, Alkermes filed a Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016 with the SEC (the "2016 10-K"), which
provided the Company's year-end financial results and position. The
2016 10-K was signed by Defendants Pops and Frates. The 2016 10-K
also contained signed certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 ("SOX") by Defendants Pops and Frates attesting to the
accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material
changes to the Company's internal controls over financial
reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud.

However, the Defendants' statements were materially false and/or
misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose
adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operational and
financial results, which were known to Defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: the FDA had
advised Alkermes to follow a certain protocol in connection with
its NDA submission for ALKS 5461; Alkermes had failed to follow
that protocol; consequently, an FDA advisory committee voted 21 to
2 against the approval of ALKS 5461; and as a result, Alkermes'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times, says the complaint.

Plaintiff purchased the Company's securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the
revelation of the alleged corrective disclosure.

Alkermes is incorporated in Ireland and is a biopharmaceutical
company which researches, develops and commercializes
pharmaceutical products. The Company's securities are traded on the
Nasdaq Stock Market ("NASDAQ") under the ticker symbol "ALKS".

Richard F. Pops has been the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer throughout the Class Period.

James M. Frates has been the Company's Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer throughout the Class Period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLAIRE REHAB: Griffin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courtney Griffin, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Allaire Rehab and Nursing and Benjamin
Kurland, c/o Allaire Health Services, Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-17732 (D. N.J., December 28, 2018) is an action seeking
redress for Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL").

The Defendants failed to pay Griffin and those similarly situated
proper overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA and New
Jersey Wage Laws. The Defendants failed to properly pay at least
one and one-half times the regular rate for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek as required by the FLSA, says the
complaint.

Griffin worked for Defendants as a Certified Nursing Assistant
("CNA") at Defendants' facility in Freehold, New Jersey. Griffin is
an adult individual. Plaintiffs, was an employee of Defendants
within the last three years.

Allaire Rehab and Nursing is a New Jersey company operating a
skilled nursing facility.

Benjamin Kurland is an individual and owner of Defendant Allaire
Rehab and Nursing as well as other nursing and rehabilitation
facilities including but not limited to Morris View Healthcare
Center, Grandview Nursing and Rehabilitation, and Grandview Health
Homes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
     Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
     Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
     SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
     1101 N. Kings Highway Ste 402
     Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
     Phone: (856) 685-7420
     Fax: (856) 685-7417


ALLURA USA: Asks Court to Extend Deadline to Respond to Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA JOHNS and PAMELA
JEAN FRICK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ALLURA USA LLC, PLYCEM USA LLC D/B/A
ALLURA, PLYCEM USA, INC., ELEMENTIA USA, INC., ELEMENTIA, S.A. DE
C.V., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-CV-00669-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C.,
Dec. 18, 2018), the Defendants move the Court pursuant to Rule 6(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's initial
scheduling order to extend the deadline to respond to Plaintiffs'
Complaint up to and including January 23, 2019.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          Scott C. Harris, Esq.
          Harper T. Segui, Esq.
          WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON LLP
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: 919-600-5000
          E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
                  scott@wbmllp.com
                  harper@wbmllp.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Ashley K. Brathwaite, Esq.
          ELLIS & WINTERS LLP
          4131 Parklake Avenue, Suite 400
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: (919) 573-1297
          Facsimile: (919) 865-7010
          E-mail: ashley.brathwaite@elliswinters.com

              - and -

          Joseph D. Hammond, Esq.
          ELLIS & WINTERS LLP
          300 North Greene Street, Suite 800
          Greensboro, NC 27401
          Telephone: (336) 389-5694
          Facsimile: (336) 217-4198
          E-mail: joe.hammond@elliswinters.com




AMAZON.COM INC: Ct. Strikes ClassClaims in Miller Wage & Hour Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part
Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Portions of the Third Amended
Complaint in the case captioned JASMINE MILLER, Plaintiff, v.
AMAZON.COM INC., Defendant. Case No. 17-cv-03488-MMC. (N.D. Cal.).

In the Third Amended Class Action Complaint (TAC), Miller alleges
she was hired as a Delivery Associate, an hourly non-exempt
position. Miller alleges, she was assigned to an account to provide
package pick-up and delivery services for Amazon out of Amazon's
hub/terminal located at 990 Beecher Street in San Leandro,
California.

Miller, on her own behalf and on behalf of a putative class,
asserts in the TAC the following nine Causes of Action: (1) Failure
to Provide Regular Pay/Minimum Wages (2) Failure to Provide
Overtime Premium Pay (3) Failure to Provide Meal Periods and/or
Meal Period Premium Pay (4) Failure to Provide Rest Periods and
Rest Period Premium Pay (5) Failure to Reimburse for Necessary
Expenditures Incurred"; (6) Failure to Provide Accurate Wage
Statements & Keep Accurate Payroll Records (7) Failure to Timely
Pay Wages Owed (8) Failure to Provide Adequate Contracting
Compensation and (9) Violation of California's Unfair Competition
Law.

Amazon's motion is granted in part and denied in part, as follows:

   1. The Third and Fourth Causes of Action are dismissed to the
extent the plaintiff seeks prejudgment interest.

   2. The Sixth Cause of Action is dismissed to the extent it is
based on expenditures alleged in the Fifth Cause of Action.

   3. The Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action are dismissed in
their entirety.

   4. The Ninth Cause of Action is dismissed to the extent it is
derivative of the portion of the Sixth Cause of Action that has
been dismissed, and to the extent it is derivative of the Seventh
and Eighth Causes of Action.

   5. The class action allegations are stricken, with leave to
amend.

   6. In all other respects, the motion is denied.

First Cause of Action

In its March 29 order, the Court dismissed the claim, as alleged in
the SAC, for the reason that Miller had failed to comply with the
pleading standards set forth in Landers v. Quality Communications,
Inc., 771 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2014), which standards require a
plaintiff to allege facts showing that there was a given week in
which she was entitled to but denied minimum wages or overtime
wages.

Contrary to Amazon's argument, Miller has cured the deficiency
previously identified. In particular, Miller alleges, during her
first two weeks of employment, she clocked in on her personal
smartphone" at 8:00 a.m. using the TimeForce application as
required and would not clock out of work on her application until
around 9:30 to 9:45 p.m. every night, but was paid straight time as
if she clocked out at 7:00 p.m. Additionally, Miller alleges that,
in the weeks following those initial two weeks, she normally
returned to the terminal at or around 7:00 p.m. since the 8:00 a.m.
to 7:00 p.m. period was the maximum that she would be paid, but,
about 2-3 hours per workweek, she delivered packages after 7:00
p.m., hours for which she was not paid.   

Accordingly, Amazon has not shown the First Cause of Action is
subject to dismissal.

Second Cause of Action

In its March 29 order, the Court dismissed the claim, as alleged in
the SAC, for the reason that Miller had failed to comply with the
pleading standards set forth in Landers, which standards, as noted
above, require a plaintiff to allege facts showing that there was a
given week in which she was entitled to but denied overtime wages.

Contrary to Amazon's argument, Miller has cured the deficiency
previously identified. Specifically, the above-quoted new
allegations asserted in support of the First Cause of Action are
sufficient to identify the weeks in which Miller alleges she worked
more than eight hours a day and more than forty hours a week
without receiving overtime wages. Further, Miller's allegation that
1-800 Courier, rather than Amazon, paid her salary is insufficient
to bar a claim against Amazon.  

Amazon has not shown the Second Cause of Action is subject to
dismissal.

Third Cause of Action

In its March 29 order, the Court dismissed the claim, as alleged in
the SAC, for the reason that Miller had not alleged sufficient
facts to support a finding that Amazon failed to provide her with a
meal period.

Contrary to Amazon's argument, Miller has cured the deficiency
previously identified. Miller alleges that the scheduling software
which controls where and when employees will deliver packages had
no meal or rest periods programmed into the software or into any
employee's route that she was not even advised as to when or how
she was to take break periods and that, during her workday, she was
not allowed to turn off key electronic devices specifically, her
cell phone and Rabbit.  

With the exception of Miller's claim for prejudgment interest,
Amazon has not shown the Third Cause of Action is subject to
dismissal.

Fourth Cause of Action

In its March 29 order, the Court dismissed the claim, as alleged in
the SAC, for the reason that Miller had failed to allege sufficient
facts to support a finding that Amazon had not provided with her
with rest periods.

Contrary to Amazon's argument, Miller, for the reasons stated above
with respect to the Third Cause of Action, has cured the deficiency
previously identified. As set forth above, however, Miller is not
entitled to seek prejudgment interest as a remedy.  

With the exception of Miller's claim for prejudgment interest,
Amazon has not shown the Fourth Cause of Action is subject to
dismissal.

Fifth Cause of Action

Amazon does not seek dismissal of the Fifth Cause of Action by
which Miller alleges she was not reimbursed for necessary
expenditures, including work uniform-related items, necessary
tools, personal communication devices and supplies.

Sixth Cause of Action

In its March 29 order, the Court dismissed the claim, as alleged in
the SAC, to the extent it was derivative of claims that had been
dismissed, i.e., the First through Fourth Causes of Action. As
discussed above, the First through Fourth Causes of Action are no
longer subject to dismissal, other than to the extent Miller seeks
prejudgment interest as a remedy for two of those causes of action.


Contrary to Amazon's argument, premium pay due to an employee is a
form of wages and, consequently, must be included on a wage
statement. As to expenditures for which an employee is entitled to
reimbursement, however, Miller cites no authority, and the Court
has not located any, holding or suggesting such expenditures
constitute wages.   

To the extent the Sixth Cause of Action is based on expenditures
alleged in the Fifth Cause of Action, it is subject to dismissal,
and, in all other respects, Amazon has not shown the Sixth Cause of
Action is subject to dismissal.

Seventh Cause of Action

In its March 29 order, the Court dismissed the claim, as alleged in
the FAC, for failure to allege sufficient facts to support a
finding that Amazon's alleged failure to pay wages due upon
termination was willful, as specified in Section 203.  

To the extent Miller relies on her allegation that Amazon is
directly responsible for the acts and omissions of 1-800 Courier as
a principal, the Court is not persuaded. As the California Court of
Appeal has explained, there is no authority suggesting that, under
California law, joint employers are generally treated as if they
were each other's agents or that joint employers are normally held
jointly liable for a Labor Code violation committed by a
co-employer. Rather, the plaintiff must demonstrate that each
employer violated the terms of the specific Labor Code provision at
issue.

The Seventh Cause of Action is subject to dismissal.

Eighth Cause of Action

In its March 29 order, the Court dismissed the Eighth Cause of
Action, as alleged in the SAC, for the reason that the claim was
not supported by sufficient facts to establish a plausible claim
for relief. Amazon argues that Miller has failed to cure the
deficiency identified in the March 29 order. As set forth below,
the Court agrees.

In arguing that she has cured the deficiency, Miller relies on her
newly added allegations that Miller was told by terminal dock
managers9 and supervisers and learned from other delivery associate
employees that package volume exceeded the hours estimated
necessary to comply with California wage and hour laws, and as a
result, package delivery expectation increased but hours to be paid
for delivery remained the same and that 1-800 Courier was routinely
and systematically shorted on pay necessary for [it] to comply with
California wage and hours laws.

The Eighth Cause of Action is subject to dismissal.

Ninth Cause of Action

As pleaded, the Ninth Cause of Action is derivative of the First
through Eighth Causes of Action, and consequently is: (a) not
subject to dismissal to the extent based on the First through Fifth
Causes of Action; (b) subject to dismissal to the extent based on
the portion of the Sixth Cause of Action that is subject to
dismissal; and (c) subject to dismissal to the extent based on the
Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 6, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9s53cx2 from Leagle.com.

Jasmine Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by James Jason Hill --
jhill@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Michael D. Singer --
msinger@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury and Singer, Ronald A. Marron
-- ron@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron,
APLC, Isam Charles Khoury -- Ikhoury@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury &
Singer & Michael Houchin -- mike@consumersadvocates.com -- Law
Offices of Ronald A. Marron.

Amazon.Com Inc., a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant,
represented by Brian David Fahy -- brian.fahy@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John S. Battenfeld --
jbattenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP &Theresa
C. Mak -- theresamak@gbgllp.com -- GBG LLP.


AMERICAN INCOME: Hamilton Files Wage-and-Hour Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AMERICAN INCOME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
4:18-cv-07535-KAW (N.D. Cal., December 14, 2018), seeks to
vindicate the wage-and-hour rights of insurance salespersons in
California employed by the Defendant.

American Income deliberately and systemically fails to pay its
employees for all hours worked: its insurance salespeople, while
training, do not receive minimum wage, overtime pay, reimbursement
for business expenses, or the meal and rest breaks they are
entitled to under California law, the Plaintiff alleges.

American Income Life Insurance Company is an Indiana corporation
with its headquarters and principal place of business located in
Waco, Texas.  American Income sells a variety of insurance
products, including life, accident, and supplemental health
insurance.  American Income sells life insurance and other
insurance policies in the California insurance market.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven M. Tindall, Esq.
          Amanda M. Karl, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: smt@classlawgroup.com
                  amk@classlawgroup.com


APHRIA INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP notifies investors in Aphria, Inc.
(NYSE: APHA) of the Firm's investigation of possible disclosure
violations and the filing of a class action complaint.  If you
purchased or otherwise acquired APHA shares between July 17, 2018
through December 4, 2018 (the "Class Period") on a U.S. exchange
and suffered losses contact Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.  

For more information visit: https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/APHA or
contact Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation, by
calling 510-725-3000 or emailing APHA@hbsslaw.com.

The complaint focuses on statements made by the Company on July 17,
2018 concerning acquisitions, though our investigation continues to
look at other statements, omissions or potentially fraudulent
acts.

On November 2, 2018, Aphria began trading on the NYSE at $11.75 per
share.  About one month later, on December 3, 2018, several media
sources began reporting that Aphria has been diverting shareholder
assets to insiders through an elaborate "shell game" scheme using
international shell companies to stage unusual acquisitions by
foreign entities, essentially leaving Aphria's shareholders holding
the bag with shares backed by worthless assets.

There have also been reports that Aphria generates negative cash,
and that its cannabis facilities were allegedly infested with bugs,
stricken with mold, and have failed audit inspections.

Based on this news, the price of Aphria shares plunged 23.42% to
close at $6.05 on December 3, 2018, a 51% drop YTD.

"Right now, our focus is on investors' losses and whether the
Company made statements about its business that, if untrue or
incomplete, could have misled Aphria investors," said Hagens Berman
partner Reed Kathrein.

Whistleblowers:  Persons with non-public information regarding
Aphria should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.  Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC.  

         Reed Kathrein, Esq.
         Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
         Telphone: 510-725-3000
         Email: APHA@hbsslaw.com
                reed@hbsslaw.com [GN]


APHRIA INC: Kaskela Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Aphria, Inc. (NYSE: APHA) ("Aphria" or the "Company")
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between July
17, 2018 and December 4, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Additional information about this action may be found at
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/aphria-inc/. Aphria investors who
purchased the Company's securities during the Class Period and
suffered a financial loss in excess of $250,000 are encouraged to
contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (484) 258-1585
or (888) 715-1740 to discuss their legal rights and options.

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.
Following this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $3.39
per share, or nearly 42% in value over two days, to close on
December 4, 2018 at $4.51 per share, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

The class action complaint alleges that defendants made materially
false and misleading statements during the Class Period 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.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities during the Class
Period and suffered a financial loss in excess of $250,000 are
encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC

         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         KASKELA LAW LLC
         201 King of Prussia Road
         Suite 650
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]


APOGEE ENTERPRISES: Kirby McInerney Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota on behalf of all persons or entities who
acquired Apogee Enterprises, Inc. ("Apogee" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: APOG ) securities between June 28, 2018 and September 17,
2018 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until January 4, 2019 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

According to the lawsuit, defendants failed to disclose that: (i)
Apogee lacked the required labor force in place to ramp-up its
production; (ii) Apogee was unable to hire, train and retain new
employees; and (iii) Apogee's productivity and margins would be
negatively impacted. When the true details entered the market on
September 18, 2018, Apogee stock fell $5.74 per share, or nearly
12%, from its previous closing price of $48.22 to close at $42.48
per share on September 18, 2018.

If you acquired Apogee securities, have information, or would like
to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of
Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you. [GN]


APPLE INC: Ahern, et al. File Suit Over Filter Defect in Computers
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Ahern, Nikolas Frenzel, and Justin Evans, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Case
No. 5:18-cv-07196 (N.D. Calif., November 28, 2018), is brought
against the Defendant for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that Apple's computers, including its iMac
desktops and MacBook laptops, contain a critical defect that has
led to at least two deficiencies in the performance of the
Computers (the "Filter Defect"). The components in Apple's
Computers generate a great deal of heat during use, and Apple
installed fans and vents to cool them down. But Apple did not
install any filters for the vents. As a result of this Filter
Defect, the fans suck in dirt and debris that get stuck behind the
screen, causing a permanent dark smudging to appear in the corners
of the screens. The second deficiency caused by the Filter Defect
is the harmful effect of the dust on the "motherboard" of the
computer, which houses the various electronic components of the
computer.

Kim Ahern is a resident of Phoenix, Arizona, and she works as a
photographer. She primarily photographs families and babies,
including foster children. On June 25, 2015, she purchased her iMac
27" 5K Retina in Chandler, Arizona for approximately $2,700.

The Plaintiff Nikolas Frenzel is a resident of Castle Rock,
Colorado. On April 30, 2018, he purchased his iMac 27" 5K Retina in
Denver, Colorado for approximately $1,900. In early September,
2018, he noticed dark smudge marks in the bottom right- and
left-hand corners of his screen. In order to fix his computer, he
took it into a computer repair shop, where he paid approximately
$600 to replace the screen.

The Plaintiff Justin Evans is currently a resident of New Berlin,
Wisconsin. On approximately March 1, 2011, he purchased his iMac
27" in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Soon thereafter, he began to notice
dark smudges in the corner of the screens.  

The Defendant Apple, the designer, manufacturer, and vendor of the
Computers, is a California corporation. It maintains its
headquarters and principal place of business in Cupertino,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


ARBELLA MUTUAL: Russo Sues over Vehicle Storage Charges
-------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS RUSSO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ARBELLA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 18-3872 (Mass. Super. Ct., Dec. 17, 2018),
seeks to recover damages for Plaintiff and a Class of similarly
situated persons, arising from Arbella's practice of unlawfully
charging its insureds for a portion of the vehicle storage charges
which Arbella previously paid to a third-party for the storage of
the insured's vehicle following a claim-related loss.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was eligible for
automobile insurance benefits due under a Massachusetts automobile
insurance policy issued to him by Arbella, an automobile insurance
company with a principal office located in Quincy, Massachusetts.
Arbella was in the business of providing personal automobile
insurance to individual consumers throughout the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. Massachusetts law requires all automobile insurance
policies issued and in effect in a Massachusetts to be filed with
and approved by the Commissioner of Insurance.  Arbella issues
policies of automobile insurance to consumers in Massachusetts.
Arbella utilizes uniform automobile insurance policies, which
provide potential benefits to Plaintiff and the Class.

On October 20, 2018, Russo was involved in a motor vehicle
collision. Arbella's automobile policy with Russo required that
Arbella pay any reasonable expenses incurred in preventing further
damage or loss to Russo's automobile. Arbella's automobile policy
with Russo required that Arbella pay any reasonable expenses
incurred in preventing further damage or loss to Russo's
automobile, including but not limited to, towing and storage
charges. Russo's vehicle was towed to a repair and autobody shop
after the Collision. Russo's vehicle was stored at the Auto Body
Shop after the Collision. As a result of the Collision, Russo made
a collision claim under his policy of insurance with Arbella.

Following the Collision, the Auto Body Shop charged Arbella
$2,700.00 for the storage of Russo's vehicle. Prior to paying,
Arbella did not resist the storage charges imposed by the Auto Body
Shop for the storage of Russo's vehicle. Prior to paying, Arbella
did not legally seek to have the Auto Body Shop's charges for the
storage of Russo's vehicle reduced.  Arbella also did not challenge
the reasonableness of storage charges that the Auto Body Shop
imposed for the storage of Russo's vehicle.  Prior to paying the
Auto Body Shop, Arbella did not inform Russo that the storage
charge sought was unreasonable. Arbella failed and/or refused to
challenge, resist or reduce the storage fees for Class Members
vehicles it deemed unreasonable, prior to making the storage
payment to the storage facilities that stored their respective
vehicles. Arbella's reduction of Class Members claims by an amount
it purported to be an unreasonable storage charge constituted
breaches of contract under the terms of Class Members' policies. As
a result of Arbella's acts and practices, Russo has suffered
damages, including but not limited to, the amount of his claim
payment which was unlawfully withheld, with accruing interest. As a
result of Arbella's acts and practices, Class Members have suffered
damages, including but not limited to, the amount of the claim
payments which were unlawfully withheld, with accruing interest,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          John R. Yasi, Esq.
          Kevin J. McCullough, Esq.
          Michael C. Forrest, Esq.
          David J. Relethford, Esq.
          FORREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOW, MCCULLOUGH, YASI & YASI, P.C.
          Salem Green, Suite 2
          Salem, MA 01970
          Telephone: (617) 231-7829
          E-mail: jvasi@forrestlamothe.com
                  kmcullough@forrestlamothe.com
                  mforrest@foiTestlamothe.com
                  drelethford@forrestlamothe.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Pender et al File Petition for Writ of Certiorari
------------------------------------------------------------------
William L. Pender and David L. McCorkle, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Applicants, v. Bank of
America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., Bank of America Pension
Plan, Bank of America 401(k) Plan, Bank of America Corporation
Corporate Benefits Committee, and Bank of America Transferred
Savings Account Plan, the Respondents, is a petition for writ of
certiorari seeking review of a judgment by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Plaintiffs, a class of current and former employees of Bank of
America and certain of its predecessors, seek an equitable
accounting for any profits accruing to the Bank resulting from its
unlawful transfer of the balances of Plaintiffs' 401(k) Plan
accounts into the general account of the Bank's Pension Plan.  In
2015, the Fourth Court ruled that the district court erred in
dismissing Plaintiffs' accounting action, and remanded the case to
the district court to determine whether the Bank retained any
profit as a result of the unlawful transfers and its use of the
transferred funds.

On appeal, as it did before the district court, the Bank advances a
simple, if somewhat surprising, argument -- that the Pension Plan's
investment strategy for the unlawfully transferred funds, which was
developed and implemented by the Bank's trained asset managers,
performed far worse than Plaintiffs' investment strategies, as
reflected in their 401(k) account investment allocations. Because
Plaintiffs' investment allocations outperformed the Bank's
investment strategy -- and the Pension Plan was responsible for
making up any shortfall between the performances of the Bank's
investment strategy and Plaintiffs' allocations -- the Bank
maintains that it did not profit from the transfers.  After
conducting a four-day bench trial, during which the parties
presented fact and expert testimony and evidence, the district
court agreed with the Bank and, therefore, dismissed Plaintiffs'
action as moot.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision.  The Fourth Circuit held
that ERISA Section 502(a)(3) did not require the district court to
award Plaintiffs relief based on the
proportionate-share-of-the-whole methodology. Rather, the district
court retained discretion to consider other approaches in
determining whether equitable relief was "appropriate" under the
particular facts of the case.  In light of the extensive
contemporaneous records documenting the Investment Strategy for the
transferred funds and tracking the performance of those funds --
which provided the district court with an adequate factual basis to
find that the performance of the transferred funds could be
separately identified -- it was within the district court's
discretion to decline to award equitable relief based on the
proportionateshare-of-the-whole approach.[BN]

Attorneys for Applicants:

          Julia Penny Clark, Esq.
          Leon Dayan, Esq.
          BREDHOFF & KAISER, P.L.L.C.
          805 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 842-2600
          E-mail: jpclark@bredhoff.com
                  ldayan@bredhoff.com

               - and -

          Eli Gottesdiener, Esq.
          GOTTESDIENER LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
          498 7th Street
          Brooklyn, N.Y. 11215
          E-mail: eli@gottesdienerlaw.com
          Telephone: (718) 788-1500

Attorneys for Respondents:

          Carter G. Phillips, Esq.
          Anne E. Rea, Esq.
          David F. Graham, Esq.
          Tacy F. Flint, Esq.
          Steven J. Horowitz,
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1501 K Street NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 736-8000
          Sidley Austin LLP
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          E-mail: area@sidley.com
                  dgraham@sidley.com
                  tflint@sidley.com
                  shorowitz@sidley.com
                  cphillips@sidley.com

               - and -

          Irving M. Brenner, Esq.
          MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
          201 North Tryon Street
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 343-2000
          E-mail: ibrenner@mcguirewoods.com


BIG PICTURE: Weddle Moves to Quash Subpoena in Williams Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Movant Jennifer Weddle files a Motion to Quash Subpoena in the
lawsuit styled Weddle v. Williams, et al., Case No.
1:18-mc-00225-RBJ, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado (Denver).

The Respondents are Lula Williams, Gloria Turnage, George Hengle,
Dowin Coffy and Marcella P. Singh, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Defendants Big
Picture Loans, LLC, and Ascension Technologies, Inc., filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Lula Williams,
Gloria Turnage, George Hengle, Dowin Coffy, and Felix Gillison,
Jr., on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly situated
v. Big Picture Loans, LLC, Matt Martorello, Ascension Technologies,
Inc., Daniel Gravel, James Williams, Jr., Gertrude McGeshick, Susan
McGeshick, and Giiwegiizhigookway Martin, Case No.
3:17-cv-00461-REP-RCY, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.[BN]

Movant Jennifer Weddle is represented by:

          William Daniel Hauptman, Esq.
          Carolyn J. Fairless, Esq.
          WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL, LLP
          370 17th Street, Suite 4500
          Denver, CO 80202-5647
          Telephone: (303) 244-1800
          Facsimile: (303) 244-1879
          E-mail: hauptman@wtotrial.com
                  fairless@wtotrial.com


BLUE MARLIN: Morales Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------
JOSE MORALES, an individual, on behalf of himself and all other
plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff,
vs. BLUE MARLIN WHOLESALE, INC., an Illinois corporation, BLUE
MARLIN SEAFOOD COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, JUAN RUBEN
AGUILAR, an individual, and JESUS VEGA, an individual, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-08254 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 17, 2018),
seeks to recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Chicago
Minimum Wage Ordinance.

According to the complaint, The Plaintiff, and all other similarly
situated current and former deliverymen, warehouse laborers and
other non-exempt employees, were subject to Defendants' common
policy and plan to violate the FLSA by willfully refusing to pay an
overtime premium to deliverymen, warehouse laborers and other
non-exempt employees when they worked in excess of 40 hours in an
individual workweek, the lawsuit says.

Blue Marlin Seafood Company is an Illinois corporation that also
operates the Blue Marlin Seafood business located at 1037-1039 N.
Pulaski Road in Chicago, Illinois and is engaged in selling and
distributing seafood products to restaurants and retail
customers.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
          Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
          NOLAN LAW OFFICE
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 322-1100
          Facsimile: (312) 322-1106
          E-mail: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com
                  sengelson@nolanwagelaw.com

BOJANGLES' INC: Faces Boyette Suit Over Walker Parent Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Darrell Boyette, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bojangles', Inc., William A. Kussell,
Steven J. Collins, John E. Currie, Christopher J. Doubrava, Tommy
L. Haddock, Robert F. Hull, Jr., Starlette Johnson, James R.
Kibler, Mark A. Rowan and Steven M. Tadler, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-11697 (S.D. N.Y., December 13, 2018), seeks to enjoin
Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating or closing the proposed merger of
Bojangles' with Walker Parent, Inc. through its wholly-owned
subsidiary Walker Merger Sub, 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, Bojangles'
stockholders will receive $16.10 per share.

Bojangles' is a restaurant operator and franchisor specializing in
Southern recipes serving biscuit breakfast sandwiches, hand-breaded
bone-in chicken, and other various sides.

According to the complaint, the proxy statement filed in connection
with the merger contains projections for the Bojangles' free cash
flow for fiscal years 2018 through 2023, but fails to disclose how
these projections were determined and failed to disclose unlevered
free cash flows for that same time period. Said statement also
provide details of the analysis performed by Merrill Lynch and
Houlihan Lokey. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BORO PARK: Yvonne Williamson Seeks Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------
YVONNE WILLIAMSON individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by BORO PARK OPERATING CO.,
LLC d/b/a BORO PARK CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE,
CENTERS FOR CARE LLC, CENTERS CARE MANAGEMENT LLC, CENTERS FOR
SPECIALTY CARE GROUP LLC d/b/a CENTERS HEALTH CARE, and related or
affiliated entities, the Plaintiffs, vs. BORO PARK OPERATING CO.,
LLC d/b/a BORO PARK CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE,
CENTERS FOR CARE LLC, CENTERS CARE MANAGEMENT LLC, CENTERS FOR
SPECIALTY CARE GROUP LLC d/b/a CENTERS HEALTH CARE, and related or
affiliated entities, the Defendants, Case No. 157829/2017 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Dec. 18, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, minimum
wages, and overtime compensation pursuant to the New York Labor
Law.

According to the complaint, beginning in approximately August 2011
and continuing through the present, the Defendants have engaged in
a policy and practice of failing to pay Named Plaintiff and
putative class members their earned wages, including failing to pay
them for every hour worked, and failing to pay them overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week, the lawsuit
says.

Boro Park Operating Co., LLC, doing business as Boro Park Center
for Rehabilitation and Healthcare, provides rehabilitation and
healthcare services.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class

          LaDonna Lusher, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street - 7th Floor
          New York, N.Y. 10004
          Telephone: (212)943-9080
          E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com

BYL COLLECTION: Faces Consumer Credit Class Action in NY
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BYL Collection
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Kimberlee Nichols, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BYL
Collection Services, LLC, BYL Companies and John Doe, the owner of
BYL Collection Services, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-07346
(E.D. N.Y., December 26, 2018).

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

BYL Collection Services, LLC was founded in 2004. The company's
line of business includes collection and adjustment services on
claims and other insurance related issues.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
   775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
   Huntington, NY 11743
   Tel: (631) 335-1107
   Email: mpash@verizon.net


CALHOUN, GA: 11th Cir. Ruling in Walker Suit under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Maurice Walker, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Applicant vs. City of Calhoun, Georgia, Respondent, Case
No. 18A503 (U.S.), is a petition for writ of certiorari from a
decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

In Walker v. City of Calhoun, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit considered whether the City's use of a
secured money bail system for misdemeanor offenders violates the
Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution.  In
an August 2018 decision, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the
preliminary injunction granted by the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia in favor of Maurice Walker and against
the City of Calhoun, and remanded the case to the district court
for further proceedings, holding that the injunction violated Fed.
R. Civ. P. 65.  The appellate case is, Walker v. City of Calhoun,
Georgia, No. 16-10521 (11th Cir.).

In the lawsuit, Walker alleges that the City's bail policy violated
equal protection and due process principles by conditioning
immediate release from jail on an arrestee's ability to pay a cash
bond without providing alternatives to indigent arrestees. Walker
sought to preliminarily enjoin the City from jailing him or other
indigent arrestees without offering them release on their own
recognizance or on an unsecured bond.   The Eleventh Circuit held
that the District Court's order granting the motion for a
preliminary injunction, as written, cannot stand.[BN]

Attorneys for Maurice Walker:

          Daniel Stephen Volchok, Esq.
          WILMERHALE
          Pickering 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue,
          NW Washington, DC 20006
          daniel.volchok@wilmerhale.com

Counsel for City of Calhoun, Georgia

          J. Anderson Davis, Esq.
          A. Franklin Beacham III, Esq.
          Samuel L. Lucas, Esq.
          BRINSON, ASKEW, BERRY, SEIGLER, RICHARDSON & DAVIS, LLP
          615 West 1st St.
          Post Office Box 5007
          Rome, GA 30162
          Telephone: (706) 291-8853

               - and -

          David F. Root, Esq.
          Abby C. Grozine, Esq.
          CARLOCK COPELAND & STAIR LLP
          191 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3600
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 522-8220

               - and -

          George P. Govignon, Esq.
          109 North Wall Street
          Calhoun, GA 30


CARNIVAL CORP: Colgate Seeks Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karrie Colgate, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Carnival Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-14505
(S.D. Fla., December 13, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs and other relief for
violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Carnival Corporation operates as Carnival Cruise Line, a cruise
ship company where Colgate worked as a home-based Global Sales
Specialist. She claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per
week doing off-the-clock work without overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
      William J. Sheslow, Esq.
      WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
      11020 Northcliffe Boulevard
      Spring Hill, FL 34608
      Telephone: (352)683-2016
      Facsimile: (352) 600-7533
      Email: nichole@theFLlawfirm.com
             lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
             will@theFLlawfirm.com



CENDANT CORP: Arbitration Award in Franchisees' Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, issued an
Opinion affirming the judgment of the District Court affirming the
Arbitration Award in the case captioned FRANK K. COOPER REAL ESTATE
#1, INC., a Florida corporation, SILM ENTERPRISES d/b/a CENTURY 21
PROPERTY MART, INC., a Michigan corporation, CENTRE POINT REAL
ESTATE d/b/a CENTURY 21 CENTRE POINT, a sole proprietorship, and
DAVID NICHOLS and KIM COMBS, INC. d/b/a CENTURY 21 SUNLAND REALTY,
an Arizona corporation, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, and QUALITY ASSOCIATES II d/b/a CENTURY 21
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, a New Jersey corporation, Plaintiffs, v.
CENDANT CORPORATION f/k/a HOSPITALITY FRANCHISE SYSTEMS and CENTURY
21 REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, Defendants. IN THE MATTER OF KEEFE
BARTELS, LLC, n/k/a KEEFE LAW FIRM, and KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA,
Appellants, v. ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP, Respondents. IN
THE MATTER OF ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP, Appellants, v.
KEEFE BARTELS, LLC, n/k/a KEEFE LAW FIRM, and KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA,
Respondents. Nos. A-1482-16T3, A-1579-16T3. (N.J. Super . App.
Div.)

ZSZ appeals from the June 10, 2016 orders confirming the
arbitration award and denying its motion to vacate the award.

These two appeals involve a dispute over the apportionment of
approximately $11.3 million in attorneys' fees awarded in
connection with a class action settlement. Three law firms
represented the class of plaintiffs and claim a portion of the
fees: Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP (ZSZ), Keefe Bartels,
LLC, n/k/a Keefe Law Firm (Keefe) and Kopelowitz Ostrow, PA. (KO).
ZSZ contends that it is entitled to substantially more than
one-third of the fees based on the number of hours it worked and
the responsibility it undertook during the class action.

Keefe and KO, in contrast, argue that the firms agreed to split
equally any attorneys' fees, with each firm receiving one-third of
the fee award. To try to resolve the dispute, Keefe and KO made an
offer of judgment, but ZSZ did not accept that offer.

Eventually, the firms agreed to arbitrate the fee dispute. The
arbitrator found that the firms had agreed to split the fee award
equally, with each firm receiving one-third despite any unequal
division of work and responsibility in the underlying class action.
Thus, the arbitrator directed that each of the three firms share
the attorneys' fee award in equal thirds. The trial court affirmed
the arbitration award.

On its appeal, ZSZ makes three primary arguments. It contends that
the trial court erred in (1) finding that the arbitrator did not
exceed the scope of his authority (2) concluding that the
arbitrator correctly found that the attorneys-class representative
agreements called for an equal, one-third fee allocation and (3)
confirming an equal one-third allocation without considering the
evidence that Keefe and KO did not actually perform one-third of
the work and responsibility.  

The Scope of the Arbitrator's Authority

Agreements to arbitrate are contracts and, therefore, subject to
the laws governing contract interpretation.  Thus, a contracting
party is bound by the apparent intention he or she outwardly
manifests to the other party. It is immaterial that he or she has a
different, secret intention from that outwardly manifested.

ZSZ argues that the arbitration award should be vacated because the
arbitrator exceeded his authority in two ways. First, ZSZ contends
that it agreed to arbitrate only two issues.

Specifically, those issues were the questions the trial court
identified in its order denying summary judgment; that is, (1)
whether each firm performed its one-third share of work and
responsibility; and, if not, (2) whether and how the fee award
should be apportioned on a quantum meruit basis. Second, ZSZ argues
that the arbitrator exceeded his authority because in denying
summary judgment, the trial court had made certain legal decisions
that constituted law of the case and were binding on the
arbitrator.

Here, the parties were sophisticated law firms represented by
seasoned and experienced legal counsel. If they had intended to
limit the arbitrator's scope of authority, they could have easily
done so by adding specific language to the arbitration agreement.
They did not. Instead, as written, the agreement granted the
arbitrator broad authority over the entire fee dispute.

The Court rejects ZSZ's second argument concerning the law of the
case for two reasons. First, as just noted, the parties granted the
arbitrator broad authority to address the fee dispute without any
limitation concerning the prior decision by the trial court.

Second, the law of the case doctrine does not apply here. The law
of the case doctrine is a non-binding rule intended to prevent
relitigation of a previously resolved issue. The doctrine reasons
that "a legal decision made in a particular matter `should be
respected by all other lower or equal courts during the pendency of
that case. The law of the case doctrine, however, is discretionary.


Here, the Court discerns no reason to treat the trial court's
reasoning in denying summary judgment as law of the case. As the
arbitrator pointed out, the issue first came before the trial court
on a limited record. The record presented in the arbitration was
far more expansive. Furthermore, the trial court's reasoning on the
motions for summary judgment was not a final decision. Indeed, the
same judge who denied summary judgment affirmed the arbitration
award and expressly found that his prior reasoning was not law of
the case.

ZSZ contends that the court's re-visitation of its prior ruling was
unfair because it did not have notice of that decision. The record
does not support ZSZ's contention. Both before the arbitrator, and
on the motions to confirm and vacate the arbitration award, all
parties extensively briefed and addressed whether the language in
the attorneys-class representative agreements called for an equal
one-third fee allocation and whether that issue had already been
decided when the trial court denied summary judgment.

In summary, the Court holds that the arbitration agreement gave the
arbitrator authority to decide all issues related to the fee
dispute. Accordingly, the arbitrator did not exceed the scope of
his authority.

The Arbitration Award

Next, ZSZ contends that the trial court erred in confirming the
arbitrator's award. The arbitrator concluded that the
attorneys-class representative agreements required the parties to
share the attorneys' fee award in equal thirds, even if the parties
did not share the work and responsibility in the underlying class
action equally.

The arbitrator concluded that the first sentence was clear. He then
determined that the second sentence did not render the contract
susceptible to two or more reasonable interpretations.

Instead, the arbitrator found the second sentence demonstrated that
the parties anticipated a certain division of work and
responsibility in the underlying matter and agreed to split the
fees based on that anticipation, and not based on the actual work
and responsibility undertaken by each party.

In reviewing the arbitrator's award here, we use two standards of
review. In their arbitration agreement, the parties agreed to
expand the scope of judicial review. They agreed that both the Law
Division and this court would use a de novo standard for legal
conclusions and a much more deferential standard for factual
findings. The Act provides that parties to an arbitration agreement
can expand the scope of judicial review of an arbitration award.  

The Court agrees with the arbitrator that the first sentence of the
attorneys-class representative agreements is clear in providing
that each of the three firms was to receive one-third of a fee
award. The Court also agree with the arbitrator that the key phrase
in the second sentence is anticipated division of work and
responsibility. Finally, the Court agrees with the arbitrator's
reasoning that the second sentence did not undercut or modify the
clearer first sentence.

The trial court did not err by confirming the arbitrator's award
and denying ZSZ's motion to vacate the award.

Quantum Meruit

ZSZ argues that because Keefe and KO did not each fulfill their
share of the work and responsibility, the arbitrator and trial
court erred by failing to apportion the attorneys' fees award on a
quantum meruit basis.

The Court disagrees.

Quantum meruit means, literally, as much as is deserved.  Quantum
meruit applies when one party has conferred a benefit on another
and the circumstances are such that to deny recovery would be
unjust.

Here, as we have already determined, the attorneys-class
representative agreements contained an express provision governing
apportionment of the attorneys' fee award. Therefore, quantum
meruit does not apply. Thus, the arbitrator correctly determined
that he did not need to conduct a quantum meruit analysis, and the
trial court correctly confirmed the arbitrator's award.

On their appeal, KO and Keefe argue that the trial court erred in
denying their motion for attorneys' fees and costs incurred after
ZSZ did not accept their offer of judgment.

The Court disagrees.

Rule 4:58-3 then provides that if a party makes an offer of
judgment, which the opposing party does not accept, and the
opposing party thereafter recovers eighty percent or less of the
offered amount, the offering party is entitled to allowances. The
allowances include reasonable litigation expenses and attorney's
fees incurred after the rejection of the offer.  

Here, Keefe and KO made their offer of judgment in 2013. Earlier,
in April 2012, the three firms entered into a side agreement under
which each firm received twenty-five percent of the total fee award
subject to repayment depending on the outcome of their fee dispute.
The remaining twenty-five percent was placed in escrow until the
matter was resolved. Each firm also received seventy-five percent
of their share of costs and expenses included in the award, except
no firm could withdraw more than $525,000 of unreimbursed costs and
expenses. The remaining costs and expense funds were also placed in
escrow. Focusing just on the attorneys' fees, each firm's
twenty-five percent was approximately $2,820,000.

The plain language of the offer of judgment, however, does not
support Keefe and KO's interpretation. By its express terms, the
offer provided that each firm would retain all attorneys' fees
already distributed, which amounted to $2,820,000 for each firm.
The apportionment of the monies remaining in escrow was in addition
to that $2,820,000. Consequently, under the offer of judgment, ZSZ
would have received $4,400,000 ($2,820,000 plus $1,580,000). Keefe
and KO would have each recovered $3,500,000 ($2,820,000 plus
$680,000). Under the confirmed arbitration award, each firm
received approximately $3,760,000. Thus, ZSZ received more than
eighty percent of the offer of judgment ($3,760,000 divided by
$4,400,000 equals 85.5%). Keefe and KO, therefore, were not
entitled to costs and attorneys' fees under Rule 4:58.

A full-text copy of the Superior Court's December 6, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9sv7v4d from Leagle.com.

Joseph P. LaSala -- JLASALA@MDMC-LAW.COM -- argued the cause for
appellants in A-1482-16 and respondents in A-1579-16 (McElroy,
Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP, attorneys; Joseph P. LaSala, on
the briefs).

Stephen R. Knox -- sknox@bressler.com -- argued the cause for
respondents in A-1482-16 and appellants in A-1579-16 (Bressler,
Amery & Ross, PC, attorneys; Stephen R. Knox and Gerd W. Stabbert,
Jr. -- gstabbert@bressler.com -- on the briefs).


CHAMPION PETFOODS: Weaver Sues over Contaminated Pet Food
---------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT WEAVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the plaintiff, vs. CHAMPION PETFOODS USA, INC. and
CHAMPION PETFOODS LP, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 2:18-cv-01996-JPS
(E.D. Wisc., Dec. 18, 2018), seeks injunctive and monetary relief
on behalf of proposed Class, including requiring full disclosure of
substances in its marketing, advertising, and labeling; prohibiting
utilization of suppliers who are street renderers or rendering
facilities that accept euthanized animals; requiring testing of all
ingredients and final products for such substances; and restoring
monies to the members of the proposed Class.

The Plaintiff complains that the Defendants' products contain heavy
metals, pentobarbital, toxins, Bisphenol A ("BPA"), and/or
unnatural or other ingredients that do not conform to the labels,
packaging, advertising, and statements of products sold throughout
the United States.

According to the complaint, the Defendants manufacture, market,
advertise, label, distribute, and sell pet food under the brand
names Acana and Orijen throughout the United States. The Defendants
have created a niche in the pet food market by "making biologically
'appropriate' pet food -- as close to what animals would eat in
nature as possible -- and producing it using fresh, natural
ingredients" They then charge a premium for this purportedly
higher-quality food. The chief brand officer and son of the
company's founder, Peter Muhlenfeld, said, "Our core family beliefs
are entrenched in the company, and that is to make the very best
food." The Defendants tout that "Biologically AppropriateTM" ORIJEN
represents a new class of food, designed to nourish dogs and cats
according to their evolutionary adaptation to a diet rich and
diverse in fresh meat and protein" and that it is "trusted by pet
lovers everywhere."[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Charles N. Nauen, Esq.
          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: cnnauen@locklaw.com
          rkshelquist@locklaw.com
          rapeterson@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Karla M. Gluek, Esq.
          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  kgluek@gustafsongluek.com
                  rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          STEVEN M. MCKANY, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: smckany@robbinsarroyo.com

               - and -

          Charles Laduca, Esq.
          Katherine Van Dyck, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: 202-789-3960
          Facsimile: 202-789-1813
          E-mail: kvandyck@cuneolaw.com
                  charles@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Depalma, Esq.
          Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
                  scruzhodge@litedepalma.com

CLAY LLC: Lantino Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lantino, Joanne Cabello on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Clay LLC, The Gym at
Greenwich, LLC, The Gym at Port Chester Inc. and The Gym at Union
Square, LLC, Seth Hirschel, Stefan Malter and Barnet Liberman,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-12247 (S.D. N.Y., December 27, 2018)
is a civil action for damages and equitable relief based upon
Defendants' willful violations of Plaintiffs' rights guaranteed to
them by the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law.

The FLSA Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated, and are
and have been subject to Defendants' decision, policy, plan, and
common policies, practices, procedures, protocols, and routines,
willfully failing and refusing to pay them their legally-required
wages when due, notes the complaint.

The Defendants failed to comply with the requirements of the FLSA
and NYLL when they unilaterally stopped paying Plaintiffs for work
they had performed. Between October 1, 2018 and the present,
Lantino has performed approximately 89 hours of work for Defendants
and has not received any compensation for his time. Between October
1, 2018 and the present, Cabello has performed approximately 116
hours of work for Defendants and has not received any compensation
for her time.

Defendants were fully aware of Plaintiffs' and other employees'
issues with unpaid wages, yet failed to provide the wages owed,
asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff Michael Lantino has been employed by Defendants as a
personal trainer at their Union Square fitness facility from
approximately January 1, 2012 through the present. Lantino is a
resident of the state of New York.

Plaintiff Joanne Cabello has been employed by Defendants as a
personal trainer at their Union Square fitness facility from
approximately July 5, 2009 through the present. Cabello is a
resident of the state of New York.

Clay LLC is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of
business at 25 West 14th Street in New York, New York. Clay does
business as each of the following limited liability companies, each
of which is a Defendant herein: The Gym at Greenwich, LLC, The Gym
at Port Chester Inc. and The Gym at Union Square, LLC.

Seth Hirschel, Stefan Malter and Barnet Liberman have been adult
individuals and principles of the Corporate Defendants who each
reside in the state of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Orit Goldring, Esq.
     THE GOLDRING FIRM
     845 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: 212.844.9308


COMENITY BANK: Williams Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Williams, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Comenity Bank, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-02908-PAG (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 18, 2018), seeks to recover
damages as a result of the Defendant's violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, beginning in November 2018, the
Defendant placed more than 15 telephone calls to Plaintiff's
cellular telephone number -- (440)-XXX-0146. The Plaintiff is the
subscriber to, customary user of, and pays the monthly bill for,
his cellular telephone number. The Plaintiff was assigned his
cellular telephone number in January 2018. The Defendant placed its
calls to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number from, among other
numbers, (877) 475-3483, (913) 677-8324 and (614) 754-4137, each of
which is assigned to Defendant. Upon placing outbound calls to
telephone numbers (877) 475-3483, (913) 677-8324 and (614)
754-4137, a prerecorded message states, "Thank you for calling
Comenity." Many of Defendant's calls to Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number were accompanied by an artificial or prerecorded
voice message, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant is a Delaware State FDIC-insured bank and a
limited-purpose credit card bank located in Delaware. The Defendant
offers credit programs with affiliated retail stores including, for
example, Pottery Barn and Peebles. The Defendant touts that more
than 50 million card members hold an account with one of its banks.
The Defendant is a subsidiary of Alliance Data Systems Corporation,
which is publicly traded.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the proposed classes:

          Ronald S. Weiss, Esq.
          7035 Orchard Lake Road, Suite 600
          West Bloomfield, MI 48322
          Telephone: (248) 737-8000
          Facsimile: (248) 737-8003
          E-mail: ron@ronweissattorney.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: 561.826.5477
          Facsimile: 561.961.5684
          E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com

CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Saks Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Israel Saks, other
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-12151 (S.D. N.Y., December 24, 2018).

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

Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. offers business process outsourcing,
revenue cycle, and receivables management services. It also
provides receivables collection services to credit grantors in
retail, telecommunications, and utilities industries. Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. was formerly known as ER Solutions, Inc. and
changed the name to Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. in November, 2011.
The company was founded in 1972 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia,
with additional facilities in Glendale, Arizona; Renton,
Washington; Houston, Texas; and Montgomery, Alabama. Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Convergent Resources
Holdings, LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel Harris Kohn, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Fax: (201) 282-6501
   Email: dkohn@steinsakslegal.com



DAIKIN AMERICA: Brown Suit Alleges ERISA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Justin Brown and Telisa Lipscomb, individually and as
representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries of the
Daikin America, Inc. 401(k) Savings and Retirement Plan v. Daikin
America, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-11091 (S.D. N.Y., November 28,
2018), is brought against the Defendant for breach of fiduciary
duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The Plaintiffs requested Defendant to provide documentation that
Defendant had a viable methodology for selecting, monitoring, and
evaluating the fees and expenses associated with plan investments,
investment options, and services. Plaintiffs also requested
documents identifying the fiduciaries responsible. Despite its
statutory obligation to respond to participant requests for
information, Daikin America, Inc., as Plan Administrator, failed
and refused to provide any information relating to Defendant's
process for monitoring and evaluating fees. Dakin America, Inc.
also specifically omitted from the information provided the
schedule to the Plan's trust agreement which identifies the
fiduciaries responsible for selecting and monitoring the
investments of the Plan.

The Plaintiff Justin Brown resides in Courtland, Alabama and was a
participant in the Plan during the Class Period because he and his
beneficiaries were eligible to receive benefits under the Plan.

The Plaintiff Telisa Lipscomb resides in Towncreek, Alabama and was
a participant in the Plan during the Class Period because she and
her beneficiaries were eligible to receive benefits under the
Plan.

The Defendant Daikin America, Inc. is a corporation organized under
the laws of New York with its principal place of business in
Orangeburg, New York.  [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Dennis G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq.
      Christina Malmat, Esq.
      WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS,
      FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC
      301 19th Street North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Tel: (205) 314-0500
      E-mail: dgpjr@wigginschilds.com
              cmalmat@wigginschilds.com


DANIEL Q. SULLIVAN: Parker Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned CHRISTOPHER L. PARKER, the
Plaintiff, vs. DANIEL Q. SULLIVAN, the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-01582-MMM (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
certify the case as a class action and appoint class counsel.

Responses to the Motion to Certify Case as Class Action and Appoint
Class Counsel are due by Jan. 9.  The Respondent has until Jan. 28
to respond to the Petitioner's Amended Habeas Petition.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Defendant Daniel Q. Sullivan is the warden of Big Muddy River
Correctional Center, a prison under the control of the Illinois
Department of Corrections.[BN]

DRIVELINE RETAIL: Faces Burns Suit in California Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Driveline Retail
Merchandising Inc. The case is captioned as Lila Burns and on
behalf of all similarly situated employees of Defendants in the
State of California, the Plaintiff, vs. Does 1-50 and Driveline
Retail Merchandising Inc., the Defendants, Case No.
34-2018-00246691-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 17, 2018).

Driveline Retail Merchandising, Inc. was founded in 1976. The
Company's line of business includes providing management consulting
services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Dorota A James, Esq.
          SHORTLEGAL, APC
          350 10th Ave Ste 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101-8705
          Telephone: (619) 272-0720
          Facsimile: (619) 839-3129

DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Cabrera Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Alda Cabrera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No. 8:18-cv-02900 (M.D. Fla.,
November 28, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory relief under the
Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
representations when they offered the Plaintiff a settlement offer,
the terms of which deceptively attempted to collect more than the
amount of the offer.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Florida, County of
Hillsborough, residing at 8716 North Ola Avenue, Tampa, FL 33604.

The Defendants use mails, telephone, and facsimile to collect
debts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Zeig, Esq.
      ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
      3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Tel: (754) 217-3084
      Fax: (954) 272-7807
      E-mail: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


E.N. MODERN STYLE: Lopez Suez Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Lopez and Rodolfo Villa, on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiffs, v. E.N. Modern
Style, Inc., and Eriel Morales Pena, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-12262 (S.D. N.Y., December 27, 2018) seeks to recover from
Defendants unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages and statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and
costs.

The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with
a policy of not paying Plaintiffs the prevailing minimum wage under
either the FLSA and the New York Labor Law, asserts the complaint.
The Defendants also operated their business with a policy of not
paying either the FLSA overtime rate (of time and one-half) or the
New York State overtime rate (of time and one-half) to Plaintiffs,
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs or members of the Class for all hours
worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.

Plaintiff, Jose Lopez, is a resident of Queens County, New York.

Plaintiff, Rodolfo Villa, is a resident of Queens County, New
York.

E.N. Modern Style, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws
of Florida, with a principal place of business and an address for
service of process located at 1214 Olmstead Avenue, Bronx, New
York, 10462.

Eriel Morales Pena, is the Chairman or Chief Executive Officer of
Defendant, E.N. Modern Style, Inc. Eriel Morales Pena exercised
control over the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs' employment and
those of FLSA Collective Plaintiffs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


ESTENSON LOGISTICS: Parsons Files Suit for Breach of Employment
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Estenson Logistics
LLC. The case is styled as Robert Parsons and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Estenson Logistics LLC and
Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00247176-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super. Ct., December 26, 2018).

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

Estenson Logistics, LLC provides logistics services. The Company
offers container, supply chain consulting, warehousing, inventory
management, and other related services. Estenson Logistics serves
customers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Larry W Lee, Esq.      
   Diversity Law Group
   515 S Figueroa St Ste 1250
   Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
   Tel: (213) 488-6555
   Fax: (213) 488-6554
   Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Removes Licea Suit From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc., removed on December 13, 2018, the lawsuit captioned
LUIS LICEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 18STCV01331, from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-10326 to the
proceeding.

On October 18, 2018, Plaintiff Luis Licea filed a complaint, on
behalf of the Plaintiff and a putative class and subclass, against
Facebook and one hundred unidentified defendants in the Superior
Court.  The Plaintiff's claims arise out of Facebook's September
28, 2018 announcement that it had discovered that certain user data
for tens of millions of Facebook accounts was exposed in a hacking
attack.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Elizabeth L. Deeley, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
          Telephone: (415) 391-0600
          Facsimile: (415) 395-8095
          E-mail: elizabeth.deeley@lw.com


FCA US: Ohio App. Reverses Post-Judgment Order in Etcheson
----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One,
issued an Order reversing the judgment of the District Court
awarding Attorney's Fees in the case captioned JAMIE L. ETCHESON et
al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. FCA US LLC, Defendant and
Respondent. No. D072793. (Cal. App.).

The Plaintiffs and appellants Jamie L. Etcheson and Kelly M.
Etcheson brought an action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty
Act, commonly known as the Lemon law, against defendant and
respondent FCA US LLC (FCA) after experiencing problems with a
vehicle they had purchased new for about $40,000.

Plaintiffs moved for an award of $89,445 in lodestar attorney fees
with a 1.5 enhancement of $44,722.50 for a total of $134,167.50 in
fees, plus $5,059.05 in costs. Finding the hourly rates and amount
of counsels' time spent on services on plaintiffs' behalf to be
reasonable, the trial court tentatively ruled the plaintiffs were
entitled to recover $81,745 in attorney fees and $5,059.05 in
costs.

However, in its final order the court substantially reduced its
award, concluding the plaintiffs should not have continued to
litigate the matter at all after FCA's March 2015 section 998
offer. It found their sought-after attorney fees after the March
2015 offer were not reasonably incurred and cut off fees from that
point, awarding the plaintiffs a total of $2,636.90 in attorney
fees and costs.

The Plaintitts, pointing out their ultimate recovery was double the
estimated value of FCA's invalid March 2015 section 998 offer,
which they had no duty to counter or accept, they contend the trial
court abused its discretion by cutting off all attorney fees and
costs incurred after that offer.

The Court concludes the plaintiffs' points have merit.

The trial court had broad discretion in determining the
reasonableness of plaintiffs' fee request, and in its tentative
ruling appeared to adopt the requested lodestar amount with some
reductions for unsupported time and an excessive hourly rate. But
the court ultimately discarded the lodestar inquiry in its final
order; it used what the court itself found was a vague and invalid
section 998 compromise offer to cut off plaintiffs' attorney fees,
under the apparent theory that it was unreasonable for plaintiffs'
counsel to reject that offer or counsel should have been more
cooperative in facilitating a settlement for an award of
restitution rather than continue litigating the issue of FCA's
willfulness for a civil penalty under the Act or seek any
additional recovery.

In substance and effect the court incorporated the penalty
provisions of section 998 into its reasonableness analysis, and
failed to acknowledge that plaintiffs for their counsel's
litigation efforts recovered an amount more than double the value
of FCA's initial restitution offers. In this way, the court abused
its discretion. Its decision to cut off fees from the point of
FCA's March 2015 offer, particularly in the face of plaintiffs
settlement for almost double the amount, was error.

FCA's points concerning the reasonableness of their settlement
offers and their characterizations of the plaintiff's counsel's
efforts are contradicted by the trial court's own findings and the
nature of the settlement offers. And general arguments that fees
claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice.
Otherwise, the Court is not persuaded by FCA's arguments that it
should judge the plaintiffs' success in relation to the attorney
fees expended to get there.

The Court cannot justify the trial court's order on the stated
basis that the plaintiffs' counsel failed to give FCA information
to enable it to calculate a full and complete offer of restitution.
The trial court apparently reasoned the plaintiffs unnecessarily
prolonged the case by failing to facilitate a prompt resolution,
thus any fees incurred after FCA's offer were unreasonable. On
appeal, FCA does not continue to assert that it was unable to
calculate a restitution amount for settlement purposes, and the
Court observe it had in its possession the copy of plaintiffs'
sales contract showing gross sales price, document fees and sales
tax, registration, the total amount financed, monthly payment
amounts, and the beginning and final payment dates.

FCA does not deny having access to warranty information related to
the vehicle. Rather, FCA argues plaintiffs and their counsel made a
tactical decision to refuse to engage in settlement talks when
invited to do so. It maintains courts should not be obligated to
award attorney fees to a plaintiff who rejects an offer of full
statutory restitution for the speculative inquiry in exploring a
possible civil penalty. The Court is unable to conclude on this
record that plaintiffs alone somehow stonewalled or obstructed
settlement negotiations by withholding key information. And as the
Court have explained, plaintiffs were entitled to reject FCA's
unreasonable offers and seek their full remedy in the absence of a
court's finding as a matter of law that FCA did not willfully
violate the Act. Their litigation efforts resulted in an outcome
much more favorable to them than either of those offers.

FCA argues plaintiffs' request for a 1.5 multiplier shows the
unreasonableness of their fee request. They cite no authority for
the proposition, and we are not persuaded. While it is permissible
to account for the pursuit of unsuccessful claims in determining a
reasonable attorney fee, the fact that counsel seeks a multiplier
as a component of its fee request denied by the court in this case
is not itself a proper factor in determining the reasonableness of
sought-after fees. In fact, it is not unusual for counsel to ask
for a multiplier in contingent fee cases as this one.  

As the Court have stated, in reducing plaintiffs' fee award the
trial court in substance and effect applied the penalty of section
998 for plaintiffs' failure to accept FCA's March 2015 settlement
offer. Section 998 is intended to encourage settlement by punishing
the party who fails to accept a reasonable offer. Under the law, a
plaintiff who fails to accept an offer and then fails to obtain a
more favorable result at trial cannot recover his postoffer costs
and must pay the defendant's costs from the time of the offer,
including expert witness fees.  Costs include attorney fees where
authorized by statute, as here. Where a section 998 offer is
invalid it will not operate to cut off a plaintiff's costs.

None of the factors triggering section 998's penalty warranted its
application here. Under the circumstances, the court's use of the
March 13, 2015 date to cut off plaintiffs' attorney fees was
arbitrary and unsupportable. The Court therefore reverses the
order.

Accordingly, the post-judgment order is reversed and the matter
remanded with directions that the trial court award plaintiffs
reasonable attorney fees for their counsels' services, including
those performed after FCA's March 2015 offer, as well as reasonable
fees for services in pursuing their motion for fees and costs.
Plaintiffs shall recover their costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Ohio App.'s December 6, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7orrz6k from Leagle.com.

Rosner, Barry & Babbit and Hallen D. Rosner -- hal@rbblawgroup.com
-- Arlyn L. Escalante -- arlyn@rbblawgroup.com -- Shaghayegh
Dinata-Hanson -- hanson.shay@gmail.com -- for Plaintiffs and
Appellants.

Nixon Peabody and David Henry Tennant, Scott S. Shepardson --
sshepardson@ongaropc.com -- for Defendant and Respondent.


FFE TRANSPORTATION: Underpays Drivers, Thomas Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FFE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.; and DOES
1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2018-14897 (Cal.
Super., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 29, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

Mr. Thomas was employed by the Defendants as driver.

FFE Transportation Services, Inc. provides truckload
transportation, cold storage, and warehousing services in North
America. The company was founded in 1955 and is based in Dallas,
Texas with a service center in Ontario, California. FFE
Transportation Services, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Frozen
Food Express Industries Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Costa Kerestenzis, Esq.
          Stephanie Platenkamp, Esq.
          Sarah S. Kanbar, Esq.
          BEESON TAYER & BODINE, APC
          520 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
          Sacramento, CA 95814-4717
          Telephone: (916) 325-2100
          Facsimile: (916) 325-2120
          E-mail: CKerestenzis@beesontayer.com
                  SPlatenkamp@beesontayer.com
                  Skanbar@beesontayer.com


FINANCIAL ASSET: Jones' FDCPA Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
A case has been filed against Financial Asset Management Systems,
Inc. The case is styled John Ace Jones, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Financial
Asset Management Systems, Inc.,the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-05784-AT-CCB (N.D. Ga, Atlanta, Dec. 18, 2018). The suit
alleges Fair Debt Collection Act violation. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Amy Totenberg.

Financial Asset Management Systems, Inc. provides customized
receivables management services primarily in the United
States.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Clifford Carlson, Esq.
          CLIFF CARLSON LAW, P.C.
          1114-C Highway 96, Suite 347
          Kathleen, GA 31047
          Telephone: (478) 254-1018
          E-mail: cc@cliffcarlsonlaw.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Auer Jordan, Esq.
          SHAMP JORDAN WOODWARD, LLC
          1718 Peachtree St.,Suite 660
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 893-9400
          Facsimile: (404) 872-3745
          E-mail: jordan@ssjwlaw.com

               - and -

          Ronald Edward Daniels, Esq.
          DANIELS LAW, LLC
          P.O. Box 1834
          Perry, GA 31069
          Telephone: (478) 227-7331
          E-mail: ron@dlawllc.com

FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Dagata Disputes Collection Letter Validity
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Dagata, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Financial Business and Consumer Solutions,
Inc. (FBCS), LVNV Funding, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-17116 (D. N.J., December 12, 2018), seeks damages and
declaratory relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

FBCS is a debt collector based at 330 S Warminster Road Ste. 353,
Hatboro, PA, 19040, who was assigned to collect an obligation owed
by Dagata to T-Mobile USA. It sent a collection letter that omitted
the requirement that a consumer must dispute in writing, the
complaint relates. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FIRST AMERICAN: Brackens Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Kendra Brackens and Roquel Davidson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. First American Home Warranty,
Corp., Case No. 2:18-cv-04234 (D. Ariz., November 28, 2018), is
brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

This lawsuit arises under the FLSA, based on the Defendant's
failure to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons
all overtime pay for all time worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Plaintiff Kendra Brackens is an individual who Defendant
employed from approximately May 2017 to approximately August 2017
as an hourly, non-exempt Customer Service Representative who was
placed to work in a call center First American operated located at
2411 West Rose Garden Lane in Phoenix, Arizona. The Plaintiff
Brackens resided in this judicial district when she worked for
Defendant.

The Plaintiff Roquel Davidson is an individual who Defendant
employed from approximately June 2017 to approximately September
2017 as an hourly, non-exempt Customer Service Representative who
was placed to work in a call center First American operated located
at 2411 West Rose Garden Lane in Phoenix, Arizona. The Plaintiff
Davidson resided in this judicial district when she worked for
Defendant.

The Defendant First American Home Warranty, Corp. business involves
selling residential service contracts that cover residential
systems, such as heating and air conditioning systems, and certain
appliances.  [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      James X. Bormes, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
      8 South Michigan Avenue, Ste 2600
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 201-0575
      E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com


FLEETPRIDE, INC: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Coleman Says
--------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY MASINAS, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
FLEETPRIDE, INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2018-15992
(Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 8, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to
pay overtime, meal period premiums and minimum wages pursuant to
the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants, jointly and severally,
employed Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, non­-exempt employee, from
approximately August 2017 to approximately October 2017, in the
State of California, County of San Joaquin. Defendants hired
Plaintiff and the other class members, classified them as
hourly-paid or non-exempt employees, and failed to compensate them
for all hours worked and missed meal periods and/or rest breaks.

The Plaintiff and the other class members worked over 8 hours in a
day and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment with
Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a
pattern and practice of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or
non-exempt employees within the State of California. This pattern
and practice involved, failing to pay them for all regular and/or
overtime wages earned and for missed meal periods and rest breaks
in violation of California law, the lawsuit says.

FleetPride, Inc. distributes aftermarket heavy-duty truck and
trailer parts in North America.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

FORD MOTOR: Kasper's ADA Suit Moved to Northern District of Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Edward Kasper, and other persons similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. Ford Motor Company, the Defendant, Case No.
CV-18-906893, was removed from the Cuyahoga Cty. Ct. of Common
Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
(Cleveland) on Dec. 17, 2018. The Northern District of Ohio Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-02895-JG to the proceeding. The
lawsuit demands $25,000 alleging Americans with Disabilities Act
violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge James S. Gwin.

Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automaker
headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit. It was
founded by Henry Ford and incorporated on June 16, 1903. The
company sells automobiles and commercial vehicles under the Ford
brand and most luxury cars under the Lincoln brand.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Lewis A. Zipkin, Esq.
          ZIPKIN WHITING
          3637 South Green Road
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 514-6400 x 324
          Facsimile: (216) 514-6406
          E-mail: zfwlpa@aol.com

               - and -

          Shawn A. Romer, Esq.
          2012 West 25 Street, Ste. 716
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 644-3722
          Facsimile: (216) 342-7078
          E-mail: sromer@romerlawfirm.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Eugene Scalia, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER - WASHINGTON
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 955-8206
          Facsimile: (202) 530-9606
          E-mail: escalia@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Ronald G. Linville, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER-COLUMBUS
          200 Civic Center Drive, Ste. 1200
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 462-2647
          Facsimile: (614) 462-2616
          E-mail: rlinville@bakerlaw.com

GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: Court Dismisses Emerson Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
issued a Memorandum and Order granting Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss all counts for failure to state a claim in the case
captioned STEVEN EMERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, SHELDON GRONER, BARRY HEANY, MARK HANESS, SCOTT
HARTMANN, SATYA KUNAPULI, LIRIO FIOCCHI, RAUL ZAMUDIO, and OMER
YUKSEL, Plaintiffs, v. GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES, INC., WILLIAM D. CLARK,
JONATHAN POOLE, and SETH HETHERINGTON, Defendants. Civil Action No.
17-12137-PBS. (D. Mass.).

The Plaintiffs bring this class action against Genocea Biosciences,
Inc. and three of its corporate officers alleging violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act)
and SEC Rule 10b-5 (Count I). The suit also brings derivative
claims against the officers under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
(Count II). The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by making materially misleading
statements to investors about its clinical test results for a
genital herpes immunotherapy treatment called GEN-003.

Material Misrepresentation or Omission

Plaintiffs argue that Defendants' failure to disclose the Phase 2b
six month post-dosing viral shedding results was a material
omission that would have altered the total mix of information
available in light of Genocea's positive statements about other
Phase 2b results, the overall importance of viral shedding results,
and GEN-003's expected marketability. At the hearing, Plaintiffs
directed the Court to three specific instances in which they allege
Defendants made misleading statements due to the omission of the
six month viral shedding data: January 5, 2017, May 5, 2017, and
July 24, 2017.

An omission is materially misleading when there is a substantial
likelihood that the disclosure of the omitted fact would have been
viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered
the total mix of information made available.

Plaintiffs do not know the contents of the Phase 2b six month viral
shedding results, but urge the Court to infer that Genocea had the
six month viral shedding results as early as January 2017, and that
the results were negative. Plaintiffs suggest that Defendants had
the six month viral shedding results in January 2017 because (a)
Genocea had a pattern of releasing genital lesion and viral
shedding data at the same time, and (b) Clark stated at a
company-wide meeting on January 5, 2017 that there was no interest
from potential funding partners in sponsoring the planned Phase 3
trial.

Neither fact supports this inference.

Clark's January 2017 statement also provides little support for the
inference. According to two confidential witnesses, at a
company-wide meeting in January 2017, Clark announced that there
was no interest from potential funding partners in sponsoring the
planned Phase 3 trials and that the company was going to focus more
heavily on its oncology program.

Plaintiffs argue there was no interest because Defendants must have
had the negative six month viral shedding results at that point,
which must have scared off potential funders. This is farfetched
because there are no factual allegations or even a reasonable
inference that Defendants told potential funders about the six
month viral shedding results that they allegedly knew at the time.
Plaintiffs speculate as to why there was no interest from funders
and then ask the Court to infer Defendants had the six month
results in January 2017 based on that speculation. The Court,
without more, cannot reasonably draw such an inference.  

Drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs' favor, the Court
infers that Defendants had the Phase 2b six month postdosing viral
shedding results in July 2017 and that these results were not
positive. If they had been positive, then Defendants would have
released them.

The question is whether the six month viral shedding results were
material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading. Plaintiffs do not clearly explain why the disclosure of
the negative six month viral shedding results in July would
significantly alter the total mix of information available to
investors who, at that point, had the negative twelve month
results. Plaintiffs point to Clark's statement that the twelve
month results were the most important readout from the Phase 2b
trial.

The Plaintiffs also argue that Hetherington's statement to
investors was misleading because he sought to explain away the
negative twelve month viral shedding results. However, the
Plaintiffs do not allege facts to indicate that this was not the
most important readout or that the placebo effect was not a
consequence of the sporadic nature of shedding in the small number
of subjects who provided data at that point.  

The Defendants persuasively argue that the viral shedding six month
results could not have been material to investors given the
positive market response to the negative twelve month viral
shedding results in July 2017. Genocea's stock price rose on July
24, 2017, following the release of the negative Phase 2b twelve
month viral shedding results. Since Genocea's stock price did not
drop when the company released the negative twelve month viral
shedding results, the absence of the six month results is likely
not material to investors who focused more on the genital lesion
results. The release of the negative twelve month viral shedding
results without consequence is fatal to Plaintiffs' allegations.

Scienter

The Plaintiffs ask this Court to find a strong inference of
scienter from the omission of the six month viral shedding results
in July 2017. They argue that the Defendants knew, or were reckless
in not realizing, that failing to disclose the six month viral
shedding results would mislead investors about the prospects for
GEN-003 and the Phase 3 clinical trials.

Scienter is a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate,
or defraud.  

Genocea's own disclosure of the negative twelve month viral
shedding results weakens any showing of scienter.  

The Plaintiffs assert a core operations theory that the Defendants
intentionally withheld the Phase 2b six month viral shedding
results because GEN-003 was core to Genocea's viability as a
company. Again, the Plaintiffs' core-operations theory is weakened
because the Defendants released the negative twelve month viral
shedding results in July 2017. If the Plaintiffs' theory was true,
the Defendants would have had a similar motive to withhold the
twelve month viral shedding results as they did the six month viral
shedding results.

The Plaintiffs also draw the Court's attention to Poole's stock
sales, but these sales do not bolster a strong inference of
scienter.  Insider trading cannot establish scienter on its own,
but it can be used to do so in combination with other evidence.
Insider trading in suspicious amounts or at suspicious times may be
probative of scienter.  Even weak insider trading allegations may
provide some support for scienter, but the vitality of the
inference to be drawn depends on the facts, and can range from
marginal to strong.

Therefore, while this evidence of insider trading is a concern,
standing alone, it does not support a strong inference of scienter
with respect to the six month data.

Since Plaintiffs fail to allege a primary violation of Section
10(b), their Section 20(a) control person claims fail as a matter
of law and are also dismissed.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 6, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycwpsdqj
from Leagle.com.

Taylor Walker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jason M. Leviton --
Jason@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP & Shannon L. Hopkins -
shopkins@zlk.com Levi Korsinsky LLP.

Barry Heaney & Mark Haness, Plaintiffs, represented by Daryl
DeValerio Andrews -- daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com -- Andrews
DeValerio.

Genocea Biosciences, Inc., William D. Clark & Jonathan Poole,
Defendants, represented by Kristi Lynn Jobson, Ropes & Gray LLP &
Randall W. Bodner, Ropes & Gray LLP.

Omer Yuksel, Lirio Fiocchi, Scott C. Hartmann, Satya Kunapuli &
Raul Zamudio, Movants, represented by Jason M. Leviton --
jason@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP.


GOODTIME TOWNE: Cameron Seeks to Recover Min. Wages, Pay Deductions
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brianna Cameron, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Goodtime Towne Tavern, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-03195 (D. Colo., December 13, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, illegally withheld tips
and unjust deductions in the guide of fines under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Colorado Minimum Wage Act and Colorado common
law.

GoodTime Towne Tavern is an adult entertainment establishment in
Garden City, Colorado owned by Stan Pettengill. It allegedly
misclassified Cameron as an independent contractor, thus denying
her overtime pay. GoodTime regularly took out deduction from her
tips, and required her to pay various fees and fines in order to be
allowed to work, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sara A. Green, Esq.
      BACHUS & SCHANKER, LLC
      1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 700
      Denver, CO 80202
      Phone: (303) 893-9800
      Email: Sara.green@coloradolaw.net


GREEN ECO CLEAN: Noohi Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Narguess Noohi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Green Eco Clean and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-10268 (C.D. Cal., December
11, 2018), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble
damages and all other relief for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Green Eco Clean, a marketer and seller of home cleaning services
and related products, attempted to contact Noohi on his mobile
phone using an automatic telephone dialing system offering its
services. He incurs a charge for incoming calls, notes the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


H&M: Slater Suit Asserts Biometric Information Privacy Act Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenyetta Slater, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. H&M, Hennes &
Mauritz, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 2018CH16030 (Circuit Ct., Cook
Cty., Ill., December 27, 2018) is a class action complaint against
the Defendant for violations of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, Illinois restricted private entities,
like Defendant, from collecting, storing, using, or transferring a
person's biometric identifiers and information without adhering to
strict informed-consent procedures established by the Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

Since at least 2012, Defendant required hourly paid employees to
use a biometric time clock system to record their time worked. The
Defendant collected, stored, used, and transferred the unique
biometric fingerprint identifiers of Plaintiff and others similarly
situated without following the detailed requirements of the
Biometric Information Privacy Act. As a result, Defendant violated
the Biometric Information Privacy Act and compromised the privacy
and security of the biometric identifiers and information of
Plaintiff and others similarly situated, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff is an individual who lives in Cook County, Illinois.
Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a Business Account
Representative from approximately 2012 until April 2017.

Defendant is a New York limited partnership, operating in Cook
County, Illinois. Defendant's principal place of business is New
York, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
     Werman Salas, P.C.
     77 West Washington, Suite 1402
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 419-1008
     Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com


HEARTLAND EMPLOYMENT: Mason Sues over Use of Biometric Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA MASON, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, vs. HEARTLAND
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH15633 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Dec. 18, 2018), seeks to recover damages resulting from
Defendant's violations of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendant
as a dietary cook and aid at the Heartland Health Care Center in
Macomb, Illinois from August 2016 to June 22, 2017. Throughout
Plaintiff's employment, Defendant forced her and other hourly paid
employees to use a biometric time clock system to record their time
worked. Defendant required Plaintiff and other hourly employees to
scan their fingerprints in Defendant's biometric time clock when
they started working a shift, stopped for lunch, returned from
lunch, and finished working a shift. Unlike an employee
identification number or employee identification card, fingerprints
are unique and permanent identifiers. By requiring employees to use
their fingerprints to record their time, instead of identification
numbers or badges only, the Defendant ensured that one employee
could not clock in for another. Thus, there's no question that
Defendant benefited from using a biometric time clock. But there's
equally no question that Defendant placed employees at risk by
using their biometric identifiers to "punch the clock." In enacting
the Biometric Information Privacy Act, the Illinois legislature
recognized that biologically unique identifiers, like fingerprints,
can never be changed when compromised, and thus subject a victim of
identity theft to heightened risk of loss. As a result, Illinois
restricted private entities, like Defendant, from collecting,
storing, using, or transferring a person's biometric identifiers
and information without adhering to strict informed-consent
procedures established by the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Defendant collected, stored, used, and transferred the unique
biometric fingerprint identifiers of Plaintiff and others similarly
situated without following the detailed requirements of the
Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Defendant never provided
Plaintiff any written materials about its collection, retention,
destruction, use, or dissemination of her fingerprints. The
Defendant never obtained Plaintiff's written consent, or release as
a condition of employment, before collecting, storing,
disseminating, or using her fingerprint. The Defendant violated
Plaintiffs privacy by capturing or collecting her unique biometric
identifiers and information, and sharing those identifiers and
information with its time-keeping vendor, without her consent. The
Defendant diminished the value of Plaintiffs biometric identifiers
and information by storing them without publishing data retention
and destruction policies required by the Biometric Information
Privacy Act the lawsuit says.

The Defendant provides employees to nursing home and assisted
living facilities operated by HCR ManorCare throughout the United
States, including locations in Illinois.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

HUKARIASCENDENT INC: McClure Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry E. McClure, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. Hukariascendent, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-00873 (S.D. Ohio, December 11, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt
Pay Act for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek.

HukariAscendent is a technical consulting and engineering company
specializing in the nuclear industry and power generation
facilities. McClure was an hourly employee from November 2016 to
February 2017. He claims to have normally worked more than 40 hours
in a week but received the same hourly rate for all hours worked,
including those in excess of 40 in a workweek. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      William R. Liles, 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
             wliles@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

             - and -

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Jessica R. Doogan, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Tel: (800) 274-5297
      Fax: (614) 744-2300
      Email: ttaylor@barkanmeizlish.com
             bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
             jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Flaherty Sues Over Cars With Defective GDI Engines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE FLAHERTY, ROBERT FOCKLER, DONALD HOUSE, DAVE LOOMIS, ARRON
MILLER, TRACI MOORE, MARK RICE, and JAMES SMITH, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HYUNDAI MOTOR
COMPANY, HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, KIA MOTORS CORPORATION, and KIA
MOTORS AMERICA, INC., Case No. 8:18-cv-02223 (C.D. Cal., December
14, 2018), alleges that certain Hyundai and Kia vehicles equipped
with gasoline direct injection engines contain an engine defect
that presents consumers with an unacceptable risk of their vehicles
spontaneously bursting into flames.

There have been more than 350 consumer complaints regarding Class
Vehicles submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration indicating these vehicles caught fire in
non-collision circumstances, according to the complaint.
Plaintiffs Arron Miller and Traci Moore's vehicles were consumed by
non-collision fires as a direct result of the defect allegedly
concealed by Hyundai and Kia.

Hyundai Motor Company is a South Korean multinational automaker
headquartered in Seoul, South Korea.  HMC, together with Defendants
Kia Motors Corporation, Kia Motors America, Inc., and Hyundai Motor
America, comprise the Hyundai Motor Group, which manufactures the
GDI engines at issue in this Complaint.  HMC is the parent
corporation of Hyundai Motor America.

Hyundai Motor America is an automobile design, manufacturing,
distribution, and/or service corporation doing business within the
United States.  HMA designs, develops, manufactures, distributes,
markets, sells, leases, warrants, services, and repairs passenger
vehicles, including the Hyundai Class Vehicles.

HMA is incorporated and headquartered in the state of California
with its principal place of business located in Fountain Valley,
California.  HMA is the American sales, marketing, and distribution
arm of its parent company, HMC, overseeing sales and other
operations across the United States.  HMA distributes and sells a
complete line of Hyundai vehicles through more than 800 dealers
throughout the United States.

Kia Motors Corporation is a South Korean multinational automaker
headquartered in Seoul, South Korea.  KMC is the parent corporation
of Kia Motors America, Inc.  As of December 31, 2017, KMC's largest
shareholder is HMC, which holds 33.88 percent of KMC's stock.

Kia Motors America, Inc., is an automobile design, manufacturing,
distribution, and/or service corporation doing business within the
United States.  KMA designs, develops, manufactures, distributes,
markets, sells, leases, warrants, services, and repairs passenger
vehicles, including the Kia Class Vehicles.

KMA is incorporated and headquartered in the state of California
with its principal place of business located in Irvine, California.
KMA is the American sales, marketing, and distribution arm of its
parent company, KMC, overseeing sales and other operations across
the United States.  KMA distributes and sells a complete line of
Kia vehicles through more than 755 dealers throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 N. Lake Ave., Suite 920
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
          E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Robert Hilliard, Esq.
          HILLIARD MUNOZ GONZALES L.L.P.
          719 S Shoreline Blvd Suite #500
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 882-1612
          Facsimile: (361) 882-3015
          E-mail: bobh@hmglawfirm.com


IDEAL IMAGE: Catherine Esteppe Seeks OT Pay for Sales Consultants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Esteppe, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Ideal Image Development Corp. and
Ideal Image of Georgia, LLC, doing business as "Ideal Image," the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05756-CAP (N.D. Ga., Dec. 17, 2018),
seeks to recover overtime compensation and other relief relating to
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employ "sales
consultants" who are responsible for selling the Defendant's
laser-hair removal services, along with other medical-cosmetic
services to customers during consultations. The Plaintiff and other
sales consultants, lead sales consultants, traveling sales
consultants, and similar positions routinely worked more than 40
hours in a workweek, but were not paid an overtime premium for
their overtime hours, the lawsuit says.

Ideal Image Development, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
engages in the development, management, and operation of treatment
centers utilizing the IDEAL IMAGE laser therapy system for the
cosmetic services industry in the United States.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Roger W. Orlando, Esq.
          THE ORLANDO FIRM, P.C.
          315 West Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 400
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (404) 373-1800
          Facsimile: (404) 373-6999
          E-mail: roger@OrlandoFirm.com

               - and -

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

ILLINOIS: Court Dismisses Croom's Inmate Civil Rights Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Southern District of Illinois
issued a Memorandum and Order adopting the Report and
Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams
granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
captioned CHRISTOPHER CROOM, Plaintiff, v. JACQUELINE LASHBROOK,
and JOHN BALDWIN, Defendants. No. 17-cv-0612-DRH. (S.D. Ill.).

The Amended Complaint alleges that the Plaintiff's constitutional
rights were violated when he was confined in a 36 square foot cell.
The mattress had a urine stain on it, and the Plaintiff was
deprived of cleaning supplies, hygiene products, and showers for 18
days. He did not receive clothes or his eye glasses for 10 days.
Plaintiff asked correctional officers for hygiene products, but
they told him to ask your homeboys or don't come to seg.  

Magistrate Judge Williams issued a Report recommending that the
Court grant the motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies and dismiss without prejudice to the
plaintiff's claims.  Croom, even with the extension of time, has
not filed objections to the Report. The period in which to file
objections has expired. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
636(b), the District Court need not conduct de novo review.  

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

Christopher Croom, Plaintiff, pro se.

Jacqueline Lashbrook, Individually and in her official capacity as
Warden, Menard CC & John R. Baldwin, Individually and in his
official capacity as Director of IDOC. Added per Second Amended
Complaint on 3/2/2018, Defendants, represented by Kyle
Rockershousen , Office of the Attorney General & Jeremy C. Tyrrell
, Illinois Attorney General's Office.


INTELIDENT SOLUTIONS: McGuire Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joan McGuire, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Intelident Solutions, LLC and Coast Dental
Services, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02995, (M.D. Fla.,
December 11, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid wages for overtime work,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this
action and all relief available under the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.

Coast Dental -- https://www.coastdental.com/ -- is a dental clinic
and orthodontics center with 120 locations in Florida, Georgia,
Nevada and Texas. Intelident Solutions provides administrative and
business support services to Coast Dental branded practices.
McGuire worked as an office manager for Intelident from on or about
February 2013 until on or about March 2017, at Defendants' offices
located in Vero Beach, Florida and later in Palm Bay. Defendants
allegedly failed to pay McGuire overtime wages for hours she worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      Paolo Chagas Meireles, Esq.
      Logan A. Pardell, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP
      951 Yamato Rd, Suite 285
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Tel: (561) 447-8888
      Fax: 447-8831
      Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
             pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
             aquiles@shavitzlaw.com
             lpardell@shavitzlaw.com


IPASS INC: Boswell Suit Seeks to Halt Sale to Parateum Corp.
------------------------------------------------------------
Darrell Boswell, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. iPass, Inc., Michael J. Tedesco, Gary A.
Griffiths, David Panos, Justin R. Spencer and Neal I. Goldman,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-07486 (N.D. Cal., December 12, 2018),
seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with
them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the proposed
acquisition of all of the issued and outstanding shares of iPass by
Parateum Corp., 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.

Shareholders of iPass common stock will receive 1.17 shares of
Pareteum common stock in exchange for each share of iPass stock
they own.

iPass is a provider of global mobile connectivity, offering
wireless fidelity on mobile devices and offers a cloud-based
solution allowing its customers and their users' access to its
global Wi-Fi network.

The complaint says the merger's proxy statement failed to disclose
the company's financial projections, valuation of Pareteum and the
merger consideration and the valuation analyses performed by the
company's financial advisor, Raymond James & Associates, Inc. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
      The Empire State Building
      350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
      New York, NY 10118
      Telephone: (212) 971-1341
      Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com

             - and -

      David E. Bower, Esq.
      MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
      600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
      Culver City, CA 90230
      Tel: (213) 446-6652
      Email: dbower@monteverdelaw.com


JEFFERSON COUNTY, NY: Court OKs Site Inspection, Doc Production
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of New
York issued a Decision and Order granting Plaintiff's Motion
Requesting a Site Inspection and Document Production in the case
captioned BRAD NOURSE, both individually and on behalf of a class
of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE COUNTY OF
JEFFERSON, Defendant. Civ. No. 1:17-CV-807 (BKS/DJS). (N.D.N.Y.).

This is a putative class action alleging Fourth Amendment
violations regarding strip search procedures for individuals
admitted to the Jefferson County Jail pending the posting of bail.

The Plaintiff's counsel has written to the Court regarding two
discovery issues: (1) a request to conduct a site visit of the
booking area at the Jefferson County Jail and (2) a request for
booking records to assist in identifying potential class members.

The Plaintiff's counsel seeks to inspect the booking room and has
indicted he would consent to the entry of a "restrictive protective
order" and seeks only to take photographs, not video, of the area.
The Defendant offers objections based on security concerns and the
burdens associated with staffing during the inspection.  

A protective order, for example, can limit access to any
photographs to counsel and any retained experts. And while there
might be added burdens for staffing during such an inspection, the
time period will be relatively brief and so any burden would not
constitute an undue burden that outweighs the clear relevance of
such a visit.

The Plaintiff's request to conduct an inspection of the booking
area and take photographs is granted. Prior to scheduling the
inspection, the parties shall confer and agree upon a protective
order regarding the inspection and any photographs that may be
taken as a result.

The Defendant objects to further production on the ground that it
is irrelevant, is burdensome, and would violate privacy interests
of those whose personal information would be disclosed.   

The information sought is clearly relevant to identifying potential
class members and witnesses. Having considered the arguments of the
parties, the Court again finds that while valid, the Defendant's
concerns can adequately be addressed by narrowly tailored
production, subject to an appropriate protective order.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 10, 2018 Decision
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybomftk8 from
Leagle.com.

Brad Nourse, both individually and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Elmer R. Keach, III,
Law Offices of Elmer Robert Keach, III, P.C. & Maria K. Dyson, Law
Offices of Elmer Robert Keach, III, P.C.

County of Jefferson, Defendant, represented by Mitchell J. Katz --
mkatz@barclaydamon.com -- Barclay Damon LLP, Teresa M. Bennett --
tbennett@barclaydamon.com -- Barclay Damon LLP & Anneliese Aliasso
-- tbennett@barclaydamon.com -- Barclay Damon LLP.


KUMHO TIRE: Hog Wild Trucking Sues Over Defective Tires
-------------------------------------------------------
Hog Wild Trucking, Inc., on behalf of itself and all similarly
situated persons and entities, Plaintiffs, v. KUMHO Tire U.S.A.,
Inc., a California corporation; Hyundai Translead, Inc., a
California corporation; and Hyundai de Mexico, S.A., a foreign
corporation Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00254-BSM (E.D. Ark.,
December 28, 2018) is a nationwide class action and a statewide
class action for select states brought for: Breach of Express
Warranties, Violations of Magnuson-Moss Act, Negligence, Unjust
Enrichment, Violations of the Arkansas and Louisiana Products
Liability Acts, Violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, Redhibition, and Civil Conspiracy in order to remedy
Defendants' wrongful actions in connection with their manufacture,
distribution, sale and/or lease of an inherently defective and
extremely dangerous "low rolling resistance" trucking tire.

The Defendant KUMHO uniformly claimed that the KLT02e's alleged
"special low rolling resistance tread cap & base compounds"
presented "longer casing life due to high strength,
flex/fatigue-resistant ply wire" and would "reduced uneven shoulder
wear as the result of round shoulder design with decoupling
grooves" and that KUMHO had indeed "verified the KLT02e tires to
improve wear and fuel economy". It further represented that,
despite the design of these tires being low rolling resistant, the
KL T02e could be used as steering tires.

Despite their express warranties and representations, Defendants
KUMHO and Hyundai discovered that the KLT02e was indeed defective
and dangerous, the complaint asserts. Specifically, as the result
of numerous complaints by truckers, these Defendants discovered
that the KL T02e had been manufactured from a defective rubber
compound which was too soft and not in compliance with federal
regulations. As a result of this defect, the KL T02e was subject to
rapid wear and erosion that rendered the KL T02e dangerous for road
use and required the replacement of the KLT02e well before the end
of its otherwise useful life.

Following this discovery, Defendants KUMHO and Hyundai nevertheless
determined to ignore the dangerous and defective conditions posed
by the KL T02e and even took steps to deny their express warranties
and the existence of any problem with the KL T02e, though privately
they knew that the KL T02e was defective and dangerous. Instead of
warning the public and consumers and offering to replace the tires,
Defendant KUMHO simply ceased the manufacture of the KLT02e, buried
its head in the sand, refused to honor its warranty, and offered to
sell different tires to complaining consumer, the complaint says.

The named Plaintiff and the Class Members seek an award of
compensatory damages against Defendants, as well as an award of
exemplary damages against Defendants for their intentional and
willful concealment of the inherently defective and dangerous
condition posed by these tires from the public and the necessity to
replace same to protect the health and welfare of state citizens.

Plaintiff Hog Wild Trucking, Inc. is an Arkansas corporation with
its sole place of business located in Jonesboro, Arkansas.

KUMHO Tire U.S.A., Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "KUMHO") is a
corporation organized under the laws of the State of California,
with its principal place of business located at 133 Peachtree
Street, NE Suite 2800, Atlanta, Georgia.

Hyundai Translead, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws
of the State of California, with its principal place of business
located 8880 Rio San Diego Drive, Suite 600, San Diego, California
92108.

Hyundai de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. is a corporation organized under
the laws of Mexico, with its principal place of business located La
Encantada No. 7474, Parque Industrial, El Florido, Tijuana, BC
Mexico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Frank L. Watson, III, Esq.
     William F. Bums, Esq.
     William E, Routt, Esq.
     WATSON BURNS, PLLC
     253 Adams Avenue
     Memphis, TN 38103
     Phone: (901) 529-7996
     Fax:(901)529-7998
     Email: fwatson@watsonbums.com
            bbums@watsonbums.com
            wroutt@watsonbums.com


LACI TRANSPORT: Stingley et al. Seek to Notify Class Members
------------------------------------------------------------
RENEE STINGLEY, EARNEST SMITH AND JELTHER SEPT on behalf of
themselves, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and
unknown, the Plaintiffs, vs. LACI TRANSPORT INC. AND VLADETA
MARKOVITC, INDIVIDUALLY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06221
(N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order
granting their motion to send notice to the Plaintiff Class,
directing the Parties to submit an agreed upon schedule for the
preliminary discovery relative to the sending of collective action
Notice, and for such other relief as the Court deems appropriate
under the circumstances.

According to the complaint, on behalf of themselves and all other
past and present employees of Defendants, Laci Transport, Inc., and
Vladeta Markovitc, individually, Plaintiffs have filed their claim
for unpaid wages and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and supplemental state wage and hour claims under
Illinois law. Recently, Defendants have pursued a course of making
two of the named Plaintiffs a compromised settlement proposal which
those Plaintiffs have rejected. With respect to the third named
Plaintiff, Defendants have presented Plaintiffs' counsel with
evidence they believe supports a motion to dismiss and have
presented a FRCP 11 "safe harbor" letter in that respect.
Plaintiffs' counsel is considering Defendants' position in that
regard."[CC]

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

          John W. Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          120 S. State Street, Suite 400
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450

LAFRANCA ENTERPRISES: King Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE KING, an individual, ASHLEY HESS, an individual, BRITTANY
SEVERINO, an individual, and MICHAEL SEVERINO, an individual, on
behalf of themselves and others v. LAFRANCA ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a
AMORE PIZZA, a Michigan Limited Liability Company, LAFRANCA
ENTERPRISES II, LLC d/b/a AMORES RESTAURANT & SPORTS LOUNGE a
Michigan Limited Liability Company, FRANCESCO LAFRANCA, an
individual, and DENISE BOWMAN , an individual, jointly and
severally, Case No. 1:18-cv-01380 (W.D. Mich., December 14, 2018),
is brought over Plaintiffs' failure to pay the required overtime
premium for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, as
well as the statutorily mandated minimum wage for all hours
worked.

The Plaintiffs inform the Court that there is a pending civil
action in this Court arising out of some of the same facts and
parties alleged in their complaint.  That pending action is titled
Jeffries v. LaFranca Enterprises, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-00615-RJJ-RSK.

LaFranca Enterprises, LLC, doing business as Amore Pizza, is a
Michigan limited liability company whose principal place of
business is located in Paw Paw, Michigan.  Amore Pizza is a
restaurant that serves Italian cuisine with an emphasis on pizza.

LaFranca Enterprises II, LLC, doing business as Amore Restaurant &
Sports Lounge, is a Michigan limited liability company whose
principal place of business is also located in Paw Paw.  Francesco
LaFranca is an individual, who maintains 100% ownership equity in
the Corporate Defendants.  Denise Bowman is the general manager of
Amore Pizza.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Anthony Alvarez, Esq.
          Agustin Henriquez, Esq.
          AVANTI LAW GROUP, PLLC
          600 28th St. SW
          Wyoming, MI 49509
          Telephone: (616) 257-6807
          E-mail: ralvarez@avantilaw.com


M&A PROJECTS: Construction Workers' Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Walter Calle, Henry Bonbon, Cesar Aguirre and Fortino Cohtro, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
M&A Projects Inc., M&A Projects Restoration, Inc., Arco Contracting
Corp. and Bogdan Malinoski, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-07064 (E.D.
N.Y., December 12, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid spread of hours premium, statutory penalties,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

Plaintiffs are construction workers who were collectively hired by
the Defendants to work at their Brooklyn sites, regularly working
over 40 hours per work week without overtime and spread-of-hours
premium, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
     4008 Case Street, 2nd Floor
     Elmhurst, NY 11373
     Tel: (646) 342-2019
     Fax: (646) 661-1317


MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Service of Subpoena Duces Tecum Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class in the case captioned Helen Moore, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MacQuarie
Infrastructure and Real Assets, Defendants, Case No. 251,417 c/w
Nos. 251,456 & 251,515; 252,456, 458 & 459, Division "E" pending in
the Ninth Judicial District of Louisiana, has filed a request under
Case No. DC-18-18019 with the District Court of Dallas County,
Texas, for the issuance and service of a Subpoena Duces Tecum and
Notice of Records Only Deposition to Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co.,
and cause the said documents to be forwarded to Michael J.
Palestina, Attorney at Law, at Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC.

Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC -- www.cleco.com -- is an electric
power company that operates Cleco Power, a regulated electric
utility company that serves approximately 290,000 retail customers
in Louisiana.

Cleco shareholders Helen Moore, Calvin I. Trahan and L.E.
L'Herisson sought to block the sale of the Pineville-based utility
company to a group of international buyers headed by
Australia-based Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets claiming
that company administrators and board members pushed an onerous
acquisition that only benefited its executives. They claim
compensation for their personal losses from the price of stock
being lower than its potential because of the way the sale was
handled. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig J. Geraci, Esq.
      Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
      Lewis Kahn, Esq.
      KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
      1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200
      New Orleans, LA 70163
      Telephone: (504) 455-1400
      Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
      Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com

             - and -

      David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
      Maxwell R. Huffman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-8498
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Fax: (619) 231-7423

             - and -

      Jerold Edward Knoll, Sr., Esq.
      Edmond H. Knoll, Esq.
      THE KNOLL LAW FIRM
      233 South Main Street
      Marksville, LA 71351—0426
      Telephone: (318) 253-6200


MARRIOTT INT'L: Bank of Louisiana Credit Cards Compromised
----------------------------------------------------------
Bank of Louisiana, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Marriott International, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-03833 (D. Md., December 12, 2018) seeks
actual, statutory, punitive, exemplary and/or multiple damages,
disgorgement, restitution, preliminary or other equitable or
declaratory relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses and such other and
favorable relief resulting from negligence and for violation of the
Federal Trade Commission Act.

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

Bank of Louisiana issued VISA payment cards and received alerts
that some of the cards it issued were compromised by the Marriott
data breach. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven D. Silverman, Esq.
      Joseph F. Murphy, Jr., Esq.
      Andrew C. White, Esq.
      William N. Sinclair, Esq.
      SILVERMAN THOMPSON SLUTKIN & WHITE LLC
      201 N. Charles Street, 26th Floor
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Telephone: (410) 385-2225
      Facsimile: (410) 547-2432
      Email: ssilverman@mdattorney.com
             jmurphy@mdattorney.com
             awhite@mdattorney.com
             bsinclair@mdattorney.com

             - and -

      Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
      Bryce D. Riddle, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
      1100 IDS Center
      80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 341-0400
      Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
      Email: brian.gudmunson@zimmreed.com
             bryce.riddle@zimmreed.com

             - and -

      Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
      MURRAY LAW FIRM
      650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504) 525-8100
      Facsimile: (504) 584-5249
      Email: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com

             - and -

      Charles H. Van Horn, Esq.
      Katherine M. Silverman, Esq.
      BERMAN FINK VAN HORN P.C.
      3475 Piedmont Road, NE Suite 1100
      Atlanta, GA 30305
      Telephone: (404) 261-7711
      Email: cvanhorn@bfvlaw.com
             ksilverman@bfvlaw.com


MARRIOTT INT'L: Cervantes Sues Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------
Chris Cervantes on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Marriott International, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-03835 (D. Md., December 13, 2018), seeks actual,
statutory, punitive, exemplary and/or multiple damages,
disgorgement, restitution, preliminary or other equitable or
declaratory relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses and such other and
favorable relief resulting from negligence and breach of contract
and for violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act and the
Maryland Personal Information Protection Act.

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

Marriott operates Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide. Cervantes
is a member of Marriott's Starwood program and has stayed at
Marriott properties for approximately six years. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      LEVI &KORSINSKY, LLP
      1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290
      Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
      Email: denright@zlk.com

             - and -

      Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
      Rosanne L. Mah, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 291-2420
      Email: rrivas@zlk.com
             rmah@zlk.com

             - and -

      Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 363-7500
      Fax: (212) 363-7171
      Email: cmaccarone@zlk.com


MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces Bittner Suit Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------
Michaela Bittner, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Marriott International, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-202543 (S.D. Fla., December 13, 2018),
seeks actual, statutory, punitive, exemplary and/or multiple
damages, disgorgement, restitution, preliminary or other equitable
or declaratory relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses and such other and
favorable relief resulting from negligence and breach of contract.

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

Marriott operates Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide. Bittner
stayed at a Starwood facility as a Starwood Preferred Guest. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lance A. Harke, Esq.
      Tammi A. Calarco, Esq.
      HARKE LAW LLP
      9699 NE Second Avenue
      Miami Shores, FL 33138
      Telephone: (305) 536-8220
      Facsimile: (305) 536-8229
      Email: lharke@harkelaw.com
             tcalarco@harkelaw.com


MARRIOTT INT'L: Siskinds LLP Files Privacy Breach Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Siskinds LLP has filed a proposed privacy breach class proceeding
on behalf of Canadian residents whose personal information has been
impacted as a result of the recently-disclosed data breach
incident.

Earlier today, Marriott reported that unauthorized parties have
improperly accessed the guest reservation database of Marriott's
Starwood hotels and obtained personal information of individuals
who made reservations at Marriott's Starwood properties.  All
persons who, on or before September 10, 2018, made a reservation at
a Starwood property may have been affected by the data breach.

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

Canadian residents who may have been affected by this data breach
are encouraged to visit Siskinds' website
https://www.siskinds.com/marriott-privacy-breach/ for further
information and to register for the proposed class action. [GN]


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Car Owners Sue Over  Defective Aircon Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Biase, Rosa Grue, John Dudasik, Todd Basler and Gail
Mahoney, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Daimler AG, Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-17128, (D. N.J., December 12, 2018), seeks redress
for fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment and breach of express
or written warranty as well as breach of implied warranty of
merchantability under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, New Jersey's
Consumer Fraud Act, New York General Business Law, Illinois
Consumer Fraud & Deceptive Business Practices Act, Illinois Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Missouri Merchandising Practices
Act, Florida Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Plaintiffs are Mercedes Benz owners who claim that their vehicles'
heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems tend to
accumulate mold and mildew residue or growth within, thus emitting
a moldy or mildew odor that permeates the vehicle cabin.

Defendant Daimler AG is a German auto-maker with its principal
place of business in Stuttgart, Germany. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is
a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
Atlanta, Georgia and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Daimler.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
      Annika K. Martin, Esq.
      Jason L. Lichtman, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10013-1413
      Telephone: (212) 355-9500
      Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
      Email: akmartin@lchb.com
             jselbin@lchb.com
             jlichtman@lchb.com

             - and -

      John T. Spragens, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      222 2nd Ave S, Suite 1640
      Nashville, TN 37201
      Telephone: (615) 313-9000
      Facsimile: (615) 313-9965
      Email: jspragens@lchb.com

             - and -

      Ketan A. Patel, Esq.
      CORPUS LAW PATEL, LLC
      PO Box 1022
      Atlanta, GA 30290
      Telephone: (678) 597-8020
      Facsimile: (678) 826-4700
      Email: kp@personalinjury-ga.com


MESSERLI & KRAMER: Gajewski et al. File Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER GAJEWSKI, and JENNIE GUERRIDO, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MESSERLI &
KRAMER, P.A., and LVNV, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00003 (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying
proposed classes in this case, appointing Plaintiffs as class
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief
from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement
that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of
this motion.

To avoid the risk of a Defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896
(7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh
Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative’s claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).
One defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified
check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio,
Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern
Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016).[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

METAS FINANCIERAS: Bravo Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Luz Bravo, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Metas
Financieras LLC, Cesar A Salas, Rainier Salas, Diana Donarse,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-25218 (S.D. Fla., December 12, 2018),
requests double damages and reasonable attorney fees, jointly and
severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for all
overtime wages still owing along with court costs, interest and any
other relief.

Bravo worked for Defendants as a customer service representative
from on or about February 5, 2018, through on or about November 26,
2018. She worked an average of 69 hours a week and was not paid the
extra half time rate for any hours worked over 40 hours in a week,
asserts the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MIDLAND CREDIT: Bass Disputes Vague Collection Letters
------------------------------------------------------
James Bass, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-03431, (D. S.C., December 13, 2017), requests
statutory damages, actual damages and attorney's fees and costs of
suit along with injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

On or about September 14, 2018, Midland sent Bass a letter in an
attempt to collect a personal loan from One Main Financial Group.
Said letter contained three ambiguous payment options that are in
actuality discount options and conspicuously discloses the original
and current creditors, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chauntel Bland, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF CHAUNTEL DEMETRIUS BLAND
     463 Regency Park Drive
     Columbia, SC 29210
     Tel: (803) 319-6262
     Email: chauntel.bland@yahoo.com


MINI MINT: Carmona Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Julio Carmona Varillas and Roberto Colmenares de Jesus,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Mini
Mint, Inc. dba Dishes, City Mint, Inc. dba Dishes, Menta, Inc. dba
Dishes), Little Mint, Inc. dba Dishes, Moshe Mallul, Margarita
Talisman, and Kimo Farrag, Case No. 1:18-cv-11104 (S.D. N.Y.,
November 28, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hour's compensation for the hours that they worked, notes the
complaint. It further asserts that the Defendants failed to
maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to pay
the Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.

The Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers at the restaurants
located at 399 Park Ave, New York, New York 10022, and 6 East 45th
Street, New York, New York 10017.

The Defendants own, operate, or control an American restaurant in
Park Avenue location and 45th Street location under the name
"Dishes".

The Individual Defendants Moshe Mallul, Margarita Talisman, and
Kimo Farrag, serve or served as owners, managers, principals, or
agents of Defendant Corporations and, through these corporate
entities, operate or operated the restaurants as a joint or unified
enterprise. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MONEYGRAM INT'L: Jan. 14 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors that they have until January 14, 2019 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against
MoneyGram International Inc. (NasdaqGS: MGI), if they purchased the
Company's securities between February 11, 2014 and November 8,
2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action is pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

MoneyGram investors should visit us at
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-moneygram-international-inc-securities-litigation-3
or call toll-free (844) 367-9658.  Lawyers at Kahn Swick & Foti,
LLC are available to discuss your legal options.

                           About the Lawsuit

MoneyGram and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On November 8, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission announced that
MoneyGram had agreed to pay a fine of $125 million for failing to
fully implement effective anti-fraud measures to comply with prior
agreements with the agency.  Then, on November 9, 2018, MoneyGram
disclosed a 15% decline in money transfer revenue in Q3 2018
compared to Q3 2017 based on "the impact of higher compliance
standards and newly implemented corridor specific controls."

On this news, the price of MoneyGram's shares plummeted $2.20 per
share or over 49%.

                              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]


MONSANTO COMPANY: Hetheringtons Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------------
JANET A. HETHERINGTON and GEORGE HETHERINGTON, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02107 (E.D. Mo.,
Dec. 19, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as
a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Richardson Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------------
LUZ E. RICHARDSON, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02103 (E.D. Mo., Dec. 19, 2018), seeks
to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Shobe Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT A. SHOBE, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02106-PLC (E.D. Mo., Dec. 19, 2018),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MRS BPO LLC: Faces Thompson FDCPA Suit in Alabama
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, L.L.C. The
case is styled as Lawanda Thompson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MRS BPO, L.L.C. doing
business as: MRS Associates of New Jersey, Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-01069-WKW-SRW (M.D. Ala., December 26, 2018).

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

MRS BPO, LLC, a debt collection agency, provides accounts
receivables solutions. It offers first and third party collections
services that include skip tracing, letters, human interaction,
scoring, and credit reporting; and analytic solutions that include
effective scoring and regression analysis, voice analytics,
identifying manual processes that can be automated, and increasing
customer retention levels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David I. Schoen, Esq.
   2800 Zelda Rd-Ste 100-6
   Montgomery, AL 36106
   Tel: (334) 395-6611
   Fax: (917) 591-7586
   Email: DSchoen593@aol.com

      - and -

   Yaakov Saks, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500







NAVARRE CONSTRUCTION: Faces Dollesin Suit in California Super. Ct
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Navarre Construction.
The case is captioned Jofre Dollesin, On behalf of himself and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Does
1-50 and Navarre Construction, the Defendants, Case No.
34-2018-00246780-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 18, 2018). The
suit alleges employment-related issues.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
          JCL LAW FIRM, APC
          10200 Willow Creek Rd, Ste 150
          San Diego, CA 92131-1669
          Telephone: (619) 599-8292
          Facsimile: (619) 599-8291
          E-mail: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Berger Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Richard Berger, for himself and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. New York University, Defendant, Case No.
161553/2018 (N.Y. Sup., December 11, 2018), seeks overtime
compensation plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to
New York Labor Laws.

Berger worked for NYU as a security guard and claims to have
regularly work over forty hours in a week without being paid all
earned overtime wages at a rate of one and one-half times his
regular hourly wage. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 943-9080
      Fax: (212) 943-9082


OHIO: Class Certification in Pivonka Affirmed
---------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment granting
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned
MICHAEL A. PIVONKA, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BARBARA SEARS,
DIRECTOR OF OHIO DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAID, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellants. No. 106749. (Ohio App.).

The Plaintiffs' complaint alleged that they were forced to forfeit
a portion of their tort recoveries to the Department pursuant to a
demand by the Department of a right of subrogation pursuant to
Section 5101.58 of the Ohio Revised Code. The Plaintiffs' complaint
alleged that the Department was unjustly enriched because the
Department wrongfully collected monies from them as well as a class
of similarly situated tort victims under R.C. 5101.58, which they
argued was invalid according to two United States Supreme Court
cases, Arkansas Dept. of Health & Human Servs. v. Ahlborn, 547 U.S.
268, 126 S.Ct. 1752, 164 L.Ed.2d 459 (2006), and Wos v. E.M.A., 568
U.S. 627, 133 S.Ct. 1391, 185 L. Ed.2d 471 (2013).

The Department raises five assignments of error for review:

   1. R.C. 5160.37(P) deprived the court of subject matter
jurisdiction to proceed or certify a class.

   2. The court erred by including individuals in the class who
repaid money before April 6, 2009.

   3. The court erred by finding that Civ.R. 23(B)(2) applied
despite the fact that the Plaintiffs' primary goal was monetary
relief.

   4. The court erred by failing, while reviewing Civ.R. 23(B)(2)
and (3), to examine whether any damage calculations would be made
class-wide or would require mini-trials.

   5. The court erred by failing to determine whether class
certification was clearly superior to the administrative
proceedings under R.C. 5160.37(L).

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The Court agrees with the Department that subject matter
jurisdiction is a threshold issue because it determines whether a
trial court has the power to act in a given case. If a trial court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it cannot act or rule upon the
issues presented. A trial court's power to certify a class action
is also limited to the extent of its jurisdiction. If the court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case, it also lacks
authority to certify the case as a class action.

Here, plaintiffs' sole issue underlying their claim for relief is
constitutionally based.

Therefore, an action for declaratory judgment, rather than a
hearing before the Department which would be futile because the
Department cannot decide constitutional issues is more appropriate
and properly within the trial court's jurisdiction.  

While the Ohio Supreme Court has recognized that facial and
as-applied constitutional challenges can be raised on further
appeal from an administrative agency to a court, it would be
impractical to require plaintiffs to first seek redress in an
administrative proceeding without being able to argue and receive a
determination on the cornerstone of their position and then, once
they lose in the administrative proceeding, to finally be able to
receive such a determination on an appeal to the court of common
pleas.  

The Court finds that the trial court had subject matter
jurisdiction and overrule the Department's first assignment of
error.

Statute of Limitations

The Department's second assignment of error concerns the
composition of the plaintiffs' proposed class. The Department
argues that the trial court erred because it should have addressed
the applicable statute of limitations before certifying the class.
In conjunction, the Department argues that the statute of
limitations for plaintiffs' action is four years pursuant to R.C.
2305.07 because plaintiffs' claim seeks restitution, and therefore,
the class should be limited to individuals who repaid money to
Medicaid after April 6, 2009, which is within the four years of
plaintiffs' filing of the complaint.   

In response, the plaintiffs argue that the trial court was not
required to consider or decide the statute of limitations issue
before certifying their proposed class. They also argue that
because they set forth a claim for unjust enrichment, the statute
of limitations is six years pursuant to R.C. 2305.09. As to the
dates, plaintiffs argue that R.C. 5101.58, the former statute, also
plainly violates the federal anti-lien provision and is invalid.

Addressing the Statute of Limitations Before Class Certification

The Ohio Supreme Court has explained: That a statute of limitations
may bar the claims of some, but not all, class members does not
compel a finding that individual issues predominate over common
ones. Rather, as long as there is a sufficient common nucleus of
common issues, differences in the application of a statute of
limitations to individual class members will not preclude
certification under Rule 23(b)(3).

Thus, the trial court was not required to make a finding as to the
statute of limitations beyond finding that Civ.R. 23's commonality
and predominance, if applicable, requirements are satisfied.

In fact, if the commonality and predominance requirements are
satisfied, an issue concerning the application of a statute of
limitations does not bar class certification.

Commonality

Here, the trial court found that the commonality requirement was
satisfied, stating, If the named plaintiffs can prove for
themselves that the department collected money from them pursuant
to an invalid statute, and they are thus entitled to the
disgorgement of every dime paid, then they can prove it for the
whole class.

The Court finds that there is a common nucleus of operative facts
between the individuals who made payments under the pre-September
2007 version of R.C. 5101.58 and the individuals who paid under the
post-September 2007 version. Both sets of individuals contest the
Department's collection of monies under different versions of the
same statute. The Department's overall right to collect did not
change between those versions; the only difference was that a
former version of the statute made the entirety of a plaintiff's
recovery subject to the Department's right to recover rather than
only 50 percent set forth in the later version. As a result, we
disagree with the Department's points and find that the commonality
requirement was satisfied.

Predominance

Civ.R. 23(B)(3) lists factors that are pertinent to a finding of
predominance: (a) the interest of members of the class in
individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate
actions;(b) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the
controversy already commenced by or against members of the
class;(c) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the
litigation of the claims in the particular forum;(d) the
difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class
action.

Here, the question of R.C. 5101.58's constitutionality is the
central issue of this case. Should the trial court later find that
R.C. 5101.58 is unconstitutional, disposition in a large number of
cases would be swift. As a result, we find the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in finding that the predominance requirement
was satisfied. Based on the above, we find that the trial court was
not required to determine the applicable statute of limitations
before certifying the class.

Turning to the Department's argument that the statute of
limitations is four, not six years, the trial court has not yet
ruled on that issue, thereby precluding our judgment on the issue.
If, during further litigation, the trial court finds that the
statute of limitations is four years and affects the class
composition, then, as the trial court noted, the class definition
can be appropriately modified.

Individuals Who Paid Before September 2007

To review, prior to September 2007, the statute stated that the
entire amount of any settlement or compromise of the action or
claim, or any court award or judgment, is subject to the recovery
right of the department. In September 2007, the General Assembly
amended the statute's language, changing the amount that was
subject to the Department's recovery. In subsection (G)(2) of the
revised version, the statute said that after fees, costs, and other
expenses are deducted from the total judgment or settlement, the
department shall receive no less than one-half of the remaining
amount, or the actual amount of medical assistance paid, whichever
is less.

While the Department is correct that plaintiffs' complaint
references R.C. 5101.58(G)(2), the complaint also includes a number
of broad statements referring only to R.C. 5101.58 without
identifying a specific subsection. The Court will not nitpick
plaintiffs' complaint and construe it as only challenging the
constitutionality of the R.C. 5101.58 as amended in September 2007.
The Court find that the trial court did not err in including
individuals who paid under the pre-September 2007 version of R.C.
5101.58 in the class.

The Court overrules the Department's second assignment of error.

Monetary Relief and Damages Calculations—Civ.R. 23(B)(2) and (3)

Because the Department's third and fourth assignments of error
concern the trial court's findings under Civ.R. 23(B), the Court
will address them together. The Department's third assignment of
error argues that the trial court erred in finding that Civ.R.
23(B)(2) applied because the class was not cohesive. Its fourth
assignment of error argues that the trial court erred in finding
that Civ.R. 23(B)(2) and (3) applied without reviewing how damages
would be calculated.

The Department argues that the trial court abused its discretion
because plaintiffs could not establish the cohesiveness requirement
under Civ.R. 23(B)(2). Specifically, the Department argues that
plaintiffs cannot establish cohesiveness because complete
disgorgement is not available.

The Court disagrees. If the trial court finds that R.C. 5101.58 is
unconstitutional, then the Department lacked the necessary
statutory authority to collect from plaintiffs, and disgorgement
may be appropriate. This remedy may be appropriate regardless of
the fact that the Department may be entitled to the funds under
federal law. Hypothetically, this just means that the Department
may simply have to disgorge the funds and then seek to recollect
the funds under a valid statute. While it is not our responsibility
to determine whether disgorgement is indeed the proper remedy, the
Court find that the possibility of complete disgorgement supports
the trial court's finding of cohesiveness.

The Court finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion
in finding that plaintiffs' proposed class satisfied Civ.R.
23(B)(2) and (3), and the Court overrules the Department's third
and fourth assignments of error.

Superiority to Administrative Proceedings

The Department argues in its fifth assigned error that the trial
court failed to determine whether class certification was clearly
superior to the administrative proceedings under R.C. 5160.37(L).

In response, the plaintiffs argue that the administrative process
set forth in R.C. 5160.37(L) did not exist at the time the
Department demanded the payments from plaintiffs and that the
statute, which they allege is substantive, cannot be applied
retroactively. They also argue that it would be improper to demand
individuals to produce evidence from years ago of the amount they
received from Medicaid, the amounts they repaid, what portion of
the amounts they received from third-parties were for medical
expenses versus other types of damages, etc.

The Court agrees with the trial court's findings. A class action is
clearly the superior method to adjudicating the instant controversy
based on the factors above, including the nonexistence of similar
litigation, the strong likelihood that low income Medicaid
recipients would not be likely or able to pursue separate actions,
and the desirability of handling the controversy the
constitutionality of R.C. 5101.58 in one adjudication. Class action
treatment of this controversy would eliminate any potential danger
of varying or inconsistent judgments, while providing a forum for
the vindication of rights of groups of people who individually
would be without effective strength to litigate their claims.

The Court overrules the Department's fifth assignment of error.

A full-text copy of the Ohio App.'s December 6, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ydd28ajq from Leagle.com.

Michael DeWine, Ohio Attorney General, BY: Henry G. Appel,
Principal Assistant Attorney General, Attorneys for Appellants.

David H. Krause, Reminger Co., L.P.A.; James A. Deroche, Garson
Johnson, L.L.C.

Christian R. Patno, McCarthy Lebit Crystal & Liffman Co.

Patrick J. Perotti, Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A., Attorneys for
Appellees.


PACESETTER CLAIMS: Tapley-Smith Seeks Unpaid Back Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
MELODY TAPLEY-SMITH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. PACESETTER CLAIMS SERVICE,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01488-TJC-JRK (M.D. Fla.,
Dec. 18, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid back wages, additional
equal amount as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
pre-and post-judgment interest pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has violated the FLSA
within the past three years by not paying its adjusters and/or
trainers (including Plaintiff Tapley-Smith and others similarly
situated) for the overtime hours they worked. The Plaintiff, as the
putative collective/class representative, seeks certification of
this suit as a collective action on behalf of all current and
former insurance "adjusters," "trainers," or others who have
performed duties similar to the duties performed by the Plaintiff
for Defendant and paid a day rate without overtime compensation
within the past three years, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant is a nationwide provider of property claims adjusting
services to insurance carrier clients such as Citizens Property
Insurance, Security First Insurance Company, American Family
Insurance, Inc., and others.[BN]

Attorney for Melody Tapley-Smith, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated:

          Amber L. Karns, Esq.
          STARZYK & ASSOCIATES, PC
          10200 Grogan's Mill Rd, Suite 300
          The Woodlands, TX 77380
          Telephone: (281) 364-7261
          Facsimile: (281) 364-7533
          E-mail: akarns@starzyklaw.com

PAPA JOHN'S: Houston Suit Challenges No-Poach, No-Hire Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAY HOUSTON, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated
v. PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and
PAPA JOHN'S USA, INC., a Kentucky Corporation, Case No.
3:18-cv-00825-JHM-RSE (W.D. Ky., December 14, 2018), challenges
under the Sherman Act the Defendants' no-poach and no-hire
agreements, which resulted in the Plaintiff and class suffering
reduced wages and benefits and diminished employment
opportunities.

For years, the Defendants orchestrated an employee no-poach and
no-hiring agreement between and among Papa John's restaurant
franchisees, pursuant to which the franchisees agreed not to
solicit, poach, or hire each other's employees or Papa John's
employees, the Plaintiff alleges.  He contends that Papa John's
orchestrated, designed, dispersed, and enforced the policy among
all franchisees, at least in part, through explicit contractual
agreements (and remedies for violation) in standard franchise
documents.  He argues that the practice at issue reflects a naked
restraint of competition and a per se violation of the antitrust
laws.

Papa John's International, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Louisville, Kentucky.  Papa John's
International is the franchisor of Papa John's brand franchise
restaurants in the United States.  Papa John's International also
owns a majority interest in a number of Papa John's franchisee
restaurants.

Papa John's USA, Inc., is a Kentucky corporation with its principal
place of business in Louisville.  Papa John's USA is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Papa John's International.  Among other functions, it
owns and operates Papa John's restaurants in the United States.

Papa John's is in the business of selling food to customers
primarily through independently owned and operated franchise
restaurants.  Papa John's has multiple franchise restaurants in
virtually every U.S. state and the District of Columbia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer A. Moore, Esq.
          Ashton Rose Smith, Esq.
          GROSSMAN & MOORE, PLLC
          401 West Main Street, Suite 1810
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 657-7100
          E-mail: jmoore@gminjurylaw.com
                  asmith@gminjurylaw.com

               - and -

          Derek Y. Brandt, Esq.
          Leigh M. Perica, Esq.
          McCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
          101 West Vandalia Street, Suite 200
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 307-6116
          E-mail: dyb@mccunewright.com
                  lmp@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          Michele M. Vercoski, Esq.
          McCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
          3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91761
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                  mmv@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          Walter W. Noss, Esq.
          Stephanie A. Hackett, Esq.
          Sean C. Russell, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          600 West Broadway, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          E-mail: wnoss@scott-scott.com
                  shackett@scott-scott.com
                  sean.russell@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Michelle E. Conston, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Ave., 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          E-mail: mconston@scott-scott.com


PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Garcia's FCRA Suit Moved to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Yaquelin C. Garcia, on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Payless ShoeSource Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. RG18928757, was removed from the Alameda County
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on Dec 19, 2018. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assinged Case No.:
3:18-cv-07609 to the proceeding. The suit alleges Fair Credit
Reporting Act violation.

Payless ShoeSource Inc. is an American discount footwear retailer
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Established in 1956 by cousins
Louis and Shaol Pozez, Payless is a privately held company owned by
Blum Capital, and Golden Gate Capital.[BN]

The Plaintiff appear pro se.

Attorneys for Payless ShoeSource Inc.:

          Alison S. Hightower, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          Facsimile: (415) 399-8490
          E-mail: ahightower@littler.com

PEPSICO INC: Shortchanges Retirees on Pension Benefits, Says Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William DuBuske, Michael Duchaine, and Gary Maynard, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
PepsiCo, Inc., the Employee Benefits Board, the PepsiCo
Administration Committee, and John/Jane Does 1-50, Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-11618 (S.D. N.Y., December 12, 2018), seeks payment of
future benefits, amounts improperly withheld and such other relief
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

PepsiCo, Inc. is a multinational food, snack and beverage company.
It sponsors the retirement plan for its eligible employees and the
eligible employees of certain subsidiaries and affiliates.
Plaintiffs are Pepsico retirees who allege that PepsiCo failed to
pay benefits under their retirement plan that are actuarially
equivalent to a single life annuity for the life of the plan
participant thus causing retirees to lose part of their vested
retirement benefits.

Under said plan, workers accrue retirement benefits in the form of
a single life annuity, a payment stream that starts when they
retire and ends when they die. The amount of the SLA is based on
their wages and years of service with Pepsi, not current life
expectancies or interest rates. However, the annuities provided to
retirees and their beneficiaries are not actuarially equivalent to
the annuity owed to the retiree, says the complaint. Rather than
using reasonable interest and mortality rates to set the conversion
factor, it instead sets a conversion factor for each category of
joint and survivor annuity that is lower than the conversion factor
that would be generated using reasonable market mortality tables
and interest rates, it adds. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert A. Izard, Esq.
      Seth R. Klein, Esq.
      Christopher M. Barrett, Esq.
      Douglas P. Needham, Esq.
      IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
      29 South Main Street, Suite 305
      West Hartford, CT 06107
      Tel: (860) 493-6292
      Fax: (860) 493-6290
      Email: rizard@ikrlaw.com
             sklein@ikrlaw.com
             cbarrett@ikrlaw.com
             dneedham@ikrlaw.com

             - and -

      Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
      Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
      Washington, DC 20007
      Tel: (202) 463-2101
      Fax: (202) 463-2103
      Email: gporter@baileyglasser.com
             mboyko@baileyglasser.com


PER DIEM STAFFING: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Junkersfeld Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Junkersfeld, an individual on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Per Diem Staffing Systems, Inc.,
and Does 1 to 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-07795-KAW
(N.D. Cal., December 28, 2018) is a California-wide class action
against Defendants for failing to include the value of housing and
per diem allowances in employees' regular rate of pay when
calculating overtime; failing to include the value of housing and
per diem allowances in employees' regular rate of compensation when
calculating premium wages for missed meal breaks; and failing to
pay all wages owing at time of discharge.

During Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, she worked in excess
of 8 hours per day and/or 40 hours per week and missed meal
periods. As part of Plaintiff's compensation, Defendants provided
her with housing and per diem allowances for the duration of her
travel assignment. If Plaintiff failed to work the minimum number
of shifts required by her contract, Defendants would prorate the
housing and per diem allowances per shift hours worked to make up
for missed shifts, effectively reducing the value of her housing
and per diem allowances in proportion to the number of hours she
actually worked per week.

However, the Defendants did not include the value of Plaintiff's
housing allowance or per diem allowance in her regular rate of pay
when calculating her overtime and/or double time. The Defendants
did not include the value of Plaintiff's housing allowance or per
diem allowance in her regular rate of compensation when calculating
her missed meal period premiums, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff is a citizen of Arkansas who was employed as a non-exempt
hourly employee of Per Diem Staffing Systems, Inc. in French Camp,
California in 2017 and 2018.

Per Diem Staffing Systems, Inc. is a Nevada corporation with its
principal place of business in Concord, California and is engaged
in the business of health care staffing throughout California.

Plaintiff is currently unaware of the true names and capacities of
the defendants sued by the fictitious names Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, and, therefore, sue those defendants by fictitious
names.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew B. Hayes, Esq.
     Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq.
     HAYES PAWLENKO LLP
     595 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 303
     Pasadena, CA 91101
     Phone: (626) 808-4357
     Fax: (626) 921-4932
     Email: mhayes@helpcounsel.com
            kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com


PETER THOMAS ROTH: Miller Sues Over False Marketing Campaigns
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kari Miller and Samantha Paulson, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Peter Thomas Roth, LLC; Peter
Thomas Roth Designs LLC; Peter Thomas Roth Global, LLC; Peter
Thomas Roth Labs, LLC; and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
RG18933751 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., December 27, 2018) is a
complaint filed over two of Defendants' product lines. First,
Defendants market and sell a "Water Drench" line of products.
Defendants falsely and deceptively represent that the active
ingredient in these products, hyaluronic acid, will draw moisture
from the atmosphere into the user's skin, and will hold 1,000 times
its weight in water for up to 72 hours. Second, Defendants market
and sell a line of "Rose Stem Cell" products by falsely and
deceptively representing that rose stem cells are capable of
repairing, regenerating, and rejuvenating human skin.

Defendants are large companies that sell skin care products under
the brand name "Peter Thomas Roth". To increase their sales,
Defendants trick consumers by making false claims about the
capabilities of their products. Defendants do not disclose to
consumers that their products are scientifically incapable of
achieving the promised results. Defendants have profited enormously
from their false marketing campaigns, while their customers are
left with overpriced, ineffective skin care products, asserts the
complaint.

Defendants have embarked on a long term advertising campaign to
trick consumers into believing that many of their products contain
cutting-edge scientific technologies that will offer younger,
healthier skin, when Defendants know that their claims are false,
the complaint contends.

Plaintiff Kari Miller is, and was at all relevant times, and
individual and
resident of California. Ms. Miller currently resides in Concord,
California.

Plaintiff Samantha Paulson is, and was at all relevant times, and
individual and resident of California. Ms. Paulson currently
resides in El Dorado Hills, California.

Peter Thomas Roth, LLC is a New York limited liability company with
its principal place of business in New York, New York.

Peter Thomas Roth Designs LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company with its principal place of business in New York, New
York.

Peter Thomas Roth Global, LLC is a New York limited liability
company with its principal place of business in New York, New
York.

Peter Thomas Roth Labs LLC is a New York limited liability company
with its principal place of business in New York, New York.

Defendants sued as Does 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will seek leave of Court to amend this Class
Action Complaint when said true names and capacities have been
ascertained.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Adam J. Gutride, Esq.
     Seth A. Safier, Esq.
     Todd Kennedy, Esq.
     Kristen Simplicio, Esq.
     GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
     100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 789-6390
     Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
     Email: adarn@gutridesafier.com
            seth@gutridesafier.com
            todd@gutridesafier.com
            kristen@gutridesafier.com


PEVATOR COMPANIES: Court Allows Amendments in Radford FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiffs'
Motion for Leave to Amend in the case captioned JAMES RADFORD, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
PEVATOR COMPANIES, LTD., Defendant. Civil Action No. H-17-3381.
(S.D. Tex.).

This case arises from an overtime-wage dispute. James Radford,
representing similarly situated employees, sued Pevator Companies,
Ltd., alleging a failure to pay overtime compensation due under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Court finds that Radford and Jones have alleged sufficient
facts to support their motion for leave. The
retaliation-by-wrongful-termination claim is neither frivolous nor
futile. Because the alleged terminations occurred in July and
November 2018 and the plaintiffs moved for leave in early December,
the motion is timely and would not unduly prejudice Pevator.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 10, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8zuord9 from Leagle.com.

James Radford, Plaintiff, represented by Tracey Dominique Lewis,
Rosenburg Sprovach & Gregg M. Rosenberg, Rosenberg Sprovach.

Pevator Companies, Ltd., doing business as Brake Check, Defendant,
represented by Mark D. Temple -- mtemple@reedsmith -- Reed Smith.


PRISONER TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert. Bid in Groover Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY EMIL GROOVER, the
Plaintiff, vs. PRISONER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, LLC and U.S.
CORRECTIONS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 0:15-cv-61902-BB (S.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Beth Bloom entered an order on Dec. 21, 2018,
denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification of:

"all persons in the United States who, between October 12, 2012 and
the date Prisoner Transportation Services acquired U.C. Corrections
LLC, were transported as a pretrial detainee by U.S. Corrections,
LLC, as indicated by a designation of "warrant" as the "transport
type" on the "face sheet," in a prisoner cage equipped van for
twenty-four (24) or more hours, at any time during the months of
June through September, through at least one location with an
outdoor temperature of at least 80 degrees Fahrenheit, as measured
by weatherunderground.com."

The Court said, "The Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue a claim for
injunctive and declaratory relief, and therefore, the Court cannot
certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2). Additionally, Plaintiff has
failed to demonstrate that a class is ascertainable and has failed
to satisfy the predominance requirement, thus the Court cannot
certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3)."[CC]

QUALITY CONTAINER: Sued Over Termination of Union Health Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO DISPATCHERS,
CLOCKMEN, and TRUCK DRIVERS, representing its subordinate, LOCAL
2062, AFL-CIO v. QUALITY CONTAINER TRANSPORT, INC., SALOM
TRANSPORTATION, INC., DOCKSIDE TRANSFER, INC., Case No.
1:18-cv-25245-FAM (S.D. Fla., December 13, 2018), is brought by the
Union individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
arising from the Defendants' alleged wrongful reduction and/or
termination of health care benefits previously provided to the
Union.

The lawsuit seeks remedies under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 seeking a declaration enjoining the Defendants
from taking any additional steps to reduce and/or terminate all, or
substantially all, of the health care benefits provided to the
employees of the Union, as governed by the parties' Collective
Bargaining Agreement, together with damages in an amount sufficient
to compensate the Plaintiff for the loss of health care benefits
already put into place by the Defendants.

The Plaintiff is the Union, which provides container transport
services at the Port of Miami, Port Everglades, and other locations
throughout Miami-Dade County and Broward County.  The Union
represents approximately 100 employees, who work in the shipping
container transport industry.

Quality Container Transport, Inc., is a Florida corporation, with
its principal place of business in Medley, Florida.  Quality is a
party to the CBA and has agreed to provide employee welfare benefit
plans within the meaning of ERISA.

Salom Transportation, Inc., is a Florida corporation, with its
principal place of business in Miami, Florida.  Salom is a party to
the CBA and has agreed to provide employee welfare benefit plans
within the meaning of ERISA.

Dockside Transfer, Inc., is a Florida corporation, with its
principal place of business in Medley, Florida. Dockside is a party
to the CBA and has agreed to provide employee welfare benefit plans
within the meaning of ERISA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael C. Fasano, Esq.
          FASANO LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1000 Brickell Avenue, Suite 920
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (786) 530-5239
          E-mail: mfasano@fasanolawfirm.com


QUALITY FACILITY: Cordero Seeks Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------
SILVIA CORDERO individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by QUALITY FACILITY SOLUTIONS
CORP., and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by
QUALITY FACILITY SOLUTIONS CORP and ESTHER FALKOWITZ, JUDA
FALKOWITZ and YIDEL FALKOWITZ, the Plaintiffs, vs. QUALITY FACILITY
SOLUTIONS CORP., and/or any other entities affiliated with or
controlled by QUALITY FACILITY SOLUTIONS CORP. and ESTHER
FALKOWITZ, JUDA FALKOWITZ and YIDEL FALKOWITZ, the Defendants, Case
No. 161779/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 18, 2018), alleges that
Defendants violated New York Labor Law by failing to timely pay to
Plaintiff and the other members of the putative class the
statutorily and contractually required prevailing wages,
supplemental benefits and overtime compensation for the work they
performed on the New York Public Projects.

According to the complaint, beginning in or about December 2012,
the Defendants entered into a number of cleaning service contracts
with the Government Entities, to furnish cleaning and/or
maintenance services at the sites of the Public Projects in New
York. Those prevailing rates of wages and supplemental benefits
were made a part of the Public Contracts for the benefit of
Plaintiff and the other members of the putative class. The
Defendants breached the Public Contracts by willfully failing to
pay and ensure payment to Plaintiff and the other members of the
putative class the prevailing rates of wages and supplemental
benefits for all labor performed upon the Public Projects, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          Leonor H. Coyle, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad St., Seventh Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082

RELIANT CAPITAL: Avila Appeals Rulings in FDCPA Suit to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Annmarie Avila filed an appeal from the District Court's
memorandum of decision & order dated November 14, 2018, and
judgment dated November 15, 2018, entered in the lawsuit styled
Avila v. Reliant Capital Solutions, LLC, et al., Case No.
18-cv-2718, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York (Central Islip).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 5, 2018, Judge
Arthur D. Spatt granted in part and denied in part Reliant's motion
to dismiss the case.

The Plaintiff initiated the putative class action against Reliant,
as well as unidentified natural person and/or business entities,
for damages stemming from alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  The Plaintiff contends that
Reliant attempted to collect a defaulted student loan debt using a
debt collection letter which falsely stated that the amount owed
may increase due to interest, late charges, and other charges.

The appellate case is captioned as Avila v. Reliant Capital
Solutions, LLC, et al., Case No. 18-3637, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Annmarie Avila, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue
          Springfield, NJ 07081
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          E-mail: andrew@sternthomasson.com

Defendant-Appellee Reliant Capital Solutions, LLC, an Ohio Limited
Liability Company, is represented by:

          Arthur Sanders, Esq.
          MEL HARRIS & ASSOCIATES LLC
          5 Hanover Square
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (845) 499-2990
          E-mail: asanders@melharrislaw.com


ROCKWATER ENERGY: Tuggle's Labor Suit Transferred to S.D Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, JAMES TUGGLE, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ROCKWATER ENERGY SOLUTIONS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00595 (Filed June 15, 2018), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas (Houston). The Southern District of Texas assigned Case No.
4:18-cv-04746 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Vanessa D Gilmore.

The case is a collective action to recover overtime wages brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and the
Putative Class Members are those current and former oilfield
workers who worked for Rockwater at any time from June 15, 2015
through the final disposition of this matter, and were paid a day
rate for each day worked, but did not receive overtime for all
hours worked over 40 in each workweek.

Rockwater Energy provides fluids management services and
environmental solutions to the oil and gas industry in North
America.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Alan Cliffton Gordon, Esq.
          George Schimmel, Esq.
          Lauren Elizabeth Braddy, Esq.
          William Clifton Alexander, Esq.
          ANDERSON2X PLLC
          819 N Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          E-mail: cgordon@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com
                  clif@a2xlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew Wells Dunlap, Esq.
          Michael A Josephson, Esq.
          William Richard Liles, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Ste 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  wliles@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey W Hastings, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY W. HASTINGS
          1773 Westborough Drive, Suite 105
          Katy, TX 77449
          Telephone: (281) 844-8436
          Facsimile: (877) 373-1962
          E-mail: Jeff@Jwh.Law

               - and -

          Richard J Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: richard-burch-5926@ecf.pacerpro.com

Attorneys for Rockwater Energy Solutions, Inc.:

          Lawrence David Smith, Esq.
          Raven Rena Applebaum, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS ET AL
          112 E Pecan St., Ste 2700
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 354-1300
          Facsimile: (210) 277-2702
          E-mail: larry.smith@odnss.com
                  raven.applebaum@ogletreedeakins.com

RODENBURG LLP: 8th Circuit Appeal Filed in Carroll FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Monty G. Carroll Jr. and Lawrence D. Smith filed an
appeal from the District Court's order and judgment both issued on
November 13, 2018, in their lawsuit entitled Monty G. Carroll, Jr.,
et al. v. Rodenburg LLP, Case No. 3:18-cv-00093-DLH, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of North Dakota - Fargo.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover actual damages incurred as a result of the
Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Monty G. Carroll, Jr., et al. v.
Rodenburg LLP, Case No. 18-3667, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Appendix is due on January 23, 2019;

   -- Brief of Appellants Monty G. Carroll Jr. and Lawrence D.
      Smith is due on January 23, 2019;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the Court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant; and

   --Appellant reply brief is due 21 days from the date the Court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellee
      brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Monty G. Carroll, Jr., on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, and Lawrence D. Smith, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Jesse Stine Johnson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee Rodenburg LLP is represented by:

          Michael S. Poncin, Esq.
          MOSS & BARNETT, A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
          150 S. Fifth Street, Suite 1200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-0000
          Telephone: (612) 347-0407
          E-mail: Mike.Poncin@lawmoss.com


SC CLEANING SERVICE: Padilla Files FLSA Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SC Cleaning Service
LLC. The case is styled as Hilma Padilla, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SC Cleaning Service LLC and Olival
Correa, Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-12156 (S.D. N.Y., December 24,
2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

SC Cleaning Service LLC offers home and commercial cleaning
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


SERVICE CORPORATION: Court Denies Bid to Strike Class Allegations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum granting in part and denying in
part the Defendants' Counts I, III, and IV of Plaintiff's First
Amended Class Action Complaint in the case captioned CAROLINE
BERNSTEIN, an individual, MARLA UROFSKY on behalf of RHEA SCHWARTZ,
an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. SERVICE CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL and SCI
PENNSYLVANIA FUNERAL SERVICES, Defendants. Civil Action. No.
17-4960. (E.D. Pa.).

This is a putative class action involving burial services and the
alleged failure of Defendants to inter family members next to each
other.  The Plaintiffs Caroline Bernstein and Marla Schwartz on
behalf of her mother Rhea Schwartz bring several claims, on behalf
of themselves and the class, against Defendants Service Corporation
International (SCI) and SCI Pennsylvania Funeral Services (SCI
PA).

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants: (1) were negligent in
carrying out burial services, breaching a duty owed to those with
interment rights in specific burial plots they had purchased as
well as to their next of kin, (2) breached contractual promises of
exclusive interment rights in burial plots, (3) induced the
Plaintiffs into purchasing the burial plots through deceptive
promises that they and their loved ones would be buried
side-by-side, in violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL), and (4) breached the duty of good
faith and fair dealing.

The Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs' class allegations under
Rule 12(f) and to dismiss all but the Plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

The Defendants move to dismiss Count I on the grounds that both the
gist of the action doctrine and the economic loss doctrine bar the
Plaintiffs' negligence claim.  

The economic loss doctrine prohibits plaintiffs from recovering in
tort economic losses to which their entitlement flows only from a
contract. The doctrine developed out of concern for the scope of
tort liability when, at common law, recovery for solely economic
loss was limited to the realm of contract.  

Here, the losses the Plaintiffs allege they suffered as a result of
the inability to be buried alongside their loved ones are purely
economic and indistinguishable from the harm of not receiving the
benefit of their bargains.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' Complaint here is lacking
because the Plaintiffs fail adequately to allege emotional
distress. To recover damages for emotional distress under a
negligence theory, a plaintiff must have experienced physical
injury. On this point, the parties agree. The Plaintiffs suggest,
however, that the physical injury requirement may be satisfied by
vague statements of emotional harm without any indication of
physical symptoms. To the contrary, Pennsylvania courts have
consistently required plaintiffs to allege physical manifestations
of their emotional suffering.  

These Pennsylvania cases establish a standard that the Plaintiffs'
First Amended Complaint does not meet. In recounting the
experiences of Ms. Bernstein and Ms. Schwartz, the Plaintiffs state
only that they each suffered an ascertainable loss. In the Facts
section, the Plaintiffs aver that they have been harmed and
repeatedly state that they were damaged without elaboration. With
respect to the negligence claim, the Plaintiffs aver simply that
they suffered economic and non-economic damages. In fact, it is
only in the discussion of Count III, the Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) claim, that Plaintiffs allege they
suffered severe emotional distress.

None of these averments are sufficient to make out a claim of
negligent infliction of emotional distress under Pennsylvania law.

UTPCPL

In moving to dismiss claims alleging violations of the Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL), the Defendants
assert that the Plaintiffs have not alleged justifiable reliance or
ascertainable loss and that UTPCPL claims are unfit for class
actions because individual issues predominate.

A plaintiff must demonstrate justifiable reliance on the
defendant's wrongful conduct or representation.  

But the Defendants' argument that the Plaintiffs have not alleged
with particularity that they relied on the Defendants'
representations overlooks a fundamental premise of bilateral
contracts: each party's undertaking forms the essence of the
agreement. Put differently, but for their reliance on the
Defendants' representations, the Plaintiffs would not have
relinquished ownership and control of their loved ones' remains nor
would they have paid for the Defendants' services. The Defendants
also ignore portions of the First Amended Complaint that contain
facts to support the claim of reliance.  

The Plaintiffs also sufficiently allege an ascertainable loss. The
Defendants seem to suggest that no ascertainable loss can be
inferred from the fact that Plaintiffs purchased a set of
side-by-side plots in a specified area yet did not receive the
side-by-side plot arrangement they were promised.

The Court  disagrees. The Plaintiffs allege that they entered into
an agreement for side-by-side plots and did not receive them.
Therefore, the measure of the Plaintiffs' loss is the difference
between the market value of the side-by-side plots at the time of
their purchase and the current market value of the sites they
ultimately received, plus or minus the attendant costs of
disinterment and reburial, if any.  

Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

The Plaintiffs cannot sustain their claim based on breach of the
duty of good faith and fair dealing, and the Defendants' Motion
will be granted with respect to Count IV. No separate, independent
cause of action based on breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing exists under Pennsylvania law.

Rather, courts applying Pennsylvania law have found that such a
claim is subsumed within a separately pled breach of contract
action. The Plaintiffs here have pled a nearly word-for-word
restatement of their breach of contract claim. Despite the
Plaintiffs' protestations to the contrary, every allegation made in
the breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing claim (Count IV)
duplicates an allegation in the breach of contract claim (Count
II). The Plaintiffs' assertion that Defendants acted in bad faith
and/or with a malicious motive, does not convert the insufficient
claim into an independent cause of action.  

Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count IV is
granted.

The Court denies the Motion to Strike Class Allegations, and the
Court grants the Motion to Dismiss in part and deny it in part. The
Motion to Dismiss is granted with respect to the negligence claim
in Count I and the breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing
claim in Count IV but denied with respect to the UTPCL claim in
Count III.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 6, 2018
Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8j2wfye from
Leagle.com.

MARJORIE SCHAEFER, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CAROLINE BERNSTEIN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON
BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED & MARLA
UROFSKY, ON BEHALF OF RHEA SCHWARTZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs,
represented by BRYAN R. LENTZ -- blentz@bochettoandlentz.com --
BOCHETTO & LENTZ PC & JOSEPH G. SAUDER -- jgs@mccunewright.com --
McCune Wright Arevalo LLP.

SCI PENNSYLVANIA FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. & SERVICE CORPORATION
INTERNATIONAL, INC., doing business as SHALOM MEMORIAL PARK AND
FOREST HILLS CEMETERY, Defendants, represented by CATHLEEN M.
DEVLIN -- cathleen.devlin@saul.com -- SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR
LLP, JOHN F. STOVIAK -- john.stoviak@saul.com -- SAUL EWING
ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP & ALBERT FRANCIS MORAN -- albert.moran@saul.com
-- SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP.


STATE FARM: Gregory Haskin Seeks Reimbursement for Medical Services
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Haskin Chiropractic, Inc., a Florida corporation, a/a/o
Gresmarie Martinez, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company, Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-63160-RNS (S.D. Fla., December
28, 2018) seeks monetary, declaratory and injunctive relief based
upon the Defendant's breach of its insurance policy by failing to
pay the proper amount of reimbursements to the Plaintiff and the
members of the Class for certain medical services provided to the
Defendant's insureds.

On or about September 1, 2014, Gresmarie Martinez was involved in a
motor vehicle accident, and as a result, sustained bodily injuries
related to the operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle.
Martinez was a contracting party and/or a named insured and/or an
omnibus insured under an automobile insurance policy issued by
State Farm, which policy was in full force and effect, and provided
Personal Injury Protection ("PIP") benefits coverage as required by
Florida law. As a result of the injuries sustained by Martinez,
Martinez sought and received reasonable, related, and necessary
medical services from Haskin Chiropractic.

Plaintiff provided medical services to Martinez commencing
September 3, 2014 and billed Defendant $1,110 for services provided
to Martinez from September 3, 2014 through September 22, 2014.
Instead of applying its insured's $1000 deductible to 100% of the
medical expenses as presented to the Defendant, Defendant
improperly reduced the bills and then applied its insured
deductible. Had the Defendant properly applied the deductible to
the bills incurred by its insured, the deductible balance to be
applied to the Plaintiff's bills would have been $772.00, and
Defendant should have allowed the remaining balance to be paid at
the applicable fee schedule for CPT codes 97035 and 97010.
Defendant, therefore, owes $179.80.

The complaint says that notwithstanding State Farm's
representations in its Explanation of Benefits, the subject
payments were improperly reduced in direct violation of State
Farm's insurance policy and Florida Statute Section 627.736. State
Farm has issued policies like the one issued to Martinez providing
PIP benefits coverage to thousands of other Florida residents and
has consistently paid improperly reduced amounts to Plaintiff and
members of the Class as a result of its improper application of the
deductible, asserts the complaint.

The Plaintiff, Haskin Chiropractic, is a Florida corporation
providing chiropractic services with its principal place of
business in Pembroke Pines, Broward County, Florida, where HASKIN
CHIROPRACTIC provided medical services to Gresmarie Martinez.

Gresmarie Martinez was a patient at Plaintiff, Haskin Chiropractic,
who is and/or was an insured or omnibus insured under an automobile
insurance policy providing personal injury protection ("PIP")
benefits issued by the Defendant, STATE FARM, and who assigned her
rights and benefits of said automobile insurance policy to
Plaintiff, Haskin Chiropractic.

State Farm is an Illinois corporation, doing business under the
laws of the State of Florida, and at all material times, sold
automobile insurance coverage subject to the "Florida Motor Vehicle
No-Fault Law" or the "PIP Statute".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Tod Aronovitz, Esq.
     Barbara Perez, Esq.
     ARONOVITZ LAW
     2 South Biscayne Boulevard
     One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3700
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: 305-372-2772
     Fax: 305-397-1886
     Email: ta@aonovitzlaw.com
            bp@aronovitzlaw.com


SUNDOWN RANCH: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Holland Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOE HOLLAND and GEORGE RAY, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. SUNDOWN RANCH, INC., Case No.
6:18-cv-00639-JDK (E.D. Tex., December 13, 2018), alleges that the
Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that Sundown fails to pay overtime to
employees, who perform work for it both before and after their
assigned work shifts and for time worked during meal periods, which
were automatically deducted from their paid work time.

Sundown Ranch, Inc., is a Texas corporation licensed to do business
in Texas.  Sundown Ranch is a substance abuse treatment center for
male and female adolescents and young adults in rural Van Zandt
County.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
          HOMMEL LAW FIRM
          5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Telephone: (903) 596-7100
          Facsimile: (469) 533-1618
          E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com


T&R MARKET: Dejolie Settlement Has Final Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final
Approval of Settlement Agreement in the case captioned WILLIAM
DEJOLIE and SAMMIA DEJOLIE, on their own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. T&R MARKET, INC.,
TANCORDE FINANCE, INC., T&R PAWN, LLC, and T&R TAX SERVICE, INC.,
Defendants. Case No. 1:17-cv-00733-KK-SCY. (D.N.M.).

This lawsuit was filed asserting, inter alia, violations of the
Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act
(UPA). Plaintiffs' claims concern Defendants' issuance of tax
refund anticipation loans.  

The Court finds that the settlement agreement resulted from
extensive arms-length negotiations, and was concluded after counsel
for the parties had conducted adequate investigation.

The Court finds that the settlement terms are fair, reasonable and
adequate and in the best interests of the class, considering
possible benefits to the class that could be achieved by further
litigation, the length of time this action has been pending and is
likely to continue, the expenses of further litigation, the risk
and costs of further delay, the complexity of this litigation, and
the risk to the class of achieving a less favorable outcome.

The Court finds that payment to class counsel of $190,000 is
appropriate and approves such payment. No class members objected to
this award of fees. This payment is well within the standards
established in the Tenth Circuit for payment according to the
percentage of the fund method.
  
The Court finds that an award of costs of up to $35,000 is
reasonable and appropriate, and approves payment of such costs. Any
unspent costs shall be distributed to class members if economical
and practicable, and to the cy pres recipients if not.

The Court finds that payment of a service award to named Plaintiffs
William and Sammia DeJolie in the amount of $5,000, $2,500 each, is
reasonable. No class members objected to the service award.

Mr. and Mrs. DeJolie invested substantial effort in this class
action, and without their contributions, there would be no fund to
distribute to class members. Mr. and Mrs. DeJolie's commitment was
dramatically greater than it would have been had this case been
brought as an individual action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 10, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yd3xkyk8 from Leagle.com.

William DeJolie & Sammia DeJolie, on their own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Nicholas H. Mattison, Feferman & Warren & Richard N. Feferman,
Feferman Warren Mattison.

T&R Market, Inc. & T&R Pawn, LLC, Defendants, represented by Dylan
O'Reilly -- doreilly@mstlaw.com, Holly Agajanian -- Miller
Stratvert PA & James J. Widland -- jwidland@mstlaw.com -- Miller
Stratvert PA.

Tancorde Finance, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lynn Isaacson,
Mason & Isaacson PA & Stephen J. Foland, Mason & Isaacson, P.A.

T&R Tax Service, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles J. Vigil,
Rodey Dickson Sloan Akin & Robb, P.A.


TORONTO-DOMINION BANK: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion granting in part and denying in part Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint in the case
captioned In re TORONTO-DOMINION BANK SECURITIES LITIGATION. Civil
No. 17-1665 (NLH/JS). (D.N.J.).

This is a putative securities class action asserted against
Defendant Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD Bank) and several TD Bank
executives (Individual Defendants).  The securities claims are
centered around TD's public statements about (1) strong risk
management, (2) solid organic growth, and (3) growth in the
Canadian Retail segment. Those statements, the Plaintiffs allege,
were false. Instead, the Plaintiffs allege that a highly
pressurized work environment and forced sales targets among other
things led to violations of TD Bank's Code of Conduct, behavior
that exceeded TD's articulated risk appetite and possibly illegal
activity.

Analysis of CWs' Statements under the Third Circuit Test

The Defendants assert some CWs lack personal knowledge as they were
not employed during the class period, some CWs' statements are
conclusory, and some CWs' statements are based merely on rumor or
conjecture. The Defendants appear to be correct in that CW2, CW3,
CW7, CW8, and CW9 were not employed at TD Bank during the class
period. Although this seems to foreclose the possibility of
personal knowledge of facts during the class period, that does not
mean those CWs' statements must be or can be ignored.

As the Plaintiffs point out, the misstatements at issue made during
the class period were based on TD Bank's conduct before the class
period. The CWs statements are certainly relevant to those
allegedly false statements at least.  

The Defendants are correct that CWs' statements which appear to be
based on rumor or conjecture do not meet the particularity
requirement. This Court will not consider these statements in
evaluating the Plaintiffs Section 10(b) claim.

The Defendants also challenge CW7's statements on grounds of
particularity. The crux of the Defendants argument is that CW7 does
not provide a basis for how he determined a certain percentage of
his subordinates' sales of certain services were without customer
authorization. The Defendants point to CW7's statements, which
states he lacked direct evidence and never saw unauthorized sales
occur.

The Plaintiffs counter that CW7's estimates are sufficiently
supported by the detailed allegations in the FAC.

The Court has enough information here to determine these estimates
are based on personal knowledge of CW7 acquired during his time
supervising his seventeen employees. The Court does not doubt at
this stage his knowledge or reliability, and his allegations appear
to be corroborated by other accounts and are plausible based on the
allegations of a high-pressure sales environment. Thus, this Court
will not ignore CW7's statements.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 6, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya3nnee4 from Leagle.com.

Diana Lawler, V Rao Dandamudi & Sujata Dandamudi, Movants,
represented by LAURENCE M. ROSEN -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE
ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA.

Ethan Silverman, Movant, represented by BRUCE DANIEL GREENBERG --
bgreenberg@litedepalma.com -- LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC.

ARMANDO DURIGON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by LAURENCE M. ROSEN, THE ROSEN
LAW FIRM, PA.

THE TORONTO-DOMINION BANK, BHARAT MASRANI, COLLEEN JOHNSTON & RIAZ
AHMED, Defendants, represented by SUSAN M. LEMING --
sleming@brownconnery.com -- BROWN & CONNERY, LLP & WILLIAM M.
TAMBUSSI -- wtambussi@brownconnery.com -- BROWN & CONNERY, LLP.

TERI CURRIE, LEO SALOM, MIKE PEDERSEN & MARK CHAUVIN, Defendants,
represented bySUSAN M. LEMING , BROWN & CONNERY, LLP.


TOUCHPOINT 360: Court Certifies Employee Class in Arugu Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned DONNA ARUGU, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
TOUCHPOINT 360, LLC and E.A. LANGENFELD ASSOCIATES, LTD., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00343-LY (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge
Lee Yekel entered an order on Dec. 28, 2018, certifying the case as
a collective action:

   "all former and current employees of TouchPoint 360, LLC who
   were compensated via TouchPoint's project pay compensation
   structure at any time since the date that is three years prior
   to the date of this Order."

The Parties shall comply with the following schedule:

No later than 10 days from the date of this Order:

   Defendant shall provide to the Putative Class Counsel in Excel
   date of this Order (.xlsx) format the following information
   regarding all Putative Class Members: full name; last known
   mailing address(es) with city, state, and Zip Code; all known
   email address(es); beginning date(s) of employment; and ending
   date(s) of employment (if applicable).

Within 30 days of receiving the contact information for all
Putative Class Members:

   Putative Class Counsel shall send a copy of the Court-
   approved Notice and Consent Form to the Putative Class
   Members by First Class U.S. Mail and electronic mail; and
   Putative Class Counsel may make the Notice and Consent
   Form available on a website solely dedicated to disseminating
   notice.

Within 1 day of the initial mailing and emailing of the Notice of
Collective Action

   Putative Class Counsel shall file an Advisory with the Court
   indicating the date of initial delivery of the Notice of
   Collective Action and Consent Form.

45 days from the initial mailing of Notice and Consent Forms to
Potential Class Members:

   The Putative Class Members shall have 45 days to return their
   signed Consent forms to Putative Class Counsel for filing with
   the Court (the "Notice Period").

No later than 1 day after the close of the Notice Period:

   Putative Class Counsel shall file with the Court all signed
   Consents to Join.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Edmond S. Moreland. Jr.
          MORELAND VERRETT, P.C.
          700 West Summit Drive
          Wimberley, TX 78676
          edmond@morelandlaw.com
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          Telecopier: (512) 782-0605

               - and -

          Daniel A. Verrett, Esq.
          THE COMMISSIONERS HOUSE AT HERITAGE SQUARE
          2901 Bee Cave Road, Box L
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: danielmorelandlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Barry A. Moscowitz, Esq.
          THOMPSON, COE, COUSINS & IRONS, L.L.P.
          700 N. Pearl St., 25th Floor
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 871-8200
          Facsimile: (214) 871-8209
          E-mail: bmoscowitz@thompsoncoe.com

TRADER JOE'S: Robin Ryan Alleges Product Liability
--------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Trader Joes Company. The case is
captioned as Robin Ryan on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Trader Joes Company, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-10451-PA-DFM (C.D. Cal., Dec. 18,
2018). The suit demands $5,000,000 and alleges tort product
liability. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson.

Trader Joe's is an American chain of grocery stores based in
Monrovia, California. By 2015, it was a competitor in "fresh
format" grocery stores in the United States. As of October 12,
2017, Trader Joe's had 474 stores nationwide in 43 states and in
Washington, D.C.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          George Volney Granade, Esq.
          Michael R Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com
                  mreese@reesellp.com

UNITED STATES: Court Upholds Class Status for Missouri Inmates
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Fentem, writing for St. Louis Public Radio, reports that a
U.S. appeals court has upheld a federal judge's decision to include
thousands of Missouri Department of Corrections inmates with
hepatitis C in a class-action lawsuit that could change how the
disease is treated inside the state's prisons.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the MacArthur Justice Center
sued the state on behalf of three inmates with the virus in 2016.
The plaintiffs allege that the state didn't treat their condition
properly or quickly enough and only gave treatment to the people
with the most serious symptoms. Those actions, they argue, violate
the U.S Constitution and constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Last year, U.S. District Judge Nannette Laughrey granted class
certification to the lawsuit, filed on behalf of Department of
Corrections inmates who have or will be diagnosed with the virus.
That means the court's decision would apply not only to the three
plaintiffs but to an estimated thousands of Missouri inmates with
chronic hepatitis C.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 6 upheld that
decision, which the state had appealed. Lawyers from the state's
Attorney General's Office said in court that the health of inmates
is so varied that there was no way the inmates could constitute a
class.

But that argument "misunderstood the nature of the class's claims,"
the appeals court ruled.

Because all inmates are exposed to the same potential risk, the
patient's ultimate treatment or health outcomes is a moot point,
the court said.

"Whatever the merits of the defendants' arguments, they do not
clearly relate to whether class certification is appropriate," the
court wrote.

Chronic hepatitis C is a virus that causes inflammation of the
liver. It can eventually lead to cirrhosis, or significant liver
scarring, which can in turn cause patients pain, bruising and organ
failure. Drugs called direct-acting antivirals can cure hepatitis,
but the treatment can cost more than $80,000.

The outcome of the lawsuit could affect scores of inmates, said
Tony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU of Missouri.

"The court found a a minimum there are 2,000 people with chronic
HCV who are not being treated in the Missouri Department of
Corrections," he said. "We think there are closer to 5,000."

Representatives of the Attorney General's Office could not be
reached for comment.

Health experts estimate hepatitis C affects 1 percent of the
population, but 15 percent of prison inmates.

Although the case has been certified as a class action, the
plaintiffs will still have to prove their case in court. They
aren't seeking monetary damages, but instead want the Department of
Corrections to provide all inmates who qualify with antiviral
drugs.[GN]


UNITED STATES: Faces Lewis Suit Over Denial of Coverage for CGMs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CAROL A. LEWIS, and DOUGLAS B. SARGENT, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. ALEX AZAR, in his capacity as
Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human
Services, Case No. 1:18-cv-02929 (D.D.C., December 13, 2018),
arises from the denial of coverage of the Plaintiffs' Medicare
claim.

This suit is brought to right this wrong and to provide the
coverage relief Congress specified in the Medicare program,
according to the Plaintiffs.  They allege that over a considerable
period of time, the Secretary has defied Congress' will by refusing
to provide Medicare coverage for diabetic patients needing
continuous glucose monitors (CGMs).  These FDA-approved,
life-saving devices continuously test glucose levels and alert
patients to changes.  Without these devices, the Plaintiffs
contend, many diabetes patients suffer a risk of slipping into a
diabetic coma and death.

Alex Azar is sued in his official capacity as the Secretary of
Health and Human Services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey Blumenfeld, Esq.
          LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 753-3800
          Facsimile: (202) 753-3838
          E-mail: jblumenfeld@lowenstein.com

               - and -

          James C. Pistorino, Esq.
          PARRISH LAW OFFICES
          788 Washington Road
          Pittsburgh, PA 15228
          Telephone: (412) 561-6250
          Facsimile: (412) 561-6253
          E-mail: james@dparrishlaw.com


URBAN COMPASS: Delacruz Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Emanuel Delacruz and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Urban Compass, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-11591 (S.D. N.Y., December 12, 2018), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages
and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York
City Human Rights Law.

Urban Compass, Inc. operates real estate sales offices as well as
the Compass website. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that
Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
      New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
      Telephone: (212) 228-9795
      Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
      Email: nyjg@aol.com
             danalgottlieb@aol.com


VIRGINIA COLLEGE: Students Seek Damages Over Campus Closures
------------------------------------------------------------
Karina Garcia, Maria Mata, Yanellis Ledee, individually and on
behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Virginia
College, LLC, Education Corporation of America, Willis Stein &
Partners, LLC, Stuart C. Reed and Aaron Barksdale, Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-00621, (E.D. Tex., December 12, 2018), seeks general,
special, compensatory, punitive and actual damages, costs of suit
and reasonable attorneys' fees, injunctive relief, restitution,
return of tuition and other further relief resulting from breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, misrepresentation deceit,
quantum meruit, promissory estoppel, negligent misrepresentation,
breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices Consumer Protection Act, and the federal Racketeer
Influenced And Corrupt Organizations Act including the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act in the case of its laid
off teachers.

Virginia College, LLC is a wholly owned entity of Education
Corporation of America (ECA) that provides a system of for-profit
colleges in the United States. As of 2018, ECA owned seventy-five
for-profit college campuses nationwide, including twenty-five
Brightwood College campuses. In the fall of 2018, ECA announced its
plans to close twenty-six campuses because of insufficient demand
and financial struggles. On December 4, 2018, the current grants of
accreditation of all institutions owned by Virginia College, LLC
were withdrawn over student issues, certifications, licensures,
staff turnover and the company's inability to meet its financial
obligation with the approved payment plan. Its students were then
left hanging with regards to their degrees and its teachers laid
off. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Sparks, Esq.
      Timothy M. Ferguson, Esq.
      THE FERGUSON LAW FIRM, LLP
      350 Pine Street, Suite 1440
      Beaumont, TX 77701
      Tel: (409) 832-9700
      Fax: (409) 832-9708
      Email: mark@thefergusonlawfirm.com
             tferguson@thefergusonlawfirm.com


WORLD HYUNDAI: Adams et al. Sue over Use of Biometric Identifiers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY ADAMS and NIESHA PERKINS, on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff,
vs. WORLD HYUNDAI OF MATTESON LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
2018CH15640 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Dec. 18, 2018), alleges that
Defendant violated the Biometric Information Privacy Act and
compromised the privacy and security of the biometric identifiers
and information of Plaintiffs and others similarly situated.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are former hourly
employees of Defendant's Hyundai car dealership. Starting in
approximately mid-to-late 2016, Defendant forced hourly paid
employees to use a biometric time clock system to record their time
worked. The Defendant required Plaintiffs and other hourly
employees to scan their fingerprints in Defendant's biometric time
clock when they started working a shift, stopped for lunch,
returned from lunch, and finished working a shift. Unlike an
employee identification number or employee identification card,
fingerprints are unique and permanent identifiers. By requiring
employees to use their fingerprints to record their time, instead
of identification numbers or badges only, Defendant ensured that
one employee could not clock in for another. Thus, there's no
question that Defendant benefited from using a biometric time. But
there's equally no question that Defendant placed employees at risk
by using clock. As a result, Illinois restricted private entities,
like Defendant, from collecting, storing, using, or transferring a
person's biometric identifiers and information without adhering to
strict informed-consent procedures established by the Biometric
Information Privacy Act, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

WPX ENERGY: Garcia-Maldonado Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GARARDO GARCIA-MALDONADO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. WPX ENERGY SERVICES COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
2:18-cv-00450 (S.D. Tex., December 14, 2018), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

WPX Energy Services Company, LLC, operates as an energy production
company.  The Company produces natural gas, liquids, and oil.  WPX
operates throughout the United States and in Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@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


ZENG RESTAURANT: De Huang Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Yong De Huang, individually and on behalf of All Other Employees
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Zeng Restaurant LLC d/b/a Kabuki
Japanese Restaurant, and Zhao Zeng a/k/a Zhao Qing Zeng,
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02450-ARC (M.D. Pa., December 28,
2018) is an action against Defendants for alleged violations of the
Federal Labor Standards Act, ("FLSA"), the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act of 1968 ("PMWA"), the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law ("WPCL"), and Pennsylvania common law.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and PMWA by engaging in a pattern
and practice of failing to pay their employees, including
Plaintiff, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek, notes the comaplaint.

Plaintiff alleges pursuant to the FLSA, that he is entitled to
recover from the Defendants: unpaid overtime wages, an award of
monetary damages and other relief, including attorneys' fees and
expenses with interest, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post
judgment interest; and/or attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff is an individual currently residing in Queens, New York.
From on or around October 29, 2017 to on or around November 4,
2018, Plaintiff was employed as a teriyaki chef at Defendants'
restaurant.

Zeng Restaurant LLC d/b/a Kabuki Japanese Restaurant is a domestic
business corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Philadelphia. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in this
District under the name Kabuki Japanese Restaurant.

Zhao Zeng a/k/a Zhao Qing Zeng is the owner, chief executive
officer, and/or managing agent of Defendant Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jian Hang, Esq.
     HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
     136-20 38th Ave. Suite 10G
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Phone: (718) 353-8588
     Fax: (718) 353-6288
     Email: jhang@hanglaw.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 ***