CAR_Public/190110.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, January 10, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 8

                            Headlines

ACCC INSURANCE: Whitfield Files Suit in Mississippi
AIRPORT INN: Sandra Aguiar Files Class Action
ALL NIPPON: Feb. 10 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
ALL YEAR MANAGEMENT: Fischler Files Suit under ADA in New York
ALLURA USA: Friday Sues over Defective Fiber Cement Siding

AMAZON.COM, LLC: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Stewart Claims
ANA RECOVERY: Cheesman Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
ANVIL NY LLC: Diaz Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages and Unpaid Tips
APHRIA INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
APHRIA INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Suit

APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iPhone X Series Screen Size
ARIA ASIAN: Violates FLSA, Zhang Suit Says
BADCOCK HOME: Class Certification in Wilson TCPA Suit Denied
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss ICFA's Galvan Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued by Chiang Over Inaccurate Credit Reports

BLUE APRON: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bids in Sciabacucchi Suit
BLUE HILLS: Parshall Class Action Suit Dismissed
BOJANGLES' INC: Franchi Seeks to Halt Walker Parent Merger
BUTTS COUNTY, GA: COOSA Nation Files Tort Class Suit
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Still Defend Egg Products Suit by Kraft et al.

CALIFORNIA ADDICTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dortch Alleges
CANARY: Faces Class Action in New York Over Monitoring Fee
CENTRAL PARK BOATHOUSE: Reyes Seeks Minimum Wages and OT Pay
CHAPPAQUA CENTRAL: Pacher Files Class Action
COBALT INTERNATIONAL: Feb. 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

COLORADO BOXED BEEF: Faison Seeks Unpaid Wages
CONAGRA BRANDS: Briseno Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
CONAGRA BRANDS: Continues to Defend Rosenblatt Class Action
CONAGRA BRANDS: Karlson Sues over Savings Plan Benefits
CONAGRA BRANDS: Parties Agree to Dismiss Investors' Suit

CONAGRA BRANDS: Still Defends Negrete Suit in California
DELICIOUS HOSPITALITY: Fischler Files Suit under ADA in New York
DEUTSCHE BANK: 3d Cir Affirms Rulings in Salvati Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Settlement in Nakooka Labor Suit Has Prelim Approval
EFINANCIAL, LLC: Willis Sues Unwanted Cellular Telephone Calls

ENERGEN RESOURCES: To Produce Royalty Owners' Info in Ulibarri Suit
ENTREVOICE VIRTUAL: Hobbs & Jackson Sue over Telemarketing Calls
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Friedman Files Consumer Credit Class Action
EQUINIX LLC: Hanna to Recover Overtime Pay, Wage Differentials
EVERETT FINANCIAL: Cowen Sues for Breach of Employment

EXPEDIA INC: Faces Church Class Suit Over Inflated Taxes & Fees
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE: Yargeau Files Suit in Massachusetts
FEDEX GROUND: Court Denies Certification of Carrow Class of Drivers
FLINT, MI: Rosenthal Appeals Ruling in Waid Suit to 6th Circuit
FORD MOTOR: Bid to Stay Distribution of Notices in Van Suit Denied

FRENCH CONNECTION: Diaz Brings ADA Class Action in NY
GIMME COFFEE: Diaz Files Suit under ADA in S.D. New York
GLOBAL CONNECTIONS: Borozny Files Suit under ADA in Florida
GLOBAL CREDIT: Geisinsky Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
HEALTH CAROUSEL: Schwendeman Seeks Overtime Pay & Benefits

HIG CAPITAL: Court Narrows Claims in Klein Suit
HIGHLINE RESIDENTIAL: Olsen Brings ADA Class Action
HITO RESTAURANT: Zhang Suit Asserts FLSA Violation
HONEST & QUALITY: Underpays Construction Workers, Li & Kang Claim
INTERNATIONAL SPEEDWAY: Faces Firemen S Retirement Suit in Florida

JUST AN OVEN: Violates Disabilities Act, Fischler Suit Asserts
KELAI CORP: Violates FLSA, Feng Suit Asserts
LABORERS' WELFARE: Faces Jimenez Labor Suit in N.D. Illinois
LATIN GROUP: Romero Seeks Overtime Pay for Kitchen Staff
LEVAIN BAKERY: Files Diaz Class Action Asserting ADA Breach

LOST DOG: Settlement in Diaz Suit Over Unpaid OT Has Prelim Okay
LUGG INC: Aggrieved Employee Files Class Action
LYFT INC: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in Wickberg Suit
MARRIOTT INT'L: Fails to Secure Customers' Private Info, Aigen Says
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Taylor Sues over Starwood Data Breach

MASONITE CORP: Dellatore Sues Over Monopoly of Molded Doors
MONSANTO COMPANY: Weavers Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
NCR CORP: Galasso Labor Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
NORDSTROM INC: Faces Amy Suit in Central District of California
OCEAN FINANCIAL: Lussoro Files Suit for Breach of Contract

OHR PHARMA: Awaits Court Decision on Bid to Strike N.Y. Suit
ON TRAC INC: Court Endorses Approval of Price FLSA Suit Settlement
ORCHIDS PAPER: Court Enters Order of Dismissal in Pollock Suit
PANALPINA INC: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Portuondo Suit Claims
PENNYMAC FINANCIAL: Denial of Arbitration Bids in Smigelski Upheld

PPG INDUSTRIES: Lamartz and Bass Seek Overtime Pay
PRIMERITUS FINANCIAL: Boudreau Sues for Breach of Employment
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Sued over Debt Collection Practices
RED HAT: Agreement to Dismiss IBM Merger Suits Reached
RED HAT: Kent Balks at Merger Deal with IBM

ROYAL DUTCH: Faces Fuentes Suit over No Poach Agreements
SABRINA USA: Faces Zhang Suit Over FLSA Violation
SAFEMARK SYSTEMS: Gorss Motels Appeals Judgment to 11th Cir.
SAHARA DREAMS: Amended Kwan FLSA Suit Dismissed
SCHWAN'S HOME: Lundbom Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages

SEQUIUM ASSET: Giometti Files Suit in S.D. Calif.
STATE FARM: Can Compel Replies to Discovery Request in MAO-MSO Suit
STEW LEONARD'S: Franklin Sues over Sale of Fish Products
TD AMERITRADE: Seeks 8th Circuit Review of Ruling in Klein Suit
TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Faces Colburn Suit in District of Maryland

TEXAS: Does 1-7 Appeal N.D. Texas Decision to Fifth Circuit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Denia Hedge Sues over Wage and Hour Violations
TRIPROP CLEARWATER: Borozny Files Suit under ADA in Florida
UNITED MOTORS: Marsh Seeks Minimum Wages for Sales Reps
UNITED STATES: Akins Files Suit in Court of Federal Claims

UNITED STATES: DOD Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in Kuang Suit
VERIZON WIRELESS: Hudson Seeks Unpaid Wages for Sales Reps
VILLAGE AUTO WASH: Oviedo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation
WALMART TRANSPORTATION: 8th Cir. Appeal Filed in Luna FCRA Suit
WM RESTAURANT: Zhang Files Suit for FLSA Violation


                            *********

ACCC INSURANCE: Whitfield Files Suit in Mississippi
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ACCC Insurance
Company over an insurance contract. The case is styled as Janice
Whitfield, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ACCC Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-00892-CWR-LRA (S.D. Miss., December 28, 2018).

ACCC Insurance Company is an Insurance company in Houston,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ronald E. Stutzman , Jr., Esq.
   THE STUTZMAN LAW FIRM, PLLC
   106 Luckney Station Road, Suite B
   Flowood, MS 39232
   Tel: (769) 208-5683
   Fax: (601) 202-3022
   Email: rstutzman@stutzmanlawfirm.com


AIRPORT INN: Sandra Aguiar Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Airport Inn Inc. in
the New York Supreme Court, Nassau County on December 18, 2018. The
case is styled as Sandra Aguiar, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Airport Inn Inc., d/b/a
Clarion Hotel and Conference Center, Alka Patel, Hitesh Patel and
any other related entities, Defendants, Case No. 603675/2018.

Airport Inn Inc. owns and operates hotels. The company is based in
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
   ONE OLD COUNTRY ROAD, STE.347
   CARLE PLACE, NY 11514
   Tel: (516) 873-9550

The Defendant is represented by:

   CAMPOLO MIDDLETON & MCCORMICK
   4175 VETERANS HIGHWAY #400
   RONKONKOMA, NY 11779
   Tel: (631) 738-9100


ALL NIPPON: Feb. 10 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------
The following is being released by the law firms of Cotchett, Pitre
& McCarthy, LLP and Hausfeld, LLP.

There is a lawsuit against All Nippon Airways Company, Limited
("ANA") over the price of airline tickets.  Settlements were
previously reached with 12 Settling Defendants.  The lawsuit
continues against the Non-Settling Defendant, ANA.  The Court has
approved the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of a "class," or
group of people.  The Court has not decided that ANA did anything
wrong; rather, the case is currently scheduled to go to trial.

Purchasers included in the Class(es) have rights and may be
impacted by the outcome of this lawsuit.  The Plaintiffs are asking
for money and other benefits from ANA.  There is no money available
now and no guarantee that there will be.  

The lawsuit claims that the Defendants agreed to fix prices on
tickets for transpacific air travel.  As a result, ticket
purchasers may have paid more than was necessary.  ANA denies any
liability, although it has pled guilty to fixing the prices of
certain discounted tickets.  The lawyers for the Classes will have
to prove their claims in Court.

There are two Classes included in the lawsuit.  Generally,
purchasers may be included if: (1) they bought a ticket for air
travel from ANA or Japan Airlines between February 1, 2005 and
December 31, 2007 and paid a fuel surcharge OR they purchased a
ticket between January 1, 2000 and April 1, 2006 for a Satogaeri or
"homecoming" fare; and (2) the ticket included at least one flight
segment originating in the U.S. to Japan.  There are specific
exclusions; please review the Class definitions carefully at the
website, www.AirlineSettlement.com.  Travel agents are only
included if they bought tickets for their personal use.

The Court has appointed a group of attorneys to represent the
Classes as "Class Counsel."  Purchasers don't have to pay Class
Counsel or anyone else to participate.  Instead, if Class Counsel
gets money or benefits for the Classes, they may ask for attorneys'
fees and costs.  Class Members may hire their own lawyer to appear
in Court for them at their own expense.

If Class Members do nothing, they will be bound by the Court's
decisions.  To stay in the Class(es), they do not have to do
anything.  If money or benefits are obtained, they will be notified
about how to ask for a share.  If Class Members want to keep the
right to individually sue ANA apart from this class action, they
must exclude themselves from the Class(es) by February 10, 2019.
The detailed notice describes how Class Members can exclude
themselves.  If Class Members exclude themselves, they cannot get
money or benefits from this lawsuit if any are awarded.  Class
Members can register at the website to be kept informed about the
outcome of this case.

For more information & a detailed notice, please call
1-800-439-1781 or visit www.AirlineSettlement.com.


ALL YEAR MANAGEMENT: Fischler Files Suit under ADA in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
All Year Management LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. All Year Management LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07372 (E.D. N.Y., December 27, 2018).

All Year Management, a New York-based real estate development firm,
has owned, managed and developed dozens in real estate since its
founding.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLURA USA: Friday Sues over Defective Fiber Cement Siding
----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN W. FRIDAY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ALLURA USA LLC, PLYCEM USA LLC D/B/A
ALLURA, PLYCEM USA, INC., ELEMENTIA USA, INC., and ELEMENTIA S.A.B.
De. C.V., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02701-JWL-TJJ (D. Kan.,
Dec. 19, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory relief in connection
with defective fiber cement siding designed, manufactured,
marketed, advertised, produced, distributed, sold, and delivered by
Defendants, asserting unfair and deceptive trade practices in
violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, negligence, breach
of implied warranty of merchant ability, breach of implied warranty
of fitness for a particular purpose, fraudulent misrepresentation,
fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have misrepresented and
continue to misrepresent the nature, quality, and effectiveness of
their Siding through their marketing, advertising, and other
representations. For example, Defendants explicitly guarantee that
their Siding will last at least 50-years; however the Siding begins
to manifest premature failure within the first 5 years after
installation. The Defendants represent that the Siding will be free
from manufacturing defects in material and workmanship. But, the
Siding is not free from all manufacturing defects in material and
workmanship.

The fiber cement Siding is made with excessive amounts of fly ash,
causing the Siding to be too brittle for use as an exterior
building product. The Defect, while present from at least the point
of sale, is latent and, thus, is not discoverable to consumers
until later when manifestations of the Defect appear.
Manifestations include, but are not limited to the Siding cracking,
chipping, flaking, breaking, splitting, and failing to perform as
promised. The damages, if left unrepaired, create paths for leakage
into the home, causing additional damage to framing, insulation,
and other property in the home, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Proposed Class:

          Brittany A. Boswell, Esq.
          Mitchell Breit, Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
          112 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016-7416
          Telephone: (212) 784-6400
          Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
          E-mail: bboswell@simmonsfirm.com
                  mbreit@simmonsfirm.com

AMAZON.COM, LLC: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Stewart Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
KYLE STEWART, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. AMAZON.COM, LLC, AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., and ON
THE GO EXPRESS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05807-WMR
(N.D. Ga., Dec. 19, 2018), seeks all available remedies under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, in connection Defendants' unlawful scheme
to attempt to avoid responsibility for paying its drivers in
accordance with federal wage and hour laws by attempting to
contract out that responsibility to third-party Delivery Service
Providers, such as Defendant On the GO Express, LLC.

According to the complaint, while Amazon controls the work
activities, conditions and management of the Drivers, and tracks
each package that is delivered by its Drivers using Amazon's
sophisticated "Rabbit" technology, it denies that it is a joint
employer of Plaintiff and Drivers. The Drivers who deliver Amazon's
packages but are paid through On the Go, are paid a day rate and
not paid for all time worked, including overtime that is required
to deliver hundreds of Amazon packages each day.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed FLSA Collective:

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: (612) 594-5999
          Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
          E-mail: emdrake@bm.net

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

ANA RECOVERY: Cheesman Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT CHEESMAN v. ANA RECOVERY, LLC, and PATRICK AIKEN,
Individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-17282 (D.N.J., December 17, 2018),
is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated seeking recovery of overtime pay from the Defendants for
their alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards and the New
Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

ANA Recovery, LLC, is a New Jersey limited liability company with
its business address listed in Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey.
Patrick Aiken has been an owner, partner, officer and/or manager of
Defendant ANA.

The Defendants own, operate or manage an automotive towing service,
roadside assistance and heavy truck towing service based from their
headquarters in Somers Point, New Jersey, and from a second
location in Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: Aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
                  jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


ANVIL NY LLC: Diaz Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages and Unpaid Tips
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERTO DIAZ, ALEJANDRO CONTRERAS and VINCENT SETTECASI,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ANVIL NY
LLC; 29 BEDFORD LLC d/b/a DITCH PLAINS; WEST BROADWAY MANAGEMENT,
LLC d/b/a LAND MARC; TW AT COLUMBUS CIRCLE LLC d/b/a LANDMARC; MARC
MURPHY; PAMELA SCHEIN MURPHY; and any other related entities, Case
No. 525279/2018 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., December 17, 2018), seeks
to recover compensation, including unpaid minimum wages and unpaid
tips and gratuities owed to the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees in the Defendants' restaurant and catering
venues located in the state of New York.

Anvil NY LLC is a domestic corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the state of New York with its headquarters and
principal place of business located at 218 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite
12, in Montclair, New Jersey.

29 Bedford LLC, doing business as Ditch Plains, is a domestic
corporation organized and existing under the laws of New York with
its headquarters and principal place of business located at 29
Bedford Street, in New York City.

West Broadway Management, LLC, doing business as Land Marc, is a
domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of New
York with its headquarters and principal place of business located
at 179 West Broadway, in New York City.

TW at Columbus Circle LLC, doing business as Landmarc, is a
domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of New
York with its headquarters and principal place of business located
at 10 Columbus Circle, 3rd Floor, in New York City.  The Individual
Defendants are officers, managers and/or owners of BenchMarc.

The Defendants jointly employed the Plaintiffs and putative class
members and jointly owned and/or operated the entity commonly known
as "BenchMarc," which operated catered events at the Defendants'
Land Marc Tribeca, Ditch Plains, and Columbus Circle locations and
at off-premises locations in the state of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com


APHRIA INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Aphria Inc. ("Aphria" or the "Company") (NYSE: APHA) and
certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, and indexed under
18-cv-11427, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased
or otherwise, acquired Aphria securities between October 18, 2018,
and December 3, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company
and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Aphria securities between
October 18, 2018, and December 3, 2018, both dates inclusive, you
have until February 4, 2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact
Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Aphria is headquartered in Leamington, Canada. The Company produces
and sells medical cannabis in Canada and internationally. The
Company offers sativa, indica, and hybrid medical marijuana
products, as well as cannabis oils. It serves patients and health
professionals. The Company also sells its products online.

On January 29, 2018, the Company announced its acquisition of
Nuuvera Inc. ("Nuuvera") for approximately C$826 million, which was
completed on March 23, 2018 (at a reduced price valued at
approximately C$425 million). Announcing the acquisition, the
Company touted Nuuvera as "a leading, global cannabis company with
a strong presence in Europe, Africa and the Middle East[.]"

Then, on July 17, 2018, the Company issued a press release
announcing its planned expansion into Latin America and the
Caribbean, through a massive transaction whereby Aphria acquired
Scythian Biosciences Inc. ("Scythian") for approximately C$280
million, in cash and Company stock.

According to various public statements by the Company and media
reports, Andy DeFrancesco ("DeFrancesco"), controller of the
Delavaco Group ("Delavaco"), a purported private equity fund,
participated in the founding investment of Aphria. DeFrancesco and
the Delavaco Group have purportedly invested or advised on every
Aphria equity financing.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Aphria
engaged in numerous fraudulent acquisitions and transactions in
order to provide undisclosed benefits to its insiders; (ii) Aphria
substantially overpaid for the assets it acquired in 2018, which in
reality had questionable value or were worthless; (iii) Aphria
acquired these assets from undisclosed related parties, including
Andy DeFrancesco; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On December 3, 2018, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") published
an article entitled "Aphria: A Shell Game with a Cannabis Business
on the Side," alleging that "Aphria is part of a scheme
orchestrated by a network of insiders to divert funds away from
shareholders into their own pockets." The article cited a thorough,
on-the-ground investigation into Aphria's latest investments and
described in detail the poor quality and questionable value of
those investments.

Following publication of the Hindenburg article, Aphria's stock
price fell $1.85 per share, or roughly 23.4%, to close at $6.05 per
share on December 3, 2018.

Then, on December 4, 2018, the Financial Post published an
interview with DeFrancesco to address the allegations described
above. DeFrancesco seemingly confirmed his participation in the
transactions, stating that the use of shell companies was not
unusual in private equity transactions and defending the quality of
the assets.

On this news, Aphria's stock price fell an additional $1.54 per
share, or 25.45%, to close at $4.51 per share on December 4, 2018.

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


APHRIA INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
(http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/aphria/)disclosed that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of Aphria Inc.
(NYSE:APHA) common stock during the period between November 2, 2018
and November 30, 2018 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed
in the Southern District of New York and is captioned Curkan v.
Aphria Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-11428.

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

The complaint charges Aphria and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Aphria is a cannabis company based in Ontario, Canada.

The complaint alleges that Aphria and its senior executives issued
materially false and/or misleading statements regarding the
Company's acquisition of cannabis-related assets in Latin America
and the Caribbean (the "Acquisition"). As a result, Aphria common
stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period.

Then, on December 3, 2018, analyst firms Hindenburg Research and
Quintessential Capital Management issued a report and presentation
that charged defendants with orchestrating a series of self-dealing
transactions via the Acquisition in order to secretly funnel tens
of millions of dollars' worth of Aphria assets to Company insiders
and their affiliates in exchange for assets that were worth a
fraction of their purported value (if anything). The report and its
accompanying presentation encompassed collectively over 100 pages
and included extensive corroborating evidence for the findings of
fact contained therein, including on-site visits and photographs of
the acquired assets and associated properties in the various host
countries, interviews with personnel associated with the assets
acquired in the Acquisition, government records, proprietary
analysis and fact-gathering, and a review of additional supporting
source material.

On this news, the price of Aphria stock plummeted, dropping
approximately 25% to close at $6.05 per share on December 3, 2018
on unusually large volume of over 35 million shares.

On December 3 and December 4, 2018, Aphria issued statements
denying the findings contained in the Report. However, Aphria's
response failed to substantively address many of the issues of
malfeasance and self-dealing that the Report had raised.

On this news, the price of Aphria stock again fell approximately
25% to close at $4.51 per share on December 4, 2018 on abnormally
large volume of over 29 million shares. Plaintiff seeks to recover
damages on behalf of all purchasers of Aphria common stock during
the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by
Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting
investor class actions including actions involving financial
fraud.

         Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
         David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Website: www.rgrdlaw.com
         Telephone: (484) 258 – 1585
                    (888) 715 – 1740      
         Email: djr@rgrdlaw.com
                SRudman@rgrdlaw.com
                DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iPhone X Series Screen Size
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allen Cone, writing for UPI, reports that Apple is accused of lying
about its iPhone X series' screen size and pixel count, according
to a lawsuit.'

In the suit filed on Dec. 14 in U.S. District Court of Northern
California, two plaintiffs are seeking class-action status,
alleging Apple falsely advertised specifications in its iPhone X,
iPhone XS and iPhone XS Max devices.

Apple didn't respond to a request for comment by Cnet on the suit
filed on Dec. 14.

According to the 55-page lawsuit, Apple uses non-screen areas like
the notch and corners in advertising the screen sizes. The latest
versions of the iPhones aren't "all screen" as marketed.

For example, iPhone X's screen size was "only about 5.6875 inches"
compared with the 5.8 inches' advertised size.

The resolution is listed as 2436x1125 pixels but in actuality it is
about 10 percent less at 2195 x 1125, according to the lawsuit.

The products don't contain true pixels with red, green and blue
subpixels in each pixel and instead are "fake" ones, according to
the complaint. Instead Apple allegedly uses a "pentile" structure
where five subpixels are arranged in a diamond shape.


Also, the iPhone X allegedly only has two subpixels per pixel,
which is less than advertised, according to the complaint said. In
fact an older model, the iPhone 8 Plus, has a higher-quality screen
than iPhone X.

The specification sheet of any iPhone explains dimensions,
including whether it has a notch. For the screen size, Apple has
this caveat: "when measured as a standard rectangle shape, the
screen is 5.85 inches diagonally (actual viewable area is less)."

In March, customers sued the company in 59 separate lawsuits over a
software tweak that lowers some older iPhones' speed. And in June,
plaintiffs sued Apple for $5 million in damages over the screen of
Apple Watch's tendency to "crack, shatter or detach from the body
of the watch." [GN]


ARIA ASIAN: Violates FLSA, Zhang Suit Says
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aria Asian Corp. The
case is styled as Yu Zhang, on his own behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aria Asian Corp. doing
business as: Aria Asian Fusion Sushi, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-12330 (S.D. N.Y., December 29, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Aria Asian Corp. is a Sushi restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


BADCOCK HOME: Class Certification in Wilson TCPA Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VICTORIA WILSON, Plaintiff, v. BADCOCK HOME FURNITURE,
Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-02739-T-02AAS (M.D. Fla.), Judge
William F. Jung of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, Tampa Division, denied (i) the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification; and (ii) the motions to strike and exclude.

In 2013, Customer L. purchased furniture at a store in Tampa
operated by the Defendant.  To make the purchase on credit,
Customer L. provided personal information to Defendant, including
his phone number.  Three years later, Customer L.'s account became
delinquent and the Defendant made automated calls to the provided
number to inquire about the debt.

During the time frame of the calls, the Plaintiff's grandmother was
the subscriber of the number and the Plaintiff was the user of the
phone.  The wireless carrier was Metro PCS/T-Mobile.  The Defendant
called the Plaintiff at least 30 times and left at least 12
pre-recorded voice messages.

The Plaintiff claims she attempted to tell the Defendant to stop
calling, though her phone records show no outgoing calls to any of
the numbers the Defendant used to call the Plaintiff's number or to
the number identified in the voice messages as the call-back
number.  On Nov. 15, 2017, she picked up a call from the Defendant
for the first time and advised the caller that the number was
wrong.  The Defendant has not called since then, although the
lawsuit was served shortly thereafter.

The Plaintiff filed her Complaint on Nov. 13, 2017, alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  She
seeks to certify a class, which would include (1) all persons in
the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) the
Defendant placed a non-emergency telephone call (4) using
substantially the same system(s) that were used to telephone the
Plaintiff (5) from March 6, 2014 through the present and (6) where
the Defendant's call records report a wrong number associated with
said cellular telephone number.

The Defendant opposes the motion, arguing that the Plaintiff lacks
Article III standing and that the proposed class does not satisfy
the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Judge Jung finds that even if the Plaintiff's purported class
satisfies the four prerequisites of Rule 23(a), he has serious
concerns about the proposed class' ascertainability and that the
questions of law or fact common to the class members do not
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.
Having also determined that the Plaintiff does not satisfy
Rule23(b)(3), the Judge says he needs not address the remaining
requirements.  He denied the requested class certification.  The
Judge also denied the motions to strike and exclude for the reasons
stated at the hearing.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 19, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/TnmNsa from Leagle.com.

Victoria Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Geoffrey E. Parmer --
Geoff@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com -- The Consumer Protection
Firm, PLLC, Heather Helaine Jones, The Consumer Protection Firm,
PLLC, William Peerce Howard -- Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
-- The Consumer Protection Firm, PLLC & Keith J. Keogh --
Keith@keoghlaw.com -- Keogh Law, LTD.

Badcock Home Furniture, Defendant, represented by Christopher L.
DeCort -- cdecort@jclaw.com -- Johnson & Cassidy, P.A., John Eamon
Johnson -- jjohnson@jclaw.com -- Johnson & Cassidy, P.A. & James
Jeffrey Burns, Johnson & Cassidy, P.A..


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss ICFA's Galvan Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEFA and DOMINGO GALVAN, Individually and on Behalf
of a Class of Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF
AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 18 C 200 (N.D. Ill.), Judge
Harry D. Leinenweber of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division (i) denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Strike, and (ii) granted the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss.

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against Bank of
America ("BOA") seeking damages as a result of BOA's alleged
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices
Act ("ICFA").  They also claim Unjust Enrichment.  The gravamen of
their claim is that BOA charged them a "Legal Order Fee" for
responding to a garnishment proceeding filed in the Circuit Court
of Cook County seeking to garnish their BOA savings account and
that it did not refund the fee after the Circuit Court reversed the
garnishment and ordered the fee returned.  The Circuit Court
reversed the garnishment because the Plaintiffs claimed a so-called
"wild card" exemption to the garnishment authorized by Illinois
law.

BOA has moved to dismiss the Complaint alleging that it, as a
national banking institution, has a right to charge such a legal
order fee when responding to a garnishment.  In support, it
attached to its Motion the opinion of the Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency ("OCC") and its savings account agreement with the
Plaintiffs which authorizes the charging of such a fee.

In response, the Plaintiffs move to strike these exhibits as
documents not referenced in the Complaint and thus outside the four
corners of the Complaint, citing Levenstein v. Salafsky, 164 F.3d
345, 347 (7th Cir. 1998).  The Plaintiffs also contend in their
response brief that the garnishment froze their checking account
where their Social Security payments were deposited rather than
their savings account in violation of Illinois law.

Judge Leinenweber denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to strike certain
documents in BOA's Motion to Dismiss.  He finds that the OCC letter
is not evidence but is a record memorializing an agency's
interpretation of the statute and regulations that it administers
and may be considered the same as any source of law.  The OCC has
determined that national banks are authorized to charge service
fees for the garnishment process and a court may consider such a
determination.  A bank that is subject to a garnishment is
obligated to answer the interrogatories served on it correctly,
file them with the clerk of court, serve notice on the parties, and
follow the orders of the court.  If the bank mistakenly fails to
freeze the asset, it could lead to liability to the judgment
creditor.  A charge of $125 is not unreasonable, although whether
it is or not does not bear on the issue of alleged violation of the
ICFA.

The Judge granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  He holds that
a claim of violation of the Consumer Fraud Act may be based on
either deceptive conduct or unfair conduct.  In the case, there is
no deceptive conduct.  The Plaintiffs agreed to the fees in a
clearly disclosed written agreement. T he amount of the fees is not
unfair because the Plaintiffs had a choice -- i.e., go with a bank
that maintained lower fees—and they do not claim that they had a
lack of choice.

Assuming BOA is guilty of violating a state court order, the Judge
finds that the correct procedure would be to request an order of
contempt from the Circuit Court.  Failure to return a $125 fee in
violation of a state court order does not constitute fraudulent
conduct, nor does it justify a federal lawsuit.

Finally, he holds that the Plaintiffs cannot also maintain a claim
for unjust enrichment.  Unjust enrichment does not constitute an
independent cause of action but is a condition that may be brought
about by unlawful or improper conduct as defined by law, such as
fraud, duress or undue influence, or based on a contract implied in
law.  In the case, there is no fraud, duress, or undue influence
and the parties have a contract so there is no basis for a contract
implied in law.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 19, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/xd2N1b from Leagle.com.

Domingo Galvan, Individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated & Josefa Galvan, Individually and on behalf of a
class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Glen Joseph Dunn, Jr. -- gdunn@gjdlaw.com -- Glen J. Dunn &
Associates, Jeffrey Grant Brown -- jeff@jgbrownlaw.com -- Jeffrey
Grant Brown, P.C. & Angel Petrov Bakov -- abakov@gjdlaw.com -- Glen
Dunn & Associates, Ltd.

Bank of American, N.A., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Jeanne
Ireland -- eireland@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac
vice & Ross Jacob Corbett -- rcorbett@winston.com -- Winston &
Strawn, LLP.


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued by Chiang Over Inaccurate Credit Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
GARY CHIANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BANK OF AMERICA and EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-17287-BRM-LHG (D.N.J., December 17, 2018),
is brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act alleging that
Experian has failed to follow reasonable procedures to ensure
maximum accuracy of credit reports it prepared concerning the
Plaintiff and others by reporting a balance above zero for accounts
listed as discharged in bankruptcy.

Mr. Chiang also alleges that Experian has negligently and
recklessly disseminated false information regarding his credit.  He
further alleges that Experian and Bank of America have failed to
investigate credit report inaccuracies in response to his
disputes.

Bank of America is a nationally chartered banking association with
its principal offices located at 100 N. Tryon Street, in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., is a corporation incorporated
in the state of Florida with its principal place of business
located in Costa Mesa, California.

Experian is one of the largest credit reporting agencies in the
United States, and is engaged in the business of assembling and
disseminating credit reports concerning hundreds of millions of
consumers.  Experian is a "consumer reporting agency" as defined by
the FCRA, and is regularly engaged in the business of assembling,
evaluating, and dispersing information concerning consumers for the
purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com


BLUE APRON: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bids in Sciabacucchi Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATTHEW SCIABACUCCHI, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW B. SALZBERG, JULIE
M.B. BRADLEY, TRACY BRITT COOL, KENNETH A. FOX, ROBERT P. GOODMAN,
GARY R. HIRSHBERG, BRIAN P. KELLEY, KATRINA LAKE, STEVEN ANDERSON,
J. WILLIAM GURLEY, MARKA HANSEN, SHARON MCCOLLAM, ANTHONY WOOD,
RAVI AHUJA, SHAWN CAROLAN, JEFFREY HASTINGS, ALAN HENDRICKS, NEIL
HUNT, DANIEL LEFF, and RAY ROTHROCK, Defendants, and BLUE APRON
HOLDINGS, INC., STITCH FIX, INC., and ROKU, INC., Nominal
Defendants, C.A. No. 2017-0931-JTL, Judge J. Travis Laster of the
Court of Chancery of Delaware (i) granted the Plaintiff's motion
for summary judgment, and (ii) denied the Defendants' motions for
summary judgment.

On June 1, 2017, nominal Defendant Blue Apron filed a registration
statement with the SEC for its shares of common stock and launched
an initial public offering.  Blue Apron is a Delaware corporation.
Before filing its registration statement, it adopted a
charter-based Federal Forum Provision.

On Sept. 1, 2017, nominal Defendant Roku filed a registration
statement with the SEC for its shares of common stock and launched
an initial public offering.  Roku is a Delaware corporation.
Before filing its registration statement, it adopted a
charter-based Federal Forum Provision.

On Oct. 19, 2017, Stitch Fix filed a registration statement with
the SEC for its shares of common stock and launched an initial
public offering.  Stitch Fix is a Delaware corporation.  Before
filing its registration statement, it adopted a charter-based
Federal Forum Provision.

Roku and Stitch Fix adopted substantively identical provisions that
unless the Company consents in writing to the selection of an
alternative forum, the federal district courts of the United States
of America will be the exclusive forum for the resolution of any
complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities
Act of 1933.  Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise
acquiring any interest in any security of the Corporation will be
deemed to have notice of and consented to the provision.  

Blue Apron hedged a bit.  Its provision states that the federal
district courts of the United States of America shall, to the
fullest extent permitted by law, be the sole and exclusive forum
for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action
arising under the Securities Act of 1933.  Except for this phrase,
its provision tracked the other two.

Plaintiff Sciabacucchi bought shares of common stock under each
nominal defendant's registration statement, either in the initial
public offering or shortly thereafter.  He therefore could sue
under Section 11 of the 1933 Act to address any material
misstatements or omissions in the registration statements.  He
likewise could sue under Section 12(a)(1) to enforce the 1933 Act's
registration requirements.  The Plaintiff potentially could sue
under Section 12(a)(2) over a material misstatement or omission in
a prospectus.39

On Dec. 29, 2017, Sciabacucchi filed the action.  His complaint
named as Defendants 20 individuals who signed the registration
statements for Blue Apron, Stitch Fix, and Roku and who have served
as their directors since they went public.  His complaint sought a
declaratory judgment that the Federal Forum Provisions are
invalid.

On March 20, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States resolved
the split in federal authority over SLUSA's implications for the
jurisdictional and removal provisions in the 1933 Act.  The
justices held that class actions filed in state court which
asserted violations of the 1933 Act could not be removed to federal
court.  After the decision, under the federal regime, a plaintiff
wishing to sue under the 1933 Act could maintain an action in
either state or federal court.

The parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment.

Judge Laster explains that the development of the law governing
forum-selection provisions indicates that the nominal defendants
cannot use the Federal Forum Provisions to specify a forum for 1933
Act claims.  Under existing Delaware authority, a Delaware
corporation does not have the power to adopt in its charter or
bylaws a forum-selection provision that governs external claims.
The Federal Forum Provisions purport to regulate the forum in which
parties external to the corporation (purchasers of securities) can
sue under a body of law external to the corporate contract (the
1933 Act).  They cannot accomplish that feat, rendering the
provisions ineffective.  Based on the foregoing, the Judge entered
judgment for the Plaintiff and denied the Defendants' motions for
summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 19, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/3zNe5p from Leagle.com.

Kurt M. Heyman -- kheyman@hegh.law -- Melissa N. Donimirski --
mdonimirski@hegh.law -- HEYMAN ENERIO GATTUSO & HIRZEL LLP
Wilmington, Delaware; Jason M. Leviton -- jason@blockesq.com --
Joel A. Fleming -- joel@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP,
Boston, Massachusetts; Counsel for Plaintiff.

William B. Chandler III -- wchandler@wsgr.com -- Randy J. Holland
-- rholland@wsgr.com -- Bradley D. Sorrels, Lindsay Kwoka Faccenda
-- lfaccenda@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.,
Wilmington, Delaware; Boris Feldman , David J. Berger , WILSON
SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C., Palo Alto, California; Counsel for
Defendants Katrina Lake, Steven Anderson, J. William Gurley, Marka
Hansen, Sharon McCollam, Anthony Wood, Ravi Ahuja, Shawn Carolan,
Jeffrey Hastings, Alan Hendricks, Neil Hunt, Daniel Leff, Ray
Rothrock, and Nominal Defendants Stitch Fix, Inc. and Roku, Inc.

Catherine G. Dearlove -- dearlove@rlf.com -- Sarah T. Andrade --
andrade@rlf.com -- RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A., Wilmington,
Delaware; Michael G. Bongiorno, WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND
DORR LLP, New York, New York; Timothy J. Perla, WILMER CUTLER
PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, Boston, Massachusetts; Counsel for
Defendants Matthew B. Salzberg, Julie M.B. Bradley, Tracy Britt
Cool, Kenneth A. Fox, Robert P. Goodman, Gary R. Hirshberg, and
Brian P. Kelley, and Nominal Defendant Blue Apron Holdings, Inc.


BLUE HILLS: Parshall Class Action Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
Blue Hills Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on January 4, 2018, 2018,
that the lawsuit entitled, Paul Parshall v. David J. Houston Jr.
et. al., has been dismissed at the request of plaintiff.

On December 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in the Circuit
Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, captioned Paul Parshall v.
David J. Houston Jr. et al., naming each Blue Hills director
(collectively, the "Individual Defendants"), and Blue Hills as
defendants.  

The Complaint identified Blue Hills as a nominal defendant. The
Complaint alleged that the Individual Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the Plaintiff and himself and all Blue Hills
stockholders other than the named defendants and their affiliates.
The relief sought by the Complaint included preliminary and
permanent injunction from proceeding with, consummating, or closing
the proposed merger, rescission and rescissory damages if the
proposed merger is completed, and damages, including attorneys' and
experts' fees.

By letter to Plaintiff's counsel dated December 27, 2018, counsel
for Blue Hills responded to the Complaint, setting forth in detail
why the claims raised in the Complaint lacked merit and urged
Plaintiff to withdraw the Complaint immediately.

On December 28, 2018, the Complaint was dismissed at the request of
Plaintiff. In addition, on January 3, 2019, Plaintiff's counsel
informed counsel for Blue Hills that Plaintiff would not pursue an
action with respect to the claims set forth in the Complaint.

Blue Hills Bancorp, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for
Blue Hills Bank that provides financial services to individuals,
families, small to mid-size businesses, government, and non-profit
organizations in Massachusetts.  Blue Hills Bancorp, Inc. was
founded in 1871 and is headquartered in Norwood, Massachusetts.


BOJANGLES' INC: Franchi Seeks to Halt Walker Parent Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Franchi, 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-0981 (D. Del., 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, d another various sides.

The complaint says the proxy statement filed in connection with the
merger contains projections for 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:

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

             - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800
      Email: rm@maniskas.com


BUTTS COUNTY, GA: COOSA Nation Files Tort Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Butts County Georgia.
The case is styled as COOSA Nation of North America USA, Dr Monique
Y Tate also known as: Sahani Ugidahli also known as: Principal
Chieftess Blue Feather, Lamar Perryman also known as: Cate Honvnwv
also known as: Principal Chief Red Man, Taliyah Mahli also known
as: Chieftess Raging Wind and Myel Tate-Benson also known as:
Chieftess Ahniwidu, Plaintiffs v. Butts County Georgia and its
Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or Municipal Corporations and
Unincorporated Areas, Stewart County Georgia and its Commissioners,
Mayors, Cities or Municipal Corporations and Unincorporated Areas,
Fulton County Georgia and its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or
Municipal Corporations and Unincorporated Areas, Dekalb County
Georgia and its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or Municipal
Corporations and Unincorporated Areas, Randolph County Georgia and
its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or Municipal Corporations and
Unincorporated Areas, Quitman County Georgia and its Commissioners,
Mayors, Cities or Municipal Corporations and Unincorporated Areas,
Bartow County Georgia and its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or
Municipal Corporations and Unincorporated Areas, Muscogee County
Georgia and its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or Municipal
Corporations and Unincorporated Areas, Chattahoochee County Georgia
and its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or Municipal Corporations and
Unincorporated Areas, Webster County Georgia and its Commissioners,
Mayors, Cities or Municipal Corporations and Unincorporated Areas,
Seminole County Georgia and its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or
Municipal Corporations and Unincorporated Areas, Chatham County
Georgia and its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or Municipal
Corporations and Unincorporated Areas, District Attorney Cherokee
County Georgia and its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or Municipal
Corporations and Unincorporated Areas, Mcintosh County Georgia and
its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or Municipal Corporations and
Unincorporated Areas, Coweta County Georgia and its Commissioners,
Mayors, Cities or Municipal Corporations and Unincorporated Areas,
Athens-Clarke County Georgia and its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities
or Municipal Corporations and Unincorporated Areas,
Augusta-Richmond County Georgia and its Commissioners, Mayors,
Cities or Municipal Corporations and Unincorporated Areas, Putnam
County Georgia and its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or Municipal
Corporations and Unincorporated Areas, Dougherty County Georgia and
its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or Municipal Corporations and
Unincorporated Areas, Governor of the State of Georgia as the
representative of all private and public corporations in the
counties and cities of the State of Georgia and their departments,
agencies, personnel and employees, in their individual, corporate
and official capacities, Secretary of the State of Georgia as the
representative of all private and public corporations in the
counties and cities of the State of Georgia and their departments,
agencies, personnel and employees, in their individual, corporate
and official capacities, General Assembly of the State of Georgia
as the representative of all private and public corporations in the
counties and cities of the State of Georgia and their departments,
agencies, personnel and employees, in their individual, corporate
and official capacities, Department of Education as the
representative of all private and public corporations in the
counties and cities of the State of Georgia and their departments,
agencies, personnel and employees, in their individual, corporate
and official capacities, Commissioner of Georgia Doe as the
representative of all private and public corporations in the
counties and cities of the State of Georgia and their departments,
agencies, personnel and employees, in their individual, corporate
and official capacities, Department of Natural Resources as the
representative of all private and public corporations in the
counties and cities of the State of Georgia and their departments,
agencies, personnel and employees, in their individual, corporate
and official capacities, Commissioner of Georgia DNR as the
representative of all private and public corporations in the
counties and cities of the State of Georgia and their departments,
agencies, personnel and employees, in their individual, corporate
and official capacities and Georgia Council on American Indian
concerns as the representative of all private and public
corporations in the counties and cities of the State of Georgia and
their departments, agencies, personnel and employees, in their
individual, corporate and official capacities, Defendants, Case No.
5:18-cv-00471-TES (M.D. Ga., December 27, 2018).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as torts to land
with respect Indian Tribal Rights.

Butts County is a county located in the central part of the U.S.
state of Georgia. As of the 2010 census, the population was 23,655.
The county seat is Jackson. The county was created on December 24,
1825. Butts County is included in the Atlanta-Sandy
Springs-Roswell, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.



CAL-MAINE FOODS: Still Defend Egg Products Suit by Kraft et al.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended December 1, 2018, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 4, 2019, that the District Court
has heard oral argument on the renewed motions for summary judgment
but has not issued a ruling.

On September 25, 2008, the Company was named as one of several
defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States
shell egg industry. The cases were consolidated into In re:
Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP,
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (the "District Court"), in three groups of cases --
the "Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action", the "Indirect
Purchaser Putative Class Action" and the "Non-Class Cases."

The Company has settled all of the Direct Purchaser Putative Class
Action cases and the Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action
cases.  The Company also has settled all Non-Class cases except for
the claims of certain plaintiffs who sought substantial damages
allegedly arising from the purchase of egg products (as opposed to
shell eggs).

On November 7, 2018, the Company agreed to settle all claims
brought by one of these plaintiffs, Conopco, Inc. on a confidential
basis and for an amount that does not have a material impact on the
Company's financial condition or results.  The settlement is,
however, reflected in the company's results of operations along
with certain other legal settlements and expenses. The Court
entered a final judgment dismissing Conopco's claims against the
Company on November 21, 2018.

The remaining plaintiffs are Kraft Food Global, Inc., General
Mills, Inc., Nestle USA, Inc., and The Kellogg Company. These egg
products plaintiffs seek treble damages and injunctive relief under
the Sherman Act and are attacking certain features of the UEP
animal-welfare guidelines and program used by the Company and many
other egg producers.

On September 6, 2016, the District Court granted defendants' motion
for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice all claims based
on the purchase of egg products. That ruling was appealed to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and on
January 22, 2018, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's
grant of summary judgment and remanded the case to the District
Court.

Even though the appealing egg-products plaintiffs had asked the
Third Circuit to remand the case for trial, the Third Circuit
declined, instead remanding the case for further proceedings,
including the suggestion that the District Court determine whether
the egg-products plaintiffs had sufficient evidence of causation
and damages to submit the case to a jury. On March 5, 2018,
defendants filed a motion in the District Court seeking leave to
file a motion for summary judgment in light of the remand
statements in the Third Circuit's opinion. Plaintiffs opposed that
motion, and on March 26, 2018, the defendants filed a reply in
support of the motion. On July 16, 2018, the court granted the
defendants' motion for leave and on August 17, 2018, defendants
filed their motions for summary judgment and requested oral
argument.

The plaintiffs filed their responses on September 21, 2018, and
sur-replies on October 19, 2018, and the defendants filed their
replies on October 12, 2018.  On December 19, 2018, the District
Court heard oral argument on the renewed motions for summary
judgment but has not issued a ruling.

The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining case as
vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company believes
are meritorious and provable.  While management believes that the
likelihood of a material adverse outcome in the overall egg
antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced as a result of
the settlements and rulings described above, there is still a
reasonable possibility of a material adverse outcome in the
remaining egg antitrust litigation. At the present time, however,
it is not possible to estimate the amount of monetary exposure, if
any, to the Company because of this remaining case.  Adjustments,
if any, which might result from the resolution of these remaining
legal matters, have not been reflected in the financial
statements.

Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. produces, grades, packages, markets, and
distributes shell eggs. The company offers specialty shell eggs,
such as nutritionally enhanced, cage free, organic, and brown eggs
under the Egg-Land’s Best, Land O' Lakes, Farmhouse, and 4-Grain
brand names, as well as under private labels. The company was
founded in 1957 and is based in Jackson, Mississippi.


CALIFORNIA ADDICTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dortch Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
LATOYA DORTCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ADDICTION CENTER; AARON
BROWER; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
30-2018-01035151-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange 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.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as behavioral health
technician.

California Addiction Center LLC, provides drug and alcohol
addiction treatment services for individuals and families. It
provides treatment services to assist individuals with their
substance abuse and mental health issues. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian R. Short, Esq.
          Dorota A. James, Esq.
          SHORTLEGAL, APC
          350 10th Ave., Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 272-0720
          Facsimile: (619) 839-3129
          E-mail: Brian@ShortLegal.com
          E-mail: Dorota@ShortLegal.com


CANARY: Faces Class Action in New York Over Monitoring Fee
----------------------------------------------------------
AJ Dellinger, writing for Digital Trends, reports that there are
plenty of smart home security cameras out there, and it can be hard
to differentiate between the bunch to figure out which one is best
for you. Jeff Reifman of Portland, Oregon was looking for the right
camera for his home and stumbled on Canary, a security startup that
offered a camera with the promise of no monthly fees or
subscriptions. Then, according to Mr. Reifman, the company started
charging a monthly fee for features that were once free. Now he and
a group of other consumers are suing.

In a class-action lawsuit filed by Mr. Reifman and other Canary
customers in the United States District Court in New York, the
company is accused of pulling a bait and switch. In court
documents, the consumers claim they purchased Canary devices that
promised no additional fees other than the cost of buying the
device. That changed come October 2017, when several formerly free
features required a monthly payment to access. That included the
ability to watch previously recorded videos.

"Plaintiffs and other consumers purchased the Products reasonably
believing that all key features included with their initial
purchase would remain available without any future cost," the
lawsuit says. "Had Plaintiffs and other consumers known that Canary
would remove the Product's features and place them behind a
paywall, they would not have purchased the Products or would have
paid significantly less for the Products."

In a blog post written by Mr. Reifman in 2017, he claims the sudden
decision to put security features behind a paywall essentially
rendered the camera useless. He was no longer able to access more
than a "preview" of prior recordings, and a night mode feature that
made it possible to see action in the house after dark was also
shut down. According to Mr. Reifman, without paying a $120 annual
fee to once again have access to those elements, the cameras were
little more than expensive paperweights.

Canary does offer some features for free still, including 30-second
video clips after motion is detected, one day video history, and
24/7 live check-ins. For the full video clips, 30 days of saved
footage, and a heap of other features like two-way conversations
through the camera, users have to pay a $10 per month fee for
Canary membership. Canary has not yet commented publicly about the
lawsuit. [GN]


CENTRAL PARK BOATHOUSE: Reyes Seeks Minimum Wages and OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
ERIK LEON REYES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CENTRAL PARK BOATHOUSE, LLC (D/B/A THE
LOEB BOATHOUSE), DEAN POLL, MICHAEL AMORE, and RONNY DOE, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-11900 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2018), seeks
minimum wage and overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a former employee of
Central Park Boathouse, LLC. The Defendants own, operate, or
control an American restaurant, located at Park Drive North, E 72nd
St, New York, NY 10021 under the name "The Loeb Boathouse". The
Plaintiff was employed as a food runner and barback at the
restaurant.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours
compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and
failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked,
either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff also seeks to recover front and back pay,
compensatory and punitive damages for violations of his rights
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, the
Plaintiff suffered discrimination and harassment by Defendant
Michael Amore and Ronny Doe because of his national origin and his
gender and sex.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

CHAPPAQUA CENTRAL: Pacher Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chappaqua Central
School District in the New York Supreme Court, Westchester County
on December 14, 2018. The case is styled as Michele Pacher, Dr.
Michael Kirsch, Margery Kirsch his wife, Mark Soss, Carol Fisher
his wife, Dr. Frederick Wilhelm, William Huppuch, Margaret Huppuch
his wife, and similarly situated retired Chappaqua Central School
District administrative employees and their spouses, Plaintiffs v.
Chappaqua Central School District, Defendant, Case No. 70408/2018.

The Chappaqua Central School District is a K-12 public school
district serving students in Chappaqua, New York, and Millwood, New
York, as well as parts of Pleasantville, New York, and Mount Kisco,
New York. The current superintendent of schools is Dr. Christine
Ackerman.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Wendy S. Deforge, Esq.
   8 Airport Park Blvd
   Latham, NY 12110-6420

The Defendants appears PRO SE.


COBALT INTERNATIONAL: Feb. 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

IN RE COBALT INTERNATIONAL
ENERGY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

Lead Case No. 4:14-cv-3428 (NFA)

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENTS; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR
AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION
EXPENSES

TO:     All persons and entities who, during the period between
March 1, 2011 and November 3, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period")
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Cobalt
International Energy, Inc. ("Cobalt"), Cobalt 2.625% Convertible
Senior Notes due 2019, and/or Cobalt 3.125% Convertible Senior
Notes due 2024 (collectively, "Cobalt Securities"), and were
damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"):

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and
entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition
as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class
Action and Proposed Settlements; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing;
and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement
of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached
three proposed settlements, that, if approved, will resolve all
claims in the Action against the "Settling Defendants," including:

   (A) The Private equity sponsors who invested in Cobalt prior to
its initial public offering and sold certain Cobalt Securities
during the Class Period, certain individuals designated to the
Cobalt board of directors by the Sponsor Defendants, and a
sponsor-affiliated underwriter of certain Cobalt Securities
offerings during the class period for $146,850,000 in cash (the
"Sponsor/GS&Co. Settlement");

   (B) The other underwriters of Cobalt Securities offerings during
the class period for $22,750,000 in cash (the "Underwriter
Settlement"); and

   (C) Cobalt and certain of its former officers and directors for
$220,000,000, that is payable exclusively from the proceeds of
litigation to recover on liability insurance policies preserved
through Cobalt's plan in bankruptcy (the "Cobalt Settlement").  The
projected recovery in the Cobalt Settlement is between $4,200,000
and $165,700,000.      

The total recoveries from the Sponsor/GS&Co., Underwriter and
Cobalt Settlements (the "Settlements") should total between
$173,800,000 and $335,300,000 (the "Settlement Fund").

A hearing will be held on February 13, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Nancy F. Atlas at the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, United States Courthouse, 515
Rusk Avenue, Houston, TX 77002, to determine (i) whether the
proposed Settlements should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against the Settling Defendants, and the Releases
specified and described in the respective Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement governing each Settlement (and in the Notice) should
be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be
approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses should be approved.  Each of the three proposed
Settlements stands alone and none is contingent on the Court's
approval of the other Settlements.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlements, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at In re Cobalt
International Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq, P.O.
Box 4109, Portland, OR 97208-4109, 1-877-440-0638.  Copies of the
Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website
maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.CobaltSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlements, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than April 4, 2019.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper
Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution
of the net proceeds of the Settlements but you will nevertheless be
bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than January 23, 2019,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action with respect to the Settling Defendants and you will not be
eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlements.

Any objections to the proposed Settlements, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than January 23, 2019, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Cobalt, the
other Settling Defendants or their counsel regarding this notice.
All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlements, or your
eligibility to participate in the Settlements should be directed to
Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

         Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
         ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
         299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
         New York, NY 10171
        (212) 894-7200
         aentwistle@entwistle-law.com

         David R. Stickney, Esq.
         BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
         & GROSSMANN LLP
         12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
         San Diego, CA 92130-3582
         1-800-380-8496
         settlements@blbglaw.com

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

    In re Cobalt International Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation  

    c/o Epiq
    P.O. Box 4109
    Portland, OR 97208-4109
    877-440-0638
    www.CobaltSecuritiesLitigation.com
                                                                   
                                                    By Order of the
Court


COLORADO BOXED BEEF: Faison Seeks Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------
JEQUAN FAISON, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. COLORADO BOXED BEEF CO., a Florida For Profit
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-03049-JSM-AAS (M.D.
Fla., Dec. 19, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

According to Defendant's website --
http://www.ColoradoBoxedBeef.com/-- the Defendant operates and
engages in the food industry by procuring, distributing, selling
and marketing protein products to its customers. Defendant' s
website also indicates they are a leading distributer of
refrigerated and frozen products such as beef, pork, poultry, lamb,
veal, seafood, cheese, vegetables, lunch meat, and other various
dry products. Finally, Defendant's website states the company
serves leading independent and chain retailers, cruise lines, food
service distributors, amusement parts, and the United States
Military throughout the United States and internationally.

Due to the Defendant's policies and procedures, Plaintiff, and
others who were similarly situated, were deprived of overtime wages
for overtime hours actually worked by compensating Plaintiff, and
others who were similarly situated, on a per load or per load
percentage basis without regard to the number of hours worked in
total for the workweek. Defendants' policies and conduct violate
the FLSA, which requires non-exempt employees, such as Plaintiff
and similarly situated employees, to be compensated for their
overtime work at a rate of one and one-halftimes their regular rate
of pay. See 29 U.S.C. section 207(a), the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Matthew R. Gunter, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          20 N. Orange Ave., Ste. 1600
          P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 867-4791
          E-mail : mgunter@forthepeople.com

CONAGRA BRANDS: Briseno Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
ConAgra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 3, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended November 25, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself from a putative class action suit
entitled, Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.

Conagra Brands said, "We are party to a number of putative class
action lawsuits challenging various product claims made in the
Company's product labeling."

These matters include Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., in which it
is alleged that the labeling for Wesson(R) oils as 100% natural is
false and misleading because the oils contain genetically modified
plants and organisms. In February 2015, the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California granted class certification to
permit plaintiffs to pursue state law claims.

The Company appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, which affirmed class certification in January 2017.
The Supreme Court of the United States declined to review the
decision and the case has been remanded to the trial court for
further proceedings.

ConAgra Brands said, "While we cannot predict with certainty the
results of this or any other legal proceeding, we do not expect
this matter to have a material adverse effect on our financial
condition, results of operations, or business."

ConAgra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery
& Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice
segments. Conagra Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


CONAGRA BRANDS: Continues to Defend Rosenblatt Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 3, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended November 25, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Jordan Rosenblatt
v. Pinnacle Foods Inc. et al.

On August 15, 2018, a purported stockholder of Pinnacle Foods Inc.
("Pinnacle") filed a complaint in a putative class action in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Jordan
Rosenblatt v. Pinnacle Foods Inc. et al., Case No. 2018-0605 (the
"Rosenblatt Action").

The Rosenblatt Action alleges that the directors of Pinnacle
breached their fiduciary duty of disclosure by filing a preliminary
proxy statement that contained materially incomplete and misleading
information. The Rosenblatt Action further alleges that Pinnacle,
Conagra, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the directors' alleged
breach of fiduciary duty.

The Rosenblatt Action seeks, among other things, to enjoin the
transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, rescission of
the merger or an award of rescissory damages should the merger be
consummated, an award of damages and an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses.

Conagra and Pinnacle believe the Rosenblatt Action is without merit
and intend to vigorously defend it.

Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery
& Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice
segments. Conagra Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


CONAGRA BRANDS: Karlson Sues over Savings Plan Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------
BART KARLSON, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the CONAGRA BRANDS RETIREMENT INCOME
SAVINGS PLAN, the Plaintiff, vs. CONAGRA BRANDS INC.; CONAGRA
BRANDS INC. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE; CONAGRA
BRANDS APPEALS COMMITTEE; WILLIAM RYAN EGAN; and DOES NO. 1-10,
Whose Names Are Currently Unknown, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-08328 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 19, 2018), alleges that Defendants
wrongfully denied millions of dollars in benefits to a large number
of participants to the ConAgra Brands Retirement Income Savings
Plan and their beneficiaries, and violated their fiduciary and
other legal duties, pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

The Defendants base their denial on a "reinterpretation" of the
Plan that violates the Plan's clear language, as well as the way
Defendants have interpreted and applied the Plan for years. The
Defendants' purported "reinterpretation" of the Plan was motivated
by their desire to save money.

The Plan had more than $1.4 billion in assets as of December 2015
and almost 13,000 participants. Defendants are the Plan's
fiduciaries: the Plan Sponsor ConAgra Brands Inc.; ConAgra Brands
Inc. Employee Benefits Administrative Committee f/k/a ConAgra
Foods, Inc. Employee Benefits Administrative Committee; ConAgra
Brands Appeals Committee; William Ryan Egan; and DOES No. 1-10, who
are or were members of the Administrative Committee and/or Appeals
Committee at any of the pertinent times and whose names are
currently unknown. Karlson is one of the terminated employees and
was a Plan participant, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Mitchell L. Marinello, Esq.
          Ronald S. Kravitz, Esq.
          Mitchell L. Marinello, Esq.
          Richard G. Douglass, Esq.
          NOVACK AND MACEY LLP
          201 Filbert Street, Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Telephone: (415) 429-5272
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: rkravitz@sfmslaw.com
                  mmarinello@novackmacey.com

               - and -

          Ronald S. Kravitz, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          201 Filbert Street, Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Telephone: (415) 429-5272
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: rkravitz@sfmslaw.com

CONAGRA BRANDS: Parties Agree to Dismiss Investors' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
ConAgra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 3, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended November 25, 2018, that the parties in the
consolidated class action suit involving the company's acquisition
of Pinnacle Foods Inc., stipulated to the dismissal of the
consolidated stockholder lawsuits.

Certain litigation matters were filed in connection with our
acquisition of Pinnacle Foods Inc.  On August 7, 2018, a purported
stockholder of Pinnacle filed a complaint in a putative class
action in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, captioned Alexander Rasmussen v. Pinnacle Foods Inc. et
al., Case No. 2:18-cv-12501.

On August 9, 2018, a purported stockholder of Pinnacle filed a
complaint in a putative class action in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Robert H. Paquette
v. Pinnacle Foods Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-12578.

On August 9, 2018, a purported stockholder of Pinnacle filed a
complaint in a putative class action in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Wesley Lindquist v.
Pinnacle Foods Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-12610.

On September 12, 2018, the Court consolidated the three New Jersey
Actions (the "Consolidated Actions"), each of which alleged that
Pinnacle's preliminary proxy statement, filed with the SEC on July
25, 2018, omitted material information with respect to the merger,
rendering it false and misleading and thus that Pinnacle and the
directors of Pinnacle violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act as
well as Rule 14a-9 under the Exchange Act.

The Consolidated Actions further alleged that the directors of
Pinnacle violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and sought to
enjoin the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement unless
Pinnacle disclosed the allegedly material information that was
allegedly omitted from the proxy statement, an award of damages and
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

On September 27, 2018, Pinnacle filed a Form 8-K with the
Securities and Exchange Commission containing supplemental
disclosures that substantially mooted the claims raised in the
Consolidated Actions regarding the sufficiency of the disclosures
in the proxy statement. On October 4, 2018, the parties stipulated
to dismissal of the Consolidated Actions.

ConAgra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery
& Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice
segments. ConAgra Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


CONAGRA BRANDS: Still Defends Negrete Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
ConAgra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 3, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended November 25, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself from a putative class action suit
entitled, Negrete v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al.

Conagra Brands said, "We are party to matters challenging the
Company's wage and hour practices."

These matters include a number of putative class actions
consolidated under the caption Negrete v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et
al, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, in which the plaintiffs allege a pattern of violations
of California and/or federal law at several current and former
Company manufacturing facilities across the State of California.

ConAgra Brands said, "While we cannot predict with certainty the
results of this or any other legal proceeding, we do not expect
this matter to have a material adverse effect on our financial
condition, results of operations, or business."

ConAgra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery
& Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice
segments. Conagra Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


DELICIOUS HOSPITALITY: Fischler Files Suit under ADA in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Delicious Hospitality, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Delicious Hospitality, LLC doing
business as: Charlie Bird, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-12366 (S.D.
N.Y., December 31, 2018).

Delicious Hospitality, LLC is engaged in the restaurant
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



DEUTSCHE BANK: 3d Cir Affirms Rulings in Salvati Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the
District Court orders in the case, GENE W. SALVATI; ROSALIND DAVIS;
HARRY DAVIS; BRIAN D. MURPHY, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO, a
subsidiary of Deutsche Bank, AG; BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOANS
SERVICING, a subsidiary of Bank of America, N.A.; ONEWEST BANK FSB;
MCCABE WEISBERG CONWAY, PC, a law firm and debt collector Antonello
Boldrini, Appellant, Case No. 18-2280 (3d Cir.)

The background of the class action is described in Salvati v.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., N.A., 575 F. App'x 49 (3d Cir.
2014), in which the Court remanded for further proceedings on some
of the named Plaintiffs' claims.  Following its remand, the
District Court entered an order preliminary certifying a settlement
class and preliminarily approving a class action settlement.  The
settlement class included certain persons who received certain
mortgage foreclosure complaints from McCabe Weisberg & Conway, P.C.
Following a notice and opt-out period and a hearing, the District
Court entered its final order certifying the class and approving
the settlement.  The District Court also dismissed the action with
prejudice.

Appellant Antonello Boldrini is a member of the settlement class
who neither opted out nor objected to the settlement.  About a
month after the District Court approved the settlement, however,
Boldrini filed a motion seeking exclusion from the class.  In that
motion, he admitted that he received timely notice of the proposed
class and proposed settlement in an envelope addressed to him and
stamped "important information about class action settlement."  He
claimed, however, that he thought it was "advertising/junk mail,
etc." and that he put it aside without reading it until he decided
to "reorganize paperwork" after the settlement had been approved.

McCabe opposed Boldrini's motion on the ground that he did not
claim lack of notice but only that he had not read it, which was
not a basis to release him from the already approved settlement.
The District Court apparently agreed and denied Boldrini's motion
on March 17, 2017.  Boldrini did not appeal.

One year later, Boldrini filed with the District Court a motion for
relief from that ruling under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).  He did not
rely on any newly discovered evidence, changed circumstances, or
new law.  Instead, he asserted without explanation that he sold his
property in November 2009 (though he still resided there), and he
raised conclusory claims of unspecified fraud. T he District Court
denied that motion on April 2, 2018.

Boldrini then filed a motion for reconsideration of that ruling.
He attached a Truth In Lending Act "rescission notice" that he
executed on March 2018 purporting to rescind a mortgage loan on the
basis of fraud.  The District Court denied the motion on May 9,
2018.  In doing so, it explained that Boldrini had not raised any
ground for Rule 60(b) relief or reconsideration and that his
inclusion in the class was a result of his own failure to read his
mail, not of any fraud.

Boldrini filed another motion for reconsideration and, by text-only
order entered May 10, 2018 the District Court denied that motion
too.  Boldrini appeals pro se from that order.  McCabe has filed a
motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely, and Boldrini has filed a
motion to "amend" his notice of appeal along with an amended notice
of appeal challenging the District Court's orders as well.

The Court finds that it has jurisdiction to review the District
Court's order denying Boldrini's Rule 60(b) motion and its orders
denying reconsideration of that ruling. It does so for abuse of
discretion, and it perceives none.  It holds that Boldrini's Rule
60(b) motion could be read as attempting to invoke Rule 60(b)(3)
and Rule 60(b)(6), but he made no showing that his inclusion in the
settlement class was the result of fraud or some extraordinary
circumstance rather than his admitted failure to read his properly
labeled mail.  Nor did his motions for reconsideration raise
anything warranting relief under Rule 59(e).  Boldrini's arguments
on appeal, which he has raised for the first time on appeal, relate
to extraneous or irrelevant matters and do not require discussion.

For these reasons, the Court holds that the appeal presents no
substantial question and affirmed the judgments of the District
Court.  It also denied McCabe's motion to dismiss the appeal as
untimely, and Boldrini's motion to amend his notice of appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 19, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/TEawRy from Leagle.com.


DOLLAR TREE: Settlement in Nakooka Labor Suit Has Prelim Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LOVELY NAKOOKA and ELVA REYES, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DOLLAR TREE
STORES, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-03955-JD (N.D. Cal.), Judge James Donato of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California granted the
parties' renewed joint motion for conditional certification of a
settlement class, preliminary approval of the parties' proposed
settlement, approval of the notice to be sent to the class about
the settlement, and the setting of a date for the hearing on final
approval of the settlement.

The Court denied the original joint motion based on a number of
concerns, including an unacceptably low recovery per class member,
an unduly broad release, and a number of other significant
problems.  The denial was without prejudice, and the parties'
renewed motion fixes to a satisfactory degree the problems that
doomed the original request.

Judge Donato finds that (i) the proposed class satisfies the
requirements of a settlement class; (ii) the Settlement falls
within the range of possible approval as fair, adequate and
reasonable, and appears to be the product of arm's-length and
informed negotiations and to treat all the Class Members fairly;
and (iii) the parties' proposed notice plan is constitutionally
sound.

For these reasons, the Judge granted the parties' Settlement
Agreement, as revised and presented to the Court, preliminary
approval.  The Judge certified, solely for the purpose of entering
a settlement in the matter, the class of all non-exempt hourly
store employees employed by Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., in
California, during the period from July 13, 2013, to Dec. 13, 2018,
and excluding those individuals who already have resolved the
claims asserted in the Action, whether by settlement or
adjudication.

Any Class Member who elects not to participate in the Settlement
has until 75 days after the mailing of the Class Notice to submit
his or her election not to participate in the Settlement.  Any
Class Member who wishes to object to the Settlement has until 75
days after the mailing of the Class Notice to mail to the Clerk of
Court and the counsel for the parties his or her written objection.
The Class Counsel is directed to file their motion for awards of
the Class Representative Payments and the Class Counsel Fees and
Costs Payment by March 25, 2019.

Any Class Member who wishes to object to the requests for the Class
Representative Payment or the Class Counsel Fees and Expenses
Payment has until 75 days after the mailing of the Class Notice to
file with the Clerk of Court and serve on counsel for the parties
his or her written objection, pursuant to the procedures set forth
in the Class Notice.

Judge Donato appointed (i) Rust Consulting, Inc. as the Settlement
Administrator; (ii) Plaintiffs Lovely Nakooka and Elva Reyes as the
Class Representatives; and (iii) Randall B. Aiman-Smith, Reed W.L.
Marcy, Hallie Von Rock, Carey A. James, and Brent A. Robinson of
Aiman-Smith & Marcy as the Class Counsel.

He directed that the Class Notice will be disseminated according to
the notice plan described in the Settlement Agreement and
substantially in the form submitted by the parties. Proof of
distribution of the Class Notice will be filed by the parties in
conjunction with the motion for an order granting final approval of
the Settlement.

He also directed (i) Dollar Tree to provide to the Settlement
Administrator not later than 45 days after the date of this order
the Class Members' Data as specified by the Settlement Agreement;
and (ii) the Settlement Administrator to create a dedicated website
to provide information about the Settlement and the process to
object or submit elections not to participate, which will include
key filings regarding the Settlement, and mail the approved Class
Notice by first-class mail to the Class Members not later than 15
days after receipt of the Class Members' Data.

A final approval hearing will be held on July 18, 2019, at 10:00
a.m.

Accordingly, the parties will follow the following schedule:

     a. Feb. 4, 2019 - Dollar Tree to provide to Settlement
Administrator with a spreadsheet containing Class Member contact
information - 45 days after order granting preliminary approval)

     b. Feb. 19, 2019 - Settlement Administrator to mail Class
Notice to all Class Members (15 days after receiving Class Member
information from Dollar Tree)

     c. March 25, 2019 - Date by which the Class Counsel will
submit its motion for Class Representative Payments and Class
Counsel Fees and Expenses Payment

     d. May 6, 2019 - Last day for Class Members to file with the
Court objections regarding the Settlement or the Class
Representative Payments and the Class Counsel Fees and expenses
Payment (75 days after Settlement Administrator mails Class Notice
to all Class Members)

     e. May 6, 2019 - Last day the for Class Members to submit a
valid election not to participate in Settlement (75 days after
Settlement Administrator mails Class Notice to all Class Members)

     f. May 20, 2019 - Date by which Settlement Administrator will
provide parties with a list of all Class Members who submitted
timely and valid elections not to participate in the Settlement (14
days after the deadline for submission of elections not to
participate in Settlement)

     g. July 18, 2019 - Final Approval and Fairness hearing (at
10:00 a.m.)

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 19, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/2WWGzE from Leagle.com.

Lovely Nakooka, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Elva Reyes, Plaintiffs, represented by Brent A. Robinson
-- bar@asmlawyers.com -- Aiman-Smith & Marcy, Hallie Von Rock --
hvr@asmlawyers.com -- Aiman-Smith & Marcy, Randall Bruce
Aiman-Smith -- ras@asmlawyers.com -- Aiman-Smith & Marcy, Reed W.L.
Marcy -- rwlm@asmlawyers.com -- Aiman-Smith & Marcy & Carey A.
James -- caj@asmlawyers.com -- Aiman-Smith and Marcy.

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey D. Wohl
-- jeffwohl@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP, Paul Andrew
Holton -- paulholton@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP, Ryan
David Derry -- ryanderry@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP &
William Tucker Page, Paul Hastings LLP.


EFINANCIAL, LLC: Willis Sues Unwanted Cellular Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
TROY WILLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. EFINANCIAL, LLC, and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendant, Case
1:18-cv-01706-LJO-BAM (E.D. Cal., Dec. 17, 2018), seeks damages and
any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or
willfully contacting Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and related
regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions,
thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, beginning in or around April 2018, the
Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number ending in -2205, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to
purchase Defendant's products. The Defendant used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1)
to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The
Defendant contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff from
telephone number (866) 912-4744 confirmed to be Defendant's number.
The Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency
purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A).

The Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent"
to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant
to 47 U.S.C. section 25 227(b)(1)(A). Further, Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number ending in -2205 was added to the National
Do-Not-Call Registry on or about January 15, 2014. The Defendant
placed multiple calls soliciting its business to Plaintiff on his
cellular telephone ending in -2205 in or around April 2018. Such
calls constitute solicitation calls pursuant to 47 C.F.R. section
64.1200(c)(2) as they were attempts to promote or sell Defendant's
services. The Plaintiff received numerous solicitation calls from
Defendant within a 12-month period. The Defendant continued to call
Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit its services and in violation of
the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA, the lawsuit says.

Efinancial, LLC operates as an insurance company. The Company
offers term and whole life, dental, mental health care, vision, and
auto insurance products.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: 866-598-5042
          Facsimile: 866-633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com
                  abacon@ toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com

ENERGEN RESOURCES: To Produce Royalty Owners' Info in Ulibarri Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GERALD ULIBARRI, on behalf of himself and a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, v. ENERGEN
RESOURCES CORP., Defendant/Counter Claimant, Civ. No. 18-294RB/SCY
(D. N.M.), Magistrate Judge Steven C. Yarbrough of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico granted the
Plaintiff's motion to compel the Defendant to produce royalty
owners' addresses and telephone numbers.

The Plaintiff has filed a class action against the Defendant that
seeks royalty payments allegedly due in connection with leases on
numerous natural gas wells.  In an effort to obtain information he
argues is relevant to the class certification, the Plaintiff has
moved to compel Defendant to produce royalty owners' addresses and
telephone numbers.

The Defendant resists such production, arguing that the Plaintiff's
motion to compel is untimely and, even if it were not, the
information the Plaintiff requests is unjustified because it
intrudes on the privacy of the individuals Plaintiff intends to
contact; is not necessary, reliable, or proportional to the needs
of the case; and is duplicative and less current than information
the Plaintiff is already obtaining in a separate lawsuit.

Applying the Rule 6 factors, Magistrate Judge Yarbrough finds
excusable neglect.  First, while generally noting that the class
certification discovery deadline was Nov. 30, 2018, the Defendant
identifies no unfair prejudice.  Second, the length of delay does
not threaten to severely impact the judicial proceedings. The
length of delay is less than one month, no trial date has been set
and Plaintiff's motion for class certification is not due until
Feb. 28, 2019.  Third, the Plaintiff has asserted a sufficient
reason to excuse the delay.  Fourth, the Plaintiff acted in good
faith.  Finally, based on the Plaintiff's asserted reason for his
late filing, an absence of bad faith, and an absence of prejudice,
he finds good cause exists to permit the late filing.  
The Magistrate Judge agrees with Judge Ritter's determination that
the addresses and telephone numbers of the royalty owners are
relevant to issues of class certification, including numerosity and
ascertaining which royalty owners are members of the proposed
Class.  Nonetheless, in addition to arguments Judge Ritter already
considered, Defendant presents the additional argument that the
Plaintiff does not need the information requested because it is
duplicative and less current than information Judge Ritter ordered
Southland to provide the Plaintiff.  The Defendant, however, stops
short of representing that, without exception, its contact
information pertains to the same individuals identified in
Southland's discovery.  Thus, it appears that the Defendant's
information may at least supplement the information Judge Ritter
ordered Southland to provide the Plaintiff.  Because the Defendant
has not asserted, much less established, that production of the
information sought would be burdensome, it is appropriate for the
Defendant to provide the contact information the Plaintiff
requests.

He also agrees with, and adopts with slight modification, Judge
Ritter's Order in Ulibarri v. Southland Royalty Company, LLC, Case
No. 16-cv-215-RB-JHR.  Specifically, the Court orders the Defendant
to produce to the Plaintiff's counsel the addresses and telephone
numbers of all its royalty owners within seven days of the date of
the Order.  The Court orders the Plaintiff to then observe the same
limitations on the use of this information that Judge Ritter
imposed in his Oct. 16, 2018 Order in Ulibarri v. Southland Royalty
Company. In addition, the Court orders the Plaintiff to
cross-reference the information Southland has provided with
information Defendant has provided to determine if the same
individuals are on both lists.  If the Plaintiff has not yet
contacted an individual who is on both lists, the Plaintiff should
discuss both cases with that individual simultaneously so that he
only contacts that individual once.

Given that the Plaintiff untimely filed his motion to compel,
Magistrate Judge Yarbrough will not shift costs under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 37 -- each party must bear its own costs related
to the Plaintiff's motion to compel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 19, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/G3Fs3r from Leagle.com.

Gerald Ulibarri, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by A. Michael Chapman --
mchapman@ncg-law.com -- Newbold Chapman & Geyer, P.C., George
Barton -- gab@georgebartonlaw.com -- Law Offices of George Barton,
P.C. & Stacy Burrows -- stacy@georgebartonlaw.com -- Law Offices of
George A. Barton, PC.

Energen Resources Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bradford
C. Berge -- bberge@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart LLP,
Christopher A. Chrisman -- cachrisman@hollandhart.com -- Holland &
Hart LLP, pro hac vice & Lauren R. Caplan --
lrcaplan@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart LLP, pro hac vice.

Energen Resources Corporation, Counter Claimant, represented by
Christopher A. Chrisman, Holland & Hart LLP, pro hac vice & Lauren
R. Caplan, Holland & Hart LLP, pro hac vice.

Gerald Ulibarri, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly
situated persons, Counter Defendant, represented by A. Michael
Chapman, Newbold Chapman & Geyer, P.C., George Barton, Law Offices
of George Barton, P.C. & Stacy Burrows, Law Offices of George A.
Barton, PC.


ENTREVOICE VIRTUAL: Hobbs & Jackson Sue over Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH HOBBS and JEREMY JACKSON, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ENTREVOICE VIRTUAL
SOLUTIONS, INC., and JOSELYN CORNEJO, the Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-00247-CDL (M.D. Ga., Dec. 19, 2018), seeks to enforce the
consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act in response to widespread public outrage about the
proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices of
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs alleges that Entrevoice and its CEO, Ms. Joselyn
Cornejo, who participated in the automatic telephone dialing and
authorized its use, made automated telemarketing calls to the
Plaintiffs and other putative class members without their prior
express written consent. The Plaintiffs and putative class members
never consented to receive these calls. Because telemarketing
campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even
millions of potential customers en masse, the Plaintiffs bring this
action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons
who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of
Entrevoice and Ms. Cornejo, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated:

          Steven H. Koval, Esq.
          THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
          3575 Piedmont Road
          Building 15, Suite 120
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 513-6651
          Facsimile: (404) 549-4654
          E-mail: shkoval@aol.com

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Friedman Files Consumer Credit Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Anshel Friedman, other
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Home Point Financial Corporation, Equifax Information
Services, LLC, Stonegate Mortgage Corporation and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07380 (E.D. N.Y., December 27, 2018).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



EQUINIX LLC: Hanna to Recover Overtime Pay, Wage Differentials
--------------------------------------------------------------
Foaad Hanna, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equinix LLC and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18CV339365, (Cal. Super., December
13, 2018) seeks redress for Defendant's failure to pay overtime
wages and failure to provide employees with accurate itemized wage
statements under Unfair Business Practices statures of the
California Business and Professions Code, the California Labor Code
and Welfare Commission Orders.

Equinix -- https://www.equinix.com/ -- is an IBX data center
offering colocation services where Hanna worked as a website
engineer in about 2003 until on or about March 28, 2018, when
Plaintiff was terminated. Hanna claims overtime for hours rendered
over 40 per week and off-the-clock work including shift
differential wages. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William L. Marder, Esq.
      POLARIS LAW GROUP, LLP
      501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
      Hollister, CA 95023
      Telephone: (831) 531-4214
      Facsimile: (831) 634-0333

            - and -

      Larry W. Lee, Esq.
      Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
      Nick Rosenthal, Esq.
      DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
      515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (213) 488-6555
      Fax: (213) 488-6554


EVERETT FINANCIAL: Cowen Sues for Breach of Employment
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Everett Financial
Inc. The case is styled as Randall Cowen and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of
aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act,
Plaintiff v. Everett Financial Inc. and Does 1-100, Defendants,
Case No. 34-2018-00247289-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., December 27,
2018).

The lawsuit was filed for breach of employment.

The Case Management Conference on this case is set for June 27,
2019, at 8:00 am.

Everett Financial, Inc., doing business as Supreme Lending, owns
and operates mortgage banker. It offers traditional, government,
loan purposes, amortization, property types, and specialty loans.
The company was founded in 1997 and is based in Dallas, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Han, Esq.
   Justice Law Corporation
   411 N Central Ave, Ste 500
   Glendale, CA 91203-2095
   Tel: (818) 230-7502
   Fax: (818) 230-7259
   Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com


EXPEDIA INC: Faces Church Class Suit Over Inflated Taxes & Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH CHURCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EXPEDIA, INC., EAN.COM, LP, TRAVELSCAPE, LLC and
HOTELS.COM L.P., Case No. 2:18-cv-01812 (W.D. Wash., December 17,
2018), arises from the alleged falsely-inflated "Taxes & Fees" or
"Tax" charges collected by the Defendants from customers.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a nationwide class of
all similarly situated individuals and entities, who have booked
and paid for hotel rooms obtained through the Defendants using
Reservations.com's Web site and call centers.  He alleges that
contrary to Reservations.com's representations and/or the
expectations of consumers, the "Taxes & Fees" charged by the
Defendants are not the actual taxes and fees remitted to
governmental authorities but contain additional amounts
surreptitiously added by the Defendants (the "tax overcharge").

Expedia, Inc., is a publicly-traded online travel company
headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.  EAN.com, LP, is a Delaware
limited partnership headquartered in Dallas, Texas, that operates
as Expedia Affiliate Networks.  A subsidiary of Expedia, EAN
contracts with third-party travel companies, including
Reservations.com, to provide the third parties with hotel room
inventory obtained through separate agreements between Expedia and
the hotels.  The third-party company (here, Reservations.com) hosts
the Web site, does its own marketing of its services, and earns a
commission on the transaction (here, in the form of a $14.99 charge
per room per night).

Travelscape, LLC, is an Expedia subsidiary headquartered in Las
Vegas, Nevada, that does business as Expedia Travel.  Travelscape
contracts with hotel properties for room inventory at wholesale
prices; on information and belief, that inventory is offered to
consumers through multiple channels, including Expedia Web sites
(such as expedia.com and hotels.com), as well as third-party Web
sites such as reservations.com.  Travelscape administers payments
for reservations made through third-party hotel reservation
suppliers that contract with EAN, including Reservations.com.

Hotels.com L.P. is an Expedia subsidiary headquartered in Dallas,
Texas.  In addition to offering hotel reservations and other travel
products on its own Web site, on information and belief it also
provides room inventory to Reservations.com and/or collects monies
paid for room reservations sold by Reservations.com, as evidenced
by the fact that a Hotels.com phone number was listed on the credit
card bill for the Plaintiff's Reservations.com booking.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Andrew Volk, 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
                  andrew@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          James L. Ward, Jr., Esq.
          Ranee Saunders, Esq.
          MCGOWAN, HOOD & FELDER, LLC
          321 Wingo Way, Suite 103
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 388-7202
          Facsimile: (843) 388-3194
          E-mail: jward@mcgowanhood.com
                  rsaunders@mcgowanhood.com

               - and -

          Ian W. Freeman, Esq.
          John P. Linton, Jr., Esq.
          WALKER, GRESSETTE, FREEMAN & LINTON, LLC
          66 Hasell Street
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Telephone: (843) 727-2200
          Facsimile: (843) 727-2238
          E-mail: freeman@wgfllaw.com
                  linton@wgfllaw.com


FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE: Yargeau Files Suit in Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Yargeau has filed a class action lawsuit against Federal
Housing Finance Agency. The case is styled as Kimberly Yargeau, on
behalf of herself and all others so similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, Federal National Mortgage
Association and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-12652-TSH (D. Mass., December 28, 2018).

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is an independent federal
agency created as the successor regulatory agency of the Federal
Housing Finance Board (FHFB), the Office of Federal Housing
Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), and the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development government-sponsored enterprise mission team,
absorbing the powers and regulatory authority of both entities,
with expanded legal and regulatory authority, including the ability
to place government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) into receivership
or conservatorship.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Todd S. Dion, Esq.
   Law Office of Todd S. Dion
   15 Cottage Avenue, Suite 202
   Quincy, MA 02169
   Tel: (401) 965-4131
   Fax: (401) 535-1231
   Email: toddsdion@msn.com


FEDEX GROUND: Court Denies Certification of Carrow Class of Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Michael CARROW, Michael FENNELL, and Nicholas
STEFANOU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant, Civil No. 16-3026 (RBK/JS) (D. N.J.), Judge Robert B.
Kugler of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

The Plaintiffs, a group of delivery drivers, allege that Defendant
FedEx misclassified them as independent contractors when they were
actually employees.  This misclassification allegedly resulted in
unlawful deductions from the Plaintiffs' wages under the New Jersey
Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL").  Defendant FedEx is a national company
that picks up and delivers packages.  It relies on truck and van
drivers in New Jersey like the Plaintiffs to provide these services
for its customers.  The case concerns the precise relationship
between the Defendant and these drivers.

According to Nathan Mollenhauer, a region Senior Manager in the
Defendants' Contractor Relations Department, the Defendant entered
into contracts known as Operating Agreements ("OA") with
individuals and incorporated companies until 2010.  Mollenhauer
states that before May 2010, the Defendant considered individuals
who entered OAs with he Defendant in their individual capacities to
be independent contractors.  After 2010, however, the Defendant
only contracted with incorporated businesses.  By June 2011, about
a year into the proposed Class Period, every New Jersey business
with which Defendant contracted for pickup and delivery services
was an incorporated business.  These incorporated businesses are
known as Contracted Service Providers ("CSPs"), whose "Officers"
ordinarily signed the OA on the CSP's behalf.  According to
Mollenhauer, under the OA, all of a CSPs' drivers are required to
be employees of those CSPs and not the Defendant, and the Defendant
did not classify any of the drivers as independent contractors.

The Plaintiffs appear to dispute this contention, stating that the
Defendant uniformly classified every Ground and Home Delivery
driver as an independent contractor.  They drove for the Defendant
under OAs.  The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant
"micro-manages" their activities through the terms of the OA in
such a way that the Plaintiffs are really the Defendant's
employees.  Under the OA, the Defendant has not paid any individual
for pickup and delivery services since transitioning to the
all-incorporated model, which completed in June 2011; since that
time, Defendant has made all payments to the incorporated CSP
entities.

Under the OA, however, the Defendant does not appear to have
authority to make deductions from the pay of any individual who
worked for a CSP.  Rather, according to Mollenhauer, each CSP
decides "when, how, and how much to pay their drivers, helpers, and
other employees.  When asked about the deductions reflected in
their paychecks or W2 forms, Plaintiffs Carrow, Fennell, and
Stefanaou all testified that the CSPs that wrote their checks did
not deduct amounts from their wages beyond normal employment taxes.
Nevertheless, the Plaintiffs declare that all contractors had the
same deductions taken from their pay.

Based on the OA's alleged micro-managing and other alleged
representations surrounding the Plaintiffs' contracting, the
Plaintiffs brought the suit, contending that the Defendant
misclassified them as independent contractors when they were
actually employees under the NJWPL.  In a previous Opinion, the
Court dismissed several claims but declined to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' NJWPL claim.  The Court explained that the NJWPL did
not require an entity to render payment directly to a person to
qualify as an employer, and that the Court needed to "analyze
beyond the contract formed between the Defendant and the corporate
entities formed by the Plaintiffs in order to determine whether the
Plaintiffs were employees," a determination that was not proper at
the motion to dismiss stage.

The Plaintiffs now seek to certify a class to pursue this NJWPL
claim for allegedly wrongful wage deductions.  They seek to certify
a class of all persons who: (1) entered into a FedEx Ground or Home
Delivery Operating Agreement, either personally or through a
corporate entity; (2) drove a vehicle on a full-time basis to
provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the
Operating Agreement in any week from April 13, 2010 to June 1,
2017; (3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of New
Jersey; and (4) who first signed an Operating Agreement after Oct.
15, 2007, or excluded themselves from the certified class in
Tofaute v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., No. 05-595 (N.D.
Ind.).

The Defendant disputes the Plaintiffs' ability to satisfy each
portion of Rule 23, including the predominance requirement.

Whether the issue in the matter is properly characterized as one of
ascertainability, numerosity, predominance, or a combination, Judge
Kugler finds that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden to
obtain class certification.  The Plaintiffs offer no analysis,
guidance, or methodology to determine whether putative class
members experienced the same allegedly improper wage deductions.
Their briefs offer only conclusory assertions—without the benefit
of record citation -- that the Plaintiffs and putative class
members were "subject to the same types of deductions.  He says the
Plaintiffs' declarations offer similarly threadbare assertions that
all contractors had the same deductions taken from their pay.
These conclusory assertions do not actually permit the Court to
engage in the rigorous analysis required to determine if facts or
evidence exist to discern whether all putative class members
experienced the same wage deductions in a way that meets the
various aspects of Rule 23.  While such evidence may exist and
ultimately suffice, the Plaintiffs' "take-our-word-for-it" approach
does not.

In addition, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' briefs fail to
suggest that common or objective records exist from which it can be
determined whether a CSP reacted to the Defendant's settlement
payment deductions by passing them down to the putative class
members in the form of wage deductions.  In fact, the Defendant
suggests that such records may not exist.  It contends that under
the OA, it has no power to make a deduction from the wages of any
individual who worked for a CSP.  Because it was each CSP,
ostensibly through its Officer, that determined when, how, and how
much to pay in wages to an individual who worked for a CSP, and
none of the corporate entities that employed the Plaintiffs, for
instance, took any deductions from wages beyond the employment
taxes, the Defendant contends that "the only way to know" if a
putative class member experienced the wage deductions that the
Plaintiffs seek to recover is "to ask each one."

The Plaintiffs do not clearly respond to this argument.  Although
the Court takes no position on whether this is actually "the only
way to know" who experienced the wage deductions at issue, the
Judge notes that it is the Plaintiffs' burden to properly support
their claim.  Yet they have not.  Accordingly, he denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 19, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/I4itQP from Leagle.com.

MICHAEL CARROW, MICHAEL FENNELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED & NICHOLAS STEFANOU, Plaintiffs,
represented by ANTHONY L. MARCHETTI, Jr. --
amarchetti@marchettilawfirm.com -- MARCHETTI LAW, P.C.

FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, represented by
JEFFREY IRA KOHN -- jkohn@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MEYERS, LLP.


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

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

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

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

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

The appellate case is captioned as Luke Waid, et al. v. Rick
Snyder, et al., Case No. 18-2426, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Julie H. Hurwitz, Esq.
          GOODMAN AND HURWITZ, PC
          1394 E. Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48207
          Telephone: (313) 567-6170
          E-mail: jhurwitz@goodmanhurwitz.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Gregory Stamatopoulos, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG PC
          719 Griswold, Suite 620
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 800-4168
          E-mail: gstamatopoulos@weitzlux.com

Defendant-Appellant ADAM ROSENTHAL is represented by:

          James William Burdick, Esq.
          HERTZ SCHRAM PC
          1760 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 300
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
          Telephone: (248) 335-5000

               - and -

          Lisa L. Dwyer, Esq.
          THE STEINGOLD & DWYER LAW GROUP
          400 Monroe Street, Suite 280
          Detroit, MI 48225
          Telephone: (313) 962-0000


FORD MOTOR: Bid to Stay Distribution of Notices in Van Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTIE VAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-8708 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Robert
M. Dow, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the Plaintiffs' motion to stay
the distribution of notices of the Ford/EEOC conciliation claims
awards to the putative class members.

The Plaintiffs are women who currently are employed or who were
employed at one of two Chicago-area Ford Motor facilities  -- the
Chicago Assembly Plant and the Chicago Stamping Plant.  The
Plaintiffs have filed a 123-count second amended complaint on
behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons, alleging
sexual harassment and hostile work environment, gender/sex
discrimination, race discrimination, retaliation, national origin
discrimination, failure to accommodate under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, battery, and assault.

On Aug. 1, 2017, the Defendant and the EEOC entered into a
conciliation agreement, which sets forth a detailed claims process
under which all women and African Americans who were employed at
the Plants at any time between Jan. 1, 2010 to Aug. 1, 2017 are
eligible to receive monetary compensation from a settlement fund of
at least $7.75 million, and up to $10.125 million.  Pursuant to
that process, the claimants may complete and return claim forms to
learn the amount of monetary relief, if any, available.  Once
claimants know the amount they would receive through the claims
process, they may decide whether they wish to settle their claims
pursuant to the claims process or pursue other avenues of relief.

The EEOC-negotiated claim form explains that by accepting a
monetary payment, if awarded under the process, the claimants will
waive their right to have theirclaims heard by a court or by a
jury, and will not thereafter be able to bring or recover through a
lawsuit relating to claims of sexual harassment against the
Defendant.  The claim form advises claimants that they will be
required to sign a release to receive an award.  The claim form
provides contact information for an individual at the EEOC who is
available to answer "any questions" that claimants may have
concerning the matter.

In October 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion seeking
to prevent the issuance of claims forms under the Conciliation
Agreement, arguing that the forms would sow confusion among members
of the proposed class in the case and requesting that the mailing
be stayed until the Court ruled on their (then-unfiled) class
certification motion.  Judge Coleman denied the Plaintiffs' motion,
concluding that the Plaintiffs failed to establish the necessary
requirements for seeking preliminary injunctive relief.  The claim
forms were then mailed.

Approximately 1,260 individuals submitted claim forms for
evaluation, including 736 women.  Under the terms of the
Conciliation Agreement, the settlement administrator must mail
award notices and releases to persons who were determined to be
entitled to monetary relief within 30 days of receiving the final
award list.

On Sept. 27, 2018, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification without prejudice.  Soon after, on Nov. 7,
2018, the settlement administrator received the final award list.
On Nov. 9, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class
certification, which will be fully briefed as of mid-February 2019
under the parties' agreed briefing schedule.  On the same day, the
Plaintiffs filed the instant motion, which seeks an order staying
the claims process and distribution of notices of claims awards
until the Court rules on the class certification and/or permitting
a court-approved notice to be sent to prospective claimants,
including putative class members, in advance of any payments under
the EEOC process.  As noted at oral argument, the Defendant
anticipates that notices will be mailed on Dec. 20, 2018.

The award notices will be accompanied by a release and, under the
Conciliation Agreement, awardees have 60 days from the date of the
notices to decide whether to accept their awards and, if so, to
return their completed releases.  The Conciliation Agreement
explains that the releases will have no impact on individuals'
ability to file a future charge or complaint of discrimination,
speak about their work environment, or participate in future EEOC
proceedings.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' motion to stay should be
denied because the Plaintiffs lack standing to interfere with the
claims process established through the EEOC conciliation process.

Judge Dow finds that in the absence of a certified class, the named
plaintiffs in a putative class action lack standing to seek
injunctive relief on behalf of anyone but themselves.  Perhaps
recognizing this problem, the Plaintiffs contend that even if they
lack standing to seek relief on behalf of putative absent class
members, they can seek relief on their own behalf, as they all have
participated in the EEOC conciliation process.  According to
Plaintiffs, a stay is necessary to make sure that those
participating in the EEOC conciliation process are being adequately
informed of their rights and options.  But insofar as the request
for relief is limited to the Plaintiffs themselves, the Judge finds
that each is represented by the counsel and thus has had every
opportunity to be informed of her rights and options.  In short,
relief to benefit the named Plaintiffs would be redundant and
ineffectual and relief to anyone else lies outside the scope of any
complaint that the Plaintiffs have standing to bring.

Although the Plaintiffs' request for a stay fails for lack
standing, that is not its only shortcoming.  The Judge holds that
even if the Plaintiffs had standing to seek injunctive relief on
behalf of the putative class members, they cite no statute or case
law even suggesting that the Court has authority to interfere with
the EEOC conciliation process.  There is a disconnect between the
relief sought in the pending motion to stay (intervention in the
EEOC's conciliation process) and the relief sought in the lawsuit
(class certification followed by a finding of liability on the
merits of the claims in the complaint).

To be sure, both named Plaintiffs and the absent putative class
members retain the option of pursuing their claims in the Court and
seeking any relief that the Court has authority to provide.
Similarly, successful claimants in the EEOC process who are unhappy
with the amount of their award are free to reject it and remain in
this action.  However, the Plaintiffs have not identified any
authority for the Court to intervene in the separate conciliation
process being conducted pursuant to the EEOC's congressional
mandate.

In the alternative to a stay, the Plaintiffs seek permission to
send court-approved, pre-certification notices to female
conciliation claimants and putative class members to inform them of
their options and rights.  The Judge is not persuaded that the
notice requested by the Plaintiffs would be appropriate in the
present circumstances.  By contrast, their briefing makes clear
that the notice they wish to transmit in this instance concerns a
step in the EEOC conciliation process, not a step in the action.
At present, the action concerns only the interests of the 31 named
Plaintiffs, only one of whom has submitted a claim in the EEOC
process.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff's alternative request for
notice to putative class members also is denied.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Dow denied the Plaintiffs' motion
to stay the distribution of notices.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 19, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/JKlUGu from Leagle.com.

Helen Allen, Charmella Leviege, Maria Price, Christie Van,
Jacqueline Barron, Theresa Bosan, Shranda Campbell, Keturah Carter,
Michelle Dahn, Tonya Exum, Jeannette Gardner, Arlene Goforth,
Christine Harris, Orissa Henry, Lawanda Jordan, Danielle Kudirka,
Terri Lewis-Bledsoe, Constance Madison, Cephani Miller, Miyoshi
Morris, Stephanie Szot, Shirley Thomas-Moore, Rose Thomas, Toni
Williams, Bernadette Clyburn, Angela Glenn, Ladwyna Hoover,
Latricia Shanklin, Antoinette Sullivan, Derricka Thomas & Nichea
Walls, Plaintiffs, represented by Keith L. Hunt --
khunt@huntassoclaw.com -- Keith L. Hunt & Associates, P.C., Antonio
Maurizio Romanucci -- aromanucci@rblaw.net -- Romanucci & Blandin,
LLC, Bhavani Keeran Raveendran, Romanucci & Blandin Llc, Bradley
Edwin Faber -- bfaber@huntassoclaw.com -- Hunt & Associates, P.C.,
Bryce Thomas Hensley, Romanucci & Blandin, Llc, Nicolette A. Ward,
Romanucci & Blandin, Llc & Stephan David Blandin -- sdb@rblaw.net
-- Romanucci & Blandin.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Kathleen M. Nemechek
-- knemechek@berkowitzoliver.com -- Timothy Scott Millman --
tmillman@berkowitzoliver.com -- at  Berkowitz Oliver Williams Shaw
& Eisenbrandt LLP; Eugene Scalia -- escalia@gibsondunn.com --
Thomas Michael Johnson -- tjohnson@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher LLP; Karen Kies DeGrand --
karen.degrand@dbmslaw.com -- Mark Howard Boyle --
mark.boyle@dbmslaw.com -- Zach T. Bowles -- zach.bowles@dbmslaw.com
-- at Donohue Brown Mathewson & Smyth LLC.

Brittney Carlisle, Respondent, represented by Keith L. Hunt, Keith
L. Hunt & Associates, P.C.

MS. DAWN FARON, Intervenor, represented by Christopher Cooper --
cooperlaw3234@gmail.com -- Law Office of Christopher Cooper, Inc..


FRENCH CONNECTION: Diaz Brings ADA Class Action in NY
-----------------------------------------------------
French Connection Group, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Edwin Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. French Connection Group, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-12384 (S.D. N.Y., December 31, 2018).

French Connection Group, Inc. offers apparel. The Company designs
and manufactures bags, jeans, t-shirts, shirts, shoes, skirts,
dresses, sweaters, jackets, leggings, and trousers. French
Connection Group operates globally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GIMME COFFEE: Diaz Files Suit under ADA in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Gimme Coffee, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Edwin
Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Gimme Coffee, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-12382
(S.D. N.Y., December 31, 2018).

Gimme Coffee Inc. roasts and distributes coffee. The company also
operates espresso bars. Gimme Coffee Inc. was founded in 2000 and
is headquartered in Ithaca, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GLOBAL CONNECTIONS: Borozny Files Suit under ADA in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
Global Connections, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Austin Borozny, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Global Connections, Inc., a
Florida limited liability company and East Shore International
enterprises, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Defendant,
Case No. 8:18-cv-03102-WFJ-JSS (M.D. Fla., December 28, 2018).

Global Connections, Inc. operates as a travel agency and a property
management company in the United States and internationally. It
specializes in the management and rental of vacation condominiums
and homes. The company was founded in 1997 and is based in Overland
Park, Kansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
   The Advocacy Group, LLC
   200 SE 6th St Ste 504
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3424
   Tel: (954) 282-1858
   Fax: (844) 786-3694
   Email: jkerr@advocacypa.com


GLOBAL CREDIT: Geisinsky Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Credit &
Collection Corp. The case is styled as Yisroel Geisinsky on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Global Credit & Collection Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07409
(E.D. N.Y., December 27, 2018).

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

Global Credit & Collection Inc. provides customer and account
receivable management services. The company also offers business
process outsourcing services that include Email transmissions,
telephone operator services, social network management, letters and
fax, call backs, voicemail message processing, internal escalation
and resolution management, exceptions, payment processing and order
and messenger, credit verifications, inventory management,
enabling, documents filing, database management, online chats,
satisfaction surveys, complaints and congratulations handling,
franchise and retail store support, and portability of
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
   Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
   735 Central Avenue
   Woodmere, NY 11598
   Tel: (516) 668-6945
   Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


HEALTH CAROUSEL: Schwendeman Seeks Overtime Pay & Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------
CONNIE SCHWENDEMAN, an individual on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HEALTH CAROUSEL, LLC; HEALTH
CAROUSEL TRAVEL NETWORK, LLC; and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-07641 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 19, 2018),
seeks to recover overtime wages under the California Labor Code and
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The case is a California-wide class action and nationwide FLSA
collective action against Defendants for (1) failing to include the
value of housing and meal, and incidental benefits in the regular
rate of pay when calculating overtime; (2) failing to pay all wages
owing at time of discharge; and (3) failing to furnish accurate
itemized wage statements.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

HIG CAPITAL: Court Narrows Claims in Klein Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Judge Andre Bouchard of the Court of Chancery of Delaware granted
in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
case, MELVYN KLEIN, Plaintiff, v. H.I.G. CAPITAL, L.L.C.; H.I.G.
SURGERY CENTERS, LLC; H.I.G. BAYSIDE DEBT & LBO FUND II; BCPE
SEMINOLE HOLDINGS LP; BAIN CAPITAL INVESTORS, LLC; BAIN CAPITAL
PRIVATE EQUITY, LP; MICHAEL DOYLE; MATTHEW LOZOW; ADAM FEINSTEIN;
TERESA DELUCA; and BRENT TURNER, Defendants, and SURGERY PARTNERS,
INC., Nominal Defendant, C.A. No. 2017-0862-AGB (Del. Ch.).

In May 2017, Surgery Partners, Inc. and its controlling stockholder
(HIG) simultaneously entered into three interrelated transactions.
First, Surgery Partners agreed to purchase National Surgical
Healthcare from a third party.  Second, HIG agreed to sell its 54%
common stock stake in Surgery Partners to an affiliate of Bain
Capital Private Equity, LP for a per-share price that reflected a
premium over the market price at the time.  Third, Surgery Partners
agreed to issue to Bain shares of a newly created class of Series A
preferred stock that voted with its common stock, paid a 10%
dividend, and contained other allegedly attractive terms, including
a conversion feature that already was "near" or "in" the money.

Critically, each of the three transactions was conditioned on the
others.  This meant that the sale of HIG's control position to Bain
would not happen unless Bain was satisfied with the terms of the
Series A preferred stock.  This created a dynamic whereby HIG
allegedly was incentivized to provide Bain favorable terms on the
Series A preferred stock in order to maximize the price at which
HIG could liquidate and exit its investment in Surgery Partners.

In December 2017, a few months after the three transactions closed,
a stockholder plaintiff (Melvyn Klein) filed the action challenging
the fairness of the Series A preferred stock issuance to Bain.  His
complaint focuses on the incentives HIG and Bain had to "scratch
each other's back" and criticizes the process surrounding the deal
negotiations, including that (i) Bain used the same counsel and
accounting advisor as Surgery Partners during the negotiations,
(ii) Surgery Partners did not utilize a special committee to
exclude HIG's representative on the board from negotiations
concerning the Series A preferred stock despite the conflict HIG
faced with respect to selling its control position to Bain, (iii)
no stockholder other than HIG had any say in approving any of the
transactions, and (iv) Surgery Partners' financial advisor did not
provide a fairness opinion concerning the consideration paid for
the Series A preferred stock and stood to benefit from the
transactions by providing financing for Surgery Partners'
acquisition of National Surgical Healthcare in addition to
receiving an advisory fee on the deal.

Klein's complaint asserts eight claims.  The Complaint contains
eight claims. Counts I-IV are pled as direct claims and Counts
V-VIII are pled as derivative claims.  The legal theories
underlying each of the four direct claims mirror each of the four
derivative claims.

Counts I and V assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty against
the Director Defendants for "entering into the Transactions without
ensuring that the Bain Capital Share Issuance was entirely fair.
Counts II and VI assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty against
Bain and HIG as an alleged control group at the time the
Transactions were agreed to" for entering into the Bain Capital
Share Issuance, a conflicted transaction that was not entirely
fair.  Counts III and VII assert, in the alternative to the breach
of fiduciary duty claims asserted against HIG in Counts II and VI,
respectively, claims for breach of fiduciary duty against HIG as
"the sole controlling stockholder" for causing the Company to enter
into the Bain Capital Share Issuance, a conflicted transaction that
was not entirely fair.  Counts IV and VIII assert, in the
alternative to the breach of fiduciary duty claims asserted against
Bain in Counts II and VI, respectively, that Bain aided and abetted
breaches of fiduciary duty by HIG and the Director Defendants.

On March 5, 2018, the Defendants filed their opening briefs in
support of motions they had filed several months earlier to dismiss
the Complaint under Court of Chancery Rules 12(b)(6) and 23.1.  On
April 17, 2018, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed DeLuca and
Feinstein from the action without prejudice.  On Sept. 17, 2018, a
few days after oral argument on the pending motions, the court
entered an order approving a stipulation the parties had filed to
dismiss Lozow and Turner from this action with prejudice only as to
the plaintiff in the action.48

Judge Bouchard concludes that six of the claims must be dismissed
but that the other two will survive.  First, he rejects the
Plaintiff's contention that his admittedly derivative claims fall
within the paradigm our Supreme Court recognized in Gentile v.
Rossette1 for asserting claims "dually" as both direct and
derivative claims, thus all of the direct claims must be dismissed.
Second, the Plaintiff has pled sufficient particularized facts to
raise a reasonable doubt about the independence and
disinterestedness of a majority of the directors on Surgery
Partners' board when the complaint was filed, thus the Plaintiff is
excused for failing to make a demand on the board.  Third, the
complaint states derivative claims for (i) breach of fiduciary duty
against HIG as Surgery Partners' controlling stockholder on the
theory that it received a unique benefit and was conflicted in
connection with the transactions, thereby presumptively triggering
entire fairness review of the Series A preferred stock transaction,
and (ii) aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty against
Bain.

based on the foregoing, Judge Bouchard granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss.  Counts I-IV, VI, and
the unjust enrichment aspect of Count VIII are dismissed with
prejudice, and Count V is dismissed in the manner set forth.  Count
VII and the aiding and abetting aspect of Count VIII both survive.
The Counsel are directed to confer and to submit an implementing
order within 10 business days.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 19, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/neZ7k9 from Leagle.com.

Kurt M. Heyman -- kheyman@hegh.law -- and Melissa N. Donimirski --
mdonimirski@hegh.law -- HEYMAN ENERIO GATTUSO & HIRZEL LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware; Jason M. Leviton -- jason@blockesq.com -- and
Joel A. Fleming -- joel@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP,
Boston, Massachusetts, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Stephen C. Norman -- snorman@potteranderson.com -- and Jaclyn C.
Levy -- jlevy@potteranderson.com -- POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware; David B. Hennes -- David.Hennes@ropesgray.com
-- Martin J. Crisp -- Martin.Crisp@ropesgray.com -- and Paul S.
Kellogg -- Paul.Kellogg@ropesgray.com -- ROPES & GRAY LLP, New
York, New York, Attorneys for Nominal Defendant Surgery Partners,
Inc. and Defendant Michael Doyle.

Elena C. Norman -- enorman@ycst.com -- and Benjamin M. Potts --
bpotts@ycst.com -- YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Defendants H.I.G. Bayside Debt
& LBO Fund II, H.I.G. Capital, LLC, and H.I.G. Surgery Centers,
LLC.

David E. Ross -- dross@ramllp.com -- and S. Michael Sirkin --
msirkin@ramllp.com -- ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP, Wilmington,
Delaware; Yosef J. Riemer -- yosef.riemer@kirkland.com -- Devora W.
Allon -- devora.allon@kirkland.com -- and Alexandra Strang --
allie.strang@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, New York, New
York, Attorneys for Defendants Bain Capital Investors, LLC, Bain
Capital Private Equity, LP, and BCPE Seminole Holdings LP.


HIGHLINE RESIDENTIAL: Olsen Brings ADA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Highline Residential, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Highline Residential, LLC doing
business as: Ensemble, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-12397 (S.D.
N.Y., December 31, 2018).

Highline Residential is a brokerage that was started in 2012 in New
York City by three principals. Highline Residential, through its
in-house teams, offers real estate services including all necessary
ancillary services in renovation, construction, property
management, online marketing, and much more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HITO RESTAURANT: Zhang Suit Asserts FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hito Restaurant, Inc.
The case is styled as Yu Zhang, on his own behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hito Restaurant, Inc. doing
business as: Masago Sushi, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-12331 (S.D.
N.Y., December 29, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Hito Restaurant, Inc. is a sushi restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.



HONEST & QUALITY: Underpays Construction Workers, Li & Kang Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
XIAO YUAN LI, and YEON SOO KANG, individually and on behalf of all
other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HONEST &
QUALITY, CORP., and KINAM HAN, the Defendants, Case No. 719448/2018
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 19, 2018), seeks to recover wages and benefits
which Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class were
statutorily and contractually entitled to receive for work they
performed on various public works contracted with such government
entities such as New York City Housing Authority.

According to the complaint, Honest & Quality, Corp. was
subcontracted by Arcadia Electronical Co. Inc. to perform various
construction work such as apartment parking lot renovation, for the
NYCHA at the sites of the Public Work Projects in New York. The
Plaintiffs were paid in an amount that was below the prevailing
rate of wages in violation of New York Labor Law.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

INTERNATIONAL SPEEDWAY: Faces Firemen S Retirement Suit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against International
Speedway Corporation in Florida Volusia County
Circuit Court on December 14, 2018. The case is styled as Firemen S
Retirement System of St Louis on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. James C France, Lesa France
Kennedy, Brian Z France, Gregory S Motto, Larry Aiello Jr, J Hyatt
Brown, William P Graves, Christy F Harris, Sonia Maria Green,
Morteza Hosseini Kargar, Larry Woodard, International Speedway
Corporation and Nascar Holdings Inc, Defendants, Case No.
2018-32105-CICI.

The docket states the case type as Shareholder derivation.

International Speedway Corporation is a corporation whose primary
business is the ownership and management of NASCAR and IndyCar race
tracks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Philip John Snyderburn, Esq.
   2250 LUCIEN WAY STE 140
   MAITLAND, FL
   Tel: 32751-7014


JUST AN OVEN: Violates Disabilities Act, Fischler Suit Asserts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Just An Oven Corp. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Brian
Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Just An Oven Corp. doing business as: Frank
Restaurant, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-12386 (S.D. N.Y., December
31, 2018).

Just An Oven Corp is in the American Restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KELAI CORP: Violates FLSA, Feng Suit Asserts
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kelai Corp. The case
is styled as Shanggang Feng, on his own behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kelai Corp. doing business
as: Jef Chinese, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-12329 (S.D. N.Y.,
December 29, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Kelai Corp. is a simple Chinese restaurant & takeout, selling a
long menu of standard dishes & Shanghai fare.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


LABORERS' WELFARE: Faces Jimenez Labor Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Laborers' Welfare Fund of the Health and Welfare Department of the
Construction and General Laborers' District Council of Chicago and
Vicinity. The case is captioned as ZUYIN JIMENEZ, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LABORERS'
WELFARE FUND OF THE HEALTH AND WEFARE DEPARTMENT OF THE
CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CHICAGO AND
VICINITY; CHICAGO LABORERS' WELFARE PLAN; LOCAL 225 OF THE
LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA; CHICAGO LABORERS'
DISTRICT COUNCIL RETIREE HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, ALSO KNOWN AS:
CHICAGO LABORERS' WELFARE FUND; and LOCAL 225 OF THE LABORERS'
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-07886 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 29, 2018). The case is assigned to
Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr.

Construction and General Laborers' District Council of Chicago and
Vicinity serves participants covered by collective bargaining
agreements between the Union and contributing employers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Johanna J. Raimond, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOHANNA J. RAIMOND LTD.
          431 S. Dearborn St., #1002
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (312) 235-6959
          E-mail: jraimond@raimondlaw.com


LATIN GROUP: Romero Seeks Overtime Pay for Kitchen Staff
--------------------------------------------------------
JUAN H. ROMERO, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b), the Plaintiff, vs. LATIN GROUP, INC. d/b/a LATIN CAFE, and
ELISIA SUAREZ MORE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-25319-CMA
(S.D. Fla., Dec. 19, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wage under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants as
a cook from on or about January 2001 through on or about June 22,
2018. As a cook, Plaintiff's job duties required of him by
Defendants, along with the other kitchen staff, included, but were
not limited to, preparing and cooking different menu items.  The
the Defendants have employed several other similarly situated
employees like Plaintiff (i.e. cook, prep cooks, dishwashers, etc.)
who have not been paid overtime and/or minimum wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours weekly, from the filing of this
complaint back three years, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney For Plaintiff:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71 st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167

LEVAIN BAKERY: Files Diaz Class Action Asserting ADA Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levain Bakery, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Edwin
Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Levain Bakery, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-12392
(S.D. N.Y., December 31, 2018).

Levain Bakery is a retail bakery that opened in 1995 and is located
at 167 West 74th Street, on the Upper West Side neighborhood of
Manhattan, New York City. In June 2000, a second retail location
was opened for seasonal business at 354 Montauk Highway, Wainscott,
in the Hamptons area of eastern Long Island. A third store is
located in the Harlem neighborhood of Manhattan, New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



LOST DOG: Settlement in Diaz Suit Over Unpaid OT Has Prelim Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VICTOR DIAZ, on his own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOST DOG PIZZA, LLC,
DANIEL WARREN LYNCH, and JEFF SMOKEVITCH, Defendant, Civil Action
No. 17-cv-2228-WJM-NYW (D. Colo.), Judge William J. Martinez of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted the
parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and
Collective Action Settlement.

Diaz brings the lawsuit against the Defendants alleging non-payment
of overtime to workers at Lost Dog Pizza, doing business as Brown
Dog Pizza, a restaurant in Telluride, Colorado, in violation of the
Colorado Minimum Wage Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").  The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, and the Defendants jointly ask the Court to preliminarily
approve their proposed settlement of class and FLSA claims, to
approve a proposed Rule 23 class notice, and set a final fairness
hearing and related deadlines.

Judge Martinez finds that as drafted and presented to the Court,
the proposed settlement agreement appears to be the product of
serious negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies, does not grant
improper preferential treatment to the class representatives, and
generally falls within the range of possible judicial approval.  It
also contains a cy pres provision that would distribute unclaimed
funds to a third party were the Court to finally approve the
proposed settlement agreement.  

The parties' joint proposal includes a cy pres provision that
provides that any settlement checks not negotiated within 90 days
of issuance will be deemed "unclaimed funds" and forwarded by the
class administrator to the Tri County Health Network, a Section
501(c)(3) organization based in Southwestern Colorado.  In
supplemental briefing requested by the Court, the Plaintiff
explains that the Tri-County Health Network provides workers'
rights services to the immigrant community in Telluride, Colorado
(where the pizzeria is located).  Specifically, Tri-County Health
Network conducts workers' rights workshops for immigrant laborers
who work in the service industry in the area and assist individual
immigrant workers with work-related disputes.  The organization
recently received a grant from the Colorado Bar Association to
provide translation and interpretation services to aid local
lawyers and Spanish-speaking immigrant workers.

The Judge finds that Tri-County Health Network provides resources
and support for individuals in the same community as those who seek
to vindicate their claims through this class action.  He thus
preliminarily finds that the cy pres award is fair, reasonable, and
adequate.  
For these reasons, he granted the Joint Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement and
preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement.  He also
preliminarily approved the form and contents of notice to be given
to the Class.  A redline version and a clean version of the
Court-approved notice are attached to the Order.

Judge Martinez directed the Settlement Administrator to complete
distribution of the Court-approved notice, in both English and
Spanish, to all the Class Members by Dec. 31, 2018.  The parties
will effect notice to Class Members as follows: (i) no later than
Dec. 27, 2018, the Plaintiff will file a notice docketing a Spanish
language translation of the Court-approved notice and opt-out form;
and (ii) no later than Dec. 31, 2018, the Plaintiff will mail the
final notice and opt-out form, incorporating the Court's
modifications, in both English and Spanish to all Class Members via
first-class U.S. Mail. Further, Plaintiff will FILE a Notice of
Completion of Mailing notifying the Court when the mailing has been
completed.  The mailing of the class notice form will commence a
90-day notice period and any objections to the Settlement Agreement
must be post-marked or received by the Settlement Administrator no
later than March 31, 2019.

The Class Members who wish to be excluded must provide written
notice of their desire to be excluded to the Settlement
Administrator by March 31, 2019.  Any Class Member wishing to
object to the Court's approval of the Settlement Agreement will
file their objection in writing with the Court and the parties by
March 31, 2019.  The counsel for the parties will promptly file any
such objection, and an English translation if applicable, with the
Court.  The counsel for the parties may file a response to any
objections filed as part of or contemporaneous with the parties'
application for final settlement approval.  The Plaintiffs' counsel
may communicate with the Class Members regarding their objections
and may advise the Court of any Class Members who have communicated
that they wish to withdraw their objections.  Objections may be
withdrawn only with the Court's approval.

The Parties' motion seeking final approval of the settlement,
including the counsel's final request for attorneys' fees and
costs, and any incorporated responses to objections received, will
by filed with the Court and served on any timely objectors no later
than April 15, 2019, 30 days before the fairness hearing.  Any
written responses to the motion will be filed with the Court no
later than April 30, 2019, 15 days before fairness hearing.  These
deadlines for Court filings do not alter the obligation to comply
with the 90-day period for submitting any written objections, as
set out.

A fairness hearing is scheduled for May 15, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 19, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Xepdsn from Leagle.com.

Victor Diaz, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brandt Powers
Milstein -- brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com -- Milstein Law Office.

Lost Dog Pizza, LLC, Daniel Warren Lynch & Jeff Smokevitch,
Defendants, represented by Juli Elizabeth Lapin -- juli@rwolaw.com
-- Robinson Waters & O'Dorisio, P.C..


LUGG INC: Aggrieved Employee Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LUGG, Inc. a Delaware
corporation. The case is styled as Kenny Aubrey, in a
representative capacity, and on behalf of all similarly situated
current and former and/or aggrieved employees of defendants in the
state of California, Plaintiff v. LUGG, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
CGC18572439 filed on December 31, 2018 in California Superior
Court.

Lugg, Inc. provides store-to-home delivery services of purchased
goods to consumers . The company also offers on demand relocation
services for homes, donations, and storages; junk removal; and pick
up and delivery services for used goods. The company was founded in
2014 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.



LYFT INC: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in Wickberg Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIC WICKBERG, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. LYFT, INC., Civil Action No. 18-12094-RGS
(D. Mass.), Judge Richard D. Stearns of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts granted Lyft's motion to compel
arbitration.

Wickberg is the Plaintiff in the putative class action brought
against Lyft.  The Complaint alleges that Lyft misclassified him
and the other potential class members as independent contractors,
rather than employees, and avoided paying them the minimum wage and
overtime.  

Lyft is a ridesharing platform that uses a smartphone application
to connect riders with available drivers for a fee.  Wickberg is a
Massachusetts resident who has driven for Lyft since September of
2017.  When he enrolled online as a driver with Lyft on Jan. 28,
2017, Wickberg clicked a checkbox that stated that he agrees to
Lyft's Sept. 30, 2016 terms of services.  The words "Lyft's terms
of services" were highlighted in pink and hyperlinked to the
written terms.

Among other provisions, the terms provided in capital letters that
drivers must submit claims against Lyft to binding and final
arbitration on an individual bais, not as a plaintiff or class
member in any class, group or representative action or proceeding.
On May 3, 2018, Wickberg reaffirmed acceptance of a nearly
identical arbitration provision posted by Lyft on Feb. 6, 2018.
However, on May 20, 2018, Wickberg wrote to Lyft's General Counsel
stating that he would like to opt out of arbitration with respect
to claims that are not part of a pending settlement action.

Lyft now moves to stay the action and compel arbitration or, in the
alternative, to strike the class allegations.

Wickberg argues that the agreement to arbitrate is invalid because
the Sept. 30, 2016 terms were not reasonably communicated.  He
further argues that there is no valid agreement to arbitrate
because he did not unambiguously manifest assent" to the Sept. 30,
2016 terms.  Wickberg also maintains that he opted out of the
arbitration agreement because of his May 20, 2018 letter to Lyft's
General Counsel, which stated that he "would like to opt out of
arbitration with respect to claims that are not part of a pending
settlement action.

Judge Stearns determined that the layout and design of Uber's
registration screen rendered the hyperlinked "Terms of Service &
Privacy Policy" insufficiently conspicuous.  By contrast, Lyft's
display of the arbitration agreement conforms to what the First
Circuit held would be a conspicuous and enforceable agreement.  He
also finds that Wickberg entered into a valid arbitration agreement
with Lyft by affirmatively assenting to reasonably communicated
terms.  It is, therefore, reasonable to enforce" the arbitration
agreement.  Finally, he finds that Wickberg did not effectively opt
out of the Sept. 30, 2016 terms because he did not so notify Lyft
in writing within the required 30 days of his acceptance of that
agreement.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Sterns granted Lyft's motion to
compel arbitration.  The Clerk will stay the case pending
arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 19, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/3HPaCI from Leagle.com.

Eric Wickberg, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon E. Liss-Riordan --
sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.

Lyft, Inc., Defendant, represented by James D. Smeallie --
jd.smeallie@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight, R. James Slaughter --
rslaughter@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, pro hac vice,
Andrew E. Silvia -- Andrew.Silvia@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight,
David J. Santeusanio -- david.santeusanio@hklaw.com -- Holland &
Knight, LLP & Erin E. Meyer -- emeyer@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest
& Peters LLP.


MARRIOTT INT'L: Fails to Secure Customers' Private Info, Aigen Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT AIGEN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and STARWOOD HOTELS &
RESORTS WORLDWIDE, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-25285-KMW (S.D. Fla.,
December 17, 2018), alleges that Marriott failed to secure and
safeguard its customers' credit and debit card numbers and other
payment card data and other personally identifiable information,
which Marriott collected at the time the Plaintiff and Class
members made hotel reservations at its properties.

On November 30, 2018, Marriott made a public announcement that it
had "determined that there was unauthorized access to" its guest
reservation and database system on or before September 10, 2018,
and that there may have been unauthorized access as early as 2014
(the "Data Breach").  This unauthorized access was designed to
retrieve PCD and PII from Marriott guests, according to the
complaint.

Marriott International, Inc. is headquartered in Bethesda,
Maryland, and is a multinational, diversified hospitality company
that manages and franchises a broad portfolio of hotels and related
lodging facilities.  Marriott is one of the largest hotel chains in
the world with more than 6,700 properties in 129 countries and
territories worldwide, accommodating over 1.1 million rooms.
Marriott operates 30 hotel brands, including Marriot, Starwood, and
The Ritz-Carlton.

Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, LLC, is headquartered in
Stamford, Connecticut, and is a fully owned subsidiary of Marriott.
Starwood branded properties include W Hotels, St. Regis, Sheraton
Hotels & Resorts, Westin Hotels & Resorts, Element Hotels, Aloft
Hotels, The Luxury Collection, Tribute Portfolio, Le Meridien
Hotels & Resorts, Four Points by Sheraton, and Design Hotels, as
well as Starwood branded timeshares.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roy K. Altman, Esq.
          PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
          One SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 2300
          Miami, FL 33301
          Telephone: (305) 358-2800
          Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
          E-mail: raltman@podhurst.com


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Taylor Sues over Starwood Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
BONNIE TAYLOR, the Plaintiff, vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.
10400 Fernwood Road Bethesda, MD 20817, and STARWOOD HOTELS &
RESORTS WORLDWIDE, LLC One Star Point Stamford, CT 06902, the
Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-03913-GJH (D. Md., Dec. 19, 2018),
seeks to recover damages as a result of customer data breach.

On November 30, 2018, Marriott International -- the world's largest
lodging company -- announced the second largest data breach in
history.  An unauthorized party had copied data for 500 million
guests, including guests' names, birthdates, passport numbers,
mailing addresses, phone numbers, encrypted payment card numbers
and expiration dates ("Payment Data"), and other personal
information from Starwood's guest database.  Worse still, hackers
appear to have had access to the Starwood Database for at least
four years, going back to 2014, and the hackers may have gained
access to the keys to decrypt Payment Data during that time.

That the cybercriminals have both copied and exported guests'
Personal Information over the past four years is a near certainty.
Once hackers gain access to a poorly secured database, such as the
Starwood Database, they typically leverage the target’s own
server resources to collect, encrypt, and export the data. While
Marriott announced the detection of one large encrypted file, the
fact that hackers have had unfettered access to the Starwood
Database for four years suggests that there will be further
revelations about the scope of the Starwood Breach.

Marriott International acquired Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide
in September 2016 in a $13.6 billion transaction, creating the
world's largest lodging company. But even before Marriott
International completed its acquisition of Starwood, it had cause
to be aware that Starwood's systems were vulnerable to attack. In
November 2015 -- just two weeks after the Marriott-Starwood merger
was announced -- Starwood publicly disclosed that its point of sale
("POS") infrastructure had been infected with malware for eight
months. It is unknown when Marriott International first learned of
the POS infection or the Starwood Breach.

Despite this red flag, Marriott International failed to
sufficiently investigate Starwood's cybersecurity, leaving its
guests exposed to cybercriminals for three more years. Marriott
International did not detect the Starwood Breach until September
10, 2018.  The scope of the Starwood Breach is staggering in and of
itself, but Marriott's  failure to implement reasonable
cybersecurity safeguards to protect guests’ Personal Information
is particularly egregious. Marriott failed to detect and report
publicly hackers’ presence in Starwood's systems for four years,
even though it had reported previous cybersecurity incidents during
the same period. Marriott International’s failure to adequately
investigate Starwood's cybersecurity before the merger closed, and
ongoing failure to take steps to protect its guests' personal
information in the years following the merger, has permanently and
irrevocably endangered the credit, identity, and safety of 500
million Starwood guests.

According to the complaint, the Starwood Breach exposed an
unprecedented range of Personal Information which may be exploited
by cybercriminals to devastating effect. For example, passport
numbers, when combined with some other forms of Personal
Information exposed by Marriott, can be used to access individual
travel histories through the United States Department of Homeland
Security website, or leveraged to acquire real identity documents
using stolen information, bypassing anti-counterfeiting measures.
Had Marriott's guests known that its cybersecurity was inadequate
and that their information was exposed, many guests, including
Plaintiff Taylor, would have chosen other lodgings, and would have
changed the type of information provided to Marriott.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Susan R. Podolsky, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN R. PODOLSKY
          1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (571) 366-1702
          Facsimile: (703) 647-6009
          E-mail: spodolsky@podolskylaw.com

               - and -

          Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
          BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
          555 12th Street, Suite 1600
          Oakland, CA 94607
          E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com
          Telephone: (415) 445-4003
          Facsimile: (415) 445-4004

MASONITE CORP: Dellatore Sues Over Monopoly of Molded Doors
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allison Dellatore and Craig Weitz, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Masonite Corporation
and Jeld-Wen, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00861, (E.D. Va.,
December 13, 2018), alleges violations of federal antitrust laws
arising from the monopoly over the US supply of doorskins and
interior molded doors brought about by the acquisition of a number
of smaller residential interior door manufacturers by Jeld-Wen and
Masonite, thus eliminating the check on competition.

Defendants are the only suppliers of interior molded doorskins to
third-party interior molded door manufacturers in North America and
are also the only two vertically-integrated interior molded door
manufacturers in the United States.

Plaintiffs purchased residential interior molded doors from the
defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
      Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
      Casey S. Nash, Esq.
      KELLY & CRANDALL, PLC
      3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
      Fairfax, VA 22030
      Phone: (703) 424-7570
      Fax: (703) 591-0167
      Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
             aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com
             casey@kellyandcrandall.com

             - and -

      Hollis Salzman, Esq.
      Kellie Lerner, Esq.
      William V. Reiss, Esq.
      Nahid A. Shaikh, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 980-7400
      Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
      Email: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com
             KLerner@RobinsKaplan.com
             WReiss@RobinsKaplan.com
             NShaikh@RobinsKaplan.com

             - and -

      K. Craig Wildfang, Esq.
      Geoffrey H. Kozen, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 349-8500
      Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
      Email: KCWildfang@RobinsKaplan.com
             GKozen@RobinsKaplan.com

             - and -

      Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
      Tai S. Milder, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      2440 West El Camino Real, Suite 100
      Mountain View, CA 94040
      Telephone: (650) 784-4040
      Facsimile: (650) 784-4041
      Email: ASheanin@RobinsKaplan.com
             TMilder@RobinsKaplan.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Weavers Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
RAY F. WEAVER and JOYCE E. WEAVER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02110 (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

NCR CORP: Galasso Labor Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Joel Galasso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NCR Corporation and Does 1 to 100,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-07515, (N.D. Cal., December
13, 2018), Defendants, seeks recovery of penalties and wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, California Labor Code, Business and
Professions Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission
orders.

NCR Corporation -- https://www.ncr.com/ -- is a Georgia-based
company that makes self-service kiosks, point-of-sale terminals,
automated teller machines, check processing systems, barcode
scanners and business consumables. Galasso was employed as a
Project Leader in NCR's location in Alameda, providing services to
customers and assisting customers by providing "go live" support,
post-installation support and answer telephone calls. He would
regularly work in excess of 48 hours per work week without being
paid overtime premium, says the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      Kelsey L. Kuberka, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Phone: (323) 306-4234
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
             abacon@ toddflaw.com
             kkuberka@toddflaw.com


NORDSTROM INC: Faces Amy Suit in Central District of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nordstrom, Inc. The
case is captioned as DUNCAN AMY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORDSTROM, INC.; and DOES 1
THROUGH 10, Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-02122-DOC-DFM (C.D. Cal.,
Nov. 29, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge David O. Carter and
referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick.

Nordstrom, Inc., a fashion retailer, provides apparel, shoes,
cosmetics, and accessories for women, men, young adults, and
children in the United States and Canada. Nordstrom, Inc. was
founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael W. Olson, Esq.
          Wesley K Polischuk, Esq.
          Daniel S Robinson, Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Dr.
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288
          Facsimile: (949) 720-1292


OCEAN FINANCIAL: Lussoro Files Suit for Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ocean Financial
Federal Credit Union. The case is styled as Audrey Lussoro, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Ocean Financial Federal Credit Union, Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-07400 (E.D. N.Y., December 27, 2018).

The lawsuit was filed for Breach of Contract.

Ocean Financial Credit Union offers savings & checking, loans,
cards, and home banking to New York's Catholic community and
members.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
   Greg Coleman Law PC
   800 S Gay Street, Suite 1100
   Knoxville, TN 37929
   Tel: (865) 247-0080
   Fax: (865) 522-0049
   Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com

      - and -

   Jason T. Brown, Esq.
   Brown, LLC
   111 Town Square Place, Ste. 400
   Jersey City, NJ 07310
   Tel: (877) 561-0000
   Fax: (855) 582-5297
   Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com

      - and -

   Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
   Kaliel PLLC
   1875 Connecticut Avenue
   10th Flr.
   Washington, DC 20009
   Tel: (202) 350-4783
   Fax: (202) 871-8180
   Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com

      - and -

   Patrick Sidney Almonrode, Esq.
   Brown, LLC
   111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
   Jersey City, NJ 07310
   Tel: (877) 561-0000
   Fax: (855) 582-5297
   Email: patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com



OHR PHARMA: Awaits Court Decision on Bid to Strike N.Y. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
OHR Pharmaceutical, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 3, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, that a decision on the
motion to strike the securities class action lawsuit in the
Southern District of New York is pending.

On January 5, 2018, the Company reported topline data from the MAKO
study which did not meet its primary efficacy endpoint. The MAKO
study evaluated the efficacy and safety of topically administered
squalamine in combination with monthly Lucentis(R) injections for
the treatment of wet-AMD.

As a result of the company's announcement of negative results from
the MAKO Study, its stock price declined substantially. On February
14, 2018, a securities class action litigation was brought against
the Company, Dr. Jason Slakter, Sam Backenroth, and Irach
Tarapowela in federal district court in the Southern District of
New York.

An amended securities class action complaint was filed on August 7,
2018, by lead plaintiffs George Lehman and Insured Benefit Plans,
Inc.

The company dispute these claims and intend to defend the matter
vigorously.

On September 17, 2018, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On November 13, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to
strike exhibits appended to the motion to dismiss.

A decision on the motion to strike is pending, and the motion to
dismiss will then be fully briefed based on a schedule to be
determined by the court.

OHR Pharmaceutical said, "This litigation could result in
substantial costs and a diversion of management's resources and
attention, which could harm our business and the value of our
common stock."

OHR Pharmaceutical, Inc., a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company,
focuses on the development of novel therapies for the treatment of
ophthalmic diseases. OHR Pharmaceutical, Inc. is headquartered in
New York, New York.


ON TRAC INC: Court Endorses Approval of Price FLSA Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL TIMOTHY PRICE, ET AL., v. ON TRAC INC. OF
TENNESSEE, Civil Action No. 6:17-cv-00519 (W.D. La.), Magistrate
Judge Patrick J. Hanna of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division, recommended that the
joint motion for Court approval of the parties' settlement
agreement be granted.

The instant action presents a bona fide dispute over Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") provisions, including whether the Plaintiffs
can prove how many hours they actually worked, whether they were
properly paid for overtime hours worked, whether the Defendant's
alleged violations were made in good faith and on reasonable
grounds, and whether the Defendant's alleged FLSA violations were
willful.  The case was litigated for a year and a half with
discovery, motion practice, meetings between the counsel to review
documents and discuss the merits of the claims, and a successful
settlement conference with the Court, which was held on Oct. 22,
2018.  The issues raised by the parties are sufficient for the
Court to find that genuine uncertainty as to the outcome of the
litigation existed for each side, and a bona fide dispute existed
in the case.

The parties reached a settlement in the case, which was
conditionally certified as a collective action under the FLSA.  As
a result, they filed a joint motion for court approval of their
settlement agreement.  The parties also provided the Court with a
copy of their settlement agreement for in camera review.  

The parties have agreed to individual settlement amounts for each
of the Plaintiffs and an amount to compensate their counsel for his
efforts on behalf of the Plaintiffs.  All parties have agreed that
the Plaintiffs' counsel is entitled to an amount of attorneys'
fees, expenses, and costs that is less than 33% of the total amount
to be paid in settlement of the claims.

Having reviewed the settlement agreement carefully, Magistrate
Judge Hanna finds that no evidence of fraud or collusion behind the
settlement and that the proposed award in the case is fair and
reasonable.

For these reasons, he recommended that the proposed settlement be
approved, and accordingly, that the Court grants the joint motion
for court approval of the settlement on the terms and conditions
set forth in the parties' settlement agreement.  He further
recommended that the claims asserted by the Plaintiffs in the
lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice, and the case be closed,
subject to the Court retaining jurisdiction for ninety days to
enforce the terms of the parties' settlement agreement, if
necessary.

Because the parties have agreed on the payment of the settlement
funds and attorneys' fees and there have been no objections to the
settlement filed in the record, the Magistrate shortened the time
period for objections.  The parties have five days to serve and
file written objections to the proposed factual findings and/or the
proposed legal conclusions reflected in this Report and
Recommendation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 19, 2018 Report &
recommendation is available at https://is.gd/BaHqPT from
Leagle.com.

Daniel Timothy Price, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, David Anthony Cox, Troy Ephraim Michele', Sr & Phillip
Dale Barker, Plaintiffs, represented by Kenneth D. St. Pe, Law
Office of Kenneth D St Pe.

On Trac Inc of Tennessee, Defendant, represented by Robert J.
David, Jr. -- rjd@juneaudavid.com -- Juneau David & Sarah Elaine
Stephens -- ses@juneaudavid.com -- Juneau David.


ORCHIDS PAPER: Court Enters Order of Dismissal in Pollock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Orchids Paper Products Company said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on January 4, 2018,
that a court overseeing the putative class action suit by Paul R.
Pollock has entered an order dismissing the Action as moot.

On August 31, 2017, Paul R. Pollock, a stockholder of the Company,
filed a putative class action (the "Action") in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court") against Orchids
Paper Products Company (the "Company") and its Board of Directors
(the "Board") alleging that provisions in the Company's Amended and
Restated Certificate of Incorporation, as amended (the "Charter")
and Amended and Restated Bylaws, as amended (the "Bylaws") allowing
for the removal of directors "only for cause" violated Section
141(k) of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The Action sought
to remove such "for cause" provisions, which were claimed to
violate Delaware law.

On December 14, 2017, the Board approved a revision to the Bylaws
solely to delete the provision specifying that directors are
removable only for cause. On April 30, 2018, the Company held its
Annual Meeting, at which time the stockholders of the Company
approved an amendment to the Charter to provide that directors are
removable by the stockholders of the Company with or without cause
upon the affirmative vote of a majority of the outstanding shares
of Common Stock. These amendments to the Bylaw and Charter
effectively mooted the Action.

On May 21, 2018, the Court entered an order dismissing the Action
as moot, and retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of ruling
on the plaintiff's anticipated application for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

The parties subsequently agreed to a payment of a mootness fee by
the Company to plaintiff's counsel of $50,000 in full satisfaction
of their claim for attorneys' fees and expenses. The Court has not
been asked to review or approve, and will pass no judgment on, this
payment.

Orchids Paper Products Company manufactures and sells tissue
products for at-home and away from home markets in the United
States. Its products include paper towels, bathroom tissues, and
paper napkins. Orchids Paper Products Company was founded in 1976
and is based in Pryor, Oklahoma.


PANALPINA INC: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Portuondo Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
ALAIN PORTUONDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PANALPINA, INC. d/b/a PANALPINA (FLORIDA),
INC.; FRANK HERCKSEN; ROBERT J. ERNEST; ALEXANDER HOTZ; and THAYNE
WORSLEY, Defendants, Case No. 81415138 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty.,
Nov. 29, 2018) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay
the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as quality consultant
analyst.

Panalpina, Inc. provides intercontinental air and ocean freight
forwarding and logistics services and supply chain management
solutions. The company was founded in 1923 and is based in
Morristown, New Jersey. Panalpina, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
Panalpina World Transport Holding Ltd. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PENNYMAC FINANCIAL: Denial of Arbitration Bids in Smigelski Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD SMIGELSKI, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.
PENNYMAC FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. et al., Defendants and
Appellants, Case No. C081958 (Cal. App.), Judge Jonathan K. Renner
of the Court of Appeals of California for the Third District,
Sacramento, affirmed the trial court's orders denying successive
petitions to compel arbitration of a dispute with a former
employee, Plaintiff and respondent Smigelski.

On his first day of work, Smigelski signed a document entitled,
"Employee Agreement to Arbitrate."  The employee agreement
acknowledges receipt of another document entitled, Mutual
Arbitration Policy ("MAP").  The MAP, which Smigelski denies having
received, similarly requires mandatory binding arbitration of
disputes, for all employees, regardless of length of service.  The
MAP covers all disputes relating to or arising out of an employee's
employment with PennyMac, including wage or overtime claims or
other claims under the Labor Code.  PennyMac adopted the MAP in
2008.

On Sept. 11, 2015, Smigelski provided notice to the Labor Workforce
and Development Agency ("LWDA") and PennyMac of his intent to
pursue a cause of action for civil penalties under PAGA.  On Nov.
17, 2015, Smigelski filed a complaint asserting a single cause of
action under PAGA.  The complaint, which was styled as a
Representative Action, alleged that PennyMac miscalculated overtime
for hourly employees and failed to provide accurate, itemized wage
statements.  The complaint did not assert any individual claims and
only sought to recover civil penalties under PAGA.

PennyMac filed a petition to compel arbitration of the complaint
pursuant to the employee agreement and MAP (together, the
arbitration agreement) in February 2016.  he trial court denied
PennyMac's petition in a minute order dated March 3, 2016, which
was incorporated into a formal order entered on March 11, 2016.

On March 10, 2016, Smigelski filed a first amended complaint adding
several non-PAGA causes of action to the original complaint.  The
first amended complaint, which is the operative pleading, alleges
individual and putative class claims for unpaid overtime under
sections 510 and 1194, penalties for failure to provide accurate
wage statements under section 226, waiting time penalties under
section 203, and violations of the Business and Professions Code
section 17200, et seq.  The first amended complaint seeks unpaid
wages, statutory penalties, restitution, and damages according to
proof, in addition to civil penalties under PAGA.

PennyMac responded to the first amended complaint with a motion for
reconsideration and a second petition to compel arbitration.  The
motion sought reconsideration of the order denying the first
petition to compel arbitration on the ground that the filing of the
first amended complaint constituted a "new and different" fact or
circumstance within the meaning of subdivision (a) of section 1008
of the Code of Civil Procedure.  The petition sought to compel
arbitration on the now familiar ground that the arbitration
agreement requires arbitration of all claims, including PAGA
claims, and any unenforceable PAGA waiver could be severed.  The
second petition to compel arbitration also argued, again, that the
arbitration agreement delegates questions of arbitrability to the
arbitrator.

Smigelski opposed the motion and petition, arguing that the filing
of the first amended complaint was not a new and different fact or
circumstance within the meaning of the reconsideration statute, and
did not change the fact that the PAGA waivers were impermissible
and the arbitration agreement unenforceable.  Smigelski
additionally argued that the second petition to compel arbitration
was merely a repeat of the first, and should be rejected for the
reasons stated in the trial court's order denying that petition.

The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration by written
order dated April 22, 2016.  It finds that Smigelski's act of
filing the first amended complaint containing new claims is not a
new or different fact or circumstance which would allow the Court
to reconsider its previous order denying PennyMac's first petition
to compel arbitration.

The trial court denied PennyMac's second petition to compel
arbitration the same day, stating that, even if the Court were to
find that a successive petition were permitted as a result of the
first amended complaint being filed, it extensively addressed and
rejected these arguments in denying the original petition and it
simply rejects the arguments for the reasons previously discussed.

PennyMac appeals from the orders denying its first and second
petitions to compel arbitration.  It does not appeal from the order
denying its motion for reconsideration.  On appeal, PennyMac argues
the trial court erred in denying the petitions to compel
arbitration for a number of reasons, many of which appear to build
upon one another in ways that are not always easy to discern.  

PennyMac's argument can be reduced to four principal contentions:
(1) the arbitration agreement does not contain invalid PAGA
waivers, (2) any illegal aspects of the arbitration agreement
should be severed, and the rest of the agreement enforced, (3) the
parties delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator,
and (4) the FAA preempts any state law precluding employers from
requiring employees to waive their right to a judicial forum for
PAGA claims as a condition of employment.

Judge Renner finds that PAGA plaintiffs need not satisfy class
action requirements.  The differences between representative and
class actions, which have been part of the legal landscape since
Arias, inform his understanding of the parties' arbitration
agreement.

Giving the terms of the employee agreement their settled legal
meaning, and giving meaning to each term to avoid surplusage, the
Judge is convinced the waiver of the right to bring a
"representative" claim entails something more than a mere
recapitulation of the waiver of the right to bring a claim on a
"class basis."  He therefore rejects PennyMac's attempt to read an
ambiguity into the terms of the waiver.

Having rejected PennyMac's contention that the waiver is ambiguous,
he likewise rejects the related contention that the purported
ambiguity should be construed in a manner that renders the
arbitration agreement enforceable.  As a general proposition,
ambiguous terms should be construed, where reasonable, in favor of
arbitration.  But that rule does not apply where, as in the case,
the terms of the agreement do not lend themselves to a lawful
interpretation.  He therefore concludes that the arbitration
agreement must be construed as waiving both the right to bring
class action claims and the right to bring representative PAGA
claims.  In the absence of any enforceable agreement to arbitrate
individual PAGA claims, the arbitration agreement can only be
viewed as requiring a complete waiver of the right to bring PAGA
claims.

The Judge also concludes that the arbitration agreement as a whole
is unenforceable by virtue of the severability provisions.  Because
the arbitration agreement has been found to be unenforceable,
PennyMac cannot compel arbitration of any of Smigelski's causes of
action, including causes of action that would otherwise be
arbitrable.  That PennyMac must now litigate non-PAGA causes of
action is the result, not of the trial court's error, but its own
drafting decisions.

Finally, PennyMac argues the FAA requires us to enforce the
parties' purported agreement to arbitrate PAGA claims.  The Judge
assumes for the sake of argument that PennyMac has carried its
burden of establishing the existence of such an agreement.  Even so
assuming, PennyMac's argument lacks merit, he says.  PennyMac's
preemption argument, like much of its appeal, is foreclosed by
Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Renner affirmed the orders denying
PennyMac's petitions to compel arbitration.  Smigelski is awarded
his costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 19, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/LxVBZf from Leagle.com.


PPG INDUSTRIES: Lamartz and Bass Seek Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
DARRIONNE LAMARTZ and ROBERT BASS, Each Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the PLAINTIFFS, vs. PPG
INDUSTRIES, INC., the DEFENDANT, Case No. 4:18-cv-00936-JM (E.D.
Ark., Dec. 19, 2018), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiffs
and all others similarly situated overtime compensation for all
hours that Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated worked in
excess of 40 per workweek, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FLSA and
AMWA by not including the non-discretionary bonuses of Plaintiffs
and other salaried non-exempt and hourly employees in their regular
rate when calculating their overtime pay. The Plaintiffs worked for
Defendant at Defendant's facility in Alexander and Defendant's pay
practices were the same for all salaried non-exempt and hourly-paid
employees at the Alexander facility. The pay practices that violate
the FLSA and AMWA was a centralized human resources policy
implemented uniformly from Defendant's corporate headquarters ,the
lawsuit says.

PPG Industries, Inc. is an American Fortune 500 company and global
supplier of paints, coatings, and specialty materials. With
headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, PPG operates in more than
70 countries around the globe.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

PRIMERITUS FINANCIAL: Boudreau Sues for Breach of Employment
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Primeritus Financial
Services Inc. for breach of employment. The case is styled as John
Boudreau on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Primeritus Financial Services Inc, Chris McGinness and
Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00247272-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super. Ct., December 27, 2018).

Primeritus Financial Services, Inc. provides outsourced
repossession management and skip tracing services. Its operations
include automotive finance collections, skip tracing, recovery,
remarketing, and title services to the auto finance industry; and
the transportation of collateral units to the auction for
remarketing and liquidation needs. The company offers its services
through a network of certified agents in the United States and
Puerto Rico. Primeritus Financial Services, Inc. was formerly known
as ASR Nationwide and changed its name to Primeritus Financial
Services, Inc. in February 2012. The company was founded in 2012
and is based in Nashville, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Alejandro P. Gutierrez, Esq.
   5450 Telegraph Road, Suite 200
   Ventura, CA 93003
   Tel: 805-647-5976


RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Sued over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
CHANTELLE ELLIOT, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-16654-WJM-MF (D.N.J., Nov. 29, 2018)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge William J. Martini
and referred to Magistrate Judge Mark Falk.

Receivables Performance Management, LLC provides financial and
accounts receivables management services. The Company offers
outsourcing, telemarketing, pre-collection, and in bound and out
bound services. Receivables Performance Management serves
healthcare, commercial, retail, and financial industries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102b
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 507-6300
          E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com


RED HAT: Agreement to Dismiss IBM Merger Suits Reached
------------------------------------------------------
Red Hat, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 4, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2018, that an agreement has
been reached whereby the lawsuits over the proposed IBM merger
would be dismissed as moot in exchange for supplemental disclosures
filed by the Company.

Three putative class action complaints were filed against Red Hat
and its board of directors relating to the Merger with IBM.

As of January 4, 2019, the company received the following
complaints, each filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware: Charles Orgel, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Red Hat, Inc., et al. (filed
December 18, 2018), Michael Kent, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Red Hat, Inc., et al. (filed December
19, 2018) and Christopher Nunn Bishop, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Red Hat, Inc., et al. (filed
December 21, 2018) (together, the "Actions").  The complaints in
the Actions allege that the Proxy Statement omits purportedly
material information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, rendering the Proxy Statement false and
misleading.

On January 4, 2019, the parties reached an agreement whereby the
Actions would be dismissed as moot in exchange for supplemental
disclosures filed by the Company. Those supplemental disclosures
were filed by the Company on the same day.

Plaintiffs in the Actions have reserved the right to seek an award
of attorneys' fees for causing the filing of the supplemental
disclosures.

Red Hat, Inc. provides open source software solutions to develop
and offer operating system, virtualization, management, middleware,
cloud, mobile, and storage technologies to various enterprises
worldwide.


RED HAT: Kent Balks at Merger Deal with IBM
-------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KENT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RED HAT, INC., JAMES M. WHITEHURST,
NARENDRA K. GUPTA, SOHAIB ABBASI, STEVE ALBRECHT, CHARLENE BEGLEY,
KIM HAMMONDS, WILLIAM S. KAISER, KEVIN M. MURAI, and ALFRED W.
ZOLLAR, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02022-UNA (D. Del., Dec.
19, 2018), alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
Proxy Statement.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on October
28, 2018 , pursuant to which Red Hat, Inc. will be acquired by
International Business Machines Corporation and Socrates
Acquisition Corp. On October 28, 2018, Red Hat's Board of Directors
caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger
with IBM. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Red Hat's
stockholders will receive $190.00 in cash for each share of Red Hat
common stock they hold. On December 12, 2018, the Defendants filed
a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy
Statement, which scheduled a stockholder vote on the Proposed
Transaction for January 16, 2019, omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy
Statement false and misleading, the lawsuit says.

Red Hat, Inc. is an American multinational software company
providing open-source software products to the enterprise
community. Founded in 1993, Red Hat has its corporate headquarters
in Raleigh, North Carolina, with other offices worldwide.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

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

               - and -

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

ROYAL DUTCH: Faces Fuentes Suit over No Poach Agreements
--------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR FUENTES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC; SHELL OIL COMPANY;
PENNZOIL-QUAKER STATE COMPANY; and JIFFY LUBE INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-05174-AB (E.D. Pa., Nov. 29, 2018)
alleges that the Defendants' no-poach provisions in the agreement
violates the Sherman Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants incorporated a clause in
to its standard franchise agreements prohibiting the Defendants
from soliciting or hiring existing employees of the Defendants
shops. The Defendants franchisees also agreed that they have the
unilateral power to terminate their franchises upon a franchisees'
default, which includes franchisees' failing to comply with the
No-Poach Clause.

Royal Dutch Shell plc explores for crude oil and natural gas
worldwide. The company operates through Integrated Gas, Upstream,
and Downstream segments. Royal Dutch Shell plc was founded in 1907
and is headquartered in The Hague, the Netherlands. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Marcio W. Valladares, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX
          LITIGATION GROUP
          201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  mvalladares@forthepeople.com

               - and –

          Kevin Clancy Boylan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          1600 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 900
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 446-9795
          E-mail: cboylan@forthepeople.com

               - and –

          Michael L. Schrag, Esq.
          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Joshua J. Bloomfield, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: mls@classlawgroup.com
                  ehg@classlawgroup.com
                  jjb@classlawgroup.com

               - and –

          George W. Sampson, Esq.
          SAMPSON DUNLAP LLP
          1001 4th Ave., Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98154
          Telephone: (206) 369-3962
          E-mail: George@sampsondunlap.com


SABRINA USA: Faces Zhang Suit Over FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sabrina USA Inc. The
case is styled as Yu Zhang, on his own behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sabrina USA Inc. doing
business as: Yumi Sushi, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-12332 (S.D.
N.Y., December 29, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sabrina USA Inc. is considered by many as having the best and
freshest sushi available in the area.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.



SAFEMARK SYSTEMS: Gorss Motels Appeals Judgment to 11th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as, Gorss Motels, Inc., et al, the Plaintiff, v.
Safemark Systems, LP, the Defendant, Case No. 18-15232-F (11th
Cir.), is an appeal filed with the U.S Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit from a district court decision granting summary
judgment to Defendant

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando
Division, issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment in the case captioned Gross Motels, Inc., and E & G, Inc.,
Plaintiffs, v. Safemark Systems, LP, Defendant, Case No.
6:16-cv-1638-Orl-31DCI. (M.D. Fla.).

The case arises out of two facsimile advertisements sent to Gorss
in 2013 (the Gorss Faxes) and a third sent in 2015 to E & G (E & G
Fax). All three faxes advertised goods offered by the Defendant,
Safemark.  Safemark admits having sent the Gorss Faxes or, more
particularly, having arranged to have those faxes sent to Gorss but
denies responsibility for the sending of the E & G Fax.

In 1998, Gorss entered into a franchise agreement with Super 8
Motels, Inc., which is now known as Super 8 Worldwide, Inc. (SWI).
Prior to the 2013 Wyndham Global Conference, using contact
information supplied by WSSI, Safemark arranged to have two faxes
sent to a number of franchisees, including Gorss. Safemark does not
dispute that Gorss received the two faxes at issue on September 4,
2013 and September 6, 2013.

Safemark argues that the Gorss Faxes were not unsolicited  and
therefore sending them did not violate the TCPA because Gorss had
given permission to (1) receive faxes and (2) receive
advertisements from Approved Suppliers.

As to the first point, Gorss provided its fax number to SWI in
conjunction with its registration for the 2012 Wyndham Global
Conference and on other occasions, such as on a Contact Form it
submitted in 2010. As to the second, Safemark relies on Gorss's
franchise agreement.

Safemark argues that by agreeing that SWI affiliates could offer
assistance in purchasing items for the facility, such as through
the Approved Supplier program, and by providing its fax number to
SWI, Gorss was giving its permission to receive advertisements, by
fax, from affiliates such as Approved Suppliers. Gorss generally
denies that any entity had permission to send it fax advertisements
and argues that the TCPA requires that permission be given to the
entity actually responsible for sending the fax, and that it did
not give such permission to Safemark.

The E & G Fax was sent in 2015 by a third-party vendor, WestFax, at
the direction of WSSI. It contained advertisements for a total of
five Approved Suppliers, including Safemark. Safemark contends that
it did not authorize WSSI to send the E & G Fax and therefore it
cannot be held responsible for it under the TCPA.

Safemark makes the same argument in regard to E & G that it made in
regard to Gorss, i.e., that sending the E & G Fax did not violate
the TCPA because E & G had given its permission to receiv1e such
advertising faxes. E & G entered into a franchise agreement in 1997
with Hotel Franchising Limited Partnership, which is now known as
Wingate Inns, L.P.

The District Court finds that the same result applies to E & G as
to Gorss: E & G gave its permission to receive advertising faxes in
regard to the Approved Supplier program, and therefore no
reasonable factfinder could determine that the E & G fax was
unsolicited.  Accordingly, Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the
Defendant, Safemark Systems, L.P., is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 15, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yaxq7o3l from Leagle.com.

The Eleventh Circuit previously granted Plaintiffs' Petition for
Permission to Appeal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) on June 15,
2018, which appeal the Eleventh Circuit has docketed under General
Docket Number 18-12511-C.[BN]

Gorss Motels, Inc., a Connecticut corporation, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons & E &
G, Inc., a West Virginia corporation, individually and as the
representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiffs, represented by Ryan M. Kelly --
rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca & Ross M. Good --
rgood@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, pro hac vice.

Safemark Systems, LP, Defendant, represented by Amy Leigh Baker --
amy.baker@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman &
Dicker, LLP & Joseph L. Francoeur --
joseph.francoeur@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser LLP, pro hac vice.

SAHARA DREAMS: Amended Kwan FLSA Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------
In the case, CHUI-FAN KWAN also known as CONNIE KWAN, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SAHARA DREAMS
CO. II INC., doing business as DREAM HOTEL DOWNTOWN, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-4058 (RA) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Ronnie
Abrams of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint.

Plaintiff Chui-Fan Kwan brings the putative class action and
collective action against nine Corporate Defendants and six
Individual Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").  She
alleges that she was employed by the Defendants to work at the
Dream Hotel Downtown in Manhattan, first as a room attendant and
then as a floor manager.  While employed at the Dream Hotel
Downtown, the Plaintiff alleges, she was denied overtime
compensation and was not paid for all of the hours she worked.

Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that, as a room attendant, she
was paid as if she worked from 8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. with a
one-hour lunch break, even though she regularly worked past 4:30
p.m. and took lunch breaks as short as 16 minutes.  In addition,
the Plaintiff alleges that, as a floor manager, she regularly
worked 30 minutes past her shift and was denied overtime
compensation due to the Defendants' misclassification of her as an
exempt managerial employee.

On May 30, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the initial complaint in the
action and on March 14, 2018, she filed the Amended Complaint.  In
the Amended Complaint, she does not identify her direct employer.
Instead, she alleges that she was employed by all 15 Defendants --
nine Corporate Defendants and six Individual Defendants-- who are
officers and directors of some of the named corporate entities.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Corporate Defendants are all members
of a luxury hotel chain doing business as Dream Hotel Group, which
is a single and joint employer and has had a high degree of
interrelated and unified operation, and shares common management,
centralized control of labor relations, common ownership, common
control, common website, common business purposes and interrelated
business goals.  As to the Individual Defendants, the Plaintiff
alleges that each "(1) had the power to hire and fire employees,
(2) supervised and controlled employee work schedules and
conditions of employment, (3) determined employee rates and methods
of employment, and (4) maintained employee records.

Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), principally contending that the
Amended Complaint failed to plausibly allege that Defendants were
her "employers" under the FLSA and the NYLL.

Judge Abrams finds that the Plaintiff does not allege that
employees of the Corporate Defendants were subjected to the same
employment policies, supervised by the same individuals, or paid by
the same people using the same payroll methods.  In short, the
Amended Complaint fails to provide factual support for its
conclusory allegations of centralized operations and control, and
entirely leaves out the relationship that the Plaintiff, as
employee, had to the locations besides the one location at which
the Plaintiff actually worked.  Because the Amended Complaint does
not plausibly allege that the Corporate Defendants comprise a
single integrated enterprise, and further fails to allege that any
one of the nine Corporate Defendants functioned as the Plaintiff's
employer, the motion to dismiss will be granted as to the Corporate
Defendants.

The Plaintiff also fails to plausibly allege that any of the six
Individual Defendants is her employer.  The Judge finds that the
Plaintiff merely alleges that the Individual Defendants were
officers and directors of some of the named corporate entities and
that each (1) had the power to hire and fire employees, (2)
supervised and controlled employee work schedules and conditions of
employment, (3) determined employee rates and methods of
employment, and (4) maintained employee records.  Such conclusory
recitations of the prongs of the economic reality test, absent any
specific factual allegations of control, are insufficient to
plausibly allege that the Individual Defendants were the
Plaintiff's employers.  The motion to dismiss will accordingly be
granted as to the Individual Defendants as well.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Abrams granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss, and dismissed without prejudice and with leave
to amend the Amended Complaint. He denied the Defendants' letter
motion for oral argument.  The Clerk of Court is respectfully
directed to terminate the motions pending at docket entries 42, 45,
47, 48, 51, 52, and 55.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 19, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/lnZIKl from Leagle.com.

Chui-Fan Kwan, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by John Troy -- troylaw@troypllc.com -- Troy
Law, PLLC.

Sahara Dreams Co. II Inc., formerly known as Sahara Dreams Limited,
Sahara Dreams LLC, doing business as Dream Hotel Downtown, Sahara
Hampshire Hotel Management LLC, doing business as Dream Hotel
Midtown, Sahara Hampshire Hotel Management Co. II Inc., doing
business as Sahara Hampshire Hotel Management Co. Inc., Hampshire
Hotels Manhattan LLC, doing business as Days Inn Hotel, Hampshire
Hotels Group II, LLC, doing business as Hilton Garden, Hampshire
Hotels Group, LLC, doing business as Days Inn Hotel, Hampshire
Hotels & Resorts, LLC, doing business as Dream Hotels, Dream Hotel
Group, LLC, doing business as Hilton Garden, Sant Singh Chatwal,
Vikram Chatwal, Jay Stein, Rabinder Pal Singh, David Kuperberg &
Sandeep Wadhwa, Defendants, represented by Felicia Sue Ennis --
fse@robinsonbrog.com -- Robinson Brog Leinwand Greene Genovese &
Gluck PC & Arnold Mitchell Greene -- amg@robinsonbrog.com --
Robinson Brog Leinwand Greene Genovese & Gluck PC.


SCHWAN'S HOME: Lundbom Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA LUNDBOM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SCHWAN'S HOME SERVICE, INC., and
SCHWAN'S COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. Case 3:18-cv-02187-SI
(D. Ore., Dec. 19, 2018), seeks legal and equitable remedies
resulting from the illegal actions of Schwans's Home Service.,
Inc., and Schwan's Company in transmitting unsolicited autodialed
SMS text message advertisements to her cellular telephone and the
cellular telephone of numerous other consumers across the country,
in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, between in or about July 2018 through
November 2018, and at all hours of the day, the Defendant
transmitted or caused to be transmitted, by itself or through and
intermediary or intermediaries, numerous SMS and/or MMS text
message advertisements to the 3075 Number without Plaintiff's
"prior express written consent", the lawsuit says.

Schwan's Home Service, Inc. provides online grocery delivery
services in the United States. It provides fruits and vegetables,
meats, seafood, meals, pizza, sides, snacks and appetizers,
ice-creams, desserts, and breakfasts. Schwan's Home Service, Inc.
was formerly known as Schwan's Sales Enterprises, Inc. and changed
its name to Schwan's Home Service, Inc. in 2002. The company was
founded in 1952 and is based in Marshall, Minnesota. Schwan's Home
Service, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of The Schwan Food Company,
Inc.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816 6603
          E-mail: jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
                  bterrell@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          David W. Hall, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Ave., Ste 900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 357 2107
          Facsimile: (305) 200 8801

SEQUIUM ASSET: Giometti Files Suit in S.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sequium Asset
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Todd Giometti, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sequium
Asset Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-02895-BEN-KSC
(S.D. Cal., December 28, 2018).

Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC is a debt collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
   Hyde & Swigart
   2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
   San Diego, CA 92108
   Tel: (619) 233-7770
   Fax: (619) 297-1022
   Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


STATE FARM: Can Compel Replies to Discovery Request in MAO-MSO Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, a Delaware entity; MSP
RECOVERY, LLC, a Florida entity; MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida
entity; and MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware entity,
Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an
Illinois Company, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-1537 (C.D. Ill.),
Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins of the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of Illinois, Springfield Division, (i)
granted in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash or Modify Third
Party Subpoenas, and (ii) granted the Defendant's Motion to Compel
Responses to Discovery Request.

The Plaintiffs are assignees of claims for reimbursement from
Medicare Advantage Organizations ("MAOs"), first-tier entities, and
downstream entities that offer or manage Medicare Advantage ("MA")
plans for Part C Medicare Beneficiaries.  The Defendant is an
insurance company that provides no-fault casualty insurance to its
insureds.  Casualty Policies sometimes include coverage for medical
expenses incurred as a result of a covered loss.  Pursuant to
federal law, Casualty Insurance Medical Coverage is primarily
liable for covered medical expenses and Medicare coverage is
secondary, including coverage by Medicare Advantage Organizations.

Medicare and Medicare Advantage Organizations may make conditional
payments to cover medical expenses, but the Casualty Insurer, such
as State Farm, must reimburse the conditional payments pursuant to
the terms set forth in the applicable statutes and regulations.

The Plaintiffs allege "first-tier entities" and "downstream
entities" may bring actions to recover reimbursements for
conditional payments.  They allege that they are Medicare Service
Organizations Second Amended Complaint.  The Plaintiffs, as
assignees of Medical Advantage Organization claims for
reimbursement of conditional payments (either directly and through
first-tier or downstream entities), seek to bring a nationwide
class action against State Farm for unpaid reimbursements due for
conditional payments of all Medicare Advantage Organizations,
first-tier entities, and their assignees. The Plaintiffs seek to be
the class representative of this nationwide class action.

The alleged class is all Medicare Advantage Organizations, First
Tier Entities, or their assignees, that provide benefits under
Medicare Part C, in the United States of America and its
territories, who made payments for a Medicare beneficiary's medical
items and services within the last six years from the filing of the
complaint where the Defendant: (1) is the primary payer by virtue
of having a contractual obligation to pay for the items and
services that are required to be covered by the policy of insurance
of the same Medicare Beneficiaries that are also covered by an MA
plan; (2) failed to pay for the items and services or otherwise
failed to reimburse Medicare Advantage Organizations, First Tier
Entities, or their assignees for the items and services that were
provided for medical items and services related to the claims on
behalf of the Medicare Beneficiaries.

The Plaintiffs allege two individuals as exemplar claims for
reimbursement.  Both exemplar claims involved injuries to a State
Farm insured with Casualty Insurance Medical Coverage.  The two
individuals are identified as O.D. and C.S. who were both injured
in an automobile accident covered by the State Farm's Casualty
Insurance Medical Coverage and by State Farm Casualty Policy
Medical Coverage.

The parties are currently conducting discovery on the issue of
class certification.

On Sept. 14, 2018, State Farm served the Plaintiffs with
interrogatories and requests for production of documents.  The
Counsel for the Plaintiffs responded by email stating that he
thought State Farm's discovery requests were premature and asking
for an additional 21 days.

On Oct. 29, 2018, State Farm issued four Subpoenas that are the
subject of the Motion:

     a. State Farm issued a Subpoena to the Florida Department of
Financial Services, as the receiver for Florida Healthcare Plus,
Inc.  The Subpoena seeks production of 27 categories of documents
related to the following topics: (1) Florida Healthcare Plus,
Inc.'s relationship with: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services; the Plaintiffs; O.D., including all payments and related
documents for claims for O.D. from 2013 through 2015, inclusive;
first-tier and downstream entities; (2) Florida Healthcare Plus,
Inc.'s internal procedures for evaluating and paying claims; (3)
documents related to claims for reimbursements from insurers or
others that may be liable to reimburse conditional payments; and
(4) documents related to any audit of the systems and methodologies
of the Plaintiffs.

     b. State Farm issued a Subpoena to SummaCare, Inc.  This
Subpoena seeks 26 categories of documents similar to the Subpoena
issued to Florida Department of Financial Services, except that
certain requests related to C.S. rather than O.D., and this
Subpoena did not refer to the Settlement Agreement.

     c. State Farm issued a Subpoena to RD Legal Finance, LLC.  RD
is one of two members of Plaintiff MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC.  This
Subpoena seeks production of documents related to RD's relationship
with the Plaintiffs, including documentation of ownership or other
interest, communications, and documents exchanged with the
Plaintiffs.  The Subpoena also seeks governing documents of RD and
the identity of the members of RD and the percentage ownership
interest of each member.

     d. State Farm issued a Subpoena to VSP MSP Recovery Partners,
LLC.  VSP is the sole member of Plaintiff MSP Recovery Claims,
Series LLC.  This Subpoena seeks documents similar to the documents
sought from RD.

On Nov. 7, 2018, State Farm's counsel again emailed the Plaintiffs'
counsel to ask for  the Plaintiffs' discovery response.  The
Plaintiffs had not yet responded to State Farm's discovery
requests.  State Farm's counsel stated that he sent the email as a
good faith effort to meet and confer to resolve the dispute.  The
Plaintiffs' counsel did not respond.

On Nov. 13, 2018, the Plaintiffs their motion to quash all four
Subpoenas described.  State Farm opposes the motion.

On Nov. 15, 2018, State Farm filed Motion to Compel Responses to
Discovery Request.  The Plaintiffs oppose the motion.  Their
counsel states that the Plaintiffs have now provided written
responses to State Farm's interrogatories and have begun a rolling
document production.  The Plaintiffs state that they await the
Court's entry of an ESI protocol order.

Magistrate Judge Schanzle-Haskins finds that the fact discovery on
class certification issues was scheduled to close on Nov. 30, 2018,
although State Farm has asked for an extension.  State Farm is
entitled to pursue discovery in any manner allowed by the Rules.
Given the short timeframe and the lack of documents production by
the Plaintiffs, the Subpoenas are a reasonable option to secure
relevant information before the end of fact discovery on this
phase.  If the Plaintiffs can demonstrate to the Court that they
have produced responsive documents that are also documents sought
by the Subpoenas, the Magistrate will consider relieving the
Subpoena respondents from producing a second copy of the specific
documents.  Otherwise, he will not bar State Farm from using
available discovery methods to secure relevant non-privileged
information.

The Plaintiffs ask for additional time to respond to the Subpoenas.
The Magistrate agrees that 15 days is not enough time to produce
the documents.  He will give the Subpoena respondents until Dec.
31, 2018 to produce the responsive documents.

With respect to the motion to compel, the Magistrate finds that
Rule 26 imposes on the Plaintiffs the burden of showing that
producing requested ESI is not reasonably accessible because of
undue burden or cost.  If the Plaintiffs could not comply with the
30-day production requirement of Rule 34, or if they wanted to
establish a protocol for ESI production, they should have contacted
State Farm to work out these issues or filed a motion for a
protective order.  They did not. He therefore, orders the
Plaintiffs to produce the responsive documents by Jan. 15, 2019.
The Plaintiffs are also ordered to produce by Jan. 15, 2019, a
privilege log that meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(b)(5)(A) identifying any documents withheld on claims
of privilege.

Finally, the Magistrate directs State Farm to file by Jan. 15,
2019, a statement of fees and expenses incurred in connection with
filing the motion to compel along with any supporting evidence.
The Plaintiffs are directed to file by Feb. 7, 2019, any objections
to State Farm's statement of expenses and attorney fees along with
any supporting evidence.  The Court will then rule on an award of
expenses and fees.

For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Schanzle-Haskins allowed in
part hthe Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash or Modify Third Party
Subpoenas.  He modified the Subpoenas to give the Subpoena
respondents until Jan. 15, 2019, to produce the requested
documents.  He allowed the Defendant State Farm's Motion to Compel
Responses to Discovery Requests.  The Plaintiffs are ordered to
produce the responsive non-privileged documents by Jan. 15, 2019.
The Plaintiffs and the Subpoena respondents are also required to
produce by Jan. 15, 2019, a privilege log that meets the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A)
identifying any documents withheld on claims of privilege.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 19, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/OGSKuD from Leagle.com.

MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC, MSP Recovery, LLC, a Florida entity &
MSPA Claims 1, LLC, a Florida entity, Plaintiffs, represented by
Christopher L. Coffin -- ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com -- PENDLEY BAUDIN &
COFFIN LLP, Robert Brent Wisner -- RBWisner@BaumHedlundLaw.com --
BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, Adam M. Foster --
AFoster@BaumHedlundLaw.com -- BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN,
Courtney L. Stidham -- cstidman@pbclawfirm.com -- PENDLEY BAUDIN &
COFFIN LLP & David M. Hundley , HUNDLEY LAW GROUP, P.C.

MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher L. Coffin, PENDLEY BAUDIN & COFFIN LLP, David M.
Hundley, HUNDLEY LAW GROUP, P.C. & Robert Brent Wisner, BAUM
HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by David Matthew Allen -- mallen@carltonfields.com --
CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT P.A., Joseph Anthony Cancila, Jr. --
jcancila@rshc-law.com -- RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP, Patrick
D. Cloud -- pcloud@heylroyster.com -- HEYL ROYSTER VOELKER &
ALLEN,
Benjamine Reid -- breid@carltonfields.com -- CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN
BURT P.A. & James P. Gaughan -- jgaughan@rshc-law.com -- RILEY
SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP.


STEW LEONARD'S: Franklin Sues over Sale of Fish Products
--------------------------------------------------------
Shelby Franklin, individually on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Stew Leonard's Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-07237 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2018), seeks
to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of Stew
Leonard's, Inc. with respect to the labeling and sale of fish
products labeled as "red snapper" and "sockeye salmon" throughout
the State of New York.

According to the complaint, a recent report by the Office of the
New York Attorney General demonstrates that a large percentage of
Defendant's fish Products are mislabeled and thus not what they are
claimed to be. Products labeled by Defendant as red snapper and
sockeye salmon in fact are substituted with cheaper, less
environmentally sustainable, or less healthy fish. The Plaintiff
and those similarly situated relied on Defendant's labeling when
purchasing the Products. Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium
for the Products over and above other fish Products because they
believed that they were red snapper, and not a different snapper
fish of an inferior grade and quality. Plaintiff and Class Members
paid a premium for the Products over and above other fish Products
because they believed that they were sockeye salmon, and not Coho
salmon, a fish of inferior grade and quality. Given that Plaintiff
and Class Members paid a premium for the Products based on
Defendant's misrepresentations that they were red snapper and
sockeye salmon, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered an injury in
the amount of the premium paid.

Stew Leonard's is a chain of six supermarkets in Connecticut and
New York State, which Ripley's Believe It or Not! deemed "The
World's Largest Dairy" and Fortune magazine listed as one of the
"100 Best Companies to Work For".[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          Janine Pollack, Esq.
          Jeremy Francis, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Telephone: (845) 483-7100
          Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
          E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                  pollackj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                 francisj@thesultzerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Brown, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW P.C.
          Jeffrey Brown, Esq.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com

TD AMERITRADE: Seeks 8th Circuit Review of Ruling in Klein Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al., filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Gerald Klein, et al. v.
TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-00396-JFB, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha.

The appellate case is captioned as Gerald Klein, et al. v. TD
Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al., Case No. 18-3689, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendants
appealed the District Court's class certification order.  That
appellate case is entitled Gerald Klein, et al. v. TD Ameritrade
Holding Corp., et al., Case No. 18-8013.

The Hon. Joseph F. Bataillon has certified a class consisting of:

     All clients of TD Ameritrade between September 15, 2011 and
     September 15, 2014 who placed orders that did not receive
     best execution, in connection with which TD Ameritrade
     received either liquidity rebates or payment for order flow,
     and who were thereby damaged (the "Class").

The complaint alleges that, when routing client orders to various
market centers, the Defendants did not seek best execution, and
instead routed clients' orders to market venues that pay TD
Ameritrade, Inc. the most money for order flow.  The Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendants made misrepresentations and omissions
regarding the Company's order routing practices.

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

   -- Appendix is due on January 28, 2019;

   -- Brief of Appellants TD Ameritrade, TD Ameritrade Holding
      Corporation and Frederic J. Tomczyk is due on January 28,
      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-Appellees Gerald J. Klein, on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated, and Roderick Ford are represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & RIVAS, LLC
          211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          E-mail: kcarroll@ldgrlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & RIVAS, LLC
          Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 546-0100
          E-mail: ek@zlk.com
                  ckupka@zlk.com

               - and -

          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Sebastiano Tornatore, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          733 Summer Street, Suite 304
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 992-4523
          E-mail: nkulesa@zlk.com
                  stornatore@zlk.com

               - and -

          Nicholas Porritt, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com

               - and -

          Patrice D. Ott, Esq.
          Gregory Carl Scaglione, Esq.
          KOLEY JESSEN P.C., L.L.O.
          800 One Pacific Place
          1125 S. 103rd Street
          Omaha, NE 68124-0000
          Telephone: (320) 654-4100
          E-mail: patrice.ott@koleyjessen.com
                  greg.scaglione@koleyjessen.com

Defendants-Appellants TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, TD
Ameritrade, Inc., and Frederic J. Tomczyk are represented by:

          Victoria H. Buter, Esq.
          Thomas Harlan Dahlk, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          The Omaha Building
          1650 Farnam Street
          Omaha, NE 68102-0000
          Telephone: (402) 346-6000
          E-mail: vicki.buter@kutakrock.com
                  Tom.Dahlk@KutakRock.com

               - and -

          Robert N. Hochman, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60603-0000
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          E-mail: rhochman@sidley.com

               - and -

          Eamon Paul Joyce, Esq.
          Alex J. Kaplan, Esq.
          Daniel A. McLaughlin, Esq.
          Jonathan Warren Muenz, Esq.
          Robert Pietrzak, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019-0000
          Telephone: (202) 839-5300
          E-mail: ejoyce@sidley.com
                  ajkaplan@sidley.com
                  dmclaughlin@sidley.com
                  jmuenz@sidley.com
                  rpietrzak@sidley.com


TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Faces Colburn Suit in District of Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Texas Roadhouse, Inc.
The case is captioned as GAYNELL COLBURN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEXAS
ROADHOUSE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03661-RDB (D. Md.,
Nov. 29, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Richard D. Bennett.

Texas Roadhouse, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates
casual dining restaurants in the United States and internationally.
The company operates and franchises Texas Roadhouse and Bubba's 33
restaurants. As of October 29, 2018, it owned and operated
approximately 575 restaurants. Texas Roadhouse, Inc. was founded in
1993 and is based in Louisville, Kentucky. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Kathleen Hyland, Esq.
          Hyland Law Firm, LLC
          16 E Lombard Street, Suite 400
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 777-5396
          Facsimile: (410) 777-8237
          E-mail: kat@lawhyland.com

               - and -

          R. Bruce Carlson , Jr.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


TEXAS: Does 1-7 Appeal N.D. Texas Decision to Fifth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs John Does 1-7 filed an appeal from a court ruling in
their lawsuit styled John Does 1-7 v. Greg Abbott, et al., Case No.
3:18-CV-629, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, Dallas.

The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.

The appellate case is captioned as John Does 1-7 v. Greg Abbott, et
al., Case No. 18-11620, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JOHN DOES 1-7, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Terence Estes-Hightower, Esq.
          ESTES-HIGHTOWER, P.L.L.C.
          16770 Imperial Valley Drive
          Houston, TX 77060
          Telephone: (214) 334-2260

Defendants-Appellees GREG ABBOTT, Governor of the State of Texas,
and STEVEN MCCRAW, Colonel, Director of the Texas Department of
Public Safety, are represented by:

          Michael Abrams, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          P.O. Box 12548
          Austin, TX 78711-2548
          Telephone: (512) 463-2120
          E-mail: Michael.Abrams@texasattorneygeneral.gov


TOYOTA MOTOR: Denia Hedge Sues over Wage and Hour Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
DENIA HEDGE, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TOYOTA MOTOR MANUFACTURING, INDIANA,
INC. and AEROTEK, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-00246-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind., Dec. 19, 2018), seeks to recover
damages from Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Hedge brings this class and collective action lawsuit against
Defendants to address class-wide wage and hour violations committed
by Defendants against their hourly-paid employees.  Hedge also
brings claims against Defendants for their class-wide breach of
contract. Hedge will serve as class representative of current and
former employees of Defendants who were victims of Defendants'
class-wide wage violations and Defendants’ class-wide breach of
contract. The Defendants utilize numerous policies to avoid paying
their employees all earned overtime wages. For example, the
Defendants are and have been underpaying their employees' wages on
a class-wide basis as a result of a facility-wide policy or scheme
in which Defendants fail and refuse to pay employees from their
first principal work activity each day until their last principal
work activity. All hourly-paid employees of Defendants were
similarly subjected to Defendants' unlawful compensation scheme
that required their hourly paid production employees to perform
significant work prior to the official scheduled start time of each
shift and to perform significant work after the official scheduled
end of each shift. Defendants have not been paying their employees
for this additional work time, the lawsuit says.

TMMI operates an automobile factory in Princeton, Gibson County,
Indiana. Aerotek is a staffing agency that works with companies,
including Defendant TMMI, that require large volume work forces.
Aerotek has employees who work onsite at these companies, including
at TMMI’s facility in Princeton, Indiana, where Hedge and
putative class members work or worked. The Defendants employ and
employed a staff of hourly-paid production team members, including
Plaintiff at TMMI's facility in Princeton, Indiana.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Robert J. Hunt, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. HUNT, LLC
          1905 South New Market Street, Ste. 220
          Carmel, IN 46032
          Telephone: (317) 743-0614
          Facsimile: (317) 743-0615
          E-mail: rob@indianawagelaw.com

TRIPROP CLEARWATER: Borozny Files Suit under ADA in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
Triprop Clearwater LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Austin Borozny, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Triprop Clearwater LLC, a Florida
limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
8:18-cv-03098-SCB-JSS (M.D. Fla., December 27, 2018).

TRIPROP CLEARWATER LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
   The Advocacy Group, LLC
   200 SE 6th St Ste 504
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3424
   Tel: (954) 282-1858
   Fax: (844) 786-3694
   Email: jkerr@advocacypa.com


UNITED MOTORS: Marsh Seeks Minimum Wages for Sales Reps
-------------------------------------------------------
LEE MARSH on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED MOTORS LTD. d/b/a LIBERTY AUTO PLAZA,
the Defendant, Case No.: 1:18-cv-08330 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 19, 2018),
seeks to recover minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

According to the complaint, Liberty is a Nissan, Kia and Volkswagen
dealership selling new and used automobiles. See
https://www.libertyautoplaza.com/ (last visited December 18, 2018).
In one or more individual work weeks during the applicable statute
of limitations, the Plaintiff and other sales persons were paid by
Defendant on a work week basis pursuant to a draw against
commission compensation agreement. In one or more individual work
weeks during the Class Period. Similarly, in one or more individual
work weeks, other sales persons were paid less than the minimum
wage required by the FLSA and IMWL. In one or more work weeks
during the Class Period, the Defendant did not pay Plaintiff the
federal minimum wage for all time he was suffered or permitted to
work.[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 Street, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008

UNITED STATES: Akins Files Suit in Court of Federal Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
William Akins brought a class action lawsuit against the US
government in the US Court of Federal Claims on December 27, 2018.
The case is styled as William Akins, individually, and each on
behalf of a class of all other person similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. USA, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01980-MCW.

The lawsuit arises under the Tucker Act.

The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean. Major Atlantic Coast
cities are New York, a global finance and culture center, and
capital Washington, DC. Midwestern metropolis Chicago is known for
influential architecture and on the west coast, Los Angeles'
Hollywood is famed for filmmaking.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Aaron Behar, Esq.
   Behar Behar
   490 Sawgrass Corp. Pkwy, Suite 300
   Sunrise, FL 33325
   Tel: (954) 990-8639
   Email: ab@beharbehar.com



UNITED STATES: DOD Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in Kuang Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants United States Department of Defense and James Mattis
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Jiahao
Kuang, et al. v. DOD, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-03698-JST, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 10,
2018, the Hon. Judge John S. Tigap entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of:

      "all persons who (i) are lawful permanent residents of the
       United States; (ii) have signed an enlistment contract
       with the U.S. military; and (iii) pursuant to Defendants'
       October 13 memo, have not been permitted to begin initial
       entry training, commonly referred to as "boot camp,"
       pending completion of their Military Service Suitability
       Determination and National Security Determination";

   2. denying the DoD's motion to dismiss;

   3. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction;
      and

   4. enjoining Defendants and their officers, agents, servants,
      employees, and attorneys, and any other person or entity
      subject to their control or acting directly or indirectly
      in concert or participation with Defendants from taking any
      action continuing to implement the October Memo and
      directing Defendants to return to the pre-October 13, 2017
      practices for the accession of Lawful Permanent Residents
      into the military.

The appellate case is captioned as Jiahao Kuang, et al. v. DOD, et
al., Case No. 18-17381, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Opening brief and excerpts of record are due not later than
      January 11, 2019;

   -- Answering brief is due on February 8, 2019, or 28 days
      after service of the opening brief, whichever is earlier;
      and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees JIAHAO KUANG and DERON COOKE, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, are represented by:

          Sameer Ahmed, Esq.
          Michael Kaufman, Esq.
          Jennifer Lee Pasquarella, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          1313 West Eighth Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977-5284
          E-mail: sahmed@aclusocal.org
                  mkaufman@aclusocal.org
                  jpasquarella@aclusocal.org

               - and -

          Christine Patricia Sun , Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
          39 Drumm Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 343-0783
          E-mail: csun@aclunc.org

               - and -

          Colleen Carlton Smith, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP
          12670 High Bluff Drive
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 523-5400
          E-mail: colleen.smith@lw.com

               - and -

          Peter A. Wald, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
          Telephone: (415) 391-0600
          E-mail: peter.wald@lw.com

Defendants-Appellants UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE and JAMES
MATTIS, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense of the
United States Department of Defense, are represented by:

          Stuart Justin Robinson, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          450 Golden Gate Avenue
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 436-6635
          E-mail: stuart.j.robinson@usdoj.gov


VERIZON WIRELESS: Hudson Seeks Unpaid Wages for Sales Reps
----------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Hudson, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Verizon Wireless Texas, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-03319-N (N.D. Tex., Dec. 17, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to be paid for all
the time he worked as an inside sales representative working in a
call center. He answered customer calls regarding Verizon's
wireless accounts and plans. The Plaintiff was paid hourly plus
commissions. Defendant's policy, however, was to not pay Plaintiff
and the Class Members for the time they spent outside the call
centers on a company provided cell phone. The hours worked by the
inside sales representatives outside the call center were not
accurately tracked or counted towards total hours worked and no
overtime as paid for these hours.  Because Defendant did not
accurately track and pay for all hours worked, including overtime
hours, the Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff
overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
          1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200
          Southlake, TX 76092
          Telephone: 817 416-5060
          Facsimile: 817 416-5062
          E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com

VILLAGE AUTO WASH: Oviedo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
DEIVID DARIO VELEZ OVIEDO, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. VILLAGE AUTO WASH LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY, d/b/a VILLAGE AUTO WASH, ALEX RODRIGUEZ, and
TETERBORO AUTOMALL, INC. d/b/a/ TETERBORO CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE RAM,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-17414 (D.N.J., Dec. 19, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the collective class
worked, or currently work, as non-exempt employees at Village Auto
Wash.  Alex Rodriguez owns and controls Village Auto Wash, an auto
cleaning and detailing service.

As part of its regular business practice, Defendants have
intentionally, willfully and repeatedly harmed Plaintiff and the
FLSA Collective by engaging in a pattern and/or policy of violating
the FLSA. This policy and/or policy includes, failing to pay
employees the applicable overtime rate for all time worked in
excess of 40 hours per week; and failing to keep accurate records
of hours worked by employees as required by the FLSA, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jason Rozger, Esq.
          BERANBAUM MENKEN LLP
          80 Pine Street, 33 rd Floor
          New York, NY 10005

               - and -

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
          225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10007

WALMART TRANSPORTATION: 8th Cir. Appeal Filed in Luna FCRA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Leonard Luna filed an appeal from court rulings issued in
the lawsuit styled Leonard Luna v. Walmart Transportation LLC, Case
No. 5:18-cv-05141-TLB, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas - Fayetteville.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
(assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-00331) was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas (Fayetteville)
on July 13, 2018.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Leonard Luna v. Walmart
Transportation LLC, Case No. 18-3698, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript is due on or before January 28, 2019;

   -- Appendix is due on February 7, 2019;

   -- Brief of Appellant Leonard Luna is due on February 7, 2019;

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

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

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

          Maria Adrianne De Castro, Esq.
          Aashish Y. Desai, Esq.
          DESAI LAW FIRM PC
          3200 Bristol Street Suite 650
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 614-5830
          Facsimile: (949) 271-4190
          E-mail: adrianne@desai-law.com
                  aashish@desai-law.com

Defendant-Appellee Walmart Transportation, LLC an Arkansas
Corporation, is represented by:

          James Norman Boudreau, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          2700 Two Commerce Square
          201 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 988-7833
          E-mail: boudreauj@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Herrington, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 586-7700
          Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
          E-mail: herringtonr@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Karen P. Freeman, Esq.
          Nathan A. Read, Esq.
          MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD, P.L.L.C.
          4206 South J.B. Hunt Drive
          Rogers, AR 72758
          Telephone: (479) 464-5682
          E-mail: kfreeman@mwlaw.com
                  nread@mwlaw.com


WM RESTAURANT: Zhang Files Suit for FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WM Restaurant Corp.
The case is styled as Yu Zhang, on his own behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WM Restaurant Corp doing
business as: Water Moon, Defendant, Case No. 31:18-cv-12333 (S.D.
N.Y., December 29, 2018).

The lawsuit arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The new MW restaurant serves food with influences from two of
Hawaii's most beloved kitchens, Alan Wong's and Zippy's.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.



                            *********

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 ***