CAR_Public/190117.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, January 17, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 13

                            Headlines

ALLIED FOOD: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA & AMWA, Harris Says
ALLIED RECOVERY: Kvashilava Files FDCPA Suit in New York
ALLURA USA: Juvland Sues over Defective Fiber Cement Siding
AMBULAR LLC: Jones Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under NYLL
APHRIA INC: Koskie Minsky Files Proposed Class Action

ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Class Action Over IPO
ARSTRAT LLC: James Files FDCPA Class Action
ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Captive Conspiracy Class Action Has 'No Merit'
BARADA ASSOCIATES: Clegg Suit Asserts FCRA Violation
BIG HEART PET: Acquard Files Fraud Class Suit in New York

BIG OX ENERGY: Johnson Files Tort Class Suit in Nebraska
BIOCLINICA INC: Smith Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
BLUE SHIELD: Myers Suit Alleges Calif. Labor Code Violations
BOSTON BALLROOM: Castillo Files Suit under ADA in New York
BRIGHTWOOD COLLEGE: Beaumont Women Sue Over Campus Closures

BROTHERHOOD: Traynor Files Suit under ADA in New York
CALGARY AIRPORT: Faces Class Action Over Improvement Fee
CALHOUN, GA: Walker Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari
CANADA: Class Action v. Ontario Over MCSS Waiting List Certified
CANADA: Sued Over Abusive Montreal Prison Strip Searches

CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Miller Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Ong Class Suit
CITIBANK NA: Womble Attorney Discusses TCPA Class Action Ruling
CLIENT SERVICES: Rosen Files Suit Asserting FDCPA Breach
CLIENT SERVICES: Skurnik Sues Over Debt  Collection Practices

CONNECTICUT: McNee Files Civil Rights Violation Suit v. DSS
CONTRACT CALLERS: Concevida Hits Illegal Collection Calls
CTL GLOBAL: Rizzo Sues Over Illegal Retention of Biometric Data
CURO GROUP: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Action
DELTA GALIL: Figueroa Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of California

DOBBERSTEIN LAW: Certification of Class Sought in Asselin Suit
DOUBLE AA CORP: Vaesau Files Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
DREAMCLOUD BRAND: Johnson-Hammer Files Antitrust Suit in California
EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Franchi Challenges Sale to PDS Biotechnology
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Stein Files Suit Asserting FCRA Violation

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Sued over Accuracy of Mortgage Loan Record
FIAT CHRYSLER: Rogers et al. Sue over Sale of EcoDiesel Vehicles
FORSTER & GARBUS: Violates FDCPA, Kouyate Suit Asserts
FULTON COMMONS: Salmon Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay Under NYLL
GEORGIA-PACIFIC WOOD: Faces Harris Suit Alleging FLSA Violation

GLAZE COMPANIES: Sued Over Unpaid OT Wages, Missing Wage Notices
GLYNN COUNTY, CA: Hearing in Class-Action Lawsuit Canceled
HUNT COUNTRY: Traynor Files ADA Class Action in New York
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Odeh Hits Share Drop from Data Integrity Breach
INNOVATIVE HEALTH: Class of Subscribers Certified in Northrup Suit

JAMESPORT VINEYARDS: Traynor Suit Alleges Disabilities Act Breach
JOHNSON MARK LLC: Merrill Files FDCPA Suit in Utah
JP MORGAN: Faces Suit After Guilty Pleas in Precious Metals Trading
KROGER CO: Price Sues Over Denied Insurance Benefit Claim
LIVING ROOM: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Gonzalez Says

LOMA NEGRA: Carmona Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation
MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: 11th Circuit Appeal Filed in Freedman Suit
MARRIOTT INT'L: Borst Files Suit in Maryland
MARRIOTT INT'L: Jan. 30 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
MARYLAND MARKETSOURCE: Esparza Suit Transferred to D. Maryland

MDL 2741: Conn v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Dugger v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Evans v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Ploof v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Shapiro v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MDL 2741: Triplett v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MENLO THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action Lawsuit
MERCHANTS CREDIT: Faces Zablocki's FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
MYSPACE NYC REALTY: Fischler Claims Website not Blind-friendly
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Teiner Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of New York

NCB MANAGEMENT: Faces Gracius Suit Alleging FDCPA Breach
NEWFIELD EXPLORATION: Farias Sues Over Encana Merger Deal
NISSAN MOTOR: Feb. 8 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
NISSAN MOTOR: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
NOBILIS HEALTH: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action

NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Israel Disputes Collection Letter Validity
ONTARIO: Suit Over Mental Health Program Delays Wins Class Status
ORION MARINE: Seeks Prelim. Approval of $23,300 "Kelly" Class Deal
PENN'S VIEW INN: Lazarev Files Suit under ADA in New York
PITTSBURGH, PA: D.C. Files ADA Class Suit

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Lewis Files FDCPA Suit in Kentucky
PPDAI GROUP: Goyal Files Securities Class Action
PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: Faces Plantation Spinal Care Suit in Florida
PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Reduces Medical Bill Amount, Haskin Says
QUICK CAPITAL: Hardin Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls

RED NEWT CELLARS: Traynor Files Suit under ADA in New York
SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Settlement Reached in Inmates' Class Action
SAN DIEGO, CA: Montoya Files Suit under ADA
SEPHORA USA: Salkauskaite Moved to Northern District of Illinois
STATE FARM: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Cranfield Class Suit

STATE FARM: Tufano Sues over Automobile Insurance Coverage
SWISSPORT SA: Jackson Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
SYNCTRUCK LLC: Nash Files Suit in California Superior Court
TENARIS SA: Gross Files Securities Class Action
UNITED STATES: Calixto Moves to Certify Soldiers Class/Subclasses

UNO CONSTRUCTION: Mendoza Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Benefits
US SECURITY: Langston Seeks to Certify Class of Security Guards
UTAH COMMUNITY: Lyons Files FCRA Suit in Utah
WAYPOINT RESOURCE: Austin Sues over Distracting Telephone Calls
WINE.COM INC: Martinez Suit Asserts ADA Violation

WRDH MT. LAUREL: Breeze Files Suit under ADA in New Jersey
XPO LOGISTICS: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
XPO LOGISTICS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
YAHOO! INC: Johnson Appeals N.D. Illinois Ruling to 7th Circuit
ZIONS BANCORP: Gregory Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties


                            *********

ALLIED FOOD: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA & AMWA, Harris Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHANJERINE HARRIS, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated v. ALLIED FOOD INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No.
4:19-cv-00001-KGB (E.D. Ark., January 2, 2018), accuses the
Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated overtime compensation for all hours that
they worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

Allied Food Industries, Inc., is a foreign corporation registered
to do business in the state of Arkansas.  The Defendant is a fast
food eatery company with restaurants in Arkansas, Ohio, West
Virginia and Kentucky.

Allied Food owns and operates a Burger King location in Little
Rock.  Allied Food owns and operates more than three fast food
restaurants within Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLIED RECOVERY: Kvashilava Files FDCPA Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Recovery
Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Davit Kvashilava, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Allied Recovery Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00114
(E.D. N.Y., January 7, 2019).

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

Allied Recovery Solutions, Inc. is a debt collection agency in the
Terryville, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Maxim Maximov, Esq.
   Maxim Maximov, LLP
   1701 Avenue P
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 395-3459
   Fax: (718) 408-9570
   Email: m@maximovlaw.com


ALLURA USA: Juvland Sues over Defective Fiber Cement Siding
-----------------------------------------------------------
JACOB W. JUVLAND, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ALLURA USA LLC, PLYCEM USA LLC D/B/A
ALLURA, PLYCEM USA, INC., ELEMENTIA USA, INC., and ELEMENTIA S.A.B.
De. C.V., the Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-03492-SRN-SER (D. Minn.,
Dec. 28, 2018), alleges that the fiber cement siding on Plaintiff's
and Class Members' homes suffers from an inherent defect resulting
in the Siding cracking, breaking, splitting, pulling away from the
home, and warping. The damages begin to manifest just a few short
years after the Siding has been installed, and eventually create
paths for water intrusion and leakage into Plaintiff's and Class
Members' homes. In conjunction with each sale, Defendants
represent, market, and advertise that the Siding is durable, will
last for 50 years, is fit for the ordinary purpose for which such
goods were used, and is free from defects in materials and
workmanship.

The lawsuit contends that in the siding industry, it is common for
manufacturers to use grain and silica in making and manufacturing
their fiber cement siding. Other manufacturers use fly ash, which
may be integrated successfully when not used in excess.  The
Defendants used excessive amounts of fly ash in their formula for
manufacturing the Siding, instead of the more common grain and
silica used by other manufacturers of fiber cement siding. The
Defendants were aware that the addition of excessive fly ash causes
the Siding to become too brittle to be used as an exterior building
product, resulting in the cracking and breaking, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants market, advertise, sell, and deliver the Siding in
the State of Minnesota.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Jason S. Kilene, Esq.
          Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  jkilene@gustafsongluek.com
                  mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
                  rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com

AMBULAR LLC: Jones Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
JALEEL JONES individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by AMBULAR, LLC v. AMBULAR,
LLC, Case No. 150016/2019 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., January 2,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and unpaid overtime
compensation pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

Ambular, LLC, is a domestic limited liability company incorporated
under the laws of the state of New York, and authorized to do
business in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          Jack L. Newhouse, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
                  jnewhouse@vandallp.com


APHRIA INC: Koskie Minsky Files Proposed Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that law firm Koskie Minsky LLP says it
has filed a proposed class action against cannabis company Aphria
Inc. and its chief executive and financial officers after the
company was targeted by short-sellers.

The firm says the lawsuit alleges the company made false and
misleading statements related to its acquisition of LATAM Holdings
Inc., had improper disclosure controls and procedures, and that
company insiders benefited from the deal. None of the claims have
been tested in court.

The proposed class action comes after short-sellers Quintessential
Capital Management and Hindenburg Research alleged in early
December that the cannabis grower's acquisition of the LATAM
Holding assets in Colombia, Argentina and Jamaica totalling $280
million from Scythian Biosciences were "largely worthless."

Koskie Minsky says the short-seller action led the company's share
price on the Toronto Stock Exchange to drop from a close of $10.51
on Nov. 30 to a low of $5 on Dec. 5. It says it is filing the class
action on behalf of investors who held Aphria shares between July
17 and Dec. 3.

Aphria said on Dec. 6 that it had set up a special committee of
independent directors to review the acquisition. The company did
not immediately respond to a request for comment on the proposed
class action. [GN]


ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Class Action Over IPO
---------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on Dec. 18 disclosed
that purchasers of Arlo Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: ARLO) filed a
class action complaint against the company's officers and directors
for alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection
with Arlo's August 3, 2018 initial public offering ("IPO"). Arlo's
products enable users to monitor their environments and connect
with their families and businesses from any location with an
internet connection.

Arlo Accused of Misleading Investors About Its Leading Product's
Battery Issues

According to the complaint, in its August 2018 IPO, Arlo sold
11,747,250 shares of common stock at a price of $16.00 per share,
raising approximately $167.4 million in proceeds. On November 30,
2018, Arlo announced its "flagship wire-free security camera
system" known as Arlo Ultra that used a newly designed rechargeable
battery. Just days later, on December 3, 2018, Arlo reported a
delay in shipments of Ultra, citing a quality issue with its
battery. As a result, Arlo is not expected to ship the product
until the first quarter of 2019, missing the crucial holiday
season. When Arlo lowered its fourth quarter 2018 financial
guidance, Arlo's stock price closed at $9.28 per share on December
3, 2018a 42% decline from its IPO price.

Arlo Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid Kandinov
at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- is a
nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights law. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped its
clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and
the companies in which they have invested. [GN]


ARSTRAT LLC: James Files FDCPA Class Action
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARStrat, LLC. The
case is styled as Natasha James, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARStrat, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00156 (E.D. N.Y., January 8, 2019).

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

Arstrat is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Captive Conspiracy Class Action Has 'No Merit'
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Captive Insurance Times reports that Arthur J Gallagher & Co, and
its subsidiary Artex Risk Solutions, will fight the class action
lawsuit filed against them as it has "no merit", according to a
statement from the company.

On December 10, a group of plaintiffs seeking class status filed a
suit against a group of defendants including Artex and Gallagher,
accusing them of being part of a massive captive insurance strategy
conspiracy.

The suit, which was related to the companies' 831(b) captive
business, alleged that the defendants conspired to design, promote,
sell, implement, and manage illegal tax-advantaged captive
insurance strategies.

Additionally, it claimed that the defendants entered into
undisclosed business arrangements with each other and formed a
nationwide referral network to funnel clients business to them.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants unlawfully abused their
positions of trust, confidence, and prestige by fraudulently
inducing those clients to pay substantial fees for insurance,
legal, accounting, tax, and actuarial advice, and services in
connection with the strategies.

In a statement, Gallagher said: "Gallagher and Artex are aware of
the recent filing of a class action lawsuit relating to our 831(b)
micro-captive business."

"We have disclosed the ongoing Internal Revenue Service audit and
related customer litigation involving our 831(b) micro-captive
management business in our Securities and Exchange Commission
filings and to our clients."

"This class action lawsuit appears to be related to the IRS audit.
We believe it has no merit and will deal with it accordingly."

"Gallagher and Artex have successfully defended individual claims
involving similar allegations."

The statement also referenced the legality of 831(b) captives as
part of the Internal Revenue's code for decades" and noted that
"Gallagher and Artex have diligently and consistently striven to
comply with the legal requirements in forming and managing captive
insurance companies".[GN]


BARADA ASSOCIATES: Clegg Suit Asserts FCRA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barada Associates
Inc. The case is styled as Adam Clegg, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Barada Associates
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00138-TWT (N.D. Ga., January 8,
2019).

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

Barada Associates, Inc. provides employment screening services,
such as employment verifications, academic verifications,
background checks, and reference checking to employers. The company
was founded in 1979 and is based in Rushville, Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Andrew Weiner, Esq.
   Weiner & Sand, LLC
   7 Piedmont Center, 3rd Flr
   3525 Piedmont Rd.
   Atlanta, GA 30305
   Tel: (404) 254-0842
   Email: aw@atlantaemployeelawyer.com



BIG HEART PET: Acquard Files Fraud Class Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big Heart Pet Brands,
Inc. The case is styled as Theresa Acquard and Tom Butler,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Big Heart Pet Brands, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00050-LJV (W.D. N.Y., January 7, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as fraud.

Big Heart Pet Brands, together with its subsidiaries, produces,
distributes, and markets branded pet food and pet snacks to retail
and export markets in the United States. It offers branded and
private label dry and wet pet food, and pet snacks under the Meow
Mix, Milk-Bone, Kibbles 'n Bits, 9Lives, Natural Balance,
Pup-Peroni, Gravy Train, Nature's Recipe, Canine Carry Outs,
Milo’s Kitchen, and other brand names. Big Heart Pet Brands sells
its products through club stores, supercenters, grocery chains,
dollar stores, pet specialty stores, and mass merchandisers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael Robert Reese, Esq.
   Reese LLP
   100 West 93rd St
   16th Floor
   New York, NY 10025
   Tel: (212) 643-0500
   Fax: (212) 253-4272
   Email: mreese@reesellp.com


BIG OX ENERGY: Johnson Files Tort Class Suit in Nebraska
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big Ox Energy, LLC.
The case is styled as Gary Johnson and Sara Blum, on behalf of
themselves, and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Big Ox
Energy, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00010-LSC-SMB (D. Neb.,
January 9, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Diversity-Torts
to Land.

Big Ox Energy is a waste recycling provider.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
  
   Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
   LIDDLE, DUBIN LAW FIRM
   975 East Jefferson Avenue
   Detroit, MI 48207
   Tel: (313) 392-0015

      - and -

   Robert J. Stahle, Esq.
   FITCH, STAHLE LAW FIRM
   1917 Dakota Avenue
   South Sioux City, NE 68776
   Tel: (402) 494-3012
   Fax: (402) 494-1446
   Email: bob.stahle@fitch-stahle.com

      - and -

   Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
   LIDDLE, DUBIN LAW FIRM
   975 East Jefferson Avenue
   Detroit, MI 48207
   Tel: (313) 392-0015


BIOCLINICA INC: Smith Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
-----------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bioclinica, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-03096 (M.D. Fla., December 27, 2018), seeks statutory damages
and any other available legal or equitable remedies for violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Bioclinica, Inc. -- https://www.bioclinica.com/ -- provides
integrated clinical research technology solutions to
pharmaceutical, biotechnology, medical device companies, and
contract research organizations. It allegedly sent unsolicited text
messages en masse looking for medical volunteers. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
      EDELSBERG LAW, PA
      19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 975-3320
      Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com

             - and -

      Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
      SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone: 305-479-2299
      Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


BLUE SHIELD: Myers Suit Alleges Calif. Labor Code Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Brendisia Myers, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly
situated v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance
Company, and Does 1 through 50, Case No. CGC-18-571842 (Cal.
Super., December 5, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed and continues to
fail to accurately calculate and pay the Plaintiff and other
members of the California Class for their overtime worked. The
Defendant unlawfully and unilaterally failed to accurately
calculate wages for overtime worked by Plaintiff and other members
of the California Class in order to avoid paying these employees
the correct overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in California as a
non-exempt employee entitled to overtime pay and meal and rest
periods from October of 2016 to June 14, 2018.

The Defendant Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance
Company is a health plan provider based in San Francisco,
California. The Defendant serves over four million health plan
members and nearly 65,000 physicians across California. The
Defendant was founded in 1939. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BOSTON BALLROOM: Castillo Files Suit under ADA in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Boston Ballroom Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Evelyn Castillo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Boston Ballroom Corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00105 (E.D. N.Y., January 7, 2019).

Boston Ballroom Corporation was founded in 1992. The company's line
of business includes operating of bars, night clubs, and other
locations that sell alcoholic drinks.[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


BRIGHTWOOD COLLEGE: Beaumont Women Sue Over Campus Closures
-----------------------------------------------------------
Haley Bruyn, writing for Beaumont Enterprise, reports that three
Beaumont women have filed suit against Brightwood College, which
suddenly closed campuses across the country. The law firm
representing them seeks to build a nationwide class-action case.

The women filed the lawsuit in federal court in Beaumont against
the president of the Beaumont Brightwood College; Brightwood's
parent company, Virginia College; Virginia College's parent
company; Education Corporation of America; and the CEO and equity
firms that own Education Corporation.

"How is it that these students paid what they were supposed to pay,
did what they were supposed to do, and are somehow worse off for
it?" attorney Mark Sparks, Esq. of Beaumont's Ferguson Law Firm
said in a phone interview on December 14.

Education Corporation of America announced Dec. 5 that it would
close all 75 of its for-profit college campuses nationwide,
including the one on Eastex Freeway near Parkdale Mall. The company
released a statement saying students would be given their
transcripts so they could try transferring to a different school.

The school focused on diplomas and associate's degrees related to
health care, including programs for dental assistants, medical
assistants, medical office specialists and pharmacy technicians.

Education Corporation addressed the closures in a statement posted
to its web page:

"Recently, the Department of Education added requirements that made
operating ECA schools more challenging. In addition, ACICS
(Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools)
suspended the schools' accreditation with intent to withdraw. The
uncertainty of these circumstances resulted in an inability to
acquire additional capital to operate the schools."

The statement continued, "This is not the outcome that the
organization envisioned and is one that ECA recognizes will have a
dramatic effect on both the students that they have served and
their employees."

Ferguson Law Firm said in an earlier statement about the lawsuit
that the closures affected "thousands upon thousands of students."
It said the firm also is looking to represent employees "who have
lost their jobs."

Ferguson and the Bailey Reyes firm are working on the lawsuit.

Education Corporation of America oversaw five different college
brands nationwide, according to its website, including Brightwood
College, Brightwood Career Institute, Virginia College, the Ecotech
Institute and the Golf Academy of America.

Brightwood College did not respond to a request for comment.

Information regarding transcript requests, externships, diplomas,
transfers, financial aid, stipends and more is available at
ecacolleges.com/faq.

On December 14, Vista College, a for-profit school similar to those
owned by Education Corporation of America, released a statement
encouraging former Brightwood and Virginia College students to set
up appointments with its admissions representatives.

"We know that they have worked hard and are now trying to figure
out their next steps," Vista College CEO Jim Tolbert said in a
written statement, "and we want to assist with that process."[GN]


BROTHERHOOD: Traynor Files Suit under ADA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Brotherhood, America's Oldest Winery, LTD. is facing a class action
lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is styled as Yaseen Traynor, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Brotherhood, America's
Oldest Winery, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00184 (S.D. N.Y.,
January 8, 2019).

Brotherhood, America's Oldest Winery, LTD. is a winery in
Washingtonville, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CALGARY AIRPORT: Faces Class Action Over Improvement Fee
--------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Rumbolt, writing for Calgary Herald, reports that  a
Calgary-based law firm is taking aim at the Calgary Airport
Authority's improvement fee with a class action lawsuit claiming
"breach of contract" and "unjust enrichment" of airlines.

Mathew Farrell with the Guardian Law Group said the suit was filed
on Dec. 18 on behalf of a plaintiff crying foul over the
authority's $30.00 improvement fee.

Mr. Farrell claims the authority is not using all of the fee to
improve the airport, and a portion of the funds are being given to
airlines as a "collection fee."

"Four per cent . . . of every ticket goes into the pocket of the
airline (and) doesn't go towards improving the airport," Mr.
Farrell said.

The improvement fee is only collected from passengers at the
Calgary International Airport whose "point of origin or
destination" is Calgary, Mr. Farrell said, adding "connecting
passengers are exempt" from the user fee.

Mr. Farrell said the fee is automated and added to any ticket where
the Calgary International Airport is the departure or final
destination city.

Guardian Law is "alleging breach of contract, negligent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of statutory duties,"
by the airport authority, claiming it was "exceeding (its)
jurisdiction and authority" in relation to the fee since 1997.

Calgary Airport Authority spokesperson Reid Fiest declined to
comment on the lawsuit.

"The Calgary Airport Authority has not been served with this claim
and therefore we are not in a position to respond," he said in an
emailed statement, along with a link to a webpage containing
information about the airport's improvement fee.

Farrell said improvement fees aren't unique to the Calgary Airport
Authority, but said the $30.00 is the highest of any airport in
Canada.

"The airlines are getting this kind of collection fee from a number
of airports across the country . . .  this is something that's
happening across the country, but that doesn't make it right."

None of the allegations have been proven in court. [GN]


CALHOUN, GA: Walker Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Maurice Walker, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Applicant, v. City of Calhoun, Georgia,
Respondent, Case No. 18-814 filed before the U.S. Supreme Court on
December 27, 2018, Walker filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari.

Walker's suit against the City of Calhoun contests whether the
City's use of a secured money bail system for misdemeanor offenders
violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the
Constitution. The case was originally filed with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on August 22, 2018, under
Case No. 17-13139.  [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Stephen Volchok, Esq.
      Wilmer Cutler Pickering
      1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
      Washington, DC 20006
      Tel: (202) 663 6103
      Email: daniel.volchok@wilmerhale.com


CANADA: Class Action v. Ontario Over MCSS Waiting List Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Perkel, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that a
lawsuit alleging the Ontario government has been arbitrarily making
thousands of mentally disabled people wait indefinitely for
provincial government supports after they turn 18 was certified as
a class action on Dec. 14.

In his decision, Superior Court Justice Edward Belobaba agreed the
plaintiff had made a strong enough case to allow the as-yet
untested claim to proceed to trial on its merits.

"The plaintiff's complaint is not about inadequate funding or the
need for a greater allocation of governmental resources but about
the negligent utilization and administration of existing
resources," Justice Belobaba wrote in his decision. "The plaintiff
points to the indeterminate delays in the wait-listed services, the
flawed computer programs and bad databases, and the poor
prioritization and matching of available resources."

The lawsuit, which accuses the province of harm-causing negligence,
seeks $110 million in damages. It also asks for a declaration that
the government has failed adults assessed as eligible for help but
who have instead been placed on indeterminate waiting lists.

Justice Belobaba appointed as representative plaintiff Briana
Leroux, 20, of Timmins, Ont., a woman with a rare brain disorder.
She has a mental age of about three, cannot speak, and lacks the
most basic ability to care for herself.

Her father Marc Leroux, acting as her litigation guardian, has
previously told The Canadian Press that the loss of a day program
and other help for his daughter when she turned 18 caused immense
stress on the family. He was not immediately available to comment
on Dec. 14.

In his analysis, Justice Belobaba agreed to allow certification on
two of three grounds Leroux had proposed: negligence and a breach
of her charter rights.

"Although a meaningful milestone for many, turning 18 has no
medical or other significance for developmentally disabled
persons," Justice Belobaba observed. "Nothing changes when they
become 18 -- they remain disabled, with the same mental age, and
the same need for support and services."

The only change, the justice wrote, is they have to deal with the
Ministry of Community and Social Services rather than the Ministry
of Children and Youth Services.

"The problem arises after the developmentally disabled person has
been formally assessed and approved to receive government support
and services," Justice Belobaba said. "The evidence is that the
families are then 'dropped off a cliff' and nothing happens — for
a very long time."

While Justice Belobaba did agree Mr. Leroux could press her claim
for breach of her constitutional rights, he did say it would
"probably not succeed on the merits." However, he noted the only
requirement for certification was to show the claim had at least
some chance of success. Similarly, he also found it possible that a
claim for damages under the charter could succeed.

The proposed class, as certified, comprises people found eligible
for government-funded developmental supports starting on July 1,
2011, but who were instead placed on wait lists.

Justice Belobaba also certified three common issues to be decided
at trial: whether there was a breach of duty of care or a
constitutional violation, and whether punitive damages are
available.

During the certification hearing, the lawyer for the province
insisted clients are assessed and prioritized according to their
needs, with the most urgent cases getting help even after turning
18. The government also tried to argue the plaintiff was attacking
a policy decision immune from judicial scrutiny.

"It's not the policy of the government, say the plaintiffs, to have
a totally screwed-up system," Justice Belobaba said at the hearing.
[GN]


CANADA: Sued Over Abusive Montreal Prison Strip Searches
--------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Feith, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that facing what
seemed like an insurmountable "culture of delays" plaguing the
provincial court system, in October 2016 the Quebec government
announced a series of measures it hoped could remedy the
situation.

Among them was that people being held in custody following their
arrests in Montreal would no longer make their first court
appearance in person before a judge. The hearings would instead be
held through a video link-up from local detention centres,
depending on where the arrest took place.

But if the measure has reduced delays, it also came with a
consequence: people entering Montreal's Bordeaux or
Riviere-des-Prairies prisons to use the video technology also need
to be strip-searched first, a process the Supreme Court of Canada
has deemed "fundamentally humiliating and demeaning."

A new class-action lawsuit, filed in early December but not yet
authorized by a judge, is now seeking compensation for people
who've been affected by the change since October 2016.

"The Supreme Court has been saying (strip searches) should be
avoided at all costs unless it's absolutely necessary," said
Anne-Julie Asselin -- anne-julie@tjl.quebec -- a lawyer from the
firm behind the class-action, Trudel Johnston & Lesperance. "And in
our opinion, in these cases, it isn't necessary."

More specifically, the class action is seeking compensation for
anyone brought to either of the two prisons to have their first
court appearance via video link, and strip-searched only to be
granted their release by the presiding judge.

It also seeks damages for people "arbitrarily" detained at the
prisons while they wait for the paperwork to be transferred from
the courthouse following their hearing. In all, it argues each
class member should be entitled to $2,500.

"He remains strongly marked by this traumatic and humiliating
experience. The applicant felt deeply humiliated and despised
during the strip search he had to undergo."

The lead plaintiff in the class action, Mathieu Barbeau, 43, was
arrested for impaired driving in Montreal in September. He was
brought to a police operational centre and kept overnight.

The next morning, he was loaded into a police van and driven to the
Riviere-des-Prairies prison ahead of his scheduled court
appearance, by video, in the afternoon.

After arriving at the prison, the suit alleges that Mr. Barbeau was
called into a small cubicle with four-feet-high walls and asked to
get naked.

The suit says the strip search was performed by the definition
established in the law on Quebec's correctional systems: the
person, naked, has their mouth, nostrils and ears searched.

They are also to lift "in the case of women, the breasts, and in
the case of men, the penis and testicles, and bend to allow the
visual inspection of the rectum and vagina."

Mr. Barbeau had never been strip-searched or detained before, the
suit says. He was ordered released on a promise to appear after his
two-minute court appearance by video, but kept detained for another
six hours while waiting for the court clerk to transfer the
documents to prison authorities.

"He remains strongly marked by this traumatic and humiliating
experience," the suit says. "The applicant felt deeply humiliated
and despised during the strip search he had to undergo."

According to Ms. Asselin, the law firm took a random sample of one
week in the fall and found roughly 40 cases that could be eligible
for the suit.

"If you multiply that by the number of weeks, over two years, it's
a lot of people," she said. "We know there are several hundred, if
not a few thousand."

The suit contends the practice is abusive, but especially so "since
it could easily be avoided."

It gives examples to illustrate the point. It says the provincial
court system is already doing video-conference appearances from
Montreal police operational centres -- where people are not
strip-searched -- on Saturdays and holidays.

It also points out that Montreal's municipal court system will
start doing video appearances from police operational centres on
weekdays as of this year.

"Yes, we're asking for money because these people have suffered
deeply from being strip-searched," Ms. Asselin said. "But our main
objective is that this practice just ceases -- it makes no sense to
keep doing it when you know there's another way to do it."

Quebec's public security department, which oversees the province's
correctional facilities, refused to comment on the class action, or
the use of strip searches in general, given the matter could be
before the courts. [GN]


CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Miller Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carrington Mortgage
Services LLC. The case is styled as James F Miller, individually
and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Carrington Mortgage Services LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00016-JDL (E.D. N.Y., January 9, 2019).

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

Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC provides mortgage loan servicing
support services to borrowers and investors in the United States.
It also offers home loans through its retail and wholesale
channels. The company was founded in 2007 and is based in Anaheim,
California. It has branches in Warrenton, Virginia; Houston and
Plano, Texas; Fishers, Indiana; and other parts of the United
States. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC operates as a subsidiary
of Carrington Holding Company, LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Andrea Bopp Stark, esq.
   Molleur Law Office
   419 Alfred Street
   Biddeford, ME 04005
   Tel: (207) 283-3777
   Email: andrea@molleurlaw.com

      - and -

   Charles Delbaum
   National Consumer Law Center
   7 Winthrop Square
   Boston, MA 02110-1245
   Tel: (617) 542-8010
   Email: cdelbaum@nclc.org




CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Ong Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis
and Metzler Investment GmbH filed an appeal from the District
Court's opinion and order issued on November 20, 2018, in the
lawsuit entitled Ong, et al. v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., et
al., Case No. 16-cv-141, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, on Jan. 8, 2016, Susie
Ong filed a complaint in the District Court on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of shares of the Company's common
stock between February 4, 2015, and January 5, 2016.  The complaint
purports to state claims against the company, each of the co-chief
executive officers serving during the claimed class period and the
chief financial officer under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and related rules, based on the company's alleged
failure during the claimed class period to disclose material
information about the company's quality controls and safeguards in
relation to consumer and employee health.

The complaint asserts that those failures and related public
statements were false and misleading and that, as a result, the
market price of the Company's stock was artificially inflated
during the claimed class period.  The complaint seeks damages on
behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount, interest,
and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other
costs.

The appellate case is captioned as Ong, et al. v. Chipotle Mexican
Grill, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-3807, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Metzler Investment GmbH and Construction
Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis are represented by:

          Douglas S. Wilens, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          E-mail: dwilens@rgrdlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Montgomery F.
Moran, John R. Hartung and M. Steven Ells are represented by:

          Andrew Brian Clubok, Esq.
          Susan E. Engel, Esq.
          Matthew Peters, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          555 11th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-2200
          E-mail: andrew.clubok@lw.com
                  susan.engel@lw.com
                  matthew.peters@lw.com

               - and -

          Kendra N. Beckwith, Esq.
          MESSNER REEVES LLP
          1430 Wynkoop Street
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 623-1800
          E-mail: kbeckwith@messner.com


CITIBANK NA: Womble Attorney Discusses TCPA Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Troutman, Esq., of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, reports that lest anyone think
TCPAland isn't fraught with peril for unwary defendants, let me
tell you a quick tale.

Citibank is facing TCPA class litigation in the Northern District
of California -- yes the same Citibank that so recently defeated
certification of a TCPA case in Illinois -- and was recently
compelled to produce "terabytes" of consumer data to opposing
counsel and their experts.

That's bad enough -- and a decent story too -- but that's not even
the story I'm telling right now.

After having an opportunity to review the previously-produced data
putative class counsel next demanded additional consent and account
records for hundreds of members of the putative class. Defendant --
probably wary of facing another motion to compel if it did not
comply -- agreed to produce the records in 23 days.

On the 23rd day Defendant was not yet ready to make its production
and -- presumably after seeking and being denied consent by Class
Counsel -- filed a letter with the court requesting seven
additional days to make the production. The reason? Personal
identifying information in the production needed to be redacted and
the Defendant was turning to an outside vendor for help.

Citibank ended up hiring a team of fifty reviewers to redact
sensitive information -- social security numbers and the like -- on
an expedited basis. Through the hard work of the vendor -- and a
$60,000.00 bill -- Citibank was, indeed, able to make the
production within seven days of its letter to the Court.

In the meantime, however, Class Counsel swiftly filed a motion to
strike Defendant's affirmative defense of consent across the class
and to exclude all evidence related to consent. Even after the data
production was made Class Counsel did not take the motion off
calendar–forcing the Court to rule on whether or not the seven
day delay justified throwing out the Defendant's most critical
defense.

The Court issued its Dec. 12 ruling in the decision of Revtich v.
Citibank, N.A., Case No. 17-06907, 2018 WL 6573094 (N.D. Cal. Dec.
12, 2018.) Mercifully, the Court denied the motion finding that the
one week delay had not prejudiced the Plaintiff and pointing out
that the Defendant had operated in good faith and moved in a
diligent manner to make the production.

Then again, the Court did caution Defendant not to try this again.
The last line of the order reads: "Defendant shall ensure its
compliance with all deadlines going forward."

That's pretty ominous.

As ever before, TCPA class actions are not for the faint of heart
or the green of horn. be careful out there TCPAland. [GN]


CLIENT SERVICES: Rosen Files Suit Asserting FDCPA Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
Avrohom Rosen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Client Services, Inc. and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-12199, (S.D. N.Y., December 27, 2018)
seeks damages and declaratory relief under the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act.

Client Services, Inc. (CSI) is a collection agency assigned to
collect an obligation owed by Rosen to Chase Bank USA N.A. via a
collection letter. Rosen requested validation of his debt in a
letter sent to the Defendant on June 28, 2018, and requested CSI to
cease all collection efforts until his debt was validated. Yet, CSI
allegedly continued collection efforts without validating the debt.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CLIENT SERVICES: Skurnik Sues Over Debt  Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc.
The case is styled as Elizabeth K. Skurnik, on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Client
Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00159 (E.D. N.Y.,
January 8, 2019).

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

Client Services, Inc. operates as a customer relationship
management company that offers a suite of accounts receivable
management, business processing outsourcing (BPO), and healthcare
solutions. It provides customer care, technical support, customer
acquisition, cross sell/up-sell, customer retention,
product/account activation, appointment setting/reminders, disaster
support, first notice of loss, market research, customer
satisfaction surveys, and multi-channel interaction management
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



CONNECTICUT: McNee Files Civil Rights Violation Suit v. DSS
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roderick Bremby,
Commissioner of the State of Connecticut Department of Social
Services. The case is styled as David McNee, Deborah Carr, Edinelis
Vega, Ida Mae Davidson, Ernestine Coleman, Terrilynne Trudeau and
Matthew Ibrahim, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Roderick Bremby, Commissioner of
the State of Connecticut Department of Social Services, Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00035 (D. Conn., January 8, 2019).

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

Roderick Bremby is the Commissioner of the State of Connecticut
Department of Social Services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James Stevenson Haslam, Esq.
   Connecticut Legal Services
   125 Eugene O'Neill Drive, Ste 120
   New London, CT 06320
   Tel: (860) 271-7312
   Email: JHaslam@connlegalservices.org



CONTRACT CALLERS: Concevida Hits Illegal Collection Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
Martin Concevida, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Contract Callers, Inc. and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-10671 (C.D. Cal.,
December 27, 2018), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages,
treble damages and all other relief for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Contract Callers, Inc., a company involved in consumer debt buying
and recovery/collection, attempted to contact Concevida on his
mobile phone using an automatic telephone dialing system seeking to
collect a debt he allegedly owed. He incurs a charge for incoming
calls. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CTL GLOBAL: Rizzo Sues Over Illegal Retention of Biometric Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Rizzo, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown, v. CTL Global, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 2018CH16018 (Ill. Cir., December 27, 2018), seeks an injunction
requiring Defendants to destroy her biometrics in its possession,
to cease all unlawful activity related to the capture, collection,
storage and use of biometrics, statutory damages together with
costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Defendant provides fulfillment, transportation, and marketing
services where Rizzo was employed by CTL as a production manager at
their facility in Elk Grove Village, Illinois from approximately
July or August 2017 to September 2018. They use a biometric time
clock system to record their time worked and required its workers
to scan their facial geometry. Rizzo alleges that their timekeeping
system relied on the collection, storage, and usage of employees'
fingerprints and biometric information without informed consent in
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CURO GROUP: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased CURO
Group Holdings Corp. (CURO or the Company) (NYSE: CURO) securities
between July 31, 2018 and October 24, 2018, inclusive (the Class
Period). CURO investors have until February 4, 2019 to file a lead
plaintiff motion.

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

On October 24, 2018, CURO revealed disappointing financial third
quarter 2018 financial results and substantially reduced its
guidance for full-year fiscal 2018. On this news, CUROs share price
fell $7.69, or nearly 34%, to close at $15.18 per share on October
25, 2018, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the class period Defendants materially misrepresented to investors
the deleterious effect that the up-front loan loss provisioning in
connection with a transition of its Canadian inventory to
Open-Ended loans was having on the Companys financial performance
and 2018 full-year Company guidance. Because CUROs Open-End Loans
had a materially lower lending yield than the Single-Pay Products,
and the portfolio of Open-End Loans was still immature and
unseasoned, the up-front loan loss provisioning for these loans was
far greater than publicly revealed (and the yield far lower). This
caused the Company to materially overstate its 2018 projected
financial results, including CUROs adjusted EBITDA, net revenue and
operating earnings.

If you purchased shares of CURO, have information or would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters please;

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


DELTA GALIL: Figueroa Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Francisco Figueroa, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Delta Galil USA, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and Pennsylvania V.F. Corporation, a
Pennsylvania corporation, the Defendants, Case No. RG17863740, was
removed from the Alameda Superior Court to the U.S. District Court
for the California Northern District (Oakland) on Dec. 28, 2018.
The California Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:18-cv-07796-SBA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong.

Delta Galil USA Inc. manufactures, markets, and sells intimate
apparel and socks to the mass market and mid-market under private
labels and other brand names. The company manufactures apparel for
for men, women and children.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Thomas Alistair Segal, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  thomas@setarehlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Carolyn Blecha Hall, Esq.
          Douglas J. Farmer, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Steuart Tower, One Market Plaza, Suite 1300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-4810
          Facsimile: (415) 442-4870
          E-mail: carolyn.hall@ogletree.com
                  doug.farmer@ogletree.com

               - and -

          Linda Nguyen Bollinger, Esq.
          Marlene S. Muraco, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          50 W. San Fernando Street, 7th Floor
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 998-4150
          Facsimile: (408) 288-5686
          E-mail: lbollinger@littler.com
                  mmuraco@littler.com

DOBBERSTEIN LAW: Certification of Class Sought in Asselin Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled AARON ASSELIN and TROY NORTON,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
DOBBERSTEIN LAW FIRM, LLC, BCG EQUITIES, LLC, and GUARDIAN CREDIT
UNION, Case No. 2:19-cv-00009-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), move the Court to
certify the class described in their complaint, and further ask
that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to
grant them (and the Defendants) 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 Plaintiffs assert, 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 Plaintiffs tell 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 Plaintiffs assert 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 Plaintiffs are obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiffs
contend.

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 Plaintiffs argue.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives, and to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are 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


DOUBLE AA CORP: Vaesau Files Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Double AA
Corporation. The case is styled as Malu Vaesau, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Double AA
Corporation, a California Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
CGC19572598 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 7, 2019).

Double AA Corporation operates as a fuel distributor. The company
is based in South San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


DREAMCLOUD BRAND: Johnson-Hammer Files Antitrust Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dreamcloud Brand LLC.
The case is styled as Mark L Johnson-Hammer and Shavonne Solis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Dreamcloud Brand LLC, Dreamcloud Holdings LLC and
Nectar Brand LLC, Defendants, Case No. CGC19572607 (Cal. Super.
Ct., January 7, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit antitrust and
unfair competition.

Dreamcloud Brand LLC sells hybrid mattresses using premium
materials and quality craftsmanship.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Franchi Challenges Sale to PDS Biotechnology
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Franchi, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Edge Therapeutics, Inc., Sol Barer, Isaac
Blech, Rosemary A. Crane, James J. Loughlin, R. Loch Macdonald,
Liam Ratcliffe, and Robert Spiegel, PDS Biotechnology Corporation
and Echos Merger Sub, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00058-UNA
(D. Del., January 9, 2019) is an action that stems from a proposed
transaction announced on November 26, 2018, pursuant to which Edge
Therapeutics, Inc. will be acquired by PDS Biotechnology
Corporation and Echos Merger Sub, Inc.

On November 23, 2018, Edge's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with PDS. On December
21 2018, defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction.

According to the complaint, the Registration Statement omits
material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction,
which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading.
Accordingly, 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 Edge common stock.

Edge is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices at 300 Connell Drive, Suite 4000, Berkeley
Heights, New Jersey 07922. Edge's common stock is traded on the
NasdaqGS under the ticker symbol "EDGE". Edge is a party to the
Merger Agreement.

Brian Leuthner is President, Chief Executive Officer, and a
director of the Company.

Sol Barer, Isaac Blech, Rosemary A. Crane, James J. Loughlin, R.
Loch Macdonald, Liam Ratcliffe, and Robert Spiegel are directors of
the Company.

PDS Biotechnology Corporation is a Delaware corporation and a party
to the Merger Agreement.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     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


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Stein Files Suit Asserting FCRA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Wolf Stein, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, ADR Provider v.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Equifax Information Services,
LLC, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 7:19-cv-00269 (S.D. N.Y., January 9, 2019).

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

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., an information services
company, provides information, analytical, and marketing services
to organizations and consumers to manage risk and reward of
commercial and financial decisions. It offers data and analytical
tools that assist businesses to manage credit risk, prevent fraud,
target marketing offers, and automate decision making; and enables
people to check their credit report and credit score, and protect
against identity theft.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Sued over Accuracy of Mortgage Loan Record
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANA HARRIS AND JENNIFER HARRIS, for themselves and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. EXPERIAN
INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC;
TRANS UNION, LLC; PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC; AND JOHN DOES 1-10,
the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-17741 (D.N.J., Dec. 30, 2018),
seeks to recover damages resulting Defendants' violation of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are indebted under the
terms of a note and mortgage agreement entered into in or about
January 2006, for a residential mortgage loan. Due to financial
hardship, Plaintiffs fell behind on monthly payments for their
Mortgage Loan. PennyMac became servicer of the Mortgage Loan when
the loan was in default. Pursuant to a modification agreement
entered into on or before December 1, 2017, between Plaintiffs and
PennyMac for itself or on behalf of the holder of the Mortgage
Loan, the terms of the Mortgage Loan were modified.

The Modification Agreement created a new principal amount owed
under the Mortgage Loan, by capitalizing unpaid delinquent
interest, escrow shortages, and foreclosure costs. The New
Principal Balance of $977,877 represents the capitalization, into
the principal balance, of the delinquent interest, escrow
shortages, and foreclosure costs (less a credit in Plaintiff's
favor for $5,412 for certain partial payment(s)). Pursuant to the
Modification Agreement, Plaintiffs' interest payments were
calculated by reference to the new principal amount (less an
allowance for certain deferred principal payments). Absent the
Modification Agreement, interest would not have accrued on
delinquent interest.

Experian, Equifax and TransUnion all maintain files of both
Plaintiffs. PennyMac furnishes information to Equifax, Experian,
and TransUnion concerning Plaintiffs' Mortgage Loan. A "tradeline"
is a record of an account in a consumer's file maintained by a
consumer reporting agency. Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion have a
tradeline for the Mortgage Loan in Plaintiff's credit files, except
that TransUnion does not have a tradeline for the Mortgage Loan for
Plaintiff Dana Harris. The tradeline for the Mortgage Loan in
Plaintiffs' Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion files contains false
information. The tradeline for the Mortgage Loan in Plaintiff's
Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion credit files records a loan
principal of $770,456 for the Mortgage Loan.  Experian, Equifax and
TransUnion report a balance owed on the Mortgage Loan in excess of
$900,000.

The Plaintiffs make monthly payments to PennyMac paying down
principal on the Mortgage Loan. However, the tradeline as
maintained by Experian, Equifax and TransUnion shows no principal
paydown on the Mortgage Loan. The reported failure to pay down
principal on Plaintiffs' Mortgage Loan reflects poorly on
Plaintiffs' credit profile. The Plaintiffs disputed the accuracy of
the Mortgage Loan tradeline appearing in their files maintained by
Experian, Equifax and TransUnion by letters to Experian, Equifax
and TransUnion dated April 10, 2018. TransUnion thereafter deleted
or suppressed the Mortgage Loan tradeline from Plaintiff Dana
Harris' credit file, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Gabriel Posner, Esq.
          POSNER L AW PLLC
          270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1203
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (646) 546-5022
          E-mail: gabe@PosnerLawPLLC.com

FIAT CHRYSLER: Rogers et al. Sue over Sale of EcoDiesel Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW ROGERS , et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES
N.V.; FCA US LLC; SERGIO MARCHIONNE, FORMER CEO OF FCA, FIAT and
FIAT SUBSIDIARIES and CHAIRMAN OF FCA and FIAT SUBSIDIARIES,
DECEASED, AND HIS SUCCESSOR, MICHAEL MANLEY; VM MOTORI S.p.A.; VM
NORTH AMERICA, INC.; ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, and ROBERT BOSCH LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-07760-EMC (E.D. Mich., Dec. 11, 2018),
seeks a buyback program for vehicles; monetary damages; pollution
mitigation; business reforms; and injunctive and other equitable
relief for Defendants' misconduct related to the design,
manufacture, marketing, sale and lease of vehicles under the
federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; the
federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; common law fraud; and the
consumer laws of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

This nationwide action arises out of an international race to the
bottom. Fiat Chrysler, a rival of automaker Volkswagen struggling
to compete on the world stage, sought to grab a piece of the U.S.
"clean" diesel market with 2014-2016 EcoDiesel (TM) trucks marketed
under the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Ram 1500 model names (the Subject
Vehicles). But like Volkswagen, Fiat Chrysler fought dirty. That
is, like Volkswagen did with its "clean diesels," Fiat Chrysler
concealed from regulators and consumers alike that the EcoDiesel
(TM) trucks were far from "Eco."

As the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has since
discovered, Fiat Chrysler, by and through FCA, concealed emission
treatment software features in the Subject Vehicle engine's diesel
controls on applications for EPA Certificates of Conformity
("COCs") and California Air Resources Board ("CARB") Executive
Orders ("EOs"). This hidden software, designed and implemented by
Bosch GmbH and Bosch LLC, allowed the Subject Vehicles to "pass"
emission testing and obtain COCs and EOs so that Fiat Chrysler
could import and sell the Subject Vehicles in the U.S. and
California, respectively. Once on America's roads, however, the
emission controls are de-activated or severely restricted such that
the Subject Vehicles spew much higher amounts of polluting nitrogen
oxides ("NOx") than permitted by law.

On January 12, 2017, the EPA issued a Notice of Violation ("NOV")
against Fiat and FCA for failing "to disclose [eight] Auxiliary
Emission Control Devices (AECDs)" in the 2014-2016 FCA Ram 1500s
and Jeep Grand Cherokees. 1 In the NOV, the EPA explained that,
despite having the opportunity to do so, Fiat and FCA failed to
refute that the "principal effect of one or more of these AECDs was
to bypass, defeat, or render inoperative one or more elements of
design installed to comply with emissions standards under the
[Clean Air Act]."

American consumers were caught in the middle of Fiat Chrysler's
scheme. Consumers have been wary of diesel engines as a relic of
the past: noisy and spewing thick, toxic smoke. This was an
understandable concern. A byproduct of diesel combustion is NOx, a
pollutant linked with serious health dangers and climate change.
Seeking to expand the diesel market in the U.S., large automakers
in the late 2000's sought to reimagine diesel for regulators and
consumers alike. For its part, Fiat Chrysler touted its "EcoDiesel"
technology as the best of both worlds: a "green" alternative to
gasoline with reduced emissions coupled with diesel's benefits of
greater torque, power, and fuel efficiency. Fiat Chrysler extracted
a premium for these "EcoDiesel" trucks, selling them for thousands
of dollars more than the cost of otherwise-comparable gasoline
trucks.

Contrary to its public representations, and concealed from
consumers and regulators alike, Fiat Chrysler secretly programmed
its EcoDiesel (TM) vehicles with hidden software features that
significantly reduced the effectiveness of the NOx reduction
technology during real-world driving conditions. As a result, the
Subject Vehicles emitted harmful pollutants at levels that were
illegally high and far in excess of what a reasonable consumer
would expect from an "Eco" vehicle. Plaintiffs confirmed that the
Subject Vehicles produced NOx emissions at an average of 222
mg/mile in city driving (four times the Federal Test Procedure
("FTP") standard of 50 mg/mile) and 353 mg/mile in highway driving
(five times higher than the U.S. highway standard of 70 mg/mile).
In many instances, NOx values were in excess of 1,600 mg/mile --
more than 20 times governmental standards.

Fiat Chrysler did not act alone. At the heart of the diesel scandal
is Bosch. Bosch GmbH and Bosch LLC, along with CEO Volkmar Denner
("Denner"), were active and knowing participants in the scheme.
Bosch designed, created, and tested the electronic diesel control
("EDC") units that allowed Fiat Chrysler to "pass" emission tests
for its COC and EO applications. Bosch went so far as to boast that
the "2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee features a Bosch emission system
compliant with the most stringent emission regulations in the
world. From fuel tank to tailpipe, Bosch is pleased to equip this
vehicle with top technologies to give consumers a great driving
experience requiring fewer stops at the pump." 5 Bosch has since,
however, acknowledged its role in the creation of defeat devices in
certain Fiat Chrysler diesel vehicles sold in the European Union
("EU"). VM Italy and VM America also knowingly participated in the
scheme by designing, manufacturing, and calibrating the "EcoDiesel"
engines in the Subject Vehicles.

As a result of Defendants' conduct, all Plaintiffs have suffered
actual damages, including direct, consequential and incidental
damages in an amount within the jurisdictional limited of this
Court. Moreover, FCA has been unjustly enriched by profiting from
their fraudulent and deceptive practices which led to the purchase,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

          Kenneth A. Stern, Esq.
          STERN LAW, PLLC
          41850 West 11 Mile Road, Suite 121
          Novi, MI 48375
          Telephone: (248) 347-7300
          Facsimile: (248) 305-3250
          E-mail: ken@sternlawonline.com

FORSTER & GARBUS: Violates FDCPA, Kouyate Suit Asserts
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus,
LLP. The case is styled as Abdoul Kouyate, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster & Garbus, LLP,
Ronald Forster and Mark A. Garbus, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00146 (E.D. N.Y., January 8, 2019).

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

Forster & Garbus LLP provides legal services. The Company
specializes in collecting debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




FULTON COMMONS: Salmon Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay Under NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EVE SALMON, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. FULTON COMMONS CARE CENTER, INC. and
IMMEDIATE MEDICAL STAFFING LTD., and any other affiliated entities
that employed Plaintiff and members of the putative class, Case No.
150020/2019 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., January 2, 2018), seeks to
recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation and unpaid wages
pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

Fulton Commons Care Center, Inc., is a business corporation
organized under the laws of the state of New York with its
principal place of business located in East Meadow, New York.
Fulton Commons operates a nursing and rehabilitation senior
center.

Immediate Medical Staffing, Ltd., is a business corporation
organized under the laws of the state of New York with its
principal place of business located in Brooklyn, New York.  IMS is
in the medical personnel staffing business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          Jack L. Newhouse, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
                  jnewhouse@vandallp.com


GEORGIA-PACIFIC WOOD: Faces Harris Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH HARRIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, PLAINTIFF v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC WOOD PRODUCTS, LLC, and
GEORGIA-PACIFIC, LLC, DEFENDANT, Case No. 6:19-cv-06001-SOH (W.D.
Ark., January 2, 2018), is brought on behalf of hourly-paid
employees employed by the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act for declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and
costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

Georgia-Pacific Wood Products, LLC, is a foreign limited liability
company, registered and licensed to do business in the state of
Arkansas.

Wood Products is a leading supplier of various wood-based building
supplies, such as sub-flooring, sheathing and lumber.  Wood
Products operates multiple manufacturing facilities worldwide,
including a facility in Arkansas.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, is a foreign limited liability company,
registered and licensed to do business in the state of Delaware.
Georgia-Pacific is a leading supplier of various types of building
products around the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GLAZE COMPANIES: Sued Over Unpaid OT Wages, Missing Wage Notices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Molina and Alejandro Vazquez, on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Glaze 4th Ave LLC,
Glaze 56th LLC, Glaze Teriyaki LLC, Paul Krug, Dennis Lake and John
Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-12225 (S.D. N.Y., December
27, 2018), seeks compensation for wages paid at less than the
statutory minimum wage, unpaid wages from defendants for overtime
work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay as
required by law and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law, "spread of hours"
requirements of New York Labor Law, and statutory damages for
violation of the Wage Theft Prevention Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants owned and operated a chain
of restaurants in Manhattan under the name "Glaze" where Plaintiffs
were employed as cooks. They regularly worked seven days per week
typically working roughly twelve-hour days, all without overtime
pay. Defendants did not provide a time clock, computer punch,
timesheets, or any other method for Mr. Morales to track his time
worked. Morales' effective rate of pay was below the statutory
federal minimum wage throughout his employment. Defendants also
failed to provide Mr. Morales with written wage notices providing
contact information, regular and overtime rates and intended
allowances claimed. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Stein, Esq.
      SAMUEL & STEIN
      38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
      New York, NY 10001
      Tel: (212) 563-9884
      Email: dstein@samuelandstein.com


GLYNN COUNTY, CA: Hearing in Class-Action Lawsuit Canceled
----------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Cooper, writing for The Brunswick News, reports that a
class-action lawsuit against Glynn County over incorrectly
calculated property taxes has gone to mediation, canceling a
hearing that was initially set for December 17.

Jay Roberts, a St. Simons Island attorney representing around 7,500
county residents in the class, said both parties had agreed to
enter mediation. He declined to comment on the content of their
discussions.

"We're in mediation, and I think I'll just leave it at that,"
Roberts said on December 14.

His previous comments about the amount county taxpayers are
actually owed, he said, still stand.

In previous interviews with The News, Roberts estimated the county
overcharged residents by around $30-34 million in total and said
the amount will only increase as the case drags on, ultimately
making more trouble for the county.

County attorneys declined to comment on the case, but in a court
filing stated there are "insurmountable barriers" to calculating
refunds on a class-wide basis. The county moved to decertify the
class so it could refund each member individually.

"Almost immediately, it became apparent that performing class-wide
calculations of potential refunds would be impossible. Further, a
preliminary review of the county's records made clear that numerous
class members are not entitled to relief at all," the county's
attorneys wrote in the motion to decertify the class filed in
November.

The motion listed a number of questions that would need to be
answered before a calculation could be made, and each one has to be
researched on an individual basis.

"None of these questions can be answered without retrieving the
class member's individual file and performing labyrinth
calculations, and in some cases, they cannot be answered by
existing information at all," according to the motion.

Roberts said in November that the motion was an attempt to get out
of refunding the class members.

The original case alleging the county had overcharged on property
taxes was filed in 2012, followed by two more in 2013 and 2014. All
three were certified as a class action in 2015.

Plaintiffs claimed the county had selected the wrong year on which
to base their Scarlett Williams homestead exemptions. In a
homestead exemption, a full-time resident's property taxes are
locked in at a base year, the year in which their exemption was
approved.

By calculating their property taxes using the wrong base year, the
county had overcharged residents on property taxes going back at
least to 2001, according to the first case.

Cobb County Superior Court Judge G. Grant Brantley ruled in the
county's favor in January of this year, but his decision was
partially overturned by the Georgia Court of Appeals in March.

Brantley ruled the county had applied the exemption correctly. The
appeals court's ruling stated the county had incorrectly applied
the exemption but upheld another part of Brantley's ruling — that
the residents could only seek refunds for taxes paid in the three
years prior to the refund request, per state law.

The Georgia Supreme Court declined to hear the case in August.[GN]


HUNT COUNTRY: Traynor Files ADA Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Hunt Country Vineyards, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Yaseen Traynor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Hunt Country Vineyards, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00187 (S.D. N.Y., January 8, 2019).

Hunt Country Vineyards is a vineyard and winery located near Keuka
Lake in the Finger Lakes AVA region of New York State, USA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Odeh Hits Share Drop from Data Integrity Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ahmad Odeh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Immunomedics, Inc., Michael Pehl, Usama
Malik, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-17645 (D. N.J., December 27,
2018), seeks compensatory and punitive damages, costs, expert fees,
disbursements and attorneys' fees for violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Immunomedics is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company
developing monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted
treatment of cancer.

The US FDA cited Immunomedics for a host of violations including
its handling of a data integrity breach at its Morris Plains, New
Jersey manufacturing facility, manipulating bio-burden samples,
misrepresenting an integrity test procedure in the batch record and
backdating of batch records, such as dates of analytical results.
As a result, Immunomedics shares fell from an opening price of
$18.54 to close at $17.86, a decline of 4%.

Odeh acquired and held Immunomedics shares at artificially inflated
prices and lost substantially, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Katrina Carroll, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: 312.750.1265
      Email: kcarroll@litedepalma.com

             - and -

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


INNOVATIVE HEALTH: Class of Subscribers Certified in Northrup Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Charlene Edwards Honeywell grants the Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification and Supplement to Motion for Class
Certification in the lawsuit titled JOHN NORTHRUP, individually and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v.
Innovative Health Insurance Partners, LLC; CyberX Group, LLC; David
E. Lindsey; and Independent Truckers Group, Inc., Case No.
8:17-cv-01890-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla.).

The Court certifies this class:

     All cellular telephone subscribers in the United States who
     had a phone number listed in the Call Logs (filed at Docket
     Nos. 54-5 through 54-9), where the Call Logs' entry for the
     phone number reflects that the June 30, 2017 "Obama Care"
     text message was "delivered" in the "Status" column; and
     where the phone number was assigned to a cell phone (as
     opposed to a landline or VoIP line) on June 30, 2017.

The Court approves John Northrup as Class Representative and his
counsel, Cory S. Fein, Esq., as Class Counsel.

The parties are provided 30 days from the date of this Order to
confer on a class notice plan and issues that may arise associated
with the administration of the class, including the form and
content of the notice, and the establishment of an opt-out period
and procedure, and shall advise the Court of these efforts and
whether there are issues that require the Court's resolution.[CC]


JAMESPORT VINEYARDS: Traynor Suit Alleges Disabilities Act Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamesport Vineyards Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Yaseen Traynor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Jamesport Vineyards Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00188 (S.D. N.Y., January 8, 2019).

Jamesport Vineyards is a father-son collaboration that began in
1986 making it one of the North Fork's oldest vineyards.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



JOHNSON MARK LLC: Merrill Files FDCPA Suit in Utah
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Johnson Mark LLC. The
case is styled as Shakara Merrill, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Johnson Mark LLC and
Midland Funding, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00018-PMW (D. Utah,
January 9, 2019).

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

Johnson Mark LLC is a law firm engaged in the practice of civil
litigation focusing on debt collection and creditor rights.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Brett D. Cragun, Esq.
   CRAGUN & CRAGUN
   PO BOX 160234
   CLEARFIELD, UT 84016
   Tel: (801) 450-3267
   Email: brett@brettcragun.com




JP MORGAN: Faces Suit After Guilty Pleas in Precious Metals Trading
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HITC reports that  at least six lawsuits, all making similar
allegations against the nation's largest bank, have been filed in
New York federal court in the past month, since federal prosecutors
in Connecticut unveiled a plea agreement with a former J. P. Morgan
Chase metals trader.

The cases could potentially include thousands of people who traded
in the precious metals market. The White Plains, N.Y., law firm
Lowey Dannenberg is asking the court to combine the cases and name
it as the lead.

The law firm's commodities group is led by Vincent Briganti, Esq.
-- vbriganti@lowey.com -- the attorney who filed the first lawsuit
on behalf of Dominick Cognata, a New York resident who alleges he
suffered losses due to J. P. Morgan's trading conduct in the silver
and gold futures and options markets.

A combined case, seeking class action status, would include anyone
who purchased or sold futures contracts or an option on NYMEX
platinum or palladium or COMEX silver or gold between at least Jan.
1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2015. The lawyers believe that "at least
hundreds, if not thousands" of traders would be eligible to join
the case.

Named as defendants in all of the lawsuits are John Edmonds, a
36-year old former metals trader at J. P. Morgan, a group of
yet-to-be-identified precious metals traders and the bank.

Edmonds, a New York resident, pleaded guilty in October to one
count of conspiracy to defraud the market and manipulate prices of
precious metals futures contracts and one count of commodities
fraud. In the criminal plea, Edmonds admitted that he and other
"unnamed co-conspirators" at J. P. Morgan, fraudulently manipulated
precious metals markets from 2009 to 2015, the same time frame
covered in the class action suits.

Briganti filed the initial class action on Nov. 7, just one day
after the Justice Department unsealed Edmonds' plea in the U.S.
District Court of Connecticut.

Edmonds admitted in his guilty plea that he deployed the illegal
trading scheme hundreds of times with the direct knowledge and
consent of his immediate supervisors. Plaintiffs say they have
suffered economic injury, including monetary losses, as a direct
result of actions by Edmonds and the other unnamed J. P. Morgan
metals traders in the futures and options contracts.

One of the suits alleges that "the number of unlawful trades that
JP Morgan traders executed in precious metals futures markets is at
least in the thousands."

J. P. Morgan declined to comment. Lowey Dannenberg did not respond
to a request for comment by CNBC.

The Justice Department's criminal investigation is still ongoing
and recently caused a separate related civil case to be put on hold
for at least six months while the government continues its
investigation. That civil lawsuit, which also accuses J. P. Morgan
of rigging the precious metals market, was filed in 2015 by hedge
fund manager Daniel Shak and two commodity traders.

After reviewing the details of the plea agreement, David Kovel,
Esq. -- dkovel@kmllp.com-- the attorney for Shak's suit, sought to
re-interview Edmonds, along with two other current and former
senior traders at the bank. However, the government argued that
reopening questioning would be detrimental to the ongoing criminal
investigation. The federal judge overseeing the proceedings ordered
a six-month stay in the civil case.

Kovel declined to comment.

Edmonds was originally scheduled to be sentenced in Hartford,
Conn., on Dec. 19, but a court filing on Nov. 27 shows the
sentencing has been postponed until June. A spokesman for the U.S.
Attorney for Connecticut could not elaborate on why the sentencing
was postponed since the court filing is under seal.[GN]


KROGER CO: Price Sues Over Denied Insurance Benefit Claim
---------------------------------------------------------
Desiree Price, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The Kroger Co., Case No. 2018CH16033 (Ill.
Cir., December 27, 2018), seeks actual and compensatory damages
arising from breach of contract, attorney's fees, expenses and
costs, and other such further relief for bad faith insurance
practices and common law fraud.

Price applied for and were awarded short term disability benefits
under Kroger's self-funded short term disability benefit plan.
Kroger allegedly withheld approved short-term disability payments
of their workers' compensation claims.

Kroger operates grocery stores in several states under various
trade names, including but not limited to "Mariano's" in Illinois.
Price has been an employee of Kroger since July 2016, working in
various roles at several Mariano's store locations in Cook County
and Lake County in Illinois. She applied for a family medical leave
and Short-Term Disability Benefit for a foot condition.

Kroger, through its agent Sedgwick CMS, held all compensation cases
under investigation until August 13, 2018, when they formally
disputed their workers' compensation claims. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Arik D. Hetue, Esq.
     Hetue Law, PC
     1333 Burr Ridge Parkway, Suite 200
     Burr Ridge, IL 60527
     Tel: (630) 634-8401
     Email: arik@hetuelaw.com



LIVING ROOM: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Gonzalez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERTO BAUTISTA GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself, and others
similarly situated v. LIVING ROOM RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE, INC., dba
LIVING ROOM RESTAURANT; or any other business entity doing business
as LIVING ROOM RESTAURANT, located at 178 Avenue U, Brooklyn, New
York 11223 and BEGUM SHAHNAZ, individually, Case No. 1:19-cv-00012
(E.D.N.Y., January 2, 2018), alleges that the Defendants knowingly
and willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff lawfully earned wages,
minimum wages and overtime compensation, in contravention of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Living Room Restaurant and Lounge, Inc., is a domestic business
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of
New York.  Begum Shahnaz is the owner, officer, director and/or
managing agent of Living Room Restaurant.

The Defendants do business as a lounge, restaurant and bar known as
Living Room Restaurant, with a principal place of business located
at 178 Avenue U, in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          708 Third A venue - 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com
                  pcooper@jcpclaw.com


LOMA NEGRA: Carmona Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Eugenio Carmona, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Loma Negra Compania Industrial Argentina Sociedad
Anonima et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-11323 (S.D. N.Y., December 5,
2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Securities Act of 1933.

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Loma Negra American
Depositary Shares pursuant or traceable to the F-1 registration
statement, incorporated in pari materia F-6 registration statement,
and related prospectus issued in connection with Loma Negra's
November 2017 initial public stock offering.

In November 2017, Defendants commenced the IPO, issuing
approximately 53.5 million ADS to the investing public at $19 per
share, all pursuant to the Registration Statement. The Registration
Statement, however, contained untrue statements of material fact
and omitted to state material facts both required by governing
regulations and necessary to make the statements made not
misleading.

The Plaintiff purchased Loma Negra ADS pursuant or traceable to the
IPO.

The Defendant Loma Negra is a South American manufacturer and
distributor of cement, concrete, and other building materials.
Headquartered in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Loma Negra conducted its
IPO in New York, and its ADS are listed on the New York Stock
Exchange under the ticker symbol "LOMA."

The Individual Defendants are Loma Negra officers and directors,
and the selling shareholder in the IPO. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: 11th Circuit Appeal Filed in Freedman Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Robert Freedman filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Robert Freedman v. Magicjack Vocaltec Ltd., et
al., Case No. 9:17-cv-80940-RLR, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 11, 2018, Judge
Robin L. Rosenberg granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second
Amended Complaint.

Robert Freedman brought the action on Aug. 11, 2017, by filing a
Class Action Complaint against magicJack, et al.  By Order dated
Au. 9, 2018, the Court dismissed the amended complaint without
prejudice, and permitted the Plaintiff one more opportunity to
amend.  The Plaintiff subsequently filed his Second Amended
Complaint against all the remaining Defendants except for YMax.

The Complaint alleges that the Defendants made material
misrepresentations, or omitted material facts, in two proxy
statements regarding the valuation and financial prospects of a
company known as Broadsmart, which magicJack acquired in March 2016
for $40 million.

The appellate case is captioned as Robert Freedman v. Magicjack
Vocaltec Ltd., et al.., Case No. 18-15303, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- The appellant's brief is due on or before January 30, 2019;

   -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
      the appellant's brief;

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
      before January 18, 2019, as to Appellees Don C. Bell III,
      Donald A. Burns, Izhak Gross, Richard Harris, Alan Howe,
      Magicjack Vocaltec Ltd., Yuen Wah Sing, Gerald Vento and
      Tali Yaron-Eldar.[BN]

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

          Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK, LLP
          501 W Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA 92101-3579
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333
          E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com

               - and -

          Kyle Charles Young, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KYLE C. YOUNG PL
          205 Worth Ave., Suite 201
          Palm Beach, FL 33480
          Telephone: (561) 635-1114
          E-mail: kcy@lawyer.com

Defendants-Appellees MAGICJACK VOCALTEC LTD., DON C. BELL, III,
GERALD VENTO, DONALD A. BURNS, RICHARD HARRIS, YUEN WAH SING, ALAN
HOWE, IZHAK GROSS and TALI YARON-ELDAR are represented by:

          David Axelman, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE, LLP
          200 S Biscayne Blvd., Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (786) 322-7395
          E-mail: David.Axelman@bclplaw.com

               - and -

          Glenn B. Coleman, Esq.
          Chris LaRocco, Esq.
          Eric Rieder, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE, LLP
          1290 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 3300
          New York, NY 10104
          Telephone: (212) 541-2000
          E-mail: GBColeman@bclplaw.com
                  chris.larocco@bclplaw.com
                  ERieder@bclplaw.com


MARRIOTT INT'L: Borst Files Suit in Maryland
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marriott
International, Inc. The case is styled as Adam Borst, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Marriott International, Inc. and Starwood Hotels & Resorts
Worldwide, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00060 (D. Md., January
7, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as diversity
action.

Marriott International is an American multinational diversified
hospitality company that manages and franchises a broad portfolio
of hotels and related lodging facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan P Kagan, Esq.
   Kagan Law Group, LLC
   15 School Street
   Third Floor
   Annapolis, MD 21401
   Tel: (410) 216-7900
   Fax: (410) 705-0836
   Email: kagan@kaganlawgroup.com


MARRIOTT INT'L: Jan. 30 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors that they have until January 30, 2019 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against
Marriott International, Inc. (NasdaqGS: MAR), if they purchased the
Company's securities between November 9, 2016 and November 29,
2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action is pending in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.

               Get Help

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

          About the Lawsuit

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

On November 30, 2018, the Company disclosed a massive security
breach discovered in its guest reservation database potentially
exposing the credit card, passport and other personal data of "up
to approximately 500 million guests" over a four year period in
what news reports are describing as one of the largest data
breaches on record based on scope of time and volume of potential
victims.

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

The case is McGrath v. Marriott International, Inc. et al,
1:18-cv-06845. [GN]


MARYLAND MARKETSOURCE: Esparza Suit Transferred to D. Maryland
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Johnny Esparza, on behalf of himself , all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Maryland MarketSource Inc., a Maryland
corporation; Allegis Group, Inc., a Maryland corporation; and
Allegis Group Holdings, Inc., a Maryland corporation, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02971, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for Northern District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland (Baltimore) on Jan 2,
2019. The District of Maryland Court Clerk assigned Case No.:
1:19-cv-00023-GJH to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge George Jarrod Hazel. The suit alleges consumer credit
law violation.[BN]

MDL 2741: Conn v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled SUSAN CONN and TODD CONN, the
Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.  4:18-cv-02008
(Filed Nov. 29, 2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Jan. 2,
2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:19-cv-00008-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Conn case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

MDL 2741: Dugger v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled THERESA DUGGER, individually and on
behalf of ULICE DUGGER, (deceased), Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01998 (Filed Nov. 28, 2018),
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on Jan. 2, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00006-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Dugger case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

MDL 2741: Evans v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled KAREN EVANS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
SURVIVING SPOUSE OF DECEDENT CECIL J. EVANS, Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00513 (Filed Oct. 3, 2018),
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on Jan. 2, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00005-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and
proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Evans case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Matthew J. Sill, Esq.
          Katie Griffin, Esq.
          Tara Tabatabaie, Esq.
          SILL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          1101 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 102
          Oklahoma City, OK 73103
          Telephone: (405) 509-6300
          Facsimile: (405) 509-6268
          E-mail: msill@fulmersill.com
                  kgriffin@fulmersill.com
                  ttabatabaie@fulmersill.com

MDL 2741: Ploof v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MICHAEL PLOOF, Plaintiff, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02029 (Filed Dec. 5,
2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on Jan. 2, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00010-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and
proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Ploof case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
          Joseph B. Carnduff, Esq.
          156 N. Main St.
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 659-9833
          Facsimile: (618) 659-9834
          E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com
                  jcarnduff@gorijulianlaw.com

MDL 2741: Shapiro v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JEFFREY B. SHAPIRO and DEBORA
SHAPIRO, Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-02030 (Filed Dec. 5, 2018), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on Jan. 2, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00011-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and
proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Shapiro case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

MDL 2741: Triplett v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled GREGORY TRIPLETT, Plaintiff, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02009 (Filed Nov. 29,
2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on Jan. 2, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00009-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and
proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Triplett case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re:
Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order
of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions
arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide,
particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their
decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over
the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that
the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in
particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA),
renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues
concerning general causation, the background science, and
regulatory history will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

MENLO THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Menlo Therapeutics, Inc. ("Menlo" or the "Company")
(NASDAQGS: MNLO) pursuant or traceable to the Company's Initial
Public Offering closed on January 29, 2018.

You are hereby notified that a securities action has been commenced
in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Mateo. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Menlo securities
pursuant to the initial public offering, your rights may be
affected by this action.

In its January 2018 IPO, Menlo issued over 8 million shares at $17
per share, raising over $136 million in gross proceeds. In its
registration statement, Menlo stated that if the results of its
Phase 2 clinical trials for the treatment of pruritus are
promising, the company would "rapidly advance into Phase 3 clinical
trials" and would use the net proceeds from the IPO to fund such
trials. However, well before the IPO, data for the primary outcome
measure of the Phase 2 clinical trial had already exposed
serlopitant as ineffective and having little or no prospect of
Phase 3 clinical trials or approval by the U.S. Federal Drug
Administration.

On April 8, 2018, Menlo revealed that the data it collected before
the IPO did not meet the efficacy endpoints and its drug was
therefore not effective. Menlo shares currently trade at only $5.55
per share -- a 67% decline from the IPO price.

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
                jlevi@zlk.com [GN]


MERCHANTS CREDIT: Faces Zablocki's FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Merchants Credit
Guide Co.  The case is styled as Casimer Zablocki, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
Merchants Credit Guide Co., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-08489,
N.D. Ill., Dec. 27, 2018).  The case is assigned to the Hon.
Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.  The lawsuit alleges Fair Debt Collection Act
violation.

Merchants' Credit Guide Co. operates as a consumer and commercial
accounts receivable management firm in the United States.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

MYSPACE NYC REALTY: Fischler Claims Website not Blind-friendly
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Myspace NYC Realty LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-07373, (S.D. N.Y., December 27, 2018),
seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory
and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, costs and expenses of this action together with
reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further
relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State
Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

Myspace provides real estate and marketing services for buildings
throughout Brooklyn. It also provides a website that allows
customers to learn information about the offices' locations and
contact information, agents' information, search available
apartments, rooms and commercial space. Fischler browsed and
intended to make avail of their services. Plaintiff is legally
blind and claims that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Teiner Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Christopher Teiner on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Nationwide Credit, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 622414/2018, was removed from the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, Suffolk County, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn) on Jan. 2,
2019. The Eastern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:19-cv-00031 to the proceeding. The suit alleges Fair Debt
Collection Act violation.

Nationwide Credit, Inc., a collection agency, provides customer
relationship and accounts receivable management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Benjamin Samuel Noren, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON
          800 3rd Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 471-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 935-1166
          E-mail: bnoren@hinshawlaw.com

NCB MANAGEMENT: Faces Gracius Suit Alleging FDCPA Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NCB Management
Services Inc. The case is styled as Cassandra Gracius, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NCB
Management Services Inc, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00154 (E.D.
N.Y., January 8, 2019).

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

NCB Management Services, Inc. provides call center/business process
outsourcing solutions in the United States. The company offers
accounts receivable management solutions in the areas of bank
cards, retail/business cards, consumer loans, installment loans,
auto deficiency, commercial loans, direct mails, mortgage
servicing, collection programs, and pre-charge off programs for
financial markets; debt recovery services for education
sectors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEWFIELD EXPLORATION: Farias Sues Over Encana Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
Richard Farias, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 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 and J. Kent Wells, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00059-UNA (D. Del., January 9, 2019) is a stockholder class
action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other
public stockholders of Newfield Exploration Company against
Newfield and the members of Newfield's Board of Directors for their
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin
the stockholder vote on a proposed merger transaction, unless and
until violations are cured.

On November 1, 2018, Newfield and Encana issued a joint press
release announcing they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger dated October 31, 2018. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, each issued and outstanding share of Newfield common
stock will be converted into the right to receive 2.6719 Encana
common shares. Based on the October 31, 2018 closing price of
Encana common stock, the implied value of the Merger Consideration
is $27.36 per share. The Proposed Transaction is valued at
approximately $5.5 billion. On December 4, 2018, Encana and
Newfield filed a joint proxy statement/prospectus on Form S-4 with
the SEC in connection with the Proposed Transaction.

The complaint asserts that the Registration Statement, which
recommends that Newfield stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (i) the Company's and Encana's
financial projections, relied upon by Newfield's financial advisor,
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC in its financial analyses; (ii) the
valuation analyses prepared by J.P. Morgan in connection with the
rendering of its fairness opinion; and (iii) Company insiders'
potential conflicts of interest. The failure to adequately disclose
such material information constitutes a violation of the Exchange
Act, as Newfield stockholders need such information to cast a
fully-informed vote in connection with the Proposed Transaction,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff is, and has been at all times relevant hereto, a
continuous stockholder of Newfield.

Newfield is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located at 4 Waterway Square Place, Suite 100, The
Woodlands, Texas 77380. Newfield is an independent energy company,
engaged in the exploration, development and production of crude
oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids ("NGLs"). The Company's
common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker
symbol "NFX".

Lee K. Boothby has been Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), President,
and a director of the Company since 2009 and Chairman of the Board
since 2010.

Steven W. Nance is Lead Director and has been a director of the
Company since 2013.

Pamela J. Gardner has been a director of the Company since 2005.
Edgar R. Giesinger has been a director of the Company since 2017.
Roger B. Plank has been a director of the Company since 2015.
Thomas G. Ricks has been a director of the Company since 1992.
Juanita M. Romans has been a director of the Company since 2005.
John W. Schanck has been a director of the Company since 2013. J.
Terry Strange has been a director of the Company since 2004. J.
Kent Wells has been a director of the Company since 2015.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     George Pazuniak, Esq.
     Pazuniak Law Office LLC
     1201 Orange Street
     7th Floor, Suite 7114
     Wilmington, DE 19801-1186
     Phone: (302) 478-4230
     Email: gp@del-iplaw.com

          - and -

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


NISSAN MOTOR: Feb. 8 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC and KSF partner, former Attorney General of
Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have
until February 8, 2019 to file lead plaintiff applications in a
securities class action lawsuit against Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.
(OTC: NSANY), if they purchased the Company's American Depositary
Receipts ("ADRs") between December 10, 2013 and November 16, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action is pending in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

                What You May Do

If you purchased ADRs of Nissan and would like to discuss your
legal rights 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/otc-nsany/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by February 8, 2019.

                About the Lawsuit

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

On November 19, 2018, news reports revealed Nissan CEO and
Chairman, Carlos Ghosn and former Board member and Senior Vice
President, Greg Kelly, had been arrested by Japanese authorities
for financial crimes.  The Company later disclosed that its
internal investigation over the past several months uncovered
numerous wrongful acts by both spanning many years, including
improperly reporting expenses and personal use of company assets.

On this news, the price of Nissan's ADRs plummeted.

The case is Jackson County Employees' Retirement System v. Ghosn,
et al., 18-cv-01368.

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


NISSAN MOTOR: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
disclosed the filing of a class action lawsuit against Nissan Motor
Co., Ltd. ("Nissan" or "the Company") (OTC: NSANY) for violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between December 10,
2013 and November 16, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before February 8, 2019.           

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall, or Sherin Mahdavian,
of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of
charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at
www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Nissan understated its expenses by hiding
half of former Chairman and CEO Carlos Ghosn's compensation. By not
reporting this compensation, the Company was able to overstate
profits, and avoid investor scrutiny of Ghosn's extremely large
compensation package. Ghosn's compensation was underreported over
the last decade by an amount estimated at almost $90 million USD.
Nissan also failed to inform investors about the poor internal
controls that allowed the deceptive compensation practices to be
put in place. At the same time, it ignored the advice of outside
auditors who advised the Company to put proper controls in place.
Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false
and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the
market learned the truth about Nissan, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         Sherin Mahdavian, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         Telephone: 310-301-3335
         Email: brian@schallfirm.com.
                sherin@schallfirm.com [GN]


NOBILIS HEALTH: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
National law firm Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, captioned Van'T Hoofd v. Nobilis Heath Corp.  
et. al., (4:18-cv-04727) on behalf of persons and/or entities that
acquired Nobilis Health Corp. ("Nobilis" or the "Company") (NYSE
American: HLTH ) securities between May 8, 2018 and November 15,
2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Nobilis investors are hereby notified that they have 60 daysfrom
the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff in this action. Note only investors that purchased on a
United States Exchange are eligible to participate.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click  here to
participate.

On November 9, 2018, Nobilis announced that it is "re-evaluating
the Net Realizable Value on its Accounts Receivable and intends to
make a significant adjustment to the carrying value of accounts
receivable, primarily on out of network claims greater than 365
days old." The Company filed for additional time to file its 10-Q
for the period ended September 30, 2018 while the Company and the
auditor completed their review of the financial statements. On this
news, Nobilis's share price fell $0.18 per share, or over 25%, to
close at $0.52 per share on November 12, 2018, on unusually heavy
trading volume, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company's accounts receivable was
overstated; (2) that, as a result, the Company's revenue was
overstated; (3) that, as a result of the required adjustments, the
Company's quarterly report would not be timely filed; (4) that, as
a result, the Company would not be in compliance with NYSE listing
requirements; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/GPM_LLP.

If you purchased Nobilis securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than  60 daysfrom the date of this
notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a
member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you
may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters please;

         Lesley Portnoy,Esq.
         Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
         Los Angeles, California 90067
         Telephone: 310-201-9150
                    888-773-9224
         Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com
                shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Israel Disputes Collection Letter Validity
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amrom Israel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Northstar Location Services, LLC, John Does
1-25 Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-07408 (E.D. N.Y., December 27,
2018), seeks damages and declaratory relief under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Northstar, is a collection agency assigned to collect an obligation
owed by Israel to Bank of America, NA via a collection letter.
Israel called Northstar to dispute the validity of the debt.
However, their representative refused to entertain his attempts to
dispute the validity of the collection letter, says the complaint.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ONTARIO: Suit Over Mental Health Program Delays Wins Class Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Perkel, writing for The Star, reports that a lawsuit alleging
the Ontario government has been arbitrarily making thousands of
mentally disabled people wait indefinitely for provincial
government supports after they turn 18 was certified as a class
action on December 14.

In his decision, Superior Court Justice Edward Belobaba agreed the
plaintiff had made a strong enough case to allow the as-yet
untested claim to proceed to trial on its merits.

"The plaintiff's complaint is not about inadequate funding or the
need for a greater allocation of governmental resources but about
the negligent utilization and administration of existing
resources," Belobaba wrote in his decision. "The plaintiff points
to the indeterminate delays in the wait-listed services, the flawed
computer programs and bad databases, and the poor prioritization
and matching of available resources."

The lawsuit, which accuses the province of harm-causing negligence,
seeks $110 million in damages. It also asks for a declaration that
the government has failed adults assessed as eligible for help but
who have instead been placed on indeterminate waiting lists.

Belobaba appointed as representative plaintiff Briana Leroux, 20,
of Timmins, Ont., a woman with a rare brain disorder. She has a
mental age of about three, cannot speak, and lacks the most basic
ability to care for herself.

Her father Marc Leroux, acting as her litigation guardian, has
previously told The Canadian Press that the loss of a day program
and other help for his daughter when she turned 18 caused immense
stress on the family. He was not immediately available to comment
on Decenber 14.

In his analysis, Belobaba agreed to allow certification on two of
three grounds Leroux had proposed: negligence and a breach of her
charter rights.

"Although a meaningful milestone for many, turning 18 has no
medical or other significance for developmentally disabled
persons," Belobaba observed. "Nothing changes when they become 18
-- they remain disabled, with the same mental age, and the same
need for support and services."

The only change, the justice wrote, is they have to deal with the
Ministry of Community and Social Services rather than the Ministry
of Children and Youth Services.

"The problem arises after the developmentally disabled person has
been formally assessed and approved to receive government support
and services," Belobaba said. "The evidence is that the families
are then 'dropped off a cliff' and nothing happens -- for a very
long time."

While Belobaba did agree Leroux could press her claim for breach of
her constitutional rights, he did say it would "probably not
succeed on the merits." However, he noted the only requirement for
certification was to show the claim had at least some chance of
success. Similarly, he also found it possible that a claim for
damages under the charter could succeed.

The proposed class, as certified, comprises people found eligible
for government-funded developmental supports starting on July 1,
2011, but who were instead placed on wait lists.

Belobaba also certified three common issues to be decided at trial:
whether there was a breach of duty of care or a constitutional
violation, and whether punitive damages are available.

During the certification hearing, the lawyer for the province
insisted clients are assessed and prioritized according to their
needs, with the most urgent cases getting help even after turning
18. The government also tried to argue the plaintiff was attacking
a policy decision immune from judicial scrutiny.

"It's not the policy of the government, say the plaintiffs, to have
a totally screwed-up system," Belobaba said at the hearing.[GN]


ORION MARINE: Seeks Prelim. Approval of $23,300 "Kelly" Class Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit captioned JORDAN KELLY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. ORION MARINE
CONSTRUCTION, INC. d/b/a ORION MARINE GROUP, Case No.
8:18-cv-01400-CEH-CPT (M.D. Fla.), ask the Court to enter an
order:

   (1) preliminarily certifying a class for settlement purposes
       only;

   (2) preliminarily approving the settlement agreement between
       Kelly, the putative class, and Orion Marine;

   (3) approving the form and manner of notice to the class; and

   (4) scheduling a fairness hearing for the final consideration
       and approval of the parties' settlement.

The parties' settlement agreement, if approved by the Court, will
resolve all claims of both Mr. Kelly as the named plaintiff and the
putative class members for whom Orion Marine procured consumer
reports in the two years preceding the complaint.  The settlement
recognizes the existence of 932 putative class members.

Under the agreement, Orion Marine will create a non-reversionary
common fund of $23,300 for the class members, resulting in a payout
of $25 for each claimant.  Additionally, and subject to this
Court's approval, Orion Marine will make a direct payment to the
lead class counsel of up to $10,000 and a direct payment to Kelly
personally of up to $2,000 -- these direct payments will not reduce
the amounts available to the claimants under the common fund.
Orion Marine will also pay the reasonable costs associated with
administering the common fund.

The class members will each receive notice of their rights to the
common fund and, in the event any amounts are rejected or
undeliverable, those funds will be distributed to a Section
501(c)(3) charity organization, Bay Area Legal Services.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Matthew K. Fenton, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A
          1110 N. Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  mfenton@wfclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Phillip J. Harris, Esq.
          CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
          100 N. Tampa St., Suite 3350
          P.O. Box 1840
          Tampa, FL 33601-1840
          Telephone: (813) 223-7166
          Facsimile: (813) 223-2515
          E-mail: pharris@constangy.com


PENN'S VIEW INN: Lazarev Files Suit under ADA in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Penn's View Inn, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Dmitriy Lazarev, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Penn's View Inn, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00101 (E.D. N.Y., January 7, 2019).

Penn's View Hotel is a historic standout among hotels in Old City,
Philadelphia, offering warm accommodations in a charming
setting.[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


PITTSBURGH, PA: D.C. Files ADA Class Suit
-----------------------------------------
Pittsburgh Public Schools is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as D.C., a minor, A.T., on her own behalf and F.T., his
grandfather, on his own behalf, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Pittsburgh Public Schools, Officer Marion Parker, MR.
Nicholas Sible and Mr. Mark Mcclinchie, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00012-MJH (W.D. Penn., January 7, 2019).

Pittsburgh Public Schools is the public school district in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States and adjacent Mount Oliver.
The combined land area of these municipalities is 58.3 square miles
with a population of 342,503 according to the 2000 census. In March
2012, Linda Lane was named as the superintendent.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kristen C. Weidus, Esq.
   Ruder Law
   429 Forbes Avenue
   Suite 450
   Pittsburgh, PA 15219
   Tel: (412) 281-4959
   Fax: (412) 291-1389
   Email: KristenWeidus@ruderlaw.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Lewis Files FDCPA Suit in Kentucky
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as La Christal S. Lewis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00022-DJH (W.D. Ky., January 8,
2019).

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

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, also known as Anchor
Receivables Management, manages past-due accounts. It serves
customers through account representatives. The company was
incorporated in 1996 and is based in Norfolk, Virginia. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC operates as a subsidiary of PRA Group,
Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Yaakov Saks, Esq.
   Stein Saks PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500 x101
   Fax: (201) 282-6501
   Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


PPDAI GROUP: Goyal Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Yogendra Goyal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PPDAI Group Inc., Jun Zhang, Tiezheng Li,
Honghui Hu, Shaofeng Gu, Ronald Cao, Congliang Li, Neil Nanpeng
Shen, Zehui Liu, Qiong Wang, Simon Tak Leung Ho, Credit Suisse
Securities (USA) LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., and Keefe,
Bruyette & Woods, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00168 (E.D.
N.Y., January 9, 2019) is a federal securities class action on
behalf of individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired PPDAI
American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") pursuant or traceable to the
F-1 registration statement, F-6 registration statement, and related
Prospectus issued in connection with PPDAI's November 2017 initial
public share offering, who were damaged thereby, and who seek to
pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

PPDAI's propriety P2P platform facilitates loan transactions and
provides services that match borrowers to lenders offering
short-term loans. PPDAI's revenue is generated primarily from fees
charged to borrowers for matching them with investors, as well as
other services provided during a given loan's lifecycle. In
November 2017, pursuant to its Registration Statement, PPDAI issued
approximately 17 million ADSs at $13.00 per ADS in its IPO, raising
$221 million.

The complaint relates that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
PPDAI was engaging in predatory lending practices, burdening
subprime borrowers and individuals with poor or limited credit
histories with debt at high interest rates that they could not
afford to repay; (ii) PPDAI's revenues and active borrower numbers
were inflated by the many PPDAI consumers that used PPDAI loans to
repay their existing loans that they could not otherwise afford to
repay, which also increased the risk of borrower defaults; (iii)
PPDAI was experiencing a rise in delinquency rates that negatively
impacted its reserves; (iv) PPDAI's touted "rapid growth" in both
loan number and loan amount had materially fallen; (v) PPDAI was
providing online loans to college students despite a government ban
on the practice; (vi) PPDAI engaged in overly aggressive and
improper collection practices; (vii) PPDAI was at a heightened risk
of adverse action from Chinese regulators because of its improper
lending, underwriting, and collection practices; and (viii) as a
result of the foregoing, PPDAI's Registration Statement was
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired PPDAI ADSs and was
damaged by the revelation of corrective disclosure.

PPDAI is a Cayman Islands corporation with its principal executive
offices located at Building G1, No. 999 Dangui Road, Pudong New
District, Shanghai, PRC. PPDAI ADSs trade in an efficient market on
the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") under the ticker symbol
"PPDF".

Jun Zhang was, at all relevant times, PPDAI's Chief Executive
Officer, a co-founder of the Company, and the Chairman of PPDAI's
Board of Directors.

Tiezheng Li was, at all relevant times, PPDAI's Chief Strategy
Officer, a co-founder of the Company, and a member of PPDAI's Board
of Directors.

Honghui Hu was, at all relevant times, PPDAI's President, a
co-founder of the Company, and a member of PPDAI's Board of
Directors.

Shaofeng Gu was, at all relevant times, a co-founder of the Company
and a member of PPDAI's Board of Directors.

Ronald Cao was, at all relevant times, a member of PPDAI's Board of
Directors.

Congliang Li was a member of PPDAI's Board of Directors until
December 2017.

Neil Nanpeng Shen was, at all relevant times, a member of PPDAI's
Board of Directors.

Zehui Liu was, at all relevant times, a member of PPDAI's Board of
Directors.

Qiong Wang was a member of PPDAI's Board of Directors until
December 2017.

Simon Tak Leung Ho was, at all relevant times, PPDAI's Chief
Financial Officer ("CFO").

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
and Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc. are financial services companies
that acted as an underwriter for PPDAI's IPO, helping to draft and
disseminate the Registration Statement and solicit investors to
purchase PPDAI securities issued pursuant thereto.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: Faces Plantation Spinal Care Suit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive American
Insurance Company. The case is captioned as Plantation Spinal Care
Center, Inc. a Florida corporation, a/a/o Alejandro Leal, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated other Alejandro Leal,
the Plaintiffs, vs. Progressive American Insurance Company, the
Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-63171-WPD (S.D. Fla., Dec. 28, 2018).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas.

Progressive American Insurance Company offers car insurance, home
insurance, renters insurance, condo insurance, insurance bundles,
and motorcycle insurance.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Joel Stephen Perwin, Esq.
          PERWIN LAW
          Alfred I. Dupont Building, Suite 1523
          169 East Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 779-6090
          E-mail: jperwin@perwinlaw.com

               - and -

          Alaina R Fotiu-Wojtowicz, Esq.
          BRODKSY FOTIU-WOJTOWICZ, PLLC
          200 SE 1st Street, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 503-5054
          Facsimile: (786) 749-7644
          E-mail: alaina@bfwlegal.com

               - and -

          Barbara Perez, Esq.
          ARONOVITZ LAW
          2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 372-2772
          Facsimile: (305) 397-1886
          E-mail: bp@aronovitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Theophilos George Poulopoulos, Esq.
          CORREDOR, HUSSEINI AND SNEDAKER, P.A.
          9130 South Dadeland Blvd
          Datran II Center, Suite 1902
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (978) 621-4636
          E-mail: theo.poulopoulos@gmail.com

               - and -

          Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq.
          ARONOVITZ LAW
          One Biscayne Tower
          2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 372-2772
          Facsimile: (305) 397-1886
          E-mail: ta@aronovitzlaw.com

PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Reduces Medical Bill Amount, Haskin Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Haskin Chiropractic Clinics, Inc., a Florida corporation,
a/a/o Brian McKently, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Progressive Select Insurance Company,
the Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-63170-KAM (S.D. Fla., Dec. 28,
2018), asserts class action claims for declaratory relief,
injunctive relief, and compensatory damages relief pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), and/or (b)(3), as a
result of Progressive Select's breach of the terms of automobile
insurance policy and the Florida personal injury protection (PIP)
Statute. The Defendant allegedly failed to pay proper amount of
reimbursements to the Plaintiff and the Class for certain medical
services provided to the Defendant's insureds.

According to the complaint, Brian McKently was a patient at Haskin
Chiropractic, who is and/or was an insured under an automobile
insurance policy providing PIP benefits issued by the Defendant,
and who assigned his rights and benefits of automobile insurance
policy to Plaintiff.

On or about April 8, 2014, McKently was involved in a motor vehicle
accident, and as a result, sustained bodily injuries related to the
operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle. McKently was a
contracting party and/or a named insured and/or an omnibus insured
under an automobile insurance policy issued by Progressive Select,
with Policy number XXXXX425-4, which policy was in full force and
effect, and provided PIP benefits coverage as required by Florida
law. As a result of his injuries, McKently sought and received
reasonable, related, and necessary medical services from Haskin
Chiropractic.

On or about April 16, 2014, McKently executed an Assignment of
Benefits/Policy Rights assigning all of his benefits under the
subject policy to Haskin Chiropractic. The purpose of the
assignment was to authorize Haskin Chiropractic to bill Progressive
Select directly for the medical services provided to McKently, and
to require Progressive Select to pay Haskin Chiropractic directly
at its home office. In other words, Haskin Chiropractic stepped
into McKently's shoes and became a party to the insurance contract.
As the assignee of McKently's PIP benefits, Haskin Chiropractic
billed Progressive Select for medical services provided to
McKently.

The Plaintiff provided medical services to McKently commencing
April 16, 2014 and billed Defendant $2,280 for services provided to
McKently from April 16, 2014 through May 5, 2014. Instead of
applying its insured's $1000 deductible to 100% of the expenses,
Defendant improperly reduced the total billed amount by first
applying the reimbursement limitations provided in Florida Statute
Section 627.736(5)(a)1.f.(I), and then subtracted the $1000
deductible, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant sold automobile insurance coverage subject to the
"Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law" or the "PIP Statute".[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Theophilos Poulopoulos, Esq.
          SCHILLER, KESSLER & GOMEZ, PLC
          7501 W. Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 201
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33319
          Telephone: 954 933-3000
          Facsimile: 954 667-5805
          E-mail: theo@injuredinflorida.com

QUICK CAPITAL: Hardin Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------
Tenley Hardin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Quick Capital Funding, LLC and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-10687 (C.D. Cal.,
December 27, 2018), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages,
treble damages and all other relief for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Quick Capital Funding, a company involved in consumer loans,
attempted to contact Hardin on his mobile phone using an automatic
telephone dialing system seeking to promote its financial services.
Harding is registered on the Do-Not-Call Registry and incurs a
charge for incoming calls. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RED NEWT CELLARS: Traynor Files Suit under ADA in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Red Newt Cellars, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Yaseen Traynor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Red Newt Cellars, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00192 (S.D. N.Y., January 8, 2019).

Red Newt Cellars is a wine manufacturer located just outside the
bucolic hamlet of Hector on the east side of Seneca Lake in the
Finger Lakes wine region of New York. .[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Settlement Reached in Inmates' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beatriz E. Valenzuela, writing for The Sun, reports that a judge
has approved a settlement agreement between San Bernardino County
and county jail inmates in a class action lawsuit addressing
medical and mental health care of inmates, restrictive housing
practices, staffing levels, ADA compliance and use of force
policies and procedures.

The San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department has agreed to allow
neutral experts appointed by the courts reasonable access to jails,
jail records, staff and inmates over the next four years to ensure
compliance with the terms of the settlement, a sheriff's statement
said.

It also agrees to implement a dispute resolution process and pay
$350,000 in attorney fees and the $150,000 yearly monitoring fees,
according to the decree.

Judge Virginia A. Phillips approved the agreement on December 12.

The inmates, who were represented by the Prison Law Office, alleged
in the initial complaint filed in 2016 that the county violated the
constitutional rights of the nearly 6,000 people it incarcerates in
its jails through inadequate and deficient medical, mental health
and dental care. It also claimed staff used excessive force against
inmates and that people with disabilities were forced to be in
cells without proper access to toilets and showers.

In one case, a transgender inmate was not properly evaluated after
she reached out to mental health service staff twice in 2015, the
suit alleged.

"The county is responsible for ensuring that the basic human needs
of individuals in its custody are met, and for ensuring that
individuals are not at risk of serious harm, including by providing
appropriate funding, oversight, and corrective action to ensure
adequate conditions," the complaint said.

"This agreement ensures that the conditions in San Bernardino's
county jails will meet constitutional standards," PLO Executive
Director Don Specter said in a statement. "This agreement, which
avoided costly litigation, would not have been possible without the
cooperation and transparency of Sheriff John McMahon and his
staff."

McMahon, in the same statement, said his department "is committed
to ensuring the safety and well-being of the inmates within our
care and custody."[GN]


SAN DIEGO, CA: Montoya Files Suit under ADA
-------------------------------------------
The City of San Diego is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Alex Montoya, Rex Shirley, Philip Pressel and Aaron Gresson,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. City of San Diego, a public entity, Bird Rides, Inc.
doing business as: Bird, a Delaware corporation, Neutron Holdings,
Inc. doing business as: Lime, a Delaware corporation, Razor USA
LLC, a California corporation and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00054-JM-BGS (S.D. Cal., January 9, 2019).

San Diego is a city on the Pacific coast of California known for
its beaches, parks and warm climate. Immense Balboa Park is the
site of the renowned San Diego Zoo, as well as numerous art
galleries, artist studios, museums and gardens. A deep harbor is
home to a large active naval fleet, with the USS Midway, an
aircraft-carrier-turned-museum, open to the public.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Matthew Ryan Souther, Esq.
   Neil Dymott Frank Harrison and McFall
   1010 Second Avenue, Suite 2500
   San Diego, CA 92101-4959
   Tel: (619) 238-1712
   Fax: (619) 238-1562
   Email: msouther@neildymott.com



SEPHORA USA: Salkauskaite Moved to Northern District of Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Auste Salkauskaite, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. Sephora USA, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and Modiface, Inc., a Toronto corporation, the
Defendants, Case No. 2018CH14379, was removed from the Illinois
Circuit Court, Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Dec. 27, 2018. The
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:18-cv-08507 to the proceeding. The suit demands $75,000.  The
case is assigned to the Hon. Andrea R. Wood.

Sephora USA, Inc. owns and operates a chain of perfume and
cosmetics stores worldwide. The company offers makeup products and
skin care products.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

         David Louis Gerbie, Esq.
         Jad Sheikali, Esq.
         Myles P. McGuire, Esq.
         MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
         55 W. Wacker, 9th Floor
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Telephone: (312) 893-7002
         E-mail: dgerbie@mcgpc.com
         E-mail: jsheikali@mcgpc.com
                 mmcguire@mcgpc.com

Attorneys for Sephora USA, Inc.:

         Robert Eliot Shapiro, Esq.
         Hannah Yeon Mee Jurowicz, Esq.
         Maile H. Solis, Esq.
         BARACK FERRAZZANO KIRSCHBAUM & NAGELBERG LLP
         200 West Madison Street, Suite 3900
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 984-3100
         E-mail: rob.shapiro@bfkn.com
                 hannah.jurowicz@bfkn.com
                 maile.solis@bfkn.com

STATE FARM: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Cranfield Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Charles Cranfield filed an appeal from a court ruling in
his lawsuit styled Charles Cranfield v. State Farm Fire & Casualty
Company, Case No. 1:16-cv-01273, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 27, 2018, the
District Court issued an Opinion and Order granting the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss in the case.

Mr. Cranfield filed a class action lawsuit alleging one count of
Breach of Contract against State Farm with the Cuyahoga County
Court of Common Pleas.  Mr. Cranfield's home was damaged by a storm
and he submitted a claim to State Farm requesting coverage. An
adjuster inspected the damage and an estimate for repair was sent
to him.  The total estimated cost to repair the damage, the
replacement cost value, was $4,044.86.  State Farm calculated the
depreciation amount at issue in this case to be $1,348.57.  It
subtracted this amount and Mr. Cranfield's deductible of $1,854.00
from the replacement cost value to arrive at a Net ACV of $842.29,
which he received in two payments.

The appellate case is captioned as Charles Cranfield v. State Farm
Fire & Casualty Company, Case No. 19-3004, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant brief is due on February 11, 2019; and

   -- Appellee brief is due on March 13, 2019.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CHARLES CRANFIELD, individually and on behalf
of all other Ohio residents similarly situated, is represented by:

          Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
          DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., LPA
          60 S. Park Place
          Painesville, OH 44077
          Telephone: (440) 352-3391
          E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY is
represented by:

          Karl A. Bekeny, Esq.
          Paul L. Janowicz, Esq.
          Benjamin C. Sasse, Esq.
          Robert C. Tucker, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 592-5000
          E-mail: karl.bekeny@tuckerellis.com
                  paul.janowicz@tuckerellis.com
                  benjamin.sasse@tuckerellis.com
                  robert.tucker@tuckerellis.com

               - and -

          Joseph A. Cancila, Jr., Esq.
          Heidi Dalenberg, Esq.
          RILEY, SAFER, HOLMES & CANCILA LLP
          70 W. Madison Street, Suite 2900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 471-8450
          E-mail: jcancila@rshc-law.com
                  hdalenberg@rshc-law.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Neff, Esq.
          Ryan P. Poscablo, Esq.
          RILEY, SAFER, HOLMES & CANCILA LLP
          1330 Avenue of the Americas, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 660-1035
          E-mail: bneff@rshc-law.com
                  rposcablo@rshc-law.com


STATE FARM: Tufano Sues over Automobile Insurance Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------
PAUL TUFANO, Individually And on Behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
CO., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-03281-MCE-DB (E.D. Cal., Dec.
28, 2018), alleges that the  automobile insurance policy the
Plaintiff purchased from  State Farm does not comply with all
requirements of California law. Specifically, California law
requires that a policy of insurance indemnify the insured from
loss, damage or liability. Tufano contends that at the time State
Farm marketed, advertised, and sold its policy as "insurance," it
did not intend to indemnify insureds such as Tufano for all
elements of loss, damage, or liability as required by California
law. Rather, State Farm effectively sold Tufano a promise only to
pay for certain repairs, subject to State Farm's sole discretion,
under the guise of selling Tufano "insurance."  State Farm's
insurance policy -- provided to Tufano only after he had purchased
such "insurance" -- was drafted in such a manner that a reasonable
consumer such as Tufano would not understand that State Farm was
providing something less than the "insurance" promised through
State Farm's marketing efforts, which were likely to deceive Tufano
and California consumers.  State Farm hid its "fine print"
exclusions from its customers, only providing its laundry list of
exclusions to the insured after the insured had purchased
coverage.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Mark C. Sparks, Esq.
          THE FERGUSON LAW FIRM, LLP
          350 Pine Street, Ste. 1440
          Beaumont, TX 77701
          Telephone: (409) 832-9700
          E-mail: mark@thefergusonlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Montie S. Day, Esq.
          DAY LAW OFFICES
          59 Damonte Ranch Parkway, Suite B-482
          Reno, NE 89521
          Telephone: (208) 280-3766
          E-mail: msdayesq@aol.com

SWISSPORT SA: Jackson Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Ada Jackson, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Swissport, SA, LLC, Swissport USA, Inc. and Does 1
through 50, Case No. CGC-18-571845 (Cal. Super., December 5, 2018),
is brought against the Defendants for violations of the California
Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

The Plaintiff brings this action for Defendants' failure to provide
required meal periods, required rest periods, pay overtime wages,
pay minimum wages and failure to timely pay wages during
employment.

The Plaintiff Ada Jackson was employed by the Defendants as
non-exempt employee within the State of California.

The Defendants are corporations authorized to conduct business in
the State of California.  The Defendants maintains offices and
facilities and conducts business in the County of San Francisco,
State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      Tagore O. Subramaniam, Esq.
      JuliaZ. Wells, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
      1230 Rosecrans A venue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Tel: (310) 531-1900
      Fax: (310) 531-1901
      E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
              tagore@maternlawgroup.com
              jwells@maternlawgroup.com


SYNCTRUCK LLC: Nash Files Suit in California Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Synctruck, LLC. The
case is styled as Earlisha Nash, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Synctruck, LLC a California
Corporation and Does 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No. CGC19572597
(Cal. Super. Ct., January 7, 2019).

Synctruck, LLC offers courier services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.



TENARIS SA: Gross Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Melvin Gross, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Tenaris S.A., Paolo Rocca, and Edgardo
Carlos, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00174 (E.D. N.Y., January 9,
2019) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Tenaris securities between May 1, 2014 through
November 27, 2018, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Rocca and Tenaris have a significant investment in Ternium, holding
11.46% of Ternium's share capital (including treasury shares) as of
December 31, 2017.

Siderurgica de Orinoco C.A., of which Ternium held a 59.7% stake,
was nationalized by the Venezuelan government in 2008, when
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez signed a decree ordering the
renationalization of Sidor. In early 2009, compensation of around
$1.65bn was nearly agreed for the nationalization of Ternium's
59.7% stake, with Ternium also keeping a 10% stake in the company.
In May 2009, a final compensation total of $1.97bn was agreed, and
Ternium sold its 59.7% stake in Sidor to Corporacion Venezolana de
Guayana (the "CVG"), a Venezuelan state-owned entity. Ternium
received this money over several years, from 2009 to 2012.

Tenaris's Code of Conduct, effective as of December 26, 2012, under
the heading "Bribery is Strictly Prohibited," stated, in relevant
part: "Tenaris will not condone, under any circumstances, the
offering or receiving of bribes or any other form of improper
payments." Tenaris's revised Code of Conduct became effective on
May 1, 2018, and, as from that date, replaced and superseded in its
entirety the Code of Conduct in force since December 26, 2012.
Section 5.15 of the revised Code of Conduct, under the heading
"Bribery is Strictly Prohibited," states, in relevant part:
"Tenaris will not allow, under any circumstances, the offering or
receiving of bribes or any other form of improper payments".

The complaint relates that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding Tenaris' business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Tenaris'
CEO and Chairman, Rocca, knew one of his company's executives was
involved in a graft scheme whereby government officials were bribed
for Defendants' personal gain, specifically, to expedite
compensation payments due from the sale of Ternium' Sidor unit;
(ii) the foregoing conduct foreseeably placed Tenaris, its
affiliates, and executives in greater risk of heightened regulatory
and criminal scrutiny and investigation, thus depreciating Tenaris'
stock value; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Plaintiff acquired Tenaris securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation
of corrective disclosures.

Tenaris is a Luxembourg registered corporation with its principal
executive offices located at 29, Avenue de la Porte-Neuve – 3rd
floor, L-2227 Luxembourg.

Rocca has served as Tenaris' Chairman and CEO at all relevant times
throughout the Class Period. Rocca also serves as the Chairman of
Ternium.

Edgardo Carlos has served as Tenaris' Chief Financial Officer
("CFO") at all relevant times throughout the Class Period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and –

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


UNITED STATES: Calixto Moves to Certify Soldiers Class/Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled LUCAS CALIXTO, et al. v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-01551-ESH (D.D.C.), move the Court for certification of
this class, including subclasses:

   (1) All soldiers who enlisted in the U.S. Army (including
       Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve/DTP and Regular
       Army/DEP soldiers) through the MAVNI program, and

   (2) were the subject of an involuntary administrative
       discharge action by the Army (including the Army
       Recruiting Command and/or the Army Reserve Command) after
       September 30, 2016, where such discharge or separation was
       not or will not be characterized by the Army (including
       "uncharacterized" and "entry level" discharges or
       separations), and

   (3) where such action was taken without the soldier first
       being afforded the process due under applicable Army and
       DoD regulations and the law (including adequate notice of
       the discharge grounds, an opportunity to respond, due
       consideration of the soldier's response by the Army, or
       other requirements of law), and

   (4) where the soldier wants to be reinstated in or remain in
       the Army, and

   (5) where the Army has determined that the soldier:

       a. [Subclass 1] has an unfavorable MSSD and will be
          subject to the procedures outlined in the October 26
          Memo, or

       b. [Subclass 2] does not have an unfavorable MSSD and will
          not be subject to the procedures outlined in the
          October 26 Memo.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas W. Baruch, Esq.
          Jennifer M. Wollenberg, Esq.
          Kayla Stachniak Kaplan, Esq.
          Neaha P. Raol, Esq.
          Katherine L. St. Romain, Esq.
          FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP
          801 17th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 639-7000
          Facsimile: (202) 639-7003
          E-mail: douglas.baruch@friedfrank.com
                  jennifer.wollenberg@friedfrank.com
                  kayla.kaplan@friedfrank.com
                  neaha.raol@friedfrank.com
                  kate.st.romain@friedfrank.com


UNO CONSTRUCTION: Mendoza Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Mendoza and Juan F. Aquino, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Uno
Construction Corp., and John Doe Bonding Company, Defendants, Case
No. 150215/2019 filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of New York on January 9, 2019, is an action on behalf
of Plaintiffs and a putative class of individuals who performed
demolition, painting, cleaning, carpentry, and other related
construction-trade tasks for Defendants to recover wages and
benefits to which Plaintiffs were statutorily and contractually
entitled to receive for work performed on various private and, upon
information and belief, publicly financed, construction projects
within the state of New York, including but not limited to, the New
York City Housing Authority Saratoga Square project.

Beginning in approximately 2013 and continuing through the present,
Plaintiffs regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without
receiving overtime compensation as required by applicable state
law, the complaint relates. For the work that Plaintiffs performed
on the Public Works Projects, Plaintiffs seek to recover prevailing
wages and supplemental benefits which they are contractually
entitled to receive.

Plaintiffs also bring this action against Defendant John Doe
Bonding Company which issued labor and material payment bonds
guaranteeing the obligations of Defendant Uno Construction Corp. to
pay Plaintiffs prevailing wages and supplemental benefits for work
performed on the Public Works Projects.

Named Plaintiff Franklin Mendoza is an individual currently
residing in the State of New York and was employed by Defendant Uno
Construction.

Named Plaintiff Juan F. Aquino is an individual currently residing
in the State of New York and was employed by Defendant Uno
Construction.

Uno Construction Corp. is a corporation incorporated under the laws
of the State of New York, with its principal place of business at
930 Halsey Street, Brooklyn, New York, 11233-1457, and is engaged
in the construction business.

John Doe Bonding Company is a corporation authorized to do business
under the laws of the State of New York, is engaged in the surety
bonding business, and issued a payment bond to Defendant Uno
Construction Corp., in connection with one or more of the Public
Works Projects.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
     Michele A. Moreno, Esq.
     VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
     40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 943-9080
     Fax: (212) 943-9082
     Email: lambinder@vandallp.com


US SECURITY: Langston Seeks to Certify Class of Security Guards
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled PAUL LANGSTON, an individual,
on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. U.S. SECURITY
ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 5:18-cv-00868-SLP (W.D. Okla.), asks the
Court to enter an order pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act:

   (a) conditionally certifying this case as a FLSA collective
       action under Section 216(b) against Defendant U.S.
       Security Associates, Inc. on behalf of Plaintiff and
       others similarly situated.  The requested class is:

       All former and current security guard employees, and those
       working in other similar positions, employed by Defendant
       at any time in the period measured from three years prior
       to the filing of the Complaint to the present;

   (b) directing that notice be sent by United States mail and
       email to all present and former non-exempt employees of
       Defendant, who at any time during the last three years,
       worked over 40-hours in a workweek, including "pass on"
       time;

   (c) directing the parties to jointly submit within 14 days a
       proposed Notice informing such present and former
       employees of the pendency of this collective action and
       permitting them to opt into the case by signing and
       submitting an Opt-In and Consent Form;

   (d) directing the Defendant to provide within 14 days a Roster
       of such present and former employees that includes their
       full names, their dates of employment, and their last
       known home addresses and personal email addresses, and
       their last telephone numbers;

   (e) directing that the Notice, in the form approved by the
       Court, be sent to such present and former employees within
       30 days using the home and e-mail addresses listed in the
       Roster;

   (f) providing that duplicate copies of the Notice may be sent
       in the event new, updated, or corrected mailing addresses
       or email addresses are found for one or more of such
       present or former employees; and

   (g) permitting Counsel for the Plaintiff to contact via
       telephone any putative class member whose notice is
       returned as undeliverable.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


UTAH COMMUNITY: Lyons Files FCRA Suit in Utah
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Utah Community
Federal Credit Union. The case is styled as Kara Lyons, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Utah
Community Federal Credit Union, Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-00003-DN (D. Utah, January 8, 2019).

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

Utah Community Federal Credit Union provides banking and financial
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
   KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP
   2633 E INDIAN SCHOOL RD STE 460
   PHOENIX, AZ 85016
   Tel: (602) 900-1288
   Email: ryan@kazlg.com

      - and -

   Theron D. Morrison, Esq.
   MORRISON + MURFF
   290 25TH ST STE 102
   OGDEN, UT 84401
   Tel: (801) 392-9324
   Email: therondmorrison@gmail.com



WAYPOINT RESOURCE: Austin Sues over Distracting Telephone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Austin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Waypoint Resource Group, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No.: 18-1635 (Mass. Super. Ct., Dec. 21, 2018),
seeks injunctive relief to end Waypoint's illegal practice,
declaratory relief to make Waypoint's violations known to the
class, actual and statutory damages, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs, relating to illegal efforts to collect consumer debts, under
the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, and Massachusetts Debt
Collection Regulations.

According to the complaint, notwithstanding the Attorney General's
regulations, it is Waypoint's practice to call Massachusetts
consumers more than two times within a seven-day period in an
attempt to collect consumer debts. Waypoint placed more than two
collection calls within a seven-day period to Plaintiff, violating
the express provisions of section 7.04(1)(f). As a direct
consequence of Waypoint's acts, practices and conduct, the
Plaintiff suffered anger, anxiety, emotional distress, fear,
frustration and embarrassment. Waypoint's repeated calls were
distracting and an inconvenience to Plaintiff, and an invasion of
her personal privacy.  Waypoint's repeated calls wasted Plaintiff's
time and energy spent tending to Waypoint's calls.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Sergie Lemberg, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW LLC
          43 Danbury Road
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
          E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com

WINE.COM INC: Martinez Suit Asserts ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Wine.Com, Inc. 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. Wine.Com, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00109 (E.D. N.Y., January 7, 2019).

Wine.com, Inc. engages in online retailing for wines and related
products through its website and mobile platform.[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


WRDH MT. LAUREL: Breeze Files Suit under ADA in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
WRDH Mt. Laurel LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Byron
Breeze, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WRDH Mt. Laurel LLC, a New Jersey limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00180 (D. N.J.,
January 7, 2019).

WRDH Mt. Laurel LLC is in the real estate business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Erik Mathew Bashian, Esq.
   Bashian & Papantoniou, P.C.
   500 Old Country Road, Suite 302
   Garden City, NE 11530
   Tel: (516) 279-1554
   Email: eb@bashpaplaw.com



XPO LOGISTICS: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP, a securities litigation firm representing
investors nationwide, has filed a securities fraud class action
against XPO Logistics, Inc. ("XPO" or the "Company") (NYSE:XPO) and
certain of its officers and directors. The firm encourages
shareholders to contact Block & Leviton LLP ahead of the February
12, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline.

The complaint, filed in the United States District Court Southern
District of New York, captioned Leeman v. XPO Logistics, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:18-cv-11741, alleges that between August 10, 2015,
and December 13, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts. Specifically, the Complaint
alleges the Defendants engaged in improper accounting practices. At
the core of Defendants' scheme was the method by which the Company
accounted for its numerous acquisitions, dubious tax accounting,
under-reporting of bad debts, phantom income through unaccountable
acquisition earn-out liabilities, and aggressive amortization
assumptions: all designed to portray glowing "Non-GAAP" results. As
a result, XPO repeatedly materially misstated its financial
condition and operating results and materially misled Class
Members.

On December 13, 2018, Spruce Point Capital Management released a
report titled "Trucking Ridiculous; End Of The Road." This report
alleges that XPO is plagued by "financial irregularities that
conveniently cover its growing financial strain and inability to
complete additional acquisitions despite repeated promises." The
report also characterizes XPO's financials as "unreliable and
dubious."

Following the release of this report, the Company's stock fell more
than 26 percent. [GN]


XPO LOGISTICS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against, XPO Logistics, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The
class action, filed in United States District Court, District of
Connecticut, and indexed under 18-cv-02062, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and
their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise, acquired XPO
securities between February 26, 2014, and December 12, 2018, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased XPO securities between
February 26, 2014, and December 12, 2018, both dates inclusive, you
have until February 12, 2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact
Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

XPO provides transportation and logistics services in the United
States, North America, France, the United Kingdom, Spain, Europe,
Asia, and internationally, through its Transportation and Logistics
segments.  The Company offers its services to customers in various
industries, such as retail, e-commerce, food and beverage,
manufacturing, technology and telecommunications, aerospace and
defense, life sciences, healthcare, medical equipment, and
agriculture.

XPO was formerly known as Express-1 Expedited Solutions, Inc.
("Express-1").  On September 2, 2011, Defendant Bradley S. Jacobs
("Jacobs"), through an equity investment led by Jacobs Private
Equity, LLC, acquired a 71% ownership interest in Express-1.
Jacobs assumed the roles of Chairman of the Board of Directors and
Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") and renamed the Company "XPO
Logistics, Inc."  XPO has completed seventeen acquisitions since
Jacobs took control of the Company, deploying $6.1 billion of
capital.

Prior to acquiring XPO, Jacobs had leadership roles in several
other companies, having, inter alia, founded United Waste Systems,
Inc. ("UWS") in 1989 and co-founded United Rentals, Inc. ("URI") in
1997, which eventually collapsed after an accounting scandal under
Jacobs' leadership.

Jacobs's tenure at XPO has been characterized by aggressive mergers
and acquisitions ("M&A") strategy.  After Jacobs took control of
the Company, Fortune Magazine noted that XPO "has grown from $177
million in sales in 2011 to $17 billion today, thanks largely to an
incredible run of acquisitions."  On August 2, 2017, Jacobs
announced plans to earmark up to $8 billion for additional
acquisitions.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) XPO's highly touted aggressive
M&A strategy had yielded only minimal returns to the Company; (ii)
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 (iii) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On December 12, 2018, Spruce Point Capital 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."  Spruce Point also reported that "[i]n our opinion,
XPO has used a nearly identical playbook from [URI] leading up to
its SEC investigation, executive felony convictions, and share
price collapse."

Following publication of the Spruce Point report, XPO's stock price
plunged $15.77 per share, or 26.17%, to close at $44.50 on December
13, 2018.

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


YAHOO! INC: Johnson Appeals N.D. Illinois Ruling to 7th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Rachel Johnson filed an appeal from a court ruling in her
lawsuit titled Rachel Johnson v. Yahoo! Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-02028, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
sought certification of a "Complete Adjudication Class":

     All persons within the United States who was the user of a
     cellular telephone number that Yahoo! sent the Welcome
     Message during the period commencing March 1, 2013 through
     March 31, 2013, while that cellular number was assigned to
     a Sprint account with five or fewer telephone lines, and
     which cellular telephone number does not appear in Yahoo!'s
     user database as the number of a Yahoo! user.

     Excluded from the class are (1) those cellular telephone
     numbers that Yahoo identified as potentially belonging to a
     Yahoo! user in either Exhibit A or B to the Whipple
     Declaration at ECF # 282-2,3; and (2) those persons who
     have responded to class notice from a Yahoo! Email
     address."

The appellate case is captioned as Rachel Johnson v. Yahoo! Inc.,
Case No. 19-1001, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by January 16, 2019;
      and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before February 11, 2019,
      for Rachel Johnson.[BN]

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

          Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 W. Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
          E-mail: TSostrin@KeoghLaw.com

Defendant-Appellee YAHOO! INC. is represented by:

          Christopher Chorba, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 S. Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7000
          E-mail: cchorba@gibsondunn.com


ZIONS BANCORP: Gregory Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zions Bancorporation.
The case is styled as Travis Gregory, Nicole Gregory, Donald Haley,
Eri Haley, Craig Sargent, Dixie Sargent, Larry Fisher, Stephen
Beverley, Karen Beverley, Chad Hansen, Heather Hansen, Tracy
Woodbury, David Peterson, Mike Israel, E. Wayne Larson, Darla
Ketcham, Carvel Anderson, Kelly Springer, Amy Springer and Wayne
Baker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Zions Bancorporation, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00015-PMW (D. Utah, January 8, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Breach of
Fiduciary Duties.

Zions Bancorporation is a bank holding company headquartered in
Salt Lake City, Utah. It is one of the largest banks in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Samuel H. Adams, Esq.
   ADAMS DAVIS PC
   35 W BROADWAY STE 203
   SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101
   Tel: (801) 532-9500
   Email: sam@adamsdavis.com



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***