CAR_Public/190114.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, January 14, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 10

                            Headlines

303 GALLERY: Faces Tucker ADA Suit in Southern District of New York
3M COMPANY: Civitarese Suit Moved to South Carolina District Court
511 GALLERY: Faces Tucker ADA Suit in Southern District of New York
A OLIVAREZ HARVESTING: Migrant Workers Hit Breach of Contract
AAA BUSINESS FUNDING: Naiman Sues Over TCPA Violation

ADAM BAUMGOLD: Faces Tucker Suit in Southern District of New York
ADVANCE AMERICA: Souders Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
AIMBRIDGE HOSPITALITY: Flynn Wins Prelim. OK of Class Settlement
ALBERTZ BENDA: Faces Tucker Suit in Southern District of New York
ALEXANDER GRAY: Faces Tucker Suit in S.D. of New York

ALEXANDER'S LLC: Polsinelli Discusses DOL Opinion on 80/20 Rule
ALLIED COLLECTION: White-Johnson Files FDCPA Suit Georgia
ATHENA CAPITAL: Workers Class Certified Under FLSA in Garcia Suit
AUSTIN, TX: Judge Has Yet to Decide on Motions to Dismiss
AUSTIN, TX: Seeks Dismissal of Discrimination Class Action

AUTOZONE PARTS: Feb. 26 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
BADCOCK HOME: Court Denies Wilson's Bid for Class Certification
BATON ROUGE, LA: Faces Class Action Over Red Light Cameras
BHP BILLITON: Class Action Over Samarco Dam Collapse Can Proceed
CALIFORNIA: CHP Sued for Interfering with Marijuana Businesses

CANADA: Aug. 30 Deadline Set for Sixties Scoop Claims
CLAIMS RESOLUTION: Faces Class Action Over Earthquake Claims
COLLECTION ANALYST: Wins Final Approval of $30K "Powers" Suit Deal
COLUMBIA GAS: Day Care Owner Joins Class Action Over Gas Fires
CONNEKT COLORADO: Diaz Files Suit under ADA in New York

CONSUMERS UNION: Settles Subscribers' Class Action for $16.4MM
CULLIGAN WATER: Kapp Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
CURADEN AG: Class Certification Sought in Lyngaas TCPA Suit
DARDON'S ROOFING: Rivas Labor Suit to Recover Overtime Premiums
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Boynton Beach Plan Files Securities Class Suit

ECO GREEN CARPET: Halawani Hits Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Berryhill Moves to Certify Class Under FDCPA
EVERSOURCE: Judge Dismisses Ratepayers' Class Action
EXPEDIA: Faces Class Action in Washington Over Tax Overcharge
FORWARD BY ELYSE: Faces Diaz Suit Asserting ADA Violation

GARDEN BRIDGE: Faces Potential Class Action Over London Scheme
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces Varga Suit over Violation of ERISA
GEORG JENSEN INC: Violates ADA, Diaz Suit Asserts
GURSTEL LAW: Seeks Prelim. Approval of Borges Class Settlement
HINOMARU RAMEN: Sucup Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

IFCHIC INC: Violates Disabilities Act, Diaz Suit Alleges
IL CHILDREN & FAMILY: Delays Hospital Release of Kids, Suit Claims
JP MORGAN CHASE: Class Certification Sought in Childress Suit
KNOX COUNTY, TN: Certification of Class Sought in Amble Suit
KOHL'S CORP: De Phillips Suit Asserts ADA Breach

LA VIEILLE RUSSIE: Faces Tucker ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LIFEFLEET LLC: Wheelchair Drivers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
LIVE WELL FINANCIAL: Shakespeare Sues Over Illegal Tax Charges
LSC COMMUNICATIONS: Waters Challenges Sale to Quad/Graphics
LYSSE PARTNERS: Diaz Brings ADA Class Suit in New York

MARRIOTT INT'L: Customer Data Compromised, Says Voll Suit
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Removes Silver Suit to C.D. California
MONSANTO CO: Larke Sues Over Herbicide Side-effects
MONSANTO CO: Sawyer Sues Over Roundup Exposure
MONSANTO CO: Weatherspoon Files Suit Over Roundup Side-effects

MULLEN & IANNARONE: Faces Lopez Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Class Certification Sought in Norton Suit
NCR CORP: Galasso Labor Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
NOMAX INC: St. Louis Heart Center Moves for Writ of Certiorari
OSMOSE UTILITIES: Removes Fisher Suit to E.D. California

PALM K9 & SECURITY: Williams Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
PARC AT JOLIET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Nurses, Bello Says
PEACHES BOUTIQUE: Alamo May Start Notifying Members of Class
PERKINS AND MARIE: Removes Cupp Suit to C.D. California
PICK A PART: Fails to Pay Yard Laborers' Overtime, Cardoso Claims

POINT BLANK: Law Enforcers Group Hit Defective Body Armor
POINT RECYCLING: Rodriguez Hits Discrimination, Seeks Overtime Pay
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Has Until Jan. 16 to Reply to Takano Suit
REPUBLIC OF SUDAN: O'Neill Sues Over Sept. 11 Terrorist Attack
RICHARDSON'S CUISINE: Wright Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

ROCCO FIORE: Madrigal Sues to Recover Wages for H-2B Workers
SAKS INC: Hung Case Removed to C.D. Cal.
SANFORD KAHN: Faces Montes Suit over Debt Collection Practices
SENDGRID INC: Bushansky Suit Challenges Sale to Twilio
SGE MANAGEMENT: Clearman Appeals Order in Torres Suit to 5th Cir.

SHEIN FASHION: Faces Golbahar Suit in C.D. California
SUN-MAID GROWERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diaz Suit Claims
TERMAX CORPORATION: Wins Prelim. Nod of Settlement in Sosa Suit
TIGER NATURAL: Fishman's Supplemental Bid for Class Cert. Denied
TOUCHPOINT 360: FLSA Class Certification Sought in Arugu Suit

TROPICANA PRODUCTS: Sued for Misleading Label of Probiotic Products
UNITED STATES: Class of Army Veterans Certified in Kennedy Suit
UNITED STATES: Diabetic Medicare Patients File Class Action
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Trujillo Files 2nd Renewed Class Cert. Bid
UNIVERSAL LINEN: Does not Properly Pay Employees, Lehman Suit Says

WAL-MART STORES: Prado's Bid to Certify Calif. ASMs Class Denied
WALGREENS BOOTS: Shanov Sues Over Carcinogen in Hypertension Meds
WELLS FARGO: Jan. 23 Settlement Claims Filing Period Deadline Set
XBB INC: You Qing Wang Seeks Overtime Pay, Pay Slips
YRC WORLDWIDE: Lewis Files Securities Class Action


                            *********

303 GALLERY: Faces Tucker ADA Suit in Southern District of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 303 Gallery, Inc. The
case is captioned as HENRY TUCKER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 303 GALLERY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11662-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 13, 2018).
The lawsuit alleges violation of the American with Disabilities
Act. The case is assigned to Judge Gregory H. Woods.

303 Gallery was first established by owner and director Lisa
Spellman in 1984 at 303 Park Avenue South. The Company exhibits the
work of contemporary artists working in all media. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 299-6612
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: joseph@cml.legal

The Defendant is represented by:

          Amanda M. Fugazy, Esq.
          ELLENOFF GROSSMAN & SCHOLE LLP
          1345 Avenue of the Americas, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10105
          Telephone: (516) 584-1642
          Facsimile: (484) 805-7022
          E-mail: afugazy@egsllp.com

               - and -

          Paul Patrick Rooney, Esq.
          ELLENOFF GROSSMAN & SCHOLE LLP
          1345 Avenue of the Americas, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10105
          Telephone: (646) 895-7185
          Facsimile: (484) 805-7022
          E-mail: prooney@egsllp.com

               - and -

          Stephania Cabrini Sanon, Esq.
          ELLENOFF GROSSMAN & SCHOLE LLP
          1345 Avenue of the Americas, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10105
          Telephone: (212) 370-1300
          Facsimile: (212) 370-7889
          E-mail: ssanon@egsllp.com


3M COMPANY: Civitarese Suit Moved to South Carolina District Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled CHRISTINE CIVITARESE; JOANN
CRIPPIN; MELISSA GOSS; NANCY HAGBERG; GARY HAGBERG; CLAYTON
HENDRICKS; and LESLIE MATHIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE 3M COMPANY, f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P.,
successor in interest to THE ANSUL COMPANY; BUCKEYE FIRE PROTECTION
CO.; CHEMGUARD; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC.,
f/k/a CHUBB NATIONAL FOAM, INC., f/k/a NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,
individually and as successor in interest to NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
KIDDE PLC, INC., f/k/a WILLIAMS US INC., f/k/a WILLIAMS HOLDINGS,
INC., individually and as successor in interest to NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and as successor in interest
to NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS
CORPORATION, INC., f/k/a GE INTERLOGIX, INC., individually and as
successor in interest to NATIONAL FOAM, INC. Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-10747, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the
District Court of Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina on December 13, 2018. The District of
South Carolina Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-03434 to the
proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Richard M. Gergel.

3M Company operates as a diversified technology company worldwide.
The company's Industrial segment offers tapes; coated, non-woven,
and bonded abrasives; adhesives; ceramics; sealants; specialty
materials; purification products; closure systems for personal
hygiene products; acoustic systems products; automotive components;
and abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian Cunha, Esq.
          BRIAN CUNHA & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE
          311 Pine Street
          Fall River, MA 02720
          Telephone: (508) 675-9500


511 GALLERY: Faces Tucker ADA Suit in Southern District of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 511 Gallery, Inc. The
case is captioned as HENRY TUCKER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 511 GALLERY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11669-DAB (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 13, 2018).
The lawsuit alleges violation of the American with Disabilities
Act. The case is assigned to Judge Deborah A. Batts.

511 Gallery, Inc. is a salon-type gallery, but open to the public,
of contemporary art operating out of The Chelsea Mercantile
Building on Seventh Avenue. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 299-6612
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: joseph@cml.legal


A OLIVAREZ HARVESTING: Migrant Workers Hit Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hector Jesus Rueda, Raul Rueda and Jorge Alberto Chavez,
Plaintiffs, vs. A. Olivarez Harvesting, LLC, Augustin Olivarez, and
Frio County Partners Inc. (d/b/a Jack's Produce), Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-01325 (W.D. Tex., December 21, 2018), seeks to recover
damages for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Migrant
and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act and breach of
contract under Texas law.

A. Olivarez Harvesting, LLC, specializes in harvesting, packaging,
and shipping produce, including green beans, cabbage and sweet corn
using contracted labor. They provide labor to Jack's Produce at
their location at 3424 Business Interstate 35 E, Pearsall, Texas,
78061.

Plaintiffs are Mexicans admitted into the United States under the
H-2A and/or H-2B temporary foreign worker visa programs to perform
manual labor as packers and packagers. A. Olivarez Harvesting, LLC
and Jack's Produce allegedly breached their employment contracts
with Plaintiffs by failing to pay Plaintiffs the promised wage
rates for all hours worked for Defendants. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER
      8301 Broadway St., Ste. 309
      San Antonio, TX 78209
      Tel: (210) 308-6222
      Fax: (210) 308-6223
      Website: www.equaljusticecenter.org

             - and -

      Christopher J. Willett, Esq.
      Rebecca Eisenbrey, Esq.
      Colleen Mulholland, Esq.
      510 S. Congress Ave., Ste. 206
      Austin, TX 78704
      Tel: (512) 474-0007
      Fax : (512) 474-0008
      Email: cmulholland@equaljusticecenter.org
             cwillett@equaljusticecenter.org
             reisenbrey@equaljusticecenter.org


AAA BUSINESS FUNDING: Naiman Sues Over TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Sidney Naiman and Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AAA Business Funding,
Inc. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00022 (N.D. Cal., January 2, 2019)
brought this action individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated seeking damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendants, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting
Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs' cellular telephones in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and related regulations,
specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading
Plaintiffs' privacy.

The Defendants used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to
place its call to Plaintiffs seeking to solicit its services, notes
the complaint. The Defendants' calls constituted calls that were
not for emergency purposes. During all relevant times, the
Defendants did not possess Plaintiffs' "prior express consent" to
receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice on their cellular telephone.

Plaintiffs requested for Defendant to stop calling Plaintiffs
during one of the initial calls from Defendant, thus revoking any
prior express consent that had existed and terminating any
established business relationship that had existed. Despite this,
Defendant continued to call Plaintiffs in an attempt to solicit its
services and in violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of
the TCPA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff, Sidney Naiman, is a natural person residing in Contra
Costa, California.

Plaintiff, Terry Fabricant, is a natural person residing in
Winnetka, California.

AAA Business Funding, Inc. is business lending company.

The true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein as DOE
DEFENDANTS 1 through 10, inclusive, are currently unknown to
Plaintiff, who therefore sues such Defendants by fictitious
names.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     Meghan E. George, 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
            mgeorge@toddflaw.com


ADAM BAUMGOLD: Faces Tucker Suit in Southern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adam Baumgold Fine
Art, Inc. The case is captioned as HENRY TUCKER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADAM
BAUMGOLD FINE ART, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11671-ALC
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 13, 2018). The lawsuit alleges violation of the
American with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge
Andrew L. Carter, Jr.

Adam Baumgold Fine Art Inc. was established in 1986. The gallery
exhibits the work of Contemporary and 20th Century artists - modern
masters as well as emerging artists. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 299-6612
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: joseph@cml.legal


ADVANCE AMERICA: Souders Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kristyna Souders, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Advance America, Cash Advance
Centers of California, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-10592, (C.D.
Cal., December 21, 2018), seeks actual damages, statutory damages
for willful and negligent violations, costs and reasonable
attorney's fees and such other and further relief pursuant to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the federal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Beginning in or around March of 2018, Defendant contacted Souders
on her cellular telephone number in an effort to collect an alleged
debt. Souders incurs a charge for incoming calls. She did not give
her express consent to receive calls using an automatic telephone
dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice.

Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of California, LLC, is a
company engaged in the business of providing loans to consumers.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AIMBRIDGE HOSPITALITY: Flynn Wins Prelim. OK of Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Joy Flowers Conti grants the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in teh lawsuit
titled GERTRUDE MAE FLYNN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AIMBRIDGE HOSPITALITY, LLC, Case No.
2:17-cv-01649-JFC (W.D. Pa.).

All pending pretrial deadlines and the trial date are vacated.

The proposed Settlement Class is preliminarily certified for
purposes of settlement.  The Settlement Class is defined as:

     All individuals who use wheelchairs, scooters, or any other
     device for mobility and who have been, or in the future will
     be, denied the full and equal enjoyment of transportation
     services offered to guests at hotels owned and/or operated
     by Defendant in the United States because of the lack of
     accessible Transportation Services at those hotels.

The Court appoints Named Plaintiff Gertrude Mae Flynn as
representative of the Settlement Class, and appoints R. Bruce
Carlson, Esq., and Kelly K. Iversonand, Esq., and the law firm of
Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP, as Class Counsel for
the Settlement Class.

Notice of the proposed Settlement Agreement shall be given to class
members.  The Notices attached to the Settlement Agreement are
approved as to form.  On or before January 25, 2019, the Parties
shall distribute the Notices of the proposed Settlement Agreement
advising the Class of the terms of the proposed Settlement
Agreement and their right to object to the proposed Settlement
Agreement.

The Defendant shall post a copy of the Notice at every
Defendant-owned and/or operated hotel in the United States that
provides transportation services, in a public location inside the
hotel.

A hearing (the "Fairness Hearing") shall be held before the Court
on April 10, 2019, at 2:00 p.m., EST.

Objections and accompanying verification must be received by March
11, 2019.  All responses to objections shall be filed with the
Court and served by mail on the Parties' Counsel and on any
objectors by March 26, 2019.[CC]


ALBERTZ BENDA: Faces Tucker Suit in Southern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Albertz Benda LLC.
The case is captioned as HENRY TUCKER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALBERTZ BENDA LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11676-GBD (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 13, 2018).
The lawsuit alleges violation of the American with Disabilities
Act. The case is assigned to Judge George B. Daniels.

Albertz Benda LLC was founded in 2015. The company operates museums
and art galleries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 299-6612
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: joseph@cml.legal


ALEXANDER GRAY: Faces Tucker Suit in S.D. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alexander Gray
Associates, LLC. The case is captioned as HENRY TUCKER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ALEXANDER GRAY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-11680-JPO (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 13, 2018). The lawsuit alleges
violation of the American with Disabilities Act. The case is
assigned to Judge J. Paul Oetken.

Alexander Gray Associates, LLC was founded in 2005. The company's
line of business includes the operation of museums and art
galleries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 299-6612
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: joseph@cml.legal


ALEXANDER'S LLC: Polsinelli Discusses DOL Opinion on 80/20 Rule
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hingula, Esq. -- rhingula@polsinelli.com -- of Polsinelli,
in an article for JDSupra, reports that the application of the
80/20 Rule has been a hot topic in the restaurant industry the last
several years because it is the foundation of an onslaught of
collective and class action litigation brought by service workers
claiming they were not paid minimum wage.

As a brief summary, the 80/20 Rule limits the use of the lower tip
credit wage rate ($2.13 per hour) when a tipped employee spends
more than 20% of their working time on non-tipped work. In other
words, employers can only apply a tip credit to time spent on
non-tipped work if such duties did not exceed 20% of the employee's
time.  

In 2017, in Marsh v. J. Alexander's LLC the U.S. Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals struck down the 80/20 Rule and created a split
among the circuits as to its validity.  However, the Ninth Circuit
reheard the Marsh v. J. Alexander's LLC matter en banc and,
reversed its prior ruling, determining (in line with other
Circuits) that the 80/20 Rule was indeed valid.

More recently, in November 2018, the U.S. Department of Labor
("DOL") issued an Opinion Letter stating that it has officially
done away with the 80/20 Rule for tipped workers and restored its
old guidance. The Opinion Letter states:

"We do not intend to place a limitation on the amount of duties
related to a tip-producing occupation that may be performed, so
long as they are performed contemporaneously with direct
customer-service duties and all other requirements of the Act are
met."

This result comes as welcome news for the restaurant industry, as
restaurants no longer need to track a tipped employee's every task
and the amount of time spent on each task -- a logistical
nightmare. Additionally, this change may result in a reduction of
minimum wage collective and class action claims brought by tipped
employees and lift the administrative burden the 80/20 Rule placed
on restaurant employers. [GN]


ALLIED COLLECTION: White-Johnson Files FDCPA Suit Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Collection &
Credit Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Adair White-Johnson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Allied Collection & Credit Bureau, Inc. and John Does
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00010-ELR-WEJ (N.D. Ga., January
2, 2019).

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

Allied Collections and Credit Bureau is a mid-sized, accounts
receivable management and control firm which was established in
1982.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan Braxton Mason, Esq.
   Mason Law Group, LLC - GA
   1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 200
   Atlanta, GA 30309
   Tel: (404) 920-8040
   Fax: (404) 920-8039
   Email: jmason@atlshowbizlaw.com


ATHENA CAPITAL: Workers Class Certified Under FLSA in Garcia Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Clay D. Land grants the parties' Consent Motion to
Conditionally Certify Collective Action, Order Production of
Contact Information and Distribution of Notice, and Stay Certain
Deadlines in the lawsuit titled JAMES GARCIA, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated v. ATHENA CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a JOHNNY'S
PIZZA, Case No. 3:18-cv-00136-CDL (M.D. Ga.).

This class of potential opt-ins is conditionally certified under
the Fair Labor Standards Act in this action, to the extent such
individuals allege that Defendant failed to pay them overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 in one or more
workweeks during the appropriate limitations periods:

     Each current or former employee of Defendant who (1) worked
     as a cook, driver, dishwasher, kitchen manager or assistant
     manager at Defendant's Johnny's Pizza location at any time
     during the three years preceding the date of the entry of
     this Order, and (2) worked overtime (more than 40 hours in a
     work week) at least once during the three years preceding
     the date of the entry of this Order, and; (3) has not signed
     an arbitration agreement.

Judge Land rules that within 14 days from the entry of this Order,
the Defendant shall provide to the Plaintiff's counsel the name and
last known home address for each member of the class.  Within seven
days from receipt of their contact information, the Plaintiff's
counsel shall mail the Court-approved Notice to each member of the
class to be accompanied by a consent form and pre-addressed,
pre-paid return envelope addressed to the Plaintiff's counsel.

The discovery period in this case is stayed pending the parties'
settlement negotiations, except for discovery focused on resolving
this litigation, as are the deadlines for the parties to submit the
Rule 26(f) Report, and to exchange initial disclosures.

Within 90 days of the close of the opt-in period, the parties shall
file a status report regarding the results of their efforts to
settle their dispute.  If the parties reach a resolution of this
matter through negotiation and/or mediation, subject to this
Court's approval, then the parties shall set forth in that status
report how and when they will move for approval of their proposed
settlement.  If the parties do not reach a proposed settlement of
this matter, then they shall also file the Rule 26(f) Report,
within seven days following the close of their negotiation
period.[CC]


AUSTIN, TX: Judge Has Yet to Decide on Motions to Dismiss
---------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Marloff, writing for Austin Chronicle, reports that U.S.
Judge Lee Yeakel will not make a decision until after the holidays
regarding the City of Austin's and Travis County's motions to
dismiss the sexual assault class action suit brought against both
entities by eight local rape survivors.

Judge Yeakel spent the morning of Monday, Dec. 17, hearing oral
arguments from counsel for the defendants -- Travis County,
District Attorney Margaret Moore, and her predecessor Rosemary
Lehmberg (represented by assistant county attorney Tony Nelson);
and the City of Austin, Police Chief Brian Manley, and his
predecessor Art Acevedo (represented by Sara Schaefer of the City's
law department). Both the county and city have filed motions to
dismiss the lawsuit. Meanwhile, attorney Jennifer Ecklund,
representing the eight plaintiffs, argued to move forward toward
discovery and eventually a trial. Several of the plaintiffs were
present, and dozens of advocates for survivors quietly filled the
courtroom to provide support.

The oral arguments expanded on claims previously made in filings on
both sides. The County and the D.A.'s office continue to assert
that the plaintiffs have not met the burden of proof to hold the
D.A. responsible for the allegations in the lawsuit, which claims
that systemic failures within law enforcement have led to
discrimination and mistreatment of women rape survivors in Travis
County. Mr. Nelson opened by noting that the D.A.'s motion to
dismiss was not intended to suggest that the plaintiffs were not
victims, but that the criminal justice system and courthouse
doesn't always provide closure when faced with proving guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt. While the suit highlights statements made by
Moore regarding sexual assault survivors, Nelson argued against the
lawsuit's use of "public comment[s]" from the D.A. "taken out of
context." Travis County continues to insist the suit lacks specific
factual allegations and instead relies on statistics to make its
case. Nelson, pointing to the 2017 stats -- of approximately 1,000
sexual assault allegations made locally, only one made it to
prosecution and that victim was male -- argued those stats aren't
"controlled" or representative. In 2018, he added, 10 rape cases
have been tried by the D.A.'s office and seven resulted in
convictions. (During the plaintiffs' rebuttal, Ms. Ecklund noted
that 10 out of 1,000 cases is "still pretty stark" in terms of
justice for survivors.)

Meanwhile, the City and APD argued against the suit's allegations
that they violated survivors' Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights by
not testing their forensic exam kits for years and not using them
to "pursue additional investigation or process cases through the
criminal justice system." Schaefer argued that these protections
could not be applied to plaintiffs who consented to the exams; that
consent, she said, can't be taken back because the evidence "wasn't
used the way they'd like." Ms. Ecklund responded that plaintiffs
were misled about how the kits would be used, and argued that if
victims knew these kits would be left untested for years or not
used to make an arrest, most survivors wouldn't consent to the exam
in the first place. Schaefer also contended that the suit doesn't
adequately establish gender discrimination, asserting that APD's
limited resources are not in themselves discriminatory, that sexual
assault can't be compared to other crimes such as homicide, and
that offensive conduct by some officers, as alleged in the suit, is
best understood as "stray remarks," not policy.

During her 20 minutes of arguments, Ms. Ecklund said the class
action is meant to address victims' rights, adding that the details
suggest these eight survivors are not alone in feeling
discriminated against and silenced by local law enforcement and
prosecutors, or in feeling that the city and county are taking "no
action" to get rapists off the street. Further, she argued, the
plaintiffs' claims are not "vague" and "inconclusive"; when paired
with the statistics cited, each one -- from APD's "unfunctional"
DNA lab and infamous rape kit backlog, to the D.A.'s requirement
that serious physical harm be present to move forward with a case,
to the continued failure to arrest perpetrators and prosecute rape
cases -- should be enough to move forward with the suit. The
plaintiffs, argued Ms. Ecklund, are entitled to discovery.

Judge Yeakel applauded both sides for "wonderful arguments" but
made note that as a federal judge, he's faced with a very full
docket. "I understand that everyone wants things to happen really
quickly in this case and I recognize its importance," he said. But
Judge Yeakel will not render a scheduling order for discovery until
after he's gone through the motions to dismiss, and certainly not
before January 1, 2019. [GN]


AUSTIN, TX: Seeks Dismissal of Discrimination Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Caprariello, writing for KXAN, reports that the City of
Austin, Travis County, the district attorney, members of the Austin
Police Department and several others, all pushing back against a
class action lawsuit brought against them.

The trial continues -- with the prosecution claiming these people
in power have discriminated against victims of sexual assault.

You might remember the press conference back in June.

Three women bravely took to the podium and shared their experiences
of being sexually assaulted.

These victims, all plaintiffs in a 60-page class action lawsuit,
claim their cases and those of countless other women in the county,
were discriminated against and mishandled.

On Dec. 17, the attorneys for the city and the district attorney's
office argued to dismiss the lawsuit entirely.

The defense argued people like the chief of police and D.A. have
the right to decide which cases are prosecuted and that they are
protected from legal action so they may do their jobs.

However, the prosecution claims these people need to be held
accountable, so the community can feel safe.

"Most women who come forward do so to protect other women from the
same crime. And to the extent that we don't make those efforts on
their behalf, we are not putting the safety of the community as our
priority," said Jennifer Ecklund, a partner for Thompson and Knight
L.L.P. which represents the victims of sexual assault.

The judge did not make a final ruling on Dec. 17. He said a
decision wouldn't come until into the new year.

Attorneys for the city and county wouldn't go on camera, but a
spokesperson for the city of Austin provided this statement: "We
appreciate the court allowing the parties to present the argument
in this important case and look forward to the court's decision in
the new year."

The District Attorney also offered a statement: "The District
Attorney's Office has no comment on the hearing before Judge
Yeakel, other than to thank the Court for its attention to this
matter." [GN]


AUTOZONE PARTS: Feb. 26 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The following notice is being jointly issued by Waskowski Johnson
Yohalem LLP and Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman LLP and has been
authorized by the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
in Hughes et al. v. AutoZone Parts, Inc. et al., Case No.
BC631080.

If you were a member of AutoZone's Rewards Program in California
and had a $20 Reward and/or Reward Credit expire, a class action
lawsuit may affect your rights
    
Who is Included? The Court has certified two subclasses generally
consisting of persons enrolled in the most common version of
AutoZone's Rewards Program in California at the time AutoZone
changed the program and who had $20 Reward(s) and/or Reward
Credit(s) deemed expired and lost.  The detailed Notice available
at www.AZRewardsLitigation.com defines these Subclasses more
precisely.

What is this Case About? This case alleges that AutoZone breached
contractual and legal duties to members of its Rewards Program by
representing that they would earn a $20 Reward when they made 5
purchases of $20 or more, then changing the program to add time
limits to earn and redeem Rewards, which resulted in members losing
Rewards and Rewards Credits.  It seeks compensation on behalf of
the Subclasses and certain injunctive relief.  AutoZone denies any
wrongdoing, and has asserted numerous defenses.  AutoZone contends
that it has, at all times, complied with California law and acted
in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Rewards
Program.

What are Your Options? To stay in this litigation, do nothing. To
exclude yourself, send a signed request using the words "Exclusion
Request" to Exclusions, AutoZone Litigation, c/o Postlethwaite &
Netterville, P.O. Box 82565 Baton Rouge, LA 70884  or
info@AZRewardsLitigation.com. Your request must be sent by February
26, 2019. A judgment in the lawsuit, whether favorable or not, will
bind all class members who do not request exclusion. If you do not
request exclusion, you may enter an appearance through your own
attorney.

How Do You Get More Information? This Notice is only a summary. To
obtain a detailed Notice and additional information, visit
www.AZRewardsLitigation.com.  Para mas información, visita
www.AZRewardsLitigation.com/ESP.

DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT. [GN]


BADCOCK HOME: Court Denies Wilson's Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William F. Jung issued an order in the lawsuit styled
VICTORIA WILSON v. BADCOCK HOME FURNITURE, Case No.
8:17-cv-02739-WFJ-AAS (M.D. Fla.):

   -- denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification; and
   -- denying motions to strike and exclude expert testimony.

Having determined that the Plaintiff does not satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court need not address
the remaining requirements, according to the Order.  Hence, the
Court denied that requested class certification, and the motions to
strike and exclude are denied for the reasons stated at the
hearing.

The Plaintiff filed her Complaint on November 13, 2017, alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  The Plaintiff
seeks to certify a class, which would include:

"(1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
telephone number (3) Defendant placed a non-emergency telephone
call (4) using substantially the same system(s) that were used to
telephone Plaintiff (5) from March 6, 2014 through the present and
(6) where Defendant's call records report a wrong number associated
with said cellular telephone number."[CC]


BATON ROUGE, LA: Faces Class Action Over Red Light Cameras
----------------------------------------------------------
Terry L. Jones, writing for The Advocate, reports that East Baton
Rouge Parish intends to leave its red light cameras up and
operating after Jan. 1 even though its contract with the firm in
charge of collecting fines expires on New Year's Eve.

The city-parish's chief administrative officer said on Dec. 17 the
cameras would still log stop-light violations in 2019, even though
the parish hasn't been able to hammer out new terms with American
Traffic Solutions. A proposed new contract failed on a tie vote at
the Metro Council meeting.

"The cameras will still be in place; they won't be pulled," Chief
Administrative Officer Darryl Gissel said. "They'll still be taking
pictures and citations are going to go out. The question will be:
How will they be processed until we can get the item back on the
agenda and voted on at the council's second meeting in January."

Mr. Gissel said local law enforcement also use the red light
cameras for traffic control and crime prevention.

Separately, a pair of lawyers are arguing ATS isn't authorized to
issue citations at all under the parish's home rule charter. They
want East Baton Rouge Parish to reimburse all fines collected from
citations since the red light camera program began in 2007. Their
argument is similar to one that led to reimbursements from similar
ticketing systems in the New Orleans area.

Metairie attorney Joseph McMahon III and Anthony Maska, a
Hammond-based lawyer, are seeking class-action status in a lawsuit
filed Dec. 7 in the 19th Judicial District Court.

Jefferson Parish did away with a program that was in place between
2007 and 2010 after questions rose about payments from its vendor,
Redflex, to local lobbyists. A judge ruled in 2015 that the parish
owed $7.1 million to 147,000 drivers who received tickets while the
cameras there were in use.

Mr. McMahon noted on Dec. 17 that a judge also had ordered Orleans
Parish to reimburse approximately $27 million in fines the parish
collected over the initial three years of its program. A judge has
yet to rule on the lingering questions surrounding the
constitutionality of the Orleans Parish program, McMahon said.

In their lawsuit against the Baton Rouge red light camera program,
the attorneys assert the city-parish's Department of Public Works
does not have the authority to enforce the laws spelled out in the
parish's home rule charter since the program's implementation in
2007.

"It's mandated that the police department is responsible for
enforcement of the ordinances of the council," the lawsuit states.
"There is no provision with the city's home rule charter
authorizing DPW to enforce any traffic ordinances."

Mr. McMahan estimates the city-parish has collected approximately
$10 million in fines from the more than 80,000 citations issued
over the life of its program. That's $125 a ticket.

"Within the next 90 days, we'll be going before a judge to justify
why this is a class-action lawsuit," he said. "There are things
we'll need to show for the judge to certify the class."

As of right now, Chad Soileau and Greg Duhon are the only named
plaintiffs in the suit.

Mr. Gissel said on Dec. 17 there are "key differences" between the
city-parish's red light camera program and the ones in Jefferson
and Orleans parishes. He wouldn't comment further on the lawsuit
under the advice of parish attorneys because of the pending
litigation.

However, he did say when the administration puts the contract back
on the agenda this month, he believes there will be enough votes to
pass it. A few of those key supporters were out of the room last
time, he said.

"We addressed most of their concerns," Mr. Gissel said.

City-parish officials have estimated the proposed renegotiated
contract with ATS would save at least $347,000 in the 2019
operating budget by increasing the rate of return on paid tickets.

After previous complaints that ATS was eating into too much of the
profits from fines, the city-parish reworked its contract so that
the company will instead receive a flat fee for each paid ticket.
The new agreement also includes the option of installing more
cameras at no extra cost and four annual renewals, which would
extend it for the next five years.

Another criticism from council members has been that just a
fraction of the people fined for running red lights actually pay
their tickets -- in some years less than 50 percent. That number
was 38 percent for the 72,847 first notices of violation issued in
2017. And one man owes more than $26,000 in unpaid red light
violation fines.

Mr. Gissel said previously the mayor's office is still evaluating
the options they have to collect outstanding fines. That total was
somewhere around $43 million for the first 10 years of the
program.

Mr. Gissel said on Dec. 17 the city-parish will only be able to go
after about three years of owed fines -- which amounts to
approximately $23 million.

The red light camera program has generated significant revenue:
$2.9 million in 2017 and $2.3 million in 2016. And officials expect
that those profits would grow to $3.5 million in 2019 if the
contract change is approved. [GN]


BHP BILLITON: Class Action Over Samarco Dam Collapse Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Sweeney, writing for Australian Associated Press, reports
that a class action with more than 29,000 claimants against BHP
Billiton over a 2015 Brazilian dam collapse that killed 19 people
will be the one to proceed, a Federal Court judge has ruled.

The mining giant was facing three separate class actions over
allegations company directors were, or should have been, aware of
the risk of the dam collapse at the Samarco iron ore mine as far
back as 2012.

It's also alleged the company failed to meet its disclosure
obligations to the Australian stock exchange about the risks at any
time before the deadly collapse on November 9, 2015.

BHP is defending the claims.

Federal Court Justice Mark Moshinsky ruled in Melbourne on
Dec. 18 that the first proceeding by Vince Impiombato, which
includes 29,610 shareholders, could proceed as the open class.

That action covers a period from October 2013 until the collapse on
November 9, 2015.

It alleges BHP, which holds a 50 per cent interest in the Samarco
mining and mineral resource company through BHP Brasil, knew about
issues with the dam during that period, including allegations of
seepage and sinkholes in mid to late-2012 and the appearance of
"extensive cracks" in August 2014.

The village of Bento Rodrigues was wiped out when the dam in Minas
Gerais state, in southeastern Brazil, collapsed, killing 19 and
displacing 700.

Drinking water for hundreds of thousands of people was affected by
mud and debris and the Atlantic Ocean was also contaminated.

Justice Moshinsky noted the overlap in the three proceedings in
determining a class action involving the Klemweb Superannuation
Fund be permanently stayed, noting the period it covers is wholly
encompassed by the larger Impiombato proceedings.

Klemweb's claim has 197 applicants who will be covered by other
proceedings.

Justice Moshinsky declined their suggestion to continue as a closed
class.

"To have both proceedings continue side-by-side would be likely to
result in considerable duplication of legal work and thus increase
the overall cost of the proceeding," he said.

"While this would benefit the lawyers, it is unlikely to benefit
the group members."

A claim by the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association
was stayed until September this year.

That claim involves allegations going back to August 2012 and
Justice Moshinsky said he would allow consideration of whether the
Impiombato proceedings be extended to also cover the additional
months.

A case management hearing will be held in the Impiombato
proceedings at a later date.

BHP has already paid out millions of dollars in compensation and
remediation.

A further multi-billion dollar class action involving 240,000
claimants was filed in the UK in November, while the company agreed
to settle a US class action for $US50 million ($A70 million),
without admission of liability, in August. [GN]


CALIFORNIA: CHP Sued for Interfering with Marijuana Businesses
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Ross Ferrara, writing for Lost Coast Outpost, reports that
three months after two former Del Norte County California Highway
Patrol officers turned licensed Eureka based marijuana distributors
were arrested by Fresno CHP, their lawyer has filed a class-action
lawsuit aiming to prevent CHP officers from interfering with
state-approved marijuana businesses.

Marijuana Business Daily reports that the suit, filed in San
Francisco County Superior Court by attorney Matt Kumin, aims to
prevent officers from seizing cash and other items from compliant
marijuana businesses and handing it over to the federal government
-- similar to what happened to Wild Rivers Transport, LLC owners
Richard Barry and Brian Clemann.

"CHP has gone rogue, and they're going to continue to do it until
they're stopped," Wild Rivers attorney Matt Kumin is quoted as
saying by MBD during a press conference.

The class-action suit lists the plaintiffs as current
state-approved marijuana business, medical marijuana patients and
past and present California taxpayers.

Mr. Barry and Brian Clemann were arrested in September after
officers found more than $200,000 in cash and two concealed, loaded
handguns in their pickup truck.

"It appears the CHP will stop at nothing to disrupt the lawful and
legal transport of items involved in the medicinal cannabis
industry," Messrs. Barry and Clemann stated in a press release
following their arrest. "Despite following all [Bureau of Cannabis
Control] rules and regulations, the CHP endangered, harassed,
detained/arrested, and mistreated individuals engaged in lawful
activities as they relate to cannabis."

No criminal charges were brought against the two local businessmen
after being arrested and detained by officers for what they say was
roughly six-hours.

Messrs. Barry and Lemann also filed a separate civil rights suit
against the CHP seeking damages and the return of the more than
$200,000 that was seized by the agency. [GN]


CANADA: Aug. 30 Deadline Set for Sixties Scoop Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
TbNewsWatch.com reports that Indigenous people eligible for
compensation under the "Sixties Scoop" class action settlement were
being invited to an information session in Thunder Bay on Tuesday,
Dec. 18.

Over a period of four decades, Indigenous children across Canada
were forcibly taken into care and placed with non-Indigenous
parents, where they were not raised in accordance with their
cultural traditions, nor taught their traditional languages.

A court-approved settlement with the federal government provides
for payments of between $25,000 and $50,000 to any eligible person
who was adopted or made a permanent ward and was placed in the care
of non-Indigenous foster or adoptive parents between 1951 and
1991.

Representatives of the claims administrator, Collectiva Class
Action Services, and its First Nations' partners are travelling
across the country to provide information to class members and
assist them in completing claim forms. Financial planning
information is also being  made available.

Claims for compensation must be submitted to the claims
administrator by August 30, 2019.

Claim forms are available at sixtiesscoopsettlement.info.

The information meeting in Thunder Bay was set to take place on
Dec. 18, at the Victoria Inn between 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. [GN]


CLAIMS RESOLUTION: Faces Class Action Over Earthquake Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Martin van Beynen, writing for Stuff, reports that lawyer Grant
Shand and earthquake claims champion Bryan Staples should have told
vulnerable clients they were in a joint venture and their experts
were not independent, a court has heard.

The allegations were aired in the High Court in Christchurch on
Dec. 17 in a case against Claims Resolution Service Ltd (CRS),
previously headed by Staples, and the firm Grant Shand Barristers
and Solicitors.

Plaintiff Karlie Smith was applying for leave to proceed against
the defendants as a representative of a class action.

CRS acted for homeowners in their earthquake claims against
insurance companies on a no-win, no-fee basis. Most of CRS's legal
work was handled by Shand.

Ms. Smith's lawyer Andrew Butler told Justice David Gendall CRS
used a number of associated companies to provide expert reports to
advise clients of their entitlements. Inflated estimates were used
to launch high value claims, he said.

Vulnerable clients thought they were getting independent,
arms-length advice and were not told of the links to Staples. Nor
were they told of the payment arrangements between Staples and
Shand. Their "joint venture" led to "unconscionable bargains" with
their clients, he said.

A class action would improve access to justice for the potential
group and avoid unnecessary duplication. The same legal questions
arose for the whole class, he said.

"You may be able to find some differences but standing back they
are not so material or great to tell against the making of a
representative order," Mr. Butler said.  

Andrew Barker QC, for CRS, said Ms. Smith's case showed the
fundamental problem with the class action bid. Her claim failed to
explain how the alleged wrong caused her any loss. Even if the
claims were inflated, that did not mean she received less than she
was entitled and she was not alleging the settlement was
insufficient to carry out her repairs.

Mr. Barker said Ms. Smith's complaint was essentially a
professional negligence claim that was not suited to a class
action. The potential group did not have enough in common to
justify a class action. The claimed losses differed significantly
and the claims turned on individual circumstances, he said.

Mr. Butler said CRS's clients were vulnerable because they had had
a difficult time and could not afford lawyers.

The links between CRS and Shand could have influenced litigation
strategy to earn more fees and damaged the credibility of the
evidence used to support claims. Several Christchurch judges had
made negative comments about the quality of the evidence brought by
CRS.

The hearing was set to continue on Dec. 18. [GN]


COLLECTION ANALYST: Wins Final Approval of $30K "Powers" Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph F. Bataillon grants the parties' joint motion for final
approval of a proposed class action settlement in the lawsuit
entitled LAURA POWERS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. THE COLLECTION ANALYST, INC., and JUDITH D.
RETELSDORF, Case No. 8:17-cv-00229-JFB-SMB (D. Neb.).

The Settlement Agreement will settle the representative plaintiff's
and the classes' claims against the Defendants in the action.  The
Settlement Agreement provides for payment totaling $30,000 to two
settlement classes.  It also provides that the Defendants will
change the challenged business practices.

In consideration of those actions, the Plaintiff Class agrees to
dismiss, with prejudice, the claims identified in this class action
against the Defendants and have agreed to a release and covenant
not to sue.  The Settlement Agreement also provides that any
undistributed funds will be distributed as a cy pres distribution
to Legal Aid of Nebraska for use in consumer representation and/or
consumer education.

The class action is brought for alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Nebraska Consumer Practices
Act.[CC]


COLUMBIA GAS: Day Care Owner Joins Class Action Over Gas Fires
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Harmacinski, writing for Eagle Tribune, reports that the
owners of North Andover home where a day care business also
operated are among those suing Columbia Gas after a series of
gas-driven fires and explosions across the Merrimack Valley on
Sept. 13, according to court papers.

Attorneys for Dean Thornhill and his wife, Mona, and their
children, were scheduled to be in Salem Superior Court on Dec. 19
for a court appearance in a civil lawsuit filed after the incidents
in Lawrence, Andover and North Andover now three months ago.

Both individual and class-action suits have been filed against
Columbia Gas and its parent company, NiSource.

One major lawsuit previously filed involves Omayra Figueroa and her
children whose home at 36 Chickering Road, Lawrence, exploded
during the gas disaster.

Omayra's daughter, Shakira, 21, was critically injured during the
blast and has undergone six surgeries so far on the lower half of
her body, said attorney Socrates De La Cruz of Lawrence, who is
representing the family, on Dec. 17.  

"The family is still going through extreme psychological, emotional
and physical hardship," Mr. De La Cruz said on Dec. 17.

The family of Leonel Rondon, 18, who was killed during the
Chickering Road house explosion, has also said they will sue
Columbia Gas.

Mr. Rondon, a newly licensed driver, died after the home's chimney
collapsed on his SUV in the driveway.

Essex County Superior Court Judge James Lang has been "specially
assigned" to preside over cases filed in relation to the Merrimack
Valley gas disaster, according to court papers.

Dean and Mona Thornhill and their son, Nathan, reside in a home at
28-30 East Water St. in North Andover.

Their son, William Thornhill and his wife, Rebecca
Crockett-Thornhill, of Methuen, also ran a day care at 30 East
Water St., North Andover, according to the lawsuit, filed by
attorneys David Raimondo, Patrick Haines and Brian Cunha.

On the afternoon of Sept. 13, Dean Thornhill saw "the pilot light
in his stove was acting in an abnormal manner," according to the
suit.

Mr. Thornhill immediately shut off the stove's gas and went to the
basement to check on the home's gas powered heating system.

"As he headed down the steep stairs into the basement, (Thornhill)
observed a veritable flame-thrower spewing out of the heating
system," according to the lawsuit.

The suit notes that unbeknownst to Mr. Thornhill, "this scenario
was playing out all over the area as more than 70 homes erupted in
flames" due to the over-pressurization of gas lines.

The Thornhill's home sustained $500,000 in smoke and fire damage,
the day care business was forced to close and family members have
suffered from "mental anguish and undue stress which manifests
itself as physical conditions including but not limited to
insomnia, digestive problems and headaches," according to the
lawsuit.

The suit cites negligence, breach of warranties, malicious conduct
and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Mr. Haines, an attorney with Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC, of Austin,
Texas, said he planned to be in superior court on Dec. 19 for the
initial court appearance. He said he has a professional background
with class-action suits which "are good for some cases" but not
necessarily appropriate for Merrimack Valley gas disaster cases.

The gas disaster cases "involve such varied individual personal
stories and trauma. I think most of my clients have (post-traumatic
stress disorder) and I don't see how a class action can be used for
that," Mr. Haines said. [GN]


CONNEKT COLORADO: Diaz Files Suit under ADA in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Connekt Colorado 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. Connekt Colorado Inc. doing business as: As
Seen On Tv, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00038 (S.D. N.Y., January
2, 2019).

Connekt Colorado, Inc. is an in-content advertising and data
science company. The Company offers an integrated transaction
engine enabling brands, distribution platforms and media companies
operating in the internet-enabled TV space to generate
revenue.[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


CONSUMERS UNION: Settles Subscribers' Class Action for $16.4MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Heltzel, writing for Westfair Online, reports that Consumers
Union, the pre-eminent, nonprofit consumer protection organization
that publishes Consumer Reports, has agreed to pay nearly $16.4
million to settle a class-action lawsuit for selling subscribers'
personal information.

The settlement was agreed to in April and formally approved Dec. 4
by U.S. District Judge Kenneth M. Karas.

Both sides depicted the settlement as a compromise.

Consumers UnionConsumers Union, based in Yonkers, "continues to
deny any wrongdoing," the settlement states. But it agreed to the
deal, "taking into account the uncertainty and risks inherent in
any litigation."

Don Ruppel of St. Charles, Michigan, believed he would have
prevailed at trial, according to the settlement, but he conceded
that Consumers Union "has raised factual and legal defenses that
present a risk" that he might lose.

Michigan subscribers to Consumer Reports will be paid about $180
each, according to court documents. Mr. Ruppel, as the lead
plaintiff, will get $7,500. The law firm that represented him,
Bursor & Fisher PA of Manhattan, will get one-third of the
settlement, or $5,458,333.

Consumers Union tests and analyzes products and services and it
advocates for stronger consumer regulatory protections. Consumer
Reports magazine is known for its policy of accepting no
advertising, to maintain its editorial independence.

Mr. Ruppel sued Consumers Union in 2016, accusing the publisher of
unjust enrichment under Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy
Act.

He said he had been barraged with junk mail and unwanted telephone
solicitations. The publisher, he alleged, sold subscribers'
personal information to list brokers, including details such as the
full name, income, home address, gender, age, ethnicity, religion,
parental status and political affiliation.

List brokers, according to the lawsuit, then sold the information
to telemarketers who could target specific groups. A buyer, for
instance, could get a list of Consumer Reports subscribers who are
Spanish-speaking females over the age of 80 with no children at
home and a net worth greater than $500,000.

Consumers Union responded in a written statement to the Business
Journal in 2016 that it provides clear notification of its
data-sharing practices and gives subscribers the ability to easily
opt out.

"All decisions made by the organization," Consumers Union said,
"are driven by the consumer interest."

Mr. Ruppel originally demanded $5 million, based on $5,000 each for
an estimated 1,000 Michigan subscribers.

The $16,375,000 settlement, Bursor & Fisher partner Joseph I.
Marchese declared in a September court filing, "secures
extraordinary relief" for Michigan subscribers.

Mr. Marchese said the settlement is the largest ever reached in a
Michigan personal privacy case, though the law firm has a pending
class-action settlement with Hearst Communications Inc. in federal
court in Manhattan for $50 million. [GN]


CULLIGAN WATER: Kapp Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------
Aaron Kapp, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons v. Culligan Water Technologies, Inc.,
Case No. 2018CH14636 filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division on November 26,
2018, is brought against the Defendant for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of initiating,
or causing the initiation of, telephone calls to residential
landline telephones using an artificial or prerecorded voice to
deliver an advertisement or telemarketing message without the prior
express written consent of the called party.

The Plaintiff is a natural person and a citizen of the State of
Wisconsin, residing within Wauwatosa, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.

The Defendant Culligan is a Delaware corporation, headquartered in
Rosemont, Illinois. The Defendant is a water filtration and water
softening company that provides in-home services. Culligan profits
from the service and sale of water filtration parts to consumers
with Culligan drinking water systems already installed. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
      Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
      David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
      Mara A. Baltabols, Esq.
      BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
      134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 658-5500
      Fax: (312) 658-5555
      E-mail: service@classlawyers.com


CURADEN AG: Class Certification Sought in Lyngaas TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled BRIAN LYNGAAS, D.D.S.,
individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. CURADEN AG, CURADEN USA INC, and JOHN
DOES 1-12, Case No. 2:17-cv-10910-MAG-MKM (E.D. Mich.), moves for
an order certifying this class:

     All persons who were successfully sent one or more
     facsimiles in March 2016 offering the Curaprox "5460 Ultra
     Soft Toothbrush" for "$.98 per/brush" to "dental
     professionals only."

Mr. Lyngaas also asks the Court to appoint him as the class
representative and to appoint his attorneys as class counsel.[CC]

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
          David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
          Mara A. Baltabols, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com
                  tod@classlawyers.com
                  david@classlawyers.com
                  mara@classlawyers.com

               - and -

          Richard Shenkan, Esq.
          SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
          6550 Lakeshore St.
          West Bloomfield, MI 48323-1429
          Telephone: (248) 562-1320
          Facsimile: (888) 769-1774
          E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com


DARDON'S ROOFING: Rivas Labor Suit to Recover Overtime Premiums
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodas Rivas and Francisco Lara Aguilar, on behalf of
themselves and all other employees similarly situated, known and
unknown, Plaintiffs, v. Dardon's Roofing, Ltd., Dardon Exteriors,
Inc., Mitchell Dardon and Rodolfo Dardon, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-08428 (N.D. Ill., December 21, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law, Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance.

Defendants are a family enterprise owned by the Dardons, engaged in
the business of repairing and installing roofs, bricks and masonry
and other construction work. Plaintiffs worked an average of 78
hours per week, 6 days per week without overtime premiums for the
hours they worked in excess of 40 each week, says the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roberto Alejandro Mendoza, Esq.
      ALEX MENDOZA LAW, P.C.
      120 S. State Street, Suite 400
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 508-6010
      Email: alex@alexmendozalaw.com

             - and -

      Kerry C. Connor, Esq.
      9013 Indianapolis Blvd., Suite C
      Highland, IN 46322
      Tel: (219) 972-7111
      Email: kcconnor@sbcglobal.net


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Boynton Beach Plan Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
BOYNTON BEACH GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION PLAN, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated v. DENTSPLY SIRONA, INC., JEFFREY
T. SLOVIN, BRET W. WISE, DONALD M. CASEY, CHRISTOPHER T. CLARK,
JAMES G. MOSCH, ULRICH MICHEL, NICHOLAS W. ALEXOS, MICHAEL C.
ALFANO, ERIC K. BRANDT, PAULA H. CHOLMONDELEY, MICHAEL J. COLEMAN,
WILLIE A. DEESE, WILLIAM F. HECHT, FRANCIS J. LUNGER, JOHN L.
MICLOT, AND JOHN C. MILES II, Case No. 2:18-cv-07253 (E.D.N.Y.,
December 19, 2018), alleges that the Defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities Act of 1933 by
misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose that:

    (i) the illicit anticompetitive scheme perpetrated by the
        Distributors, its impact on the Company's financial
        performance, and the risks posed to Dentsply Sirona's
        revenues and margins; and

   (ii) the massive build-up of inventory at Patterson Companies,
        Inc., that threatened the Company's ability to maintain
        (let alone increase) its sales of key product lines, and
        that made it all but certain that the then-existing
        exclusive distribution relationship with Patterson would
        be terminated.

Dentsply Sirona is the world's largest manufacturer of professional
dental products.  For years, Dentsply Sirona has dominated the
dental "consumables" and technology market by developing,
manufacturing and marketing an array of professional dental
products and equipment.

The majority of professional dental products sold in the U.S. are
through third-party distributors, and the three largest
distributors of dental products -- Henry Schein, Inc. ("Schein"),
Patterson Companies, Inc. ("Patterson") and Benco Dental Supply Co.
("Benco") (together, the "Distributors") -- account for 80% to 85%
of all dental market sales.

Dentsply Sirona is a Delaware corporation headquartered in York,
Pennsylvania, that designs, develops, manufactures and markets
dental products and services for use by dentists.  Dentsply Sirona
is effectively the successor-in-interest to Dentsply Intl. and
resulted from the merger of Dentsply Intl. and Sirona Dental
Systems, Inc.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers
of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
          Avi Josefson, Esq.
          Michael Blatchley, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com
                  avi@blbglaw.com
                  michaelb@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
          Bonni S. Jensen, Esq.
          KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN, JENSEN & LEVINSON
          7080 Northwest 4th Street
          Plantation, FL 33317
          Telephone: (954) 916-1202
          Facsimile: (954) 916-1232
          E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com
                  bonni@robertdklausner.com


ECO GREEN CARPET: Halawani Hits Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomy Halawani, individually and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Eco Green Carpet Care, LLC,,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-63131 (S.D. Fla., December 25, 2018),
seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant owns and operates a carpet cleaning business in South
Florida. Halawani claims to have received multiple pre-recorded
telemarketing calls to his cellular phone by use of an automatic
telephone dialing system without his permission. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

       Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
       THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
       110 SE 6th Street
       Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
       Telephone: (954) 907-1136
       Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
       Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Berryhill Moves to Certify Class Under FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled CHRISTIANA BERRYHILL,
individually and on behalf of a class described below v. ENHANCED
RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a ERC or ENHANCED RESOURCE CENTERS, Case
No. 1:17-cv-08059 (N.D. Ill.), asks the Court to certify a class
defined as:

     (1) all persons similarly situated in the State of Illinois
     (2) from whom Defendant attempted to collect on a defaulted
     T-Mobile consumer account (3) which includes the assessment
     of a collection fee on the consumer's account.

Ms. Berryhill brings the lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.  She also asks the Court to name her
as class representative, and to appoint her lawyers as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Wood, Esq.
          Celetha C. Chatman, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
          20 N. Clark Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 757-1880
          Facsimile: (312) 265-3227
          E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com
                  cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com


EVERSOURCE: Judge Dismisses Ratepayers' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Matt Pilon, writing for HartfordBusiness.com, reports that for the
past 14 months, Eversource and Avangrid have been defending against
a research report that claimed their natural gas pipeline
scheduling practices had added $3.6 billion to New England
ratepayers' costs over a three-year period.

The report, written by researchers from the Environmental Defense
Fund (EDF) and several universities, claimed the utilities
routinely reserved more pipeline space than they needed, then
reduced those orders at the last minute. That made natural gas more
scarce, thereby driving up energy prices for power plants and
others, the authors alleged.

The utilities have said they're simply ensuring that they will have
enough capacity to meet customer demand in cold weather.

So far, that utilities' pushback against the report has been
successful, as they've won rulings from their federal regulator, as
well as from a judge in Massachusetts who dismissed a proposed
class action lawsuit on behalf of ratepayers.

In November, they racked up another win.

On Dec. 12, Connecticut's Public Utilities Regulatory Authority
(PURA), which soon after the EDF report was published opened a
review of "gas supply portfolio, asset strategies and practices,"
issued a decision finding in favor of the utility companies.

The utilities, PURA wrote, had managed their gas portfolio assets
using "prudent strategies" and "in accordance with [PURA's]
directives and expectations." Their asset management strategies
take into account unpredictability in temperatures and customer
demand, and the fact that the utilities are required to have
additional gas available in case retail marketers are unable to
supply it, the decision said.

PURA limited the scope of its investigation from the outset, saying
it did not intend to analyze whether existing market rules should
be changed.

The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) argued in the proceeding that
changes were needed to make certain gas transactions more
transparent to regulators. Specifically, CLF argued, gas utilities'
off-system sales (which occur when they have excess capacity),
happen within a "black box," making the market less efficient and
making it harder for PURA to regulate the sales.

PURA disagreed, writing that off-market sales benefit both the
utilities and their ratepayers and that it has necessary mechanisms
in place to audit secondary market transactions on an annual
basis.

"While it is unfortunate that PURA and other agencies had to spend
extensive time and resources to review these erroneous claims, we
appreciate PURA's careful examination of this matter and its
ultimate conclusion that we acted properly and in the best interest
of our customers," Eversource spokesman Mitch Gross said.

"PURA's final decision confirms what we've said all along: that SCG
and CNG's management of their natural gas portfolios was consistent
with their obligation to provide reliable service to customers
under all weather and service conditions," Avangrid spokesman
Edward Crowder said.

Environmental Defense Fund spokesman Jon Coifman said his
organization, which was not a party to the PURA proceeding but did
provide some testimony submitted into the record, continues to
stand by its original analysis.

The Fund's report didn't ascribe any motives to the utilities or
allege that they'd broken any laws, Mr. Coifman noted.

"Our goal was, and is, to show that the rules governing the
wholesale natural gas market and its interaction with the wholesale
electric markets are in dire need of reform," he said.

EDF has called for better transparency, new pricing structures, and
better alignment of risks and rewards, which it says could lower
costs, drive new innovations and "provide a more honest picture of
the true need for new gas supply capacity, and the most
cost-effective ways to meet it." [GN]


EXPEDIA: Faces Class Action in Washington Over Tax Overcharge
-------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers who book and pay for hotel rooms via Reservations.com
have been cheated by Bellevue-based Expedia through an inflated
hotel "tax and fee" according to a new class-action lawsuit filed
by Hagens Berman.

If you booked and paid for a hotel room via Reservations.com –-
not Expedia.com -- since 2014, find out your rights to potential
compensation.

The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington states consumers who book hotel rooms with
Reservations.com pay a "Service Fee" room charge and "Tax Recovery
Charges and Fees." Consumers are told these "tax recovery charges
and fees" are "monies that the hotels must pay to the government."
However, these "taxes and fees" are not actual taxes and exceed the
real amount of taxes and fees actually owed on the hotel room.

For example, Reservations.com showed a room rate of $159 and "Tax
Recovery Charges & Fees" of $50.88 for a reservation at the W Hotel
in Seattle for Nov. 22-24, 2018. The real total state and local
Seattle tax for a Seattle hotel room is 15.6 percent, plus $2 per
night. Therefore, the total "Taxes & Fees" on this room should have
been $27 -- not $50.88 as listed. According to the lawsuit, Expedia
then keeps the "tax" overcharge of $23.88.

Reservations.com represents that 4 million rooms have been booked
through its website. If one takes the overcharge of $23.88 on the
room at the W hotel and multiplies it by 4 million, Expedia has
collected at a minimum more than $95 million dollars in unlawful
"tax" charges.

According to the lawsuit, the excess amount is siphoned off by
Expedia, the "back room" supplier of much of Reservations.com's
room inventory. Expedia pays the taxes that are actually owed and
pockets the remaining "tax" overcharge on hotel rooms booked on the
Reservations.com website, nationwide, as a secret profit in
addition to the mark-up it collects on each hotel room rate.

"While Expedia takes an under-the-table cut through its deal with
Reservations.com, consumers are left completely in the dark,
unknowingly paying inflated costs disguised as 'taxes and fees,'"
said Steve Berman, managing partner and co-founder of Hagens
Berman. "Any reasonable consumer would assume this to be a
government-regulated hotel tax, and that's exactly what Expedia has
banked on and profited from, for years."

The lawsuit states that testing based on information on the
Reservations.com website reveals that the tax overcharge practice
is widespread and violates the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act.

Expedia, Inc. and its subsidiaries, together with Reservations.com,
"operated an association-in-fact enterprise engaged in interstate
and foreign commerce, which was formed for the purpose of obtaining
money from consumers for inflated 'Taxes & Fees' payments, through
which they conducted a pattern of racketeering activity" in
violation of RICO, the suit states.

"Consumers are often warned that the 'devil is in the details' of
any online transaction, but here we have indeed uncovered what we
believe to be an intentionally unlawful scheme to dupe consumers,"
Mr. Berman added.

The lawsuit seeks to collect and return to consumers the secret
overpayment of taxes made by unwitting consumers, nationwide. In
addition to federal RICO allegations, the suit alleges violations
of state laws against conversion and unjust enrichment.

"Expedia should have known that it was only a matter of time before
this consumer scam was brought to light, and we intend to fight to
reclaim consumers' losses," Mr. Berman said.

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with 10 offices across the
country. The firm's tenacious drive for plaintiffs' rights has
earned it numerous national accolades, awards and titles of "Most
Feared Plaintiff's Firm," and MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action
law. The firm also achieved a $184 million summary judgment against
Expedia in a previous consumer scheme. [GN]


FORWARD BY ELYSE: Faces Diaz Suit Asserting ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Forward By Elyse Walker, LLC 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. Forward By Elyse Walker, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00035 (S.D. N.Y., January 2, 2019).

Forward By Elyse Walker, LLC is engaged in wholesale men's
apparel.[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


GARDEN BRIDGE: Faces Potential Class Action Over London Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Walker, writing for The Guardian, reports that the charity
behind London's garden bridge project faces being sued by wealthy
donors who fear their money might not be returned even after the
much-criticised scheme collapsed, with a loss to taxpayers of
almost GBP50m.

One individual donor claimed the money he gave to the Garden Bridge
Trust had been "pissed down the drain by a bunch of incompetents",
and that he wanted it returned.

While GBP60m in public funds was provided for the planned
tree-filled link across the Thames, the rest was supposed to have
been given by corporate and individual private donations.

The project collapsed in acrimony in 2017 without construction work
beginning, after the trust in charge of the bridge was unable to
raise sufficient funds or complete planning approvals. The loss of
public money is estimated at GBP46m.

Private donors are owed about GBP7m and, according to Architects'
Journal, the trust faces a potential class action suit from those
who fear the money will not be returned in full.

The Nottingham-based law firm Freeths told the publication it was
acting for one donor, who had not been named. Freeths said the
donor gave GBP250,000 to have a bench on the bridge named after
them and had yet to receive the money back. The firm intends to
launch a class action on behalf of them, and other donors.

Christopher Clayton, a solicitor at Freeths, told Architects'
Journal he understood donations were made on the basis they would
be returned if the project did not take place. "There are a number
of both private and corporate donors who generously donated
significant sums of money on the same basis," he said.

The publication also spoke to a commercial property developer who
gave GBP50,000 to the project and who was highly critical of the
way it was handled. "The money was pissed down the drain by a bunch
of incompetents and I feel conned," said Michael Gross, the owner
of Sydney and London Properties.

Mr. Gross was critical of the charity's trustees and Boris Johnson,
who as London mayor was supportive of the garden bridge. Mr.
Johnson has struggled to defend decisions he made, which critics
say contributed to the scale of public losses.

"Boris has got a big mouth but he doesn't deliver," Mr. Gross said.
"There should be a parliamentary inquiry and a criminal inquiry as
well -- the amount of money lost demands it."

The Garden Bridge Trust, which recently published its latest
accounts, is being wound up and, as part of the process, seeks
GBP5.1m in final funding from Transport for London.

A spokeswoman for the trust said it had "taken great care to ensure
that the funds it has received have been correctly applied in
accordance with the legal advice it has received. In all cases
where the advice confirms funds as returnable under charity law, it
is the intention and expectation of the trustees that they will be,
and funders have been advised accordingly.

"The process of repayment is certainly taking longer than
anticipated, for reasons that are beyond the control of trustees,
but we continue to work towards resolution with Transport for
London. In the meantime, we thank our funders for their support and
continuing patience." [GN]


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces Varga Suit over Violation of ERISA
----------------------------------------------------------
ADELE VARGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; and JEFFREY ROBERT
IMMELT, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01449-GLS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., Dec.
14, 2018) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that for years, the
Defendant improperly manipulated its earnings and inflated its
stock price by improperly under reserving for the insurance
liabilities of its wholly-owned insurance subsidiaries.

For years, the Plan offered a GE Stock Fund as one of the options
that Plan participants could choose to invest their 401K retirement
contributions and any matching funds. The GE Stock Fund invests
essentially all of its assets in GE common stock.

The Plaintiff and putative class members, believing that GE's
publicly traded stock price reflected the company's financial
strength and the GE Stock Fund was a prudent investment option,
continued to save for retirements by investing their contributions
and matching funds in the GE Stock Fund.

On January 16, 2018, GE announced that it had under reserved for
the insurance liabilities of its two insurance subsidiaries by
approximately $15 billion, and that it needed to contribute
approximately $15 billion to its insurance subsidiaries, all of
which had a materially negative impact on earnings. Shortly
thereafter, GE also announced that the SEC was investigating the
$15 billion shortfall. The value of GE common stock dropped on the
news and has continued moving downward as GE has disclosed even
more financial problems. In August 2009, GE's common stock traded
at roughly $14 per share and then steadily rose from August 2009 to
June 2017, reaching a high in July 2016 of nearly $33 per share.
Today, GE's common stock trades below $8 per share.

The Defendants either were aware of this multi-billion-dollar
shortfall despite their previous public denials to Plan
participants or would have learned of the problem had they complied
with their fiduciary duty under ERISA to investigate the Plan
participants' allegations. Yet Defendants did nothing to correct
their earlier false and misleading statements to Plan participants
and took no other action to protect Plan participants, thereby
breaching their fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty and
causing tremendous financial harm to the Plan and the Plaintiff's
and the putative class's retirement benefits.

General Electric Company operates as a digital industrial company
worldwide. It operates through Power, Renewable Energy, Oil & Gas,
Aviation, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital
segments. General Electric Company was founded in 1892 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Charles J. Crueger, Esq.
          Erin K. Dickinson, Esq.
          Benjamin A. Kaplan, Esq.
          CRUEGER DICKINSON LLC
          4532 N. Oakland Ave.
          Whitefish Bay, WI 53211
          Telephone: (414) 210-3868
          Facsimile: (414) 433-4544
          E-mail: cjc@cruegerdickinson.com
                  ekd@cruegerdickinson.com
                  bak@cruegerdickinson.com

               - and -

          Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
          Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
          Eric D. Barton, Esq.
          WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP
          4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 701-1100
          Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
          E-mail: jpkieffer@wcllp.com
                  thudson@wcllp.com
                  ebarton@wcllp.com


GEORG JENSEN INC: Violates ADA, Diaz Suit Asserts
-------------------------------------------------
Georg Jensen, 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. Georg Jensen, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00032
(S.D. N.Y., January 2, 2019).

Georg Jensen, Inc. operates in the jewellery, silver, home decor &
accessories industry.[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



GURSTEL LAW: Seeks Prelim. Approval of Borges Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit styled as TOMAS BORGES, JR., on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. GURSTEL LAW FIRM,
P.C., et al., Case No. 8:18-cv-00344-LSC-MDN (D. Neb.), file with
the Court their joint motion for certification of settlement class
and preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement.

In his complaint, the Plaintiff contends that in attempting through
litigation to collect consumer debts from him and the Class he
seeks to represent, the Defendant served discovery instructions
that allegedly violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and
the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act.

The Parties have agreed in principle to a settlement of this suit
on a class-wide basis.  The Settlement provides substantial
benefits to the Class, which is a Class for settlement purposes
only.

Subject to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants
agree to provide these reliefs to the Plaintiffs and the Class:

   A. The Defendant shall pay $20.00 to each member of the Class,
      and it will pay an additional $20.00 to each member of the
      FDCPA sub-class.  Both of such distributions shall be made
      without the need for a proof of claim.  All distribution
      checks to the Class will expire after 120 days of issuance,
      and any undistributed funds represented by any uncashed
      checks will be distributed as a cy pres distribution to
      Legal Aid of Nebraska for use in consumer representation
      and/or consumer education;

   B. As part of the consideration for the individual and class
      releases the Defendant represents that it has stopped using
      the discovery instructions at issue;

   C. The Defendant will also pay Plaintiff Tomas Borges, Jr. for
      his individual claims under the FDCPA and the NCPA the
      total amount of $2,000.00, and in consideration of
      Plaintiff's service to the Class Defendant will pay to him
      an additional $1,500.00;

   D. The Defendant shall bear the costs of printing and
      distributing the Class Notice and of distributing all
      payments provided for under the settlement; and

   E. Subject to approval of the Court, the Defendant shall pay
      in addition to the above the reasonable attorney's fees and
      expenses of the Plaintiff's attorneys in an amount not to
      exceed $12,000.00.

The Parties also ask the Court to appoint the Plaintiff as
representative of the Class and that the Plaintiff's attorneys may
act as counsel for the Class.  They further ask the Court to
authorize the form and mailing of the Notice, set a final hearing
to determine whether the Settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable, and at such hearing, to approve the Settlement and
grant final judgment.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Pamela A. Car, Esq.
          William L. Reinbrecht, Esq.
          CAR & REINBRECHT, P.C., LLO
          2120 S. 72nd Street, Suite 1125
          Omaha, NE 68124
          Telephone: (402) 391-8484
          Facsimile: (402) 391-1103
          E-mail: pacar@cox.net
          billr205@gmail.com

               - and -

          O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
          HORWITZ HORWITZ & ASSOCIATES
          25 E Washington Street, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372-8822
          Facsimile: (312) 372-1673
          E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com

Defendant Gurstel Law Firm, P.C., is represented by:

          Manuel H. Newburger, Esq.
          BARRON & NEWBURGER, P.C.
          7320 N. MoPac Expy., Suite 400
          Austin, TX 78731
          Telephone: (512) 649-4022
          Facsimile: (512) 279-0310
          E-mail: mnewburger@bn-lawyers.com


HINOMARU RAMEN: Sucup Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Sucup and Manuel Sucup, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hinomaru Ramen LLC and
Koji Kagawa, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-12101, (S.D. N.Y., December
21, 2018), seeks to recover damages for egregious violations of New
York State labor laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act; as well as
compensatory and liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
costs and all other legal and equitable remedies.

Defendants operate as "Lucky Cat" restaurant where Plaintiffs
worked as cooks, cleaners and kitchen workers. They claim to have
worked in excess of 60 hours per day without overtime premium.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Telephone: (718) 263-9591
      Fax: (718) 263-9598
      Email: HFDalton6912@Gmail.com


IFCHIC INC: Violates Disabilities Act, Diaz Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
Ifchic 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. Ifchic Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00033 (S.D. N.Y.,
January 2, 2019).

IFCHIC is a California based fashion retailer aimed at cosmopolitan
women with busy lifestyles.[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


IL CHILDREN & FAMILY: Delays Hospital Release of Kids, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES GOLBERT, Acting Cook County Public Guardian, on behalf of
Class Representatives Stephen W., Carrion C., Careale C., Jamya B.,
Charlie W., Joshua F., Erica C., Alana M., and Johnnise W., and
Named Plaintiffs Skylar L., Issac D., Archie C., Burl F., Sterling
B., and Tyrese B., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BEVERLY J. WALKER, THE ESTATE OF
GEORGE SHELDON, CYNTHIA TATE, BOBBIE GREGG, ARTHUR BISHOP, THE
ESTATE OF RICHARD H. CALICA, ERWIN McEWEN, MICHAEL C. JONES, LAUREN
WILLIAMS, SARI ROWITZ, JANE GANTNER, JILL TICHENOR, JULIANA HARMS,
TONYA MAYS-HARRINGTON, LINDA STROUD, FELICIA GUEST, MARSHAE TERRY,
THERESA MATTHEWS, ANGELA HASSELL, DONNA STEELE, LARRY SMALL, D.
JEAN ORTEGA-PIRON, DEBRA DYER-WEBSTER, JANET AHERN, and the
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-08176 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 13, 2018) is an action
challenging the unconstitutionality of policies and practices
promulgated by the Defendants, acting within the Illinois
Department of Children and Family Services, that directly and
negatively impact children who are held in psychiatric hospitals
long past the time that their treatment required them to be
confined.

According to the complaint, each of the child class members was in
the Defendants' care and required psychiatric hospitalization. Upon
being medically cleared for discharge, instead of going to an
appropriate facility, the Defendants forced the children to remain
in locked psychiatric wards, causing immense harm. This
unconstitutional practice is referred to as holding children beyond
medical necessity.

The Illinois Department of Children and Family Services is the code
department of the Illinois state government responsible for child
protective services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arthur Loevy, Esq.
          Jon Loevy, Esq.
          Michael Kanovitz, Esq.
          Russell Ainsworth, Esq.
          Julie Goodwin, Esq.
          Adair Crosley, Esq.
          LOEVY & LOEVY
          311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd Floor
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Telephone: (312) 243-5900


JP MORGAN CHASE: Class Certification Sought in Childress Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned GARY AND ANNE CHILDRESS,
RUSSELL AND SUZANNAH HO, and MICHAEL CLIFFORD, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. JP MORGAN CHASE & CO.,
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., CHASE BANK USA, N.A. and CHASE BANKCARD
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 5:16-cv-00298-BO (E.D.N.C.), move the
Court for an order certifying this class:

     All persons who, at any time on or after September 11, 2001
     (the "Class Period"), received reduced interest and/or fee
     benefits from Defendants on an obligation or account
     (excluding home loans) because of an obligor's military
     service, but excluding persons who have executed a release
     of the rights claimed in this action.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to designate them as
Representative Plaintiffs for the Class, and to appoint Smith &
Lowney, PLLC, Shanahan McDougal, PLLC, and Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
as Class Counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kieran J. Shanahan, Esq.
          Brandon S. Neuman, Esq.
          Christopher S. Battles, Esq.
          SHANAHAN MCDOUGAL, PLLC
          128 E. Hargett Street, Third Floor
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 856-9494
          Facsimile: (919) 856-9499
          E-mail: kieran@shanahanmcdougal.com
                  bneuman@shanahanmcdougal.com
                  cbattles@shanahanmcdougal.com

               - and -

          Knoll D. Lowney, Esq.
          SMITH & LOWNEY PLLC
          2317 E. John Street
          Seattle, WA 98112
          Telephone: (206) 860-2883
          Facsimile: (206) 860-4187
          E-mail: knoll@smithandlowney.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Griffin, Esq.
          Raymond J. Farrow, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 3d Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com
                  rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Nathan B. Atkinson, Esq.
          SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC
          110 Oakwood Drive, Suite 500
          Winston-Salem, NC 27103
          Telephone: (336) 725-4710
          E-mail: natkinson@spilmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Alan E. Schoenfeld, Esq.
          Adam M. Cambier, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          7 World Trade Center
          250 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 937-7294
          E-mail: alan.schoenfeld@wilmerhale.com
                  adam.cambier@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Pressley M. Millen, Esq.
          WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON, LLP
          555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1100
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 755-2135
          E-mail: pmillen@wcsr.com


KNOX COUNTY, TN: Certification of Class Sought in Amble Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled MICHAEL AMBLE, FLOYD
COULSON, JOHN HICKS, ALONZO HOSKINS, DAVID JOHNSON, CURTIS LANE,
JESSICA MASE, JESSICA MORGAN, MICHAEL RICE, RICK SAYLES, ROBERT
THOMAS, MATTHEW WALLS, on behalf of themselves and all similar
situated persons v. TOM SPANGLER, Sheriff of Knox County,
Tennessee, in his official and individual capacities; BERNIE LYON,
Chief Deputy of the Knox County Sheriffs Department, in his
official and individual capacities; and KNOX COUNTY, TENNESSEE,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00538 (E.D. Tenn.), move for class certification
pursuant to Rule 23(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged civil right violations.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John E. Eldridge, Esq.
          ELDRIDGE & BLAKNEY, P.C.
          P.O. Box 398
          Knoxville, TN 37901-0398
          Telephone: (865) 544-2010
          E-mail: johneldrid@aol.com

               - and -

          Francis L. Lloyd, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS L. LLOYD, JR.
          9111 Cross Park Drive, Suite D200
          Knoxville, TN 37923
          Telephone: (865) 470-4070
          E-mail: FLLloydJr@gmail.com


KOHL'S CORP: De Phillips Suit Asserts ADA Breach
------------------------------------------------
Kohl's Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Joseph De Phillips, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Kohl's Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00016 (E.D. Wis., January 2, 2019).

Kohl's is an American department store retail chain, operated by
Kohl's Corporation. With 1,158 locations, it is the largest
department store chain in the United States as of February 2013.
The company was founded by Polish immigrant Maxwell Kohl, who
opened a corner grocery store in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1927.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   CK Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group PLLC
   30 E 39th St-2nd Fl
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Fax: (212) 465-1181
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


LA VIEILLE RUSSIE: Faces Tucker ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A La Vieille Russie
Inc. The case is captioned as HENRY TUCKER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A LA VIEILLE
RUSSIE INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11670-AT (S.D.N.Y., Dec.
13, 2018). The lawsuit alleges violation of the American with
Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge Analisa Torres.

A La Vieille Russie is a New York antiques gallery specializing in
European and American antique jewelry, Imperial Russian works of
art,18th century European gold snuff boxes, and objet d' art.
Founded in Kiev in 1851, the Company later relocated to Paris in
the 1920s and New York soon thereafter. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 299-6612
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: joseph@cml.legal


LIFEFLEET LLC: Wheelchair Drivers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Lewis and Donnie Getz, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. Lifefleet, LLC, Jeffery M. Lowery and Debra Lowery, Defendants.,
Case No. 18-cv-02958, (N.D. Ohio, December 25, 2018), seeks to
recover lawfully earned overtime wages, liquidated damages, as well
for costs and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act.

LifeFleet provides ambulance, critical care and wheelchair
transport service where Getz and Lewis worked as wheelchair
transport drivers. They claim to have routinely worked in excess of
forty hours per workweek without overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter C. Mapley, Esq.
      SOBEL, WADE & MAPLEY, LLC
      2460 Fairmount Boulevard, # 314
      Cleveland, OH 44106
      Phone: (216) 223-7213
      Fax: (216) 223-7213
      Email: mapley@swmlawfirm.com


LIVE WELL FINANCIAL: Shakespeare Sues Over Illegal Tax Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Shakespeare, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Live Well Financial, Inc., Compu-Link
Corporation and Reverse Mortgage Funding, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-07299, (E.D. N.Y., December 21, 2018), seeks monetary
damages, restitution, and declaratory and injunctive relief for
being unlawfully charged or assessed fess, costs, charges, interest
and insurance premiums in breach of contract, duties and covenants
of good faith and fair dealing and in violation of New York General
Business Law.

Live Well and Compu-Link are accused of improperly paying the
property taxes of homeowners with Home Equity Conversion Mortgages
before those taxes are due, without contractual or other legal
authority to do so and without providing notice to the homeowners.
The companies then improperly demand, under threat of foreclosure,
that the homeowners repay these improper tax advances.

Shakespeare's home loan was serviced for Live Well by Compulink.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph S. Tusa, Esq.
      TUSA P.C.
      P.O. Box 566
      Southold, NY 11971
      Tel. (631) 407-5100
      Email: joseph.tusapc@gmail.com

             - and -

      TUSA P.C.
      150 Motor Parkway, Ste. 401
      Hauppauge, NY 11788
      Tel. (631) 407-5100

             - and -

      Julie Nepveu, Esq.
      Maame Gyamfi, Esq.
      AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION
      601 E Street, NW
      Washington, DC 20049
      Tel. (202) 434-2060
      Email: jnepveu@aarp.org
             mgyamfi@aarp.org

             - and -

      Oren Giskan, Esq.
      Catherine E. Anderson, Esq.
      GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
      217 Centre Street, 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10013
      Tel: (212) 847-8315
      Email: ogiskan@gslawny.com
             canderson@gslawny.com


LSC COMMUNICATIONS: Waters Challenges Sale to Quad/Graphics
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Waters, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LSC Communications, Inc., Thomas J. Quinlan
Iii, M. Shân Atkins, Margaret A. Breya, Judith H. Hamilton,
Francis J. Jules, Thomas F. O'Toole, Richard K. Palmer, Douglas W.
Stotlar, Shivan S. Subramaniam, QLC Merger Sub, Inc. and
Quad/Graphics, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-08419, (N.D. Ill.,
December 21, 2018) seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons
acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or
closing the proposed acquisition of LSC Communications, Inc. by
Quad/Graphics through its wholly-owned subsidiary QLC 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.

Quad/Graphics will acquire all of the outstanding shares of common
stock of LSC in exchange for 0.625 shares of Quad/Graphics Class A
common stock. The deal is valued at approximately $1.4 billion and
is expected to close in mid-2019.

LSC and Quad/Graphics print magazines, catalogs, retail inserts,
books and directories, and sells office supplies such as filing
products, envelopes, note-taking products, binders and forms. They
are two of the largest printing companies in the US and together
they accounted for almost 10% of the industry’s total sales for
2017.

The complaint says the Merger Agreement includes a "no
solicitation" provision barring LSC from soliciting or encouraging
the submission of an acquisition proposal. Moreover, Defendants
failed to disclose all the iterations of the financial projections
for both Quad/Graphics and LSC for fiscal years 2018 to 2022 for
cost of sales, gross profit, operating expenses, depreciation and
amortization, stock-based compensation expense, taxes, changes in
net working capital, capital expenditures and any other line items
used in the calculation of unlevered free cash flow, it adds. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
      Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq.
      ROWLEY LAW PLLC
      50 Main Street, Suite 1000
      White Plains, NY 10606
      Tel: (914) 400-1920
      Fax: (914) 301-3514
      Email: info@rowleylawpllc.com

             - and -

      Anthony F. Fata, Esq.
      Christopher P.T. Tourek, Esq.
      CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
      150 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 782-4880
      Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
      E-mail: afata@caffertyclobes.com
              ctourek@caffertyclobes.com


LYSSE PARTNERS: Diaz Brings ADA Class Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------
Lysse Partners, LLC 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. Lysse Partners, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00037
(S.D. N.Y., January 2, 2019).

Lysse designs and manufactures leggings. The company’s products
include tight ankle leggings, wide bottoms, cropped leggings, tops,
skirts, active shape wear, plus sizes, and denim knits in various
styles, colors, and fabrics. The company offers its products
through retailers; and specialty and department stores in the
United States and internationally. It also sells products online.
The company was founded in 2010 and is based in Hollis, 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


MARRIOTT INT'L: Customer Data Compromised, Says Voll Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Alan Voll, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Marriott International, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-03958 (D. Md., December 21, 2018), seeks actual,
statutory, punitive, exemplary and/or multiple damages,
disgorgement, restitution, preliminary or other equitable or
declaratory relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses and such other and
favorable relief resulting from negligence and breach of contract.

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

Marriott operates Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide. Voll
provided his personal and confidential information to Starwood in
connection with reservations he made to stay at the Westin in
Florence, Italy and the Sheraton in Herndon, Virginia. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Glenn Ivey, Esq.
      PRICE BENOWITZ LLP
      409 Seventh Street, Suite 200
      Washington, DC 20004
      Tel: (202) 599-1716
      Email: info@pricebenowitz.com

             - and -

      Michael P. Canty, Esq.
      Brian Morrison, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (212) 907-0700
      Fax: (212) 818-0477
      Email: mcanty@labaton.com
             bmorrison@labaton.com

             - and -

      Mark Goldman, Esq.
      GOLDMAN, SCARLATO & PENNY P.C.
      Tower Bridge, Suite 1025
      161 Washington Street
      Conshohocken, PA 19428
      Tel: (484) 342-0700
      Email: goldman@lawgsp.com


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Removes Silver Suit to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of SEAN SILVER, and ALINE BACA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.; STARWOOD HOTELS AND
RESORTS WORLDWIDE, LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No.
18STCV06982) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on December 14, 2018. The clerk of court for the Central
District of California assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-10390-JFW-JDE. The
case is assigned to Judge John F. Walter and referred to Magistrate
Judge John D. Early. The Silver suit is a member case in the
multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 2879.

Marriott International, Inc. operates, franchises, and licenses
hotel, residential, and timeshare properties worldwide. Marriott
International, Inc. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in
Bethesda, Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith David Griffin, Esq.
          Thomas Vincent Girardi, Esq.
          GIRARDI KEESE
          1126 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-1904
          Telephone: (213) 977-0211
          Facsimile: (213) 481-1554
          E-mail: kgriffin@girardikeese.com
                  tgirardi@girardikeese.com

               - and -

          Ebby Shahrokh Bakhtiar, Esq.
          LIVINGSTON BAKHTIAR
          3435 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1669
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 632-1550
          Facsimile: (213) 632-3100
          E-mail: esb@livingstonbakhtiar.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Teresa C Chow, Esq.
          BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
          Telephone: (310) 820-8800
          Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
          E-mail: tchow@bakerlaw.com


MONSANTO CO: Larke Sues Over Herbicide Side-effects
---------------------------------------------------
Charles A. Larke and Mary Jo Larke, Plaintiffs, v. Monsanto
Company, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02128 (E.D. Mo., December 21,
2018), seeks compensatory and punitive damages, costs, expert fees,
disbursements and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting this
action, disgorgement of profits, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest at the maximum rate and such other relief resulting from
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 (R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

Charles A. Larke developed Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in 2017 as a
direct and proximate result of his long-term exposure to Roundup.

Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation
based in St. Louis, Missouri. It is the world's leading producer of
glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, a broad-spectrum
herbicide used to kill weeds and grasses known to compete with
commercial crops grown around the globe.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MONSANTO CO: Sawyer Sues Over Roundup Exposure
----------------------------------------------
David E. Sawyer and Sandra Sawyer, Plaintiffs, v. Monsanto Company,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02129 (E.D. Mo., December 21, 2018),
seeks compensatory and punitive damages, costs, expert fees,
disbursements and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting this
action, disgorgement of profits, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest at the maximum rate and such other relief resulting from
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 (R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

David Sawyer developed Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in 2016 as a direct
and proximate result of his long-term exposure to Roundup.

Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation
based in St. Louis, Missouri. It is the world's leading producer of
glyphosate, The active ingredient in Roundup, a broad-spectrum
herbicide used to kill weeds and grasses known to compete with
commercial crops grown around the globe.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MONSANTO CO: Weatherspoon Files Suit Over Roundup Side-effects
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marylou Weatherspoon, Plaintiff, v. Monsanto Company, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-02130 (E.D. Mo., December 21, 2018), seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, costs, expert fees,
disbursements and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting this
action, disgorgement of profits, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest at the maximum rate and such other relief resulting from
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 (R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

Weatherspoon developed Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in 2016 as a direct
and proximate result of her long-term exposure to Roundup.

Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation
based in St. Louis, Missouri. It is the world's leading producer of
glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, a broad-spectrum
herbicide used to kill weeds and grasses known to compete with
commercial crops grown around the globe.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MULLEN & IANNARONE: Faces Lopez Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mullen & Iannarone,
P.C. The case is styled as Vicky Lopez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mullen & Iannarone,
P.C., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00032 (E.D. N.Y., January 2,
2019).

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

Mullen And Iannarone, P.C. was founded in 1969. The company's line
of business includes providing full service legal advice.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Class Certification Sought in Norton Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Norton moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit styled TROY NORTON, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NATIONWIDE CREDIT, INC.,
Case No. 2:18-cv-01999-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the
Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the
Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting
automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting
material to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff avers.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


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), 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 NCC'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


NOMAX INC: St. Louis Heart Center Moves for Writ of Certiorari
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff St. Louis Heart Center, Inc., filed with the Supreme
Court of the United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in
the matter titled St. Louis Heart Center, Inc., Petitioner v.
Nomax, Inc., Case No. 18-778.

Response is due on January 18, 2019.

The Lower Court Case is captioned as St. Louis Heart Center, Inc.
v. Nomax, Inc., Case No. 17-1794, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The District Court case is entitled St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v.
Nomax, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00517-RLW, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Eighth
Circuit vacated the District Court's judgment granting Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss the case.

The District Court ruled that the Heart Center lacked standing and
dismissed the action with prejudice.

St. Louis Heart Center, Inc., brought a putative class action
against Nomax, Inc., in Missouri state court, alleging that Nomax
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  The
complaint alleged that Nomax transmitted twelve advertisements to
the Heart Center by facsimile without including a proper opt-out
notice on each advertisement.

Although the Appellate Court agrees with the district court's
conclusion that St. Louis Heart Center lacks Article III standing,
the Appellate Court vacates the judgment dismissing the action with
prejudice and remand with directions to return the case to state
court. St. Louis Heart Center's unopposed motion for judicial
notice is granted.

Plaintiff-Petitioner St. Louis Heart Center, Inc., is represented
by:

          Glenn L. Hara, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: ghara@andersonwanca.com


OSMOSE UTILITIES: Removes Fisher Suit to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of TODD FISHER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OSMOSE
UTILITIES SERVICES, INC., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the
lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Tulare (Case No. VCU276204) to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California on December 13, 2018. The clerk of
court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No.
1:18-cv-01704-DAD-SKO. The case is assigned to District Judge Dale
A. Drozd and referred to Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto.

Osmose Utilities Services, Inc. provides various inspection,
maintenance, and rehabilitation services and products to electric
and telecommunications utilities. The company was founded in 1934
and is based in Peachtree City, Georgia. Osmose Utilities Services,
Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Osmose Holdings, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC
          21550 Oxnard Street Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7104
          Telephone: (323) 306-4234
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James Charles Fessenden, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP
          4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 597-9619
          Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
          E-mail: jfessenden@fisherphillips.com


PALM K9 & SECURITY: Williams Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Will Williams, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Palm K9 and Security Services Inc. and Michael Trattner,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-03082, (M.D. Fla.,
December 21, 2018), seeks to recover minimum and overtime
compensation during the course of their employment under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Palm Beach Security is a company that has provided security
services in Orlando and Central Florida where Williams worked in
excess of 40 hours per work week without being paid overtime
premiums. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jordan Richards, Esq.
      Melissa Scott, Esq.
      USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS - JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
      805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Tel: (954) 871-0050
      Email: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
             Livia@jordanrichardspllc.com
             Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com
             Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com


PARC AT JOLIET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Nurses, Bello Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADEBISI BELLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE PARC AT JOLIET, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-08196 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 13, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages,
wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Bello was employed by the Defendant as nurse.

The PARC at Joliet offers exceptional "hospital to home"
rehabilitation and nursing care. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Haley R. Jenkins, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  hjenkins@stephanzouras.com


PEACHES BOUTIQUE: Alamo May Start Notifying Members of Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Andrea R. Wood grants the parties' agreed motion to
begin sending notice to members of the plaintiff class in the
lawsuit styled Aliesha Alamo v. Peaches Boutique, LLC, et al., Case
No. 1:18-cv-04394 (N.D. Ill.).

The Agreed Motion is granted pursuant to the discussion held in
open court and for the reasons stated on the record, according to
the Court's docket entry.  Status hearing is set for February 21,
2019, at 9:00 a.m.[CC]


PERKINS AND MARIE: Removes Cupp Suit to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of KATHRYN CUPP, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERKINS AND
MARIE CALLENDER'S, LLC; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants,
filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Orange (Case No.
30-2018-01030922-CU-OE-CXC) to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District Of California on December 13, 2018. The clerk of
court for the Central District Of California assigned Case No.
8:18-cv-02211-JLS-KES. The case is assigned to Judge Josephine L.
Staton and referred to Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott.

Perkins & Marie Callender's, LLC owns and operates a chain of
restaurants and bakeries in the United States and Canada. Perkins &
Marie Callender's, LLC was formerly known as Marie Callender’s
and changed its name to Perkins & Marie Callender's, LLC in 2006.
The company was founded in 1958 and is based in Memphis, Tennessee.
Perkins & Marie Callender's, LLC operates as a subsidiary of
Perkins & Marie Callender's Holding Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC
          21550 Oxnard Street Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: abacon@toddflaw.com

               - and -

          Todd M Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC
          21550 Oxnard Street Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7104
          Telephone: (323) 306-4234
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alexandria Marie Witte, Esq.
          Daniel Chammas, Esq.
          David L Cheng, Esq.
          FORDHARRISON LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 237-2400
          Facsimile: (213) 237-2401
          E-mail: awitte@fordharrison.com
                  dchammas@fordharrison.com
                  dcheng@fordharrison.com


PICK A PART: Fails to Pay Yard Laborers' Overtime, Cardoso Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Cardoso, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Pick A Part, LLC, an Arizona company; Rush Auto
Recyclers, Inc., an Arizona company; Daniel Rush, an Arizona
Resident; and Janet Rush, an Arizona resident, Case No.
2:18-cv-04759-SPL (D. Ariz., December 19, 2018), is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and the Defendants' current and former yard
laborer employees, who were compensated on an hourly basis, and who
were not paid one-and-one-half times their regular rates of pay for
all time worked in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek.

Pick A Part, LLC, is an Arizona company, authorized to do business
in the state of Arizona.  Rush Auto Recyclers, Inc., is an Arizona
company, authorized to do business in the state of Arizona.  The
Individual Defendants are Arizona residents and the Plaintiff's
employers as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Zoldan, Esq.
          Jason Barrat, Esq.
          Jessica Miller, Esq.
          ZOLDAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          14500 N. Northsight Blvd., Suite 133
          Scottsdale, AZ 85260
          Telephone: (480) 442-3410
          E-mail: mzoldan@zoldangroup.com
                  jbarrat@zoldangroup.com
                  jmiller@zoldangroup.com


POINT BLANK: Law Enforcers Group Hit Defective Body Armor
---------------------------------------------------------
Ohio State Troopers Association, Inc., International Union of
Police Associations, Trevor Koontz, Ryan Purpura, Steven Rohner,
Alexander Pater and Lance Deshuk, Plaintiffs, v. Point Blank
Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-63130 (S.D. Fla.,
December 25, 2018), seeks damages and injunctive relief for breach
of implied and express warranty and for deceptive and unfair trade
practices.

Point Blank Enterprises, Inc. is a manufacturer of law enforcement
protective products, including ballistic resistant soft body armor.
Plaintiffs are an association of law enforcers who have bought
their vests and claims that its straps frequently disengages from
the c-clamps, whether by peeling or shearing, thereby weakening the
vest's closure and eventually falls off. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Michael W. Moskowitz, Esq.
      Ari J. Glazer, Esq.
      MOSKOWITZ, MANDELL, SALIM & SIMOWITZ, P.A.
      800 Corporate Drive, Suite 500
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33334
      Telephone: (954) 491-2000
      Facsimile: (954) 491-2051
      Email: mmoskowitz@mmsslaw.com
             aglazer@mmsslaw.com

             - and -

      Allan Kanner, Esq.
      Cynthia St. Amant, Esq.
      KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
      701 Camp Street
      New Orleans, LA 70115
      Tel: (504) 524-5777
      Fax: (504) 524-5763
      Email: a.kanner@kanner-law.com
             c.stamant@kanner-law.com

             - and -

      David M. Cohen, Esq.
      COMPLEX LAW GROUP, LLC
      40 Powder Springs Street
      Marietta, GA 30064
      Telephone: (770) 200-3100
      Facsimile: (770) 200-3101
      Email: dcohen@complexlaw.com

             - and -

      Herschel M. Sigall, Esq.
      190 West Johnstown Road
      Gahanna, OH 43230
      Tel: (614) 781-7686
      Fax: (614) 781-7685


POINT RECYCLING: Rodriguez Hits Discrimination, Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amado Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of All Other Employees
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Point Recycling Ltd., Mike, Nick
and Teddy "Does," and Manuel Quematisa, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-07286 (E.D. N.Y., December 21, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid "spread-of-hours" premium, compensation for
failure to provide wage notices at the time of hiring and failure
to provide paystubs, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law including
monetary damages and other relief under New York State Human Rights
Law for unlawful age discrimination.

From in or around January 2010 to on or around March 9, 2018,
Rodriguez was employed as a laborer at Point Recycling's recycling
site located at 686 Morgan Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11222. He claims to
be denied overtime compensation at the statutory rate of time and a
half for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek. He
also claims to be subjected to discriminatory remarks regarding his
age. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lorena Duarte, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
      Flushing, New York, 11354
      Tel: (718)353-8588
      Email: lduarte@hanglaw.com


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Has Until Jan. 16 to Reply to Takano Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TOM TAKANO and TRACY MCCARTHY, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE PROCTER &
GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00385 TLN-AC (E.D.
Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California has issued a stipulated order
extending P&G's time to answer the Complaint up to and including
Jan. 16, 2019.

Plaintiffs Takano and McCarthy filed their Class Action Complaint
in the action on Feb. 21, 2017.  The Parties are finalizing their
discussions to resolve the action.

In accordance with Local Rule 144, the Plaintiffs and P&G have
agreed to extend the time for P&G to answer the Complaint up to and
including Jan. 16, 2019, which is 14 days from the date that the
answer is currently due, Jan. 2, 2019.  It is the third extension
of time to respond to the Complaint agreed to by the parties.  The
previous agreement of an extension extended the date that the
answer was due from Nov. 7, 2018 to Dec. 5, 2018, and the second
extension was from Dec. 5, 2018 to Jan. 2, 2019.

Accordingly, the parties stipulated and Judge Nunley granted, that
P&G's time to answer the Complaint will be extended up to and
including Jan. 16, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 2, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/aFN7uf from Leagle.com.

Tom Takano & Tracy McCarthy, Plaintiffs, represented by Yeremey
Olegovich Krivoshey -- ykrivoshey@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher,
P.A.

Procter & Gamble Company, Defendant, represented by Raymond A.
Cardozo -- rcardozo@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP.


REPUBLIC OF SUDAN: O'Neill Sues Over Sept. 11 Terrorist Attack
--------------------------------------------------------------
C.I. O'Neill, as the personal representative of the Estate of John
P. O'Neill, Sr., deceased, and on behalf of all survivors and all
legally entitled beneficiaries and family members of John P.
O'Neill, Sr., C.I. O'Neill, individually, as surviving spouse of
John P. O'Neill, Sr., C.I. O'Neill as the personal representative
of the estate of D. A. O'Neill, the late parent of John P. O'Neill,
Sr., J.P. O'Neill, Jr., individually, as surviving child of John P.
O'Neill, Sr., C. O'Neill, individually, as surviving child of John
P. O'Neill, Sr., Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. Republic of the Sudan, (c/o Embassy of the
Republic of the Sudan), Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-12114 (S.D. N.Y.,
December 21, 2018), seeks punitive damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, and such other and further relief under the
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

Plaintiffs claim that Sudan has supported, encouraged, sponsored,
aided, abetted, conspired with a variety of groups that provided
financing, training, safe-haven, paramilitary training,
indoctrination, money, travel documentation, safe passage, and
refuge in the Sudan, as well as weapons, for terrorist groups,
including al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

John P. O'Neill, Sr. was killed in the terrorist attack on the
World Trade Center Towers in New York City on September 11, 2001.
He is survived by Plaintiffs J.P. O'Neill, Jr. and C. O'Neill,
children, C.I. O'Neill, widow and C.I. O'Neill, mother. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jerry S. Goldman, Esq.
      Bruce Strong, Esq.
      ANDERSON KILL P.C.
      1251 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10020
      Telephone: (212) 278-1000
      Email: jgoldman@andersonkill.com


RICHARDSON'S CUISINE: Wright Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Wright, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Richardson's Cuisine of New Mexico, Inc.,
Burning Embers Fish and Steakhouse, LLC, Vino Di Rico, LLC and
Richardson Browne, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04864, (D. Ariz.,
December 21, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage compensation,
liquidated damages and statutory penalties resulting from
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Arizona Minimum Wage
Statutes including equitable relief, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.

Defendants operate restaurant and bar establishments in Arizona
where Wright worked as a full-time, non-exempt employee tasked with
taking food orders, running food and assisting with customer needs.
She claims to have routinely worked over forty hours in a workweek
and was not compensated for all overtime pay for the hours she
worked over forty in a workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Weiler, Esq.
      Michael Zoldan, Esq.
      Jason Barrat, Esq.
      Jessica Miller, Esq.
      ZOLDAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
      14500 N. Northsight Blvd., Suite 133
      Scottsdale, AZ 85260
      Tel/Fax: (480) 442-3410
      Email: jweiler@zoldangroup.com
             mzoldan@zoldangroup.com
             jbarrat@zoldangroup.com
             jmiller@zoldangroup.com


ROCCO FIORE: Madrigal Sues to Recover Wages for H-2B Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
IGNACIO BARAJAS MADRIGAL, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. ROCCO FIORE & SONS, INC., and ROCCO FIORE
individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-08337 (N.D. Ill., December 19,
2018), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards
Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.

For many years, the Defendants have hired both local and H-2B visa
workers to maintain grass and flowerbeds, install landscaping
materials and throw away grass and garbage.  During this time, the
Defendants made unauthorized deductions for uniforms from H-2B
workers' wages, did not pay workers for compensable travel time
from the company shop to the first work location, and did not pay
H-2B workers their agreed-upon wages, the Plaintiff alleges.  He
now seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
premium pay, and unpaid contract wages pursuant to Illinois law.

Rocco Fiore & Sons is an Illinois corporation that conducts
business and is headquartered in Illinois.  Rocco Fiore is an
Illinois resident and President of Rocco Fiore & Sons, Inc.  Rocco
Fiore & Sons is a landscaping company, which provides landscape
architecture, site development and management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Piers, Esq.
          Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq.
          HUGHES, SOCOL, PIERS, RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
          70 W. Madison St., Suite 4000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 580-0100
          E-mail: mpiers@hsplegal.com
                  cwilmes@hsplegal.com

               - and -

          Alexandria Santistevan, Esq.
          FARMWORKER & LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
          33 N. LaSalle, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 784-3541
          E-mail: litigation@flapillinois.org


SAKS INC: Hung Case Removed to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------
The case captioned Johnson Hung, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Saks, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 18STCV05183 filed in California Superior Court on November
15, 2018, was removed to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on December 21, 2018, under Case No.
2:18-cv-10594.

Saks claims that Hung erroneously sued Saks, Inc., thinking it was
the owner of the retail establishment "Saks Fifth Avenue Off 5th,"
where in fact it was owned by Saks & Company LLC, hence the need
for removal.

The Plaintiff originally filed the complaint claiming that Saks'
clothing and jewelry products was marked as discounted at the
original price when in fact, the items' original price has been
changed in violation of the California False Advertising Law,
California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act. [BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Saks, Inc. is represented by:

      Amy P. Lally, Esq.
      SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
      1999 Avenue of the Stars, 17th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Tel: (310) 595-9500
      Fax: (310) 595-9501
      Email: alally@sidley.com


SANFORD KAHN: Faces Montes Suit over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NABOR MONTES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SANFORD KAHN, LLP; AMY MELAND
SELLERGREN; and WHIPPLETREE MHC, LLC d/b/a Whippletree Village,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-08227 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 14, 2018), the
Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.  The Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 19,
2018.

Sanford Kahn, LLP, was established in 1973 and consists of seven
attorneys, all of whom concentrate on Landlord/Tenant Law in
Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sheryl Ring, Esq.
          OPEN COMMUNITIES LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
          990 Grove Street, Suite 500
          Evanston, IL 60201
          Telephone: (847) 501-5760
          E-mail: sherly@open-communities.org


SENDGRID INC: Bushansky Suit Challenges Sale to Twilio
------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. SENDGRID, INC., WARREN ADELMAN, AJAY AGARWAL, FRED
BALL, BYRON DEETER, SAMEER DHOLAKIA, ANNE RAIMONDI, HILARY
SCHNEIDER, and SRI VISWANATH, Case No. 1:18-cv-03260-SKC (D. Colo.,
December 19, 2018), seeks to enjoin the vote on a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which the Company will be acquired by
Twilio Inc. through Twilio's direct wholly owned subsidiary, Topaz
Merger Subsidiary, Inc.

On October 15, 2018, Twilio issued a press release announcing
SendGrid and Twilio had entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger dated October 15, 2018, to sell SendGrid to Twilio.  Under
the terms of the Merger Agreement, each SendGrid stockholder will
receive 0.485 of a share of Twilio Class A common stock for each
share of SendGrid they own.  Based on the October 15, 2018 closing
price of Twilio common stock, the implied value of the Merger
Consideration is $36.92 per share.  The Proposed Transaction is
valued at approximately $2 billion.

SendGrid is a Delaware corporation, with its principal executive
offices are located in Denver, Colorado.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.

Founded in 2009, SendGrid operates as a digital communication
platform in the United States and internationally.  SendGrid's
cloud-based platform provides various tools to businesses, allowing
their developers and marketers to seamlessly and effectively reach
their customers using e-mail.

Twilio is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in San Francisco, California.  Twilio provides a
cloud communications platform that enables developers to build,
scale, and operate communications within software applications in
the United States and internationally.  Merger Sub is a Delaware
corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Twilio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SGE MANAGEMENT: Clearman Appeals Order in Torres Suit to 5th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appellant and Cross-Appellee Scott M. Clearman filed an appeal from
a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Juan Torres, et al. v. SGE
Management, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 4:09-CV-2056, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter,
Plaintiffs-Appellees Juan Ramon Torres and Eugene Robison brought a
civil action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), alleging that Stream Energy, through its
multi-level marketing program, Ignite, as well as a number of other
defendants, operated a fraudulent pyramid scheme.  The Plaintiffs
allege that the fraud has caused them financial losses.  They
sought to certify a class consisting of those Independent
Associates ("IAs"), who have lost money as a result of
participating in Ignite's program.

The appellate case is captioned as Juan Torres, et al. v. SGE
Management, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 18-20801, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Appellant Cross-Appellee SCOTT M. CLEARMAN, individually and on
behalf of The Clearman Law Firm, P.L.L.C., represents himself:

          Scott M. Clearman, Esq.
          CLEARMAN LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
          2518 South Boulevard
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713) 304-9669
          E-mail: scott@clearmanlaw.com

Plaintiffs - Appellees - Cross-Appellants JUAN RAMON TORRES, as
Representative of the Estate of Eugene Robison; CHRISTOPHER
ROBISON, as Representative of the Estate of Eugene Robison; LUCAS
("LUKE") THOMAS, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals; and THOMAS C. GOLDSTEIN, individually and on
behalf of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., are represented by:

          Jeffrey West Burnett, Esq.
          JEFFREY W. BURNETT, PLLC
          12226 Walraven
          Huffman, TX 77336
          Telephone: (281) 324-1400
          E-mail: jburnett@burnetthoustonlaw.com

               - and -

          Eric Franklin Citron, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN & RUSSELL, P.C.
          7475 Wisconsin Avenue
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (202) 362-0636
          E-mail: ecitron@goldsteinrussell.com

               - and -

          Andrew Jack Kochanowski, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          1 Towne Square
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: akochanowski@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Matthew J. M. Prebeg, Esq.
          PREBEG, FAUCETT & ABBOT, P.L.L.C.
          8441 Gulf Freeway
          Houston, TX 77017
          Telephone: (832) 742-9263
          E-mail: mprebeg@gfpiplaw.com

Appellee - Cross-Appellant ANDREW JACK KOCHANOWSKI, individually
and on behalf of Sommers Schwartz, P.C., represents himself:

          Andrew Jack Kochanowski, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          1 Towne Square
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: akochanowski@sommerspc.com

Appellee - Cross-Appellant ERIC FRANKLIN CITRON, individually and
on behalf of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., represents himself:

          Eric Franklin Citron, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN & RUSSELL, P.C.
          7475 Wisconsin Avenue
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (202) 362-0636
          E-mail: ecitron@goldsteinrussell.com

JEFFREY WEST BURNETT, individually and on behalf of Jeffery W.
Burnett, P.C., represents himself:

          Jeffrey West Burnett, Esq.
          JEFFREY W. BURNETT, PLLC
          12226 Walraven
          Huffman, TX 77336
          Telephone: (281) 324-1400
          E-mail: jburnett@burnetthoustonlaw.com

Appellee - Cross-Appellant MATTHEW J. M. PREBEG, individually and
on behalf of Prebeg, Faucett & Abbott, P.L.L.C., represents
himself:

          Matthew J. M. Prebeg, Esq.
          PREBEG, FAUCETT & ABBOT, P.L.L.C.
          8441 Gulf Freeway
          Houston, TX 77017
          Telephone: (832) 742-9263
          E-mail: mprebeg@gfpiplaw.com


SHEIN FASHION: Faces Golbahar Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shein Fashion Group,
Inc. The case is captioned as ROSALIE GOLBAHAR, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHEIN FASHION
GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-10340-JFW-AFM (C.D. Cal.,
Dec. 13, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge John F. Walter and
referred to Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon.

Shein Fashion Group, Inc. is an international B2C fast fashion
e-commerce platform. The Company mainly focuses on women's wear,
but it also offers men's apparel, children's clothes, accessories,
shoes, bags and other fashion items. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUN-MAID GROWERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diaz Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUN-MAID GROWERS OF CALIFORNIA; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18-CECG04501 (Cal.
Super., Fresno Cty., Dec. 14, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
permit meal and rest periods, and provide accurate wage
statements.

The Plaintiff Diaz was employed by the Defendant as an hourly paid,
non-exempt employee.

Sun-Maid Growers of California is a privately owned American
cooperative of raisin growers headquartered in Kingsburg,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Rex Parris, Esq.
          Kitty K. Szeto, Esq.
          John M. Bickford, Esq.
          Ryan A Crist, Esq.
          PARRIS LAW FIRM
          43364 10th Street West
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Telephone: (661) 949-2595
          Facsimile: (661) 949-7524

               - and -

          Eric Rouen, Esq.
          THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM
          9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (213) 291-3333
          Facsimile: (610) 813-4579


TERMAX CORPORATION: Wins Prelim. Nod of Settlement in Sosa Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on December 18, 2018, in the case
captioned Herminia Sosa v. Termax Corporation, Case No.
1:17-cv-06423 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Susan E. Cox.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Motion hearing was held;

   -- Parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of the
      parties' joint stipulation and agreement to settle class
      action claims and for approval of class certification is
      granted;

   -- Fairness hearing is set for April 10, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.;
      and

   -- Parties are to resubmit proposed order to the Court as
      discussed.[CC]


TIGER NATURAL: Fishman's Supplemental Bid for Class Cert. Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William Alsup denied the Plaintiffs' supplemental motion
for class certification in the lawsuit entitled EMILY FISHMAN and
SUSAN FARIA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. TIGER NATURAL GAS INC., an Oklahoma corporation;
COMMUNITY GAS CENTER INC., a Colorado corporation; JOHN DYET, an
individual; and DOES 3-100, Case No. 3:17-cv-05351-WHA (N.D.
Cal.).

A November 20 order denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify their
Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act claims for
class treatment.  The order explained that although the Plaintiffs
had claimed they could show the existence of damages on an
aggregate, classwide basis using PG&E's data, they had failed to
show that such information existed or was available and, as a
result, the Plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden of showing
that FRCP 23(b)(3)'s requirements had been met as to their CLRA and
Section 17200 claims.  The order further provided that if the
Plaintiffs obtained the necessary proof from PG&E, the Court would
consider a supplemental motion for class certification.

On December 16, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a supplemental motion
for class certification, according to the Order.  In their motion,
the Plaintiffs argue that they have received "corroborating
evidence that PG&E has the necessary data."  Although the
Plaintiffs have served a deposition subpoena on PG&E for testimony
and records related to its billing systems and billing data, PG&E
has objected to the subpoena and has asserted that responding to
the subpoena would be "unduly burdensome."  PG&E refused to give
deposition testimony or produce documents, but after "urging" by
the Plaintiffs' counsel supplied a declaration.

"It is clear from plaintiffs' supplemental motion and supporting
evidence that plaintiffs may have shown that certain data exists
but they have not shown that this data is available.  The
supplemental motion for class certification is accordingly DENIED,"
Judge Alsup explains.

"Any future motion may only be made once plaintiffs have succeeded
in obtaining the necessary data from PG&E.  Plaintiffs' motion to
shorten time is accordingly DENIED AS MOOT," Judge Alsup adds.[CC]


TOUCHPOINT 360: FLSA Class Certification Sought in Arugu Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit captioned DONNA ARUGU, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. TOUCHPOINT 360, LLC
and E.A. LANGENFELD ASSOCIATES, LTD., Case No. 1:18-cv-00343-LY
(W.D. Tex.), file with the Court their Agreed Motion to
Conditionally Certify Class and Issue Judicially Supervised Notice
under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Putative Class Members are:

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

The Defendants are agreeing to the certification of this class for
settlement purposes only, and they expressly reserve their right to
contest the collective treatment of this case if (1) a settlement
is not entered into, (2) the Court does not approve the terms of
the Parties' proposed settlement, or (3) the Court does not enter a
final order dismissing the case with prejudice.

The Parties further agree that counsel for the Plaintiff shall
issue notice of this case to all Putative Class Members in the form
and by the methods described in the attached Agreed Order
Conditionally Certifying Class.  Specifically, the Parties request
that this Court approve for delivery to the Putative Class Members
the Notice of Pendency of Overtime Suit, Consent to Join FLSA
Lawsuit, and the information sheet (collectively, "the Notice
documents"), all of which were submitted with the motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

The Defendants are represented by:

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


TROPICANA PRODUCTS: Sued for Misleading Label of Probiotic Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Bowman individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Tropicana Products, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-07251
(E.D.N.Y., December 19, 2018), arises from Tropicana's manufacture,
distribution, marketing, labeling and selling of fruit juices named
"Essentials Probiotics" in 32 and 10 oz. bottles (the "Products").

The Products are misleading because their name indicates they
contain probiotics -- claimed to be "essential," the Plaintiff
contends.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant manufactures
and sells the Products, which purport to contain substances and
elements, which are beneficial to human health.  In reality, the
Plaintiff argues, probiotics in the Products are of no demonstrated
value, especially to persons, who are not suffering from a
digestive or other illness.

The Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Manatee County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          891 Northern Blvd., Suite 201
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 303-0552
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

               - and -

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          1 Penn Plaza, Suite 2527
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 792-0046
          E-mail: joshua@levinepstein.com


UNITED STATES: Class of Army Veterans Certified in Kennedy Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Warren W. Eginton grants the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the lawsuit captioned STEPHEN M. KENNEDY, and
ALICIA J. CARSON, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. MARK ESPER, Secretary of the Army, Case No.
3:16-cv-02010-WWE (D. Conn.).

In accordance with Rule 23(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Court certifies this class:

     All Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard veterans of
     the Iraq and Afghanistan era -- the period between
     October 7, 2001 to present -- who:

     (a) were discharged with a less-than Honorable service
         characterization (this includes General and Other than
         Honorable discharges from the Army, Army Reserve, and
         Army National Guard, but not Bad Conduct or Dishonorable
         discharges);

     (b) have not received discharge upgrades to Honorable; and

     (c) have diagnoses of PTSD or PTSD-related conditions or
         record documenting one or more symptoms of PTSD or
         PTSD-related conditions at the time of discharge
         attributable to their military service under the Hagel
         Memo standards of liberal and special consideration.

The class representatives will be the named plaintiffs Stephen M.
Kennedy and Alicia J. Carson, and class counsel will be the Yale
Law School's Veterans Legal Services Clinic and the law firm Jenner
& Block LLP.

Plaintiffs Stephen Kennedy and Alicia Carson, veterans of the
conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan respectively, filed this action
pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") and the Fifth
Amendment due process clause, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons.  Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek a
class-wide injunction ordering the Army Discharge Review Board
("ADRB") reviewing less-than-Honorable discharges to follow the
directive of the memorandum issued by the Secretary of Defense
Hagel ("Hagel Memo") to give "liberal consideration" to diagnoses
of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and similar mental health
conditions, and records indicating symptoms of those
conditions.[CC]


UNITED STATES: Diabetic Medicare Patients File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Karlin-Smith and Sarah Owermohle, writing for Politico,
report that beneficiaries with diabetes who were denied
reimbursement for continuous glucose monitors filed a class action
lawsuit against HHS Sec. Alex Azar demanding a federal mandate to
cover the devices. Though CMS in January 2017 said it would start
covering the monitors, its criteria essentially limited
reimbursement to just one approved brand and did not retroactively
apply to people who already spent thousands of dollars on the
monitors, attorney James Pistorino told Prescription PULSE.

Mr. Pistorino said that between device parts, replacing sensors
every week and transmitters every few months, patients spend
roughly $3,500 a year. Yet HHS has previously denied claims on the
grounds that the monitors -- which attach to the skin to track
glucose day and night, sometimes reducing the need for finger-prick
testing -- are not "primarily and customarily used to serve a
medical purpose," according to the complaint. [GN]


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Trujillo Files 2nd Renewed Class Cert. Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled DAVID TRUJILLO; DEANNA HARDEN;
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC.; UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.;
UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:17-cv-02547-JFW-KK
(C.D. Cal.), file their second renewed motion for class
certification.

The Class is defined as:

     All persons covered under United1 plans, governed by ERISA,
     self-funded or fully insured, whose requests for prosthetic
     arm and leg devices have been denied during the applicable
     statute of limitations on the basis of the Minimum
     Specifications Limitation.  Not included in this class are
     persons whose requests for arm and leg devices have been
     denied for other reasons.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives and to appoint their counsel as Class Counsel.

On September 14, 2018, the Court found substantial evidence of
common practices, but denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification without prejudice because it found the proposed class
of all prosthetic device denials over-inclusive.  The Court
instructed the Plaintiffs to file a First Amended Complaint ("FAC")
with specific allegations regarding each of the wrongful practices
that the Plaintiffs contend support their claims.  The Court
further ordered the Plaintiffs to file a Renewed Motion for Class
Certification tailored to those claims with a narrower class
definition.  The Plaintiffs filed their FAC on Sept. 24, 2018.  The
Court denied a First Renewed Motion without prejudice on procedural
grounds.

This Second Renewed Motion satisfies the elements of Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for certifying the proposed
declaratory and relief class, the Plaintiffs contend.  The
Plaintiffs argue that the proposed class is sufficiently numerous
and that they are also typical and adequate class representatives.

The Court will commence a hearing on January 28, 2019, at 1:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert S. Gianelli, Esq.
          Joshua S. Davis, Esq.
          Adrian J. Barrio, Esq.
          GIANELLI & MORRIS, A LAW CORPORATION
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 1645
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 489-1600
          Facsimile: (213) 489-1611
          E-mail: rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com
                  joshua.davis@gmlawyers.com
                  adrian.barrio@gmlawyers

               - and -

          Conal Doyle, Esq.
          Stephen Beke, Esq.
          DOYLE LAW
          9401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 608
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 385-0567
          Facsimile: (310) 943-1780
          E-mail: conal@conaldoylelaw.com
                  sbeke@conaldoylelaw.com


UNIVERSAL LINEN: Does not Properly Pay Employees, Lehman Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Miranda Lehman, individually on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Universal Linen
Service, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00001 (E.D. Tenn.,
January 2, 2019) is a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), brought on behalf of all persons who, at
any time during the past three years and up until the date of entry
of judgment are or were employed by Defendant and who were not
properly compensated for all hours worked under the FLSA and
Tennessee law. The collective action claims are for unpaid straight
time and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA.

During Plaintiff's employment, Defendant required its employees to
"clock in" and "clock out" using a cellular phone. Plaintiff
regularly worked over 40 hours per workweek. Likewise, other
similarly situated employees regularly worked over 40 hours per
workweek.

According to the complaint, Sterling Campbell, General Manager,
regularly improperly edited Plaintiff's time to show fewer hours
worked than Plaintiff reported working. Sterling Campbell likewise
regularly edited the time of similarly situated employees to show
fewer hours than employees reported working. Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees questioned Campbell about his improper
time edits regularly. He responded that he would contact HR.
However, no remedial action was ever taken.

As a result, Plaintiff and similarly situated employees suffered
lost wages. Defendant knows and/or has reason to believe that
Plaintiff and similarly situate employees performed work without
receiving compensation for all of the hours worked. Defendant has
taken no remedial action to resolve these issues. Even though
Defendant knows that Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals
performed work without compensation, Defendant failed to compensate
Plaintiff and class members for their work, electing instead to
accept the benefits of Plaintiff's and class members' uncompensated
work, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff Miranda Lehman is an adult resident of the State of
Tennessee. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt,
hourly employee from approximately December 11, 2017, until
approximately June 5, 2018.

Universal Linen Service, LLC is a corporate entity doing business
in Winchester, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Emily S. Alcorn, Esq.
     GILBERT McWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
     341 Cool Springs Blvd, Suite 230
     Franklin, TN 37067
     Phone: (615) 354-1144
     Email: ealcorn@gilbertfirm.com


WAL-MART STORES: Prado's Bid to Certify Calif. ASMs Class Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Andre Birotte, Jr., denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification in the lawsuit entitled MARK PRADO,
Individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-05630-AB-KK
(C.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a putative class
comprised of and defined as "California Assistant Store Managers
who used their cell phones for work purposes from the period of
four years prior to the complaint to the present."  He raises four
causes of action against Wal-Mart, including the allegation that
Wal-Mart failed to reimburse actual and necessary business-related
expenses and costs, including money spent on the Assistant Store
Managers' use of their cell phones in violation of the California
Labor Code.

In their Motion, the Plaintiffs seek to modify the proposed class
definition, and request that the Court certify these two classes:

   * Reimbursement Subclass:

     "All Assistant Store Managers who participated in
     Defendant's Bring Your Own Device program from Jun 23, 2013
     (sic) through the present."

   * Waiting Time Subclass:

     "All former Assistant Store Managers who participated in
     Defendant's Bring Your Own Device Program from June 23, 2014
     through the present."

"Here, the Plaintiff has failed to establish that he has standing
to raise claims related to the two of his proposed subclasses: The
Reimbursement Subclass and the Waiting Time Subclass," Judge
Birotte opines.

In the Court's view, the Plaintiff has failed to establish standing
with any acceptable form of evidence sufficient to allow him to act
as lead plaintiff for the putative class.  Judge Birotte adds that
the Plaintiff has not provided any document or record establishing
that he registered for Wal-Mart's BYOD program; nor has the
Plaintiff demonstrated that he incurred any costs as a result of
his participation in the program.[CC]


WALGREENS BOOTS: Shanov Sues Over Carcinogen in Hypertension Meds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Shanov, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. and Walgreen
Co., Defendants, Case No. 2018CH15872 (Ill. Cir., December 21,
2018), seeks actual damages, in addition to reasonable attorney's
fees and costs and all such further and other relief resulting from
unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract of merchantability
and for violation of the Illinois Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

Valsartan tablets is a generic hypertension and heart failure oral
medication. US Food and Drug Administration announced that several
distributors of Valsartan recalled the product due to
N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), which is classified as a probable
human carcinogen. Shanov alleges that some of the Walgreens
Valsartan sold by  Walgreens potentially contained, elevated levels
of NDMA.

Walgreens is a pharmacy chain based in Illinois with branches
throughout the US. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
      Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
      Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
      Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P .C.
      77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 440-0020
      Fax: (312) 440-4180
      Email: matt@attorneyzim.com
             nick@attorneyzim.com
             sharon@attorneyzim.com
             tom@attorneyzim.com

             - and -

      Boris Parad, Esq.
      PARAD LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      910 Skokie Boulevard, Suite 109
      Northbrook, IL 60062
      Tel: (847) 418-2020
      Fax: (847) 418-2022
      Website: www.paradfirm.com


WELLS FARGO: Jan. 23 Settlement Claims Filing Period Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
StreetInsider.com reports that Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC) on
Dec. 19 disclosed that it has received final court approval of an
agreement to resolve a previously disclosed consolidated securities
class-action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California (Hefler v. Wells Fargo) alleging certain
misstatements and omissions in the company's disclosures related to
sales practices maters.

Wells Fargo is pleased the case has received final approval by the
court. The company remains focused on rebuilding trust and
transforming into the most customer-focused, efficient, and
innovative Wells Fargo ever, for all of its stakeholders.

The $480-million settlement agreement provides for payment of class
member claims. The settlement class consists of all persons and
entities who purchased Wells Fargo & Company common stock from Feb.
26, 2014 through Sept. 20, 2016.

The claims filing period for the settlement will remain open for
eligible class members to submit claims through Jan. 23, 2019
online at www.wellsfargosecuritieslitigation.com, or by calling
855-349-6457. After the claims filing period ends, the settlement
administrator will complete the process of determining the recovery
amount for class member shareholders before making payments to
eligible class members.

The settlement amount was fully accrued as of March 31, 2018 and
has been paid into a settlement escrow. The company has denied the
claims and allegations in the action and entered into the
settlement agreement to avoid the cost and disruption of further
litigation. [GN]


XBB INC: You Qing Wang Seeks Overtime Pay, Pay Slips
----------------------------------------------------
You Qing Wang, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. XBB, Inc., Mei Lan Chen and Zhao Yin Lian,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-11277, (D. N.J., July 1, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wage compensation, unpaid overtime wage
compensation, detailed rates of pay and payday, wages statements,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and/or
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938, New York Wage Theft Prevention Act and New York Labor
Law.

From on or about June 15, 2013 to September 02, 2017, You worked as
a salesperson at XBB located 5723C 8th Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11220,
selling apparel, shoes and bags. She claims to have received a flat
weekly rate regardless of the excess hours she rendered including
those during her meals breaks. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Tel: (718) 762-1324
      Fax: (718) 762-1342
      Email: TroyLaw@TroyPllc.Com



YRC WORLDWIDE: Lewis Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Christina Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. YRC Worldwide Inc., James L. Welch, Jamie
G. Pierson, and Stephanie D. Fisher, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00001-DNH-ATB (N.D. N.Y., January 2, 2019) is a federal
securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of YRC Worldwide
from March 10, 2014 through December 14, 2018, both dates
inclusive.

Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On March 10, 2014, the Company filed a Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2013 (the "2013 10-K") with the SEC, which
provided the Company's annual financial results and position. The
2013 10-K was signed by Defendants Welch and Pierson. The 2013 10-K
contained signed certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 ("SOX") by Defendants Welch and Pierson attesting to the
accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material
changes to the Company's internal controls over financial
reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud.

However, the Company's statements were materially false and/or
misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose
adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operational and
financial results, which were known to Defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: from 2005 to
at least 2013, YRC Worldwide's units systematically overcharged the
federal government for freight carrier services; this alleged
misconduct caused the Department of Defense to overpay by millions
of dollars for shipments that were lighter, and thus cheaper, than
the weights for which the government was charged; consequently,
this alleged misconduct would subject YRC Worldwide to enhanced
government scrutiny and liabilities, including potentially owing
treble damages under the False Claims Act; and as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times, says the complaint.

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

YRC Worldwide provides various transportation services primarily in
North America. It operates as a holding company with two reporting
segments: YRC Freight (longer haul trucking) and Regional
Transportation (regional and next-day delivery markets). The
Company is incorporated in Delaware and has facilities throughout
the United States, including Albany, New York. The Company's
securities are traded on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol
"YRCW".

James L. Welch has served as the Company's Chief Executive Officer
("CEO") since July 2011.

Stephanie D. Fisher has served as the Company's Chief Financial
Officer ("CFO") since May 2017. Fisher served as the Company's
acting CFO from January 2017 until May 2017. Fisher was the
Company's Vice President and Controller from May 2012 until May
2017.

Jamie G. Pierson served as the Company's Executive Vice President
and CFO from November 2011 until December 2016.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***