CAR_Public/190115.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, January 15, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 11

                            Headlines

8 CHELSEA: Balderas Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
AGODA COMPANY: Wins Summary Judge Bid in Phan TCPA Suit
AH-441 ERIE: Stegemann Files Suit Over Security Deposits
AIR MEDICAL: Sued for Withholding Employees' Rightful Compensation
ALLIED COLLECTION: Baumann Files FDCPA Suit in Colorado

AMAZON INC: Beats Class Action, Joint Employer Issue Remains
APHRIA INC: Feb. 4 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
APHRIA INC: Kessler Topaz Files Class Action Lawsuit
ARASHI MAHALO: Abante Rooter Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
ARKANSAS: Dismissal of Wilson Counterclaim vs DHS Affirmed

ASSET PROTECTION: Bazile Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ASSURANCE IQ: Accused by Lo Suit of Invading Privacy Under TCPA
ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Must Face Lawsuit Over Video Lottery Terminals
BANNER BANK: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Bolding FLSA Suit
BAY AREA REGIONAL: Cooper Suit Asserts WARN Act Violation

BLACK BOX: Adie Files Securities Class Suit
CANADA: Law Firms Mull Class Actions Over Mefloquine Side Effects
CENTRAL FREIGHT: Accused by Branch Suit of Age Discrimination
CITY OF INDUSTRY: $8.5MM FLSA Class Settlement Has Final Approval
COMBERMERE ENTERTAINMENT: Cooner Files Suit under ADA in New York

COMCAST CORPORATION: Lacy Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
CONDUENT STATE: 9th Cir. Affirms Remand of Kendrick
COX COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in Ehrman Suit
CREDENCE RESOURCE: Abdullah-Ezzani Sues Over FDCPA Violations
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Boquette Suit Alleges FMLA Violation

CYTOSPORT INC: Appeals Class Certification Order in Clay Suit
DELAWARE: Inmates' Civil Rights Suit Removed to Del. Dist. Ct.
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Bailey Files FDCPA Suit in Alabama
DOVER DOWNS: Faces Finley Securities Suit Over Twin River Merger
E&L ROLLING GATES: Saldivar Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages

EL EDEN: Cordero Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
ENHANCED RECOVERY: McCluskey Seeks to Certify Class Under FDCPA
ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Kramer Files Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Walker Files FCRA Suit in Mississippi
EXCEL FOOD: Suy Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages

FITNESS SPECIALIST: Marin-Viveros Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
FKA DISTRIBUTING: Martinez Suit Asserts ADA  Breach
FLUOR ENTERPRISES: Mixon Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
FRANKLIN CREDIT: Minearo Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
GINZA 685 INC: Lin Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages

GLASSDOOR INC: Violates Disabilities Act, Diaz Suit Says
GOOGLE INC: Location Tracking, User Data Class Actions Combined
HIGHLANDS PHYSICIANS: Attorneys Present Closing Arguments
HOSPITALITY VENTURES: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in Tom Suit
INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Students' Class Action Over Mold Ongoing

INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Suit Over Dormitory Mold Remanded to State Ct.
INMATE SERVICES: 8th Circuit Appeal Filed in Stearns Suit
IVO TANKU TAPANG: Faces Class Action Over Terrorist Acts
KENTUCKY: Court Awards $222K Attorney's Fees to Inmate Class
KIA: Vehicle Owners File Class Action Over Engine Fires

KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS: Duran Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal.
KUSHNER COMPANIES: Settles Tenants' Class Action for $88K
L3 TECHNOLOGIES: Kent Files Suit Over Sale to Harris Corp.
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Wash. Court Enforces Lebanon Settlement Ruling
LIVANOVA PLC: Sorin Group Appeals Ruling in Baker Injury Suit

MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces DeLoss Suit in Maryland Over Data Breach
MARRIOTT INT'L: Skinner Sues Over Data Breach
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Bell Suit Alleges Negligence
MEDENVIOS HEALTHCARE: Felix Sues for Invasion of Privacy
MEMPHIS, TN: Must Depose Ex-Head of Police Sex Crimes Unit

MESSERLI & KRAMER: Certification of Class Sought in Bauer Suit
MOINIAN LLC: Fischler Files Suit under ADA in New York
MONSANTO CO: Peabody Sues Over Herbicide Exposure
MONTAFON LLC: Pequero Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
MOTION RECRUITMENT: Faces Diaz Suit Over ADA Violation

NCAA: Phillips Appeals Ruling in Livers FLSA Suit to 3rd Cir.
NEWFIELD EXPLORATION: Franchi Balks at Merger Deal with Encana
NISSAN NORTH: Bashaw Sues Over Defective Emergency Braking System
NOBILIS HEALTH: Feb. 12 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
NORTHLAND GROUP: Court OKs Dismissal of Rodriguez FDCPA Suit

OC COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Ruling in Soto Suit to Ninth Circuit
OTTAKRING INC: Victoriano Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
PARKWOOD ENTERTAINMENT: Violates ADA, Conner Suit Says
PAVERS AND ROAD BUILDERS: Palumbo Seek Prelim. OK of Class Accord
PENNSYLVANIA: Third Cir. Appeal Filed in Pelino Prisoner Suit

PERRIGO COMPANY: Masih Sues Over Share Price Drop
SAMSONITE COMPANY: Stohs Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
SEERSUCKER INC: Chiqui Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
SEVERSON & WERSON: Faces Duarte Wage and Hour Suit in Calif.
SHREE RADHE: Kennedy Files Suit under ADA in Florida

SKINNER SERVICES: Seeks 1st Cir. Review of Order in Pineda Suit
STANDARD INTERNATIONAL: Gonzalez Suit Asserts Civil Rights Breach
STARBUCKS COFFEE: Sullivan Asserts ADA Class Suit in NY
STATE COLLECTION: Born Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
STATE FARM: $250MM Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Okay

STRAIGHT LINE: Abante Rooter Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
TANGA INC: Faces Diaz Suit Asserting ADA Violation
TESLA INC: Judge Reconsidering Lead Plaintiff Appointment
TMPL HOLDINGS: Mondello Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
TOPHATTER INC: Violates ADA, Diaz Suit Asserts

TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in XLE Suit
UNITED STATES: Class Action Over Army Discharge Reviews Okayed
UNITED STATES: Liviz Appeals D. Mass. Decision to First Circuit
UNITED STATES: Migrant Kids Mental Health Care Class Action OK'd
VICTIM SERVICES: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in Solberg Suit

VILLAGEONE SPACE: Olsen Files Suit under ADA in New York
VUZIX CORP: Securities Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
WATERSTONE MORTGAGE: Werner's Bid to Compel Arbitration Denied
WELLS FARGO: Keller Rohrback Investigates HAMP Faulty Calculation
WORLD MARKETING: Former Employees Class Certified in Carroll Suit

WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: Couch Sues Over Fraudulent Sale of VOIs
XPO LOGISTICS: Feb. 12 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

                            *********

8 CHELSEA: Balderas Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Vidal Balderas, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. 8 Chelsea Corp. dba Riko Peruvian Cuisine, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-11149 (S.D. N.Y., November 29, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and unpaid minimum wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that throughout his employment with the
Defendants, the Plaintiff was never paid the overtime premium of
one-and-one-half times his regular rate of pay for his hours worked
in excess of 40 per week, as required under the FLSA and NYLL.

The Plaintiff Vidal Balderas was employed by the Defendants to work
as a dishwasher at "Riko Chelsea" located at 409 8th Avenue, New
York, NY 10001.

The Defendants operate Riko Restaurants as a single integrated
enterprise. Specifically, Riko Restaurants are engaged in related
activities, share common ownership and have a common business
purpose. Riko Restaurants are engaged in the same business of
operating Peruvian restaurants in New York City. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AGODA COMPANY: Wins Summary Judge Bid in Phan TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued an Order granting Defendant's
pre-certification motion for summary judgment in the case captioned
AN PHAN, Plaintiff, v. AGODA COMPANY PTE. LTD., Defendant. Case No.
16-cv-07243-BLF. (N.D. Cal.).

On four separate occasions after booking travel on Defendant Agoda
Company Pte. Ltd.'s website, Plaintiff An Phan received a text
message from Agoda that read "Good news! Your Agoda booking number
is confirmed. Manage your booking with our free app
http://app-agoda.com/GetTheApp." The Plaintiff filed this putative
class action asserting a single cause of action: violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA).

In its motion for summary judgment, Agoda argues that the Court
should grant summary judgement on Phan's sole claim, for violation
of the TCPA, for three reasons:

   (1) Phan provided the required level of consent under the TCPA
because the text messages he received did not contain advertising
and were not telemarketing;

   (2) Phan waived his rights to assert his TCPA claim by agreeing
to Agoda's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy and by continuing to
make bookings with Agoda after receiving the allegedly unlawful
text messages and

   (3) Phan agreed to a Singapore choice of law and venue clause in
the Terms of Use.  
Requirements Under the TCPA

The three elements of a TCPA claim are: (1) the defendant called a
cellular telephone number (2) using an automatic telephone dialing
system (3) without the recipient's prior express consent.
  
As to the third element, consent is an affirmative defense on which
the defendant bears the burden of proof.  The type of consent
required depends on the content of the message. If the text message
includes or introduces an advertisement or constitutes
telemarketing, the sender is required to obtain prior express
written consent" of the recipient. To constitute advertising, the
text message must contain material advertising the commercial
availability or quality of any property, goods, or services. To
constitute telemarketing, the text message must be for the purpose
of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in,
property, goods, or services.

Application of the TCPA to the Text Messages Received by Phan

Though a claim under the TCPA has three elements, Agoda does not
dispute that Phan satisfies the first two elements of the TCPA
claim, that Agoda sent text messages to Phan's cellular phone using
an automatic telephone dialing system.   Instead, Agoda's motion
for summary judgment argues that it wins on the third element,
because it has successfully established an affirmative defense of
consent.  

Agoda argues in its motion that the text messages were neither
advertising nor telemarketing, but instead were merely
transactional because they served only two purposes: (1) to confirm
that Phan's bookings were reserved with the third party hotel and
(2) to direct Phan to the app to locate and modify the booking
prior to the completion of his stay.

Phan, by contrast, argues that the messages were advertising or
telemarketing, and not merely transactional, because the business
transaction was completed at the time of booking, rendering the
app-download link superfluous.

In making their arguments, both parties analogize to and
distinguish manifold cases in this Circuit and others. A review of
this case law is instructive here.

In Aderhold II, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
ruling that the text message at issue was not telemarketing. The
plaintiff in that case had signed up for a car-sharing service and
immediately received a text message prompting him to enter an
activation code into a link emailed to him. See Aderhold v. Car2go
N.A., LLC (Aderhold I), No. C13-489-RAJ, 2014 WL 794802, at *1
(W.D. Wash. Feb. 27, 2014).

The district court concluded that the message was not telemarketing
because it served the limited purpose of allowing the plaintiff to
complete his registration. The court rejected the plaintiff's
argument that diversion to the defendant's website was sufficient
to render the message telemarketing simply because the website also
contained promotions for the defendant's services.

In affirming, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that
the message contain[ed] no content encouraging purchase of the
defendant's services and was directed instead to completing the
registration process.

Similarly in Herrick v. QLess, Inc., the Court held that two
messages related to plaintiffs' wait times at certain
establishments were advertisements. 216 F.Supp.3d 816, 817 (E.D.
Mich. 2016). The first message encouraged the plaintiffs to sign up
for an app that would allow them to see their wait in real time,
control when [they] get served & find more places with no lines
link and, the second message both informed them that their wait was
over and included a link to the defendant's website.  

The court held the messages were advertising because they
advertised a `free' app for the purpose of conveying the quality of
[defendant's] products and services and soliciting plaintiffs to
recruit more business customers. In so holding, the Court rejected
the defendant's argument that the free nature of the app rendered
it merely informational. However, the Herrick court did not
explicitly consider whether the transaction at issue, namely, the
plaintiffs' wait was ongoing or had otherwise concluded.

In light of this case law and the requirements of the TCPA, this
Court holds that the text messages Agoda sent to Phan were neither
advertising nor telemarketing.

The content of the messages reinforces this conclusion. The text
messages read: "Good news! Your Agoda booking number is confirmed.
Manage your booking with our free app
http://app-agoda.com/GetTheApp."The plain language of the text
messages is limited to (1) confirming the booking a purpose no
court cited by Phan has found constitutes advertising or
telemarketing and (2) encouraging Phan to manage his] booking via
the app.  

These two purposes directly related to Phan's transaction with
Agoda. This language distinguishes this case from Haagen-Dazs, 2017
WL 4536422, at *1-*2, where the app link was included without an
attendant function relevant to the transaction, and from Herrick,
216 F. Supp. 3d at 817-18, where the app link in the first message
was included, in part, to find more places with no lineand the
website link in the second message was included without an
attendant function relevant to the transaction.

And the inclusion of the link to the app is not enough to warrant
holding that these messages were advertising under the TCPA. Though
the app may fairly be considered a product or service of Agoda, the
messages simply cannot be said to advertise the commercial
availability of this product or service under the law. The app is
readily analogized to Agoda's website, as the two platforms have
substantially similar processes for booking travel and most if not
all of the same functions.

The court in Aderhold I, Aderhold v. Car2go N.A., LLC (Aderhold I),
No. C13-489-RAJ, 2014 WL 794802, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 27, 2014).,
rejected the argument that inclusion of a link to a website that
contained promotions was sufficient to render the messages
advertising or telemarketing. The same is true for the app. Even
though it contains certain promotions the app was included to
facilitate, complete, or confirm a commercial transaction, making
the link to it fully germane to the transaction. Put simply, Agoda
was not advertising the app's commercial availability. To hold
otherwise would run headlong into the decisions in this Circuit and
others holding that inclusion of the link to a defendant's website,
without more, does not render a message advertising or
telemarketing.

The Court holds that the messages at issue here were neither
advertising nor telemarketing as defined by the TCPA. As such,
Agoda needed only Phan's express consent prior to sending the
messages. There is no dispute that Agoda received such consent
because Plaintiff voluntarily provided his phone number and agreed
to Agoda's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which made clear that
such messages would be sent.

Accordingly, Agoda's motion for summary judgment is granted on its
only claim, for violation of the TCPA.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 13, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y86la8ue from Leagle.com.

An Phan, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Joe Jaurigue --
michael@jlglawyers.com -- Jaurigue Law Group, Alfredo Torrijos --
alfredo@asstlawyers.com -- Arias Sanguinetti Wang & Torrijos LLP,
Mike M. Arias -- mike@asstlawyers.com -- Arias Sanguinetti Wang &
Torrijos LLP & Ryan A. Stubbe -- ryan@jlglawyers.com -- Jaurigue
Law Group.

Agoda Company Pte. Ltd., a Singapore Private Limited Liability
Company, Defendant, represented by Teresa Lauren Harrold Michaud --
teresa.michaud@bakermckenzie.com -- Baker & McKenzie LLP, Anne M.
Kelts -- anne.kelts@bakermckenzie.com -- Baker McKenzie & Barry Jay
Thompson, Baker McKenzie.


AH-441 ERIE: Stegemann Files Suit Over Security Deposits
--------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT STEGEMANN, & JENNIFER STEGEMANN, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. AH-441 ERIE, LLC, GROUP FOX, INC.,
ONTERIE CO-INVESTOR, LLC, & VILLAGE GREEN HOLDING, LLC, Case No.
2018CH15991 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., December 26, 2018), is brought
on behalf of a proposed class consisting of:

     all tenants of the Building, who gave a security deposit for
     rental of a dwelling unit at the Building and still had that
     security deposit held for that unit in and around
     December 29, 2016, when Transferor or its agent(s)
     transferred security deposits for the Building to Successor
     or its agent(s) and who did not receive written notification
     within 14 days after the date of transfer of the name and
     address of the new financial institution where security
     deposits were held.

The property at 448 E. Ontario Ave. ("Building") in Chicago is a
multi-unit residential apartment building.  Until and in Dec. 29,
2016, Onterie Co-Investor, LLC ("Transferor") was a person in whom
was vested all or part of the legal title to the Building, or all
or part of the beneficial ownership and a right to present use and
enjoyment of the Building.  In and after December 29, 2016, AH-441
Erie, LLC ("Successor") has been a person in whom is vested all or
part of the legal title to the Building, or all or part of the
beneficial ownership and a right to present use and enjoyment of
the Building.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Silverman, Esq.
          MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD.
          225 W. Washington, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 775-1015
          Facsimile: (312) 256-2055
          E-mail: mark@depositlaw.com


AIR MEDICAL: Sued for Withholding Employees' Rightful Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nikki Murdock and Les McGee, individually and on behalf of a class
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Air Medical Group
Holdings, Inc. d/b/a AirMedCare Network; and Global Medical
Response, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00005-BRW (E.D. Ark.,
January 3, 2019) is an action arising from Defendants' failure to
abide by the contractual compensation provisions by improperly
withholding rightful compensation from Plaintiffs and others
similarly situated.

The Defendants sell memberships to their AirMedCare Network to
citizens across the United States. Members of Defendants' network
are entitled to transport by an AirMedCare Network provider for
medical conditions deemed to be life-or-limb threatening or that
could lead to permanent disability, and members will receive no out
of pocket expenses for their flights.

The Defendants send out direct mail letters to potential customers
located within the MSMs' territories. When this process began, if
someone purchased a membership through this direct mailer, the
purchase was included in that MSM's Total Revenue Dollars. The
direct mailers often included the MSM's name even though the MSM
did not mail them. Rather than adhering to their own contract and
continuing this process, Defendants began a pattern and practice of
failing to include all memberships within the MSM's Total Revenue
Dollars.

In January of 2018, Defendants mailed approximately 39,979 direct
mail letters to customers in Plaintiff Murdock's designated
territory. In May of 2018, Defendants mailed approximately 85,542
direct mail letters to customers in Plaintiff Murdock's territory.
Defendants failed to give Plaintiff Murdock any credit towards her
Total Revenue Dollars for the membership purchases obtained through
the direct mail letters.

In January of 2018, Defendant mailed approximately 36,405 direct
mail letters to customers in Plaintiff McGee's designated
territory. In April of 2018, Defendant mailed approximately 115,066
direct mail letters to customers in Plaintiff McGee's territory.
Defendant failed to give Plaintiff McGee any credit towards his
Total Revenue Dollars for the membership purchases obtained through
the direct mail letters.

As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs and the Class
Members have received and continue to receive improperly reduced
compensation while Defendants increase their own revenues.
Moreover, the Defendants are improperly withholding payment earned
by their employees, failing to abide by their own contract, and
have caused and are continuing to cause significant harm to
Plaintiffs and Class Members, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Nikki Murdock is employed by Defendant as a membership
sales manager. She began her employment November 13, 2009.

Plaintiff Les McGee is employed by Defendant as a membership sales
manager. He began his employment August 15, 2014.

Air Medical Group Holdings, Inc. d/b/a AirMedCare Network("AMGH")
is a corporation with its headquarters located in Dallas, Texas.
AMGH is the largest independent provider of emergency air medical
services in the world. AMGH operates through its six subsidiaries:
Air Evac Lifeteam, Guardian Flight, Med-Trans Corporation, REACH,
AirMed International and Lifeguard. Air Medical Group Holdings,
Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Global Medical Response, Inc.

Global Medical Response, Inc. is a corporation with its
headquarters located in Greenwood Village, Colorado. Global Medical
Response, Inc. is a medical transportation company formed by
combining Air Medical Group Holdings, Inc. and American Medical
Response, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Paul Byrd, Esq.
     Joseph Gates, Esq.
     Paul Byrd Law Firm, PLLC
     415 N. McKinley St. Ste. 210
     Little Rock, AR 72205
     Phone: (501) 420-3050
     Fax: (501) 420-3128
     Email: paul@paulbyrdlawfirm.com
            joseph@paulbyrdlawfirm.com

          - and -

     W. Dee Miles, III, Esq.
     C. Lance Gould, Esq.
     Leslie L. Pescia, Esq.
     Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C.
     P.O. Box 4160
     Montgomery, AL 36103
     Phone: (334) 269-2343
     Fax: (334) 954-7555
     Email: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
            lance.gould@beasleyallen.com
            leslie.pescia@beasleyallen.com


ALLIED COLLECTION: Baumann Files FDCPA Suit in Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Collection &
Credit Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Macushla Baumann,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, Pinnacle Credit
Services, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00020 (D. Colo., January 3, 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:

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



AMAZON INC: Beats Class Action, Joint Employer Issue Remains
------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg Law reports that Amazon.com Inc. is free from class
claims in a delivery driver's lawsuit seeking wages, overtime, and
relief for other alleged labor violations, but the company didn't
settle a question that could expose it and other major businesses
to significant liability.

The California driver can't seek class status because the proposed
class members—current and former joint employees of Amazon and
various staffing companies that were subject to the company's
delivery guidelines—didn't have enough in common, a federal judge
ruled Dec. 6.

Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California also seemed to leave room for a finding that
Amazon is a "joint employer" of Jasmine Miller, along with a
company called 1-800 Courier. Although the case is being reviewed
under California labor law, a joint employment finding would mean
both Amazon and the courier company are Miller's formal employers,
a precedent that would implicate any major business that regularly
uses contracted or subcontracted labor in California and any state
with similar 'joint employer' laws.

Miller's working conditions as an alleged joint employee of Amazon
and staffing company 1-800 Courier might not match the working
conditions of drivers at other Amazon contractors that are alleged
to be jointly employed, according to the judge. She therefore
failed a test for class action status that says all the putative
class members need to have faced essentially the same conditions
and experiences.

The driver was represented by Cohelan Khoury & Singer and Law
Offices of Ronald A. Marron APLC. Amazon was represented by Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP. Neither firm responded to requests for
comment.

            'Joint Employer' Question Persists

Amazon was less successful in defeating the driver's substantive
allegations, many of which survived the online retailer's motion to
dismiss. The worker is moving forward with allegations that she was
denied minimum wages, overtime wages, meal breaks, rest periods,
and accurate wage statements.

Chesney gave Miller until Jan. 4, 2019, to amend her class
complaint.

The judge added that a "question likely exists as to whether Amazon
is in fact a joint employer"—an issue that's typically settled by
assessing how much control one business has over the working terms
and conditions of employees at a different company.

Amazon had contested some of Miller's factual evidence for the
joint employer allegation in a previous motion, including that "she
drove a vehicle and wore a uniform with 'Amazon's logo"'; that
Amazon controlled her schedule through "electronic devices it
issued," and had the power to discipline and terminate.

But Amazon is no longer challenging the "sufficiency of Miller's
allegations that 1-800 Courier and Amazon" were her joint
employers, Chesney wrote in a footnote.

The company is facing lawsuits in other jurisdictions seeking to
hold it liable as a joint employer of contractor's workers. Many
other companies -- most notably McDonald's LLC -- are keeping a
keen eye on the issue.

Federal laws were reinterpreted by President Barack Obama's
administration to make it easier to hold multiple companies as
joint employers. President Donald Trump's nominees at the federal
labor board and Department of Labor have indicated they might
change those standards in 2019. [GN]


APHRIA INC: Feb. 4 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until February 4, 2019 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Aphria
Inc. (NYSE: APHA), if they purchased the Company's securities
between July 17, 2018 and December 4, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  This action is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of Aphria and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right
to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or
cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-apha/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by February 4, 2019.

                      About the Lawsuit

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

On December 3, 2018, Hindenburg Research reported in an article
entitled an article, "Aphria: A Shell Game with a Cannabis Business
on the Side," that an extensive investigation revealed that "Aphria
is part of a scheme orchestrated by a network of insiders to divert
funds away from shareholders into their own pockets" and detailing
the questionable value of its investments.

On this news, the price of Aphria's shares plummeted.

The case is Gloschat v. Aphria Inc. et al, 18-cv-11427.

         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         Website: www.ksfcounsel.com
         Telephone: 1-877-515-1850
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]


APHRIA INC: Kessler Topaz Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP disclosed that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Aphria Inc. (NYSE:  APHA) ("Aphria") on behalf of purchasers of
Aphria securities between July 17, 2018 and December 4, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

Important Deadline: Investors who purchased Aphria securities
during the Class Period may, no later than February 4, 2019, seek
to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class.
For additional information or to learn how to participate in this
action please visit www.ktmc.com/aphria-securities-class-action.

According to the complaint, Aphria produces and sells medical
cannabis.  The Class Period commences on July 17, 2018, when Aphria
announced its plans to acquire "industry-leading companies in
Colombia, Argentina, Jamaica and a right of first offer and refusal
in respect of Brazil through a definitive share purchase agreement
with Scythian Biosciences, Inc."

According to the complaint, on December 3, 2018, Quintessential
Capital Management and Hindenburg Research published a report
alleging, among other things, that Aphria's recent acquisitions in
Latin America were part of a series of transactions designed to
enrich Aphria insiders and that these acquisitions lacked
established operations and/or licenses to operate in the cannabis
industry.  Following this news, Aphria's share price fell $1.85 per
share, or over 23%, to close at $6.05 per share on December 3,
2018.

Then, on December 4, 2018, Aphria denied the claims made in the
report stating, among other things, that it had received "financial
advice and a fairness opinion from Cormark Securities Inc.,
[Aphria]'s independent and qualified financial advisor, that the
consideration to be offered by Aphria in respect of the transaction
was fair from a financial point of view, to Aphria."  Following
this news, Aphria's share price fell $1.54 per share, or over 25%,
to close at $4.51 per share on December 4, 2018.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose that: (1) the Latin American assets
acquired by Aphria lacked adequate licenses to operate and were
overvalued; (2) the acquisition of the Latin American assets would
enrich Aphria's Chief Executive Officer and other insiders at the
expense of shareholders; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the
defendants' positive statements about Aphria's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action or have
any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (888)
299–7706 or (610) 667–7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com.

Aphria investors may, no later than February 4, 2019, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.  A lead plaintiff is
a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

         James Maro, Jr., Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (888) 299-7706
                    (610) 667-7706
         Email: abell@ktmc.com
                jmaro@ktmc.com [GN]


ARASHI MAHALO: Abante Rooter Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Abante Rooter and Plumbing, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Arashi Mahalo, LLC dba
Bizfundingfinder, and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 4:18-cv-07311
(N.D. Calif., December 3, 2018), is brought against the Defendants
for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants negligently, knowingly
and willfully contacted the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in
violation of the TCPA and related regulations, specifically the
National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading the Plaintiff's
privacy.

The Plaintiff Abante Rooter and Plumbing is a corporation of the
State of California with principal place of business in the county
of Alameda.

The Defendant Arashi Mahalo is a loan provider. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      Meghan E. George, Esq.
      Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Tel: (323) 306-4234
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
              abacon@toddflaw.com
              mgeorge@toddflaw.com
              twheeler@toddflaw.com


ARKANSAS: Dismissal of Wilson Counterclaim vs DHS Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Arkansas issued an Opinion affirming the
Circuit Court's Order dismissing Appellant's Counterclaim in the
case captioned DENA WILSON, Appellant, v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES, Appellee. No. CV-17-830. (Ark.).

Appellant Dena Wilson appeals the Pulaski County Circuit Court's
order dismissing her counterclaim for declaratory and injunctive
relief against appellee Arkansas Department of Human Services
(DHS).

DHS petitioned the circuit court for an ex parte order of
investigation alleging that it had received a report that Wilson
had physically abused her minor child, I.W. DHS asserted that it
had a duty under the Child Maltreatment Act to interview and
examine Wilson and I.W.

For reversal, Wilson argues that the circuit court lacked
jurisdiction to consider the counterclaim because DHS was entitled
to sovereign immunity.  

DHS moved to dismiss the counterclaim pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) and to vacate the order of investigation.

DHS argued that the counterclaim was procedurally improper and that
Wilson could have challenged the order by applying for a stay
pending a hearing, as is authorized under the Child Maltreatment
Act.  

The court entered an order denying Wilson's constitutional claims
and granting DHS's motion to dismiss her counterclaim and vacate
the order of investigation.  

On appeal, Wilson does not challenge the circuit court's denial of
her claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. Instead, she
argues that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to
hear her counterclaim because DHS was entitled to sovereign
immunity under article 5, section 20 of the Arkansas Constitution.
She contends that the circuit court's order addressing the merits
of her claims was void, that the order should be reversed, and that
her case should be dismissed without prejudice due to lack of
jurisdiction.

DHS asserts several bases on which this court may affirm the
circuit court's order. DHS argues that (1) Wilson failed to
preserve any sovereign-immunity argument; (2) Wilson had already
obtained the relief she sought below, dismissal of the order of
investigation, and the relief she seeks on appeal, dismissal of her
counterclaim, so a decision by this court would have no practical
legal effect on any controversy; and (3) sovereign immunity did not
apply to prohibit the circuit court from considering the
counterclaim.

The Court agrees with DHS that Wilson failed to preserve her
sovereign-immunity argument and affirm on this basis. Article 5,
section 20 of the Arkansas Constitution states that the State of
Arkansas shall never be made defendant in any of her courts. As
Wilson notes, the Court have held that the legislature does not
have the power to waive this constitutional provision by statute.

However, contrary to Wilson's argument, the Court have also held
that sovereign immunity is not a matter of subject-matter
jurisdiction that may be addressed for the first time on appeal.  

Here, neither party asserted to the circuit court that DHS was
entitled to sovereign immunity. In fact, Wilson expressly argued to
the contrary at the hearing on the State's motion to dismiss on the
basis of sovereign immunity and DHS stated in its amended response
to the counterclaim that it had no objection on the basis of
jurisdiction. The issue was not raised by either Wilson or DHS at
any stage of the lawsuit, nor was it ruled on by the circuit court.
Accordingly, the Court is unable to address the sole issue raised
by Wilson on appeal, and the Court therefore affirm the circuit
court's order of dismissal.

Affirmed.

A full-text copy of the state Supreme Court's December 13, 2018
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7yz92p3 from
Leagle.com.

Churchwell Law Offices, by: Joseph Churchwell, 214 Hobson Avenue,
Hot Springs, AR, 71913, for appellant.

Jerald A. Sharum , Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee.


ASSET PROTECTION: Bazile Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Bazile, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Asset Protection Group LLC dba APG Security
Services & Sterling Investigative Services, Case No. 1:18-cv-06820
(E.D. N.Y., November 30, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
minimum wages, overtime compensation, spread of hours compensation,
and uniform maintenance pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff and members of the putative class and collective are
all victims of the Defendant's common policy and plan to violate
the FLSA and NYLL by failing to pay its security guards for all
hours worked, including overtime hours, pursuant to the FLSA and
NYLL.

The Plaintiff Philip Bazile resides in the State of New York and
was employed by Defendant from approximately October 2018 to the
present as a security guard.

The Defendant Asset Protection Group LLC dba APG Security Services
& Sterling Investigative Services, is a foreign limited liability
company incorporated under the laws of the State of New Jersey with
its principal place of business at 116 North Broadway, 2nd Floor,
South Amboy, New Jersey 08879. Defendant also operates a security
agency under the name APG Security. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
      Jack Newhouse, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 943-9080
      Fax: (212) 943-9082


ASSURANCE IQ: Accused by Lo Suit of Invading Privacy Under TCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON LO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ASSURANCE IQ, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-01858 (W.D. Wash.,
December 26, 2018), alleges that the Defendant negligently and/or
intentionally contacted the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby
invading his privacy.

Assurance IQ, Inc., is a corporation existing under the laws of the
state of Washington.  The Company is a home insurance agency in
Bellevue, Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio S., #101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Must Face Lawsuit Over Video Lottery Terminals
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael MacDonald, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that an
intriguing court case that alleges Crown-owned video lottery
terminals are inherently deceptive and violate the Criminal Code
has reached a critical milestone in Newfoundland and Labrador.

And the outcome of the case could have implications for VLT gaming
across Canada.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal has cleared the way
for a class-action lawsuit to go ahead, rejecting arguments for
dismissal from the Atlantic Lottery Corp., which operates in all
four Atlantic provinces.

"VLTs are inherently deceptive, inherently addictive and inherently
dangerous when used as intended," says a statement of claim filed
in 2012. The lawsuit was certified as a class action in early
2017.

Among other things, it alleges VLTs should be considered illegal
because they don't fit the Criminal Code definitions for slot
machines, fair games of chance or lottery schemes.

More importantly, the plaintiffs allege VLTs more closely resemble
a gambling card game known as three-card monte, which at first
glance appears to be a straight-forward test of tracking one of
three cards as they are moved about.

The lawsuit argues the sleight-of-hand tricks used in this con game
are not unlike the manipulative electronic programming VLTs use to
create "cognitive distortions" about the perception of winning.

Toronto-based lawyer Kirk Baert, who represents plaintiffs Douglas
Babstock and Fred Small, said the appeal court accepted that as a
potential legal argument.

"The point of having this provision in the Criminal Code . . . was
to prevent people from being deceived by charlatans and tricksters
who use sleight-of-hand to make people lose their money," Mr. Baert
said in an interview.

"Our point is that technology has evolved, and this is just the
same thing -- but it's being done through a machine instead of a
human being at a table or at a carnival."

None of the allegations has been proven in court.

The Atlantic Lottery Corp. has insisted the highly regulated
electronic games are decided only by chance.

In its ruling, the appeal court effectively rejected the
plaintiffs' claims that the use of VLTs violate the federal
Competition Act and a British law from 1710 known as the Statute of
Anne, which was aimed at preventing deceitful gaming but fell into
disuse.

The corporation has yet to say whether it will seek an appeal
before the Supreme Court of Canada.

Aside from Messrs. Babstock and Small, who are both retirees, those
included in the class action are as many as 30,000 people in
Newfoundland and Labrador who paid the lottery corporation to
gamble on VLT games any time after April 2006.

The lawsuit is seeking damages equal to the alleged unlawful gain
obtained by the corporation through VLT revenue.

As well, the plaintiffs are seeking an injunction that would bar
the corporation from using VLTs, based on the assertion that the
terminals do not constitute a permitted lottery under federal law.

If the lawsuit is successful, similar claims could be filed across
Canada.

Citing a third-party study, the lawsuit says the odds of winning
the $500 maximum prize from a VLT in Newfoundland and Labrador are
roughly 270,000 to 1, which would mean a long-term player would
likely lose about $30,000 before hitting the jackpot.

The statement of claim goes on to allege VLTs employ what is called
"subliminal priming" to induce players to hyper-focus "and to
create a dangerous dissociative mental state, wherein players
cannot make rational decisions to continue to play or not."

The goal is to leave players "mesmerized," in the same way those
duped by the three-card monte ruse can hardly believe their eyes,
Mr. Baert said.

"It's predetermined that you will lose," he said. "The more you
play, the more you lose." [GN]


BANNER BANK: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Bolding FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Banner Bank filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Kelly Bolding, et al. v. Banner Bank, Case No.
2:17-cv-00601-RSL, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Robert
S. Lasnik (i) granted in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel
Discovery Responses; and (ii) denied without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' request for an evidentiary hearing.  The Court has also
granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Plaintiffs are current and former mortgage loan officers, real
estate commissioned loan officers, and/or residential lenders
("MLOs") employed by Defendant Banner Bank and other financial
institutions acquired by Banner Bank.  The Plaintiffs allege that
MLOs are required to work and have worked "off the clock" without
compensation.

The Court conditionally certified a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") based on the Plaintiffs'
substantial allegations that putative class members were the
victims of a single decision, policy, or plan.

The appellate case is captioned as Kelly Bolding, et al. v. Banner
Bank, Case No. 18-80192, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents KELLY BOLDING, individually and on behalf of
a class of all others similarly situated; MICHAEL MANFREDI,
individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated; and SARAH WARD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Scott C.G. Blankenship, Esq.
          Richard Goldsworthy, Esq.
          THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.
          1000 Second Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 343-2700
          E-mail: sblankenship@blankenshiplawfirm.com
                  rgoldsworthy@blankenshiplawfirm.com

Defendant-Petitioner BANNER BANK, a Washington Corporation, is
represented by:

          Kenneth E. Payson, Esq.
          Ryan Coby Hess, Esq.
          Sheehan H. Sullivan Weiss, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98104-1610
          Telephone: (206) 757-8126
          E-mail: kenpayson@dwt.com
                  ryanhess@dwt.com
                  sulls@dwt.com


BAY AREA REGIONAL: Cooper Suit Asserts WARN Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
BETTY COOPER, CHRISTINE CHAMPAGNE, CLEMETEAN WILLIAMS, NAKIA HOLMES
JUPITER, DOMINIQUE COLEMAN, KEIA WALKER, LATONJA JONES, BRITTANY
DUPAR, CAROL WALKER, and BARBARA JACKSON, On Behalf of Themselves
and All Others Similarly Situated v. BAY AREA REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER LLC, MEDISTAR SLN GP LLC, and MONZER HOURANI, Case No.
4:18-cv-04818 (S.D. Tex., December 21, 2018), is a civil action
brought pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act of 1988 for failing to provide written notice,
including 60 days' advance written notice.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to give the
required WARN Act written notice to the Plaintiffs and similarly
situated individuals in connection with a recent Mass Layoff and/or
Plant Closing at the Defendants' single site of
employment/operational units in Webster, Texas, at which the
Plaintiffs and the Class Members were employed during the relevant
time period.

Bay Area Regional Medical Center, LLC, is a Texas corporation
located at 200 Blossom St., in Webster, Harris County, Texas.
Medistar SLN GP, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company with its
principal place of business located in Houston, Texas.

Monzer Hourani is a Texas resident and is the director and manager
of Bay Area and the President of Medistar.  Bay Area and Medistar
are both 100% owned by Hourani through subsidiary corporations.

The Defendants Bay Area and Medistar operated BARMC in Webster,
Texas.  BARMC owns and operates a nine-story acute-care hospital
with 248 beds.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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


BLACK BOX: Adie Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------
James Adie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Black Box Corporation et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-02537
(C.D. Calif., November 30, 2018), is brought against the Defendants
for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff also seeks to enjoin the expiration of a tender offer
by AGC Networks Pte. Ltd. through Host Merger Sub Inc., a Delaware
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of BBX Inc., to acquire
all of the issued and outstanding shares of Black Box (the
"Proposed Transaction").

On November 11, 2018, Black Box, AGC, Parent, BBX Intermediate, and
Merger Sub entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, whereby
each stockholder of Black Box common stock will receive $1.08 per
share in cash. The Plaintiff alleged that on November 21, 2018, in
order to convince Black Box stockholders to tender their shares,
the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and
misleading Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/ Recommendation Statement
with the SEC.

The Plaintiff is a stockholder of Black Box.

The Defendant Black Box is a Delaware corporation with its
principal executive offices located at 1000 Park Drive, Lawrence,
Pennsylvania 15055 with a branch regional office at 7950 Cherry
Ave, Fontana, CA 92335. The Company is a technology solutions
provider dedicated to helping customers build, manage, optimize,
and secure their IT infrastructure. Black Box common stock is
traded on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "BBOX."

The Individual Defendants are members of the Company's board of
directors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Bower, Esq.
      MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
      600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
      Culver City, CA 90230
      Tel: (213) 446-6652
      Fax: (212) 202-7880
      E-mail: dbower@monteverdelaw.com


CANADA: Law Firms Mull Class Actions Over Mefloquine Side Effects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Galloway, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that
military veterans who were ordered to take the anti-malarial drug
mefloquine while on deployment and believe they suffered harmful
side effects are being urged to sue the federal government for
compensation.

Two different law firms are about to commence legal action.

Howie, Sacks and Henry (HSH), a personal-injury firm based in
Toronto, is preparing to launch individual suits on behalf of any
current or former member of the military who was required to take
mefloquine on any deployment and believes he or she has experienced
a debilitating impact.

And Larmer Stickland, lawyers based in North Bay, Ont., plan to
soon file papers in a proposed class-action suit for veterans of
the Somalia mission of the early 1990s who were part of an
improperly conducted clinical trial of the drug.

A suit launched in 2000 on behalf of the Somalia vets was dismissed
in April because it took too long to be heard. But Justice Robbie
Gordon, the Ontario Superior Court judge who threw out that case,
said in his ruling that "dismissal for delay does not preclude a
subsequent class proceeding by another representative."

Larmer Strickland has found another lead plaintiff and is preparing
to proceed.

HSH, meanwhile, is collecting names of potential clients, along
with their medical records, and intends to begin filing statements
of claim early in the New Year.

"We're going to launch a lawsuit on behalf of each individual
member or veteran who was forced to take mefloquine and is now
facing brain injury issues due to the neurotoxicity of the drug
that they were never warned about," said Paul Miller, a partner
with the firm. "This could include the people who were in Somalia,
and anyone who has ever taken mefloquine."

By taking the government to court as individuals as opposed to
being part of a class action, plaintiffs have the opportunity to
give direct instructions to their lawyer and to have their own day
in court, Mr. Miller said.

The military did not respond to requests for comments about the
lawsuits.

The Canadian Forces conducted a review of the drug in 2016. It
concluded there is no evidence that mefloquine causes long-lasting
problems. But the military also decided at that time that
alternative drugs were the preferred options for soldiers who
deploy to countries where malaria is a risk.

Health Canada updated the warning labels for mefloquine that same
year to emphasize that certain side effects can persist for months
after the drug has been discontinued, and may be permanent in some
patients.

Soldiers who have taken mefloquine have complained about a wide
range of mental-health issues including depression, aggressive
behaviour, poor concentration, social isolation and suicidal
thoughts.

Earlier in 2018, a U.S. army sergeant blamed the drug for his
massacre of 16 villagers in Afghanistan in 2012. In 2017, the Irish
government settled a case with one of its former soldiers who says
he was suffering the neurological effects of having consumed
mefloquine.

And, in this country, veterans have asked the government to reopen
an inquiry into the 25-year-old killing of a Somali teenager by
Canadian soldiers who were taking the drug.

John Dowe was in Somalia with the Canadian Forces when the teen was
beaten to death. He says he is aware of both legal actions and says
the two sets of lawyers will compare notes to ensure they do not
overlap each other's work.

Mr. Dowe says he is still dealing with the effects of the
mefloquine he took in Somalia, on top of his post-traumatic stress
disorder which has some similar symptoms including hypervigilance,
anxiety and insomnia. [GN]


CENTRAL FREIGHT: Accused by Branch Suit of Age Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERT BRANCH, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES, INC., Case No. 6:18-cv-02185-JA-DCI (M.D.
Fla., December 21, 2018), is brought to remedy civil rights
violations in the form of age discrimination pursuant to the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the Florida Civil
Rights Act of 1992.

The Plaintiff was employed by Central's predecessor, Wilson
Trucking, beginning on or about June 16, 1969.  When Central
purchased Wilson Trucking, Branch became an employee of Central.
He was terminated without prior notice on or about August 25, 2017.
He was 66 years of age at the time of his termination and his
position was Manager of Loss Prevention.

Mr. Branch contends that Central also violated the Older Workers
Benefits Protections Act and, hence, the ADEA, by attempting to use
waivers to insulate itself from ADEA liability arising out of its
discriminatory termination program.

Central is a corporation with its principal place of business in
Fort Worth, Texas, doing business in Orlando, Orange County,
Florida.  Central, a less-than-truckload general commodities
carrier, provides transportation services to emerging businesses.
The Company maintains a fleet of tractors, trailers, and delivery
trucks; and specialty equipment, lift gate trucks at various
terminals, and trailers to transport rods and pipes for oilfield
operations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul J. Sharman, Esq.
          THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM LLC
          11175 Cicero Dr., Suite 100
          Alpharetta, GA 30022
          Telephone: (678) 242-5297
          Facsimile: (678) 802-2129
          E-mail: paul@sharman-law.com

               - and -

          Amanda S. Thompson, Esq.
          SALTER THOMPSON LAW, P.C.
          2860 Piedmont Road, Suite 215
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 247-0107
          Facsimile: (404) 920-4342
          E-mail: amanda@stlaborlaw.com


CITY OF INDUSTRY: $8.5MM FLSA Class Settlement Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Eastern Division, issued an Opinion granting
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion For Final Approval Of Collective and
Class Action Settlement in the case captioned LAUREN BYRNE et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF INDUSTRY HOSPITALITY VENTURE, INC., et al.,
Defendants. Case No. EDCV 17-527 JGB (KKx). (C.D. Cal.).

The Court is satisfied that the terms and conditions set forth in
the Settlement Agreement were the result of good faith, arms'
length settlement negotiations between competent and experienced
counsel for both Plaintiffs and Defendants.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following opt-out
settlement classes pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 that were
preliminarily certified by virtue of the Court's October 30, 2017
and November 7, 2017:

   a. All current and former exotic dancers who worked at any
Spearmint Rhino, Dames N Games and/or Blue Zebra location in the
State of California from any time starting four years prior to
February 3, 2017 until the date the case resolves.

   b. All current and former exotic dancers who worked at any
Spearmint Rhino location in the State of Florida from any time
starting five years prior to February 3, 2017 until the date the
case resolves.

   c. All current and former exotic dancers who worked at any
Spearmint Rhino location in the State of Idaho from any time
starting three years prior to February 3, 2017 until the date the
case resolves.

   d. All current and former exotic dancers who worked at any
Spearmint Rhino location in the State of Iowa from any time
starting three years prior to February 3, 2017 until the date the
case resolves.

   e. All current and former exotic dancers who worked at any
Spearmint Rhino location in the State of Kentucky from any time
starting three years prior to February 3, 2017 until the date the
case resolves.

   f. All current and former exotic dancers who worked at any
Spearmint Rhino location in the State of Minnesota from any time
starting three years prior to February 3, 2017 until the date the
case resolves.

   g. All current and former exotic dancers who worked at any
Spearmint Rhino location in the State of Oregon from any time
starting three years prior to February 3, 2017 until the date the
case resolves.

   h. All current and former exotic dancers who worked at any
Spearmint Rhino location in the State of Texas from any time
starting three years prior to February 3, 2017 until the date the
case resolves.

For purposes of settlement only, the Plaintiffs also seek final
certification of the following opt-in settlement class pursuant to
Section 216(b) of the FLSA:

   a. All current and former exotic dancers who worked at any
Spearmint Rhino, Dames N Games and/or Blue Zebra location in the
United States from any time starting three years before February 3,
2017 to the present.

The Court finds, for purposes of settlement only, that the FLSA
Settlement Class, as defined above, satisfies the requirements to
be maintainable as a settlement collective action under 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b), and that those members of the FLSA Settlement Class
who opted into the settlement class as defined in the Settlement
Agreement constitute the Final FLSA Settlement Class, as defined in
the Settlement Agreement.

The Court approves the proposed Settlement Agreement and finds that
the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate with respect to the
Defendants, Plaintiffs and all members of the Settlement Classes.
The Court finds that sufficient investigation, research and
litigation have been conducted such that counsel for the parties
are able to evaluate their respective risks of further litigation,
including the additional costs and delay associated with the
further prosecution of this action. The Court further finds that
the Settlement Agreement has been reached as the result of
intensive, arms'-length negotiations, including mediation with an
experienced third-party neutral.

Class Counsel is awarded 20% plus costs and expenses ($1,700,000
plus costs and expenses of $19,646.86 for a total of $1,719,646.86)
from the total Settlement Amount ($8,500,000.00) for fair and
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses incurred in the
prosecution of this litigation.  

Service Payments are approved for Plaintiffs Byrne, Bracy, and
Disla, in the amount of $2,500.00 each, due to their performance of
substantial services for the benefit of the Settlement Classes.
Such Service Payments are to be paid from the Gross Settlement
Amount, as specified in the Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 13, 2018 Judgment
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yceks9a4 from Leagle.com.

Lauren Byrne, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Melinda Arbuckle --
marbuckl@baronbudd.com -- Baron and Budd PC, Ricardo J. Prieto,
Shellist Lazarz Slobin LLP, pro hac vice, Samuel J. Moorhead --
smoorhead@napolilaw.com -- Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Todd Slobin,
Shellist Lazarz Slobin LLP, pro hac vice, Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Jennifer R. Liakos, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC &
Salvatore Badala, Napoli Shkolink PLLC.

Bambie Bedford & Jennifer Disla, Plaintiffs, represented by Samuel
J. Moorhead, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC & Melinda Arbuckle, Baron and
Budd PC.

Santa Barbara Hospitality Services, Inc., The Spearmint Rhino
Companies Worldwide, Inc., Spearmint Rhino Consulting Worldwide,
Inc. & Santa Barbara Hospitality Services, LLC, Defendants,
represented by John M. Kennedy, Garrell Law PC & Peter E. Garrell,
Garrell Law PC.

Adriana Ortega, Interested Party, represented by Shannon
Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten and Liss-Riordan PC.


COMBERMERE ENTERTAINMENT: Cooner Files Suit under ADA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Combermere Entertainment Properties, LLC is facing a class action
lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Combermere Entertainment Properties, LLC and Roc Nation LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00058 (S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2019).

Combermere Entertainment Properties, LLC is an entity registered at
New York County. Combermere entertainment properties, LLC located
at the address 1901 avenue of the stars suite 700 Los Angeles,
California, 90067. the Company was incorporated on November 12,
2005.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com



COMCAST CORPORATION: Lacy Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Douglas Lacy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Comcast Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-05007 (W.D. Wash., January 4, 2019) seeks damages and other
equitable and legal remedies resulting from Defendant's violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

Since January, 2018, Comcast has repeatedly called Mr. Lacy's
cellular phone about a Comcast account that does not belong to him.
Comcast used an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") and an
artificial or prerecorded voice to make these calls.

Plaintiff began receiving Comcast's calls shortly after he got a
new cellular phone number in January, 2018. Mr. Lacy has not been a
Comcast customer since 2013 and did not consent to receive calls
from Comcast five years after he terminated his Comcast
subscription. Plaintiff informed Comcast that it has the wrong
number and asked Comcast to stop calling him. Comcast,
nevertheless, continues to make calls to Plaintiff's cellular phone
without his consent, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Douglas Lacy resides in Spanaway, Washington.

Comcast is a Pennsylvania corporation with headquarters at One
Comcast Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2838.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
     Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
     TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
     936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
     Seattle, WA 98103-8869
     Phone: (206) 816-6603
     Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
     Email: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
            jmurray@terrellmarshall.com

          - and –

     Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
     Simon S. Grille, Esq.
     GIRARD SHARP LLP
     601 California Street, Suite 1400
     San Francisco, CA 94108
     Phone: (415) 981-4800
     Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
     Email: dgirard@girardsharp.com
            sgrille@girardsharp.com


CONDUENT STATE: 9th Cir. Affirms Remand of Kendrick
---------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the judgment of the District Court granting
Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand the case captioned SUMATRA KENDRICK,
an individual, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CONDUENT STATE AND LOCAL
SOLUTIONS, INC., FKA Xerox State and Local Solutions, Inc.,
Defendant-Appellant, and BAY AREA TOLL AUTHORITY, a California
public corporation; GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT, a California public corporation, Defendants. No.
18-16988. (9th Cir.) to the state court.

This is an appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), from
an order granting plaintiffs' motion to remand to the state court.


They brought the action against the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA)
and the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District
(GGB), both entities of the state of California, and against
Conduent State and Local Solutions, Inc. (Conduent), a private
company that has contracted with the state entities to operate the
bridge's toll system. Plaintiffs' principle claims allege
defendants are in violation of California privacy statutes
prohibiting the collection of personal data.

Although the district court found that most of the requirements for
maintaining the case in federal court under CAFA were met,
including the size of the class and the amount in controversy, it
ruled that the principal defendants were not subject to CAFA
jurisdiction.

Conduent argues that the case against it belongs in federal court
because the district court's conclusion that Conduent is a state
actor was flawed. Conduent points to the language of a CAFA
exception that provides CAFA does not apply to proposed classes
where the primary defendants are states, state officials or other
governmental entities against whom the district court may be
foreclosed from ordering relief.

A district court shall have jurisdiction over a class action when:
(1) the amount in controversy exceeds five million, and (2) any
class member is a citizen of a state different from any defendant.

The California agencies, BATA and GGB, were undisputedly state
entities, and the district court concluded that Conduent was as
well, because it was exercising the authority of the state with
respect to the alleged violation of plaintiffs' privacy rights.

In this appeal Conduent argues the district court erred because it
relied on 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 case law to determine that
Conduent was a state actor, and that the district court failed to
address the language of CAFA's statutory exception relating to
other governmental entities against whom the District Court may be
foreclosed from ordering relief.

Conduent's position is that as a private entity it is outside the
scope of Section 1332(d)(5)(A). It accurately points out that
Section 1983 cases are not controlling because the Section 1983
state actor analysis looks to an actor's role and conduct while the
CAFA inquiry goes to the nature of the entity itself. The district
court's exclusive reliance on Section 1983 case law was not
appropriate. The issue is whether Conduent may be considered an
instrumentality of the state.

To determine whether an entity is able to invoke such immunity our
Court has said we generally look to a number of factors: (1)
whether a money judgment would be satisfied out of state funds, (2)
whether the entity performs central governmental functions (3)
whether the entity may sue or be sued (4) whether the entity has
the power to take property in its own name or only the name of the
state and (5) the corporate status of the entity.

On this record, Conduent satisfies the second factor of performing
a central government function and it has not asserted that it lacks
any of the other characteristics. Conduent performs the government
function of processing bridge tolls, collecting fines and imposing
penalties in the name of the state. This record does not reflect
whether it may satisfy the other factors. We have observed,
however, that the Mitchell factors are not particularly useful when
applied to a private entity because a private entity cannot be an
arm of the state when the relationship to the sovereign is only by
contract.  

Here, the Plaintiffs contend the relationship is more than
contractual because the state has enacted a special statutory
scheme for the collection of bridge tolls and has recognized the
entities with whom the state contracts for such purposes as an
issuing agency. Our case law provides no clear answer as to whether
Conduent qualifies as a governmental entity within the meaning of
CAFA.

Conduent contends that even if it is a government entity, it waived
any immunity it might have had by removing the case to federal
court. In deciding whether the governmental entity exception
applies, however, the existence or waiver of immunity is not the
issue; the only issue is whether the entity is such that a claim of
immunity may be made.

The plaintiffs correctly contend that the result is required by
provisions of CAFA calling for local actions to be heard in state
court. The local controversy exception is one of several exceptions
to CAFA removal jurisdiction.   The provision instructs that a
district court is required to decline jurisdiction over a class
action when: (1) more than two-thirds of the proposed plaintiff
class(es) are citizens of the state in which the action was
originally filed, (2) there is at least one in-state defendant
against whom significant relief is sought and whose alleged conduct
forms a significant basis for the claims asserted by the proposed
class, (3) the principal injuries resulting from the alleged
conduct of each defendant were incurred in the state of filing, and
(4) no other class action asserting the same or similar factual
allegations against any of the defendants has been filed within
three years prior to the present action. The exception's purpose is
to ensure that class actions with a local focus remain in state
court rather than being removed to federal court because state
courts have a strong interest in resolving local disputes.

Shortly after Kelly filed her case in state court as a putative
class action, it was removed to federal court, where Kelly
voluntarily dismissed the case as to her claims only. When this,
the Kendrick case, was filed in state court, Kelly became a
plaintiff in it. When the Kendrick case in turn was removed to
federal court, the district court ordered it joined with the
remainder of the Kelly case as a related case.   So when the
district court remanded this case to state court, it remanded one
case that included all the parties and potential parties to both
the Kelly and Kendrick actions.

The district court properly ruled that the case against Conduent,
the toll collector, belongs in state court with the California
entities that manage the bridge's maintenance and operation.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's December 13, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9gro4c5 from Leagle.com.


COX COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in Ehrman Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Cox Communications California, LLC, Cox Communications,
Inc. and CoxCom, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled David Ehrman v. Cox Communications, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 8:18-cv-01125-JVS-DFM, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
(assigned Case No. 30-02018-00992300-CU-MC-CXC) was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Orange to the District Court on June 22, 2018.  The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge James V. Selna.

Cox Communications is an American privately owned subsidiary of Cox
Enterprises providing digital cable television, telecommunications
and Home Automation services in the United States.

The appellate case is captioned as David Ehrman v. Cox
Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-80195, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent DAVID EHRMAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jamin S. Soderstrom, Esq.
          SODERSTROM LAW PC
          3 Park Plaza, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 667-4700
          Facsimile: (949) 424-8091
          E-mail: jamin@soderstromlawfirm.com

Defendants-Petitioners COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., COXCOM, LLC and
COX COMMUNICATIONS CALIFORNIA, LLC, are represented by:

          Richard R. Patch, Esq.
          Scott Christensen Hall, Esq.
          Philip D.W. Miller, Esq.
          Katharine Tracy Van Dusen, Esq.
          COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS, LLP
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 391-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 989-0663
          E-mail: rrp@cpdb.com
                  ef-sch@cpdb.com
                  ef-pdm@cpdb.com
                  ef-ktv@cpdb.com


CREDENCE RESOURCE: Abdullah-Ezzani Sues Over FDCPA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALI ABDULLAH-EZZANI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CREDENCE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, LLC, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:18-at-01866
(C.D. Cal., December 20, 2018), accuses the Defendants of violating
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, which prohibit debt collectors from
engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair practices.

Credence Resource Management, LLC, is a debt collection company.
The Company regularly attempts to collect debts alleged to be due
another.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are
currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is 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
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com


CSX TRANSPORTATION: Boquette Suit Alleges FMLA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Boquette, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CSX Transporation, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-02762 (N.D.
Ohio, November 29, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Family Medical Leave Act.

The Plaintiff and the class he seeks to represent are current and
former employees of CSXT who were eligible for and properly
utilized FMLA leave during their employment for CSXT and were then
improperly denied attendance bonuses and were not afforded "Good
Attendance Credit" under the Defendant's absenteeism policy.

The Plaintiff, Tyson Boquette, is an individual residing at 1886
Weil Road, Perrysville, Ohio 44864. At all times material herein,
Boquette was employed by CSXT as a Conductor and Engineer.

The Defendant CSXT is a corporation engaged as a common carrier by
rail in interstate commerce, owning, operating, and maintaining an
interstate railroad system including tracks and other facilities.
The Defendant's corporate headquarters is located at 500 Water
Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neal E. Shapero, Esq.
      Abby L. Botnick, Esq.
      SHAPERO ROLOFF CO., LPA
      U.S. Bank Centre
      1350 Euclid Ave., Suite 1350
      Cleveland, OH 44115
      Tel: (216) 781‐1700
      Fax: (216) 781‐1972
      E-mail: athompson@shaperoroloff.com
              nshapero@shaperoroloff.com
              abotnick@shaperoroloff.com


CYTOSPORT INC: Appeals Class Certification Order in Clay Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant CytoSport, Inc., filed an appeal from the District
Court's September 7, 2018 order granting, in part, class action
certification in the lawsuit titled Chayla Clay, et al. v.
CytoSport, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00165-L-AGS, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego.

The appellate case is captioned as Chayla Clay, et al. v.
CytoSport, Inc., Case No. 18-56662, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge M. James
Lorenz granted in part (i) the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and (ii) the Defendant's motion to exclude Dr.
Elizabeth Howlett's testimony for purposes of class certification
only.

Judge Lorenz certified these classes:

   (a) A nationwide class comprising of all persons in the United
       States who, within four years of the filing of the action,
       purchased the Defendant's Cytosport Whey Isolate Protein
       Drink; Monster Milk: Protein Power Shake; Genuine Muscle
       Milk: Protein Nutrition Shake; and Muscle Milk Pro Series
       40: Mega Protein Shake.  The class is certified for
       purposes of prosecuting violations of UCL and FAL, to the
       extent the claims are based on the protein content
       statements on product labels;

   (b) A nationwide class comprising of all persons in the United
       States who, within four years of the filing of the action,
       purchased the Defendant's Muscle Milk: Lean Muscle Protein
       Powder; Muscle Milk Light: Lean Muscle Protein Powder;
       Muscle Milk Naturals: Nature's Ultimate Lean Muscle
       Protein; Muscle Milk Gainer; High Protein Gainer Powder
       Drink Mix; Muscle Milk Pro Series 50: Lean Muscle Mega
       Protein Powder (14 oz. to 10 lbs. products); and Monster
       Milk: Lean Muscle Protein Supplement (2.06 and 4.13 lbs.
       products).  The class is certified for purposes of
       prosecuting violations of UCL and FAL, to the extent the
       claims are based on the "lean" statements on product
       labels;

   (c) All persons residing in California who, within four years
       of the filing of th action, purchased the Defendant's
       Cytosport Whey Isolate Protein Drink; Monster Milk:
       Protein Power Shake; Genuine Muscle Milk: Protein
       Nutrition Shake; and Muscle Milk Pro Series 40: Mega
       Protein Shake.  The class is certified for purposes of
       prosecuting violations of UCL, FAL and CLRA, to the extent
       the claims are based on the protein content statements on
       product labels;

   (d) All persons residing in California who, within four years
       of the filing of the action, purchased the Defendant's
       Muscle Milk: Lean Muscle Protein Powder; Muscle Milk
       Light: Lean Muscle Protein Powder; Muscle Milk Naturals:
       Nature's Ultimate Lean Muscle Protein; Muscle Milk Gainer;
       High Protein Gainer Powder Drink Mix; Muscle Milk Pro
       Series 50: Lean Muscle Mega Protein Powder (14 oz. to 10
       lbs. products); and Monster Milk: Lean Muscle Protein
       Supplement (2.06 and 4.13 lbs. products).  The class is
       certified for purposes of prosecuting violations of UCL,
       and FAL, to the extent the claims are based on the "lean"
       statements on product labels;

   (e) All persons residing in Florida who, within four years of
       the filing of the action, purchased the Defendant's
       Cytosport Whey Isolate Protein Drink; Monster Milk:
       Protein Power Shake; Genuine Muscle Milk: Protein
       Nutrition Shake; and Muscle Milk Pro Series 40: Mega
       Protein Shake.  The class is certified for purposes of
       prosecuting violations of the FDUTPA, to the extent the
       claim is based on the protein content statements on
       product labels;

   (f) All persons residing in Florida who, within four years of
       the filing of this action, purchased the Defendant's
       Muscle Milk: Lean Muscle Protein Powder; Muscle Milk
       Light: Lean Muscle Protein Powder; Muscle Milk Naturals:
       Nature's Ultimate Lean Muscle Protein; Muscle Milk Gainer;
       High Protein Gainer Powder Drink Mix; Muscle Milk Pro
       Series 50: Lean Muscle Mega Protein Powder (14 oz. to 10
       lbs. products); Monster Milk: and Lean Muscle Protein
       Supplement (2.06 and 4.13 lbs. products).  The class is
       certified for purposes of prosecuting violations of the
       FDUTPA, to the extent the claim is based on "lean"
       statements on product labels; and

   (g) All persons residing in Michigan who, within six years of
       the filing of this action, purchased the Defendant's
       Cytosport Whey Isolate Protein Drink; Monster Milk:
       Protein Power Shake; Genuine Muscle Milk: Protein
       Nutrition Shake; and Muscle Milk Pro Series 40: Mega
       Protein Shake.  The class is certified for purposes of
       prosecuting violations of the MCPA, to the extent the
       claim is based on protein content statements on product
       labels.

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

   -- Appellant CytoSport, Inc.'s opening brief is due on
     February 19, 2019;

   -- Appellees Chayla Clay, Erica Ehrlichman, Logan Reichert and
      Chris Roman's answering brief is due on March 21, 2019; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees CHAYLA CLAY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, as class representative for the
nationwide and California classes; ERICA EHRLICHMAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, as class
representative for the nationwide and Michigan class; LOGAN
REICHERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, as class representative for the nationwide and Florida
classes; and CHRIS ROMAN, class representatives for the nationwide
classes and class representative for the California classes, are
represented by:

          Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
          Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333
          E-mail: trk@classactionlaw.com
                  jrk@classactionlaw.com

               - and -

          Jason J. Thompson , Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com

Defendant-Appellant CYTOSPORT, INC., a California Corporation, is
represented by:

          Aaron Daniel Van Oort, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          90 South Seventh Street, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 766-8138
          E-mail: aaron.vanoort@faegrebd.com


DELAWARE: Inmates' Civil Rights Suit Removed to Del. Dist. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Robert L. Adger, Calvin L. Allen, Henry J.
Anderson, Nathaniel Bagwell, Fenel D. Baine, Donald F. Bass, Joseph
N. Bennett, Dymere T. Berry, Samuel B. Bishop, Marquis Boyer-
Smith, John Boyer, Kevin C. Brathwaite, Alan Brooks, Jarad Brown,
Michael A. Brown, Justin L. Burrell, Luis G. Cabrera, Fred T.
Caldwell, Alonzo I. Cannon, Ivan Carabello, Michael A. Carello,
Aaron K. Carter, Robert W. Chandler, Frederick O. Clifton, Donald
Cole, Curtis M. Collins, Kenjuan Congo, Brian Conley, Chris E.
Craig, Joseph Crumpler, Maurice Cruz- Webster, Pablo A. Damiani-
Melendez, Jamel Daniels, Jermaine Dickerson, Greg Dickson, Krishan
Dillard, Antwan L. Douglas, Steven Drake, Deshawn D. Drumgo, John
R. Dupree, Kurt Dupree, Jeffrey R. Fogg, David D. Foreman, Kyair J.
Fullman, Monir A. George, Charles T. Getz, Regent J. Goddard,
Victor Grantham, Kelly L. Hand, Theodore Harris, Cornell L. Hester,
Shaquille K. Jackson, Antoine Jones, Michael E. Keyser, Claude
Lacomb, James Lawhorn, Alfred M. Lewis, Jr., Andrew D. Long, Dana
B. Martin, Tyrone Mathis, John C. Mayhew, Richard D. Mccane, Kevin
Mccray, David Mccullough, Edward Mclaughlin, Marvin Mencia,
Lawrence L. Michaels, John E. Miller, Keith J. Miller, Tony Mozick,
Lamont L. Norman, Anthony J. Ortiz, Donald D. Parkell, Ezra S.
Pendleton, Hassan J. Perry, Christopher Porter, Millard E. Price,
Mark C. Purnell, Louis W. Rittenhouse, Andre A. Rivera, Marcus
Rosser, Ben Roten, Ron Roundtree, Larry J. Sartin, Raymond Q.
Sawyer, Daniel E. Schultz, Joshua D. Sears, Sylvester C. Shockley,
Luis Sierra, Ryan Sinclair, David R. Smith, Wade T. Smith, Ronald
L. Snead, Russell E. Steedley, Lamont E. Stevenson, Darrin L.
Swiggett, Nigel C. Skyes, Gerard E. Szubielski, Henry R. Taylor,
Jr., Elwood E. Teagle, Orin L. Turner, Gabriel J. Wallace, Joseph
Wallace, Lionel M. Walley, Howard A. Walsh, James G. Wells, Michael
L. Wells, Christopher H. West, Keenan Wheeler, Eubanks White,
Eugene W. Wiggins, Dennis O. Williams, Ronaldo Williams, Cliff
Wilson, Raymond H. Wood, Richard Woodard, Robert L. Worley, for
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Governor John Carney, Former Commissioner Robert Coupe,
Commissioner Perry Phelps, Warden Dana Metzger, Warden David
Pierce, Warden Timothy Radcliff, Deputy Warden Phil Parker, Deputy
Warden James Scarborough, Major Jeffrey Carruthers, Captain Bruce
Burton, Lt. Justin Atherholt, Lt. Nathan D. Atherholt, Lt. Jason T.
Coviello, Lt. George J. Gill, Lt. Melvin Harris, Iii, Lt. Karen
Hawkins, Lt. Sean R. Milligan, Lt. James Satterfield, Lt. Larry
Savage, Lt. Charles D. Sennett, Jr., Lt. Teddy D. Tyson, Sgt.
Wilfred Beckles, Sgt. Lawrence O. Coverdale, Sgt. Todd Scott Drace,
Sgt. John R. Faulkner, Sgt. Ronald Frederick, Sgt. Vincent E.
Hazzard, Sgt. Vincent May, Sgt. Kevin R. Mckenna, Sgt. Robert Mock,
Sgt. Charles H. Radcliffe, Sgt. Dennis P. Russell, Cpl. Nathaniel
C. Payton, Cpl. Dale Lee Rains, Michael J. Arabia, Paul O. Barone,
Joshua A. Connor, William Estrada, Norman Figueroa, Jr.,  Brett
Foraker, Lance N. Green,  Richard L. Griffith,  Michael Chester
Landon, Joshua Peppers, Thomas Patrick Runyon, Jr., Joshua D.
Stewart,  Abigail West, Timothy R. Young and Aaron Forkum,
Defendants, Case No. N18C-10-00340 filed in Delaware Superior Court
on October 31, 2018, was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware on December 27, 2018, under Case No.
18-cv-02048.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are inmates at the James
T. Vaughn Correctional Center in Smyrna DE who were illegally
abused, mistreated and tortured by their supervisors, denied
healthcare, education, rehabilitation and recreational options.
They claim damages and injunctive relief under the Civil Rights
Act. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

       Stephen A. Hampton, Esq.
       GRADY & HAMPTON
       6 North Bradford Street
       Dover, DE 19904
       Tel: (302) 678-1265
       Email: sahampton@gradyhampton.com

Defendants are represented by:

       C. Malcolm Cochran , IV
       Chad Michael Shandler, Esq.
       Christine Dealy Haynes, Esq.
       Katharine Lester Mowery, Esq.
       RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, PA
       One Rodney Square, Suite 600
       920 N. King Street
       Wilmington, DE 19801
       Tel: (302) 651-7506, 658-6541, 651-7508, 651-7623
       Email: cochran@rlf.com
              shandler@rlf.com
              haynes@rlf.com
              mowery@rlf.com

              - and -

       James Darlington Taylor, Jr.
       SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
       1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2300
       P.O. Box 1266
       Wilmington, DE 19899
       Tel: (302) 421-6863
       Email: James.taylor@saul.com


DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Bailey Files FDCPA Suit in Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diversified
Consultants Inc. The case is styled as Abbiegeal Bailey a/k/a Abbie
Bailey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Diversified Consultants Inc d/b/a
Diversified Central Inc. and Pinnacle Credit Services LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-00013-TMP (N.D. Ala., January 3,
2019).

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

Diversified Consultants inc. is a business specializing in Accounts
Receivable Management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



DOVER DOWNS: Faces Finley Securities Suit Over Twin River Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY D. FINLEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. DOVER DOWNS GAMING & ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
PATRICK J. BAGLEY, TIMOTHY R. HORNE, DENIS MCGLYNN, JEFFREY W.
ROLLINS, R. RANDALL ROLLINS, and HENRY B. TIPPIE, Case No.
1:18-cv-12111 (S.D.N.Y., December 21, 2018), accuses the Defendants
of violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by filing a
materially incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy statement in
connection with the acquisition of Dover Downs by Twin River
Worldwide Holdings, Inc.

On July 22, 2018, and later amended on October 8, 2018, Dover
Downs, Twin River, Double Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation
and indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Twin River ("Merger Sub
I"), and DD Acquisition LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
and indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Twin River ("Merger Sub
II"), entered into a transaction agreement (the "Merger
Agreement"), pursuant to which Merger Sub I will merge with and
into Dover Downs, with Dover Downs surviving the merger as an
indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Twin River.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, each share of Dover
Downs common stock and class A common stock (together, the "Dover
Downs Stock") will be cancelled and converted into the right to
receive a number of validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable
shares of common stock of Twin River equal to the quotient obtained
by dividing (1) the aggregate number of shares of Twin River common
stock issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective
time of the Merger, on a fully diluted, as-converted basis,
multiplied by 0.07787658, by (2) the aggregate number of shares of
Dover Downs Stock issued and outstanding immediately prior to the
effective time of the Merger, on a fully diluted, as-converted
basis, plus cash in lieu of any fractional shares (the "Merger
Consideration").

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

Dover Downs is a public holding company that has two wholly owned
subsidiaries: Dover Downs, Inc. and Dover Downs Gaming Management
Corp.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 971-1341
          Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
          E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


E&L ROLLING GATES: Saldivar Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
-------------------------------------------------------
Maximo Saldivar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. E&L Rolling Gates Corp. and Maria Morales
and Pedro Morales, as individuals, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-0054 (E.D. N.Y., January 3, 2019) is an action against
Defendants to recover damages for egregious violations of state and
federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiffs' employment.

As a result of the violations of Federal and New York State labor
laws, Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages.
Plaintiff also seeks interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all
other legal and equitable remedies the Court deems appropriate.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from February 2016 until
August 2018. Plaintiff's primary duties were as a door and window
setter, and laborer, and performing other miscellaneous duties.
Although Plaintiff worked approximately 55 or more hours per week
during his employment by Defendants, Defendants did not pay
Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant
violation of the overtime provisions contained in the PLSA and
NYLL, asserts the complaint.

The Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage
and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the
location of their employment as required by both the NYLL and the
FLSA. The Defendants also willfully failed to keep accurate payroll
records as required by both NYLL and the FLSA, adds the complaint.

Plaintiff Maximo Saldivar residing at 181 Chestnut Street,
Brooklyn, New York 11208, was employed by Defendants E&L Rolling
Gates Corp. from in or & around February 2016 until in or around
August 2018.

E&L Rolling Gates Corp. is a corporation organized under the laws
of New York with a principal executive office at 92-48 77th Street,
Woodhaven, New York 11421. It is a corporation authorized to do
business under the laws of New York.

Maria Morales is the Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive
Officer, an agent and owns and/or operates E&L Rolling Gates Corp.

Pedro Morales is the Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive
Officer, an agent and owns and/or operates E&L Rolling Gates
Corp.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
     Helen F. Dalton & Associates, PC
     Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
     Kew Gardens, NY 1141 S
     Phone: 718-263-9591
     Fax: 718-263-9598


EL EDEN: Cordero Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Maria Ester Cordero, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. El Eden, Corp. and Marisol Ferrer, Case No.
1:18-cv-24990 (S.D. Fla., November 29, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime and minimum wage compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Throughout her employment with El Eden, the Plaintiff routinely
worked for El Eden an average of eleven and one half hours per day,
for a total of sixty-nine hours per week, forty regular hours and
twenty-nine hours overtime. Notwithstanding, the Defendants
willfully and intentionally failed/refused to pay to Plaintiff the
federally required minimum and overtime rates for all hours he
worked.

The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt Caregiver for the Defendants
from July 1, 2017 through May 2018.

The Defendants own and operate an assisted living facility in Miami
County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Monica Espino, Esq.
      ESPINO LAW
      2655 S. Le Jeune Road, Suite 802
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Tel: (305) 704-3172
      Fax: (305) 722-7378
      E-mail: me@espino-law.com


ENHANCED RECOVERY: McCluskey Seeks to Certify Class Under FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled RICHARD MCCLUSKEY, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. ENHANCED RECOVERY
COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 8:17-cv-02696-VMC-TGW (M.D. Fla.), seeks to
certify this class:

     (i) All persons with addresses in Florida (ii) to whom
     Defendant sent, or caused to be sent, a letter in the form
     of Exhibit A (iii) attempting to collect an obligation owed
     to DirecTV or allegedly owed to DirecTV (iv) which as shown
     by the nature of the alleged debt, Defendant's records, or
     records of the original creditor, was primarily for
     personal, family, or household purposes (v) on which the
     last payment was made five or more years prior to the date
     of mailing of the letter.

Mr. McCluskey also asks the Court to appoint him as class
representative, and to appoint his attorneys as class counsel.

The lawsuit is a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class action
against ERC.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott C. Florin, Esq.
          FLORIN LEGAL, P.A.
          6936 W. Linebaugh Ave., Suite 101
          Tampa, FL 33624
          Telephone: (813) 404-1203
          Facsimile: (813) 354-3619
          E-mail: SFlorin@FlorinLegal.com

               - and -

          Richard K. Peck, Esq.
          ELKIN-PECK, PLLC
          12515 Spring Hill Drive
          Spring Hill, FL 34609
          Telephone: (352) 835-7977
          E-mail: litigation@elkinpeck.com

               - and -

          Jeremiah E. Heck, Esq.
          LUFTMAN, HECK & ASSOCIATES, LLP
          580 E. Rich Street
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 224-1500
          E-mail: jheck@lawlh.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Scott S. Gallagher, Esq.
          Richard Rivera, Esq.
          SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
          50 North Laura St, Suite 2600
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 598-6111
          E-mail: ssgallagher@sgrlaw.com
                  rrivera@sgrlaw.com


ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Kramer Files Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enterprise Holdings,
Inc. The case is styled as Steve Kramer, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Enterprise Holdings,
Inc., a Missouri Corporation, Defendant, Case No. CGC19572530 (Cal.
Super. Ct., January 3, 2019).

Enterprise Holdings, Inc. is a private holding company
headquartered in the Clayton suburb of St. Louis, Missouri, United
States. It is the parent company of car rental companies Enterprise
Rent-A-Car, National Car Rental, Alamo Rent a Car, the ELCO
Chevrolet/Cadillac car dealership, and Enterprise CarShare.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael R. Reese, Esq.
   Reese LLP
   100 W. 93rd St
   Sixteenth Floor
   New York, NY 10025



EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Walker Files FCRA Suit in Mississippi
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Cynthia Walker, individually,
and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff
v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00005-CWR-LRA (S.D. Miss., January 3, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Curtis Ray Hussey, Esq.
   CURTIS R. HUSSEY, LLC
   10 N. Section Street, No. 122
   Fairhope, AL 36532
   Tel: (251) 928-1423
   Fax: (866) 317-2674
   Email: gulfcoastadr@gmail.com


EXCEL FOOD: Suy Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL DAVID COXOLCA SUY and CRISPIN TORRES SAENZ, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. EXCEL FOOD CORP. (D/B/A
NU-SUSHI), KYOTO OF JAPAN, INC. (D/B/A NU SUSHI), THEAM YIP LEE,
PAI LING LEE, and FENG ZHENG, Case No. 1:18-cv-12103 (S.D.N.Y.,
December 21, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Excel Food Corp., doing business as Nu-Sushi, is a domestic
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of
New York and maintained its principal place of business in New York
City.  Kyoto of Japan, Inc., doing business as Nu-Sushi, is a
domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
state of New York and maintained its principal place of business in
New York City.  The Individual Defendants serve or served as
owners, managers, principals, or agents of the Defendant
Corporations.

The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a Japanese
restaurant, located at 76 Pearl St., in New York City the name
"Nu-Sushi."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


FITNESS SPECIALIST: Marin-Viveros Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ricarddo Marin-Viveros, Edgar Pablo, Javier Campos, and Francisco
Sarinana, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
employees, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. Fitness Specialist,
Inc., an Illinois corporation, Fernando Silva, individually, and
Kristy Zientek, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00104
(N.D. Ill., January 6, 2019) is an action arising under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as a result of the Defendants'
failure to pay proper overtime compensation to the Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated employees of the Defendants.

The Defendants routinely, and as a matter of practice and policy,
required the Plaintiffs to work more than 40 hours per week, but
then failed and refused to pay the Plaintiffs and the Putative
Class members overtime compensation at the requisite statutory
rate, i.e., one-and-one-half times the Plaintiffs' respective,
regular hourly wage rates. Upon information and belief, the
Defendants continue this practice through the present, notes the
complaint.

According to the complaint, the Defendants also routinely and as a
matter of practice and policy paid the Plaintiffs and the Putative
Class members less than the applicable minimum wage in certain
weeks during their employment.

The Plaintiffs are individuals domiciled within Illinois and reside
within the Northern District of Illinois.

Fitness Specialist, Inc. is an Illinois corporation.

Fernando Silva is an individual who, upon information and belief,
is domiciled in Illinois and resides within the Northern District
of Illinois.

Kristy Zientek is an individual who, upon information and belief,
is domiciled in Illinois and resides within the Northern District
of Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Paul Luka, Esq.
     MENDOZA LAW, P.C.
     120 S. State Street, Suite 400
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Fax: (312) 508-6010
     Email: paul@alexmendozalaw.com


FKA DISTRIBUTING: Martinez Suit Asserts ADA  Breach
---------------------------------------------------
FKA Distributing Co. LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. FKA Distributing
Co. LLC doing business as: Jam Audio, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00035 (S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2019).

FKA Distributing Co. LLC manufactures personal health, wellness,
and electronics for customers worldwide. The company provides back,
neck, foot, sports recovery, and handheld massagers; air purifiers,
humidifiers, and replacement filters and accessories; footbaths,
paraffin baths, essential oils, and scent diffusers; and parts and
accessories. It also offers diagnostics products, such as blood
pressure monitors, fitness monitors, and rapid relief products. The
company's brand portfolio includes The House of Marley, HMDX Audio,
and JAM Audio. It markets and sells its products through retailers
in the United States, as well as online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   44 Court Street
   Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11217
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


FLUOR ENTERPRISES: Mixon Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Wade Mixon on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Fluor Enterprises, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00018-B (N.D. Tex., January 4, 2019)
was filed over Defendant's failure to pay overtime to employees at
the rate of time and one half the regular rate of pay for all hours
worked over 40 in a workweek.

Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff
and the Class Members overtime pay at the rate required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act(FLSA), asserts the complaint.

The Defendant violated the FLSA by paying the Plaintiff and Class
Members an hourly rate of pay for all hours worked without an
additional premium for those hours worked over 40 in a workweek,
says the complaint. Plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of
himself and the Class Members, all unpaid wages and other damages
owed under the FLSA as a collective action.

Plaintiff Wade Mixon is an individual residing in Martinez,
Georgia. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a field engineer from
approximately April 2016 to October 2017.

Fluor Enterprises, Inc. is a foreign company organized under the
laws of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Don J. Foty, Esq.
     KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
     4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: (713) 523-0001
     Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
     Email: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com


FRANKLIN CREDIT: Minearo Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------
Peter Minearo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Franklin Credit Management Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00010-BEN-JLB (S.D. Cal., January 3,
2019) is an action in response to Defendant's attempts to
unlawfully and abusively collect a debt allegedly owed by
Plaintiff.

Plaintiff incurred a mortgage on his house. In 2006, Plaintiff
incurred a second mortgage from Key Bank, the original creditor of
the Debt. In 2008, Plaintiff made his last payment on the Debt.
Sometime thereafter, but before February 23, 2018, Plaintiff sold
his house through a short sale. In or around 2010, Defendant was
assigned, placed, or otherwise transferred Plaintiff's Debt.

On February 23, 2018 -- approximately 10 years after Plaintiff's
last payment on the Debt -- Defendant sent Plaintiff a collection
letter. This collection letter was the first communication that
Plaintiff had with Defendant. The letter advised Plaintiff that
after he calls an Agent, "we will send you a settlement and account
disclosure to sign. We request that you return the signed
settlement agreement and account disclosure along with settlement
payment to us by your expected settlement date". Within five days
after its initial communication (i.e., the foregoing letter) with
Plaintiff, Defendant did not make any of the disclosures.

The letter did not advise Plaintiff that he did not have an
obligation to pay the debt nor did the letter mention Plaintiff's
account was beyond the statute of limitation. Further, despite the
age of the debt, the letter did not disclose that Defendant could
not sue Plaintiff to collect the debt.

All violations by Defendant were knowing, willful, and intentional,
and Defendant did not maintain procedures reasonably adapted to
avoid these violations, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who resides in the City of San Diego,
State of California.

Defendant is a Delaware corporation that manages loans through all
stages of delinquency including collections.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Albert R. Limberg, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF ALBERT R. LIMBERG
     3667 Voltaire Street
     San Diego, CA 92106
     Phone: (619) 344-8667
     Facsimile: (619) 344-8657
     Email: alimberg@limberglawoffice.com

          - and -

     Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
     245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Phone: (800) 400-6808
     Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
     Email: ak@kazlg.com


GINZA 685 INC: Lin Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
JIA WANG LIN, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. GINZA 685 INC d/b/a Kouzan; DAN HONG SHI, Case No.
1:18-cv-12202-AJN (S.D.N.Y., December 26, 2018), alleges that
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff is entitled
to recover from the Defendants:

   (1) unpaid minimum wage and unpaid overtime wages;
   (2) liquidated damages;
   (3) out of pocket expenses to delivery experts on the road;
   (4) liquidated damages;
   (5) prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and/or
   (6) attorney's fees and cost.

Ginza 685 Inc., doing business as Kouzan, is a domestic business
corporation organized under the laws of the state of New York with
a principal address at 685 Amsterdam Avenue, in New York City.  The
Individual Defendants are officers, directors, managers and/or
majority shareholders or owners of the Corporate Defendant.

The Defendants operate Kouzan, a Japanese restaurant located on the
Upper West Side.  Opened in 2007, Kouzan offers both traditional
and inventive Japanese cuisine.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324
          E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com


GLASSDOOR INC: Violates Disabilities Act, Diaz Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Glassdoor, 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. Glassdoor, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00075
(S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2019).

Glassdoor, Inc. operates an online jobs and career community. It
offers job listings, as well as access to user-generated content,
including salary reports, ratings and reviews, benefits and company
reviews, CEO approval ratings, interview questions and reviews,
office photos, and more. The company allows employers to post jobs
and job seekers to find jobs in the areas of administrative,
business, construction, consultant, consultant, engineering,
finance, healthcare, IT, sales, shipping, and software sectors. Its
online community service is also available through its mobile
application on iOS and Android platforms.[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


GOOGLE INC: Location Tracking, User Data Class Actions Combined
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Guthrie, writing for ConsumerAffairs, reports that separate
class action lawsuits focused on Google's location tracking
mechanism amid claims that the tech titan unlawfully stored user
location information have been combined into a single suit in
California.

According to TopClassActions, U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila
approved a consolidation of six proposed Google class action
lawsuits in order to "promote efficiency and avoid the possibility
of inconsistent judgments."

The lawsuits claim that to completely block Google from saving
location data, a user would have to disable the "web and app
activity" setting in their account. Google reportedly failed to
inform users about the setting, nor did it disclose that the
setting was "crucial" in the company's power to track and store
user data.

"Google improperly baited users into using its applications and
functionalities without worrying about their privacy by
representing to users that they could control Google's access to
their location data and allowing them to opt out of giving Google
their location data, then Google switched users into allowing it to
collect their location data," one of the Google tracking class
actions stated.

The U.S. Supreme Court waved that red flag in a separate case where
chief justice John Roberts commented that when a third party has
access to the information stored on one's cell phone, that entity
"achieves near perfect surveillance, as if it had attached an ankle
monitor to the phone's user."

The backstory
The genesis of the Google suit started with an investigation by the
Associated Press (AP), in which computer science researchers at
Princeton University were able to create a visual map of the
movements of the study's subject as he moved around with his
Android phone that had Location History toggled off.

The map included the subject's "train commute on two trips to New
York and visits to the High Line park, Chelsea Market, Hell's
Kitchen, Central Park, and Harlem. To protect his privacy, The AP
didn't plot the most telling and frequent marker -- his home
address."

Following the Associated Press' scrutiny, Google updated its
disclosures. However, plaintiffs in the Google class action
lawsuits claim that this was "too little, too late and does not
absolve the company of liability."

The AP's findings were confirmed by Vanderbilt University computer
science professor Douglas C. Schmidt in a separate study.

"Google counts a large percentage of the world's population as its
direct customers, with multiple products leading their markets
globally and many surpassing 1 billion monthly active users,"
Schmidt concluded.

"A major part of Google's data collection occurs while a user is
not directly engaged with any of its products. And while such
information is typically collected without identifying a unique
user, Google distinctively possesses the ability to utilize data
collected from other sources to de-anonymize such a collection."

The data that Google collects
Since Google found itself under the heat lamp on the matter, it's
seemingly doing its best to make sure users know what data they're
allowing the company to collect and use.

When "Web & App Activity" is on, Google saves information like:

Searches and other things you do on Google products and services,
like Maps

Your location, language, IP address, referrer, and whether you use
a browser or an app

Ads you click, or things you buy on an advertiser's site

Information on your device like recent apps or contact names you
searched for

Websites and apps you use

Your activity on websites and in apps that use Google services

Your Chrome browsing history

Do you have an Android phone?
The magnitude of Google's data collection is significant,
especially on Android mobile devices where it's estimated that
those devices send 10 times more data to Google than iPhones. And
when you multiply that data times the two billion active monthly
users that connect to the world using that platform, the data net
that Google casts is vast.

Google might argue that it's codependent on Android since it's the
ecosystem for many related products ranging from wristwatches to
coffee machines. Nonetheless, Google's ability to give or deny data
collection is squarely on users' shoulders.

If any of this unnerves you as an Android owner, the best next step
to take is following Google's guide to data collection for
Android.

iPad and iPhone users should also double-check their Google data
collection settings, as should anyone who relies on a desktop or
laptop for connecting to the internet. [GN]


HIGHLANDS PHYSICIANS: Attorneys Present Closing Arguments
---------------------------------------------------------
Lurah Spell, writing for Bristol Herald Courier, reports that
attorneys for Highlands Physicians Inc. and Wellmont Health System
spent nearly seven hours presenting closing arguments on Dec. 17 to
a 13-member jury over an $83 million class-action lawsuit.

HPI and 2,100 people, including at least 1,500 doctors, filed the
suit against Wellmont in 2016 alleging that Wellmont breached
contract, fiduciary duty and a network access agreement and owes
payments to providers. In 1993, Bristol's hospital -- Wellmont's
predecessor -- and Highlands Physicians formed what is now called
Highlands Wellmont Health Network. Both own 50 percent of the
network with the power to elect half of the network's directors,
according to the suit.

Dec. 17 was the 13th day of the trial, which failed to wrap up as
scheduled. The jury was set to begin deliberations on Dec. 17.
Mediation toward a settlement after the second week of the trial
failed.

The suit also accuses Wellmont of deceiving, defaming and lying to
HPI; failing to disclose decisions intended to harm the network and
HPI; tortious interference with business advantages and contracts;
and intentional misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment that
caused HPI to suffer damages.

J. Ford Little, attorney for Wellmont, argued that HPI doesn't have
a case because its attorneys relied on testimony from Brant Kelch,
HPI's executive director, who they believe isn't an independent,
unbiased and objective expert witness; failed to provide proper
evidence and supporting documents for damages; failed to have HPI
members testify about losing money; failed to provide financial
statements that show monetary losses; and failed to provide
self-insured employer contracts detailing cost-savings program
opportunities.

Mr. Little also said HPI's suit against Wellmont is "without merit"
and should have been filed against Cigna and some of HPI's members
instead of Wellmont because they're the actual perpetrators of the
allegations in the suit. Little added that he and Wellmont's team
of attorneys believe there is "no basis" for damages to be awarded
to HPI, but if the jury finds there is, HPI should only be awarded,
at the most, around $1.1 million for breach of contract and breach
of network access agreement.

The lawsuit, Mr. Little said, is similar to a failed lawsuit HPI
filed against United Healthcare in 2016.

Gary Elden, attorney for HPI, argued that Wellmont "cut a deal"
with Cigna that excluded HPI physicians, effectively "selling out"
to save money on the contract. The lawsuit claims that Wellmont had
been "secretly negotiating" with Cigna -- one of Highlands Wellmont
Health Network's "biggest payors."

"Wellmont's goal was to create a 'Wellmont-focused network' that
would steer more business to Cigna while allowing Cigna to reduce
its rates in the Tri-Cities area at the expense of HPI's
physicians," the suit states.

Mr. Elden said the bulk of damages sought are related to Wellmont's
dealings with Cigna.

He also argued that Wellmont is preventing HPI from improving the
health of its employees and those covered by Medicare to benefit
its "bottom line."

In addition to seeking millions in punitive and compensatory
damages, attorney fees, costs and interest, the suit asks that
judicial rulings be made to clarify Wellmont and HPI's mutual
contractual and fiduciary obligations. [GN]


HOSPITALITY VENTURES: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in Tom Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Wai Man Tom filed an appeal from a court ruling in his
lawsuit titled Wai Tom v. Hospitality Ventures LLC, et al., Case
No. 5:17-cv-00098-FL, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina at Raleigh.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 2, 2019, Judge
Louise W. Flanagan (i) denied as moot the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional and class certification; (ii) denied the Plaintiff's
motion to seal, and (iii) granted in part the Defendants' motion
for summary judgment; and denied the Defendants' motion for
hearing.

Former named Plaintiff Brandon Kelly commenced the action on
February 21, 2017, asserting claims on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated against the Defendants, under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the North Carolina Wage and Hour
Act ("NCWHA"), based upon their alleged failure to pay adequate
wages and overtime compensation, as well as alleged acts of
retaliation, while operating a restaurant in Cary, North Carolina
named An Asian Cuisine, between 2014 and January 2017.  Kelly
sought damages for unpaid minimum wages; overtime compensation;
liquidated and statutory damages; further damages and other relief
for retaliation; as well as fees, costs, and interest.

The appellate case is captioned as Wai Tom v. Hospitality Ventures
LLC, et al., Case No. 18-2509, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

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

   -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on February 4, 2019; and

   -- Response Brief is due on March 6, 2019.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant WAI MAN TOM is represented by:

          J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
          Travis Andrew Gasper, Esq.
          BRAZIEL LAW OFFICES
          1801 North Lamar Street
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 749-1400
          E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
                  Gasper@l-b-law.com

               - and -

          Gilda Adriana Hernandez, Esq.
          Emma Jean Smiley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ
          1020 Southhill Drive
          Cary, NC 27513
          Telephone: (919) 741-8693
          E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
                  esmiley@gildahernandezlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees HOSPITALITY VENTURES LLC, d/b/a Umstead Hotel
and Spa; SAS INSTITUTE, INC.; and NC CULINARY VENTURES LLC, d/b/a
An Asian Cuisine, are represented by:

          Kevin Michael Ceglowski, Esq.
          Susanna Knutson Gibbons, Esq.
          POYNER SPRUILL LLP
          P. O. Box 1801
          Raleigh, NC 27602-1801
          Telephone: (919) 783-2853
          E-mail: kceglowski@poynerspruill.com
                  sgibbons@poynerspruill.com

               - and -

          Jordan Fishman, Esq.
          John Robert Hunt, Esq.
          Arch Y. Stokes, Esq.
          STOKES WAGNER, ALC
          1 Atlantic Center
          1201 West Peachtree Street, NW
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 766-0076
          Facsimile: (404) 766-8823
          E-mail: jfishman@stokeswagner.com
                  jhunt@stokeswagner.com
                  astokes@stokeswagner.com


INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Students' Class Action Over Mold Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Becca Costello, writing for Indiana Public Media, reports that
Indiana University will work with privately-owned apartment
properties to accommodate housing needs for returning students. The
Bloomington campus will be short more than 2,000 beds this when it
shuts down two dorms for renovation.

IU was already planning to shut down and renovate McNutt and Foster
residence halls.

But significant mold problems over the past few months prompted
officials to move up that timeline -- the dorms will now close in
May.

That means about 2,300 beds are unexpectedly off the table for the
2019 school year.

IU spokesperson Chuck Carney says they're reserving dorm rooms for
incoming freshmen, so returning students will have to live
elsewhere.

IU will partner with privately-owned apartment properties so those
students can still apply for housing through the university.

"The housing cost options will be comparable to residence halls,
they'll be billed through bursar accounts, there won't be any extra
fees that you might have if you just booked an apartment on your
own," he says, adding that all of the units will be near a shuttle
or bus route to make access to campus easy.

Mr. Carney says they hope to be able to accommodate all new and
returning students through these partnerships. He says it's not yet
clear whether these agreements will cost the university any money.


"What we're most interested in is trying to make this as good an
experience for the students as possible," he says. "So, we'll worry
about the cost as it comes."

IU has welcomed a record number of first-year students for six of
the past seven academic years.

University officials will not reduce the number of students
accepted this year due to housing, Mr. Carney says.

McNutt and Foster are expected to reopen by 2020, and Mr. Carney
says capacity issues should be resolved then.

Mr. Carney declined to estimate how much IU has spent on mold
remediation so far, and he says the costs are still coming in as
work continues through the spring semester.

"It will cost what it costs," Mr. Carney says. "While we know it's
not going to be cheap, we know we have to do what needs to be done
and that's part of the reason we've accelerated the renovation of
McNutt and Foster."

The mold problems in the two dorms sparked more than 1,700
remediations so far, and IU reimbursed students living in the
buildings with a $3,000 Bursar credit.

IU also faces a class action lawsuit from seven freshmen students
that alleges it didn't do enough to address the mold. The lawsuit
says IU has been misleading in its communications about the mold.
[GN]


INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Suit Over Dormitory Mold Remanded to State Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Indianapolis Division, issued an Order granting
Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand the case captioned JADEN THOMAS, RYAN
BRAVERMAN, KATIE DEDELOW, JAKE RAMSEY, ISABELLA BLACKFORD, MICHAEL
DUKE, LINDSAY FREEMAN individuals, each on behalf of
himself/herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
THE TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY, Defendant. Case No.
1:18-cv-03305-TWP-DML. (S.D. Ind.) to the Monroe Circuit Court.

The Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit asserting claims for breach of
contract, breach of implied warranty of habitability, and
declaratory judgment on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated IU students.

The Plaintiffs do not contest that (1) minimal diversity exists;
and (2) the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds five million
dollars. The Defendant's initial burden of establishing that CAFA
jurisdiction exists has been satisfied. However, the Plaintiffs
argue, the interests of justice exception to CAFA jurisdiction
warrants remand of the case back to state court.

The Plaintiffs' proposed class involves all individuals who resided
at IU residential dormitories for the Fall, 2018 Semester and were
exposed to and suffered injury due to mold that was present in the
IU residential dormitory where that individual resided. Excluded
from the Class are Defendants and their officers, directors and
employees.

The Defendant argues that this proposed class is a fail-safe class,
and thus, it is impossible to readily ascertain who is actually a
class member and what percentage of putative class members are
citizens of Indiana. The Defendant asserts that, because the actual
class members and their citizenship cannot be readily ascertained,
any determination of citizenship and percentage of citizenship
would be impermissible guesswork.  

By the Defendant's own stipulation, the citizenship of students
residing in Foster and McNutt dormitories consisted of 33-47%
Indiana citizens, and those figures could be used for all
individuals who resided at IU residential dormitories for the Fall
2018 semester. In its prior Order, the Court informed the parties
that it could define the class for purposes of applying the
jurisdictional considerations of Section 1332(d)(3) as all
individuals who resided at IU residential dormitories for the Fall
2018 Semester. Having this fair notice from the Court, the
Defendant still stipulated to a citizenship percentage of 33-47%
Indiana citizens.

The Defendant cannot have it both ways, asserting that the
citizenship of the two dorms' residents is representative of the
proposed class as a whole in order to invoke the Court's
jurisdiction in the first place, and then later asserting that the
Court cannot determine citizenship of the proposed class based upon
the citizenship of all the residents of the two dorms.

To remove this case to federal court and establish jurisdiction,
the Defendant alleged the citizenship of the proposed class members
based upon the citizenship of the students residing in the two
dorms, asserting 53% of the students were from outside Indiana.
Later, the Defendant stipulated that between 33% and approximately
47% of the two dorms' residents were Indiana citizens, and these
percentages were representative of all individuals who resided at
IU's dormitories for the Fall 2018 semester. The Court concludes
that this is sufficient evidence to determine for CAFA
jurisdictional purposes that greater than one-third but less than
two-thirds of the proposed class members are citizens of the state
in which the action was originally filed.

Thus, the threshold requirement for the interests of justice
exception is met.

National or Interstate Interest

The first factor to consider under the interests of justice
exception to exercising CAFA jurisdiction is whether the claims
asserted involve matters of national or interstate interest. The
Defendant asserts this case involves national and interstate
interests because IU is a university that has a nationwide and
international reach with students from all over the country and the
world. It is a nationally recognized university, and an adverse
ruling in this case could affect its standing and recruiting
ability across the country.  

The Plaintiffs assert that when everything connects to the forum
state, this first factor's consideration is not a close one. They
argue that everything in this case connects to Indiana. The
dormitories at the center of this litigation are in Indiana. The
putative class members are students at IU, living in IU's dorms in
Indiana. Each of the putative class members is in privity with IU.


The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs'. The claims asserted involve
mold remediation in IU's dormitories located exclusively in
Indiana. The claims involve a breach of contract under lease
agreements for living in IU's dormitories in Indiana. While many
students at IU come from states across the country and countries
around the world, that does not transform the claims asserted into
national or interstate (or international) matters. Rather, the
claims involve local concerns over the habitability of college dorm
rooms for students who chose to move to and study at IU in Indiana.


The Court determines that this first factor favors remanding the
case to state court.

Governing State Law

The Plaintiffs claims breach of contract, breach of implied
warranty of habitability, and declaratory judgment are governed by
Indiana statutory and common law. No other states' laws will apply
in this case. The Plaintiffs assert that the second factor focuses
on whether the forum State court will be applying its own laws or
the law of other states and not whether the federal court is able
to apply forum state law, thus, the Defendant's argument is
irrelevant.

The Court again agrees with the Plaintiffs. This factor does not
ask whether the federal court is capable of applying state law.
Rather, the factor considers whether the claims asserted will be
governed by the forum state's laws or by the laws of other states.
The laws of Indiana govern the claims in this matter, as
acknowledged by the Defendant, and thus, this factor also weighs in
favor of remand.

Pleading the Action to Avoid Federal Jurisdiction

The Plaintiffs point to the Tenth Circuit case of Speed when
discussing this factor. This factor favors retention in federal
court when the plaintiff has deliberately defined the prospective
class or the relief sought in order to frustrate removal under
CAFA. The Plaintiffs' proposed class is defined naturally to
encompass all students living in IU dorms who have been affected by
the mold issues. The class definition has not been limited in a way
to avoid federal jurisdiction.

This factor asks whether the Plaintiffs pled their class claims in
a way to avoid federal CAFA jurisdiction, not whether the pleadings
satisfy the jurisdictional requirements for CAFA. The Defendant's
position conflates this factor with the Defendant's initial burden
of establishing that CAFA jurisdiction exists. Nothing in the
record suggests that the Plaintiffs pled their class action in a
manner seeking to avoid federal jurisdiction, and the Defendant has
not argued such.

Thus, this factor weighs in favor of remand.

Nexus Among the Forum, Class Members, Harm, and Defendant

Under the fourth factor, the Court considers whether the action was
brought in a forum with a distinct nexus with the class members,
the alleged harm, or the defendants. The Defendant acknowledges
"there is arguably a distinct nexus between the parties and the
forum state of Indiana.The Defendant provides no other argument or
analysis about this factor.

The named Plaintiffs and the putative class members are students of
IU and currently live in Indiana, specifically in Monroe County
where the case was originally filed. The Defendant is an Indiana
political subdivision located in Monroe County. The mold
infestation at the heart of this case is located in Monroe County.
The harms giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in Monroe County.
Thus, the Court concludes that there is a strong and distinct nexus
among the forum where the case was originally filed, the class
members, the alleged harm, and the Defendant.

Remand is warranted under this factor.

Concentration of State Citizenship

The Defendant asserts that the demographics of the residents of
Foster and McNutt Dormitories show several states besides Indiana
have significant representation in the putative class. Of the
students living in these dormitories, 47% are Indiana citizens,
15.83% are Illinois citizens, 5.44% are New Jersey citizens, 4.50%
are California citizens, 3.44% are New York citizens, 2.91% are
Ohio citizens, and 4.30% are international citizens. Therefore, of
the students living in these dormitories, 83.42% are citizens of
Indiana, five other states, and other countries. The Defendant
argues that these statistics show that the putative class members
are not widely dispersed among several states for purposes of this
factor, so the Court should retain jurisdiction.

The Plaintiffs assert that other courts have rejected the five
percent argument advanced by the Defendant.

The 5% figure in the Senate Report is solely an example of when
plaintiffs are widely dispersed among different States, not a
mandatory threshold for evaluating dispersion.  Courts look in
particular at whether any other state has an interest in the
litigation on par with the forum state.

The number of citizens of Indiana in the proposed class is
substantially larger than the number of citizens from Illinois, New
Jersey, or any of the other states. Additionally, the citizenship
of the non-forum members of the proposed class is dispersed among a
substantial number of states.

Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of remand.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 13, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yd5z735e from Leagle.com.

JADEN THOMAS, RYAN BRAVERMAN, KATIE DEDELOW, JAKE RAMSEY, ISABELLA
BLACKFORD, MICHAEL DUKE & LINDSAY FREEMAN, individuals, each on
behalf of himself/herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Jacob R. Cox, COX LAW OFFICE, Jonathon
Noyes, WILSON KEHOE & WININGHAM & William E. Winingham, WILSON
KEHOE & WININGHAM.

THE TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY, Defendant, represented by Ann
O. McCready -- amccready@taftlaw.com -- TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER
LLP, Frank J. Deveau -- fdeveau@taftlaw.com -- TAFT STETTINIUS &
HOLLISTER LLP, Melissa A. Macchia -- mmacchia@taftlaw.com -- TAFT
STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, Scott R. Alexander --
salexander@taftlaw.com -- TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP & Thomas
A. Barnard -- tbarnard@taftlaw.com -- TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER
LLP.


INMATE SERVICES: 8th Circuit Appeal Filed in Stearns Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Danzel Stearns filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Danzel Stearns v. Inmate Services Corporation, et
al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00339-BRW, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California (assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-2707 KJM CKD P)
to the Eastern District of Arkansas.

The class action is filed on behalf of the inmates transported by
the Defendant on or after November 7, 2014, who were forced to
remain in the Defendant's vehicle for more than 48 continuous
hours.  The class includes subclasses of inmates who were
transported within the State of California by the Defendant and its
agents or employees for certain periods of time.

The appellate case is captioned as Danzel Stearns v. Inmate
Services Corporation, et al., Case No. 18-3707, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Danzel Stearns, on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated persons, is represented by:

          Paul J. James, Esq.
          JAMES, CARTER & PRIEBE, LLP
          500 Broadway, Suite 400
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 372-1414
          E-mail: pjj@jamescarterlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark E. Merin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN
          1010 F Street, Suite 300
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 443-6911
          E-mail: mark@markmerin.com

Defendant-Appellee Inmate Services Corporation is represented by:

          Joshua C. Ashley, Esq.
          Jamie Huffman Jones, Esq.
          FRIDAY ELDREDGE & CLARK LLP
          2000 Regions Center
          400 W. Capitol Avenue
          Little Rock, AR 72201-0000
          Telephone: (501) 376-2011
          E-mail: jashley@fridayfirm.com
                  jjones@fridayfirm.com

               - and -

          Chuck Gschwend, Esq.
          Mark Mayfield, Esq.
          WOMACK PHELPS PURYEAR MAYFIELD & MCNEIL, P.A.
          P.O. Box 3077
          Jonesboro, AR 72403-0000
          Telephone: (870) 932-0900
          E-mail: cgschwend@wpmfirm.com
                  mmayfield@wpmfirm.com

               - and -

          John T. McLandrich, Esq.
          Terence L. Williams, Esq.
          MAZANEC, RASKIN & RYDER CO., L.P.A.
          100 Franklin's Row
          34305 Solon Road
          Cleveland, OH 44139
          Telephone: (440) 248-7906
          E-mail: jtm@mrrlaw.com
                  twilliams@mrrlaw.com

               - and -

          Ross Emerson Webster, Esq.
          GLANKLER BROWN, PLLC
          6000 Poplar Avenue, Suite 400
          Memphis, TN 38119
          Telephone: (901) 525-1322
          E-mail: rwebster@glankler.com


IVO TANKU TAPANG: Faces Class Action Over Terrorist Acts
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that in
a federal class action, John and Jane Doe claim that Ivo Tanku
Tapang, "from what he presumes is a safe harbor hiding place at his
San Jose residence," is directing terrorist acts in Cameroon
through the Ambazonia Defense Forces, a separatist movement, which
killed the Does' family members, and others.

A copy of the Complaint is available at https://is.gd/LeAt2w  

The case is Doe, et al. v. Tapang, Case No. 18-cv-07721 (N.D.
Cal.).


KENTUCKY: Court Awards $222K Attorney's Fees to Inmate Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky, Central Division, Frankfort, issued a Memorandum Opinion
and Order granting Plaintiffs' Request for an Interim Award of
Attorneys' Fees in the case captioned ANTONIO ARRIOLA, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, et al., Defendants. Civil
No. 3:17-cv-00100-GFVT. (E.D. Ky.).

The Plaintiffs in this matter are a certified class of current and
former inmates in the care and custody of Defendants Commonwealth
of Kentucky, Kentucky Department of Corrections (KDOC), and
Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet (the Cabinet).  

Here, the Plaintiffs have already succeeded on the merits of the
case: Judge Shepherd determined the Defendants had acted in an
arbitrary and capricious manner and granted the Plaintiffs
declaratory and injunctive relief.  

The Defendants do not argue that the Plaintiffs are the prevailing
party. They contest, however, that because the Plaintiffs did not
bring a Section 1983 claim in their initial complaint, and instead
added it in their Sixth Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs should
only be allowed to recover attorneys' fees beginning in November
2017, the date of filing the Sixth Amended Complaint.
  
The Plaintiffs initially requested compensation for a total of
1,009.6 hours (687.2 attributed to attorney Gregory A. Belzley and
322.4 attributed to Camille A. Bathurst) at a rate of $220.50 per
hour. They also requested an award of costs in the amount of
$6,313.38. Mr. Belzley and Ms. Bathurst each filed an affidavit,
including their itemized expenses and hours spent on this matter.

The Defendants claim this calculation is generally unreasonable,
but do not include many specific objections.  To determine
reasonable attorney's fees, a Court must first determine the
lodestar amount, which is the attorney's reasonable hourly rate
multiplied by the number of proven hours reasonably expended.  

Belzley has practiced law for twenty-eight years, and he has
represented plaintiffs in civil rights litigation for twenty-two
years. Ms. Bathurst has practiced law for twenty-seven years, and
she has represented plaintiffs in civil rights litigation for eight
years.  Prior to opening their own practice, both attorneys
practiced for well-respected and experienced law firms in Kentucky.
The rate of $220.50 per hour is significantly less than fees
charged by attorneys in non-PLRA cases. Defendants do not contest
this rate and the Court finds it to be reasonable.
  
The Court can identify three primary objections the Defendants make
to the reported hours billed by Mr. Belzley and Ms. Bathurst.
First, the Defendants specifically object to the time billed for
traveling to Shelbyville. The Plaintiffs acknowledge the error and
agree that time should be reduced from 3.7 hours to 1.5 hours.
Thus, the Court reduces Mr. Belzley's total hours from 687.2 to 685
hours.

After reducing Mr. Belzley's total hours to 685, multiplied by the
reasonable hourly rate of $220.50, the Court determines the
Plaintiffs' lodestar amount for Mr. Belzley to be $151,042.50.
Because the Defendants did not have specific objections to Ms.
Bathurst's accounting, her total billed 322.4 hours, multiplied by
the reasonable hourly rate of $220.50 results in a lodestar amount
of $71,089.20. The Court declines to reduce either of those
lodestar amounts based on unsuccessful pleadings or motions.

Thus, the total amount of attorneys' fees owed by the Defendants to
the Plaintiffs is $222,131.70. Because the Court finds the costs
requested by the Plaintiffs to be reasonable and necessary to the
litigation, the total amount of costs owed by the Defendants to the
Plaintiffs is $6,313.38.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 13, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y8nuenq5 from Leagle.com.

C. Cleveland Gambill, Special Master, pro se.

Antonio Arriola, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Keath Bramblett, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Christopher Hopper, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Walter A. Noland, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Donald Roberts,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & David
Voyles, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Camille Bathurst --
camillebathurst@aol.com -- Belzley Bathurst, Attorneys, Gregory
Allen Belzley -- gbelzley@aol.com -- Belzley Bathurst, Attorneys &
Aaron Joseph Bentley -- abentley3B@gmail.com -- Belzley, Bathurst &
Bentley.

Commonwealth of Kentucky, Commonwealth of Kentucky Cabinet for
Justice and Public Safety, Commonwealth of Kentucky Corrections
Department, J. Michael Brown, Individually, LaDonna Thompson,
Individually, Chris E. Cropp, Individually & John Tilley,
Individually, Defendants, represented by Angela T. Dunham , Office
of Legal Services-KY Justice & Public Safety Cabinet.


KIA: Vehicle Owners File Class Action Over Engine Fires
-------------------------------------------------------
Jake Lingeman, writing for Autoweek, reports that a group of Kia
and Hyundai owners have filed a class-action lawsuit against the
automakers over an alleged defect that could, and has, caused
noncollision fires. Back in October, the Center for Auto Safety
demanded a recall of cars using the so-called Theta II engine. The
turbocharged Theta II four-cylinder engine finds a home in the
2011-14 Kia Sorento, Kia Optima, Hyundai Sonata and Hyundai Santa
Fe, as well as the 2010-15 Kia Soul.

More than 350 consumer complaints have been filed to the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration as a result of the
automakers' "concealment of the defect," according to the suit,
which can be read here.

According to an Automotive News report, NHTSA is probing "the
timeliness and scope of the carmakers' recalls relating to
manufacturing errors" in the powerplant. The U.S. Attorney's Office
for the Southern District of New York has opened a criminal
investigation into the matter as well.

Hyundai and Kia have already recalled about 1.6 million cars from
2011-2014 related to the problem.

According to Automotive News, the lawsuit "argues that a defect
restricts oil flow to core engine parts, causing premature wear and
failure and eventually resulting in engine seizure and fire."

Hyundai said in a statement: "Over the past three years, we have
held numerous meetings with DOT and NHTSA representatives, and
proactively discussed and identified possible safety items for
NHTSA's evaluation, including the engine recalls," Hyundai Motor
said in the statement. "NHTSA has been fully briefed and kept
apprised of these recalls and low rates of associated noncollision
fires." [GN]


KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS: Duran Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned David Duran, an individual, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Knights of
Columbus, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-05855, (E.D. N.Y., September
21, 2018) was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on December 26, 2018, under Case
No. 18-cv-02882.

Duran seeks to recover unpaid overtime, an additional amount as
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as part of
the lay-off for violations of the Worker Adjustment Retraining and
Notification Act, Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

Knight of Columbus is a Catholic fraternal society that sells
insurance to Catholics across the nation. Duran worked as an
insurance agent. He claims to have incurred business-related
expenses that were not reimbursed. Defendant also deducts money for
licensing, laptops and business insurance from his pay and failed
to provide wage statements, asserts the Plaintiff.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Stephen Michael Frayne, Esq.
      NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
      3090 Glascock Street, Suite 101
      Oakland, CA 94601
      Tel: (510) 479-1081

Defendant is represented by:

      Aaron A. Buckley, Esq.
      PAUL PLEVIN SULLIVAN & CONNAUGHTON, LLP
      101 West Broadway, Ninth Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101-8285
      Tel: (619) 744-3642
      Email: abuckley@paulplevin.com


KUSHNER COMPANIES: Settles Tenants' Class Action for $88K
---------------------------------------------------------
Sara e. Teller, writing for Legal Reader, reports that the
preliminary outcome of a class action lawsuit filed against Kushner
Companies back in August 2017 on behalf of five former tenants of
89 Hicks Street over the illegal deregulation of rent-stabilized
units in the building has finally been announced.  The watchdog
group Housing Rights Initiative (HRI) alleged that when Kushner
Companies bought the building in 2014 (previously owned by
Jehovah's Witnesses followed by Brooklyn Law School), it was
legally obligated to make the apartments rent-stabilized.   HRI
based this on the fact that the Hicks Street building dates back to
before 1974 and had more than six units.  Yet, the development
company only registered 10-percent of the units as
rent-stabilized.

The class action suit further alleged Kushner Companies underwent a
"deceptive, systematic and pervasive pattern of misconduct to skirt
rent stabilization laws," according to court documents, and may
have successfully gotten its tenants to pay as much as $1 million
in overcharged rent payments.

The tenants have been awarded $88,419 total in damages, which is an
average of $17,684 per defendant, along with interest.  HRI says it
believes the tenants affected by the overpayments are owed over $1
million in rent reductions and refunds, and that Kushner Companies
neglected to provide rent refunds to former tenants as required by
law. "Therefore, the case will proceed," according to HRI.

HRI founder, Aaron Carr, calls Kushner's actions "bare-faced
greed," and a "sordid attempt to avert accountability and get a
rapid return on its investment."

"Kushner Companies is engaged in a process I call the
'weaponization of construction,'" added 15th District of the New
York City Council member Ritchie Torres, a Democrat. "There is a
straight line that runs from falsified building permits to
harassment of tenants to the loss of affordable housing units."

Shortly after the case was filed in 2017, Kushner Companies took
action to address the allegations at the building by re-stabilizing
all of the illegally deregulated units and issuing more than
$100,000 in refunds to class representatives, while providing
reductions averaging several hundred dollars per month.

"Once the issue was brought to my client's attention, it
immediately and voluntarily acted in good faith to address the
issue," said Deborah Riegel, an attorney at Rosenberg and Estis who
is representing Kushner in the case. "Not only did my client make
refunds to the existing tenants, and in some cases former tenants,
but it also registered the units as rent stabilized. Rather than
wait for an adjudication, as some owners have chosen to do, my
client proceeded expeditiously to remedy the issues raised."

Following the recent announcement and preliminary resolution of the
case, Carr stated, "Kushner Companies giving back some of what it
stole is an admission of guilt and its failure to give back
everything it stole is an admission of greed . . . Kushner
Companies got caught with two hands in the cookie jar and responded
to the lawsuit by taking only one hand out.  The good news is, we
are half way there." [GN]


L3 TECHNOLOGIES: Kent Files Suit Over Sale to Harris Corp.
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kent, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. L3 Technologies, Inc., Christopher E.
Kubasik, Robert B. Millard, Claude R. Canizares, Thomas A.
Corcoran, H. Hugh Shelton, Lewis Kramer, Rita S. Lane, Lloyd W.
Newton, Vincent Pagano, Jr., Anne E. Dunwoody, Harris Corporation
and Leopard Merger Sub Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00025-UNA
(D. Del., January 4, 2019) is an action that stems from a proposed
transaction announced on October 14, 2018 pursuant to which L3
Technologies, Inc. will be acquired by Harris Corporation and
Leopard Merger Sub Inc.

On October 12, 2018, L3's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Harris Pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement, Harris's stockholders will
receive 1.3 shares of Parent common stock for each share of L3 they
own. On December 14, 2018, defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction.

The complaint asserts that the Registration Statement omits
material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction,
which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges  that Defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Registration
Statement.

Plaintiff is, and has been continuously throughout all times
relevant hereto, the owner of L3 common stock.

L3 is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive
offices at 600 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10016. L3's common
stock is traded on the NYSE under the ticker symbol "LLL". L3 is a
party to the Merger Agreement.

Christopher E. Kubasik is President, Chief Executive Officer, and
Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company.

Robert B. Millard, Claude R. Canizares, Thomas A. Corcoran, Anne E.
Dunwoody, Lewis Kramer, Rita S. Lane, Lloyd W. Newton, Vincent
Pagano, Jr. and H. Hugh Shelton are directors of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Wash. Court Enforces Lebanon Settlement Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Washington issued an Opinion affirming the
Court of Appeals' judgment granting Defendant's Motion for
Interlocutory Discretionary Review in the case captioned CHAN
HEALTHCARE GROUP PS, a Washington professional services
corporation, Petitioner, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, foreign insurance companies,
Respondents. No. 95416-0. (Wash.).

In this case, the state Supreme Court is asked to determine if the
full faith and credit clause requires Washington courts to enforce
an Illinois class action judgment by dismissing a subsequent local
action based on the same facts.

Lebanon Chiropractic Clinic, an Illinois medical provider, brought
a nationwide consumer protection class action against Liberty
Mutual Insurance in Illinois. This suit was resolved in a
settlement that was approved by an Illinois trial court and entered
as a judgment.

Chan Healthcare Group, a Washington medical provider, received
reasonable notice of the suit and neither opted out of the class
nor objected to the entry of judgment. Chan now seeks to
collaterally challenge the Illinois judgment in the state's courts,
arguing the interests of the Washington class members were not
adequately represented in the Illinois action.  The state Supreme
Court ruled that Chan fails to show its due process rights were
violated. Thus, the full faith and credit clause requires the Court
to enforce its sister court's judgment.

Chan appealed, alleging the commissioner improperly granted review
and the Court of Appeals applied too narrow a standard to
collateral challenges.

Chan sued Liberty for failing to pay its reasonable bills as
required by the state's casualty insurance statutes, RCW
48.22.095.005(7), and engaging in an unfair practice under
Washington's Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW.

Liberty moved for summary judgment based on an Illinois trial
court's previous approval of a nationwide class action settlement
of all claims against Liberty and the other defendants arising from
the same bad acts Chan now alleges here.

Chan argued that its claims were not released by the Illinois
settlement of Lebanon's nationwide class action on the theory that
the interests of Washington class members were not adequately
represented in the Illinois action and thus the settlement was
unenforceable against them.

The Court of Appeals commissioner granted Liberty's motion for
interlocutory discretionary review and the Court of Appeals
reversed, concluding the Illinois settlement was owed full faith
and credit. The Court of Appeals adopted a three-part test: (1)
whether the specific due process objection was before the sister
state court, (2) whether the parties presented briefing on the
objection, and (3) whether the sister state court ruled on the
objection.

Chan appealed, alleging the commissioner improperly granted review
and the Court of Appeals applied too narrow a standard to
collateral challenges.

INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW

Chan argues the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider
the King County Superior Court's ruling and did not rely on RAP
2.3.  

The Court disagrees.

Read as a whole, the commissioner's ruling granting interlocutory
discretionary review suggests that the King County Superior Court
committed probable error by declining to give full faith and credit
to the Illinois trial court's ruling. The scope of review under the
full faith and credit clause is a threshold question and the
commissioner sustainably concluded that the King County Superior
Court's ruling conflicted with Nobl Park, LLC of Vancouver v. Shell
Oil Co., 122 Wn.App. 838, 95 P.3d 1265 (2004).  

FULL FAITH AND CREDIT

The King County Superior Court determined that Chan's release of
claims in the Illinois settlement was not entitled to full faith
and credit in Washington courts.  

The United States Constitution requires that full faith and credit
shall be given in each state to the. judicial proceedings of every
other state. The purpose of the full faith and credit clause is to
mitigate the risk that two or more States will exercise their power
over the same case or controversy and to avoid the uncertainty,
confusion, and delay that necessarily accompany relitigation of the
same issue.

Judgments in class action lawsuits are entitled to full faith and
credit absent a due process violation or jurisdictional defect.
Chan was an absent class member, and due process requires at a
minimum that an absent plaintiff be provided with an opportunity to
remove itself from the class by executing and returning an `opt
out' or `request for exclusion' form to the court. Chan does not
dispute it received notice of the sister court's proceedings and
was given a fair opportunity to be heard. Due process also requires
that absent class members be adequately represented by the named
plaintiff.  

Here, the Illinois trial court received Kerbs' objections to the
settlement, held a fairness hearing, and determined Plaintiff
Lebanon Chiropractic Clinic and Class Counsel will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class. Chan
claims Lebanon did not adequately represent its interests.

The Court disagrees for three reasons.

First, Chan does not show Lebanon failed to prosecute the action
vigorously on behalf of the entire class.  

Second, Chan fails to show a difference in the scope of relief
under the respective consumer protection laws made it so Lebanon
had an insurmountable conflict of interest with other class
members.  

Finally, Chan fails to show subclasses were required under Amchem
Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 627, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138
L. Ed. 2d 689 (1997). Chan argues that under Amchem, subclasses are
mandatory when a class settlement includes distinct groups of class
members.

Chan's reliance on Amchem is misplaced, as the facts of that case
are readily distinguishable from those before us. Amchem involved
class members and named plaintiffs who had been exposed to asbestos
or had a family member who had been exposed, but who differed in
their injuries in that many had already manifested injury from the
exposure while others had not.  

Chan has not convinced the Court that Washington plaintiffs were
not adequately represented in the Lebanon court. Therefore, Chan
has failed to overcome the presumption in favor of giving full
faith and credit to the determination of the Illinois trial court.

Accordingly, the state Supreme Court rules that the Court of
Appeals commissioner did not improperly grant interlocutory review,
and the Illinois judgment is entitled full faith and credit in
Washington courts.  The Court affirms and remand back to the trial
court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's December 13, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7hnlp22 from Leagle.com.

David Elliot Breskin, Breskin Johnson & Townsend PLLC, 1000 Second
Avenue Suite 3670, Seattle, WA, 98104.

Cynthia J. Heidelberg, Breskin, Johnson & Townsend, 1000 2nd Ave
Ste 3670, Seattle, WA, 98104-1053, Counsel for Petitioner(s).

Philip Albert Talmadge, Talmadge/Fitzpatrick/Tribe, 2775 Harbor Ave
Sw, Third Floor Ste C, Seattle, WA, 98126-2138.

John Michael Silk, Wilson Smith Cochran Dickerson, 901 5th Ave Ste
1700, Seattle, WA, 98164-2050, Manuel Berrelez, Vinson & Elkins,
LLP, 2001 Ross Avenue Suite 3700, Dallas, TX, 75201-2975, Counsel
for Respondent(s).

Hyland Hunt, Attorney at Law, 300 New Jersey Ave Nw Ste 900,
Washington, DC, 20001-2271, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Chamber of
Commerce of the United States of America.

Alan D. Copsey , Office of the Attorney General, Po Box 40100, 1125
Washington St Se, Olympia, WA, 98504-0100, Amicus Curiae on behalf
of Attorney General of the State of Washington.


LIVANOVA PLC: Sorin Group Appeals Ruling in Baker Injury Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Sorin Group Deutschland GMBH and Sorin Group USA Inc.
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Edward
Baker, et al. v. Livanova PLC, et al., Case No. 1-16-cv-00260, in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs Edward Baker and Jack Miller commenced this action by
filing a complaint on February 12, 2016.  The Plaintiffs submitted
an Amended Complaint on March 21, 2016, asserting a medical
monitoring claim and a declaratory judgment claim against the Sorin
Defendants and their holding company.  The Plaintiffs allege that
the putative class was exposed to nontuberculous mycobacterium
through a Sorin 3T Heater-Cooler System used to regulate their
blood temperature during open heart surgeries at WellSpan York
Hospital and Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center.

The appellate case is captioned as Edward Baker, et al. v. Livanova
PLC, et al., Case No. 18-3777, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees EDWARD BAKER and JACK MILLER, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Paola Pearson, Esq.
          David S. Senoff, Esq.
          Sol H. Weiss, Esq.
          ANAPOL WEISS
          130 North 18th Street
          One Logan Square, Suite 1600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-1130
          E-mail: ppearson@anapolweiss.com
                  dsenoff@anapolweiss.com
                  sweiss@anapolweiss.com

Defendants-Appellants SORIN GROUP DEUTSCHLAND GMBH and SORIN GROUP
USA INC. are represented by:

          Mark E. Gebauer, Esq.
          Magda S. Patitsas, Esq.
          Adam M. Shienvold, Esq.
          ECKERT, SEAMANS, CHERIN & MELLOTT LLC
          213 Market Street, 8th Floor
          Harrisburg, PA 17101
          Telephone: (717) 237-6052
          E-mail: mgebauer@eckertseamans.com
                  mpatitsas@eckertseamans.com
                  ashienvold@eckertseamans.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey P. Justman, Esq.
          Aaron D. Van Oort, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          90 South 7th Street
          2200 Wells Fargo Center
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 766-7000
          E-mail: jeff.justman@faegrebd.com
                  aaron.vanoort@faegrebd.com


MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces DeLoss Suit in Maryland Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
GERALD DELOSS, SARA HOWE and ANNIE SEBERSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL,
INC. and STARWOOD HOTELS AND RESORTS WORLDWIDE, LLC, Case No.
1:18-cv-03960 (D. Md., December 21, 2018), seeks actual damages and
compensatory damages arising from a data breach.

On November 30, 2018, Marriott International announced that it was
subject to one of the largest data breaches in the nation's history
when the personal and confidential information of up to 500 million
hotel guests was exfiltrated from its Starwood guest reservation
database as part of an ongoing, four-year long data breach.  The
information stolen in the breach includes names, mailing addresses,
phone numbers, e-mail addresses, passport numbers, Starwood
Preferred Guest account information, dates of birth, gender,
arrival and departure information, reservation dates, and
communication preferences.  For some, the information also included
payment card numbers and payment card expiration dates.

Marriott International, Inc., is a corporation organized under the
laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in Maryland.
Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, LLC, is organized under the
laws of Maryland with its principal place of business in
Connecticut.

Marriott is an American multinational hospitality company with more
than 6,500 properties globally.  Marriott acquired Starwood in 2016
for $13.6 billion.  Starwood includes the hotel brands W Hotels,
St. Regis, Sheraton Hotels & Resorts, Westin Hotels & Resorts,
Element Hotels, Aloft Hotels, The Luxury Collection, Tribute
Portfolio, Le Meridien Hotels & Resorts, Four Points by Sheraton,
and Design Hotels, as well as Starwood-branded timeshare
properties.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven A. Skalet, Esq.
          Craig L. Briskin, Esq.
          MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
          1250 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 822-5100
          Facsimile: (202) 822-4997
          E-mail: sskalet@findjustice.com
                  cbriskin@findjustice.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          David A. Goodwin, Esq.
          Eric S. Taubel, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                  dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
                  etaubel@gustafsongluek.com


MARRIOTT INT'L: Skinner Sues Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------
Kirk Skinner and John Turgeon-Schramm, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Marriott
International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02131 (D. Conn.,
December 26, 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.
Turgeon-Schramm and Skinner provided Defendants their payment cards
containing their personal information for the rental of Starwood
hotel rooms. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
     SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
     The Chrysler Building
     405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
     New York, NY 10174
     Telephone: (212) 223-6444
     Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
     Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

            - and -

     Erin Green Comite, Esq.
     SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
     156 South Main Street
     P.O. Box 192
     Colchester, CT 06415
     Telephone: (860) 537-5537
     Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
     Email: ecomite@scott-scott.com

            - and -

     Hal Cunningham, Esq.
     SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
     600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 233-4565
     Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
     Email: hcunningham@scott-scott.com

            - and -

     Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
     Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
     Arielle Wagner, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
     1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Tel: (412) 322-9243
     Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
            jetzel@carlsonlynch.com
            aswagner@locklaw.com

            - and -

     Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
     Katie M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
     Arielle Wagner, Esq.
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
     100 Washington Ave. South, Suite 2200
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Email: khriebel@locklaw.com
            kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
            aswagner@locklaw.com

            - and -

     Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
     CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
     17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Telephone: (612) 339-7300
     Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Bell Suit Alleges Negligence
----------------------------------------------------
Harry Bell and Edward Claffy, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Marriott International, Inc., Case No.
8:18-cv-03684 (D. Md., November 30, 2018), is brought against the
Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of confidence
and violation of Maryland's Consumer Protection Act.

This case involves the data breach Marriott announced on November
30, 2018, wherein the information of up to 500 million guests was
exposed due to a flaw in Marriott's reservation system and database
systems dating back to 2014, which allowed hackers and other
nefarious actors to take over guests' accounts and siphon off
information for unsavory and illegal purposes. This Class Action
Complaint is filed on behalf of all persons in the United States,
whose passport information and personal information ("PII") was
compromised in the data breach.

The Plaintiff Harry Bell is a resident and citizen of West
Virginia. The Plaintiff has stayed at Marriott properties and
hotels for decades, entrusting Marriott with aggregating PII for
this time period.

The Plaintiff Edward Claffy is a resident and citizen of Illinois.
Plaintiff Claffy has stayed at Marriott properties and hotels for
at least the last eight years, entrusting Marriott with and
aggregating PII for this time period.

Defendant Marriott, Inc., is a corporation with its principal
executive offices located at 10400 Fernwood Rd, Bethesda, Maryland
20817 (Montgomery County). Marriott's securities trade on the
NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "MAR." Marriott is one of the
largest hotel chains in the World. Upon information and belief,
approximately 500 million people have stayed at Marriott and
Marriott-owned properties since 2014. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      William H. Murphy III, Esq.
      Jessica H. Meeder, Esq.
      MURPHY, FALCON & MURPHY, P.A.
      One South Street, 23rd Floor
      Baltimore, MD 21202
      Tel: (410) 951-8744
      Fax: (410) 539-6599
      E-mail: hassan.murphy@murphyfalcon.com
              jessica.meeder@murphyfalcon.com


MEDENVIOS HEALTHCARE: Felix Sues for Invasion of Privacy
--------------------------------------------------------
Margarita Fe1ix, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. MedEnvios Healthcare, Inc., and
Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG19001249 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., January 3, 2019) asserts that the
Defendant intentionally and surreptitiously recorded and/or
monitored telephone calls made or routed to Defendant's toll-free
telephone numbers, as well as outbound calls to California
residents such as Plaintiff. Defendant recorded and/or monitored
calls without warning or disclosing to inbound callers and
recipients of outbound calls that their calls might be recorded or
monitored.

The Defendant's policy and practice of recording and/or monitoring,
without the consent of all parties, Defendant's telephone
conversations with California residents who, while physically
located in California, called one or more of Defendant's toll-free
numbers or received a call from Defendant violates the California
Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), says the complaint.

Plaintiff Margarita Felix is an individual and a resident of
California.

MedEnvios Healthcare, Inc. is a corporation incorporated under the
laws of the State of Florida and is headquartered in Miami, Florida
without a principal place of business in California. Defendant
systematically and continuously does business in California and
with California residents.

Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities ofdefendants
sued herein as Does l through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues
those defendants by those fictitious names.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eric A. Grover, Esq.
     Alexander S. Vahdat, Esq.
     KELLER GROVER LLP
     1965 Market Street
     San Francisco, CA 94103
     Phone: (415) 543-1305
     Facsimile: (415) 543- 7861
     Email: eagrover@kellergrovcr.com
            avahdat@kellergrover.com

         - and -

     Scot Bernstein, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN,
     A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
     101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
     Folsom, CA 95630
     Phone: (916) 447-0100
     Facsimile: (916) 933-5533
     Email: swampadero@sbemsteinlaw.com


MEMPHIS, TN: Must Depose Ex-Head of Police Sex Crimes Unit
----------------------------------------------------------
Linda A. Moore, writing for Memphis Commercial Appeal, reports that
a judge has ruled the city of Memphis must make available for
deposition the former head of the Memphis Police Department's sex
crimes unit, who will answer questions about policies and
procedures for the unit.

The ruling comes amid a lawsuit by three sexual assault victims
over the city's handling of rape kits.

The city had filed a motion that asked Shelby County Circuit Court
Judge Gina Higgins to squash the deposition of Deputy Chief Don
Crowe, which was originally scheduled for Dec. 20.

However, Higgins ruled that the city must make Mr. Crowe available
to be questioned by the plaintiffs as part of the discovery in the
case.

The rape kit backlog
The lawsuit was filed in 2014 after a 2013 disclosure from former
Memphis Police Director Toney Armstrong that more than 12,000 rape
kits had not been tested.

The city has chiseled away at that number and its most recent
report shows that by September, analysis had been completed on 98
percent of those untested rape kits.

Efforts have been underway for a while to get the police officer
"most in charge" of managing the rape kits to testify, said
plaintiffs' attorney Daniel Lofton.

"The court said the deposition does have to go forward and that he
is going to be required to appear under oath and testify about the
problem," Mr. Lofton said.

Specifically, the plaintiffs want Crowe to produce "all policies of
the sex crime department" concerning the handling of rape kit
evidence from 1996-1998, 2002-2004 and 2009-2011, Mr. Lofton said
in court.

"That is all we need. That's it," he said.

City asks for limitations on deposition
But attorney Jonathan Lakey, who represents the city, told Higgins
that in another deposition
Mr. Lofton went beyond the agreed upon parameters.

He asked Judge Higgins to include limitations on Crowe's deposition
in her court order.

"I'm trying to ensure that we have an appropriate and efficient
deposition," Mr. Lakey said.

The class-action status of the lawsuit is still pending
certification.

Both Mr. Lakey and Robert Meyers, the attorneys for the city,
declined comment after the hearing. [GN]


MESSERLI & KRAMER: Certification of Class Sought in Bauer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jossette Bauer moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit titled JOSSETTE BAUER, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MESSERLI &
KRAMER, P.A. and JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-00002 (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 says.

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


MOINIAN LLC: Fischler Files Suit under ADA in New York
------------------------------------------------------
Moinian LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Brian
Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Moinian LLC doing business as: Oskar,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00092 (S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2019).

Moinian LLC doing business as Oskar is into the real estate
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



MONSANTO CO: Peabody Sues Over Herbicide Exposure
-------------------------------------------------
Rickey Peabody, Plaintiff, v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-00318 (E.D. Ark., December 26, 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.

Peabody used Roundup beginning in or around 2000 as part of his
employment with various agricultural companies. He eventually
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.

Plaintiff is represented by:

       Sean T. Keith, Esq.
       Mason L. Boling, Esq.
       MILLER, BUTLER, SCHNEIDER & PAWLIK, PLLC
       224 S. 2nd St., Rogers, AR 72756
       Tel: (479) 621-0006
       Fax: (479) 631-6890
       Email: skeith@arkattomeys.com
              mboling@arkattomeys.com


MONTAFON LLC: Pequero Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
AMIN LAFRANCO PEQUERO, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated individuals v. MONTAFON LLC d/b/a MONT BLANC 52, and BALZ
EGGIMANN, and MARIA LOHMEYER, individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-12187
(S.D.N.Y., December 26, 2018), is a civil action brought by the
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees to recover
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff and the collective class work or have worked as
cooks, prep cooks, salad makers, dishwashers, and delivery people
for Mont Blanc 52.

Montafon LLC is a domestic business corporation, doing business as
Mont Blanc 52, having its principal place of business located at
334 West 52nd St., in New York City.

Mont Blanc 52 is a restaurant located in New York City.  Mont Blanc
is owned by Balz Eggimann and managed by Maria Lohmeyer.  Mont
Blanc is a stylish Swiss eatery & cocktail bar with fondue,
raclette & classic continental entrees plus brunch.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
          225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 323-6980
          E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com


MOTION RECRUITMENT: Faces Diaz Suit Over ADA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Motion Recruitment 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. Motion Recruitment Partners LLC doing
business as: Jobspring Partners, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00085
(S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2019).

Motion Recruitment Partners LLC operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, provides direct hire placement,
recruitment process outsourcing, and IT staffing services. Motion
Recruitment Partners serves manufacturing, technology, banking, and
healthcare companies in North America.[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



NCAA: Phillips Appeals Ruling in Livers FLSA Suit to 3rd Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Taurus Phillips filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled LAWRENCE "POPPY" LIVERS, on his own behalf and
on behalf of similarly situated persons, et al. v. NCAA, et al.,
Case No. 2-17-cv-04271, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff
Livers alleges that Defendant National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA), Villanova University, and dozens of other NCAA
member schools, violated his right to be paid as an employee of the
Defendants, acting jointly, for his participation on the Villanova
football team as a Scholarship Athlete.  The Plaintiff seeks to
represent a putative class of individuals termed the Scholarship
Athlete Collective, comprised of all recipients of athletic
scholarships under Athletic Financial Aid Agreements that require
participation in NCAA athletics at NCAA Division I member schools.
The Plaintiff asserts a single claim under the Minimum Wage
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against all the
Defendants.

The appellate case is captioned as Taurus Phillips v. NCAA, et al.,
Case No. 18-3797, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee LAWRENCE POPPY LIVERS, on his own behalf and on
behalf of similarly situated persons, and Plaintiff-Appellant
TAURUS PHILLIPS, on his own behalf on behalf of similarly situated
persons, are represented by:

          Paul L. McDonald, Esq.
          P L MCDONALD LAW LLC
          1800 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 238-3835
          E-mail: paul@plmcdonaldlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION is
represented by:

          Naveen Kabir, Esq.
          Steven B. Katz, Esq.
          Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum, Esq.
          Philip J. Smith, Esq.
          CONSTANGY BROOKS SMITH & PROPHETE LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 909-7775
          E-mail: nkabir@constangy.com
                  skatz@constangy.com
                  skroll-rosenbaum@constangy.com
                  psmith@constangy.com

               - and -

          John E. MacDonald, Esq.
          CONSTANGY BROOKS SMITH & PROPHETE LLP
          989 Lenox Drive, Suite 206
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
          Telephone: (609) 357-1183
          E-mail: jmacdonald@constangy.com

               - and -

          Donald S. Prophete, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC
          4520 Main Street, Suite 400
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 471-1301
          E-mail: donald.prophete@ogletreedeakins.com

Defendants-Appellees BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY, DREXEL UNIVERSITY,
LAFAYETTE COLLEGE and LEHIGH UNIVERSITY are represented by:

          William J. Anthony, Esq.
          Vincent E. Polsinelli, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          677 Broadway, 9th Floor
          Albany, NY 12207
          Telephone: (518) 512-8700
          E-mail: William.Anthony@jacksonlewis.com
                  Vincent.Polsinelli@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Stephanie J. Peet, Esq.
          Michael D. Ridenour, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1350
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 319-7802
          E-mail: stephanie.peet@jacksonlewis.com
                  Michael.Ridenour@jacksonlewis.com


NEWFIELD EXPLORATION: Franchi Balks at Merger Deal with Encana
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM FRANCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NEWFIELD EXPLORATION COMPANY, LEE K.
BOOTHBY, STEVEN W. NANCE, PAMELA J. GARDNER, EDGAR R. GIESINGER,
ROGER B. PLANK, THOMAS G. RICKS, JUANITA M. ROMANS, JOHN W.
SCHANCK, J. TERRY STRANGE, J. KENT WELLS, ENCANA CORPORATION, and
NEAPOLITAN MERGER CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02020-UNA
(D. Del., Dec. 19, 2018), stems from a proposed transaction
announced on November 1, 2018, pursuant to which Newfield
Exploration Corporation will be acquired by Encana Corporation.

On October 31, 2018, Newfield's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Encana.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Newfield's
stockholders will receive 2.6719 shares of Parent common stock for
each share of Newfield they own. On December 4, 2018, defendants
filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Registration Statement omits material information
with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the
Registration Statement false and misleading, the lawsuit says.

Newfield Exploration Company is a petroleum, natural gas, and
natural gas liquids exploration and production company organized in
Delaware and headquartered in Houston, Texas.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

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

NISSAN NORTH: Bashaw Sues Over Defective Emergency Braking System
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cathy Bashaw, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Nissan North America, Inc. and Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.,
Case No. 4:18-cv-07292 (N.D. Calif., November 30, 2018), is brought
against the Defendants for fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
breach of express and implied warranties in violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

The Plaintiff Cathy Bashaw is a citizen of the State of New York
and resides in Plattsburgh, New York. In or around the Fall of
2016, Plaintiff leased a 2017 Nissan Rogue SL AWD from a
Nissan-authorized dealer, Huttig Nissan of Plattsburgh, New York,
for her personal or household use.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants wrongfully and
intentionally concealed one or more defects in the Class Vehicles'
front distance sensor, an integral component of the vehicles'
Forward Emergency Braking systems (the "FEB Defect"). The FEB
Defect can cause the FEB system to falsely engage. The FEB Defect
can cause the Class Vehicles to detect non-existent obstacles,
thereby automatically triggering the brakes and causing the Class
Vehicles to abruptly slow down or come to a complete stop in the
middle of traffic.

The Defendant Nissan North America is a California corporation with
its principal place of business located at 983 Nissan Drive,
Smyrna, TN 37167. NNA does business in throughout the United
States. NNA engages in business, including the design,
manufacturing, advertising, marketing, and sale of Nissan
automobiles nationwide, including throughout New York and
California.

The Defendant Nissan Motor Co. is a Japanese corporation
headquartered in Yokohama, Japan. NMC is the parent corporation of
NNA. NMC, through its various agents and subsidiaries designs,
manufactures, markets, distributes and sells Nissan automobiles in
California and multiple other locations in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
      Joel D. Smith, Esq.
      Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Tel: (925) 300-4455
      Fax: (925) 407-2700
      E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
              jsmith@bursor.com
              fklorczyk@bursor.com


NOBILIS HEALTH: Feb. 12 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. on Dec. 17 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Nobilis Health Corp. (NYSE: HLTH)
securities between May 8, 2018 and November 15, 2018 (the "Class
Period").  Investors have until February 12, 2019 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (1) Nobilis' accounts receivable was overstated; (2)
Nobilis' revenue was overstated; (3) as a result of the required
adjustments, Nobilis' quarterly report would not be timely filed;
(4) Nobilis would not be in compliance with NYSE listing
requirements; and (5) due to the foregoing, defendants' positive
statements about Nobilis' business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

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


NORTHLAND GROUP: Court OKs Dismissal of Rodriguez FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned FRANK RODRIGUEZ, On behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NORTHLAND GROUP, LLC, Defendant.
Civil Action No. 18-7692(FLW). (D.N.J.).

This putative class action suit against Defendant Northland Group,
LLC, arises out of Plaintiff Frank Rodriquez's (Plaintiff) claim
that Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA), by sending a debt-collection letter that failed to
adequately notify Plaintiff of his rights to dispute a debt.

In connection with the present case, the FDCPA requires debt
collectors to provide the consumer with a written notice containing
certain information regarding the debt allegedly owed within five
days of initial communication.  

Section 1692g

In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated
Section 1692g by failing to clearly and effectively convey to
Plaintiff that any disputes must be in writing, instead implying
that such disputes may be made verbally. Specifically, the
Plaintiff maintains that by using the word if, the validation
notice, included in the debt collection letter, is confusing to the
least sophisticated debtor.  

Section 1692g(a) provides that a debt collector is required to
include the following information within five days after the
initial communication with a consumer:

(1) The amount of the debt(2) The name of the creditor to whom the
debt is owed;(3) A statement that unless the consumer, within
thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of
the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be
valid by the debt collector(4) A statement that if the consumer
notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period
that the debt or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt
collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a
judgement against the consumer and a copy of such verification or
judgement will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector;
and(5) A statement that, upon the consumer's written request within
the third-fay period, the debt collector will provide the consumer
with the name and address of the original creditor, if different
from the current creditor.

The Plaintiff takes issue with the word "if" used in the notice.
The Plaintiff argues that the first sentence of the notice does not
direct the debtor to submit a dispute in writing, and he further
contends that the next two sentences, despite referencing an "in
writing" requirement, are nonetheless couched in permissive terms.
In other words, the Plaintiff posits that such language leaves the
door open for the debtor to conclude that a written dispute is
merely an option, but not required. In support of his position, the
Plaintiff cites two recent decisions in this district which found
identical validation notices violative of the FDCPA.

The Plaintiff cites two recent decisions in this district, Cadillo
v. Stoneleigh Recovery Assocs., LLC,No. 17-7472, 2017 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 210870 (D.N.J. Dec. 21, 2017) and Poplin v. Chase
Receivables, Inc., No. 18-404, which found identical validation
notices violative of the FDCPA.

In Cadillo and Poplin, the courts reasoned that using the word "if"
in the validation notice could confuse the least sophisticated
consumer as to whether a written response was required. Both courts
were concerned that by employing such permissive language, a
consumer could believe that either a written or oral response is
sufficient to dispute the debt. While the reasoning of Cadillo and
Poplin is well taken, the Court  respectfully disagrees.

This is not the first time the Court have confronted this issue.
Previously, the Court held in Borozan v. Fin. Recovery Servs., No.
17-11542, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104691 (D.N.J. Jun. 22, 2018), that
a validation notice identical to the one here did not violate the
FDCPA. The Court reasoned, which explanation equally applies here,
that by using the word unless in the first sentence, the notice
informs the consumer of the consequences if he or she fails to
dispute the debt. Then, the remainder of the notice provides
instructions on how to dispute the debt and the effect of disputing
a debt. Under the least sophisticated debtor standard, the consumer
is presumed to have read the whole letter.   

Next, the Plaintiff argues that the placement of the phrase, "We
look forward to hearing from you" after the validation notice
further misleads a consumer into calling Defendant to dispute his
or her debt. Having already determined that the validation notice
did not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation in
connection with the collection of Plaintiff's debt, Plaintiff's
argument is unconvincing.

Contrary to the Plaintiff's position, the phrase, read in
conjunction with the rest of the letter, does not come close to
suggesting to a least sophisticated debtor that he or she should
contact Defendant in the event the debt is to be disputed. Instead,
the phrase, where it is placed, merely invites the consumer to call
to resolve, not dispute, the account; the phrase neither explicitly
invites the consumer to call to dispute a debt, nor threatens or
encourages the consumer to waive his or her statutory rights to
challenge the validity of the debt. Similar language used in debt
collection letters had been found to be appropriate under the
FDCPA.
  
Here, the phrase, "We look forward to hearing from you," is not
placed or intertwined within the statutory required notice
concerning a disputed debt. Rather, it is a general invitation to
call about resolving  not disputing the debt, and in a separate
closing paragraph. To read the phrase at issue into the previous
paragraph, which uses language nearly identical to that which is
required by Section 1692g(a), would be a "bizarre and idiosyncratic
interpretation of the letter as a whole.
Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under Section
1692g.

Section 1692e

The Plaintiff's Section 1692e claim is premised on the same
allegations as his Section 1692g claim regarding the debt
collection letter. Because the Plaintiff's Section 1692g claim
fails, correspondingly, his Section 1692e claim also fails. Section
1692e(10) prohibits the use of any false representation or
deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to
obtain information concerning a consumer. Indeed, when allegations
under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(10) are based on the same language or
theories as allegations under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g, the analysis
of the Section 1692g claim is usually dispositive. Even if it were
not dispositive, the language used in the debt collection letter is
not a false representation or deceptive, because the language
cannot be reasonably read to have two or more different meanings,
one of which is incorrect.  

Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 13, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yde48pyx from Leagle.com.

FRANK RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by ARI HILLEL MARCUS --
Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- MARCUS ZELMAN LLC & YITZCHAK ZELMAN --
Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus Zelman, LLC.

NORTHLAND GROUP, LLC, Defendant, represented by ANDREW JOSHUA BLADY
-- ablady@sessions.legal -- SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL.


OC COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Ruling in Soto Suit to Ninth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant O.C. Communications, Inc., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Desidero Soto, et al. v. O.C.
Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00251-VC, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
brought the lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of
current and former non-exempt hourly employees of OCC working as
Technicians.

The lawsuit concerns OCC's alleged violation of Federal and
California labor laws.  Throughout the relevant time period, OCC
eschewed its obligations under the FLSA by not paying the
Plaintiffs and proposed Collective members proper wages, including
minimum and overtime wages, the Plaintiffs allege.

The appellate case is captioned as Desidero Soto, et al. v. O.C.
Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-17425, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by January 22, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on February 19, 2019;

   -- Appellant O.C. Communications, Inc.'s opening brief is due
      on April 1, 2019;

   -- Appellees Steeve Fondrose, Lorenzo Ortega, Desidero Soto
      and Steven Stricklen's answering brief is due on April 30,
      2019; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees DESIDERO SOTO, STEVEN STRICKLEN, STEEVE
FONDROSE and LORENZO ORTEGA, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Shanon Jude Carson, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net

               - and -

          Sarah Rebecca Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3053
          E-mail: sschalman-bergen@bm.net

               - and -

          Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
          David Christopher Leimbach, Esq.
          Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com
                  tschneider@schneiderwallace.com

Defendant-Appellant O.C. COMMUNICATIONS, INC., is represented by:

          Jeffrey Joseph Mann, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          1255 Treat Boulevard
          Walnut Creek, CA 94597
          Telephone: (925) 932-2468
          E-mail: jmann@littler.com

               - and -

          Barbara A. Blackburn, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2520 Venture Oaks Way
          Sacramento, CA 95833-3294
          Telephone: (916) 830-7200
          E-mail: bblackburn@littler.com


OTTAKRING INC: Victoriano Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Cirilo De Jesus Victoriano, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ottakring Inc. (d/b/a Sel Et
Poivre), Christian R Schienle, and Pamela N. Schienle Dumich,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-12199, (S.D. N.Y., December 26, 2018)
seeks to recover unpaid minimum, overtime and spread-of-hours wages
and redress for Defendants' failure to provide itemized wage
statements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New
York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a French restaurant, located at
853 Lexington Ave., New York, NY 10065 under the name "Sel et
Poivre" where Victoriano was employed as a delivery driver. He was
required to spend a considerable part of his work day performing
non-tipped duties, thus Defendants were not entitled to take a tip
credit because his non-tipped duties exceeded 20% of each workday.
He also worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the
hours that he worked including the required "spread of hours" pay
for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. Defendants
also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours the
Plaintiff worked, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PARKWOOD ENTERTAINMENT: Violates ADA, Conner Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
Parkwood Entertainment LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Mary Conner, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Parkwood Entertainment
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00053 (S.D. N.Y., January 3,
2019).

Parkwood Entertainment is an American management and entertainment
company founded by American singer Beyonce in 2010.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


PAVERS AND ROAD BUILDERS: Palumbo Seek Prelim. OK of Class Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled MARK PALUMBO, ROSARIO PRATO,
MAURICIO MARTINEZ, and JOSEPH OVILE as participants and/or former
participants of the Pavers and Road Builders District Council
Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Apprenticeship, Skill Improvement and
Safety Fund and the United Plant and Production Workers Local 175
Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, and Apprenticeship, Skill Improvement
and Safety Fund, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly
situated v. ANTHONY FASULO, ALBERT ALIMENA, DOMINICK AGOSTINO, JOHN
PETERS, ROBERT CHEVERIE, FRANCISCO FERNANDEZ, JAMES KILKENNEY,
PHILIP FAICCO, VINCENT MASINO, ANTHONY ROBIBERO and KEITH LOSCALZO
and/or their successors, in their capacity as present and former
Trustees of the Pavers and Road Builders District Council Pension
Fund, Welfare Fund, Apprenticeship, Skill Improvement and Safety
Fund and the PAVERS AND ROAD BUILDERS DISTRICT COUNCIL PENSION FUND
WELFARE FUND, and APPRENTICESHIP, SKILL IMPROVEMENT AND SAFETY
FUND, Case No. 07-CV-797 (PKC)(RML) (E.D.N.Y.), move the Court for
an order:

   1. preliminarily certifying the requested Class for purposes
      of the Settlement;

   2. appointing Jennifer S. Smith, Esq., and Alan Pollack, Esq.,
      of the law firm of Robinson Brog Leinwand Greene Genovese &
      Gluck PC, and David New, Esq., and Benjamin Karfunkel,
      Esq., of New and Karfunkel PC as Class Counsel;

   3. granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement;

   4. approving the form and manner of giving notice to members
      of the Settlement Class; and

   5. scheduling a fairness hearing.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alan M. Pollack, Esq.
          Jennifer S. Smith, Esq.
          ROBINSON BROG LEINWAND GREENE GENOVESE & GLUCK P.C.
          875 Third Avenue, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 603-6300
          Facsimile: (212) 956-2164
          E-mail: amp@robinsonbrog.com
                  jss@robinsonbrog.com

               - and -

          David W. New, Esq.
          Benjamin A. Karfunkel, Esq.
          NEW AND KARFUNKEL, P.C.
          1129 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 215
          West Caldwell, NJ 07006
          Telephone: (862) 210-8220
          Facsimile: (862) 210-8361
          E-mail: dnew@newandnewlaw.com
                  bkarfunkel@newandnewlaw.com


PENNSYLVANIA: Third Cir. Appeal Filed in Pelino Prisoner Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Vito A. Pelino filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Vito Pelino v. Secretary, Pennsylvania Department
of Corrections, et al., Case No. 2-18-cv-01308, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges violation of Prisoner Civil Rights.

The appellate case is captioned as Vito Pelino v. Secretary,
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. 18-3771,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant VITO A. PELINO, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, at Greene SCI, in Waynesburg,
Pennsylvania, appears pro se.[BN]


PERRIGO COMPANY: Masih Sues Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------
Charles Masih, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Perrigo Company PLC, Murray S. Kessler,
Ronald L. Winowiecki, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00070 (S.D.
N.Y., January 3, 2019) is a federal securities class action on
behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Defendant common stock between November 8, 2018 and December 20,
2018, inclusive. This action is brought on behalf of the Class for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Class Period begins on November 8, 2018, when Perrigo filed its
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 29, 2018. Pursuant to the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Individual Defendants signed
certifications with the November 8, 2018 10-Q attesting that they
reviewed the report, that it does not contain untrue statements,
that it fairly represents the financial condition of the company,
and that the company's internal controls are effective.

However, the Defendants' statements were materially false and
misleading, asserts the complaint. The truth was revealed on
December 20, 2018.

Following this, Perrigo's stock price fell drastically, from $52.36
at close on December 20, 2018 to $37.03 at close on December 21,
2018, a drop of more than 29%, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Charles Masih is an individual residing in the City of
Germantown, in the State of Maryland. Plaintiff acquired and held
shares of the Company at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period and has been damaged by the revelation of the
Company's material misrepresentations and material omissions.

Perrigo Company plc is an Irish-registered manufacturer. The
Company's stock trades on the NYSE under the ticker symbol "PRGO".

Murray S. Kessler has been the President and Chief Executive
Officer of Perrigo since October 8, 2018.

Ronald L. Winowiecki has been the Chief Financial Officer of
Perrigo since February 20, 2018. Prior thereto, he served as the
Acting Chief Financial Officer of Perrigo since February 2017.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
     FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP
     445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605
     White Plains, NY 10601
     Tel: 914-298-3281
     Fax: 914-824-1561
     Email: Gblankinship@fbfglaw.com

          - and -

     Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
     Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
     Nathaniel Silver, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     155 Federal Street, Suite 400
     Boston, MA 02110
     Phone: (617) 398-5600
     Fax: (617) 507-6020
     Email: jeff@blockesq.com
            jake@blockesq.com
            nate@blockesq.com


SAMSONITE COMPANY: Stohs Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leann Stohs on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Samsonite Company Stores, LLC and Does 1 through 10;
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG19001392 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Alameda Cty., January 4, 2019) seeks recovery of all allowable
compensation and other sums including unpaid minimum and overtime
wages, penalties/premium pay for missed meal and rest periods,
restitution and restoration of sums owed and property unlawfully
withheld, statutory penalties, declaratory and injunctive relief,
interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Plaintiff was employed by Samsonite as an hourly non-exempt
employee in a mercantile occupation.

According to the complaint, the Defendants had a policy and
practice of failing to include non-discretionary bonuses in an
employee's regular rate in order to determine the correct overtime
rate, resulting in unpaid overtime compensation. The Defendants
provided managers and supervisors a non-discretionary production
bonus known as a "Retail Incentive" that is based on sales goals
set for each store. Non-discretionary bonuses must be included when
calculating an employee's regular rate in order to determine the
correct overtime rate. The Defendants failed to include the Retail
Incentive bonus in the regular rate, leading to an incorrect
overtime rate, resulting in unpaid overtime to Plaintiff and other
putative class members in violation of Labor Code, the complaint
asserts.

The Defendants also had a policy and practice of failing to pay
Plaintiff and other putative class members for all hours worked by
failing to pay them any wages, including minimum wage, for
compensable time spent working, including telephone calls outside
of normal working hours. Plaintiff and other putative class members
had to respond to telephone calls after hours from various delivery
companies that deliver their products to Samsonite's off-site
storage locations, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Leann Stohs is an adult who worked for Defendants as a
non-exempt hourly employee. She first worked for Samsonite as an
hourly supervisor and then as an hourly Assistant Store Manager
from approximately February 2010 through September 6, 2018, at a
retail store located in Barstow, California.

Samsonite Company Stores, LLC is an Indiana limited liability
company doing business throughout California and is a "person" as
defined by California Labor Code. In addition, it is an "employer"
as that term is used in the California Labor Code and in the
California Industrial Welfare Commission's Orders regulating wages,
hours, and working conditions.

Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of
Defendants sued as Does 1 through l 0, inclusive, and therefore sue
those Defendants by those fictitious names.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eric A. Grover, Esq.
     Robert W. Spencer, Esq.
     KELLER GROVER LLP
     1965 Market Street
     San Francisco, CA 94103
     Phone: (415) 543-1305
     Facsimile: (415) 543-7861
     Email: eagrover@kellergrover.com
            rspencer@kellergrover.com


SEERSUCKER INC: Chiqui Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Chiqui, Raul Tolentino, Enrique Tolentino, and Andres Perez,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
Seersucker, Inc., Wilma Jean Inc., Smith Canteen, Inc., Robert
Newton, and Kerry Diamond, Case No. 1:18-cv-06777 (E.D. N.Y.,
November 29, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs allege that they were not paid proper overtime
compensation by the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are each residents of Kings County, New York. The
Plaintiffs worked as a cook, kitchen helper and food preparer for
the Defendants' restaurants.

The Defendants own and operate the restaurants known as
"Seersucker," "Wilma Jean," and "Nightingale 9" located in New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Justin Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue - 61st Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 209-3933
      Fax: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com


SEVERSON & WERSON: Faces Duarte Wage and Hour Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
ANDY DUARTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SEVERSON & WERSON, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION; and DOES
1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 30-2018-01039417-CU-OE-CXC (Cal.
Super., Orange Cty., December 20, 2018), alleges that the
Defendants engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour
violations under the California Labor Code.

Mr. Duarte accuses the Defendants of failing to provide meal
periods, to permit rest breaks, to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, and to pay all wages due upon separation of
employment.

The Defendants operate a law firm in California.  The Plaintiff is
unaware of the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
          E-mail: swong@aegislawfirm.com
                  khaque@aegislawfirm.com
                  jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com


SHREE RADHE: Kennedy Files Suit under ADA in Florida
----------------------------------------------------
Shree Radhe, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Patricia
Kennedy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Shree Radhe, LLC, a limited liability
company, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-60013-BB (S.D. Fla., January
3, 2019).

Shree Radhe LLC filed as a Florida Limited Liability in the State
of Florida on Tuesday, February 17, 2015 and is approximately four
years old, as recorded in documents filed with Florida Department
of State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Shawn Llamar Marquise Hairston , Sr., Esq.
   2525 Ponce De Leon Blvd
   Suite 300
   Coral Gables, FL 33134
   Tel: (305) 200-8784
   Email: Shawn@HairstonLaw.com


SKINNER SERVICES: Seeks 1st Cir. Review of Order in Pineda Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Thomas Skinner and Skinner Services, Inc., filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Pineda, et al. v.
Skinner Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-12217-FDS, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks payment of wages, including earned but allegedly unpaid
compensation for straight time hours worked, overtime premiums, and
hourly minimum wages due to manual laborers under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Pineda, et al. v. Skinner
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-2251, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees JOSE PINEDA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated; JOSE MONTENEGRO, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated; MARCO LOPEZ, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; and JOSE HERNANDEZ,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Nathan P. Goldstein, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
          JFK Federal Building, Room E-375
          Boston, MA 02203-0000
          Telephone: (617) 603-1415

               - and -

          Jasper Jacob Groner, Esq.
          Nicole Hera Horberg Decter, Esq.
          Paige Walker McKissock, Esq.
          Alexander Sugerman-Brozan, Esq.
          SEGAL ROITMAN LLP
          33 Harrison Ave., 7th Floor
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 603-1434
          E-mail: jgroner@segalroitman.com
                  ndecter@segalroitman.com
                  pmckissock@segalroitman.com
                  abrozan@segalroitman.com

Defendants-Appellants SKINNER SERVICES, INC., d/b/a Skinner
Demolition, and THOMAS SKINNER; and Defendants DAVID SKINNER, ELBER
DINIZ and SANDRO SANTOS are represented by:

          Gregory J. Aceto, Esq.
          Michael Brandon Cole, Esq.
          ACETO BONNER & PRAGER PC
          1 Liberty Sq., Suite 410
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 728-0888
          E-mail: aceto@abplawyers.com
                  mcole@abplawyers.com


STANDARD INTERNATIONAL: Gonzalez Suit Asserts Civil Rights Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Standard
International Management, LLC. The case is styled as Jesus
Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Standard International Management, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00076 (S.D.
N.Y., January 3, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as violation of
Civil Rights.

Standard International Management LLC owns and operates as a hotel.
The Company offers rooms, food, drinks, meeting and events
facilities, spa, and online tracking services. Standard
International Management serves customers in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Nolan Keith Klein, Esq.
   Law Offices of Nolan Klein, P.A.
   39 Broadway, Ste. 2250
   New York, NY 10006
   Tel: (646) 560-3230
   Fax: (877) 253-2691
   Email: klein@nklegal.com



STARBUCKS COFFEE: Sullivan Asserts ADA Class Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------
Starbucks Coffee Company is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Starbucks Coffee Company,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00060 (S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2019).

Starbucks Corporation is an American coffee company and coffeehouse
chain. Starbucks was founded in Seattle, Washington in 1971. As of
2018, the company operates 28,218 locations worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STATE COLLECTION: Born Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Rose Born, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. State Collection Service, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-00374 (E.D.
Wash., November 30, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Washington
Collection Agency Act, and Washington's Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant routinely identifies
itself to consumers in telephone communications as "State
Collection Service", omitting the only reference that the debt
collector may be a company and not affiliated with an actual
state.

The Plaintiff Rose Born was a resident of the state of Washington,
residing within the territorial jurisdiction area of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.

The Defendant State is a Wisconsin-based business primarily engaged
in the business of collecting debts on behalf of creditors in the
state of Washington and elsewhere. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kirk D. Miller, Esq.
      KIRK D. MILLER, P.S.
      421 W. Riverside Avenue, Ste. 660
      Spokane, WA 99201
      Tel: (509) 413-1494
      Fax: (509) 413-1724


STATE FARM: $250MM Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
CollisionWeek reports that U.S. District Judge David Herndon gave
final approval of the $250 million settlement between plaintiffs
and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company that was
announced in September. The settlement in Hale et. al. v. State
Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et. al. brings to a close
the litigation that originally began two decades ago over the
insurer's specification of non-OEM parts on collision repair
estimates that then turned into a case on campaign finance for a
state Supreme Court Justice. [GN]


STRAIGHT LINE: Abante Rooter Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Abante Rooter and Plumbing, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Straight Line Source Inc., Merchant
Advance Express Inc. and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 4:18-cv-07230
(N.D. Calif., November 29, 2018), is brought against the Defendants
for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants negligently, knowingly
and willfully contacted the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in
violation of the TCPA and related regulations, specifically the
National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading the Plaintiff's
privacy.

The Plaintiff Abante Rooter and Plumbing is a corporation of the
State of California with principal place of business in the county
of Alameda.

The Defendant Straight Line Source Inc. is a credit card merchant
services company.

The Defendant Merchant Advance Express Inc. is a financial services
company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      Meghan E. George, Esq.
      Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Tel: (323) 306-4234
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
              abacon@toddflaw.com
              mgeorge@toddflaw.com
              twheeler@toddflaw.com


TANGA INC: Faces Diaz Suit Asserting ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Tanga, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit in New York. The case
is styled as Edwin Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tanga, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00073 (S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2019).

The lawsuit was filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities
Act.[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


TESLA INC: Judge Reconsidering Lead Plaintiff Appointment
---------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that less than a month
after he appointed a client of Levi & Korsinsky's to lead a
securities class action against Tesla and CEO Elon Musk, U.S.
District Judge Edward Chen signaled he's having second thoughts
about his decision.

Levi & Korsinsky was facing a January deadline to file an amended
complaint on behalf of Tesla investors who allege they were
defrauded by Musk's infamous Twitter claim to have secured
financing to take his company private at $420 per share. But in a
docket entry on Dec. 13, Judge Chen stayed the deadline for the
amended complaint and told Levi & Korsinsky to wait until he has
had a chance to decide the merits of two motions asking him to
reconsider the appointment of the firm's client as lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky represents an individual Tesla investor, Glen
Littleton, who claims to have lost $3.5 million in Tesla
investments as a result of Musk's tweet and subsequent statements.
Judge Chen selected Littleton and his lawyers after a hearing in
November in which several candidates to lead the case emphasized
the potential conflicts for traditional long investors and Tesla
short sellers. In his order appointing Littleton, the judge said
the Levi & Korsinsky lawyer was well suited to represent all kinds
of Tesla investors -- longs, shorts and options traders -- because
he held a variety of Tesla positions.

Within days of Mr. Littleton's appointment, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein moved for
reconsideration. On behalf of their client, an individual investor
named Dany David, the firms argued that Littleton actually made
money on Tesla trades in the timeframe allegedly tainted by Musk's
tweet. Littleton's lawyers could only claim a loss on their
client's investment, according to the Robbins Geller and Lieff
Cabraser motion, by counting losses on securities he bought before
the notorious tweet and sold during the class period.

According to the reconsideration motion, Judge Chen's order
appointing Littleton to serve as lead plaintiff "erroneously
determined that Mr. Littleton was not a net seller/net gainer based
on his options and short positions. In fact, Mr. Littleton is a net
seller/net gainer precisely because of those positions, and should
not have been appointed lead plaintiff."

The David reconsideration motion was quickly followed by a second
motion asking Judge Chen to rethink the appointment. The second
motion, filed by Kahn Swick & Foti for a fund called Bridgestone
Investment, argued that Judge Chen should not have considered
Littleton's argument that the fund's purchase of call options
projecting a $450-per-share price for Tesla stock could not have
been motivated by Musk's tweet about a $420-per-share deal.
Littleton, according to the Bridgestone filing, claimed losses on
precisely the same sort of investment. So, according to
Bridgestone, since its alleged total losses exceeded Littleton's
total losses, and both claimed losses based on call options
purchased before Musk's tweet, Judge Chen should have selected
Bridgestone.

It's quite rare for shareholders' firms immediately to ask judges
to reconsider their lead plaintiff and lead counsel selections. But
Judge Chen didn't dismiss the arguments out of hand. Instead, he
instructed Levi & Korsinsky to respond to the motions – and then
put off the deadline for filing an amended complaint.

In its response to the motion by Robbins Geller and Lieff Cabraser,
Levi & Korsinsky said sellers like Littleton are part of the class.
"Both purchasers and sellers of options may have suffered losses as
a result of defendants' fraud and should be represented by the lead
plaintiff," the brief said. "As Littleton suffered losses both
purchasing and selling options, as well as buying stock, and from
both long and short positions, he provides this representation."
The brief also said Robbins Geller and Lieff Cabraser were reviving
arguments they'd already made before Judge Chen picked Littleton as
lead plaintiff. Those arguments "therefore should be easily denied
by the court, which has already considered and correctly rejected"
them.

Nor did Bridgestone raise any new arguments in its motion for
reconsideration, according to Levi & Korsinsky's separate response
to the motion by Bridgestone's lawyers at Kahn Swick. Judge Chen
picked Littleton, the filing said, because he held different sorts
of positions in Tesla and could represent the interests of long,
short and options investors. Bridgestone only held a short
position, the response said, so it "is neither adequate nor typical
of a class consisting in substantial part of investors who lost
money from short positions."

Judge Chen said he would decide whether to hold a hearing on the
reconsideration motions after he's had a chance to read the briefs.
Investors said at the lead plaintiff hearing in November that
Tesla's exposure could top $1 billion in the class action, though
Tesla's lawyers at Fenwick & West said they plan to move to dismiss
the allegations.

Ms. Frankel emailed Nicholas Porritt and Adam Apton of Levi &
Korsinsky for comment on the reconsideration motions but didn't
hear back. [GN]


TMPL HOLDINGS: Mondello Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEREK MONDELLO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. TMPL HOLDINGS LLC, 99th AVENUE HOLDINGS, LLC,
individually and D/B/A TMPL GYM, DAVID BARTON, individually, Case
No. 1:18-cv-12211 (S.D.N.Y., December 26, 2018), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid overtime compensation for the Plaintiff and his
similarly situated coworkers.

TMPL Holdings LLC is a domestic limited liability company, duly
existing by virtue of the laws of the state of New York that does
business in New York.  99th Avenue Holdings, LLC, doing business as
TMPL Gym, is a limited liability company that does business in the
state of New York.  The Individual Defendant is a founder,
director, officer or manager of the Corporate Defendants.

The Defendants operate TMPL Gym, a fitness gym in New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abraham Z. Melamed, Esq.
          DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
          1 Penn Plaza, Suite 4905
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 587-0760
          E-mail: abe@dereksmithlaw.com


TOPHATTER INC: Violates ADA, Diaz Suit Asserts
----------------------------------------------
Tophatter, 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. Tophatter, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00074-JGK
(S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2019).

Tophatter, Inc. operates a virtual auction house that conducts live
online auctions every day where buyers and sellers can interact,
chat, and transact in various categories. The company allows users
to compete in fleeting, 90-second auctions and win deals on
jewelry, electronics, beauty, and fashion. The company also offers
its services through an application. Tophatter, Inc. was formerly
known as Blippy Inc. and changed its name to Tophatter, Inc. in
January 2013. The company was incorporated in 2009 and is based in
San Francisco, California.[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


TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in XLE Suit
----------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued an Order granting in part and
denying in part Defendants' Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint
(SAC) under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(f) in
the case captioned YAN MEI ZHENG-LAWSON, YUANTENG PEI, and JOANNE
E. FERRARA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, TOYOTA MOTOR
NORTH AMERICA, INC., and TOYOTA MOTOR SALES U.S.A., INC.,
Defendants. Case No. 17-cv-06591-BLF. (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a Nationwide class, as well as New
York, California, and Pennsylvania subclasses, of individuals who
purchased or leased the XLE, XLE Hybrid, or SE models. While the
named Plaintiffs bought only the XLE model, they argue that they
may represent consumers of the XLE Hybrid and SE models who were
misled by the same misrepresentation, in the same brochures,
regarding inclusion of auto on/off headlights as a standard
feature.

The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for breach of
express warranty (Counts III, IV, and V) and their claims for
breach of state consumer protection statutes (Counts I, II, VI,
VII, IX, and X). The Defendants also seek dismissal of Plaintiff
Pei's claim under California's Secret Warranty Law (Count VIII) and
his claim for unjust enrichment (Count XI).

Breach of Express Warranty

In Counts III, IV, and V, the Plaintiffs assert claims for breach
of express warranty under the laws of California, New York, and
Pennsylvania. The claims are based on brochures that the Plaintiffs
allege they saw and relied on in deciding to purchase their
vehicles.

The Plaintiffs have cured this deficiency by attaching the
brochures they viewed to the SAC.  Exhibit A is a hard copy
brochure that was available in dealerships and Exhibit B is a
brochure that was available on the Internet. The brochures
described the Rav 4 models offered for sale in 2016, listing each
model's features in bullet point fashion. The brochures listed the
auto on/off headlights feature among the Exterior Features on the
XLE, XLE Hybrid, and SE models. The auto on/off feature was not
listed among the Options available for purchase. Plaintiffs
understood the brochures to represent that the auto on/off
headlights were provided as standard features of the XLE, XLE
Hybrid, and SE models. They paid a higher price for the XLE model
because they wanted the auto on/off headlights feature, which was
not offered as standard on the lower priced LE model.

When the Plaintiffs received their vehicles, however, they were not
equipped with the auto on/off headlights feature. In fact, the
Plaintiffs discovered that none of the standard versions of the
2016 Toyota Rav 4 XLE, XLE Hybrid, and SE models sold in the United
States were equipped with the auto on/off headlight feature.  

These allegations are sufficient to plead the terms of the express
warranty and its breach.

Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied as to the
express warranty claims.

Consumer Protection Statutes

In Counts I, II, VI, VII, IX, and X, the Plaintiffs assert
violations of the consumer protection laws of California, New York,
and Pennsylvania. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants'
brochures misled the Plaintiffs into believing that the vehicles
they purchased were equipped with automatic on/off headlights when
in fact the vehicles did not have that feature.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the
heightened pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
9(b). Where claims brought under California's consumer protection
statutes are grounded in fraud, they must satisfy Rule 9(b).  Rule
9(b) does not apply to certain of the Plaintiffs' claims under New
York and Pennsylvania consumer protection statutes.

This difference in pleading standards has no practical effect here,
because the Plaintiffs' allegations do satisfy Rule 9(b). The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants were jointly responsible for
creating, publishing, and disseminating marketing materials,
including the brochures the Plaintiffs viewed.  The Plaintiffs
attach copies of the brochures to the SAC. The Plaintiffs explain
that they understood the brochures to represent that the standard
versions of the XLE, XLE Hybrid, and SE models were equipped with
the auto on/off headlights feature. The Plaintiffs relied on the
representations in the brochures in deciding to purchase the XLE
model. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants knew that the
standard versions of the XLE, XLE Hybrid, and SE models did not
contain the auto on/off headlights feature. And finally, the
Plaintiffs allege that they were injured because they bought higher
end models at higher prices than they otherwise would have paid
based on their belief that the models would have the auto on/off
feature.  These allegations are repeated throughout the SAC with
additional details regarding each named Plaintiff's experiences.

The Court concludes that the allegations are sufficient to satisfy
Rule 9(b).

Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied as to the
consumer protection claims.

California's Secret Warranty Law

Count VIII is asserted by Plaintiff Pei under California' Secret
Warranty Law, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1795.90, et seq.

Under the California Secret Warranty Law, a manufacturer shall,
within 90 days of the adoption of an adjustment program, notify by
first-class mail all owners or lessees of motor vehicles eligible
under the program of the condition giving rise to and the principal
terms and conditions of the program.

Pei alleges that the existence of the `secret warranty' is
established by the fact that Plaintiff Ferrara was offered
$300-$500 or an automatic starter to address the failure to include
the auto on/off feature in their headlight system. He alleges
further that this remedy, however, was only available to those who
complained loudly enough. Defendants correctly point out that these
allegations are insufficient to allege the adoption of an
adjustment program as defined above. At most, the allegations
suggest that Defendants made ad hoc adjustments on a case-by-case
basis.

Although the Plaintiffs have amended their pleading twice
previously, they added the secret warranty claim in their last
amendment and have not received any guidance from the Court on that
claim until now. The Court therefore will grant Plaintiffs leave to
amend the claim.

Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted with
leave to amend as to the claim for violation of California's Secret
Warranty Law.

Unjust Enrichment

In Count XI, Plaintiff Pei asserts a claim for unjust enrichment
under California law on behalf of the Nationwide class or,
alternatively, the California subclass. The Court previously
dismissed the unjust enrichment claim because Plaintiffs had not
specified which state's law governs the claim.  Plaintiffs have
cured that defect by specifying California law.

Pei alleges that Defendants represented that the XLE, XLE Hybrid,
and SE models were equipped with the auto on/off feature; Defendant
Toyota Motor knew that those models were not equipped with the auto
on/off feature; class members purchased or leased those models
based on a reasonable expectation that they would have the auto
on/off feature; Defendant Toyota Motor received funds from those
sales; and Defendant Toyota Motor thereby received an economic
benefit at the expense of class members. SAC ¶¶ 189-194.  

Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to state a claim against
Defendant Toyota Motor.

Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied as to the
unjust enrichment claim.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 13, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycunjfs2 from Leagle.com.

Yan Mei Zheng-Lawson, Yuanteng Pei & Joanne E. Ferrara, Plaintiffs,
represented by James Robert Noblin -- jrn@classcounsel.com -- Green
and Noblin, P.C., Robert S. Green, Green & Noblin, P.C., Gary S.
Graifman, Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., pro hac vice &
Lynda J. Grant, TheGrantLawFirm, PLLC, pro hac vice.

Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota North America, Inc. & Toyota Motor
Sales U.S.A., Inc., Defendants, represented by Jeffrey Brian
Margulies -- jeff.margulies@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose
Fulbright US LLP, Christine Alegrado Robles --
christine.robles@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright
US LLP & Stacey A. Martinez --
stacey.martinez@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP, pro hac vice.


UNITED STATES: Class Action Over Army Discharge Reviews Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Army veterans who claim the military did not give "liberal
consideration" to diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder while
reviewing disciplinary decisions can proceed in their lawsuit as a
class, a federal judge ruled.

U.S. District Judge Warren Eginton in Connecticut certified a class
to include all Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard veterans
of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars with less-than-honorable statuses
who have not received discharge upgrades to honorable, and also
have diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain
injury, or PTSD-related conditions attributable to their military
service.

The lead plaintiff, Stephen Kennedy, joined the Army in 2006, and
served in Iraq the following two years.

He came back to the U.S. with severe PTSD and depression that the
Army allegedly failed to adequately treat.

In 2009, he took an absence without leave, or AWOL, to attend his
wedding because his request for leave was denied due to a scheduled
training exercise. He returned to Fort Bragg after two weeks, but
was soon discharged with a less-than-honorable discharge.

Mr. Kennedy says his PTSD was a major factor in his decision to go
AWOL.

He petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for a change to his
discharge status, but claims the board did not follow or even refer
to instructions issued by former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel
ordering it to give "liberal consideration" to diagnoses of PTSD
and similar mental health conditions when making its decisions.

In December 2016, Kennedy filed the lawsuit seeking a
re-characterization of his Army service, and was granted class
certification on Dec. 21.

"Plaintiffs have requested that the court's injunction ‘rectify
the ADRB's failure to apply the decisional standards already
established by the Hagel Memo and now codified at 10 U.S.C.
Sec. 1553,'" Judge Eginton said. "This court has jurisdiction to
consider a lawsuit seeking redress where a military entity has
failed to follow mandatory regulations resulting in prejudice to a
service member."

After Kennedy filed his motion for class certification, the board
upgraded his discharge to honorable, but the judge said this change
in status did not moot his claims.

"Defendant has not demonstrated assurance that there exists no
reasonable expectation that the ADRB will continue to disregard the
Hagel Memo PTSD directive in its in review of discharge upgrade
applications," the 17-page opinion states.

The Yale Law School's Veterans Legal Services Clinic and Jenner &
Block LLP will represent all the plaintiffs in the case.

The ruling comes a month after a similar class of Navy and Marine
Corps veterans was certified.

A copy of the Memorandum on Decision on Motion for Class
Certification is available at:

          https://is.gd/FUC3Tk

The case is Kennedy, et al. v. Esper, Case No. 16-cv-02010 (D.
Conn.).


UNITED STATES: Liviz Appeals D. Mass. Decision to First Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ilya Liviz, Sr., filed an appeal from a court ruling in
his lawsuit styled Liviz v. U.S. Supreme Court, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-12532-ADB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Boston.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 7, 2019, the
Plaintiff asks the District Court to issue declaratory relief,
temporary injunction followed by permanent injunction from allowing
use of court proceeding to create precedent based on fake facts.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Liviz v. U.S. Supreme Court, et
al., Case No. 18-2252, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ILYA LIVIZ, SR., Chief Jurist, D.L.D., National
Academy for Jurists, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, represents himself:

          Ilya Liviz, Sr., Esq.
          LIVIZ LAW OFFICE
          156 6th St.
          Lowell, MA 01850
          Telephone: (978) 606-5326
          E-mail: ilya.liviz@gmail.com

Defendants-Appellees U.S. SUPREME COURT; JOHN G. ROBERTS, Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; CLARENCE THOMAS,
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; RUTH
BADER GINSBURG, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the
United States; STEPHEN G. BREYER, Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court of the United States; SAMUEL A. ALITO, JR., Associate Justice
of the Supreme Court of the United States; SONIA SOTOMAYOR,
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; ELENA
KAGAN, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States;
NEIL M. GORSUCH, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the
United States; and BRETT M. KAVANAUGH, Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States, are represented by:

          Cynthia A. Young, Esq.
          U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          1 Courthouse Way, Suite 9200
          Boston, MA 02110-0000
          Telephone: (617) 748-3649


UNITED STATES: Migrant Kids Mental Health Care Class Action OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Macias Jr., writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that detained asylum-seeking children wanting consensual mental
health care won class certification on Dec. 27 and can continue
their case despite efforts by the Trump administration to dismiss
the case and delay litigation due to the government shutdown.

Ruling on the Justice Department's request for a delay in a sharply
worded 2-page order, U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee said the request
is unwarranted because the court can order attorneys to respect
existing deadlines even during a government shutdown.

"The prosecution of this action should not be further delayed
because it concerns the health and welfare of minors in the custody
of the Office of Refugee Resettlement," Judge Gee wrote, adding the
administration should respond to the children's claims by Jan. 9
and to discovery requests by Feb. 22.

Attorneys for both parties did not immediately respond to a request
for comment.

The children claim the Office of Refugee Resettlement blocks their
access to attorneys, gives them psychotropic drugs without familial
consent and discriminates against children with disabilities.

Under the 21-year-old Flores settlement, children in federal
custody must be released to relatives or other custodians, or
placed in facilities within 20 days. Facilities housing the
children must be "the least restrictive setting appropriate to the
minor's age and special needs."

The children sought class protections and an opportunity to
challenge placements in medical facilities.

In 28-page order also issued on Dec. 27, Judge Gee granted
certification to five classes children who either have a mental
disability, been given psychotropic drugs without consent, been
detained for more than 30 days without notice or been blocked from
being released to guardians.

The Trump administration argued the case should be dismissed
because the children's claims for relief under the Flores
settlement are duplicative. Judge Gee partly agreed, dismissing
claims that she found can only be litigated in the ongoing Flores
litigation.

However, Judge Gee said the class can continue with claims the
Office of Refugee Resettlement has failed to provide sufficient
procedural safeguards for them to exercise their rights under
Flores.

The exact size of the class is unknown, but likely includes
hundreds of children.

In a third order issued on Dec. 27, Judge Gee said the standard for
determining which children receive class protections will change.
She modified the class definition by using the Rehabilitation Act
standard instead of the Americans With Disabilities Act standard,
which is broader in scope.

The Rehabilitation Act standard requires plaintiffs to show they
were "denied services 'solely by reason of' [his or] her
disability," Judge Gee wrote.

Her previous class certification order covered children "who have
or will have a behavioral, mental health, intellectual, and/or
developmental disability" and who will receive treatment while in
federal custody because of their disabilities.

She said the modification doesn't make the class representatives
inadequate since children are placed in medical facilities when
they require intensive mental health treatment they can't receive
in an outpatient facility.

The judge rejected the Trump administration's argument that "it is
unclear how each [of the children] is actually disabled or
'otherwise qualified'" to represent the class, since it is
undisputed the five class representatives have been transferred to
an inpatient treatment center in Texas because of their mental
health needs.

Finally, Judge Gee denied the children's request to initiate
discover immediately, finding they hadn't explained how the current
stipulated schedule hurts them or what the scope of early discovery
might be -- the latter being prejudicial to the government, she
said.

A copy of the Order Denying Defendants' Ex Parte Application for a
Stay of Proceedings is available at:

         https://is.gd/EiZk2P

The case is Lucas R., et al. v. Azar, et al., Case No. 18-cv-05741
(C.D. Cal.).


VICTIM SERVICES: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in Solberg Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants American Justice Solutions, Inc., Birch Grove Holdings,
Inc., Karl Thomas Jonsson, Mats Jonsson, National Corrective Group,
Inc. and Victim Services, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit styled Karen Solberg, et al. v. Victim Services,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-05266-VC, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
sought certification of this class:

   "all California consumers who received similar letters or made
   payments to Defendants from May 11, 2012 to the present. Class
   certification is appropriate because Defendants followed a
   standardized set of collection procedures and treated the
   Plaintiffs and members of the class in the same way."

The appellate case is captioned as Karen Solberg, et al. v. Victim
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-80196, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents KAREN SOLBERG, NANCY MORIN and NARISHA
BONAKDAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Paul Arons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PAUL ARONS
          685 Spring Street, Suite 104
          Friday Harbor, WA 98250
          Telephone: (360) 378-6496
          Facsimile: (360) 378-6498
          E-mail: lopa@rockisland.com

               - and -

          Blythe H. Chandler, Esq.
          Beth Ellen Terrell, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          E-mail: bchandler@terrellmarshall.com
                  bterrell@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Deepak Gupta, Esq.
          GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
          1900 L Street, NW, Suite 312
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 888-1741
          Facsimile: (202) 888-7792
          E-mail: deepak@guptawessler.com

               - and -

          Karl Olson, Esq.
          CANNATA O'TOOLE FICKES & OLSON LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 350
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 409-8900
          E-mail: kolson@cofolaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Ram, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          2440 W. El Camino Real, Suite 100
          Mountain View, CA 94040
          Telephone: (650) 784-4006
          E-mail: mram@robinskaplan.com

Defendants-Petitioners VICTIM SERVICES, INC., DBA
CorrectiveSolutions; NATIONAL CORRECTIVE GROUP, INC., DBA
CorrectiveSolutions; MATS JONSSON; AMERICAN JUSTICE SOLUTIONS,
INC., DBA CorrectiveSolutions; BIRCH GROVE HOLDINGS, INC.; and KARL
THOMAS JONSSON are represented by:

          Sean Hardy, Esq.
          Michael A. Taitelman, Esq.
          FREEDMAN AND TAITELMAN, LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6001
          Telephone: (310) 201-0005
          Facsimile: (310) 201-0045
          E-mail: smhardy@ftllp.com
                  mtaitelman@ftllp.com


VILLAGEONE SPACE: Olsen Files Suit under ADA in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Villageone Space LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Villageone Space LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00091 (S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2019).

Villageone Space LLC offer spacious studio, one, and two bedroom
floor plans designed to suit the needs of the modern
lifestyle.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



VUZIX CORP: Securities Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Vuzix(R) Corporation (NASDAQ:VUZI), ("Vuzix" or, the "Company"), a
supplier of Smart Glasses and Augmented Reality (AR) technology and
products, on Dec. 17 disclosed that the consolidated class action
filed in the United States District Court Southern District of New
York (In Re Vuzix Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:18-cv-06656) was voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice and
without costs against all the defendants, by the plaintiff and
their counsel on December 14, 2018.

Vuzix had vigorously denied the class action allegations as
meritless and is pleased that plaintiff and their counsel agreed to
voluntarily dismiss the case.

"Vuzix will continue to defend the interests of the Company and all
of the Company's shareholders, customers and business partners
against false, misleading and defamatory statements made about
Vuzix," commented Vuzix CEO and President Paul Travers.

                  About Vuzix Corporation

Vuzix is a supplier of Smart-Glasses and Augmented Reality (AR)
technologies and products for the consumer and enterprise markets.
The Company's products include personal display and wearable
computing devices that offer users a portable high-quality viewing
experience, provide solutions for mobility, wearable displays and
augmented reality. Vuzix holds 133 patents and patents pending and
numerous IP licenses in the Video Eyewear field. The Company has
won Consumer Electronics Show (or CES) awards for innovation for
the years 2005 to 2018 and several wireless technology innovation
awards among others. Founded in 1997, Vuzix is a public company
(NASDAQ:VUZI) with offices in Rochester, NY, Oxford, UK, Barcelona,
Spain and Tokyo, Japan. [GN]


WATERSTONE MORTGAGE: Werner's Bid to Compel Arbitration Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel
Arbitration in the case captioned DOUG WERNER and WILLIAM
WIESNESKI, both individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. WATERSTONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Defendant. No. 17-cv-608-jdp. (W.D. Wis.).

Plaintiffs Doug Werner and William Wiesneski are suing their former
employer, Waterstone Mortgage Corporation, for violating the Fair
Labor Standards Act.  More than a year after filing this lawsuit,
the plaintiffs move to dismiss the case and compel arbitration
under the Federal Arbitration.  The Plaintiffs say that they could
not move to compel arbitration earlier because their arbitration
agreements include class waivers, which Lewis v. Epic Sys. Corp.,
823 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 2016), found to be unlawful. Now that the
Supreme Court has overturned Lewis, the plaintiffs believe that
their motion to compel is timely.

The Court finds that there is no dispute that both Werner and
Wiesneski have an arbitration agreement with Waterstone that covers
the disputes in this case and that the arbitration agreements are
valid under current law.

The question is whether the plaintiffs waived their right to
arbitrate by failing to invoke the right sooner. A party may waive
his right to arbitrate expressly or by simply acting inconsistently
with the right.
  
When a party chooses to proceed in a judicial forum, there is a
rebuttable presumption that the party has waived its right to
arbitrate.

In this case, the plaintiffs filed their complaint in this court.
It is undisputed that they did not submit an arbitration demand
before filing their lawsuit and did not otherwise discuss with
Waterstone at the time the possibility of arbitrating the claims.
The Plaintiffs have also engaged in extended settlement
negotiations and submitted discovery requests.

The Plaintiffs do not deny that their conduct in this case is
inconsistent with their right to arbitrate and would ordinarily
qualify as waiver. And they do not make any attempt to distinguish
the cases that Waterstone cites in support of its waiver argument.


The Plaintiffs' only argument against a finding of waiver is that
they were legally prohibited from arbitrating their claims when
they filed this lawsuit in 2017. They say that, under Lewis v. Epic
Systems Corp., 823 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 2016), their arbitration
agreements were invalid and unenforceable because they include
class waivers. So the plaintiffs could not enforce their
arbitration agreement until the Supreme Court reversed Lewis and
held that class and collective action waivers were permitted under
federal law.
  
But the plaintiffs waited several more months to file a motion to
compel after the Supreme Court decided Epic, which would be reason
enough to conclude that they waived their right to arbitration. The
Plaintiffs say that they were entitled to wait because the parties
were in the midst of settlement negotiations at the time, and then
Waterstone filed a motion for partial summary judgment and a motion
for a declaration that the plaintiffs had waived their right to
arbitrate.  

Even if the court assumes that the plaintiffs acted diligently
after the Supreme Court decided Epic, the court is not persuaded
that the plaintiffs could not have arbitrated their claims before
the ruling in Epic.

To begin with, even assuming that Epic rendered the arbitration
agreements unenforceable, that would mean only that the plaintiffs
could not compel Waterstone to arbitrate. The Plaintiffs identify
no reason that the parties could not agree to arbitrate their
claims. And there would have been strong reasons to believe that
Waterstone would have been amenable to such an agreement. After
all, it was Waterstone that moved to compel arbitration in an
earlier case involving similar claims brought by the same counsel.


And if Lewis called into question whether Waterstone would resist
arbitration in this case, that question was resolved by
Waterstone's answer to the complaint in this case, in which
Waterstone asserted that the plaintiffs' claims were subject to
arbitration. If the plaintiffs really wanted to submit their claims
to arbitration all along, then it is not clear why they did not ask
Waterstone to submit to arbitration then. If the answer is that the
plaintiffs preferred to litigate their claims in federal court so
long as there was a chance to proceed collectively then that is
simply an acknowledgment that their decision was a strategic choice
and was not governed by Lewis.

In Herrington v. Waterstone Mortgage Corp., No. 11-cv-779bbc (W.D.
Wis.), Judge Crabb made it clear in Herrington that an arbitration
agreement may be enforceable even if the agreement includes an
unenforceable class waiver, a conclusion that is not inconsistent
with Lewis.

The Court notes that the Plaintiffs should appreciate the
importance of this distinction because the arbitration agreements
at issue in Herrington did not include language requiring class or
collective actions to proceed in court rather than in arbitration
in the event that the class waivers were invalidated.  

In light of Herrington, the court sees no reason why plaintiffs
could not have moved to compel arbitration at the outset of this
case. Like the agreements at issue in Herrington, plaintiffs'
agreements include a severability clause. Unlike the agreements in
Lewis, plaintiffs' agreements do not require the plaintiffs' claims
to proceed in court if the class action waivers are invalidated.

The Plaintiffs do not identify any basis for distinguishing
Herrington. And plaintiffs cannot argue plausibly that they were
unaware of the facts or rulings in that case. Herrington involves
the same counsel raising the same claims against the same
defendant. Because Herrington shows that plaintiffs could have
arbitrated their claims despite Lewis, the court concludes that
plaintiffs waived their right to arbitrate by filing this case in
federal court and litigating it for more than a year. The court
will deny plaintiffs' motion to compel arbitration.

Accordingly, the motion to compel arbitration filed by plaintiffs
Doug Werner and William Wiesneski is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 13, 2018 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/ybrtrxv4 from Leagle.com.

Doug Werner & William Wiesneski, Plaintiffs, represented by Dan
Getman, Getman & Sweeney, PLLC, Matthew Dunn, Getman & Sweeney,
PLLC & Artemio Guerra, Getman, Sweeney & Dunn, PLLC.

Waterstone Mortgage Corporation, Defendant, represented by Spencer
Skeen --
spencer.skeen@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins, Jesse Ferrantella
-- jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins & Timothy
Johnson -- tim.johnson@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins.


WELLS FARGO: Keller Rohrback Investigates HAMP Faulty Calculation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo recently sent letters to home mortgage customers
apologizing for a "faulty calculation" that caused qualified
borrowers, who were part of the Home Affordable Modification
Program (HAMP), to be improperly rejected or not offered a loan
modification. Because of this glitch in Wells Fargo's software
program, hundreds of people unnecessarily lost their homes and may
have had their credit scores negatively impacted.

Wells Fargo's letters to customers say, "When you were considered
for a loan modification, you weren't approved, and now we realize
that you should've been. We based our decisions on a faulty
calculation, and we're sorry. If it had been correct, you would
have been approved for a trial modification."

Keller Rohrback -- a leading consumer protection law firm that was
the first firm to bring a class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo
over its practice of opening unauthorized deposit and credit
accounts -- is now investigating claims people who were affected by
these modification denials may have against Wells Fargo.

"It appears that this 'glitch' caused tremendous hardship to
hundreds of people, unnecessarily forcing them from their homes,"
said Matthew Preusch, an attorney at Keller Rohrback L.L.P. "Wells
Fargo needs to be held fully accountable for this alleged
practice."

If you went through the foreclosure process between April 2010 and
October 2015, and recently received a letter from Wells Fargo
apologizing for denying you a loan modification, contact attorney
Matthew Preusch at 800-776-6044 or via email at
consumer@kellerrohrback.com  to discuss your concerns and potential
legal claims.

                  About Keller Rohrback L.L.P.

With offices in Seattle, Phoenix, New York, Santa Barbara, Oakland,
and Missoula, Keller Rohrback serves as lead and co-lead counsel in
class actions throughout the country. [GN]


WORLD MARKETING: Former Employees Class Certified in Carroll Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lynn Adelman entered an order in the lawsuit titled AMY
CARROLL, RALPH FORD, and ROY S. ADDIS IV on their own behalf and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. WORLD MARKETING
HOLDINGS, LLC, and BLUE STREAK HOLDINGS, INC., Case No.
2:17-cv-01309-LA (E.D. Wisc.), certifying this class:

     All former employees nominally employed by one or more of
     the following: World Marketing Dallas, LLC, World Marketing
     Chicago, LLC, World Marketing Atlanta, LLC, and/or World
     Marketing Holdings, LLC; who worked at or were based at one
     or more of the facilities located at 7950 West Joliet Road,
     McCook, Illinois 60525 (the "Illinois facility"); 8801
     Autobahn Road, Suite 100, Dallas, Texas 75237 (the "Texas
     facility") and 1961 S. Cobb Industrial Boulevard, SE,
     Smyrna, Georgia 30082 (the "Georgia facility" and
     collectively, the "Facilities"), and were allegedly
     terminated on or about September 28, 2015, within thirty
     days of that date or thereafter, as part of, or as the
     reasonably expected consequence of, plant closings ordered
     on or about September 28, 2015, as defined by the WARN Act,
     and who do not file a timely request to opt-out of the class
     ("Class").

Plaintiffs Amy Carroll, Ralph Ford and Roy S. Addis IV are
appointed Class Representatives.  The Gardner Firm, P.C., Lankenau
& Miller LLP, and The Previant LawFirm, S.C. are appointed class
counsel.

Judge Adelman approved the proposed form of Notice to the Class.
The Class Counsel shall mail the Notice, First Class postage
prepaid, to the proposed members of the Class at their last known
addresses and as used in connection with the class mailings in the
bankruptcy WARN Act matter against the Debtors, in an envelope
bearing the return address of The Gardner Firm, P.C.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
          THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C.
          182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 433-8100
          E-mail: molsen@thegardnerfirm.com

               - and -

          LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
          132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 581-5005

               - and -

          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
          310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100 MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Telephone: (414) 271-4500


WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: Couch Sues Over Fraudulent Sale of VOIs
----------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE COUCH and LINDA COUCH, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, WYNDHAM
DESTINATIONS, INC., WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, INC., and WYNDHAM
VACATION RESORTS, INC., Case No. 6:18-cv-02199-PGB-KRS (M.D. Fla.,
December 22, 2018), alleges that the Defendants engage in a highly
organized fraudulent scheme to sell Vacation Ownership Interests
("VOIs") to prospective owners and increase ownership interests of
existing owners by utilizing high-pressure sales tactics based on
fraud and deception with material omissions, misrepresentations,
and concealment.

According to the complaint, the Representative Plaintiffs and
thousands of other Class Members are the victims of the Defendants'
unlawful conduct and have paid out millions of dollars to purchase
VOIs to stay in resorts owned and operated by the Defendants or by
the Defendants' affiliates and associates, as well as excessive
upgrade costs and annual maintenance fees, only to be thwarted in
actually staying at one of the Defendants' resort of their choosing
as they are unable to use the VOI "points" as reasonably expected
based on the Defendants' representations.

Wyndham Worldwide Corporation is a Delaware Corporation with its
principal address in Parsippany, New Jersey.  Wyndham Worldwide
Corporation conducts a substantial amount of business in Florida.

Prior to June 1, 2018, Wyndham Worldwide Corporation claimed to be
one of the world's largest hospitality companies, offering
hospitality services through several brands, including Wyndham
Hotels and Resorts, Ramada, Days Inn, Super 8, Howard Johnson,
Wingate by Wyndham, Microtel Inns & Suites by Wyndham, TRYP by
Wyndham, Dolce Hotels and Resorts, RCI, Wyndham Vacation Rentals,
Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Shell
Vacations Club and WorldMark by Wyndham.

On June 1, 2018, Wyndham Worldwide Corporation split into two
publicly traded companies: Wyndham Destinations, Inc., which
focuses on the vacation ownership resorts at issue in this action,
and Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, Inc., which focuses on hotels and
resorts.

Wyndham Destinations, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation with its
principal address in Parsippany, New Jersey.  Wyndham Destinations,
Inc. operates under several brands, including Wyndham Vacation
Resorts, Wyndham Vacation Rentals, Wyndham Vacation Ownership,
Shell Vacations Club and WorldMark by Wyndham.

Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc., is a Delaware corporation, with
its principal place of business in Orlando, Florida.  Wyndham
Vacation Resorts, Inc., is a Delaware corporation, with its
principal place of business in Orlando, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Vijay G. Brijbasis, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
          350 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1750
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 991-5420
          Facsimile: (844) 670-6009
          E-mail: VBrijbasi@dickinson-wright.com


XPO LOGISTICS: Feb. 12 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against XPO Logistics, Inc. ("XPO" or
the "Company") (NYSE: XPO) and certain of its officers, on behalf
of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired XPO securities
between February 26, 2014, and December 12, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by
visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/xpo.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) XPO's highly touted aggressive M&A strategy had
yielded only minimal returns to the Company; (2) XPO was utilizing
improper accounting practices to mask its true financial condition,
including, inter alia, under-reporting of bad debts and aggressive
amortization assumptions; and (3) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On December 12, 2018, Spruce Point Management ("Spruce Point")
published a report regarding XPO, entitled "Trucking Ridiculous;
End of the Road". The Spruce Point report asserted that a "forensic
investigation" into XPO had revealed "financial irregularities that
conveniently cover [the Company's] growing financial strain and
inability to complete additional acquisitions despite repeated
promises." Spruce Point reported that it had uncovered, among other
issues, "concrete evidence to suggest dubious tax accounting,
under-reporting of bad debts, phantom income through unaccountable
M&A earn-out liabilities, and aggressive amortization assumptions:
all designed to portray glowing 'Non-GAAP' results." The Spruce
Point report further stated that "XPO insiders have aggressively
reduced their ownership interest in the Company since coming
public, and recently enacted a new compensation structure tied to
'Adjusted Cash Flow Per Share'–defined in such a non-standard way
that it is practically meaningless." Following publication of the
Spruce Point report, XPO's stock dropped $15.77 per share, or
26.17%, to close at $44.50 on December 13, 2018.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
bgandg.com/xpo or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in XPO you
have until February 12, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you
as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Its primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of its clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. [GN]



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***