CAR_Public/190122.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, January 22, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 16

                            Headlines

3M CO: Ex-Florida State Fire College Employees File Class Action
A. TEICHERT: Davalos Remanded to Sacramento County Superior Court
ACCOUNT CONTROL: Ford Employment Suit Filed in Ca. Super. Ct
AGODA COMPANY: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Phan TCPA Suit
AIR SERV: Hussein Settlement Has Final Court Approval

ALABAMA: Bid to Unseal ADOC Staffing Report in Braggs Suit Granted
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Jaley Adversary Class Suit in Maryland
ANTHEM PRODUCTIONS: Court Certifies Class in Douglas FLSA Suit
APPLE INC: Court Dismisses Consolidated Amended Processor Suit
AT&T: Can Compel Arbitration in Horowitz Age Discrimination Suit

BATON ROUGE, LA: Sued for Traffic Camera Fine Refunds
BEDELL VINEYARDS: Traynor Files Suit under ADA in S.D. New York
BELK INC: Court Approves H. Halleen FLSA Settlement
BELLMORE GARDENS: Valle Seeks to Recoup Overtime Under FLSA, NYLL
BEPC INC: Fails to Pay Deployment Technicians' OT, Greenlee Says

BERKSHIRE MEDICAL: Can Partly Compel Discovery in Clark FLSA Suit
BNY MELLON: Settles Bondholders' Class Action for $13.5MM
BODYBUILDING.COM: Traynor Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
BOMBFELL INC: Online Styling Co. for Men Faces ADA Class Action
CAREMARK: Must Face Class Action Over HIV Status Disclosures

CHAMBLESS MATH: Milner Seeks to Certify FDCPA Class
CLIENT SERVICES: Ambrosino Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
CLIENT SERVICES: Weiss Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
COLLECTION ANALYST: L. Powers Settlement Has Final Court Approval
COMBINED GROUP: Ruiz Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages under FLSA

COMMUNITY BANK: 3d Cir. Reverses Stay of Lending Practices Suit
CREATE GLORY: Yu Seeks Overtime Pay, Bike Purchase Reimbursement
DAL GLOBAL: Court Grants Final Approval of Brulee Settlement
DUVERA BILLING: Faces FDCPA Class Action in Calif.
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES: Pressler Seeks OT Pay for Technicians

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Court Grants 60-Day Stay in Lemmon
FANNIE MAY: Dismissal of Benson FDCA Suit Appealed to 7th Cir.
FCA US: Court Extends Time to File Answer in J. Raymo Suit
FCA US: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in DeShetler LMRA Class Suit
FIRST STUDENT: Supplemental Briefing Needed for Vikram Settlement

FIRSTRANS INT'L: Fireworks Lady Hits Firecrackers Trade Restraint
FLOWERS HOSPITAL: Judge Approves Data Breach Case Settlement
GC SERVICES: Violates FDCPA, Ambrosino Suit Says
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Denies Dismissal on Breach Suit
GIDDY INC: Lee Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay

GMC RESTAURANT:  Does Not Pay Overtime Under FLSA, NYLL, Joya Says
H&R BLOCK: Vazquez-Rivera Sues over No Poach Agreements
HOTELMACHER LLC: Human Trafficking Class Action Motions Pending
IMPERVA INC: Poinsignon Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
INNOVATIVE HEALTH: Court Certifies Class in Northrup TCPA Suit

INTERNATIONAL LABORATORIES: Faces Personal Injury Suit in Kentucky
JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: New Lawsuit Against Landfill
JJ CHEN LLC: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Hussein Says
KELLOGG COMPANY: Must Face Cheez-It False Labeling Case
LET'S EAT OUT: Court Denies Bid to Decertify Classes in Cope Suit

LIFEWORKS TECH: Smith Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
LOOP TRANSPORTATION: Richard Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
LOWE'S HOME: Court Compels Arbitration in Alvarado Wage & Hour Suit
MACERICH CO: Faces Traynor Suit for Violation of Disabilities Act
MARRIOT INT'L: Faces Breach of Contract Suit in E.D. New York

MCLANE COMPANY: Fitchett Suit Transferred to C.D. California
MDL 2804: Sherman Suit v. Purdue over Opiates Sales Consolidated
MICHIGAN: 80 Counties Face Suits Over Tax Foreclosure Surpluses
MONEY SOURCE: Martinez Seeks OT Pay for Mortgage Underwriters
MONSANTO CO: Ct. Denies Wisconsin Consumers Class Certification

MONTEFIORE HOME: Ohio App. Affirms O'Donnell Counterclaim Dismissal
MRS BPO LLC: Debt Collector Faces Suit in Calif. for FDCPA Breach
NCAA: Judge Hears Final Arguments in Athletes' Case
NEBRASKA: Carter Appeals D. Neb. Decisions to 8th Circuit
NEW YORK: Diederich Suit Transferred to NY Dist. Ct.

NFL: 9th Cir. Won't Revive Ex-Cheerleader's Antitrust Suit
NOBILIS HEALTH: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
NOBILIS HEALTH: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Ambrosino Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Wolff Sues Over Debt Collection Practices

OBELISK INC: Roberts et al. Suit Moved to S.D. California
ONE FIFTY: Sviridov Hits Illegal Tip Pool, Unpaid Overtime Wages
ONE TECHNOLOGIES: Carlton Fields Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
OPI PRODUCTS: Nail Care Firm Hit with ADA Class Action
ORLANDO UTILITIES: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Cancer Cluster

PEDIATRIC ASSOCIATES: De Amo Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces Boco FDCPA Class Suit in S.D. Florida
POSTMATES INC: Lee Appeals N.D. Ca. Ct. Ruling to 9th Cir.
R&A DELI:  Does not Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages, Gonzales Suit Says
RAZOR USA: Traynor Files Suit under ADA in S.D. New York

SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Court Denies Bid to Certify FLSA Class
SARBANAND FARMS: Class Action Over Mistreatment of Workers OK'd
SENDGRID INC: Conner Balks at Merger Deal with Twilio
SHERIDAN CORP: Peralta Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
SOUTHLAND ROYALTY: Filing of 2nd Amended Ulibarri Suit Allowed

SPRINT NEXTEL: Sibley Settlement Has Final Court Approval
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: 9th Cir. Affirms McMahon Suit
TELSTRA: Faces Class Action Over 11-Day Blackout
TOYOTA AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Defective Vehicle DPF
TRUNK CLUB: Violates ADA, Fischler Suit Asserts

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Drivers' Class Action
UNITED STATES: Class Action Over Bad Paper Discharges Certified
UXIN LIMITED: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
VERIGENT LLC: Shortchanges Workers on Overtime Pay, Luong Claims
VITAL RECOVERY SERVICES: Cohen Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

WELLS FARGO BANK: Rivera Labor Suit Transferred to C.D. Calif.
WELLSPACE HEALTH: Case Mgmt. Conference in Cameron Suit on July 18
WEYERHAEUSER CO: Can't Compel Arbitration in Esanbock Suit
YINGLI GREEN: Court Approves Barocio Settlement
YOTEL US: Airport Hotel Firm Hit with ADA Class Action


                            *********

3M CO: Ex-Florida State Fire College Employees File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ocala.com reports that six former employees of the Florida State
Fire College and two of their spouses have filed a class-action
lawsuit against manufacturers of firefighting suppressants used at
the college, which they claim led them to develop various cancers
and diseases from exposure.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, alleges the companies were negligent and
purposefully hid findings of studies that showed chemicals in the
suppressants were carcinogenic and dangerous to the environment.
The former employees allege the manufacturers knew about the
adverse effects of their products since the 1970s but continued to
manufacture, advertise and sell the products to consumers.

Manufacturers listed on the suit number 10 in total and include The
3M Company and Tyco Fire Products, L.P.

"All of the Defendants are sophisticated and knowledgeable in the
art and science of formulating (aqueous film-forming foam)
products," the lawsuit states. "They understood far more about the
properties of and the biodegradability of their additives than any
other customer. They chose not to use their knowledge to design
safer products."

Aqueous film-forming foam contains two chemicals -- perfluorooctane
sulfonate and perfluorooctanoic acid -- which are the main focus of
the suit.

The Environmental Protection Agency describes them as man-made
chemicals toxic to animals and humans that are readily absorbed
after oral exposure and that are persistent in the environment,
according to an agency fact sheet. In humans, the chemicals tend to
accumulate in the blood plasma, kidney and liver.

They are used in firefighting to suppress fires that involve fuels
such as petroleum and other flammable liquids.

Plaintiffs listed on the lawsuit include a firefighter instructor
and various employees on the administrative side of the college who
suffered from thyroid disease, kidney disease, breast cancer and
parathyroid cancer, according to the lawsuit.

They claim the class they represent includes firefighters and
instructors, administrative employees and others who may have been
exposed to the chemicals through contaminated groundwater around
the college, 11655 NW Gainesville Road. No specific number of class
members is listed, but the lawsuit estimates it is in the
hundreds.

Class members could have been exposed to the chemicals through
consumption, inhalation or skin absorption. Plaintiffs formerly of
the administrative side of the college claim they came in contact
with the chemicals through their accumulation in the college's
pipes, faucets, showerheads, appliances, sinks and drinking water
fountains.

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection tested wells at
the college in August. In two of the three wells, which provide the
college's water supply, officials found levels of the toxic
chemicals in the water to be between 250 and 270 parts per
trillion, almost four times higher than the EPA recommended 70
parts per trillion for drinking water.

Some class members may have been exposed but have not yet suffered
health consequences. The lawsuit does not place a time period on
when the chemicals were used at the college.

The lawsuit calls for a jury trial and an award of damages totaling
more than $5 million, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs also ask for the establishment of a medical
monitoring program for class members who haven't presented
illnesses yet, bankrolled by the manufacturers. The suit calls for
various tests to be included in the program to monitor the thyroid
function, liver function, screen for kidney cancer, testicular
cancer and reproductive or infertility issues.

Plaintiffs also argue the manufacturers should be found negligent
and grossly negligent for failing to adequately warn consumers of
their product's dangerous effects, failing to place adequate
warnings on the product's containers, failing to take reasonable
precautions and steps to enforce a safe method of handling their
products and failing to develop and utilize a safer substitute,
according the suit.

The plaintiffs are represented by Miami-based Ferraro Law Firm.

Defendants have not filed any responses to the complaint yet,
according to federal court records. [GN]


A. TEICHERT: Davalos Remanded to Sacramento County Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.s. District Court for the
Eastern District of California granted the Plaintiff's Motion to
Remand the case, MARTIN DAVALOS, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. A.
TEICHERT & SON, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02694-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal.).

Davalos brings the putative class action against the Defendant, an
engineering contractor, asserting several claims under California
wage laws and related state statutes.  The Plaintiff filed the
putative class action in Sacramento County Superior Court on Aug.
21, 2018, alleging six causes of action: (1) underpayment of wages,
including overtime pay; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3)
failure to provide rest breaks; (4) failure to timely pay wages
owed upon termination; (5) failure to furnish accurate itemized
wage statements and maintain accurate payroll records; and (6)
unlawful business practices.

On Oct. 4, 2018, the Defendant removed the case to federal court,
asserting federal question jurisdiction, and supplemental
jurisdiction.  As the basis for federal jurisdiction, the Defendant
argues the Plaintiff's state law claims are preempted by Section
301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA").

On Oct. 19, 2018, the Plaintiff filed his Motion to Remand.  In his
Motion, the Plaintiff argues that because his claims arise from
state law and do not require interpretation of any collective
bargaining agreement ("CBA") terms, Section 301 preemption does not
apply.

The Defendant requests the Court takes judicial notice of the
following: (1) the Plaintiff's complaint filed in Sacramento County
Superior Court, (2) the Defendant's notice of removal and
accompanying exhibits, (3) the 2013-2016 AGC/Cement Masons Master
Labor Agreement entered between the Defendant's collective
bargaining representative and the Plaintiff's union, (4) the
2016-2019 AGC/Cement Masons Master Labor Agreement entered between
same, and (5) the Defendant's motion to dismiss filed in the Court
on Oct. 11, 2018.  As to the existence of Exhibits C and D, Judge
Mueller granted this unopposed request.

The Judge finds that the Section 512(e) and Section 514 exceptions
provide an affirmative defense that can be raised by the
Defendants, but does not affect whether the Plaintiff's claims
invoke rights independent of the CBA.  Because the Plaintiff's
overtime and meal period claims are pleaded purely as violations of
state law without reference to the CBA, the rights should be
considered as independent of the CBA and not preempted under the
first prong of the Burnside v. Kiewit Pac. Corp. test.

Net, the Judge finds that the Defendant has not identified any
disputed or complex CBA overtime or meal period provisions that
require the Court's interpretation.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff's
overtime and meal period claims are not preempted by LMRA Section
301.

The Plaintiff's fourth and sixth claims are derivative of his
overtime and meal break claims.  The Judge finds that the fact that
an exception in the law may extinguish the Plaintiff's claim
supports an affirmative defense, and federal jurisdiction cannot be
based on a defense when no federal question appears on the face of
the complaint.  Accordingly, none of the Plaintiff's remaining
claims is preempted, and none support the exercise of supplemental
jurisdiction as the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
any of his claims.

For the reasons she provided, Judge Mueller granted the Plaintiff's
motion to remand, and remanded the case to Sacramento County
Superior Court for all further proceedings.  She denied as moot the
Defendant's motion to dismiss.

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

Martin Davalos, an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similary situated, Plaintiff, represented by Nazo L. Koulloukian --
info@koullaw.com -- Koul Law Firm.

A. Teichert & Son, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Alexandra K. LaFountain --
alafountain@downeybrand.com -- Downey Brand LLP & Cassandra M.
Ferrannini -- cferrannini@downeybrand.com -- Downey Brand LLP.


ACCOUNT CONTROL: Ford Employment Suit Filed in Ca. Super. Ct
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Account Control
Technology, Inc. The case is styled as Alyshea Ford, an individual,
on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Account Control Technology, Inc., a California Corporation and Act
Holdings, Inc., a corporation, Defendants, Case No. BCV-19-100089
filed in (Ca. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., January 10, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as violation of
Employment.

Account Control Technology, Inc. provides consultative debt
recovery, accounts receivable management, and other business
process outsourcing (BPO) solutions for businesses and
organizations. It offers first party/accounts receivable, third
party collection, BPO, debt purchasing, default prevention,
portfolio management, and call center services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Natalie Haritoonian, Esq.
   David Yeremian & Associates, Inc.
   535 N Brand Blvd Ste 705
   Glendale, CA 91203, US
   Tel: (818) 465-5567



AGODA COMPANY: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Phan TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff An Phan filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled An Phan v. Agoda Company Pte. Ltd., Case No.
5:16-cv-07243-BLF, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 15, 2019, the
District Court issued an order granting the Defendant's
pre-certification motion for summary judgment.

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

The appellate case is captioned as An Phan v. Agoda Company Pte.
Ltd., Case No. 19-15015, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by February 4, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on March 4, 2019;

   -- Appellant An Phan's opening brief is due on April 15, 2019;

   -- Appellee Agoda Company Pte. Ltd.'s answering brief is due
      on May 13, 2019; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant AN PHAN, as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Michael J. Jaurigue, Esq.
          JAURIGUE LAW GROUP
          300 West Glenoaks Boulevard, Suite 300
          Glendale, CA 91202
          Telephone: (818) 630-7280
          E-mail: michael@jlglawyers.com

               - and -

          Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
          ARIAS SANGUINETTI STAHLE & TORRIJOS, LLP
          6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 844-9696
          E-mail: alfredo@asstlawyers.com

Defendant-Appellee AGODA COMPANY PTE. LTD., a Singapore Private
Limited Liability Company, is represented by:

          Anne Marilyn Kelts, Esq.
          BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3909
          Telephone: (415) 576-3028
          E-mail: anne.kelts@bakermckenzie.com


AIR SERV: Hussein Settlement Has Final Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion
for Final Approval of Settlement in the case captioned MOHAMED A.
HUSSEIN, an individual, and HASSAN HIRSI, an individual,
Plaintiffs, v. AIR SERV CORPORATION, a foreign corporation,
Defendant. Case No. 2:16-cv-00278 RSL. (W.D. Wash.).

The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action
and all parties, including members of the Class previously
certified by the Court, which consists of:

     All employees of Air Serv1 who have been Transportation
Workers and who worked one or more hours within the City of SeaTac
at any time during the time period from January 1, 2014 to February
12, 2016 who can be ascertained from Air Serv's records as having
been paid less than the prevailing minimum wage prescribed by City
of SeaTac Ordinance 7.45.050 and who have not recovered back wages
under separate legal action.

The Settlement Agreement was the result of arm's length
negotiations between the Defendant and Class Counsel. The Court
approves the Settlement Agreement and finds that it is fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the Class Members.

The Court dismisses this action and any and all settled claims with
prejudice as to Plaintiffs and all Class Members, and without costs
or attorneys' fees to any Party except as provided under the terms
of the Settlement Agreement, this Final Judgment, and the Court's
Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees and
Incentive Awards.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs and Class Counsel adequately
represented the Class for purposes of entering into and
implementing the Settlement.

The parties are directed to proceed with the settlement payment
procedures specified under the terms of the Settlement Agreement,
including those contained in Section V of the Settlement
Agreement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 20, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc2vswdb from Leagle.com.

Mohamed A Hussein, an individual, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel
R. Whitmore -- dan@whitmorelawfirm.com -- & Duncan Calvert Turner
-- dturner@badgleymullins.com -- BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC.

Hassan Hirsi, an individual, Plaintiff, represented by Duncan
Calvert Turner, BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC.

Air Serv Corporation, a foreign corporation, Defendant, represented
by Darren Anthony Feider -- dfeider@sebrisbusto.com -- SEBRIS BUSTO
JAMES, Jeffrey A. James -- jaj@sebrisbusto.com -- SEBRIS BUSTO
JAMES & Keith Jacoby, LITTLER MENDELSON PC, pro hac vice.

78 Opt Out Class Members, Interested Party, represented by Beau C.
Haynes, WASHINGTON WAGE CLAIM PROJECT & David N. Mark , WASHINGTON
WAGE CLAIM PROJECT.

Abdisalan Fitaye, Objector, represented by Beau C. Haynes,
WASHINGTON WAGE CLAIM PROJECT & David N. Mark, WASHINGTON WAGE
CLAIM PROJECT.


ALABAMA: Bid to Unseal ADOC Staffing Report in Braggs Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDWARD BRAGGS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JEFFERSON S.
DUNN, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Alabama
Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
2:14cv601-MHT (M.D. Ala.), Judge Myron H. Thompson of the U.S.
District Court for the Midde District of Alabama, Northern
Division, has issued his Phase 2A Opinion and Order on the
Plaintiffs' motion to to unseal the Defendants' quarterly staffing
reports.

In June 2017, the court found that the Alabama prison system's
persistent and severe shortages of the mental-health staff and the
correctional staff are a significant factor causing the State to
provide constitutionally inadequate mental-health care to
prisoners.  As part of the remedy, the Court ordered the Alabama
Department of Corrections ("ADOC") to file under seal quarterly
mental-health and correctional staffing reports.

The plaintiffs moved to unseal these reports and the defendants
agreed, except as to the correctional staffing statistics broken
down by facility.  The court held an evidentiary hearing on the
sole disputed issue of whether to unseal the facility-specific
correctional staffing figures.  After balancing the public's
interest in accessing these figures against ADOC's interest in
keeping them confidential, the court will now order that past and
future quarterly staffing reports be disclosed in their entirety,
albeit with the facility-specific correctional data being unsealed
five months after the last day of each quarter.

The Plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit include a group of
mentally-ill prisoners in the custody of ADOC.  The Defendants are
the ADOC Commissioner and Associate Commissioner of Health
Services, who are both sued in only their official capacities.  In
a liability opinion entered on June 27, 2017, the court found that
ADOC's mental-health care for prisoners in its custody was, simply
put, horrendously inadequate.  The court laid out seven factors
contributing to the Eighth Amendment violation.  Additionally, it
found that persistent and severe shortages of mental-health staff
and correctional staff constitute an overarching issue that
permeates each of the contributing factors of inadequate
mental-health care.

On Feb. 20, 2018, the Court issued a remedial opinion on
understaffing, along with a remedial order, see Understaffing
Remedial Order.  The remedial order required the Defendants to
submit to the Court under seal a Correctional Staffing Report and
Mental Health Staffing Report on a quarterly basis, that is, March
1, June 1, September 1, and December 1 of each year.  The
Defendants filed such reports under seal in March, June, and
September.

On Sept. 17, 2018, the Plaintiffs moved to unseal past and future
quarterly staffing reports.  At a hearing on the motion on
September 18, the Defendants agreed that the mental-health staffing
figures could be unsealed.  The Defendants also acknowledged that,
until June 2017, when the Court issued its liability opinion, ADOC
had published correctional staffing figures broken down by facility
every month on its website.

The Defense counsel represented that the decision to stop
publishing the correctional staff figures was made for three
reasons: (1) concern that the reported figures were inaccurate; (2)
security concerns about disclosing the number of staff posted at
different facilities, especially given that the staffing numbers
were lower than in the past; and (3) the number of "authorized"
positions in the reports was no longer relevant.

On Sept. 20, 2018, the Defendants agreed to make public the total
correctional staffing levels across ADOC, but not to break down
those figures by facility.  The Defendants cited security and other
concerns related to unsealing the facility-specific information
related to correctional staffing levels.

Accordingly, the only remaining disputed issue from the plaintiffs'
motion to unseal is whether to unseal the facility-specific
correctional staffing numbers.  The Court held an evidentiary
hearing on the issue on Oct. 23 and 24, 2018, and subsequently
heard oral argument to clarify the parties' positions.

With respect to public's interest, Judge Thompson finds that
unsealing the facility-specific correctional staffing figures with
less than a 12-month delay would substantially advance the public's
interest in overseeing ADOC's administration of Alabama's prisons.

As to the Defendants' interests, he finds that while publishing
facility-specific quarterly correctional staffing data possibly
poses some degree of risk, the risk is not significant enough to
overcome the strong interest in public disclosure of the
information.

Finally, weighing the public's and the Defendants' interests
analyzed, the Judge finds that disclosing quarterly
facility-specific data with a five-month delay -- that is, three
months after the reports are filed in Court -- strikes an
appropriate balance.  Delaying the unsealing of the staffing
reports an additional three months sufficiently mitigates the
security concerns raised by the Defendants, while not unduly
hampering the public's ability to oversee ADOC's spending as well
as its compliance with Court orders and the Constitution.

Accordingly, Judge Thompson granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
unseal the Defendants' quarterly staffing reports to the extent
that, for each past and future quarterly staffing report filed by
the Defendants, the Defendants are, initially, to file the
facility-specific correctional data under seal and then, five
months after the last day of quarter covered by the report, to
refile the data unsealed.  None of the other information in the
quarterly reports will be filed under seal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 2, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/xT3FaY from Leagle.com.

Edward Braggs, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Tedrick Brooks, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Gary Lee Broyles, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Chandler Clements, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Christopher Gilbert, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Dwight Hagood, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Sylvester
Hartley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Christopher Jackson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Brandon Johnson, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, John Maner, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Rick Martin, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Willie McClendon, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Roger McCoy, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Jermaine Mitchell, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Tommie Moore,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Matthew
Mork, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Bradley Pearson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Leviticus Pruitt, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Turner Rogers, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Timothy Sears, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Brian Sellers, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Augustus Smith, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Hubert Tollar, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Daniel Tooley, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Joseph Torres,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Donald Ray
Turner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Jamie Wallace, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Robert Myniasha Williams, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Roger Moseley, Quang Bui, Charlie
Henderson, Sheila Allen, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, William Sullivan, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Serena English, Valerie Wheeler, Justin
Hall, Raymond Bosarge, Cordara Dunner, Karen Norris, Cherritha
Harris, Brittany Ellis & Tomas Snyder, Plaintiffs, represented by
Andrew Philip Walsh -- awalsh@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson
Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC., Jack Richard Cohen, Southern
Poverty Law Center, Latasha Lanette McCrary , Southern Poverty Law
Center, Maria Viette Morris, Southern Poverty Law Center, Patricia
Clotfelter, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Rhonda
C. Brownstein , Southern Poverty Law Center, William Glassell
Somerville, III, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz &
William Van Der Pol, Jr., Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program.

Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program, Plaintiff, represented by
Anil Ashok Mujumdar, Zarzaur Mujumdar & Debrosse, Diandra S.
Debrosse Zimmermann, Zarzaur Mujumdar & Debrosse, Glenn Nelson
Baxter, Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program, Gregory Martin
Zarzaur, Zarzaur Mujumdar & Debrosse, Andrea Jane Mixson, Alabama
Disabilities Advocacy Program & Denise Wiginton, Zarzaur Mujumdar &
Debrosse.

All Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Philip Walsh, Baker
Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Caitlin J. Sandley,
Southern Poverty Law Center, Grace Graham, Southern Poverty Law
Center, Jack Richard Cohen, Southern Poverty Law Center, Latasha
Lanette McCrary, Southern Poverty Law Center, Maria Viette Morris,
Southern Poverty Law Center, Patricia Clotfelter, Baker Donelson
Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Rhonda C. Brownstein, Southern
Poverty Law Center, William Van Der Pol, Jr., Alabama Disabilities
Advocacy Program, Anil Ashok Mujumdar, Zarzaur Mujumdar & Debrosse,
Ashley Nicole Austin, Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program,
Barbara Ann Lawrence, Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program, David
Clay Washington, Southern Poverty Law Center, Jonathan Michael
Barry-Blocker, Southern Poverty Law Center, Lisa Wright Borden,
Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Lonnie Jason
Williams, Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program & William Glassell
Somerville, III, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz.

Ruth Naglich, in her official capacity as Associate commissioner of
health Services for the Alabama Department of Corrections &
Jefferson S. Dunn, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the
Alabama Department of Corrections, Defendants, represented by David
Randall Boyd, Balch & Bingham LLP, Elizabeth Anne Sees, Alabama
Department of Corrections, Evan Patrick Moltz --
rbennett@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., John
Garland Smith, Balch & Bingham LLP, Joseph Gordon Stewart, Jr.,
Alabama Dept of Corrections, Luther Maxwell Dorr, Jr. --
rdorr@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Matthew
Reeves -- mreeves@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper & Gale PC,
Mitesh Bansilal Shah -- shah@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper &
Gale, PC, Steven C. Corhern, Balch & Bingham, William Richard
Lunsford, Maynard Cooper & Gale PC, Melissa K. Marler --
mmarler@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale PC, Michael
Paul Huff -- mhuff@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper & Gale PC &
Stephen Clarence Rogers -- srogers@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard
Cooper and Gale PC.

Alabama Department of Corrections, Defendant, represented by David
Randall Boyd, Balch & Bingham LLP, John W. Naramore, Balch &
Bingham LLP, John Garland Smith, Balch & Bingham LLP, Elizabeth
Anne Sees, Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division, Joseph
Gordon Stewart, Jr., Alabama Dept of Corrections, Steven C.
Corhern, Balch & Bingham & William Richard Lunsford, Maynard Cooper
& Gale PC.

MHM Correctional Services, Inc., Movant, represented by Brett T.
Lane -- djohnson@mhm-services.com -- MHM Services, Inc. & Deana
Johnson, MHM Services, Inc., pro hac vice.

Corizon Health, Inc. & Kim Thomas, Movants, represented by Melissa
K. Marler, Maynard, Cooper & Gale PC, Stephen Clarence Rogers,
Maynard Cooper and Gale PC & William Richard Lunsford, Maynard
Cooper & Gale PC.

Ken Dover & Barbara Coe, Movants, represented by Philip Piggott --
ppiggott@starneslaw.com -- Starnes Davis Florie LLP.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Jaley Adversary Class Suit in Maryland
--------------------------------------------------------------
MOHAN K. JALEY v. AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK, Case No. 19-00005
(Bankr. D. Md., January 3, 2018), is brought by the Plaintiff
individually and on behalf of all other Maryland residents
similarly situated alleging violations the Maryland Courts and
Judicial Proceedings Code Ann., the Maryland Consumer Debt
Collection Act, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, the Maryland
Commercial Law Code Ann., U.S.C. Bankruptcy Rule 9011, and the Rule
11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The lawsuit is an adversary proceeding objecting to the Proof of
Claim filed in the underlying bankruptcy case by the Defendant, and
for damages and other relief brought by Mohan K. Jaley, due to
alleged illegal and systematic abuse of Maryland residents by the
Defendant relative to submitting time barred consumer claims in
bankruptcy actions.  The Chapter 13 bankruptcy case is titled In
Re: MOHAN K. JALEY, Case No. 18-21131, and was commenced on August
21, 2018.

Headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, American Express National
Bank is a national bank, chartered and existing under the laws of
the United States.  Amex is engaged in the business of, inter alia,
collecting debts as a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas N. Gottron, Esq.
          Terry E. Morris, Esq.
          MORRIS PALERM, LLC
          2 Barrister's Place
          751 Rockville Pike
          Rockville, MD 20852
          Telephone: (301) 424-6290
          Facsimile: (301) 424-6294
          E-mail: dgottron@morrispalerm.com
                  tmorris@morrispalerm.com


ANTHEM PRODUCTIONS: Court Certifies Class in Douglas FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARLTON DOUGLAS, Plaintiff, v. ANTHEM PRODUCTIONS, LLC
(d/b/a Anthem Sound, Stage, And Lighting), ADVANCED AUDIO
TECHNOLOGY, LLC (d/b/a Anthem SSL), EVAGGELOS POULOS (a/k/a Angelo
Poulos), JOSEPH LODI, and JASON OJEDA, Defendants, Case No.
18-CV-5789 (VEC) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Valerie Caproni of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective
pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
and for approval of the form of notice and means of distribution.

Douglas has sued his former employer for violations of the FLSA,
and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").  Anthem installs, leases, and
maintains audio equipment in clubs, restaurants, and other venues.
It is the successor-in-interest to Defendant Advanced Audio
Technology, LLC ("AAT"), which merged with Anthem in January 2016.
Defendant Poulos is the CEO of Anthem and was the CEO of AAT prior
to the merger.  Defendant Ojeda was a shareholder and manager of
AAT until early 2015, when he sold his shares and resigned from the
company.  Defendant Lodi was a shareholder and manager of AAT until
the January 2016 merger, at which time Lodi sold his shares.

Between April 2014 and Aug. 28, 2017, the Plaintiff worked as an
audio technician for the Defendants.  Working in crews of four,
audio technicians installed and performed maintenance on the
Defendants' audio systems in clubs and event venues throughout New
York.

Throughout the Plaintiff's employment, the Defendants had a policy
of paying overtime to employees only after they worked 45 hours per
week.  Although the wage-and-hour laws require that employees be
paid overtime after they work 40 hours per week, the Defendants
believed that employees took a onehour break for lunch each day
(totaling 5 hours per week); thus, in order to avoid paying
employees overtime for their lunch breaks, the Defendants paid
overtime to employees only after they worked 45 hours per week.

The Plaintiff asserts that he and all other audio technicians were
not permitted to take onehour lunch breaks; rather, Defendants
required audio technicians to eat lunch in the span of ten to
twenty minutes or, if it were really busy, to eat while they
worked.  He, therefore, sues for the overtime pay that he allegedly
should have received for hours 40 through 45 that he worked each
week.

The Plaintiff moves to certify a collective comprised of all
current and former hourly employees who worked for the Defendants
during the relevant time period.

The Defendants object to certification of a collective comprised of
all hourly employees, but they do not oppose a collective limited
to audio technicians and other full-time employees who worked on
their audio systems at restaurants, clubs, and other venues
("off-site employees").  In their view, the collective should not
include employees who worked in the Defendants' office and
warehouse locations ("on-site employees").

Judge Caproni finds that the Plaintiff has offered sufficient
evidence that the Defendants failed to pay overtime to all hourly
employees, regardless of whether these employees took one-hour
lunch breaks or not.  She, therefore, grants conditional
certification of a collective comprised of all hourly employees who
worked for Anthem or AAT.

Next, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff's collective action needs
not be limited to employees who worked for the Defendants prior to
the time that the Plaintiff terminated his employment.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's collective action may include all
hourly employees who worked for the Defendants between June 26,
2015 and the present.

The Judge will not rule on the balance of the parties' requests
regarding the form of notice and means of distribution.  The
parties are ordered to confer and to attempt to resolve any
remaining issues.

Finally, the Judge declines to toll the statute of limitations for
all the prospective Plaintiffs at this time, but prospective
members of the collective may move for tolling, as needed, on an
individual basis.

Based on the foregoing, Judge caproni granted the Plaintiff's
motion for collective certification.  She conditionally certifies a
collective of all hourly employees who worked for Anthem and/or AAT
between June 26, 2015 and the present.  She denied Ojeda's request
to exclude his name from the notice of collective action.  

The Defendants are ordered to provide contact information for all
potential members of the collective (including names, mailing
addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses) in an excel
spreadsheet to the Plaintiff's counsel no later than Jan. 22, 2019.


The Judge granted (i) the Plaintiff's request to send notices to
potential members of the collective via email and text message; and
(ii) the Plaintiff's request to send reminder notices is granted,
subject to the limitations set forth in her Opinion.

The notice must be translated into Spanish.  Equitable tolling will
be considered on a case-by-case basis.  The parties are ordered to
confer on any other issues regarding the form of notice and means
of distribution.  No later than Jan. 22, 2019, the parties must
submit a revised proposed notice and a letter outlining any points
of disagreement.

Should the parties mutually agree that a referral to the case's
assigned Magistrate Judge or to the District's Court-annexed
Mediation Program would be helpful in resolving the case, they
should promptly notify the Court.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the open
motion at Dkt. 19.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 2, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/54fHxR from Leagle.com.

Carlton Douglas, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Alexander Todd Coleman -- atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com --
Borrelli & Associates, P.L.L.C., Michael John Borrelli --
mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com -- Borrelli & Associates, P.L.L.C.
& Dong Phuong Van Nguyen -- dpvn@employmentlawyernewyork.com --
Borrelli & Associates, P.L.L.C.

Anthem Productions, LLC, doing business as Anthem Sound, Stage, and
Lighting, Advanced Audio Technology, LLC, doing business as Anthem
SSL, Evaggelos Poulos, also known as Angelo Poulos & Joseph Lodi,
individually, Defendants, represented by David Alan Schrader --
dschrader@pka-law.com -- Paykin Krieg & Adams LLP.

Jason Ojeda, individually, Defendant, represented by David Alan
Schrader, Paykin Krieg & Adams LLP & Jason Canales --
jcanales@mosessinger.com -- Moses & Singer LLP.


APPLE INC: Court Dismisses Consolidated Amended Processor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE APPLE PROCESSOR LITIGATION, Case No.
5:18-cv-00147-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose
Division, granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss all claims
alleged in the Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint ("CAC")
with leave to amend for the Plaintiffs' failure to allege Article
III standing.

In 2017, independent security researchers discovered an
industry-wide computer security vulnerability known as Spectre and
Meltdown that directly affected Apple's own processors within
devices such as iPhones, iPads, iPods, and the Apple TV.  In the
putative class action, Abrams and others similarly situated are
purchasers of such iDevices and allege that Apple's mitigation
efforts to patch the vulnerability within the iDevices
substantially slowed its processors, bringing a degradation in
value and damage to their property.  Federal subject matter
jurisdiction is based upon the Plaintiffs' claim under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Class Action Fairness Act.

Plaintiffs Abrams, Anthony Bartling, Robert Giraldi, and Jacqueline
Olson purchased iDevices such as the iPad Pro, iPhone SE, iPhone 6s
Plus, iPhone 7, and iPhone 8 in recent years.  In 2017, independent
research teams from Google Project Zero, Cyberus Technology, and a
group of universities discovered two computer security
vulnerabilities known as Meltdown and Spectre.  The independent
research teams determined that these Defects apply to all modern
processors and affect nearly all computing devices and operating
systems.

The Plaintiffs allege these two security vulnerabilities constitute
design defects in the Defendant's processors for iDevices.  In June
of 2017, Google's Project Zero disclosed the findings to ARM
Holdings PLC, a company that licenses central processing unit
("CPU") architecture to several large companies.  ARM Holdings in
turn notified its licensees, including the Defendant, of the
Defects.

On Dec. 2, 2017, the Defendant released iOS 11.2, an update to the
iOS software that powers certain iDevices, to address Meltdown
before it was widely reported.  It did not mention, however, that
the purpose of the iOS 11.2 release was to address the Defects.
Information concerning the Defects was leaked on Jan. 2, 2018, and
published in a New York Times article.  The leak forced the
Defendant to make a public announcement about the Defects earlier
than planned.

On Jan. 4, 2018, the Defendant released an announcement titled
"About Speculative Execution Vulnerabilities in ARM-based and Intel
CPU's."  In the press release, the Defendant revealed for the first
time that it had released iOS 11.2 to address Meltdown.  On Jan. 8,
2018, the Defendant released a separate update, iOS 11.2.2, to
address Spectre.  These software updates o not completely solve the
Defects; the Defects can only be fixed by replacing the hardware of
each iDevice.

The Plaintiffs allege that recent tests show that such mitigation
strategies severely degrade Processor performance by as much as
50%, rendering affected iDevices substantially slower.  Despite the
degraded processor performance, the Defendant continues to sell
iDevices while promoting their enhanced CPU speed, advanced
capabilities stemming from the processors, and exceptional
security.

The Plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of a class of all persons
in the United States who purchased or leased from Apple and/or its
authorized retailer sellers one or more iPhones, iPads, Apple TVs,
or other products containing processors designed or modified by
Apple, at any time since Jan. 1, 20 10.  The Plaintiffs also bring
the action on behalf of three subclasses who purchased iDevices
during the Class Period. The three subclasses include: (1) a
California Subclass, (2) a New Hampshire Subclass, and (3) a New
York Subclass.

The Plaintiffs assert 16 causes of action against the Defendant,
including: violations of the California, New York, and New
Hampshire consumer fraud statutes (Counts IV-V, IX, and XXII-XIII);
breach of express and implied warranty under California, New York,
and New Hampshire law (Counts I-III, VI-VIII and X-XI); products
liability under both negligence and strict liability under no
specified law (Counts XIV and XV); and unjust enrichment under no
specified law (Count XVI).

The fraud claims are essentially predicated on allegedly false and
misleading representations touting the speed of the Defendant's
iDevice processors.  The representations were allegedly false and
misleading because Defendant failed to disclose the Defects, the
nature of the Defects, that the Defendant's efforts to mitigate the
Defects would cause impaired performance of iDevices, and that the
Defects cannot be fully repaired without impairing performance of
the iDevices.

The warranty claims are based upon allegations that (a) the Defects
render the processors in the iDevices unmerchantable and unfit for
their ordinary or particular purpose and (b) that after the iOS
updates, the speed and performance of iDevices are not as
represented.  The Plaintiffs strict liability claim is based upon
an allegation that the Defendant's processors were defectively
designed because they contained the Defects.

In the negligence claim, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant
was negligent in failing to use the amount of care in designing and
manufacturing the Apple processors and iDevices that a reasonably
careful designer or manufacturer would have used to avoid exposing
others to the risk of harm that (1) the iDevices would be unsecure
and subject to invasion of the Plaintiffs' and the class members'
personal information, and (2) subject to reduced performance and
lost value due to the Defendant's mitigation efforts.

Lastly, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant has been unjustly
enriched through the sales of iDevices at the expense of the
Plaintiffs and the class members because of the conduct described.

Presently before the court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss all
claims alleged in the Plaintiffs' CAC for lack of standing and
failure to state a claim.

Judge Davila finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege
sufficient facts to establish Article III standing.  The Plaintiffs
do not allege facts to show their iDevices are worth less than what
they paid for them.  They do not allege any facts about the market
for their iDevices.  They do not allege that Meltdown and Spectre
posed such an immediate risk that they were forced to replace or
discontinue use of their iDevices.  Nor do the Plaintiffs allege
that they were forced to replace or discontinue use of their
iDevices due to the alleged degradation in performance.  Instead,
they assert conclusory allegations that they would not have
purchased [their] iDevices, or paid the prices they did.
Accordingly, the Judge holds he needs not address the Defendants'
legal challenges to individual claims.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Davila granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss with leave to amend.  The Plaintiffs may file and
serve an amended complaint no later than Jan. 24, 2019.  The Case
Management Conference scheduled for Jan. 17, 2019 is continued to
May 2, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.  The Parties will file a Joint Statement
in accordance with Civil Local Rule 16-9 no later than April 22,
2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 2, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/UkrH5Q from Leagle.com.

Anthony Bartling & Jacqueline N. Olson, Plaintiffs, represented by
Gregory Nespole -- gmn@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz, Janine Lee Pollack -- pollack@whafh.com -- Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, pro hac vice, Marisa C.
Livesay -- livesay@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP, Randall Scott Newman -- newman@whafh.com -- Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP & Rachele R. Rickert --
rickert@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

Robert Giraldi, Plaintiff, represented by Aidan Chowning Poppler --
cpoppler@bermantabacco.com -- Berman Tabacco, Christian Levis,
Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., Lee Lefkowitz, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C.,
Matthew Acocella, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., Matthew David-Craig
Pearson -- mpearson@bermantabacco.com -- Berman Tabacco, Sarah
Khorasanee McGrath -- skmcgrath@bermantabacco.com -- Berman
Tabacco, Vincent Briganti, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. & Todd Anthony
Seaver -- tseaver@bermantabacco.com -- Berman Tabacco.

Jennifer Abrams, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David-Craig
Pearson, Berman Tabacco & Todd Anthony Seaver, Berman Tabacco.

Apple Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew Rawlinson --
matt.rawlinson@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Kathleen P. Lally --
kathleen.lally@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice, Mark
S. Mester -- mark.mester@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac
vice, Michael H. Rubin -- michael.rubin@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins
LLP & Reuben J. Stob -- reuben.stob@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins
LLP.


AT&T: Can Compel Arbitration in Horowitz Age Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROY HOROWITZ, LINDA LARSON, KEMPTEN POLLARD, KATHERINE
SEAMAN, and KATHLEEN SWEENEY, Plaintiffs, v. AT&T INC., AT&T CORP.,
AT&T SERVICES, INC., and AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES LLC, Defendants,
Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-4827-BRM-LHG (D. N.J.), Judge Brian R.
Martinotti of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey granted the Defendants's Motion to Compel Arbitration of
Individual Claims and Stay Proceedings.

The lawsuit involves violations of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act ("ADEA") in which, it is alleged, the Defendants
engaged in a "company-wide plan" to replace the aging workforce in
the Defendants' corporations with a younger one by the year 2020,
with a three-step "surplus" then termination and fraudulent release
scheme.  

Horowitz was hired by AT&T in December 1995 and was employed at the
company for more than 20 years before his termination effective
June 21, 2016, at the age of 56.  Sweeney was hired by AT&T in
November 1997 and was employed at the company for more than 18
years before her termination effective July 22, 2016, at the age of
51.

On Dec. 4 and 5, 2011, AT&T sent Horowitz and Sweeney,
respectively, an email to their AT&T email address, advising them
that AT&T has created an alternative process for resolving disputes
between the company and employees. Under this process, employees
and the company would use independent, third-party arbitration
rather than the courts or juries to resolve legal disputes.
Arbitration is more informal than a lawsuit in court, and may be
faster.  The Management Arbitration Agreement stated, in relevant
part that under the Agreement, the employee and AT&T agree that any
dispute to which the Agreement applies will be decided by final and
binding arbitration instead of court litigation.

The emails were successfully transmitted and received by the
Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs further acknowledge that reminder
e-mails were sent by AT&T to Horowitz on Dec. 16, 2011 and Jan. 17,
2012 and to Sweeney on Dec. 15, 2011 and Jan. 18, 2012.  AT&T's
records indicate that both the Plaintiffs clicked on the hyperlink
in the email and accessed the webpage containing the text of the
Arbitration Agreement.  Nevertheless, the Plaintiffs did not opt
out of the Agreement.

Sweeney has no recollection of ever viewing or opening the e-mails,
no recollection of ever opening or viewing the Agreement itself,
and denies ever acknowledging to Defendants that she fully read or
fully understood the Agreement.  In addition, both the Plaintiffs
deny ever being told that their continued employment with the
Defendants, past the opt-put deadline of Feb. 6, 2012, constituted
an acceptance of the Agreement.  Lastly, both Sweeny and Horowitz
never took any affirmative steps to indicate their acceptance of
the Agreement to the Defendants.  However, as part of their
employment, the Plaintiffs were required to monitor their AT&T
email address and respond appropriately to emails.

Before the Court is the Defendants' Motion to Compel.  The
Plaintiffs oppose the Motion.

Judge Martinotti finds that the Plaintiffs accepted the terms of
the Arbitration Agreement by receiving notice of the agreement,
clicking on the link, and failing to opt out within the deadline.
Consideration is also present in the Arbitration Agreement, since
the agreement mutually obliges both parties to arbitrate all
employment disputes and the Plaintiffs have continued their
employment with the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs' argument that clicking on the hyperlink does not
prove they read or fully understood the terms of the Arbitration
Agreement, is irrelevant.  He says a party is bound by the
hyperlinked-agreement, even if that party did not review the terms
and conditions of the hyperlinked agreement before assenting to
them.  Accordingly, Judge Martinotti granted the Defendants' Motion
to Compel Arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 2, 2019 Opinion is available at
https://is.gd/Rxl18N from Leagle.com.

ROY HOROWITZ, KATHERINE SEAMAN & KATHLEEN SWEENEY, on behalf of
themselves individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by DANIEL S. ORLOW -- orlow@consolelaw.com
-- CONSOLE MATTIACI LAW, LLC, EMILY ROSE DERSTINE FRIESEN --
derstinefriesen@consolelaw.com -- CONSOLE MATTIACCI LAW LLC, SUSAN
M. SAINT-ANTOINE -- santanto@consolelaw.com -- CONSOLE MATTIACCI
LAW, LLC, BRIAN CHARLES FARRELL -- farrell@consolelaw.com --
Console Mattiacci Law, LLC & STEPHEN G. CONSOLE --
console@consolelaw.com -- CONSOLE MATTIACCI LAW, LLC.

AT&T, INC., AT&T CORP., AT&T SERVICES, INC. & AT&T MOBILITY
SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, represented by ANGELO JOSEPH GENOVA --
agenova@genovaburns.com -- Genova Burns LLC & JAMES BUCCI --
jbucci@genovaburns.com -- GENOVA BURNS LLC.


BATON ROUGE, LA: Sued for Traffic Camera Fine Refunds
-----------------------------------------------------
Kevin Foster and Scottie Hunter, writing for WAFB 9, report that
over a decade's worth of money collected through traffic camera
fines in the City of Baton Rouge should be refunded, according to a
legal action filed by two Louisiana attorneys on Dec. 14.

Attorney Joseph R. McMahon, Esq. -- joe@josephmcmahonlaw.com -- of
Metairie, and attorney Anthony S. Maska, Esq., of Hammond, filed
the action alleging that enforcement of the City's traffic camera
ordinance by the Department of Public Works violates the Home Rule
Charter of the City of Baton Rouge, which only authorizes the
Police Department to enforce the City's ordinances. Both attorneys
successfully petitioned for a class action in New Orleans using the
same legal argument in 2017.

"We have long-believed that the program in and of itself is
unconstitutional in its enforcement in that it deprives people of
their right to confront their accuser and it also violates several
other provisions of Louisiana law," McMahon said in an interview
with WAFB on Dec. 15.

The two attorneys say they filed the suit against the city on
behalf of several plaintiffs who received "Notices of Violation" of
the red light traffic ordinance which was adopted by the city in
2007.  According to the suit, the thousands of similar traffic
camera tickets which have been issued by the city since then have
been done so illegally, and all money collected should be
reimbursed.

The East Baton Rouge Parish Metro Council failed to approve a
contract renewal for the Baton Rouge Red Light Camera Program on
Dec. 10. The owners of cars that run red lights where cameras are
placed are fined $117 immediately after the violation, then an
additional $35 in late fees after 60 days and $15 more after 90
days. That money has been used by city officials to support
salaries for more than 50 Baton Rouge police officers, according to
The Advocate. Records show in 2016, tickets and fines brought in
more than $2.3 million. In 2015, the program made more than $2.6
million.

However, city officials admit there's no way to punish drivers who
ignore a red light camera ticket, meaning many go unpaid. In fact,
officials have also said they're still evaluating their options for
collecting the more than $43 million in unpaid red light tickets
that has accumulated over the past 10 years, according to The
Advocate.

The use of red light cameras received strong criticism in the past.
"It's got little to do with safety and everything to do with the
money grab because that's all I think the traffic cameras are,"
said State Representative Paul Hollis, R in a 2017 interview. That
money needs to be returned to the citizens, according to McMahon
and Maska.

The case would be certified as a class-action lawsuit pending
approval from a judge in the next 90 days.[GN]


BEDELL VINEYARDS: Traynor Files Suit under ADA in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bedell 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. Bedell Vineyards, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
7:19-cv-00296 (S.D. N.Y., January 10, 2019).

Bedell Vineyards, Inc. makes hand crafted sustainable wines in
North Fork of Long Island.

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



BELK INC: Court Approves H. Halleen FLSA Settlement
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
Sherman Division, granted Defendant Belk, Inc.'s Joint Motion for
Approval of FLSA Collective Action Settlement in the case captioned
HOPE HALLEEN, DONNA MANER, and all others similarly situated; v.
BELK, INC. Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-00055-ALM. (E.D. Tex.).

There are six focal facets under Rule 23(e): (1) the existence of
fraud or collusion behind the settlement (2) the complexity,
expense, and likely duration of the litigation (3) the stage of the
proceedings and the amount of discovery completed (4) the
probability of plaintiffs' success on the merits (5) the range of
possible recoveryand (6) the opinions of the class counsel, class
representatives, and absent class members.

First, the Court may presume that no fraud or collusion occurred
between counsel in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. The
Court finds no evidence of fraud or collusion between counsel and,
therefore, presumes that not fraud or collusion occurred between
counsel.

Second, when the prospect of ongoing litigation threatens to impose
high costs of time and money on the parties, the reasonableness of
approving a mutually-agreeable settlement is strengthened.

Absent settlement, the Plaintiffs would be required to incur the
time and expense of taking additional depositions and seeking
further discovery. Similarly, the Defendant would be required to
incur the cost of producing and reviewing terabytes of
electronically-stored information, preparing witnesses for
depositions, and taking the depositions of additional discovery
opt-in plaintiffs.

The reasonableness of approving the parties' settlement is
strengthened as ongoing litigation threatens to impose high costs
of time and money.

The goal of the third factor is to evaluate whether the parties and
the district court possess ample information with which to evaluate
the merits of the competing positions.' The parties represent to
the Court that:

This case was resolved only after nearly three years of hard fought
and intense litigation. The Parties responded to several sets of
interrogatories and document production requests, conducted
approximately 19 depositions (including discovery opt-in plaintiffs
and a third-party former Regional Vice President of Belk), and
exchanged approximately one million documents (including Belk's
production of policy documents, emails for corporate personnel and
Opt-Ins, personnel records, payroll data, internal studies, and
complete data systems and databases requested by Plaintiffs).

The Court finds the parties have had the opportunity to evaluate
the merits of their respective positions, and this factor favors
approval of the settlement.

The fourth factor, which is the most important factor absent fraud
and collusion, considers the probability of the plaintiffs' success
on the merits.   When analyzing this factor, courts must judge the
terms of the proposed settlement against the probability that the
class will succeed in obtaining a judgment following a trial on the
merits. However, the court must not try the case in the settlement
hearings because the very purpose of the compromise is to avoid the
delay and expense of such a trial. Plaintiffs acknowledge the risks
inhibiting their ability to ultimately prevail on the merits,
including, defeating decertification motions, succeeding at the
liability and damages phases of trial and post-trial motions, and
succeeding on "Defendant's inevitable appeal to the Fifth Circuit.

The fifth factor examines the range of possible recovery by the
class. This factor primarily concerns the adequacy of the proposed
settlement. The parties dispute the hours of estimated time worked
by Plaintiffs, whether a three or two-year statute of limitations
applies, and whether Plaintiffs could recover liquidated damages.
As described above, the Settlement Agreement provides monetary
compensation representing overtime wages, covering a three-year
period, and includes provisions for liquidated damages. Although
the maximum possible award at trial could be larger than the
settlement amount, there is also a significant chance it could be
lower, or non-existent. Overall, the Settlement Agreement is
adequate.

The sixth factor is the opinions of counsel and the class
representatives.2 This case has the benefit of experienced
attorneys on both sides, who have negotiated settlements in other
complex employment litigation, including class and collective
action settlements. The parties and their attorneys agree that the
settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide
dispute.

Therefore, this factor supports a finding in favor of approving the
Settlement Agreement.

After considering the Reed factors, the Court finds that the
Settlement Agreement should be approved because it is a fair and
reasonable settlement of a bona fide dispute.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 20, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y6vwfnly from Leagle.com.

Hope Halleen, individually & Donna Maner, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Rebecca S. Predovan, Hepworth Gershbaum & Roth, PLLC,Charles
Gershbaum, Hepworth Gershbaum & Roth, PLLC, David A. Roth, Hepworth
Gershbaum & Roth, PLLC, Gregg I. Shavitz -- gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
-- Shavitz Law Group, PA, pro hac vice, Logan A. Pardell --
lpardell@shavitzlaw.com -- Shavitz Law Group, PA, Marc S. Hepworth,
Hepworth Gershbaum & Roth, PLLC, Paolo C. Meireles --
pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com -- Shavitz Law Group, PA & Alan Luis
Quiles -- aquiles@shavitzlaw.com -- Shavitz Law Group, PA.

BELK, INC., Defendant, represented by John A. Ybarra --
jybarra@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Kimberly Rives
Miers -- kmiers@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Amy S.
Ramsey -- aramsey@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Donald W. Myers
-- dwmyers@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC, Kathleen A.
Barrett -- kabarrett@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. &
Matthew J. Ruza -- mruza@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C..


BELLMORE GARDENS: Valle Seeks to Recoup Overtime Under FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAIME DAVID VALLE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BELLMORE GARDENS, INC. d/b/a ISLAND GREENERY
and GENE JUDD, as an individual, Case No. CV 19-0055 (E.D.N.Y.,
January 3, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Bellmore Gardens, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws
of New York with a principal executive office at 2036 Bellmore
Avenue, in Bellmore, New York.  Gene Judd owns and/or operates
Bellmore Gardens.

The Defendants does business as Island Greenery.  The Defendants
provide lawn maintenance services, landscaping, masonry services
and other gardening services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          69-12 Austin Street
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
          E-mail: avshalumovr@yahoo.com


BEPC INC: Fails to Pay Deployment Technicians' OT, Greenlee Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Greenlee, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. BEPC, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-00020-SMB (D. Ariz., January 3,
2018), alleges that BEPC did not pay overtime to its "Deployment
Technicians," in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arizona Wage Law.

Instead, BEPC pays these blue-collar phone installation employees a
flat weekly rate, even though they routinely work over 40 hours per
week, Mr. Greenlee alleges.

BEPC is a for profit corporation registered with the Arizona
Corporation Commission to transact business in Arizona.  BEPC
operates and transacts business in Arizona, Texas, and Mexico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel L. Bonnett, Esq.
          MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C.
          4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185
          Phoenix, AZ 85018
          Telephone: (602) 240-6900
          Facsimile: (602) 240-2345
          E-mail: dbonnett@martinbonnett.com

               - and -

          David I. Moulton, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com


BERKSHIRE MEDICAL: Can Partly Compel Discovery in Clark FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHAYLA CLARK, on behalf of herself and all other
employees similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BERKSHIRE MEDICAL
CENTER, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-30186-MGM (D. Mass.),
Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson of the U.s. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts granted in part and denied in
part the Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery.

Clark filed the action on behalf of herself and other similarly
situated licensed practical nurses employed by Berkshire Medical
Center ("BMC") asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA")(Count I); the Massachusetts Wage Act (Count II);
Massachusetts common law - quantum meruit (Count III); and
Massachusetts common law — unjust enrichment (Count IV).  Ms.
Clark filed her notice of consent to sue on Dec. 29, 2017.  On May
14, 2018, Nicole Millington filed a notice of consent to sue; on
May 24, 2018, Shirley Victor also did so.

Before the court is BMC's Motion, which seeks to compel
supplemental answers to the interrogatories BMC served on each of
the Plaintiffs and the production of engagement letters between the
Plaintiffs and their counsel.  The Plaintiffs oppose BMC's Motion.

The Court heard argument from the parties on Dec. 11, 2018 and took
BMC's Motion under advisement.

On July 7, 2018, BMC served a limited set of interrogatories on the
Plaintiffs posing the following two questions:

      a. Interrogatory 1: Please state the names, addresses, and
present or last known places of employment of each person with
personal knowledge concerning the facts alleged and the defenses
asserted in the First Amended Complaint and the Answer to the First
Amended Complaint and briefly summarize the substance of such
knowledge.

     b. Interrogatory 2: Please provide an itemized computation of
your damages, including a list of the dates on which you contend
you missed all or part of a break or otherwise worked more than
your scheduled shift and, for each such date, the amount of
additional time you allege you worked and any overtime for which
you contend you were not compensated.

Ms. Clark's response to interrogatory 1 referred BMC to her initial
disclosures, in which she listed nine individuals including
herself, Ms. Millington, and Ms. Victor.  She stated that these
nine individuals had "knowledge/information" regarding the terms
and conditions of her employment, her job responsibilities, and/or
hours worked.

Having carefully reviewed BMC's entire submission in support of its
motion, Magistrate Judge Robertson finds that BMC is entitled to
further supplementation of the Plaintiffs' answers to interrogatory
1.  She granted so much of BMC's Motion as seeks to compel
supplementation of the Plaintiffs' answers to interrogatory 1 as
follows.  Ms. Clark and Ms. Millington are ordered to supplement
their responses, and Ms. Victor is required to serve her response,
to BMC's interrogatory 1 by identifying separately each person with
personal knowledge concerning the facts alleged in the First
Amended Complaint and (to the extent applicable) facts alleged in
the Answer to the First Amended Complaint and briefly summarizing
the substance of such knowledge.  The identification of such
persons will include identifying the BMC department, unit, and
geographic location in which each identified individual worked, if
known.  The summary of knowledge shall, if applicable, identify the
specific BMC policies, procedures, or practices about which each
such identified individual has knowledge, and which BMC employees
any identified individual allegedly observed who worked through
meal times without being compensated.  Finally, each answer or
supplemental answer must state, to the extent known, the time
period during which each individual with knowledge possessed the
information summarized in the response.

With respect to Interrogatory 2, the Magistrate finds that FLSA and
state law claims are not exempted from the initial disclosure
requirements.  Thus, the Plaintiffs are required to compute their
alleged losses in the case.  To the extent the Plaintiffs' alleged
losses are based on estimates of uncompensated time, they are
required to identify these estimates and the justification for
these estimates, including whether the estimates are based on any
records they maintained and the form in which they maintained such
records.  So much of BMC's motion as seeks to compel the Plaintiffs
to compute their alleged losses with as much specificity as
possible based on the compensation records produced by BMC and any
other relevant evidence, including any personal estimates of
uncompensated time, is granted.

Finally, BMC seeks to compel production of the Plaintiffs'
engagement letters with their counsel.  It contends that the
Plaintiffs' engagement letters are not privileged and are relevant
because the letters may contain information bearing on Ms. Clark's
suitability as a representative of a class or collective group of
BMC employees.  The Plaintiffs oppose this aspect of BMC's Motion
on the grounds that the engagement letters are not relevant at this
stage and are protected by attorney-client privilege.  

The Magistrate finds BMC's contentions are unpersuasive.  First,
BMC has not pointed to any authority to support its contention that
a named plaintiff in a wage and hour class who also has a separate
suit pending against her former employer on different grounds is
therefore unsuitable as a class representative.  Second, BMC's
conclusory assertion that the engagement letter between Ms. Clark
and her counsel is likely to be illuminating on these points is
unpersuasive, and, in any event, BMC may question Ms. Clark at her
deposition about her motivation for bringing this action and any
conditions she has imposed on her willingness to serve as a class
representative.  Third, it appears that BMC is seeking copies of
engagement letters between each of the Plaintiffs and counsel, but
BMC's contentions for seeking access to these letters only apply to
Ms. Clark.  For these reasons, she denied this aspect of BMC's
Motion.

For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Robertson granted in
part and denied in part BMC's Motion.  The Plaintiffs will
supplement their responses to BMC's interrogatories 1 and 2 within
21 days from the date of the Order.  Because she has granted BMC's
motion in part and denied it in part and deems that an award of
fees and costs to either side is not merited where the counsel have
observed the letter, but not the spirit of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a),
so much of BMC's Motion as seeks sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 37 is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 2, 2019 Memorandum and Order is
available at https://is.gd/7D6NOG from Leagle.com.

Shayla Clark, on behalf of herself and all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin K. Steffans
, Steffans Legal PLLC & Jeffrey S. Morneau --
jmorneau@cmolawyers.com -- Connor Morneau & Olin, LLP.

Berkshire Health Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lucy
Prashker -- lprashker@cainhibbard.com -- Cain Hibbard & Myers, PC.

Berkshire Medical Center, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lucy
Prashker, Cain Hibbard & Myers, PC & Melissa Stewart --
mstewart@cainhibbard.com -- Cain, Hibbard & Myers PC.


BNY MELLON: Settles Bondholders' Class Action for $13.5MM
---------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that the Bank of
New York Mellon Trust Co. and JP Morgan Trust Co. will pay $13.5
million to settle a class action with bondholders who alleged they
are entitled to receive a distribution under a hospital's
reorganization plan.

Judge Juan R. Sanchez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania granted final approval to the deal Dec.
21.

The parties reached a deal on the last day of trial. The funds will
be distributed among the more than 500 class members.

Leonard Becker sued BNY Mellon and JP Morgan on behalf of a class
of holders of revenue bonds issued for the benefit of Lower Bucks
Hospital in Bristol, Pa.

He sought to recover damages for financial losses the bondholders
sustained because the banks allegedly failed to maintain a
perfected security interest in the collateral securing the bonds.
He also wanted BNY Mellon to distribute funds awarded to the
bondholders in the hospital's bankruptcy plan.

The district court certified the suit as a class in 2016, but the
parties weren't able to reach a settlement until after the trial
was underway.

The court also approved a $2.15 million attorneys' fee award and
$270,000 in litigation expenses for class counsel.

Barrack, Rodos & Bacine and Fellheimer and Eichen represented the
class.

Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP and Bryan Cave LLP represented BNY
Mellon and JP Morgan.

The case is Becker v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Tr. Co., 2018 BL 474912,
E.D. Pa., No. 11-6460, 12/21/18. [GN]


BODYBUILDING.COM: Traynor Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bodybuilding.com 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. Bodybuilding.com LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00297 (S.D. N.Y., January 10, 2019).

Bodybuilding.com LLC retails health supplement products. The
Company offers supplements for muscle building, fat loss, immune
function, and wellness. Bodybuilding.com markets its products
worldwide.[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




BOMBFELL INC: Online Styling Co. for Men Faces ADA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bombfell, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Brian
Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Bombfell, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00301 (S.D. N.Y., January 10, 2019).

Bombfell, Inc. provides an online, priced curation-powered clothing
and styling solution for men. The company offers a dedicated
personal stylist who is matched with clients to pick out and send
clothing outfits based on the client's fit and taste. Further, the
company allows customers to only pay for clothes they keep, with
free shipping and returns, without any styling fee or commitment.
Additionally, it offers looks for the office, and allows customers
to preview and approve before the order ships with no
subscriptions. The company was founded in 2011 and is based in New
York, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



CAREMARK: Must Face Class Action Over HIV Status Disclosures
------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Klein, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in Ohio ruled on Dec. 21 that a company operating
hundreds of CVS pharmacies must face a class action from patients
claiming it sent letters disclosing their HIV status on the
envelope.

Caremark, a subsidiary of CVS Health Corporation that runs about
320 pharmacy stores, is in charge of administering the Ryan White
Program in Ohio. The federal program provides assistance with
insurance premiums, co-pays and medications for HIV-positive
patients.

The company contracted with Fiserv, also a defendant in the March
2018 lawsuit, to mail letters with program information to the over
6,000 participants in the state.

According to the complaint, "Ohio Department of Health" was visible
through a clear window on the envelopes, as was "PM 6402 HIV"
printed above each individual's name.

"The use of envelopes with transparent windows contravenes the
standard practice of the Ohio Department of Health, which is to
send all mailings relating to HIV-related issues in opaque,
non-windowed envelopes," the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs say their private health information was exposed to
family, friends, neighbors, landlords and strangers.

"Persons with HIV are still subject to stigma, humiliation, mental
anguish, embarrassment and stress based on their HIV status. They
also run the risk of the loss of housing, relationships and
employment with their HIV status is revealed," the complaint
states.

Caremark and its co-defendants filed motions to dismiss all claims
against them, arguing the class has "not alleged sufficiently that
there was an actual disclosure of plaintiffs' personal medical
information related to their HIV status because they do not name
specific individuals who actually saw the information."

However, Chief U.S. District Judge Edmund A. Sargus Jr. found on
Dec. 21 that the plaintiffs' Biddle claims -- that unauthorized
disclosure of medical information is a tort -- and claims for
declaratory relief can move forward.

"Plaintiffs assert that, inasmuch as they did not know Caremark had
their information . . . it is axiomatic that plaintiffs did not,
and could not have consented to Caremark's disclosure of their
nonpublic medical information," Judge Sargus said in his 26-page
opinion.

Other common law causes of action and counts pleaded in the
alternative to Biddle claims were dismissed.

The class is represented by Ohio attorney Terry Kilgore and lawyers
from the firms Whatley Kallas LLP and California-based Consumer
Watchdog. [GN]


CHAMBLESS MATH: Milner Seeks to Certify FDCPA Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned CHRISTOPHER MILNER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. CHAMBLESS MATH & CARR, P.C., the Defendant, Case
2:18-cv-00700-ECM-WC (M.D. Ala), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "a) all consumers with addresses in Montgomery, Alabama b)
      who were sent an initial 'B10' collection letter from the
      Defendant c) attempting to collect a consumer debt incurred
      to Baptist East, d) which letter was sent on or after July
      31, 2017 through October 29, 2018"; and

   2. appointing Yitzchak Zelman, Esq., of Marcus & Zelman, LLC as

      Class Counsel.

The Plaintiff brought this class action against a debt collector,
Chambless Math & Carr, P.C for violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act. The FDCPA requires debt collectors to
clearly and unambiguously identify, in their initial communications
with the debtor, the amount of the debt currently owed.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Ave., Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: 732 695-3282

CLIENT SERVICES: Ambrosino Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services
Incorporated. The case is styled as Christophe Ambrosino,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Client Services Incorporated and Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00238 (C.D. Cal., January 10, 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:

   Amir J Goldstein, Esq.
   Amir J Goldstein Law Offices
   8032 West Third Street Suite 201
   Los Angeles, CA 90048
   Tel: (323) 937-0400
   Fax: (866) 288-9194
   Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com



CLIENT SERVICES: Weiss Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services Inc.
The case is styled as Miriam Weiss, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Client Services, Inc,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00213 (E.D. N.Y., January 10, 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:

   Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
   Shalom Law, PLLC.
   124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
   Kew Gardens, NY 11374
   Tel: (718) 971-9474
   Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com



COLLECTION ANALYST: L. Powers Settlement Has Final Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska
issued a Memorandum and Order granting Parties Joint Motion for
Final Approval of a Proposed Class Action Settlement in the case
captioned LAURA POWERS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. THE COLLECTION ANALYST, INC., and
JUDITH D. RETELSDORF, Defendants. No. 8:17CV229. (D. Nev.).

The Settlement Agreement will settle the representative the
plaintiff's and the classes' claims against the defendants in this
action. The agreement provides for payment totaling $30,000 to two
settlement classes. It also provides that the defendants will
change the challenged business practices. In consideration of those
actions, the plaintiff class agrees to dismiss, with prejudice, the
claims identified in this class action against defendants and have
agreed to a release and covenant not to sue. The Settlement
Agreement also provides that any undistributed funds will be
distributed as a cy pres distribution to Legal Aid of Nebraska for
use in consumer representation and/or consumer education. The Court
finds the goals of that organization correspond to the interests of
the class.

The Court finds that the requirements of due process have been met
as to the method and content of the notice to the class members.
The Court has reviewed the notices and affidavits and finds them
satisfactory. The Court further finds that the Settlement Agreement
with the defendants is fair and reasonable. Based on the Court's
familiarity with the case throughout the course of this litigation,
the Court concludes that the proposed partial settlement is within
the range of potential outcomes in this case. The strength of
plaintiffs' case is tempered by the prospect that if the litigation
were to continue, there is a risk the class members could recover
nothing.

In addition to providing some monetary compensation to class
members, the proposed settlement provides the important benefit of
defendants changing their business practices. Further, there are no
objections to the settlement. Under the circumstances, the Court
finds the settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best
interests of the class.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 20, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydgjqjhj
from Leagle.com.

Laura Powers, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by O. Randolph Bragg, HORWITZ,
HORWITZ LAW FIRM, Pamela A. Car, CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM & William
L. Reinbrecht, CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM.

The Collection Analyst, Inc., Defendant, represented by John C.
Ochoa -- jochoa@salawus.com -- SMITH, AMUNDSEN LAW FIRM, pro hac
vice, Michael T. Gibbons, WOODKE, GIBBONS LAW FIRM, Patrick M.
Heng, JEFFREY WELCH LAW FIRM & Raymond E. Walden, WOODKE, GIBBONS
LAW FIRM.

Judith D. Retelsdorf, Defendant, represented by Patrick M. Heng,
JEFFREY WELCH LAW FIRM.


COMBINED GROUP: Ruiz Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR RODRIGUEZ RUIZ and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff, vs. THE COMBINED GROUP CORP., and
CARLOS ADRIAN SOTOLONGO, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-20018-CMA
(S.D. Fla., Jan. 3, 2019), seeks to recover overtime and minimum
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have employed several
other similarly situated employees like Plaintiff (i.e. excavator
operators, excavation crew members, etc.) who have not been paid
overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40
hours weekly from the filing of this complaint back three years.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an excavator operator from
on or about May 5, 2016 through on or about December 3, 2018. As an
excavator operator, Plaintiff's job duties required of him by
Defendants, along with other excavator operators, but were not
limited to, operating heavy machinery to move Plaintiff was absent
from work for approximately one week in the year 2017 and
approximately one week in the year 2018, the lawsuit says.

Combined Group Corp is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from Miami,
Florida.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

COMMUNITY BANK: 3d Cir. Reverses Stay of Lending Practices Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, issued an
Opinion reversing the District Court's Order granting Defendant's
Motion to Stay in the case captioned IN RE: COMMUNITY BANK OF
NORTHERN VIRGINIA MORTGAGE LENDING PRACTICES LITIGATION. *Specter
Specter Evans & Manogue, Appellant *(Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P.
12(a). No. 17-3012. (3rd Cir.)

SSEM hired Carlson as an associate in 2000 for a salary and various
benefits, as well as a percentage of fees earned by the firm for
class actions he originated. Within weeks of his hiring, Carlson
identified individuals who had incurred losses allegedly arising
from their dealings with lenders who paid illegal kick-backs to
undisclosed third parties. Based upon his investigation, Carlson
filed several lawsuits that eventually became part of the CBNV
multidistrict litigation, alleging violations of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA); the Truth in Lending Act (TILA).


After the final order approving the class settlement and fee award
was entered in CBNV, SSEM filed a state court breach of contract
action against Carlson, alleging that he owed the firm a portion of
the fees he received in CBNV. Carlson moved the District Court to
stay the state case and confirm his fee award. The Court exercised
ancillary jurisdiction over the state contract dispute, stayed the
state case, and granted Carlson's motion, concluding that SSEM was
not entitled to any portion of the fee Carlson had received because
a condition precedent for triggering any payment to SSEM had not
occurred.

The threshold issue for us to resolve is whether the District Court
properly exercised ancillary jurisdiction over the state contract
dispute. The have jurisdiction to review the Court's exercise of
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291 and review that
decision de novo.  

Neither of these purposes is advanced through the exercise of
ancillary jurisdiction in this case. As a preliminary matter,
contrary to Carlson's assertion, the District Court did not retain
jurisdiction over disputes arising from the allocation of fees
among counsel. The allocation of the fee award to class counsel
occurred pursuant to a confidential agreement among counsel and the
allocation was not the subject of a ruling by the arbitrators or
the Court. More significantly, the Court struck the paragraphs of
the final order approving the class action pertaining to fees.  

In its final approval order with the stricken language, the Court
stated
this Court expressly retains jurisdiction as to all matters
relating to the administration and enforcement of the Agreement and
Settlement and of this Order, and for any other necessary purpose
as permitted by law, including, without limitation entering such
additional Orders as may be necessary or appropriate to protect or
effectuate the Court's Orders and/or to ensure the fair and orderly
administration of the settlement and the distribution of the
Arbitration Panel's awards.

While the District Court's decision not to retain jurisdiction over
attorney fee disputes may be sufficient for it to decline to
exercise ancillary jurisdiction here, there are additional reasons
why exercising ancillary jurisdiction was an error.

First, SSEM's breach of contract claim is not factually
interdependent with the federal claims asserted in CBNV. CBNV
involved federal statutory claims arising from allegedly deceptive
lending practices, whereas the state case involved a state law
contract dispute between an attorney and his former firm as to how
they would split a fee award. The fee-splitting case is not the
type of dispute one would expect to be tried with the federal
deceptive lending claims in CBNV.  

Second, exercising jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim
was not necessary for the District Court to manage its proceedings,
vindicate its authority, or effectuate its decrees.

Courts have exercised ancillary jurisdiction over fee disputes
between clients and former counsel where resolution of the fee
dispute enables the court to resolve the underlying action over
which the court has jurisdiction, but that is not the situation
here.

SSEM and Carlson's dispute is between two Pennsylvania residents
and did not arise as a result of any rulings in CBNV. While their
fight became ripe when Carlson allegedly failed to share with SSEM
the fees he received from the class settlement, any obligation he
may have had to do so is based upon a private agreement between him
and his former firm. Thus, the disputed issue did not arise as a
matter of necessity from anything" that occurred in the CBNV
proceedings. Moreover, the resolution of the fee-splitting case
will have no impact on the class or the fee award.

Courts exercising ancillary jurisdiction over fee disputes between
attorneys have done so where the district court had control over
the disputed funds. Here, as in Taylor, 666 F.2d at 54, the funds
have been distributed and thus the District Court had no control
over them when Carlson asked the Court to exercise ancillary
jurisdiction over SSEM's state court action and confirm his fee
award.

The District Court was understandably troubled by the fact that
SSEM provided no notice of its interest in the fee award despite
the fact both the firm and Carlson were bound by their Separation
Agreement to do so. It is also understandable that the Court had an
interest in bringing to conclusion any matters that could have even
tangentially touched upon CBNV, a case over which it presided for
fourteen years. Nonetheless, the Court did not retain jurisdiction
over disputes regarding the allocation of fees among counsel,
SSEM's breach of contract claim is not factually interdependent
with the federal deceptive lending claims asserted in CBNV,
exercising jurisdiction was not necessary for the Court to manage
its affairs, and the Court had no control over the funds SSEM
seeks.

Accordingly, the Court erred in exercising ancillary jurisdiction.

Because the District Court lacked jurisdiction, it wrongly stayed
the state proceedings and adjudicated the contract dispute. The
Court will therefore lift the stay, vacate the order confirming the
fee award, and leave for the state court to decide the merits of
the contract dispute.

The Court will reverse the order exercising ancillary jurisdiction,
lift the stay, and vacate the order confirming Carlson's fees.

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's December 20, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8lahuvc from Leagle.com.

Stanley M. Stein, [ARGUED], 445, Fort Pitt Boulevard, Suite 150,
Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Counsel for Appellant.

Gary F. Lynch [ARGUED], Jamisen A. Etzel, Carlson Lynch Sweet &
Kilpela, 1133, Penn Avenue, 5th Floor, Suite 210, Pittsburgh, PA
15222, Counsel for Appellee.


CREATE GLORY: Yu Seeks Overtime Pay, Bike Purchase Reimbursement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yu Zhang, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Create Glory, Inc. and Dingwang Chen,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-07446, (E.D. N.Y., December 31, 2018),
seeks to recover to recover unpaid minimum wage compensation,
unpaid overtime wage compensation, reimbursement of bicycle
purchase and redress for failure to provide detailed rates of pay
and payday, wage statements, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest and/or attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, New York Wage Theft
Prevention Act and New York Labor Law.

Create Glory operates as "Akio Sushi" with a principal address at
71-45 Yellowstone Blvd, Forest Hills, NY 11375 where Yu worked as a
delivery man. He claims to have received a flat weekly rate
regardless of the excess hours he rendered and was required to bear
the cost of the purchase of two bicycles for delivery. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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



DAL GLOBAL: Court Grants Final Approval of Brulee Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued a Judgment granting Final Approval of the Class
Action Settlement in the case captioned MARK BRULEE, TULLY
MANDIZHA, and JEFFREY HUTTON, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DAL GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 2:17-cv-06433-JVS (JCGx).(C.D.
Cal.).

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 20, 2018 Judgment
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9a34bry from Leagle.com.

Mark Brulee, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Justin F. Marquez --
justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com -- Moon and Yang APC, Kane Moon --
kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com -- Moon and Yang APC & Matthew Scott
D'Abusco -- matt@areslawgroup.com -- Ares Law Group PC.

Tully Mandizha, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Justin F. Marquez, Moon and
Yang APC & Matthew Scott D'Abusco, Ares Law Group PC.

DAL Global Services, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, represented by Andrew P. Frederick --
andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP &
Robert J. Hendricks -- rj.hendricks@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis
and Bockius LLP.


DUVERA BILLING: Faces FDCPA Class Action in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Duvera Billing Systems, LLC.
The case is styled as Latoya Hill, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Duvera Billing Systems, LLC
Duvera Billing Systems, LLC d/b/a EasyPay Finance and John Does
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00062 (C.D. Cal., January 10,
2019).

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

Duvera Billing Services LLC, doing business as Duvera Financial,
provides accounts receivable management and third-party debt
collection services. It offers payment plan management, billing and
service program, debt recovery, and bad debt purchasing services.
It also offers custom-tailored financing programs and online
instant decisioning platform with e-signature capability
("DuveraDocs").[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
   Law Offices of Jonathan A Stieglitz
   11845 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 800
   Los Angeles, CA 90064
   Tel: (323) 979-2063
   Fax: (323) 488-6748
   Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES: Pressler Seeks OT Pay for Technicians
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS PRESSLER, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the PLAINTIFF, vs. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMPANY, INC.,
the DEFENDANT, Case No. 4:19-cv-00007-BSM (E.D. Ark., Jan. 3,
2019), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including a reasonable
attorney's fee as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff
and other field technicians and similar positions overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has willfully and
intentionally committed violations of the FLSA. The Plaintiff
almost always worked in excess of 40 hours per week throughout his
tenure with Defendant. More specifically, Plaintiff regularly
worked in excess of 45 hours per week for Defendant. Other field
technicians and similar positions worked similar hours in excess
of 40 per week. The Defendant did not pay Plaintiff or other field
technicians and similar positions any overtime compensation for
hours worked in excess of 40 per week. The Defendant failed to keep
records of Plaintiff's hours worked or other field technicians and
similar positions' hours worked. The Plaintiff never agreed that
his salary would be sufficient to cover all hours worked, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Court Grants 60-Day Stay in Lemmon
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Western District of
Washington, Seattle issued an Order granting Parties Joint Motion
to Stay Proceedings in the case captioned LEONARD A. LEMMON, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, Defendant. No. 2:17-cv-01464-JLR.
(W.D. Wash.)

Plaintiff Leonard A. Lemmon, and Defendant Equifax Information
Services LLC (Equifax), by counsel, hereby provide this notice
regarding the status of the case.

This case is one of a number of similar putative class actions
brought against Equifax around the country regarding the reporting
of public records. The the parties to this case and the other,
similar putative class actions reached an agreement in principle to
resolve the pending cases on a nationwide basis through a class
settlement to be presented for approval in the Eastern District of
Virginia. The settlement, if approved, would resolve the putative
class action claims in this case. The parties are still working on
finalizing the documentation for the settlement and respectfully
request that the Court stay this matter for an additional 60 days
until February 19, 2019.

The parties request that all deadlines in the case be stayed for
sixty days.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 20, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yd2vxoxr from Leagle.com.

Leonard A. Lemmon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Anne Adams --
eadams@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC,
Erika L. Nusser -- enusser@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL
LAW GROUP PLLC, James A. Francis -- jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com --
FRANCIS & MAILMAN PC, pro hac vice, John Soumilas --
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS & MAILMAN PC, pro hac
vice, Lauren K.W. Brennan -- lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com --
FRANCIS & MAILMAN PC, pro hac vice & Beth E. Terrell --
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC.  


Equifax Information Services LLC, Defendant, represented by John C.
Toro -- jtoro@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING LLP, pro hac vice,
Katherine McFarland Stein -- kstein@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING
LLP, pro hac vice, Meryl W. Roper -- mroper@kslaw.com -- KING &
SPALDING LLP, pro hac vice, Zachary A. McEntyre --
zmcentyre@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING LLP, pro hac vice & Jeffrey
M. Edelson -- JeffEdelson@MarkowitzHerbold.com -- MARKOWITZ HERBOLD
PC.


FANNIE MAY: Dismissal of Benson FDCA Suit Appealed to 7th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Clarisha Benson and Lorenzo Smith filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit styled Clarisha Benson, et al. v.
Fannie May Confections Brands, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-03519, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 8, 2019, the
District Court issued an Opinion and Order granting the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss the case.

Fannie May moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, arguing
that the Plaintiffs have not alleged a violation of the Food Drug
and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. and therefore, the Court must
dismiss all of their state-law claims on preemption grounds.

The Plaintiffs Clarisha Benson and Lorenzo Smith filed a First
Amended Complaint.  The Plaintiffs allege that they were deceived
into believing the opaque candy boxes contained more chocolates
than they in fact did because the boxes were partially empty.  The
Plaintiffs allege violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA), seeking damages (Count I).
Plaintiffs also have two Illinois common-law claims for unjust
enrichment (Count II) and breach of implied contract (Count III).

The appellate case is captioned as Clarisha Benson, et al. v.
Fannie May Confections Brands, Inc., Case No. 19-1032, 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 was due January 18, 2019;
      and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before February 13, 2019,
      for Clarisha Benson and Lorenzo Smith.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants CLARISHA BENSON and LORENZO SMITH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Kasif Khowaja, Esq.
          KHOWAJA LAW FIRM, LLC
          Eight S. Michigan Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 356-3200
          Facsimile: (312) 386-5600
          E-mail: kasif@khowajalaw.com

Defendant-Appellee FANNIE MAY CONFECTIONS BRANDS, INC., an Illinois
corporation, is represented by:

          David J. Chizewer, Esq.
          GOLDBERG KOHN LTD.
          55 E. Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60603-0000
          Telephone: (312) 201-4000
          E-mail: david.chizewer@goldbergkohn.com


FCA US: Court Extends Time to File Answer in J. Raymo Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Order granting Defendants'
Motion to Extend Deadline for Filing Response to Plaintiffs' First
Amended Complaint in the case captioned JEREMY RAYMO et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, AND CUMMINS INC. Defendants. No.
2:17-cv-12168-TGB-SDD. (E.D. Mich.).

The Court conducted a telephonic conference with counsel to address
Defendants' Motion to Extend Deadline for Filing Response to
Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint.

For good cause shown, that motion is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 20, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8zrnqvs
from Leagle.com.

Jeremy Raymo, Forrest Poulson, Gary Gaster, Brendon Goldstein &
Manuel Pena, Plaintiffs, represented by Caroline F. Bartlett --
cbartlett@carellabyrne.com -- Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein,
Brody and Agnello, Dennis A. Lienhardt -- dal@millerlawpc.com --
The Miller Law Firm, P.C., E. Powell Miller -- epm@millerlawpc.com
-- The Miller Law Firm, James E. Cecchi -- jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
-- Carella Byrne, Jerrod C. Patterson -- jerrodp@hbsslaw.com --
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, Sharon S. Almonrode --
ssa@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C. & Steve W. Berman
-- steve@hbsslaw.com  Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

FCA US LLC, Defendant, represented by William B. Monahan --
monahanw@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLp.

Cummins Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Soble --
jsoble@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, Jonathan W. Garlough --
jgarlough@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, Lauren M. Loew --
lloew@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, Leah R. Imbrogno --
limbrogno@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP & Michael D. Leffel --
mleffel@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP.


FCA US: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in DeShetler LMRA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Robert L. DeShetler, Jr., et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit styled Robert DeShetler, Jr., et al.
v. FCA US LLC, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00078, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendants for alleged breach of a collective
bargaining agreement pursuant to the Labor Management Relations
Act.

The action arises from the Plaintiffs' employment at, and
subsequent termination from, a substantial automobile assembly
plant in Toledo, Ohio, operated by Defendant FCA US LLC.  Although
employment numbers varied over time, FCA US LLC employs, and the
UAW Defendants represent, thousands of workers at the Jeep
Complex.

The Plaintiffs are individuals who were induced to "retire" from
Chrysler to work at nominally independent suppliers and fired when
Chrysler unilaterally abandoned the arrangement.

The appellate case is captioned as Robert DeShetler, Jr., et al. v.
FCA US LLC, et al., Case No. 19-3012, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants ROBERT L. DESHETLER, JR., Individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:

          Dennis E. Murray, Jr.
          MURRAY & MURRAY
          111 E. Shoreline Drive
          Sandusky, OH 44870
          Telephone: (419) 624-3126
          E-mail: dms@murrayandmurray.com

Defendant-Appellee FCA US LLC is represented by:

          Heidi N. Hartman, Esq.
          EASTMAN & SMITH LTD.
          P.O. Box 10032
          Toledo, OH 43699
          Telephone: (419) 241-6000
          E-mail: hnhartman@eastmansmith.com

Defendants-Appellees INTERNATIONAL UNION UNITED AUTOMOBILE,
AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, and UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA, REGION 2B, are represented by:

          Elisabeth Mary Oppenheimer, Esq.
          BREDHOFF & KAISER PLLC
          805 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 842-2600
          E-mail: eoppenheimer@bredhoff.com


FIRST STUDENT: Supplemental Briefing Needed for Vikram Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order requiring Supplemental Briefing in the
case captioned BHANU VIKRAM, Plaintiff, v. FIRST STUDENT
MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant. Case No. 17-cv-04656-KAW. (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff's counsel intends to seek an award of 25% of the
Gross Settlement Fund ($108,750) as the Fee Award, plus
reimbursement of reasonable and actual expenses, not to exceed
$10,000, as the Expense Award.   

At the preliminary approval stage, courts in this district have
stated that the relevant inquiry is whether the settlement falls
within the range of possible approval or within the range of
reasonableness. In determining whether the proposed settlement
falls within the range of reasonableness, perhaps the most
important factor to consider is plaintiff's expected recovery
balanced against the value of the settlement offer. This
determination requires evaluating the relative strengths and
weaknesses of the plaintiffs' case; it may be reasonable to settle
a weak claim for relatively little, while it is not reasonable to
settle a strong claim for the same amount. Furthermore, the Ninth
Circuit has recognized that where no class has been formally
certified, there is an even greater potential for a breach of
fiduciary duty owed the class during settlement. Accordingly, such
agreements must withstand an even higher level of scrutiny for
evidence of collusion or other conflicts of interest than is
ordinarily required under Rule 23(e) before securing the court's
approval as fair.

In the instant case, the Plaintiffs bring employment
misclassification claims, including claims for unpaid minimum wage
and overtime wages in violation of California labor law and the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as well as for failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements and waiting time penalties. The
Plaintiffs also bring a California Private Attorneys General Act
(PAGA) claim. The proposed settlement is for $435,000; once the
attorney's fees ($108,750), costs ($10,000), incentive award
($10,000), class administrative costs ($10,000), and PAGA penalty
($7,500) are excluded, the net settlement fund is estimated to be
$288,750.

The Plaintiff states that the settlement represents 78% of the
damages estimated by the Plaintiff, which consists of $15,921 in
miscalculation of overtime, $336,438 in waiting time penalties, and
$205,000 in waiting time penalties. The Court requires additional
briefing on how these damages were calculated, to determine their
reasonableness. Additionally, the Plaintiff must explain whether
there are other claims at issue being released and their estimated
value, including the PAGA claim.

The Court requires that Plaintiff address whether he submitted a
copy of the settlement to the Labor and Workforce Development
Agency (LWDA), and whether he has received any comments from the
LWDA.  

The Settlement proposes a service payment of $10,000 to the
Plaintiff. It is well-established in this circuit that named
plaintiffs in a class action are eligible for reasonable incentive
payments, also known as service awards. Several courts in this
District have indicated that incentive payments of $10,000 or
$25,000 are quite high and/or that, as a general matter, $5,000 is
a reasonable amount. The Plaintiff must explain the amount of time
and work he put into the case, and why the work performed warrants
the requested service payment when this district has typically
considered $5,000 to be the benchmark amount, especially in light
of the discounted settlement amount.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 20, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc38clbu from Leagle.com.

Bhanu Vikram, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Aparajit
Bhowmik -- aj@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik,
Kyle Roald Nordrehaug -- kyle@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug
and Bhowmik, Molly Ann DeSario -- Molly.DeSario@capstonelawyers.com
-- Capstone Law APC, Norman B. Blumenthal -- norm@bamlawca.com --
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Ruchira Piya Mukherjee --
piya@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik & Victoria
Bree Rivapalacio -- victoria@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug
and Bhowmik.

First Student Management, LLC, a Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, represented by David J. Dow -- ddow@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, P.C., Jeffrey J. Mann -- jmann@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Alexis Anne Sohrakoff --
aknapp@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C..


FIRSTRANS INT'L: Fireworks Lady Hits Firecrackers Trade Restraint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fireworks Lady & Co., LLC, on behalf of itself and a class of
fireworks merchants and customers, Plaintiff, v. Firstrans
International Co., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-10776, (C.D. Cal.,
December 31, 2018), seeks damages resulting from paying an illegal
shipping premium on Chinese fireworks and injunctive relief under
the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act for unlawful restraint of
trade.

Firstrans International Co. and its affiliate Shanghai Huayang
International Logistiscs Co., Ltd. controls approximately 70% of
all Chinese fireworks entering the United States and allegedly
dominates the fireworks market. Fireworks Lady is a Florida-based
fireworks merchant who hired Firstrans to ship its fireworks. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
      Barry J. Cooper, Jr., Esq.
      COOPER LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
      1525 Religious Street
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Tel: (504) 399-0009
      Facsimile: (504) 309-6989
      Email: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com

             - and -

      Stephen Murray, Jr., Esq.
      MURRAY LAW FIRM
      650 Poydras Street, #2150
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: 504-525-8100
      Email: smurrayjr@murray-lawfirm.com

             - and -

      Donald Creadore, Esq.
      CREADORE LAW FIRM
      305 Broadway, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 355-7200
      Email: donald@creadorelawfirm.com

             - and -

      Samuel Trussell, Esq.
      77-564 Country Club Drive, Suite 150
      Palm Desert, CA 92211
      Telephone: (877) 474-6772
      Facsimile: (877) 474-6781
      Email: Samuel@trusselllaw.com


FLOWERS HOSPITAL: Judge Approves Data Breach Case Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Curtis, writing for WTVY, reports that a federal lawsuit
claiming a Dothan hospital's negligence resulted in the theft of
patients' personal information has been dismissed. Attorneys agreed
to a settlement and a judge approved it.

The settlement calls for Flowers Hospital to appropriate $150,000
that will be distributed to those affected by the breach,
potentially about 1,200 people.

The class-action lawsuit against Flowers and parent company, Triad
of Alabama, claimed the hospital failed to take adequate measures
to prevent data breaches.

This case began in 2014 when a deputy sheriff made a traffic stop
in Headland and discovered patient files in a car belonging to
Karmarian Millender, a Flowers's lab employee.

Federal prosecutors say Mr. Millender, who pleaded guilty and
served two years in prison, had routinely removed files from the
hospital. He then sold the information contained in them to others
who used it to file fraudulent income tax returns.

Under the settlement, patients who filed claims will be reimbursed
out-of-pocket credit monitoring costs, receive up to four hours in
lost wages, and also be paid interest on income tax refunds delayed
because of the breach.

A claim up to $5,000 will be considered though the hospital's total
liability is capped at $150,000. Most of those affected will
receive no more than $250. [GN]


GC SERVICES: Violates FDCPA, Ambrosino Suit Says
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Services Limited
Partnership. The docket of the case states the nature of suit as
Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

GC Services Limited Partnership provides accounts receivable and
customer care solutions to public and private sector organizations.
It offers first party receivable programs, including cure programs,
early stage collections, and pre charge-off collections; third
party receivables management programs, such as post charge-off
collections and skip tracing services.

The case is styled as Christophe Ambrosino, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GC Services
Limited Partnership and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00241 (C.D. Cal., January 10, 2019).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Amir J Goldstein, Esq.
   Amir J Goldstein Law Offices
   8032 West Third Street Suite 201
   Los Angeles, CA 90048
   Tel: (323) 937-0400
   Fax: (866) 288-9194
   Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Court Denies Dismissal on Breach Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, Southern Division, issued an Order denying Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint in the case
captioned HAYDEN HARRISON and BILLY JAMES, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL
MOTORS COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. 17-3128-CV-S-SRB. (W.D. Mo.).

The Defendant issued securities instruments called Series A
Warrants (warrants), which holders could exercise to acquire
General Motors Company common stock. Plaintiffs were
warrantholders.

The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint alleges three claims: a breach of
contract claim regarding express provisions in the Warrant
Agreement governing the warrants' expiration date (Count One); a
breach of contract claim regarding the Warrant Agreement's express
Good Faith provision (Count Two) and an alternative claim for
unjust enrichment (Count Three).

The Plaintiffs allege the Defendant violated the Warrant Agreement
by accelerating the expiration date for the warrants held by the
Plaintiffs without following procedures outlined in the Warrant
Agreement and by failing to take any necessary or appropriate'
action to protect Warrantholders. The Plaintiffs allege in the
alternative that the Defendant was unjustly enriched when, through
its allegedly wrongful conduct, the Defendant "retained the common
shares of its stock that could have been redeemed by
Warrantholders.

Count One (Breach of Contract)

In Count One, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant breached
section 6.03(c) of the Warrant Agreement when it modified the
Expiration Date for Series A Warrants without the consent of the
Plaintiffs and the Class and when it failed to adhere to section
3.02(b), which expresses the method for calculating the Exercise
date when the Trading Day calculation occurs after the Expiration
date.

The Defendant argues that Count One should be dismissed because the
Plaintiffs have failed to allege their own adequate performance
under the contract and have failed to plead damages attributable to
Defendant, both of which are elements of a breach of contract claim
under New York law.  

The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendant's motion should be denied
because the Plaintiffs were excused from attempting to perform
under the Warrant Agreement by GM's earlier breach and GM caused
damage to the Warrantholders when it accelerated the Expiration
Date.

Count One states a plausible breach of contract claim. Under New
York law, the elements of a breach of contract claim are (1) the
existence of an agreement; (2) adequate performance of the contract
by the plaintiff (3) breach of contract by the defendant and (4)
damages.

Count One plausibly alleges a claim for breach of contract. As to
performance in particular, the Amended Complaint alleges that on
June 7, 2016, the Defendant decided to accelerate the expiration
date of the warrants, which the Warrant Agreement had previously
established as July 10, 2016, and that this June 7 decision
breached the Warrant Agreement. These allegations, accepted as
true, show that the Defendant breached the Warrant Agreement before
that agreement obligated Plaintiffs to exercise their warrants.
Sufficient factual disputes exist to warrant denial of the motion
to dismiss.  For example, there are disputes about whether the
warrants were global or certificated and about whether Defendant
acted reasonably to prevent the warrants from being delisted from
the NYSE.

Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss Count One is
denied.

Count Two (Breach of Contract)

In Count Two, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendant breached Section
5.04 of the Warrant agreement in the following ways: (1) when it
failed to provide adequate notice to broker-dealers and
Warrantholders concerning (a) the acceleration of the Expiration
Date to July 8, and/or [(b)] the suspension of trading of the
Warrants on the NYSE (2) when it failed to enact a guarantee
protect period to ensure the liquidity of the Warrants through the
Expiration Date, and failed to notify broker-dealers and
Warrantholder that it had not secured a guarantee protect period
(3) when it failed to extend the Expiration Date and (4) when it
failed to reactivate the Warrants after they expired.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' Count Two should be
dismissed because the Plaintiffs improperly read nonexistent rights
and obligations into the Warrant Agreement and because Count Two
fails to allege damages that are reasonably certain and directly
traceable to the breach, not remote or the result of other
intervening causes.

Count Two states a plausible claim for breach of contract. Count
Two contains several allegations of what the Defendant could have
done but allegedly failed to do to satisfy its alleged obligations
under Section 5.04. This Court agrees with the Plaintiffs' argument
that Section 5.04 would have no meaning if this Court adopted the
Defendant's interpretation.  

Count Three (Unjust Enrichment)

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' Count Three should be
dismissed because the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pleaded that
the Defendant benefitted from the Plaintiffs' failure to exercise
their Warrants or that equity and good conscience require
restitution, both of which are elements of an unjust enrichment
claim under New York law. The Defendant also argues that under New
York law a claim for unjust enrichment is normally proper only in
the absence of an express agreement between the parties.

According to the Defendant, courts have routinely granted motions
to dismiss unjust enrichment claims where, as here, the existence
and validity of the contract was not disputed. The Plaintiffs argue
that Count Three sufficiently alleges the elements of a claim for
unjust enrichment under New York law, which the Plaintiffs argue
"allows unjust enrichment claims to be pled alternatively to breach
of contract claims."

To state a claim for unjust enrichment under New York law, a
plaintiff must plead that (1) defendant was enriched, (2) at the
plaintiff's expense, and (3) equity and good conscience militate
against permitting defendant to retain what plaintiff is seeking to
recover.

The Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded a plausible claim for
unjust enrichment under New York law. In Count Three, the
Plaintiffs allege that as a result of GM's wrongful conduct,
Warrantholders were unable to redeem their Series A Warrants for
GM's common stock; that because of its wrongful conduct, GM
obtained monies in that it retained the common shares of its stock
that could have been redeemed by Warrantholders; that GM
appreciated, accepted and retained the non-gratuitous benefits
(i.e., profits and retention of its common stock) conferred by
Plaintiffs and the Class; that it would be inequitable and unjust
for GM to retain these wrongfully obtained profits and that such
retention would violate the fundamental principles of justice,
equity and good conscience; and that therefore Plaintiffs and the
Class are entitled to restitution of the profits unjustly obtained,
plus interest.

Accepted as true, these allegations state a plausible unjust
enrichment claim.

Personal Jurisdiction over Non-Resident Putative Class Members

The Defendant moves to dismiss the claims of Non-Resident Putative
Class Members for lack of personal jurisdiction over the Defendant.
As with the previous motion to dismiss, the facts are not at issue
here. The Defendant does not challenge or dispute that this Court
has specific personal jurisdiction over the Defendant with respect
to the claims of the two named Plaintiffs, both of whom are
Missouri residents. There is no current dispute that if
Non-Resident Putative Class Members brought individual suits or
were considered in the personal jurisdictional analysis, this Court
would not have specific personal jurisdiction over their claims.  

The Defendant relies on Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court
of California, San Francisco Cty., 137 S.Ct. 1773 (2017), to
support its position that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction
over the Defendant with respect to the claims of Non-Resident
Putative Class Members. In Bristol-Myers, out-of-state plaintiffs,
along with California plaintiffs, alleged a host of state law
claims in mass tort. The Bristol-Myers Court held that it lacked
specific personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendant drug
manufacturer because there was no affiliation between the forum and
the underlying controversy, principally, an activity or an
occurrence that takes place in the forum State. The Court reasoned
that the mere fact that other plaintiffs were harmed by the
defendant in California does not allow the State to assert specific
jurisdiction over the nonresidents' claims.

While the Defendant cites district court cases applying
Bristol-Meyers to unnamed members of a putative class action in
federal court, these cases are as the Plaintiffs argue the
minority. The Court at this time, in accordance with other
jurisdictions, declines to extend Bristol-Myers to federal class
actions. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 20, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yd9ezz3m from Leagle.com.

Hayden Harrison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Bill James, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by John F. Doyle --
jdoyle@williamsdirks.com -- Williams Dirks Dameron LLC & Matthew
Lee Dameron -- matt@williamsdirks.com -- Williams Dirks Dameron
LLC.

General Motors Company, Defendant, represented by Dean N. Panos --
dpanos@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block, pro hac vice, Howard S. Suskin
-- hsuskin@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block, pro hac vice, Brent N.
Coverdale -- bcoverdale@sakg.com -- Scharnhorst Ast Kennard
Griffin, PC, James D. Griffin -- jgriffin@sakg.com -- Scharnhorst
Ast Kennard Griffin, PC & Michele F. Sutton -- msutton@sakg.com --
Scharnhorst Ast Kennard Griffin, PC.


GIDDY INC: Lee Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Jekela Lee, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Giddy Inc., Defendant., Case No.
719945/2018 (N.Y. Sup., December 31, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages for working more than forty hours in a week, costs
and attorney's fees, pursuant to the New York Minimum Wage
regulations, as well as an injunction prohibiting violations of the
weekly payment requirement for manual workers.

Defendant provides delivery persons to retail businesses where Lee
worked as a delivery person for supermarket and related items from
a Costco store located in Queens, New York, from November 21, 2017,
to on or about November 29, 2018. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
      Abdul Hassan Law Group, PLLC
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Tel: (718) 740-1000
      Fax: (718) 740-2000
      E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


GMC RESTAURANT:  Does Not Pay Overtime Under FLSA, NYLL, Joya Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ANTONIO JOYA, JOSE A VELASQUEZ, and JUAN JIMENEZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GMC RESTAURANT
CORP. D/B/A GREGORIO'S PIZZERIA & RESTAURANT and GREGORY CELLUCCI,
as an individual, Case No. 19-0052 (E.D.N.Y., January 3, 2018),
accuses the Defendants of failing to pay overtime under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

GMC Restaurant Corp. is a corporation organized under the laws of
New York with a principal executive office in Massapequa, New York.
Gregory Cellucci owns and/or operates the Company.

The Defendants own and/or operate a restaurant known as Gregorio's
Pizzeria located at 4656 Merrick Road, in Massapequa, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          69-12 Austin Street
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
          E-mail: avshalumovr@yahoo.com


H&R BLOCK: Vazquez-Rivera Sues over No Poach Agreements
-------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA VAZQUEZ-RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. H&R BLOCK, INC., and H&R
BLOCK TAX SERVICES L.L.C., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00035
(N.D. Ill., Jan. 3, 2019), challenges Defendants' anticompetitive
No Poach agreements for corporate and franchise employees in
violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act, and seeks to
recover treble damages and other appropriate relief based on
Defendants' violations of the antitrust laws of the United States.

According to the complaint, H&R Block, Inc. is the "largest
consumer tax services provider" in the United States. In the 2018
fiscal year, H&R Block reported revenues of over $3.1 billion with
over 23 million tax returns prepared worldwide. Among other tax
preparation services, H&R Block, Inc. provides in-person tax
preparation assistance and services at approximately 10,000 offices
across the United States. H&R Block utilizes a franchise business
model, and as a result, H&R Block has both corporate-owned offices
and franchise-owned offices. As of 2018, there are approximately
3,290 franchise offices and 6,690 corporate-owned offices.

The purpose and effect of the conspiracy was to limit employees'
job mobility and to suppress their wages, compensation, and other
employee benefits. As a result, H&R Block employees, including
Plaintiff and Class members, were unable to seek employment with
any other H&R Block locations, and as a direct result, the No Poach
agreements severely decreased employment options available to H&R
Block employees. Defendants' anticompetitive practices have harmed
Plaintiff and Class members, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
          Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
          Robert J. Wozniak, Esq.
          Brian M. Hogan, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
                  dmillen@fklmlaw.com
                  rwozniak@fklmlaw.com
                  bhogan@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
          William G. Caldes, Esq.
          Len A. Fisher, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
          Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          E-mail: ESpector@srkattorneys.com
                  BCaldes@srkattorneys.com
                  LFisher@srkattorneys.com

               - and -

          David P. McLafferty, Esq.
          MCLAFFERTY LAW FIRM, P.C.
          923 Fayette Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 940-4000
          E-mail: dmclafferty@mclaffertylaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
          Todd B. Naylor, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
          One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-3604
          Telephone: (513) 345-8291
          E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
                  tnaylor@gs-legal.com

               - and -

          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          W-1050 First National Bank Building
          332 Minnesota Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com

HOTELMACHER LLC: Human Trafficking Class Action Motions Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that two motions to dismiss federal
human trafficking lawsuits against an Oklahoma couple and several
companies they operate are pending, including one that's been
awaiting action for more than a year.

The motions in US District Court in Oklahoma City deny the
allegations and seek to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed in
2017 by three Filipino immigrants who came into the country on
temporary work visas in 2012 and a similar lawsuit filed in June by
three Jamaican immigrants who came to the US under student work
visas between 2008 and 2012.

When a ruling might come is unknown.

"Right now we're sitting and waiting for the court to issue a
decision," said Chris Willett, an attorney for Equal Justice Center
who represents the immigrant workers.

Both lawsuits allege husband-and-wife Walter and Carolyn Schumacher
and companies they own and operate in Clinton, about 80 miles (128
kilometres) west of Oklahoma City, paid workers less than minimum
wage, charged for housing that was to be free or low-cost, and
provided fewer work hours than promised.

The Schumacher's attorney, Kevin Donelson, did not return phone
calls for comment. Donelson said after the first lawsuit was filed
in 2017 that the couple denies all allegations.

The motions to dismiss -- one filed in September 2017 in the case
involving the Filipino workers and one filed this past August in
the lawsuit involving the Jamaicans -- say the Schumachers and the
companies "vigorously dispute" the allegation and that they "will
ultimately disprove the false narrative set forth," in the
lawsuits.

The US Department of Labor is also investigating two of the
Schumacher's companies where some of the immigrants worked,
Hotelmacher, LLC, which operates a Holiday Inn Express, and
Steakmacher, LLC, which does business as Montana Mike's Steakhouse,
but declined further comment, according to spokesman Juan
Rodriguez.

Labor Department records show its Wage and Hour Division has found
Hotelmacher and Steakmacher failed to comply with the wages it
offered to workers that include the Filipino immigrants, improperly
classified job requirements and failed to provide proper
notifications to federal immigration agencies.

A motion to either dismiss or delay any action on the Labor
Department findings has been denied and a hearing on the matter has
been scheduled for February. [GN]


IMPERVA INC: Poinsignon Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
---------------------------------------------------------
JULIEN POINSIGNON, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. IMPERVA, INC., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-05653-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on
Feb. 7, 2019, for an order:

   1. granting approval of the terms of the Agreement as fair,
      reasonable and adequate under Rule 23(e) of the Federal
      Rules of Civil Procedure, including the amount of the
      settlement; the amount of distributions to class members;
      and the amounts allocated to the enhancement payments and
      attorney's fees and costs;

   2. certifying for settlement purposes the Settlement Class:

      "all applicants for employment, employees or other agents of

      Defendant in the United States who were subject to any
      background, credit, consumer, or investigatory check or
      report during the Class Period (the period from August 25,
      2012 to November 3, 2017)";

   3. appointing Plaintiff as representative for the Settlement
      Class;

   4. appointing Setareh Law Group as counsel for the Settlement
      Class; and

   5. authorizing distributions from the common fund.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          H. Scott Leviant, 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
                  scott@setarehlaw.com

INNOVATIVE HEALTH: Court Certifies Class in Northrup TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN NORTHRUP, individually and on behalf of a class
of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Innovative Health
Insurance Partners, LLC; CyberX Group, LLC; David E. Lindsey; and
Independent Truckers Group, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
8:17-cv-1890-T-36JSS (M.D. Fla.), Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell
of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Tampa Division granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.

Northrup, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
brings the action against the Defendants, for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Second Amended Complaint alleges that the Plaintiff received a
text message on his cellular telephone on June 30, 2017 at 2:40
p.m. (ET).  The text message read: "Hate the high price of Obama
Care? Call for a free $250 rewards card and free healthcare quote.
TRUCKER plans start less than $59 a month. 214-396-6822."

The Plaintiff did not consent to receive the text message.  When he
received it, he called the phone number listed therein.  He spoke
to a representative, who said that the text message had been sent
on behalf of Independent Truckers.

The text message was related to a healthcare product maintained by
Independent Truckers.  Independent Truckers had outsourced the
functions related to the product to Innovative Health.  Innovative,
in turn, decided to market Independent Truckers and its healthcare
product via text message.  To accomplish this, Innovative
contracted with CyberX to execute the campaign and send the text
message.  Innovative drafted the content of the text message, and
CyberX sent the text message.  The text message was placed with an
automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS").

The Plaintiff believes that thousands of people, if not more,
received an unsolicited text message from the Defendants through
the use of an ATDS.

The Plaintiff proposes the class of all cellular telephone
subscribers in the United States who had a phone number listed in
the Call Logs, 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.

Judge Honeywell finds that the Plaintiff has established the
requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3).  Accordingly, he
granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and the
Supplement to Motion for Class Certification.

He certified the class of 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 Judge approved John Northrup as the Class Representative and
his counsel, Cory S. Fein, as the Class Counsel.

The parties are provided 30 days from the date of the 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 will advise the Court of these efforts and
whether there are issues that require the Court's resolution.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 2, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/oEPZ2z from Leagle.com.

John Northrup, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Cory S. Fein --
cory@coryfeinlaw.com -- Cory Fein Law Firm, pro hac vice & Seth
Lehrman, Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, PL.

Independent Truckers Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by David
J. De Piano -- ddepiano@sbwh.law -- Shapiro, Blasi, Wasserman &
Hermann, PA & William S. Richmond -- BRICHMOND@PCRFIRM.COM -- Platt
Cheema Richmond LLC, pro hac vice.

David E Lindsey, Innovative Health Insurance Partners, LLC & CyberX
Group, LLC, Defendants, represented by David J. De Piano, Shapiro,
Blasi, Wasserman & Hermann, PA & William S. Richmond, Platt Cheema
Richmond LLC.


INTERNATIONAL LABORATORIES: Faces Personal Injury Suit in Kentucky
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against International
Laboratories, LLC. The case is styled as Fran Johnson, individually
and obo all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. International
Laboratories, LLC and Quality Packaging Specialists International,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-00004-GFVT (E.D. Ky., January 10,
2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury asserting Product Liability.

International Laboratories, LLC is a Medical supply store.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Hans G. Poppe, Esq.
   The Poppe Law Firm
   8700 Westport Road, Suite 201
   Louisville, KY 40242
   Tel: (502) 895-3400
   Fax: (502) 895-3420
   Email: hans@poppelawfirm.com

      - and -

   Kirk A. Laughlin, Esq.
   The Poppe Law Firm
   8700 Westport Road, Suite 201
   Louisville, KY 40242
   Tel: (502) 895-3400
   Fax: (502) 895-3420
   Email: kirk@poppelawfirm.com


JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: New Lawsuit Against Landfill
--------------------------------------------------
Faimon A. Roberts III, writing for The New Orleans Advocate,
reports that another legal salvo has been fired against the
Jefferson Parish-owned landfill, alleging on behalf of several
dozen plaintiffs that noxious odors originating at the landfill are
responsible for a host of health problems experienced by residents
of Waggaman, Harahan and River Ridge.

Unlike other recently filed lawsuits, this one, filed on Dec. 13 in
state court, does not seek class-action status.

The more than 80 plaintiffs allege that the foul smells have led to
health problems, loss of property values, "fear, anguish and mental
pain and suffering."

Like several parish and state officials, the lawsuit points the
finger at the parish's landfill, where problems with the gas and
liquid collection and pumping systems have been identified as
contributing to the odors.

In July, parish officials including President Mike Yenni and
Councilman Paul Johnston admitted that the odors were prevalent and
that the landfill's systems were not operating properly.

Earlier this month, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Secretary Chuck Carr Brown said he was certain the landfill was the
primary cause of the odors that residents have complained about for
months.

In addition to Jefferson Parish, landfill contractors Louisiana
Regional Landfill Co., Waste Connections and Aptim Corp. are named
as defendants in the suit, which was filed in 24th Judicial
District Court in Gretna. Several unnamed insurance companies are
also listed as defendants.

The suit joins a handful of others that have been filed in recent
months. At least three of those are seeking class-action status.

Problems with the parish landfill have been the focus of
controversy for several months after residents in Harahan and River
Ridge began to complain about noxious smells and, at times,
particulate matter falling from the sky.

Numerous attempts to identify the sources of the smells and the
substances have been made.

Parish officials have conceded that the landfill could be the
source of many of the odors. The landfill is on the west bank, near
Waggaman, but prevailing winds could carry odors across the river
into the communities most affected, officials have said.

However, they also have pointed at other possible sources of the
smells, such as plants along the river or midstream loading
operations on the Mississippi River near Harahan and River Ridge.
[GN]


JJ CHEN LLC: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Hussein Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abdullah Hussein and Lutfi Hussein, On behalf of Themselves and all
others similarly situated v. JJ Chen, LLC and JingJin Chen, Case
No. 2:19-cv-00021 (E.D. Wisc., January 3, 2018), is brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act to seek redress for JJ Chen's alleged
failure to pay minimum wage, overtime pay, and Wisconsin law full
straight time pay to its restaurant workers/delivery drivers.

JJ Chen is a domestic limited liability company based in Wisconsin
whose sole business is the operation of JJ Chen's Eatery.  JingJin
Chen is the owner of, and officer in charge at JJ Chen's Eatery.

The Defendants operate a restaurant named JJ Chen's Eatery located
at 10722 W. Oklahoma Avenue in West Allis, Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Yingtao Ho, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C.
          310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Telephone: (414) 271-4500
          Facsimile: (414) 271-6308
          E-mail: yh@previant.com


KELLOGG COMPANY: Must Face Cheez-It False Labeling Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Jack Greiner, writing for Cincinnati.com, reports that The Kellogg
Company is going to have to proceed with a false labeling case
arising from its Cheez-It crackers product. The battle is over the
meaning of "Whole Grain."

Kellogg sells Cheez-Its in a variety of flavors, including
"original" and "whole grain." Kellogg packaged and sold the "whole
grain" variety in two boxes, each with slightly different
labeling.

One version contained the words "WHOLE GRAIN" in large print in the
center of the front panel of the box, and "MADE WITH 5G OF WHOLE
GRAIN PER SERVING" in small print on the bottom. The other version
contained the words "MADE WITH WHOLE GRAIN" in large print in the
center of the box, with "MADE WITH 8G OF WHOLE GRAIN PER SERVING"
in  small print on the bottom.

Both versions also contained a "Nutrition Facts" panel on the side
of the box, which revealed in much smaller print that the first
ingredient on the ingredients list was "enriched white flour."
"Whole wheat flour" was listed on the ingredients list as either
the second or third ingredient.

As required by federal regulation, the ingredients were listed in
order, with the primary ingredient listed first.

Plaintiffs purchased one or both versions of the Cheez‐Its
labeled "WHOLE GRAIN," believing on the basis of the label that the
grain content was predominantly whole grain. To their chagrin,
however, they discovered the grain content was not predominantly
whole grain, but rather enriched white flour. They claim they would
not have purchased the crackers had they known the truth.

The lawsuit, which seeks to become a nationwide class action,
asserts that Kellogg violated consumer protection laws in New York
and California and allowed Kellogg to be unjustly enriched under
the law of Michigan (Kellogg headquarters are in Battle Creek).

Kellogg asked the trial court to dismiss the case, arguing that the
label "Made with Whole Grain" was accurate, and that the smaller
type, which mentioned how much whole grain the product actually
contained, solved any confusion. The trial court agreed -- finding
the label would not mislead a reasonable consumer, who would likely
read the fine print (the judge clearly has never shopped with me).

The trial court applied the law that says an allegedly misleading
statement must be read "in light of its context on the product
label or advertisement as a whole." The large print, in other
words, can't be read in isolation.

The court of appeals, however, saw it differently. It noted that
while the smaller print listing of the amount of whole grain was
accurate, the labeling still "falsely impl[ies] that the grain
content is entirely or at least predominantly whole grain, whereas
in fact, the grain component consisting of enriched white flour
substantially exceeds the whole grain portion."

The appellate court also did not buy the notion that the
nutritional facts box would solve the problem. Quoting a prior case
involving the Gerber company, it held: "[R]easonable consumers
should [not] be expected to look beyond misleading representations
on the front of the box to discover the truth from the ingredient
list in small print on the side of the box. . . . Instead,
reasonable consumers expect that the ingredient list contains more
detailed information about the product that confirms other
representations on the packaging."

And so the appellate court reversed the dismissal of the case,
which means the plaintiffs may now proceed to discovery. No doubt
the plaintiffs will be looking for incriminating e-mails from
Kellogg officials discussing how to mislead the consuming public.
And Kellogg will hammer away with its argument that the buyers
weren't really damaged.

The case still has a long way to go. But perhaps the best advice is
the old cliché -- "honesty is the best policy." [GN]


LET'S EAT OUT: Court Denies Bid to Decertify Classes in Cope Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OLIVIA COPE, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated persons, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. LET'S
EAT OUT, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-03050-SRB (W.D.
Mo.), Judge Stephen R. Bough of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri, Southern Division, denied the
Defendants' Motion to Decertify FLSA and Missouri Classes.

Cope asserts a Section 216(b) collective action on behalf of all
current and tipped employees of the Defendants' Buffalo Wild Wings
restaurants who were paid subminimum wages in the last three years
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  The
Plaintiff alleges the Defendants willfully violated the FLSA by
paying servers and bartenders sub-minimum, tip-credit rates of pay,
while (1) failing to inform them of the tip-credit provisions of
the FLSA; (2) regularly requiring them to perform improper types
and excessive amounts of non-tipped work; and (3) requiring them to
reimburse the restaurants from their tips for customer walkouts and
cash register shortages.

On July 12, 2016, the Court conditionally certified a class for
notice purposes prior to the completion of discovery based on its
finding that the Plaintiff had established a colorable basis for
her claim that putative class members were the victims of a single
policy resulting in compensation that did not satisfy the
tip-credit provisions and minimum wage requirements of the FLSA.

The Plaintiff also asserts a class action pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of:

     a. All current and former servers and bartenders working at
any of the Defendants' Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants in Missouri
who, at any time from Feb. 10, 2014 until May 31, 2015, were paid
sub-minimum, tip-credit rates of pay.

     b. All current and former servers and bartenders working at
any of the Defendants' Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants who, at any
time from February 10, 2011 until May 31, 2015, were paid
sub-minimum, tip-credit rates of pay.

Under the Rule 23 Class Action, the Plaintiff alleges the
Defendants violated the Missouri Minimum Wage Law ("MMWL"), and
Missouri common law by failing to pay the Plaintiff and other
tipped employees all earned minimum wages.  Specifically, she
alleges the Defendants unlawfully enforced a policy or practice of
requiring tipped employees to reimburse the restaurants from their
tips for customer walkouts and cash register shortages.

On May 10, 2017, the Court certified the Rule 23 Class Action and
designated Olivia Cope as the Class Representative.  The Defendants
now move the Court to either decertify or exclude certain
individuals from both the FLSA and Rule 23 classes.

Judge Bough finds that the Defendants have not put forth any
individualized defenses, which cuts in favor of the class treatment
of the claim.  Further, fairness and procedural considerations
weigh in favor of class treatment as to the claim, given that the
Defendants claim all the class members were made aware of the FLSA
tip credit provision in a similar manner.  That being the case, it
would be efficient and fair to all parties to resolve the claim on
a class-wide basis.

The Judge also finds that the class certification remains proper as
to the claim that the Defendants unlawfully enforced a policy that
required tipped employees to reimburse the Defendants for customer
walkouts and cash register shortages.  Even if some opt-in
Plaintiffs either never experienced or were never required to
reimburse Defendants for a customer walkout or cash register
shortage, all the opt-in Plaintiffs were subjected to the same
policy in the course of their employment.  Differences in injury
flowing from enforcement of the policy is not a proper defense or
basis for decertification, as differences in injury do not disprove
the claim that Defendants enforced an FLSA-violating policy to
which all class members were subjected.  Although the Court
recognizes that the action will necessitate a degree of individual
inquiry into the harm suffered by class members, procedural
considerations weigh in favor of class treatment as to this claim
given that liability will turn on common evidence relating to the
legality of the Defendants' single policy.  Further, fairness
considerations warrant the Plaintiffs the right to bring their
claims collectively, since many could not pursue their claims
individually given the relatively small value of their individual
claims.

Notwithstanding the DOL's issuance of the Opinion Letter and any
forthcoming revision of the FOH, the Judge finds the Dual Jobs
Regulation still provides a basis for the Plaintiff's claim that
Defendants violated the FLSA by regularly requiring the Plaintiff
and the class members to perform improper types and excessive
amounts of non-tipped work.  To the extent the law surrounding, and
interpretation of, the Dual Jobs Regulation continues to develop in
advance of trial, the Judge will entertain further argument from
the parties when crafting a jury instruction.

The Judge further finds that the class certification remains proper
as to the claim that the Defendants violated the FLSA by regularly
requiring the Plaintiff and the class members to perform improper
types and excessive amounts of non-tipped work.

Finally, the Judge finds that the class continues to be
certifiable.  The fact that some employees did not experience a
customer walkout or cash shortage does not defeat class
certification, since a common policy or practice would expose the
class as a whole to damages.  The inquiry into whether the class
members experienced having to reimburse the Defendants for a
customer walkout or cash shortage in accordance with a common
policy goes to damages and not the class certification.

For these reasons, Judge Bough denied the Defendants' Motion to
Decertify FLSA and Missouri Classes.

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

Olivia Cope, On behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas M. Werman --
dwerman@flsalaw.com -- pro hac vice, Sarah J. Arendt --
sarendt@flsalaw.com -- pro hac vice, Zachary C. Flowerree --
zflowerree@flsalaw.com -- pro hac vice & Rowdy B. Meeks --
Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com -- Rowdy Meeks Legal Group LLC.

Let's Eat Out, Incorporated, doing business as Buffalo Wild Wings,
Defendant, represented by Kirsten A. Milton --
Kirsten.Milton@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC, pro hac vice,
Kyle B. Russell -- Kyle.Russell@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
PC & Paul DeCamp -- PDeCamp@ebglaw.com -- Epstein, Becker & Green,
PC, pro hac vice.

Jeremy Boyer, individually, Bruno Management Company, Inc., Bruno
Enterprises, Inc. Too, Wing Backs, Inc., Sooners or Later, Inc.,
Hot Tex, Inc. & Spreading Our Wings, Inc., Defendants, represented
by Kirsten A. Milton, Jackson Lewis PC, pro hac vice, Kyle B.
Russell, Jackson Lewis PC & Ryan P. Lessmann, Jackson Lewis PC, pro
hac vice.

James Bruno, Defendant, represented by Kyle B. Russell, Jackson
Lewis PC & Ryan P. Lessmann, Jackson Lewis PC, pro hac vice.


LIFEWORKS TECH: Smith Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Willa Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Lifeworks Technology Group, LLC. and Eddie
Mizrahi, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-12396, (S.D. N.Y., December 31,
2018) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and all other
appropriate legal and equitable relief, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and other applicable federal law.

Lifeworks specializes in designing and manufacturing consumer tech,
fitness and automotive accessories where Smith worked in their
Accounting Department, assigned to Accounts Receivable. She claims
to have regularly worked well over forty hours per week without
being paid for all hours worked and was denied overtime premiums
for all hours she worked in excess of 40 per week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Harrison, Esq.
      HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES
      110 State Highway 35, 2nd Floor
      Red Bank, NJ 07701
      Tel: (718) 799-9111
      Fax: (718) 799-9171
      Email: nycotlaw@gmail.com


LOOP TRANSPORTATION: Richard Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
THEOPOLIS RICHARD, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LOOP TRANSPORTATION, INC., a
California corporation; HALLCON CORPORATION; a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. CGC-19-572507 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 3, 2019), seeks to recover
wages and penalties from unpaid wages earned and due, including
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid and illegally calculated overtime
compensation, illegal meal and rest period policies, failure to pay
all wages due to discharged and quitting employees, failure to
indemnify employees for necessary expenditures and/or losses
incurred in discharging their duties, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, failure to maintain required records, and
interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, under the
California Labor Code.

As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of the
Defendants, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered, and
continue to suffer, from loss of earnings in amounts as yet
unascertained, but subject to proof at trial, and within the
jurisdiction of this Court, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

         Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
         Scott A. Brook, Esq.
         MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
         1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
         Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
         Telephone: (310) 531-1900
         Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
         E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                 sbrooks@maternlawgroup.com

LOWE'S HOME: Court Compels Arbitration in Alvarado Wage & Hour Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration in the case captioned JAZMIN ALVARADO, Plaintiff, v.
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Defendant. Case No. 18-cv-03591-HSG.
(N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Jazmin Alvarado, who was employed by the Defendant,
removed this lawsuit against the Defendant, alleging individually
and on behalf of a putative class that Defendant conducted
background checks during the hiring process without making proper
disclosures, in addition to various other claims related to
non-payment of wages and failure to provide accurate wage
statements.

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), sets forth a policy favoring
arbitration agreements and establishes that a written arbitration
agreement is valid, irrevocable, and enforceable. The FAA allows
that a party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal
of another to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration
may petition any United States district court for an order
directing that arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in
such agreement.

The Plaintiff does not dispute that the Arbitration Agreement
waives the Plaintiff's right to bring class action claims, or that
the Agreement covers the Plaintiff's wage and hour claims. Rather,
the Plaintiff contends that the Arbitration Agreement is void on
impossibility grounds under California Civil Code Section 1598,
that any future Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA) claims
must be severed, and that the Agreement does not cover the
Plaintiff's FCRA claims, which arise from a background check that
may have taken place before Plaintiff signed the Arbitration
Agreement.  

The Plaintiff contends that the Arbitration Agreement, which states
that only a court of competent jurisdiction may interpret this
Agreement to Arbitrate Disputes and resolve challenges to its
validity and enforceability, including but not limited to the Class
Action Waiver and Representative Waiver, cannot be enforced because
it would require the Court to interpret all issues arising from the
language of the Arbitration Agreement.

Defendant Lowe's contends that the Arbitration Agreement requires
the Court to interpret the Agreement only to the extent required to
resolve questions of arbitrability.  

The Plaintiff's interpretation requires the Court to read the
clause only a court may interpret this Agreement separately from
the remainder of the sentence discussing validity and
enforceability.

The Court rejects the Plaintiff's reading because it ignores the
plain meaning of the clause read in the context of the sentence.
The Arbitration Agreement vests in the Court the authority to
interpret the Agreement for the purpose of resolving questions of
contract validity and enforceability. It is not an all-encompassing
delegation regarding all questions of contract interpretation.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 20, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yamuguwl from Leagle.com.

Jazmin Alvarado, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh, Setareh
Law Group, Thomas Alistair Segal -- thomas@setarehlaw.com --
Setareh Law Group & William Matthew Pao -- william@setarehlaw.com
-- Setareh Law Group.

Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, a North Carolina limited liabilty
company, Defendant, represented by Kirk Austin Hornbeck --
khornbeck@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP & Phillip J.
Eskenazi -- peskenazi@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP.


MACERICH CO: Faces Traynor Suit for Violation of Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Macerich Company 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, Plaintiffs v. The Macerich Company doing business as:
Green Acres Mall, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00300-VEC (S.D. N.Y.,
January 10, 2019).

The Macerich Company is a shopping mall.[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


MARRIOT INT'L: Faces Breach of Contract Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marriot
International, Inc. The case is styled as Raymond J. Barkley,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Marriot International, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00206 (E.D. N.Y., January 10, 2019).

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

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:

   Michael P. Canty, Esq.
   Labaton Sucharow
   140 Broadway
   New York, NY 10005
   Tel: (212) 907-0700
   Fax: (212) 883-7063
   Emil: mcanty@labaton.com



MCLANE COMPANY: Fitchett Suit Transferred to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Michael Fitchett, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. McLane
Company, Inc., Meadowbrook Meat Company, Inc. and Does 1 through
50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No CIVDS1827482, was transferred
from the San Bernardino County Superior Court to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on January 4, 2019,
and assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00023.

McLane Company, Inc. provides grocery and foodservice supply chain
solutions for convenience stores, mass merchants, drug stores, and
chain restaurants in the United States. The company offers
foodservice supply chain solutions, such as assistance in
logistics, procurement, inventory management, and other areas;
promotion management solutions; and rapid response solutions. It
also optimizes the purchase, flow, and sale of products from
various suppliers to retail locations, such as drug stores, mass
merchants, warehouse clubs, convenience stores, and others.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.

The Defendants are represented by:

   Matthew Charles Kane, Esq.
   McGuire Woods LLP
   1800 Century Park East 8th Floor
   Los Angeles, CA 90067
   Tel: (310) 315-8200
   Fax: (310) 315-8210
   Email: mkane@mcguirewoods.com


MDL 2804: Sherman Suit v. Purdue over Opiates Sales Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DARCY SHERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Purdue Pharma LP., Purdue
Pharma Inc.; Cephalic Inc.; Neva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.;
Neva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Jansen Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Johnson & Johnson; Aramco Inc.; Or tho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Jansen Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Jansen Pharmaceutical Inc., now known as Jansen Pharmaceuticals
Inc.; Undo Health Solutions Inc.; Undo Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Allergen PL, formerly known as: Activist PL; Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Activist Inc.; Watson
Laboratories Inc.; Activist Dharma, Inc., formerly known as: Watson
Dharma, Inc.; Activist LLC; Maeterlinck PL; Maeterlinck LLC;
McPherson Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.; Counterinsurgency Drug
Corporation; and Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., the Defendants,
Case No. 0:18-cv-03335, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on Dec. 20, 2018. The
Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:18-op-46365-DAP to the proceeding.

The Sherman case is being consolidated with ML 2804 in re: NATIONAL
PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION. The ML was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multi district Litigation on
December 5, 2017. These cases concern the alleged improper
marketing of and inappropriate distribution of various prescription
opiate medications into cities, states and towns across the
country. Responding plaintiffs' positions on centralization vary
considerably. Plaintiffs in over 40 actions or potential tag-along
actions support centralization. Plaintiffs in 15 actions or
potential tag-along actions oppose centralization altogether or
oppose transfer of their action. In addition to opposing transfer,
the State of West Virginia suggests that the ML Panel delay
transferring its case until the Southern District of West Virginia
court decides its motion to remand to state court. Third party
payer plaintiffs in an Eastern District of Pennsylvania potential
tag-along action (Philadelphia Teachers Health and Welfare Fund)
oppose centralization of third participatory actions. Western
District of Washington plaintiff City of Everett opposes
centralization and, alternatively, requests exclusion of its case.
Northern District of Illinois tag-along Plaintiff City of Chicago
asks the Panel to defer transfer of its action until document
discovery is completed. The Presiding Judge in the ML is Sarah S.
Vance, United States District Judge. The lead case is
1:17-MD-02804-PAD.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jared Shepherd, Esq.
          HOFF BARRY, P.A.
          775 Prairie Center Drive, Ste. 160
          Eden Prairie, MN 55344
          Telephone: (952) 746 2714
          E-mail: jshepherd@hoffbarry.com

               - and -

          William S. Consovoy, Esq.
          Thomas R. McCarthy, Esq.
          Michael H. Park, Esq.
          CONSOVOY MCCARTHY P ARK PLLC
          3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700
          Arlington, VA 22201
          Telephone: 703.243.9423
          E-mail: will@consovoymccarthy.com
                  tom@consovoymccarthy.com
                  park@consovoymccarthy.com

               - and -

          Ashley Keller, Esq.
          Travis Lenkner, Esq.
          Seth Meyer, Esq.
          KELLER LENKNER LLC
          150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2570
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 741 5220
          E-mail: ack@kellerlenkner.com
                  tdl@kellerlenkner.com
                  sam@kellerlenkner.com

MICHIGAN: 80 Counties Face Suits Over Tax Foreclosure Surpluses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Cwiek, writing for Michigan Radio, reports that soon, nearly
all Michigan counties will be facing lawsuits over whether they can
keep any profits from selling tax-foreclosed homes.

Current Michigan law allows county treasurers to keep any
difference between the amount of delinquent property taxes, and
whatever the property sells for at auction. So in theory, if a home
with $3,000 in back property taxes sells for $100,000, the county
pockets a $97,000 surplus.

But attorney Philip Ellison says they should only be allowed to
keep the amount of back taxes the property owner owed. Otherwise,
"Essentially, it's the government stealing from the citizenry."

So Mr. Ellison is filing class-action lawsuits against 80 of
Michigan's 83 counties. The three counties not included are Wayne,
Oakland, and Macomb counties, which together account for the bulk
of the state's tax foreclosures.

But the Michigan Supreme Court has already agreed to hear a case
out of Oakland County that makes the same argument. Mr. Ellison
says if the former property owners win that case, his class-action
lawsuits will benefit everyone else who's suffered tax foreclosure
by entitling them to their former home equity seized by the
government.

"So the Supreme Court's decision is going to have a major impact on
people throughout the entire state of Michigan," he said.

Mr. Ellison's firm has already filed lawsuits in all counties
roughly north of the Flint area, he said. He plans to file all the
lawsuits by New Year's.

Separate lawsuits in various Michigan counties have attempted to
make this argument in federal and lower state courts before. The
federal courts have largely sidestepped the issue, deeming it a
case for state courts. State courts, including the Michigan Court
of Appeals, have ruled the counties' taking of the property's whole
value legal as a form of civil asset forfeiture. [GN]


MONEY SOURCE: Martinez Seeks OT Pay for Mortgage Underwriters
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTA MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. THE MONEY SOURCE, INC., a
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00060 (C.D. Cal., Jan.
3, 2019), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant provides banking
services, and specifically mortgage services, to their customers in
California and throughout the United States. TMS offers eligible
employees, such as Plaintiff, the ability to work remotely in
certain situations. The Defendant employed the Plaintiff as
non-exempt, hourly mortgage underwriter. Underwriters, such as
Plaintiff, primarily worked from their home offices and connected
to Defendant's computer systems via a remote virtual private
network.

The Defendant requires its hourly Underwriters to work a full-time
schedule, including overtime. However, Defendant does not
compensate the Underwriters for all work performed; instead,
Defendant required Underwriters, such as Plaintiff, to only record
40 hours per week, regardless of how many hours they actually
worked, unless permission was granted by management. Consequently,
the Plaintiff and Defendant's other Underwriters were routinely
under compensated and deprived of overtime pay, in violation of
state and federal labor laws.

The Defendant's Underwriters were also deprived of meal and rest
breaks as required by federal and state labor laws due to
Defendant’s common unlawful policies and practices. The Defendant
knew or could have easily determined the actual number of overtime
hours worked by the Underwriters, and Defendant could have properly
compensated Plaintiffs and the putative Collective and Class for
this work, but Defendant did not, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class and Collective Members:

          David Yeremian, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash IV, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, Michigan 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          Facsimile: (248) 436-8453
          E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                  crash@sommerspc.com

MONSANTO CO: Ct. Denies Wisconsin Consumers Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS BLITZ, Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-473-wmc (W.D. Wis.), Judge William M.
Conley of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin denied the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class of
similarly situated Wisconsin consumers.

In the putative class action, Blitz claims that the statement on
the label of Defendant Monsanto's Roundup® product misled him into
believing it was safe to use around people and pets because the
active ingredient targeted an enzyme only found in plants, inducing
him to purchase the product and causing him pecuniary loss.  Before
the court presently is his request to certify a class of similarly
situated Wisconsin consumers.

The active ingredient in Roundup is glyphosate, which kills weeds
and grasses by inhibiting the enzyme
5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate ("EPSP") synthase, thus
disrupting one of the steps in the so-called "shikimate pathway."

The Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has registered
glyphosate as a pesticide since 1974 and renewed that registration
in 1993.  The EPA also approved the Roundup labels at issue as (1)
EPA Reg. No. 71995-25, (2) EPA Reg. No. 71995-29, and (3) EPA Reg.
No. 71995-33.  Each label includes the same statement Glyphosate
targets an enzyme found in plants but not in people or pets.

The parties appear to agree that EPSP is not found in human and
animal cells as evidenced by the absence of the shikimate pathway.
Taking the Plaintiff's allegations as true, however, EPSP is found
in bacteria that inhabit human and other mammalian stomachs.  The
materiality of that fact is unclear at this stage, but the court
will infer for the purposes of the Opinion, that it at least makes
the representation that the enzyme is not found "in people or pets"
misleading.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify a single class under Rule 23(b)(3)
defined as all consumers who purchased Roundup Products containing
the statement Glyphosate targets an enzyme found in plants but not
in people or pets on the labelling in the State of Wisconsin, from
June 2015 through the present.  While the Plaintiff's proposed
class satisfies the Rule 23(a) requirements, it does not satisfy
Rule 23(b)(3) because individual questions of material inducement
under the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("WDTPA")
overwhelm questions common to the class, making a class action
inferior to other available methods for resolving the dispute.

He recently filed an unopposed motion to stay deadlines for expert
disclosures and summary judgment, pending the issuance of the
Opinion.

Judge Conley finds that the Rule 23(a) requirements are met.  He
also finds that the Plaintiff attempts to overcome the need for
individual inquiry into material inducement by pointing to
California's consumer protection laws.  But because a claim under
the WDTPA turns on whether the misrepresentation materially induced
each individual Wisconsin consumer -- and not whether it would have
materially induced a reasonable consumer -- the Plaintiff's
argument cannot prevail.  And because a consumer's reliance on the
Roundup label must be determined on an individual basis, a class
action is not a superior method for resolving this dispute.

In light of his denial of class certification, the Judge will grant
the Plaintiff's motion.  The Plaintiff may have until Jan. 24,
2019, to disclose his remaining experts.  The Defendant may have
until Feb. 24, 2019 to disclose its remaining experts.  The
discovery cut-off will now be March 1.  Dispositive motions will be
due March 8, 2019.  All other deadlines remain unchanged.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Conley denied the Plaintiff's motion
to certify a class under Rule 23.  In light of the Court's lack of
consideration or reliance on the Butler Report in reaching its
opinion on the class certification, he denied as moot the
Plaintiff's motion for leave to file the Maronick Report.

The Judge granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion
for extension of time as set forth.  Additionally, the court will
schedule a telephonic status conference with Judge Crocker.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 2, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/WiC2Kr from Leagle.com.

Thomas Blitz, Plaintiff, represented by Aimee Wagstaff --
aimee.wagstaff@andruswagstaff.com -- Andrus Wagstaff, PC, Kim
Richman -- krichman@richmanlawgroup.com -- Richman Law Group, Mary
Carolyn Turke -- mary@turkestrauss.com -- Turke & Strauss,
LLP, Michael L. Baum -- mbaum@baumhedlund.co -- Baum Hedlund
Aristei Goldman, PC, Michael Joseph Gabrielli --
michael@gabriellilaw.com -- Gabrielli Levitt LLP, Michael J. Miller
-- mmiller@millerfirmllc.com -- Robert F. Kennedy, Robert
Brent Wisner -- bwisner@baumhedlund.com -- Baum Hedlund Aristei
Goldman, PC & Robin L. Greenwald.

Monsanto Company, Defendant, represented by Thomas Patrick
Heneghan -- tom.heneghan@huschblackwell.com -- Husch Blackwell,
LLP, Adam Seth Nadelhaft -- anadelhaft@winston.com -- Winston &
Strawn LLP, George Carter Lombardi -- glombard@winston.com --
Winston & Strawn, Jeff Scott Wilkerson -- jwilkerson@winston.com --
Winston & Strawn LLP, John Rosenthal -- jrosenthal@winston.com --
Winston & Strawn LLP & Paul D. Cranley --
paul.cranley@huschblackwell.com -- Husch Blackwell, LLP.


MONTEFIORE HOME: Ohio App. Affirms O'Donnell Counterclaim Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment
dismissing the Counterclaim in the case captioned THE MONTEFIORE
HOME, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KAREN O'DONNELL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 107074. (Ohio App.).

Defendant-appellant Karen O'Donnell (O'Donnell) requested that this
appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee.

Montefiore filed a complaint in Shaker Heights Municipal Court for
breach of contract against O'Donnell for her failure to pay the
balance of her mother's nursing home bill from her mother's estate
and despite a signed Admission Agreement with the home. O'Donnell
counterclaimed alleging numerous class action counterclaims.
Montefiore moved to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6).

The trial court granted the motion to dismiss in part finding that
O'Donnell did not meet the requirements for a class action under
Civ.R. 23, but allowed her counterclaims to remain without class
action status. O'Donnell filed a timely notice of appeal.

In her sole assignment of error, O'Donnell argues that the trial
court erred in dismissing the class action claims.

The Court finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion
in finding that O'Donnell failed to properly plead a class action
pursuant to Civ.R. 23. O'Donnell has not shown that the proposed
class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable,
that there are questions of law or fact common to the class, that
the claims and defenses of the representative parties are typical
of the claims and defense of the class, or that she would fairly
and adequately protect the interests of the class.  

In her counterclaims, O'Donnell's proposed class included persons
who entered into an Admissions Agreement with Montefiore in the 8
years preceeding the filing of this counterclaim. 42 C.F.R.
483.15(a)(3), which O'Donnell alleged Montefiore violated, was
amended in October 2016 to prohibit facilities from requesting a
third-party guarantee of payment. Any disputes involving class
members sued prior to October 2016 would be subject to a previous
version of 42 C.F.R. 483.15, that did not include that prohibition.


Judgment affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Ohio App.'s December 20, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yat8otvu from Leagle.com.

James S. Wertheim, James S. Wertheim L.L.C., 24700 Chagrin Blvd.,
Suite 309, Beachwood, Ohio 44122.

David I. Pomerantz, Pomerantz & Crosby Co., L.P.A., 24700 Chagrin
Blvd., Suite 309, Beachwood, Ohio 44122, Attorneys for Appellant.

David S. Brown, W. Cory Phillips, Rolf Goffman Martin Lang L.L.P.,
30100 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 350, Cleveland, Ohio 44124, Attorneys
for Appellee.


MRS BPO LLC: Debt Collector Faces Suit in Calif. for FDCPA Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, LLC. The
case is styled as Christophe Ambrosino, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MRS BPO, LLC and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00240 (C.D.
Cal., January 10, 2019).

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

MRS BPO, LLC, a debt collection agency, provides accounts
receivables solutions. It offers first and third party collections
services that include skip tracing, letters, human interaction,
scoring, and credit reporting; and analytic solutions that include
effective scoring and regression analysis, voice analytics,
identifying manual processes that can be automated, and increasing
customer retention levels. The company also provides back office
management services that include medical/healthcare, data entry,
and inbound/outbound call center; and customer relationship
management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Amir J Goldstein, Esq.
   Amir J Goldstein Law Offices
   8032 West Third Street Suite 201
   Los Angeles, CA 90048
   Tel: (323) 937-0400
   Fax: (866) 288-9194
   Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com




NCAA: Judge Hears Final Arguments in Athletes' Case
---------------------------------------------------
Len Simon, writing for San Francisco Chronicle, reports that a
federal judge heard final arguments in Oakland on whether college
athletes are underpaid by their schools. In a class action, college
football and basketball players are seeking more compensation, or
at least the opportunity for more, claiming that NCAA rules
outlawing salaries or similar payments violate the antitrust laws.
The outcome is uncertain, and the loser will appeal, leaving the
issue up in the air for years.

Rather than continue the battle over salaries, the athletes and the
schools ought to seriously explore a much better area for
compromise -- letting the athletes cash in on shoe endorsements,
social media followers, and the like.

For example, Zion Williamson of Duke University is the best-known
college basketball player around. He has 2 million Instagram
followers. But his compensation is limited to a scholarship.
Lawyers have been attacking NCAA amateurism rules for years,
focused on limits on payments by colleges. They have made
significant but small gains, but have gotten nowhere near the
stated goal of "free agency" for college athletes.

Rethinking and reforming the NCAA's rules against third-party
payments to athletes is a more fertile ground for progress and
compromise, for many reasons.

   * Third-party payments allow the schools to avoid the public
relations hit of paying an athlete five or 10 times what his
English professor makes. That feels wrong, is highly unappealing to
colleges, and equally unappealing to many judges.

   * Salaries for players like Williamson and other basketball and
football stars could generate Title IX problems if they are larger
than payments to women, while third-party payments are not covered
by law, but rather by the the laws of supply and demand.

   * Third-party payments are self-regulating in amount, saving the
colleges from negotiating salaries that treat some student-athletes
as second-class citizens. Again, shoe companies have no problem
paying players different amounts.

   * Most colleges simply don't have the money. A few big schools
profit on athletics, but the vast majority finance their minor
sports with profits from their revenue-generators, and still lose
money. If salaries were allowed, then smaller and less wealthy
schools might drop to Division II, and some of the "madness" of
March upsets would disappear.

  * If salaries were allowed, then T. Boone Pickens, who has
donated $185 million to Oklahoma State athletics, could give OSU
$20 million to buy the 10 best basketball players available, and
win the NCAA title. The next year, a Silicon Valley billionaire
might do the same for Stanford. Does that sound like an attractive
model?

   * We can lessen the risk of future scandals, like the recent
criminal cases in New York concerning under-the-table payments to
high school seniors in exchange for promises to attend particular
colleges. Permitting shoe company payments to college athletes will
bring the payments out into the open and make them larger, more
plentiful, and without strings.

Could the NCAA be convinced to permit third-party payments? Maybe.
It recently allowed a female basketball star to make money on
"Dancing with the Stars," and let a college swimmer from Singapore
keep a $740,000 Olympic prize from his government. How are shoe
contracts or monetizing social media any different?

Additionally, Condoleezza Rice, who chaired the NCAA Commission on
College Basketball, and Oliver Luck, former NCAA executive vice
president, have recently commented favorably on allowing
third-party payments to college athletes.

Even if the third-party prohibitions are defensible in court, the
NCAA must be tired of the risks and expense of a decade of
litigation, and if a deal does not involve the schools paying
salaries, it is a fair compromise

Letting other people pay the athletes is a win-win-win. Players get
a fair deal, and colleges avoid cash outlays many can't make,
issues over fairness among athletes, and unseemly bidding wars.
Everyone gets back to the football fields and basketball courts,
and out of the law courts.

Len Simon -- lens@rgrdlaw.com -- of counsel with Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd in San Diego, is a lawyer and law professor. [GN]


NEBRASKA: Carter Appeals D. Neb. Decisions to 8th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff John M. Carter filed an appeal from court rulings in his
lawsuit entitled John Carter v. William Muldoon, et al., Case No.
8:17-cv-00319-LSC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nebraska - Omaha.

The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action lawsuit was filed on August 28, 2017, against Nebraska Law
Enforcement Training Center; William Muldoon, individually and in
his official capacity as Director of NLETC; and Dave Stolz,
individually and in his official capacity as Counsel for the NLETC.
NLETC provides training services for Police Officers.

The appellate case is captioned as John Carter v. William Muldoon,
et al., Case No. 19-1019, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit.

According to the docket of the Appellate Case, the Clerk of Court
filed an order stating that the $505 appellate filing and docketing
fee has not been paid and is due.  The Appellant is directed to
either pay the fee in the District Court or file a motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis in the Appellate Court within 28 days
of the date of this order.  If the Appellant does not pay the fee
or move for IFP status by February 1, 2019, this appeal will be
dismissed for failure to prosecute without further notice.

Plaintiff-Appellant John M. Carter, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, of Benkelman, Nebraska, appears pro se.[BN]

Defendants-Appellees William Muldoon, individual capacity; Dave
Stolz, individual capacity; and Nebraska Law Enforcement Training
Center are represented by:

          Jessica Forch, Esq.
          ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          2115 State Capitol
          P.O. Box 98920
          Lincoln, NE 68509-0000
          Telephone: (402) 471-2682
          E-mail: jessica.forch@nebraska.gov


NEW YORK: Diederich Suit Transferred to NY Dist. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Mike Diederich, Jr., Joshua Doe and Janna
Doe, individually, and as representatives of the class of all
children similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Letitia James, N.Y.S.
Attorney General, Chancellor of the NYC Department of Education,
Superintendent of Schools of the East Rampo Central School
District, Superintendent of the Kiryas Joel Village School
District, Bill deBlasio, New York City Mayor, MaryEllen Elia, New
York State Commissioner of Education, Betty Rosa, Chancellor of the
New York State Board of Regents and Thomas P. DiNapoli, N.Y.S.
Comptroller, Defendants, Case No 903772-18, was transferred from
the Supreme Court, County of Albany to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of New York on January 10, 2019, and assigned
Case No. 1:19-cv-00035-BKS-CFH.

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

Plaintiff Mike Diederich, Jr. appears PRO SE.

Plaintiffs Janna Doe and Joshua Doe are represented by:

   Michael D. Diederich , Jr., Esq.
   Diederich Law Office
   361 Route 10
   Stony Point, NY 10980
   Tel: (845) 942-0795
   Fax: (845) 942-0796
   Email: mike@diederichlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Ryan L. Abel, New York State Attorney General-Albany
   The Capitol
   Albany, NY 12224
   Tel: (518) 776-2589
   Fax: (518) 915-7738
   Email: Ryan.Abel@ag.ny.gov


NFL: 9th Cir. Won't Revive Ex-Cheerleader's Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the Ninth Circuit won't revive a former cheerleader's proposed
antitrust class action accusing the National Football League of
suppressing cheerleader wages.

The court's three-judge panel unanimously affirmed a federal
judge's 2017 order throwing out the suit, finding former San
Francisco 49ers cheerleader Kelsey K. failed to state antitrust and
conspiracy claims under the Sherman Act and California's Cartwright
Act.

"[T]hose allegations ‘just as easily suggest rational, legal
business behavior,' as they do the existence of an agreement among
the defendants to restrain trade," the panel wrote Dec. 21 in an
unsigned and unpublished memorandum quoting Name.Space, Inc. v.
Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Nos., decided by the Ninth
Circuit in 2015.

K., who cheered for the 49ers for up to nine months beginning in
2013, claimed the NFL and 27 of its 32 teams struck deals to
suppress cheerleader wages and recruitment.

According to K., the teams' senior executives also agreed to pay
cheerleaders a low flat rate for each game, and to not pay them
anything for time spent rehearsing or doing mandatory community
outreach.

Before a glut of labor lawsuits raised most cheerleaders' wages to
at least the minimum wage, K. said, cheerleaders were paid as
little as $90 to $125 per game.

Meanwhile, NFL players earned an average of about $1.3 million each
in 2016, according to K.'s February 2017 complaint.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco dismissed the
case, finding K. failed to marshal evidence to show the teams had
agreed to eliminate competition for cheerleaders or that K. herself
was harmed by their conduct. He also said K. hadn't shown the teams
acted together to suppress wages.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the findings. Discussing K.'s evidence
-- a decades-old anti-tampering provision in the NFL's constitution
and bylaws that bar teams from tampering with other teams'
employees while they are under contract, and meetings between NFL
executives at annual events like the Super Bowl -- the panel
concluded it didn't pass muster.

"[T]he mere fact that these meetings occurred, at most, shows
opportunity, not intent," the panel wrote in the 6-page memorandum.
"These allegations, again, suggest rational, legal business
behavior, not a violation of the antitrust laws."

The panel also found Alsup correctly denied K. permission to amend
her suit and to conduct discovery, citing the Supreme Court's 2007
landmark opinion in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly which advised
federal judges against permitting expensive discovery on vague
antitrust allegations.

"Here, the district court's conclusion that no plausible claim for
relief has been pled justifies the denial of discovery ‘to avoid
the potentially enormous expense of [antitrust] discovery,'" the
panel wrote, quoting from Twombly.

U.S. Senior Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith and U.S. Circuit Judges
Consuelo Callahan and Mary Murguia sat on the panel.

K. was represented by Drexel Bradshaw of Bradshaw & Associates, and
the NFL and its defendant teams by Sonya Winner of Covington &
Burling, both in San Francisco. Neither attorney could immediately
be reached for comment on Dec. 24.

The NFL also had no immediate comment. [GN]


NOBILIS HEALTH: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Nobilis Health Corp. (NYSE:HLTH) from May 8, 2018
through November 15, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Nobilis investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Nobilis class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1471.html or call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Nobilis' accounts receivable was overstated; (2) Nobilis'
revenue was overstated; (3) as a result of the required
adjustments, Nobilis' quarterly report would not be timely filed;
(4) Nobilis would not be in compliance with NYSE listing
requirements; and (5) due to the foregoing, defendants' positive
statements about Nobilis' business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February
12, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1471.html or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action:

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]


NOBILIS HEALTH: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Nobilis
Health Corp. ("Nobilis" or "the Company") (NYSE: HLTH ) for
violations of Sec.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 May 8, 2018
and November 15, 2018, inclusive (the ″Class Period″), are
encouraged to contact the firm before February 12, 2019.

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

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. Both Nobilis' revenue and accounts
receivable were overstated. The need to adjust financials caused
the Company's quarterly report to not be filed in a timely manner,
leaving the Company at risk of not maintaining compliance with NYSE
listing requirements. 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 Nobilis,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         Sherin Mahdavian, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: 310-301-3335
         Cell: 424-303-1964
         Email: brian@schallfirm.com.
                sherin@schallfirm.com [GN]


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Ambrosino Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Christophe Ambrosino,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Northstar Location Services, LLC and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00242 (C.D. Cal., January
10, 2019).

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

Northstar Location Services, LLC, doing business as The Northstar
Companies, provides receivables debt collection services to
customers in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Its
services include first and third-party debt collections, customer
care programs, and location services. The company was founded in
2000 and is based in Cheektowaga, New York with an additional
office in Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Amir J Goldstein, Esq.
   Amir J Goldstein Law Offices
   8032 West Third Street Suite 201
   Los Angeles, CA 90048
   Tel: (323) 937-0400
   Fax: (866) 288-9194
   Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com



NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Wolff Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Liza Wolff, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Northstar
Location Services, LLC and Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00244 (C.D. Cal., January 10, 2019).

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

Northstar Location Services, LLC, doing business as The Northstar
Companies, provides receivables debt collection services to
customers in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Its
services include first and third-party debt collections, customer
care programs, and location services. The company was founded in
2000 and is based in Cheektowaga, New York with an additional
office in Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Amir J Goldstein, Esq.
   Amir J Goldstein Law Offices
   8032 West Third Street Suite 201
   Los Angeles, CA 90048
   Tel: (323) 937-0400
   Fax: (866) 288-9194
   Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com



OBELISK INC: Roberts et al. Suit Moved to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A case, Shaun Roberts, Nicholas Colley, and Allan Henry,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. Obelisk, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Nebulous,
Inc., a Delaware corporation; David J. Vorick, an Individual; Zach
Herbert, an Individual; and Does 1 though 10, Inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 37-02018-00058465-CU-BC-CTL, was removed from
the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego)
on Dec. 28, 2018. The Southern District of California Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-02898-LAB-BGS to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Larry Alan Burns.

Obelisk Inc. is a crypto currency mining company that promised
sales of SC1 and DCR1 miners.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          James Q. Taylor-Copeland, Esq.
          Mintz Levin, Esq.
          3580 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 314-1500
          Facsimile: (858) 315-1501
          E-mail: jtaylorcopeland@mintz.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Darcie Tilly, Esq.
          COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121-9109
          Telephone: (858) 550-6000
          E-mail: dtilly@cooley.com

ONE FIFTY: Sviridov Hits Illegal Tip Pool, Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vladimir Sviridov, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, Plaintiff, v. One Fifty Fifty Seven Corp. RTR
Funding Group, Inc., Gerald Lieblich, Ken Biberaj and Hasan
Biberaj, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-12393, (S.D. N.Y., December 31,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, withheld tips, redress for
improper meal credit deductions, liquidated damages, statutory
penalties and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the New York
Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate as "Russian Tea Room" restaurant with two
locations in New York. Campos was hired as a busser. Sviridov
worked as a server in their restaurant located at 150 W 57th
Street, New York, New York 10019. He claims to have rendered in
excess of 40 hours per workweek in off-duty work but was not paid
the corresponding overtime pay. Defendants also failed to provide
proper wage statements throughout his employment and implemented an
improper tip-pooling arrangement, which was not agreed upon by all
tipped employees. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ONE TECHNOLOGIES: Carlton Fields Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gail Jankowski, Esq. -- gjankowski@carltonfields.com -- of Carlton
Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., in an article for The National Law
Review, reports that a consumer (Forby) filed a proposed class
action in Illinois state court alleging that One Technologies, L.P.
(One Tech) failed to adequately disclose that consumers who
accessed their "free" online credit score on the company's website
would be enrolled in a credit monitoring program and be charged a
monthly fee. The case was removed and then transferred to the
Northern District of Texas. One Tech filed a motion to dismiss in
the Texas district court, seeking dismissal of all of Forby's
claims but omitting any mention of arbitration. After the district
court partially denied One Tech's motion to dismiss, Forby served
requests for production, which prompted One Tech to file motions to
compel arbitration and to stay discovery. After the court granted
these motions, Forby appealed to the Fifth Circuit, arguing that
the court erred in finding that One Tech did not waive its right to
arbitration. The Fifth Circuit agreed with Forby and reversed the
district court's order compelling arbitration, finding that One
Tech substantially invoked the judicial process by seeking a full
dismissal on the merits, and caused prejudice to Forby by waiting
thirteen months before moving to compel arbitration and by forcing
Forby to re-litigate in arbitration the matters already decided by
the district court in her favor. The court reasoned: "[a] party
does not get to learn that the district court is not receptive to
its arguments and then be allowed a second bite at the apple
through arbitration." Forby v. One Technologies, L.P., Case No.
17-10883 (5th Cir. Nov. 28, 2018). [GN]


OPI PRODUCTS: Nail Care Firm Hit with ADA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
OPI Products, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Marion Kiler, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. OPI Products, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00199 (E.D. N.Y., January 10, 2019).

OPI Products Inc. offers nail care products for customers around
the world. The company offers a line of professional items,
including nail treatments, finishing products, lotions,
manicure/pedicure products, files, tools, and acrylics. It offers
its products through retail stores, affiliates and local
distributor companies, and online retailers. The company was
founded in 1981 and is based in North Hollywood, California. As of
December 20, 2010, OPI Products Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
Coty Inc.

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


ORLANDO UTILITIES: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Cancer Cluster
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Holfeld, writing for ClickOrlando.com, reports that a
class-action lawsuit filed on Dec. 20 claims "combustion residuals"
blown from two coal-fired systems from the Stanton Power Plant in
Orange County have contaminated properties in the Avalon Park area,
exposing thousands of residents to cancer-causing contaminants.

Leslie Kroeger, a member of Washington-based Cohen, Milstein
Sellers & Toll, told News 6 that some children in the neighborhood
have already died from cancer and the firm expects more cases
involving children and adults to be reported in the weeks ahead.

"Since the lawsuit was filed, we've already had numerous other
calls from families whose children have been diagnosed,"
Ms. Kroeger said. "They (OUC) are not taking the proper precautions
to protect the people who live around the plant."

Orlando Utilities Commission spokesperson Tim Trudell declined to
discuss the legal action "due to pending litigation."

When asked about allegations that the coal plant is exposing
residents in the area to carcinogens, Mr. Trudell replied in part:
"The Stanton Energy Center's operations are highly regulated by
both the state and federal governments. OUC meets or exceeds all
permitting requirements as environmental stewardship is one of the
key principles of our organization."

It's not clear how many cancer cases have been confirmed, although
Ms. Kroeger indicated some children, possibly six, in the affected
neighborhoods have died from cancer.

An estimated 30,000 residents are in the range of the airborne
contaminants, according to the lawsuit.

The developers, including Lennar Corp., U.S. Home Corp., Avalon
Park Group Management Inc. and Beat Kahli, have not issued a
response to the class-action lawsuit.

Ms. Kroeger told News 6 that homebuyers moving to the developments,
had been assured the area was environmentally sound. The homes were
built between 1992 and 2013.

"Multiple people assured them, from different developers, (saying)
'It's just steam coming out, it's just fine,'" she said.
Ms. Kroeger said independent tests conducted in 2017 found levels
of polonium-220, a human carcinogen found in coal.

When asked if it was possible that the nearby landfill contributed
to the exposure, Ms. Kroeger said all indications are that it's
OUC's coal.

"They (OUC) are purchasing the most radioactive coal in the United
States and running it through the power plant," she said. [GN]


PEDIATRIC ASSOCIATES: De Amo Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN ROJO DE AMO, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C 206(B), the Plaintiff, vs. PEDIATRIC ASSOCIATES OF SOUTH
FLORIDA, LLC., a Florida Limited Liability Company, GERALD JONES,
individually and DORSEY L. GOOSBY, individually, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-25472-CMA (S.D. Fla., Dec. 28, 2018), seeks to
recover minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standard
Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed as a
non-exempt medical assistant who should have been earning an
average of $11.00 per hour. Throughout his employment with
Pediatric Associates, the Plaintiff routinely worked for Pediatric
Associates approximately 46 hours per week comprised of 40 hours of
regular time and an average six hours of overtime per week. The
Defendants should have known of all hours worked by Plaintiff in
excess of 40 in a given week. The Plaintiff hourly rate was $11.00
per hour. The Plaintiff's overtime rate was $16.50 for all hours in
excess of 40 per week. Notwithstanding, Pediatric Associates, Jones
and Goosby willfully and intentionally failed/refused to pay to
Plaintiff the federally required minimum and overtime rates for all
hours he worked. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered damages and is
entitled to receive overtime and minimum wage compensation. The
Plaintiff believes there are other similarly situated employees who
also worked for Defendants and were not properly paid for overtime
hours worked by them, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

          LAW OFFICE OF HENRY HERNANDEZ, P.A.
          2655 Le Jeune Road, Suite 802
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: 305.771.3374
          E-mail.: Henry@HHLAWFLORIDA.com

               - and -

          Monica Espino, Esq.
          ESPINO LAW, PL
          2655 S. LeJeune Road, Suite 802
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: 305 704 3172
          Facsimile: 305 722 7378
          E-mail: me@espino-law.com

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces Boco FDCPA Class Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Kathleen Boco, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
0:19-cv-60088-BB (S.D. Fla., January 10, 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:

   Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
   Zeig Law Firm, LLC
   3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103
   Hollywood, FL 33021
   Tel: (754) 217-3084
   Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com



POSTMATES INC: Lee Appeals N.D. Ca. Ct. Ruling to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Dora Lee and Kellyn Timmerman filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit titled Dora Lee, et al. v. Postmates,
Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-03421-JCS on Jun 8, 2018, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Ms. Lee
alleges that she worked as a courier for Postmates delivering food
and other merchandise to Postmates' customers at their homes and
businesses.  She claims that Postmates willfully misclassified her
and other drivers as independent contractors rather than employees,
failed to pay minimum wage and reimburse expenses as required by
the California Labor Code, and in doing so, engaged in unlawful
business practices in violation of California's Unfair Competition
Law (UCL).

The appellate case is captioned as Dora Lee, et al. v. Postmates,
Inc., Case No. 19-15024, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by February 4, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on March 5, 2019;

   -- Appellants Dora Lee and Kellyn Timmerman's opening brief is
      due on April 15, 2019;

   -- Appellee Postmates, Inc.'s answering brief is due on
      May 14, 2019; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants DORA LEE and KELLYN TIMMERMAN are represented
by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee POSTMATES, INC., is represented by:

          Theane Evangelis, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7726
          E-mail: tevangelis@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Michele L. Maryott, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 451-3800
          E-mail: mmaryott@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Peter C. Squeri, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 264-6500
          E-mail: psqueri@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Dhananjay Manthripragada, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036-5306
          Telephone: (202) 887-3557
          E-mail: dmanthripragada@gibsondunn.com


R&A DELI:  Does not Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages, Gonzales Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Victor Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ray Rodriguez and R&A Deli, Case
No. 18-cv-07468 (E.D. N.Y., December 31, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorney's fees and
costs pursuant to New York labor laws and the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Ray Rodriguez owns and operates R&A Deli, a restaurant located in
54-04 99 Street, Corona, Queens operating as Queens Papa and Son
Deli where Gonzales worked as a chef. Gonzales claims to have
worked a minimum of fifty-four hours a week without being paid
overtime and says that R&A did not pay him the agreed-upon minimum
wage rates. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Albert Van-Lare, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF ALBERT VAN-LARE
     125 Maiden Lane, Suite 510
     New York, NY 10038
     Tel: (212) 608-1400
     Fax: (877) 505-6103
     Email: vanlareesq@aol.com


RAZOR USA: Traynor Files Suit under ADA in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Razor USA 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. Razor USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00303
(S.D. N.Y., January 10, 2019).

RazorUSA LLC, better known as Razor, is an American designer and
manufacturer of electric personal transporters. The company was
founded in Cerritos, California in 2000 by Carlton Calvin and JD
Corporation. Razor also owns the RipStik, Sole Skate, and Pocket
Pros brands.[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 FRANCISCO, CA: Court Denies Bid to Certify FLSA Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned TATYANA LITVINOVA, the
Plaintiff, vs. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-01494-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard
Seeborg entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion to
conditionally certify an Fair Labor Standards Act collective action
without prejudice:

   "[a]ll persons (1) who are or were employed by the City and
   County of San Francisco in the following job classifications:
   2320 Registered Nurse, 2323 Clinical Nurse Specialist, 2325
   Nurse Midwife, 2330 Anesthetist, 2340 Operating Room Nurse,
   2830 Public Health Nurse, 2328 Nurse Practitioner, P103 Per
   Diem Registered Nurse (2) for the period three years prior to
   filing this action through the date of certification as a
   collective action."

The Court said, "The Plaintiff, however, has failed to satisfy her
burden of showing that conditional certification of the putative
collective action is appropriate. Critically, Plaintiff fails to
provide any evidence that anyone but Plaintiff worked unpaid
overtime. Conditionally certifying a collective action requires at
least some evidence to support the "substantial allegations" in the
complaint. Rivera v. Saul Chevrolet, Inc., No. 16-cv-05966-LHK,
2017 WL 3267540, (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2017) (denying certification
where plaintiff only submitted own declaration and did not allege
that other plaintiffs worked more than 40 hours per week without
overtime pay). Here, Plaintiff submits a declaration in support of
this motion in which Plaintiff states that she has worked
additional time for the City without receiving an overtime premium
for time worked over 40 hours per week. However, Plaintiff's
declaration does not state that any other putative member worked in
excess of 40 hours per week and was not paid overtime as a result.
This is insufficient to demonstrate that Plaintiff is "similarly
situated" to the putative members even under the lenient first
stage of the certification process."[CC]

SARBANAND FARMS: Class Action Over Mistreatment of Workers OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
Don Jenkins, writing for Capital Press, reports that all 600
Mexican nationals who picked blueberries in 2017 for a Washington
farm can be represented in a lawsuit alleging workers were
mistreated, a federal judge ruled Dec. 20.

District Judge John Coughenour ruled that claims by two aggrieved
workers raised issues that applied to all seasonal foreign workers
at Sarbanand Farms in Whatcom County.

Columbia Legal Services attorney Joe Morrison said Dec. 21 he had
been confident the judge would approve turning the two-plaintiff
case into a class-action lawsuit.

If the judge had not, "it would have changed the case
dramatically," Morrison said. "Every worker would have had to file
an individual lawsuit, which is completely unrealistic for this
group of folks."

The ruling potentially raises the financial stakes in a dispute
that stems from the Aug. 6, 2017, death of a farmworker from
Mexico. The 28-year-old man died of natural causes at a Seattle
hospital, according to officials, and a state investigation cleared
Sarbanand managers of any role in his death.

His hospitalization, however, led to approximately 60 other workers
from Mexico staging a one-day walkout. The farm fired them the next
day and ordered them to leave worker housing.

The lawsuit filed by Columbia Legal Services and a Seattle law firm
on behalf of two of the fired workers, Barbaro Rosas and Gudalupe
Tapia, does not blame farm managers for the worker's death. The
suit claims striking workers were wrongly fired and evicted, and
all workers were browbeat into picking when sick and pressured to
harvest unrealistic amounts of berries per hour.

Sarbanand is owned by Baldev and Kable Munger, owners of the large
California berry company Munger Brothers. The suit names Sarbanand,
Munger and two other defendants, Munger employee Nidia Perez and
Mexican company CSI Visa Processing, which recruited H-2A workers
from Mexico.

Each worker could represent multiple violations of the Washington
Farm Labor Contractors Act. State law allows a fine of up to $1,000
for each violation.

Sarbanand says the H-2A workers were fired and sent home for
insubordination and denies workers were threatened or ill-fed.

"It (the ruling) was disappointing and, of course, we're pushing
forward," said Sarbanand general counsel Tom Pedreira, who is not
litigating the suit. "The court's order was not (a) finding that
Sarbanand or any of the other defendants did anything wrong."

The walkout, firings and worker's death drew media, activist and
government attention to the farm in Sumas near the Canadian farm.
The Washington Department of Labor and Industries levied a record
$149,800 fine for missed rest breaks and late meals at the farm. A
judge later cut the fine in half. Other investigations failed to
confirm complaints that workers had been exposed to pesticides or
poorly fed.

Mr. Pedreira said Sarbanand brought in no H-2A workers in 2018. The
farm cut its workforce in about half and used more machines to
harvest the crop, he said.

In a court filing, Rojas declared that the highest-paying job he
had in Mexico was fishing for $78 a week. Tapia declared the most
he made in Mexico was $45 a week as a farmworker.

Both declared they had to spend money to supplement meals supplied
by Sarbanand. The farm deducted $12.07 a day from paychecks for
three meals.

The men said they were afraid that if they complained or took a
sick day they would be sent back to Mexico. [GN]


SENDGRID INC: Conner Balks at Merger Deal with Twilio
-----------------------------------------------------
CHARLES CONNER, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SENDGRID, INC., WARREN ADELMAN, AJAY
AGARWAL, FRED BALL, BYRON DEETER, SAMEER DHOLAKIA, ANNE RAIMONDI,
HILARY SCHNEIDER, and SRI VISWANATH, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00016 (D. Colo., Jan. 3, 2019), seeks to enjoin stockholder
vote on a proposed merger transaction.

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

On December 18, 2018, SendGrid filed a Schedule 14A Definitive
Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The
Proxy Statement, which recommends that SendGrid stockholders vote
in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits and/or misrepresents
material information concerning, among other things: (i) Morgan
Stanley & Co. LLC's potential conflicts of interest; and (ii) the
valuation analyses prepared by Morgan Stanley in connection with
the rendering of its fairness opinion. The failure to adequately
disclose such material information constitutes a violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act as SendGrid
stockholders need such material information in order to cast a
fully-informed vote in connection with the Proposed Transaction. In
short, unless remedied, SendGrid's public stockholders will be
forced to make a voting decision on the Proposed Transaction
without full disclosure of all material information concerning the
Proposed Transaction being provided to them, the lawsuit says.

SendGrid is a Denver, Colorado-based customer communication
platform for transactional and marketing email. The company was
founded by Isaac Saldana, Jose Lopez, and Tim Jenkins in 2009, and
incubated through the TechStars accelerator program.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 308-5858
          Facsimile: (212) 214-0506
          E-mail: fortunato@bespc.com

SHERIDAN CORP: Peralta Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
INDIRA RODRIGUEZ PERALTA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SHERIDAN CORP. (D/B/A
SHERIDAN MARKET), 191 EAST 161 STREET CORP. (D/B/A SHERIDAN
MARKET), 191 E. 161 STREET GOURMET DELI CO. LLC (D/B/A SHERIDAN
MARKET), ANDY NASSER, AYAD NASSER, DERHIM NASSER, RASHAD SALEH, and
IMELDA GJUSHI, COLLECTIVE ACTION UNDER 29 U.S.C. section 216(b),
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-12307 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants own, operate or control
a fast food restaurant, located at 191 E. 161st Street, Bronx, NY
10451 under the name "Sheridan Market." The Plaintiff was employed
as a cashier at the restaurant. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants
in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage
and overtime compensation for the hours that she worked. Rather,
the Defendants failed to maintain accurate record-keeping of the
hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff Rodriguez
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium.

The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring
Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per
week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation
required by federal and state law and regulations, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

SOUTHLAND ROYALTY: Filing of 2nd Amended Ulibarri Suit Allowed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GERALD ULIBARRI, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHLAND ROYALTY
COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No: 1:16-cv-215-RB-JHR (D. N.M.),
Judge RObert C. Brack of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Mexico granted Ulibarri's Motion for Leave to File a Second
Amended Class Action Complaint.

The case originally reached the Court in March 2016, when Defendant
Southland removed Mr. Ulibarri's original class action complaint.
The original complaint alleged breach of contract, breach of
implied duty to market, and violations of the New Mexico Oil and
Gas Proceeds Payment Act.  The claims were based on allegations
that Southland had been underpaying royalties to leaseholders by
improperly deducting from their royalty payments proportionate
shares of: (1) the New Mexico Natural Gas Processor's Tax, and (2)
the post-production costs of processing and otherwise making
natural gas marketable for sale.

In July 2016, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion to certify
dispositive questions on these two issues to the New Mexico Supreme
Court.  The matter was stayed pending the resolution of Anderson
Living Trust v. Energen Resources Corp., a Tenth Circuit case
addressing nearly identical issues and many of the same lease
agreements.  In early 2018, the Tenth Circuit resolved Energen,
holding that production companies can pass along to leaseholders a
proportionate share of the Natural Gas Processors Tax.  In
addition, the court held that the "marketable condition rule" does
not apply in New Mexico those costs necessary to make the gas
marketable.

Following the decision in Energen, the Plaintiff filed his First
Amended Complaint, which made two significant changes to the
definition of the proposed class and his claims against Southland.
First, the Plaintiff excluded from the proposed class definition
any individuals or entities whose lease agreements provide for
royalty payments based on market value at the well, the prevailing
field market price, or any other agreement language stating that
value should be calculated at the well.

The Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint also alleges that the
Defendant has improperly calculated royalty payments for the class
members by not basing payments on the actual sale proceeds of the
natural gas and related products derived from their wells.  He
alleges that the Defendant significantly underpays royalties on the
sale of such products, in contravention of the class members' lease
agreements.  

On Oct. 5, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint.  The proposed amendments
would only change the definition of the putative class, not the
substantive allegations or claims for relief.

First, he seeks to include in the class all royalty owners holding
two new types of leases, claiming the language in these new leases'
royalty provisions also prohibits deducting post-production costs
and reveals that the Defendant is underpaying royalties based on
its calculation method.  Second, he seeks to remove one type of
lease agreement from the proposed class definition, as further
discovery revealed that Southland does not hold the lessee's
interest in any New Mexico oil and gas lease which has this royalty
provision.  Finally, the Plaintiff seeks to add White River
Royalties, LLC as a named Plaintiff.  White River Royalties, LLC
holds an oil and gas lease with Southland that includes an
identical royalty provision to those in the Plaintiff's leases.

The Plaintiff's proposed class in its Second Amended Complaint
would include any individual or entity holding a lease with
Southland since Jan. 1, 2015, that contains one of four different
types of royalty payment provisions:

     (1) Proceeds Royalty Provision: Requires payment of a
specified percentage of the proceeds of the gas, as such, for gas
from wells where gas only is found.

     (2) Gross Proceeds Royalty Provision: Requires payment of a
specified percentage of the gross proceeds each year, payable
quarterly, for the gas from each well where gas only is found.
  
     (3) Greater of Market Value or Gross Proceeds Royalty
Provision: Requires payment of a percentage of the greater of (i)
the market value of the product sold or used in a condition
acceptable for delivery to a transmission pipeline, or (ii) the
gross proceeds received by Lessee upon arms length sale of such as
conditioned for delivery to a transmission pipeline.

     (4) Gross Proceeds without Deduction of Post-Production Costs
Royalty Provision: Requires payment of a specified percentage of
the gross proceeds without deduction from the value of Lessor's
royalty by reason of any required processing, cost of dehydration,
compression, transportation, or other matter associated with
marketing gas produced from the lands covered hereunder.

The Defendant does not oppose adding White River Royalties, LLC as
a named Plaintiff or removing the type of lease provision that does
not apply to its lease interests.  It does, however, oppose adding
the "Greater of Market Value or Gross Proceeds" and "Gross Proceeds
without Deduction of Post-Production Costs" Royalty Provisions (the
new royalty provisions) to the Complaint, asserting that the
Plaintiff's claims pursuant to such leases are moot.

The Plaintiff disagrees, countering that the Defendant's Response
does not adequately explain how it will calculate such royalties
going forward, what post-production deductions it has been and will
cease making, or which leaseholders will receive back payments and
in what amount.  Further, the Defendant's Response does not address
the second major claim in the lawsuit that applies to all four
types of lease provisions in the proposed class—the claim that is
improperly calculating royalties on residue gas, natural gas
liquids, and condensate and failing to pay royalties based on
actual sales proceeds.


Judge Brack finds that the Defendant's Response does not contain
enough factual information to moot the Plaintiff's claims regarding
the new royalty provisions, and the Plaintiff's amendments will
thus be allowed because "justice so requires."  First, he says the
Defendant has not addressed the Plaintiff's claim that,
notwithstanding the post-production deductions, it has been
miscalculating and underpaying royalties for natural gas residue,
liquids, and condensate under all four types of royalty provisions.
Second, it has not met its heavy burden of proving its actions
satisfy the required conditions for mootness based on voluntary
cessation.

The Defendant's actions in identifying relevant leaseholders and
seeking to remedy the post-production cost issue are positive, and
will likely help the case proceed more smoothly as the issues
unfold.  Still, the Judge finds that these actions are simply not
equivalent to a formal settlement agreement under which the Court
could be satisfied that "there is no reasonable expectation that
the alleged violation will recur," and "interim relief or events
have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects" of the
violation.  The Plaintiff has timely moved to amend his complaint
based on new evidence uncovered during discovery, and does not seek
to amend the substantive claims against the Defendant.  Allowing
him to broaden the proposed class definition will not unduly burden
or prejudice Defendant in preparing its defense, and the
Plaintiff's claims as they relate to the new proposed class
definition are not moot.

Therefore, Judge Brack granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to
File a Second Amended Class Action Complaint.  The Plaintiff has
until Jan. 16, 2019, to file his Second Amended Class Action
Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 2, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/Dc2DI3 from Leagle.com.

Gerald Ulibarri, Plaintiff, represented by A. Michael Chapman,
Newbold Chapman & Geyer, P.C., George Barton --
gab@georgebartonlaw.com -- Law Offices of George Barton, P.C. &
Stacy Burrows -- stacy@georgebartonlaw.com -- Law Offices of George
A. Barton, PC.

Southland Royalty Company LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew A.
Zidovsky -- mzidovsky@montand.com -- Montgomery & Andrews, P.A.,
Sharon Theresa Shaheen -- sshaheen@montand.com -- Montgomery &
Andrews & Mark D. Christiansen, McAfee & Taft, P.C., pro hac vice.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Sibley Settlement Has Final Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas granted
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in
the case captioned ROXIE SIBLEY, JEANNE NOEL, ERNESTO BENNETT,
JAMIE WILLIAMS, GREG ST. JULIEN, TRACIE HERNANDEZ, JOHN JASINSKI,
JAY RICHIE, and TEISHA KING, individually and on behalf of the
class, Plaintiffs, v. SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION, and SPRINT/UNITED
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Defendants. Civil Action No. 08-2063-KHV. (D.
Kan.).

The Court grants final approval of the settlement, finding the
monetary relief and the other terms of the settlement to be fair,
reasonable and adequate considering Plaintiffs' claims under the
Kansas Wage Payment Act and breach of contract, and the risks,
costs and delay associated with continuing the litigation.

The Settlement Class includes:

     All persons nationwide who did not opt out of the Class
Litigation and worked in Sprint's retail stores during the Class
Period of August 12, 2005 through September 30, 2009, including
Retail Store District Managers, Retail Store Managers, Assistant
Retail Store Managers, Lead Retail Consultants, Retail Consultants,
Retail Sales Representatives, and other retail employees (all of
whom held at least one of the job titles set forth in Exhibit A to
the Expert Stipulation entered at Docket No. 357-1 in the Class
Litigation) and whose compensation was based in full or in part on
commissions.

The Court finds the request for attorneys' fees to Class Counsel in
the amount of $7,014,250.00 to be fair and reasonable considering
the results achieved, the significant work performed by Class
Counsel on a large class action involving complex and novel subject
matter, the significant risk involved, and the demonstrated
qualification and skill of Class Counsel.

The Court finds the request for costs to Class Counsel in the
amount of $6,573,147.16 to be reasonable.

The Court approves class representative service awards of
$10,000.00 each for Roxie Sibley, Jeanne Noel, Ernesto Bennett,
Jamie Williams, Greg St. Julien, Tracie Hernandez, John Jasinski,
Jay Ritchie, and Teisha King; $3,000.00 each to the eleven class
members who prepared to testify at trial, Veronica Batarse
(Borrego), Christopher Giuardina, Johnathan Housknecht, Kimmie
Kelley, Ryan Maier, Sameer Mohammad (Sam Slama), Kyle Neubauer,
William Ray, Jason Renner, Alden Smith, and Michael Tallon; and
$250.00 each to the additional Settlement Subclass representatives,
Henry Goins, Clayton Johnson, and Anthony Scarpelli.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 20, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8yoy7bd from Leagle.com.

David R. Cohen, Special Master, pro se.

Roxie Sibley, individually and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by George A. Hanson --
hanson@stuevesiegel.com -- Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Michele Renee
Fisher -- fisher@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP, pro hac vice,
Paul J. Lukas -- lukas@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP, pro hac
vice, Rebekah L. Bailey -- bailey@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP,
pro hac vice & Stephen N. Six -- six@stuevesiegel.com -- Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP.

Sprint Nextel Corporation, a Kansas Corporation & Sprint/United
Management Company, a Kansas Corporation, Defendants, represented
by Brian P. Baggott -- brian.baggott@dentons.com -- Dentons US,
LLP, Christopher J. Willis -- WILLISC@BALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Rogers &
Hardin LLP, pro hac vice, Elise M. Bloom -- ebloom@proskauer.com --
Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice,Gregory I. Rasin --
grasin@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory
T. Wolf, Dentons US, LLP, Heather R. Hamilton, Jacqueline M. Dorn,
Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice, Mark W. Batten, Proskauer Rose
LLP, pro hac vice, Nicole A. Eichberger, Proskauer Rose LLP, pro
hac vice, Steven D. Hurd, Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice & Wade
P.K. Carr -- wade.carr@dentons.com -- Dentons US, LLP.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: 9th Cir. Affirms McMahon Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued a
Memorandum affirming the District Court's judgment granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned BRUCE McMAHON, on
behalf of himself; and CHRISTOPHER BENGSTON, on behalf of himself;
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC. and TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE
SOFTWARE, INC., DBA Rockstar, Erroneously Sued As Rockstar Games,
Inc., Defendants-Appellees. No. 17-56143. (9th Cir.).

Bruce McMahon and Christopher Bengston appeal for the second time
the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal of their
putative class action against Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
and Rockstar.

McMahon and Bengston allege violations of California law relating
to misrepresentations about access to Grand Theft Auto (GTA) Online
on the packaging of the video game GTA V.

The Court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, and review a
district court's Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of a complaint de novo.  

McMahon and Bengston allege they would not have purchased GTA V had
they known GTA Online would launch two weeks later and instead
would have waited for a new video game console. Yet they also
allege they purchased GTA V on its release day knowing the consoles
were coming. Even when taken in the light most favorable to McMahon
and Bengston, they have plausibly alleged only that they would have
waited two weeks but still purchased the game. As the game's price
remained the same over this time, and GTA V did grant access to GTA
Online two weeks later, any reliance did not cause McMahon and
Bengston the economic harm required to bring suit under the UCL and
FAL.

The Court concludes the district court did not err in dismissing
the implied warranty claim that goods be fit for their ordinary
purpose.  GTA V worked properly and granted access to GTA Online
when the latter launched, and so did not lack even the most basic
degree of fitness for ordinary use.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's December 20, 2018
Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7zr9lql from
Leagle.com.


TELSTRA: Faces Class Action Over 11-Day Blackout
------------------------------------------------
Matt Garrick, writing for ABC News, reports that it's the tiny
Northern Territory town that Telstra hung up on in the build up to
Christmas.

For 11 days in December the town of Batchelor was left stranded
without internet services with businesses reporting thousands of
dollars in losses.

Some residents in the town just 100km from Darwin, population
around 500, were considering launching a class action against the
telecommunications giant, whose equipment failure was responsible
for the outage which also knocked out mobile coverage and landline
services for days.

A faulty air-conditioner in the town's ageing telephone exchange
was understood to have triggered the initial breakdown.

Publican Michael McElwee was leading the charge against Telstra,
due to what he has estimated to be "tens of thousands" of dollars
in losses from EFTPOS machines being down, and cash-less punters
being forced to travel out of the tourist town, which services
travellers to Litchfield National Park, to get their supplies.

"On average your take could be anything between $3,000 and $5,000
maybe $6,000 a day . . . and now you're taking $1,000 a day,
because people going through [town] couldn't use the EFTPOS
machines … and because the Wi-Fi wouldn't work, they couldn't pay
by mobile phone," Mr McElwee said.

"The town wants to take a class action . . .  the other businesses
have lost tens of thousands of dollars too."

Employees couldn't get Christmas wages
Nick Cunningham, the manager of the Batchelor Butterfly Farm, said
his losses were currently sitting at an estimated $1,500, due to
the inability to use EFTPOS or email business partners.

"We're now two weeks behind, and coming up to Christmas break, it's
pushing our stuff back by a couple of months," Mr Cunningham said.

"Everyone's up in arms."

During the mobile coverage blackout, which started on December 12,
the whole town "grinded to a halt", he said, for about three or
four days until reception was returned.

"The school had to close down because it was unsafe for children to
go to school with no emergency calls -- they couldn't call police
or ambulance or even fire," Mr Cunningham said.

Co-manager Nathan Clout said the town had also missed a severe
weather warning, which were usually broadcast through text
messages.

Some employees who worked for interstate companies couldn't submit
their payslips due to the blackout, he said, "so their payroll
closed during the time in which they were supposed to submit it,
and by the time they got reception back on their phone, their
payroll closed, so some people couldn't get paid for Christmas".

"The worst thing is that Telstra hasn't updated us at all, there's
been no information," Mr Clout said.

A Telstra spokesman told the ABC that internet services were
finally restored to the town on Sunday afternoon December 23.

He said he believed the company had done "the best we could do in
the circumstances".

"It's very difficult sometimes to be proactive in some of these
situations … but there's always room for improvement," he said.

"We certainly haven't been hiding away."

No obvious Telstra backup in place
Owner of the town's Puma service station Mike Dooley said he was
"somewhat disillusioned" by Telstra's failure to fix the problem
within an acceptable timeframe.

"I'm surprised that a multi-billion-dollar company doesn't have a
backup of some type," Mr Dooley said.

"I would've thought there was probably hundreds if not thousands of
these sorts of exchanges around the country, and I would assume
they would need continual repair, maintenance … I'm surprised
they don't have something sitting on the back of a truck ready to
just rollout to Alice Springs, Tennant Creek or Nhulunbuy or
whatever.

"But apparently there's nothing and they don't even have spare
parts, so that comes as a major shock."

He said his business had also lost a great deal of business, and
the lack of EFTPOS had also hindered customers who relied on Basics
Cards.

The Telstra spokesman said technology "can't always be guaranteed
on".

"You can't just pop down to Bunnings to pick up some new bits
sometimes for telephone exchanges," the spokesman said.

"We actually had to get some specialist parts in, and these had to
come in from interstate and travel down to Batchelor to get
installed."

The Telstra spokesman said the company would consider compensating
businesses for losses over the period. [GN]


TOYOTA AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Defective Vehicle DPF
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew H Tong, writing for Paultan.org, reports that Toyota
Australia is reportedly facing a class action lawsuit over issues
with its diesel particulate filters (DPF), specifically in models
powered by the new 2.8 litre turbodiesel engine. The affected
vehicles are the Hilux, Prado and Fortuner, manufactured between
2015 to 2018, reports CarAdvice.

The legal firm behind the lawsuit claims that its clients have
experienced "increased fuel consumption and a loss of power of the
vehicle" because "hard deposits accumulating on the DPF oxidisation
catalyst" stop the engine from reaching the necessary temperature.

It added that the DPF in these cars may be defective because
particulate matters aren't burned normally in urban driving
conditions, where many owners spend their time driving. This
creates particulate matter buildup, DPF blockage, foul-smelling
emissions from the exhaust, increased fuel use, and greater wear
and tear on the engine.

In acknowledging the matter, Toyota has contacted owners, offering
to clean or replace the DPF in affected vehicles. A manual
regeneration switch has also been retrofitted (now standard on all
three models) earlier this, but the legal firm added that some
owners have been dealing with the issues for a number of years,
causing "unnecessary inconvenience and expense."

At the moment, the law firm is investigating possible
contraventions of Australian Consumer Law (ACL) regarding
"misleading and deceptive conduct" and "omissions equating to
misleading and deceptive conduct."

A potential claim would encompass any repairs that weren't covered
under warranty, a loss of income for tradies with vehicles that
were taken off the road by the issue, compensation for any
measurable increase in fuel consumption or loss of power, and
coverage for any excessive depreciation because of the problem.

In a statement, Toyota Australia said it "launched the latest in a
series of initiatives, a customer service campaign, to resolve the
potential DPF issue in October." All customers with potentially
affected vehicles have been -- or are in the process of being --
contacted by letter and subsequently requested to get in touch with
their closest or preferred Toyota dealership.

"Toyota dealers will reprogram the engine control module, ensure
the DPF has been regenerated and conduct a smoke test. If the smoke
test is negative, the DPF will be replaced. All inspection work and
replacement, if required, will be completed free of charge to the
customer." [GN]


TRUNK CLUB: Violates ADA, Fischler Suit Asserts
-----------------------------------------------
Trunk Club, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Brian
Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Trunk Club, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00209 (S.D. N.Y., January 10, 2019).

Trunk Club is a personalized mid- to high-end men's and women's
clothing service based in Chicago, Illinois, United States. Each
customer works with a specialist who chooses clothing for their
box, which is shipped to their home; the customer can purchase the
clothes outright or send them back to Trunk Club.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Drivers' Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Areen Zahra, writing for Techengage, reports that Uber offers to
pay 11 cents, for every mile traveled by the drivers, as part of a
settlement to the class action.

Uber, the ride-hailing service, has previously been in dispute with
its driver community who filed a class action against Uber
demanding the company to treat them as employees and not individual
contractors. Divers had a stance that Uber classified them as
independent contractors so that they are not charged for the
gasoline, vehicle maintenance and other expenses. Some drivers
accused Uber of not letting them keep the tips given by
riders/passengers.

The drivers filed the class action against Uber instead of filing
individual appeals. A class action deals the case as of a group. It
sues people as a group and obtains greater recoveries as compared
to that of an individual case. However, this class action was
overruled. Uber drivers would now have to go through the individual
arbitration that is notorious for favoring the company instead of
the employees as per the historical tracks. The driver's lawyer was
disappointed on this overruling of the class action which has
already weakened their position in this battle. To this the lawyer
from drivers, Shannon Liss-Riordan said:

"If Uber wants to resolve these disputes one by one, we are ready
to do that -- one by one."

On the other side, the lawyer from Uber said:

"We are very pleased with the Ninth Circuit's order reversing class
certification."

However, this decision was applicable only for the nine U.S. States
only. This is not the first time that Uber is facing such lawsuits.
It has been facing lawsuits that claim that Uber drivers are
employees that get minimum wages, overtime and many such issues.

Analyzing the situation and its sensitivity, Uber has come up with
a settlement for drivers over their complaints with Uber as
reported by TechCrunch. Uber has offered 11 cents per mile of
travel for the drivers in return of their withdrawal of individual
arbitration from the court. The success of the deal depends upon
the number of drivers (having their arbitration filed) signing the
deal. Uber has every good reason to come up with this deal as the
company is approaching towards its first public offering and cases
like these can overshadow the company's one of the milestones.

Not to forget that Uber has already been working to settle the root
causes of the disputes that raised between Uber and the workers.
Also, it has been already successful in settling down many. To one
of the biggest issues in which drivers claimed that they had not
been allowed to receive tips from the passenger, Uber enabled the
tipping feature in June 2017.

Talking about the significance of the amount offered in the deal,
the exchange didn't seem to be a nice one as 11 cents is almost
equal to the one-third of what drivers could potentially gain if
they win the lawsuit. But looking at the other side of the picture,
losing their arbitration would leave them empty-handed.

Neither Uber nor the drivers' lawyer has come up with a statement
yet. Let's see what if the deal goes successful or the legal war
continues between Uber and its contractors. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Class Action Over Bad Paper Discharges Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Copp, writing for Army Times, reports that  federal court in
Connecticut has certified a nationwide class-action lawsuit seeking
relief for more than 50,000 Iraq and Afghanistan Army veterans who
were labeled with less-than-honorable discharges after developing
post-traumatic stress disorders, mental health problems or
traumatic brain injuries as a result of their service.

Those "bad paper" discharges deny veterans the ability to get
military service benefits including education funding, disability
benefits and mental health treatment, and can negatively impact
their ability to secure work once in the private sector.

The Army lawsuit follows a similar case brought by Navy and Marine
Corps veterans to the Naval Discharge Review Board that was
approved by the same court in November. Both cases are being
represented by the Yale Law School Veterans Legal Services Clinic
and the law firm Jenner & Block.

"This decision means that thousands of service members who have
been denied the support of VA resources because of an unfair
discharge status may have another chance at relief," said
Steve Kennedy, one of the lawsuit's plaintiffs. Mr. Kennedy served
in Iraq and is a founder of the Connecticut chapter of the Iraq and
Afghanistan Veterans of America. [GN]


UXIN LIMITED: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 24
disclosed that it is investigating potential securities claims on
behalf of shareholders of Uxin Limited (NASDAQ:UXIN) resulting from
allegations that Uxin may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

On November 19, 2018, Uxin reported that the transaction volume for
one of its business segments had declined 8.5% year-over-year and
gross merchandise value had declined 14.8% due to its "recent
change of approach in serving consumers with car-selling needs." On
this news, the price of Uxin securities fell $0.60 per share or
more than 11.7%, to close at $4.50 per share on November 20, 2018,
thereby injuring investors.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by Uxin investors. If you purchased Uxin
securities, please visit the firm's website at
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1481.html to join the class
action. You may also contact Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen
Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors
throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm
was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number
of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. [GN]


VERIGENT LLC: Shortchanges Workers on Overtime Pay, Luong Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Luong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Verigent, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-00448 (S.D. Tex., December 31, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

Defendant is a staffing company that assigns workers to companies
in the telecommunications industry. Luong worked for Verigent as a
Field Technician from approximately August 2017 to December 2017.
He claims to have regularly worked more than 8 hours per day and 40
hours per week but not paid any additional wages for overtime.
Verigent also failed to provide reimbursements for expenses that
were excluded from the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes
including a car allowance, per diem, cell phone allowance and
mileage reimbursement. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VITAL RECOVERY SERVICES: Cohen Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vital Recovery
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Brian Cohen, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vital
Recovery Services, LLC and Vital Solutions, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-00197 (E.D. N.Y., January 10, 2019).

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

Vital Recovery Services, LLC (VRS) is a fully licensed, national,
third-party collection agency.[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


WELLS FARGO BANK: Rivera Labor Suit Transferred to C.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Melissa Rivera, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
and Does 1 through 50 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18STCV02829,
was transferred from the Los Angeles County Superior Court to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on January 10, 2019, and assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00035-BKS-CFH.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as violation of
Labor Relations.

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association provides personal, small
business, and commercial banking services. It offers personal
accounts and services, such as checking accounts, savings accounts
and CDs, debit and prepaid cards, and credit cards; foreign
exchange, online banking, online bill pay, transfer, mobile
banking, and global remittance services; identity theft protection
plans; mortgage loans, home equity lines and loans, personal lines
and loans, student loans, and auto loans; auto, specialty vehicle,
life, homeowners', renters', and umbrella liability insurance
solutions; and wealth management and investing solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   John Glugoski, Esq.
   Righetti Glugoski PC
   456 Montgomery Street Suite 1400
   San Francisco, CA 94104
   Tel: (415) 983-0900
   Fax: (415) 397-9005
   Email: jglugoski@righettilaw.com

      - and -

   Matthew Righetti, Esq.
   Righetti Glugoski PC
   456 Montgomery Street Suite 1400
   San Francisco, CA 94104
   Tel: (415) 983-0900
   Fax: (415) 397-9005
   Email: matt@righettilaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Christian J Rowley, Esq.
   Seyfarth Shaw
   560 Mission Street 31st Floor
   San Francisco, CA 94105
   Tel: (415) 397-2823
   Fax: (415) 397-8549
   Email: crowley@seyfarth.com

      - and -

   Jill Ann Porcaro, Esq.
   Seyfarth Shaw LLP
   2029 Century Park East Suite 3500
   Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
   Tel: (310) 277-7200
   Fax: (310) 201-5219
   Email: jporcaro@seyfarth.com

      - and -

   Andrew M McNaught, Esq.
   Seyfarth Shaw LLP
   560 Mission Street 31st Floor
   San Francisco, CA 94105
   Tel: (415) 397-2823
   Fax: (415) 397-8549
   Email: amcnaught@seyfarth.com


WELLSPACE HEALTH: Case Mgmt. Conference in Cameron Suit on July 18
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wellspace Health. The
case is styled as Jennifer Cameron and on behalf of other member
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wellspace Health and Does 1-100,
Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00248144-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
January 10, 2019).

The Case Management Conference is set for July 18, 2019, at 8:30
am.

Wellspace Health is a full service healthcare provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
   LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
   410 Arden Ave Ste 203
   Glendale, CA 91203
   Tel: (818) 265-1020
   Fax: (818) 265-1021
   Email: edwin@lfjpc.com


WEYERHAEUSER CO: Can't Compel Arbitration in Esanbock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Dennis Esanbock, Barbara Esanbock, Christopher Spinks
and Kevin Swehla, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Weyerhaeuser Company, Defendant, Case No.
17-cv-3702 (SRN/DTS) (D. Minn.), Judge Susan Richard Nelson of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota denied
Weyerhaeuser's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss or Stay the
Claims of Plaintiff Kevin Swehl.

The matter is before the Court on the Objections of Defendant
Weyerhaeuser to Magistrate Judge David Schultz's July 30, 2018
Report and Recommendation ("R&R").  In the R&R, the Magistrate
Judge recommended that Weyerhaeuser's Motion to Compel be denied.
Plaintiff Swehla has filed a response to the Objections.

In August 2017, Plaintiffs filed the products liability putative
class action against Defendant Weyerhaeuser.  The Plaintiffs are
homeowners whose homes or properties contain construction joists
manufactured by the Defendant.  They allege that the joists are
defectively designed and manufactured, specifically with respect to
a coating on the joists that contains a formaldehyde-based resin.
The Plaintiffs contend that the resin "off-gasses" formaldehyde in
amounts exceeding acceptable levels, making their homes
uninhabitable.  They assert legal claims of breach of express and
implied warranty, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
strict liability, negligence, and violations of Minnesota's
Unlawful Trade Practices Act and Consumer Fraud Act.

In 2017, Named Plaintiff Swehla was under contract to purchase a
home in Carver, Minnesota that was built using the allegedly
defective joists.  He entered into a contract, the Home Purchase
Agreement ("HPA"), with non-party Mattamy.  Before Swehla closed on
the home, he learned of the alleged joist defect, and brought the
suit before the closing date.

The HPA contains two different procedures for resolving disputes:
Section 13 governs pre-closing disputes and Section 14 governs
post-closing disputes.  The dispute resolution provision in Section
13 states that "claims brought prior to vlosing" are to be heard
"by the court with jurisdiction where the property is located."
The dispute resolution provision in Section 14 states that claims
"brought after closing" are subject to arbitration.

The crux of the Defendant's immediate dispute hinges upon whether
other language in Section 13 is a typographical error or an
internal cross reference.  It urges a literal reading of the HPA,
arguing that it mandates arbitration.  Weyerhaeuser thus filed the
underlying motion to compel arbitration or stay Swehla's claims.
In opposition, Swehla argues that because he brought suit before
closing on the home, this is a pre-closing dispute governed by
Section 13 of the HPA, which does not compel arbitration.

In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge found that the HPA was a valid
agreement that extended to third-party beneficiaries such as
Weyerhaeuser, based on express language in the HPA regarding
parties related to or associated with Mattamy.  Consequently, he
found that Weyerhaeuser was entitled to enforce the provisions of
the HPA.  These findings are not in dispute.

After thoroughly reviewing the four corners of the HPA, the
Magistrate Judge found that the Plaintiff's dispute was a
pre-closing dispute, governed by Section 13, for which arbitration
was not required.  He observed that Swehla filed suit on Aug. 11,
2017, before the closing on his house.

He further found that the HPA was clear and unambiguous.  Because
he found the HPA clear and unambiguous, hr found that discovery and
a summary trial regarding the HPA were unnecessary. Accordingly, he
recommended that the Defendant's motion be denied.

In its Objections, Weyerhaeuser argues that the magistrate judge
erred by: (1) concluding that the Plaintiff's claims are not
"post-closing" claims, subject to arbitration; (2) concluding that
Weyerhaeuser's reading of Section 13 is not reasonable and that
pre-closing claims are not subject to arbitration; and (3) failing
to recommend a summary trial under the Federal Arbitration Act to
address the HPA's alleged ambiguities and perceived errors.

Judge Nelson finds that finds nothing illogical about the
Magistrate Judge's reasoning, and in fact, agrees with it.  She
painstakingly construed the HPA, finding it clear and the parties'
intent unambiguous, despite the presence of a recurring
typographical error.  Once the typographical error is accounted
for, the contract is clear.  She agrees with the Magistrate Judge's
finding that the HPA is not ambiguous.  Finally, the Magistrate
Judge's construction of the HPA is consistent with the parties'
intent to permit court resolution of disputes prior to closing and
to require arbitration for disputes after closing, and results in
an internally consistent, logical reading of the agreement. No
discovery or summary trial is necessary.

Based upon the foregoing, and all the files, record, and
proceedings therein, Judge Nelson overruled the Defendant's
Objections to the Magistrate Judge's July 30, 2018 R&R and adopted
the R&R.  She denied Defendant's Motion to Compel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 2, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/E2ogcE from Leagle.com.

Dennis Esanbock, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Barbara Esanbock, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Christopher Spinks, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated & Kevin Swehla, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by E. Michelle Drake -- emdrake@bm.net -- Berger &
Montague, P.C., Jacob Polakoff -- jpolakoff@bm.net -- Berger
Montague PC, pro hac vice, Joseph Hashmall -- jhashmall@bm.net --
Berger & Montague, P.C., Lawrence Deutsch -- ldeutsch@bm.net --
Berger Montague PC, pro hac vice & Shanon J. Carson --
scarson@bm.net -- Berger Montague PC, pro hac vice.

Weyerhaeuser Company, Defendant, represented by Benjamin W. Hulse
-- bhulse@blackwellburke.com --, Blackwell Burke PA, Jerry W.
Blackwell -- blackwell@blackwellburke.com -- Blackwell Burke PA,
Mark Steven Mester -- mark.mester@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP,
pro hac vice, Mary Rose Alexander -- mary.rose.alexander@lw.com --
Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Christian Collins, III
-- robert.collins@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice & S.
Jamal Faleel -- jfaleel@blackwellburke.com -- Blackwell Burke PA.

Weyerhaeuser Company, Counter Claimant, represented by Benjamin W.
Hulse, Blackwell Burke PA, Jerry W. Blackwell, Blackwell Burke PA,
Mark Steven Mester, Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice, Mary Rose
Alexander, Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Christian
Collins, III, Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice & S. Jamal Faleel,
Blackwell Burke PA.

Barbara Esanbock, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated & Dennis Esanbock, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Counter Defendants, represented by E. Michelle
Drake, Berger & Montague, P.C., Joseph Hashmall, Berger & Montague,
P.C. & Shanon J. Carson, Berger Montague PC, pro hac vice.


YINGLI GREEN: Court Approves Barocio Settlement
-----------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued an Order and Judgment granting Parties Class
Settlement Agreement in the case captioned NOE BAROCIO, SALVADOR
BAROCIO, AND CINDY CONYBEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. YINGLI GREEN ENERGY
HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED, LIANSHENG MIAO, YIYU WANG, AND ZONGWEI
"BRYAN" LI, Defendants. Case No. 2:15-cv-04003-ODW (MRWx), c/w No.
2:15-cv-04600-ODW (MRWx). (C.D. Cal.).

The Court finds that the prerequisites for a class action under
Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have
been satisfied in that: (a) the number of Settlement Class Members
is so numerous that joinder of all members thereof is
impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact common to
the Settlement Class; (c) the claims of the Plaintiffs are typical
of the claims of the Settlement Class they seek to represent; (d)
Plaintiffs fairly and adequately represent the interests of the
Settlement Class; (e) the questions of law and fact common to the
members of the Settlement Class predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members of the Settlement Class; and (f)
a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair
and efficient adjudication of this Litigation. The Settlement Class
is being certified for settlement purposes only.

Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Court hereby certifies as a settlement class all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Yingli American
Depository Shares during the period from December 2, 2010, through
and including May 15, 2015, and were damaged thereby. Excluded from
the Settlement Class are: (i) Yingli; (ii) current and former
officers and directors of Yingli and of any other Released Party;
(iii) parents, spouses, or children living in the household of any
person excluded under (i) or (ii) above; (iv) any legal entity more
than 50% owned by any person excluded under (i) and (ii) above; (v)
the heirs, successors and assigns of any person excluded under (i)
and (ii) above; and (vi) any valid opt-outs.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Plaintiffs are certified as the class representatives on behalf of
the Settlement Class and the Lead Counsel previously selected by
Plaintiffs and appointed by the Court, is appointed as Lead Counsel
for the Settlement Class (Class Counsel).

The Settlement is approved as fair, reasonable and adequate, and in
the best interests of the Class. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant
are directed to consummate the Settlement in accordance with the
terms and provisions of the Stipulation.

The Plaintiffs' Counsel is awarded the sum of $300,000 in
attorneys' fees and $54,685.07 in reimbursement of costs and
expenses, together with a proportionate share of any interest
earned on the Settlement Fund, which amounts the Court finds fair
and reasonable. This attorneys' fee and expense award shall be paid
to the Plaintiffs' Counsel pursuant to the terms of the
Stipulation.

Plaintiffs Noe and Salvador Barocio and Cindy Conybear are awarded
$5,000 each for a total of $15,000 for an incentive fee award and
reimbursement for their lost time in connection with their
prosecution of this action. The Award to the Plaintiffs shall be
paid to the Plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 20, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ydawwhwp from Leagle.com.

Bhimsain Mangla, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick V.
Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice &
Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited, Defendant, represented
by Chet A. Kronenberg -- ckronenberg@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher
and Bartlett LLP, Colin Rolfs -- colin.rolfs@stblaw.com -- Simpson
Thacher and Bartlett LLP & JoAnne S. Jennings --
JoAnne.Jennings@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher and Bartlett LLP.


YOTEL US: Airport Hotel Firm Hit with ADA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Yotel US Propco, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Emanuel Delacruz and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Yotel US Propco, LLC, Yotel Management (New
York) Co., LLC and Yotel Management (USA) Co., LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00304-GBD (S.D. N.Y., January 10, 2019).

YOTEL US Propco, LLC operates airport hotels. The company offers
cabins and suites for accommodation. Its amenities include
restaurants and bars; and venues for professional and social
functions, movie screenings, yoga classes, seminars, private
meetings, parties, special events, and more. The company was
incorporated in 2007 and is based in New York, New York. YOTEL US
Propco, LLC is a prior subsidiary of The Related Companies,
L.P.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
   Gottlieb & Associates
   150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
   New York, NY 10003
   Tel: (917) 796-7437
   Fax: (212) 982-6284
   Email: danalgottlieb@aol.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 ***