CAR_Public/190128.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, January 28, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 20

                            Headlines

10 WASHINGTON: Sullivan Seeks OT & Minimum Wages
ACE & W INVESTMENT: Angela Pipes Seeks to Certify Florida Class
ACUITY BRANDS: Bid to Dismiss Georgia Securities Suit Ongoing
AGILITY ENERGY: Conditional Class Certification Sought in "Hunter"
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Jail Sued Over Treatment of Suicidal Inmates

ALAMEDA, CA: Deprives Prisoners of Sleep, Upshaw et al. Complain
AMERICAN HOTEL: Gorss Motels Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Faces Donelson Suit in D. Missouri
APOGEE ENTERPRISES: Mayer Class Complaint Has Not Yet Been Served
ARRIS INT'L: Agnes-Sampson Securities Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia

ASF CONSTRUCTION: Sacasari Seeks Unpaid Wages
ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE: Moody Suit Wins Conditional Certification
AVIS BUDGET: Fails to Safeguard Private Data, Kramer Claims
AZZ INC: Continues to Defend Mullins Class Suit
B&E KARING: Arambula FLSA Suit Moved to District of New Mexico

BCFS EDUCATION: Perez Sues over Time Shaving Violations
BELLMORE GARDENS: Underpays Landscapers, Valle Suit Alleges
BETTERNOI, LLC: Pilarski Suit Wins Class Certification
BIG BELLY HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Regina Finn Alleges
BNSF RAILWAY: Wins Summary Judgment in Guerrero Suit

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Courts Continue to Split in Applying Ruling
CAPUTO'S NEW FARM: Westfield Denies Coverage for BIPA Claims
CARMAX INC: Wage & Hour Class Suits in Calif. Still Ongoing
CCL CONTRACTS: Zepeda Seeks Unpaid Wages for Consultants
CHARTER COMMS: Leeb Can Partly Compel Discovery in TCPA Suit

CHEETAH MOBILE: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action
CHICAGO, IL: Rashford Sues over Cannabis Ordinance Violation
CHLOE USA: Hong Chuang Wang Seeks Overtime Compensation
CLEAR FINANCE: Stillwater Design Suit Moved to C.D. California
COLES COUNTY, IL: Perry et al. File Petition for Writ of Certiorari

CORE CIVIC: Faces Peter Tia Suit in Central District of California
CREATE GLORY: Faces Zhang Suit in E.D. New York
CROSS ROADS: Court Dismisses Bihari TCPA Class Suit w/o Prejudice
DANSKE BANK: ADR Prices Inflated, Plumbers Pension Fund Claims
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Feb. 19 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline

DENTSPLY SIRONA: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
DIRECT ENERGY: Shelton et al.'s TCPA Suit Moved to N.D. Ohio
E & L ROLLING: Underpays Laborers, Saldivar Suit Alleges
EL NUEVO JUANA: Rodriguez's FDCPA Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
ELECTRICITY MAINE: ZAIC Refuses Insurance Coverage for Class Suit

EMBRAER-BOEING: Judge Overturns Injunction Blocking Deal
ESTES EXPRESS: Faces Magnitsky Labor Suit in Sacramento
EXPEDIA INC: Sued over Fees & Taxes for Online Hotel Reservation
FACEBOOK INC: Luis Licea Suit Transferred to N.D. California
FFE TRANSPORTATION: Dennis Thomas Suit Moved to E.D. California

FINISAR CORP: Tenvold Balks at Merger Deal with II-VI Inc.
FINISAR CORP: Wheby Balks at Merger Deal with II-VI Inc.
FLORIDA FIRE COLLEGE: Sued Over Contaminated Drinking Water
FRESH MARKET: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Arvilla et al. Allege
GARRETT DESIGNS: Reyes Seeks Overtime Compensation

GENERAL MILLS: Paracha Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
GENERAL MILLS: Sued over Mislabeled Organic Farm Products
GENERAL MOTORS: Smith et al. Sue over Defective Injection Pumps
GRAMMER AG: 'Popping' Headrest Caused Concussions, Suit Says
GRUBHUB INC: Faces Tiffin EPS Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania

HCL TECHNOLOGIES: Can Compel Arbitration in Voll Suit
HEALTHPLUS SURGERY: Single Free Blood Test Not Enough, Kinlock Says
HEALTHPLUS SURGERY: Sued over Improper Sterilization Practices
HHLP BLUE MOON: Faces Gomez's ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
HOME CARE OF DENVER: Pena Seeks OT Wages for Clinicians

IEC US: Crego et al Seek Unpaid Wages & OT for Hourly Employees
IVARY MANAGEMENT: Underpays Applicators, Reyes Suit Alleges
JONATHAN LORD: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Fernandez Suit Alleges
L3 TECHNOLOGIES: $275K Deal in Estes FCRA Suit Has Final Approval
LEAFFILTER: Misclassifies Installers as Contractors, Young Claims

MADISON COUNTY, AL: Sheriff Faces Korb Suit in N.D. Alabama
MARRIOTT EMPLOYEES: Claims in Payne Consumer Credit Suit Narrowed
MBT FINANCIAL: Named as Defendant in Viky Suit in Michigan
MBT FINANCIAL: Pill Balks at Merger Deal with First Merchants
MDL 2741: Vacant Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MDL 2741: Walker Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2795: Filing of Sur-Reply in CenturyLink Securities Suit Okayed
MONSANTO COMPANY: Bookers Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Walker Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONTANA: Amended Bid for Class Certification in DiFrancesco Denied

MONTGOMERY & MCCRACKEN: Waleski Suit Moved to S.D. New York
MRK 1200 COLLINS: Faces Gomez's ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Removes Teiner Suit to E.D. New York
NFL: In Finkelman Suit, Tickets Sold within Meaning of Sec. 35.1
NOVA LIFESTYLE: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims

NUTRISYSTEM INC: Gusinsky Sues over Misleading Financial Report
ONTARIO: Suit Over Mental Health Program Obtains Class Status
ORLANDO, FL: OUC Faces Suit on Toxins Exposure
PANALPINA INC: Portuondo's FLSA Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
PAPA JOHN'S: Jamiah Greer Sues over "No Hire" Agreement

PFIZER INC: Al Haj Seeks to Certify Class of Robitussin Buyers
PIER 1: Continues to Defend Town of Davie Pension Plan Suit
PIER 1: Settles Wage-and-Hour Class Suits in California
PINNACLE CONDO: Fla. App. Affirms Class Certification in Haney Suit
PITT STREET: Vega Sues Unsolicited Telemarketing Telephone Calls

QUICKEN LOANS: Tucker Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
R POWER HOLDINGS: Faces Gomez ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
RITE AID: Class Certification Motion in Stafford Suit Due June 19
RITE AID: Settlement in Hall Suit Granted Final Approval
RITE AID: Wilson Class Action Suit Terminated

RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TN: Certification of 4 Classes Sought
RYB EDUCATION: Zhang Sues over Misleading Financial Report
SARAH LAWRENCE: Faces Delacruz Suit in S.D. New York
SERVICE COMPANIES: Mijares et al. Seek to Certify Supervisors Class
SEVIER COUNTY, TN: Whitlock Seeks to Certify Paramedics & EMT Class

SHASTA COUNTY, CA: Must Give Free Tampons to Inmates, Suit Demands
SHIFTPIXY INC: Unit Still Defends Ramirez Class Suit
SNAP INC: Court Denies DiBiase's Bid for Class Certification
SUNRISE SENIOR: Van Cleave Suit Moved to S.D. California
T-MOBILE USA: Underpays Salespersons, Salian et al. Suit Claim

TENARIS SA: Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
TESORO REFINING: April 4 Filing Due of Valliere Deal Prelim OK Bid
TITLEMAX: Davis et al. Suit Moved to Southern District of Alabama
TRANSITAMERICA SERVICES: Court Narrows Claims in Alvarez FCRA Suit
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Tarara Class Cert. Bid Shelved Pending Mediation

TRISTATE LOGISTICS: Samantha Sanders Seeks Overtime Pay
TSR INC: Paskowitz Class Action Suit Ongoing
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Has Deal With Drivers in Individual Arbitration
UNITED KINGDOM: Court Orders Filing of 1st Amended Epperson Suit
UNITED STATES: Dismissal of Contract Claim in Turping Suit Affirmed

UPMC JAMESON: Tackles Nursing Home Move Lawsuit
VENTURA CAPITAL: Website Not Accessible, Gomez Suit Alleges
VIRGINIA COLLEGE: Robinson Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of Alabama
WALGREEN CO: 9th Cir. Flips Enforcement of Wage & Hour Suit Deal
WASHINGTON: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Fisk Suit

WILCO LIFE: Anderson Suit Moved to Southern District of Georgia
WRIGHT BROS: Bid to Send Notice to Delivery Drivers Class Sought

                            *********

10 WASHINGTON: Sullivan Seeks OT & Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------
OLIVER SULLIVAN, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 10 WASHINGTON
AVE. FOOD INC. d/b/a SANDWICH EXPRESS, and BRIAN LEW, individually,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00245 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2019),
seeks overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants --
a Plainview, New York delicatessen and its owner and day-to-day
manager and overseer -- as a counter employee from on or about July
15, 2018 until his termination on October 14, 2018. Throughout his
employment, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff all of the wages
lawfully due to him under the FLSA and the NYLL. Specifically, the
Defendants required Plaintiff to routinely work, and Plaintiff did
in fact work, in excess of 40 hours each week, or virtually each
week, but Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff at the
statutorily-required overtime rate of one and one-half times his
straight-time rate of pay, or one and one-half times the minimum
wage rate, if greater, for any hours that he worked in a week in
excess of 40. Instead, the Defendants paid him at his straight-time
rate for all hours worked in violation of the FLSA, the NYLL, and
the NYCRR.

Additionally, the Defendants violated the NYLL by failing to
compensate Plaintiff at least at the statutorily-required minimum
wage rate for all hours worked; distribute all gratuities that
customers intended to pay to Plaintiff for his service; provide
Plaintiff with any wage statements on each payday, let alone
accurate ones; and provide Plaintiff with any wage notice at the
time of his hire, let alone an accurate one. The Defendants paid
and treated all of their non-managerial employees in the same
manner, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Caitlin Duffy, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 679-5000
          Facsimile: (212) 679-5005

ACE & W INVESTMENT: Angela Pipes Seeks to Certify Florida Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA PIPES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ACE & W INVESTMENT, LLC d/b/a MANNY'S
ORIGINAL CHOPHOUSE OF KISSIMMEE, the Defendant, Case No.
6:18-cv-01328-PGB-GJK (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:

   a. certifying a Florida Class comprised of:

      "all persons who were employed by Defendant at any time five
      years prior to the filing of this Complaint, through the
      present, and who were not paid at least the applicable
      Florida Minimum Wage for all hours worked, as required, in
      violation of Article X, Section 24 of the Florida
      Constitution";

   b. appointing Named Plaintiff as Class Representative;

   c. appointing Plaintiff's counsel and members of their law
      firm as class counsel; and

   d. allowing Plaintiff's counsel to send reasonable and adequate
      Notice to the Class at Defendants' expense.

The case is a putative class and collective action for damages for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Fla. Const. art.
X, section 24 minimum wage provisions as Defendant failed to pay
its employees the minimum wage as required under both federal law
and pursuant to Florida law.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Christopher J. Saba, Esq.
          Matthew K. Fenton
          Patrick K. Elliott
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: csaba@wfclaw.com
                  twells@wfclaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

           Melissa G. Mince, Esq.
           ANDERSON LAW GROUP
           13577 Feather Sound Drive, Suite 500
           Clearwater, FL 33762
           E-mail: mmince@floridalawpartners.com
                   eserve@floridalawpartners

ACUITY BRANDS: Bid to Dismiss Georgia Securities Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Acuity Brands said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2018, that a motion to dismiss
has been filed in the case entitled, In re Acuity Brands, Inc.
Securities Litigation.

On January 3, 2018, a shareholder filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
against the Company and certain of its officers on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's stock
between June 29, 2016 and April 3, 2017.

On February 20, 2018, a different shareholder filed a second class
action complaint in the same venue against the same parties on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's stock between October 15, 2015 and April 3, 2017.

The cases were transferred on April 30, 2018, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and
subsequently were consolidated as In re Acuity Brands, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-02140-MHC (N.D.
Ga.).

On October 5, 2018, the court appointed lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint (the "Consolidated
Complaint"), which supersedes the initial complaints. The
Consolidated Complaint is brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased the company's common stock between October 7, 2015 and
April 3, 2017 and alleges that the Company and certain of its
current officers and one former executive violated the federal
securities laws by making false or misleading statements and/or
omitting to disclose material adverse facts that (i) concealed
known trends negatively impacting sales of the Company's products
and (ii) overstated the company's ability to achieve profitable
sales growth.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified monetary
damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

Acuity Brands said, "We dispute the allegations and intend to
vigorously defend against the claims in the complaints. We have
filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.

Acuity Brands, Inc. provides lighting and building management
solutions and services for commercial, institutional, industrial,
infrastructure, and residential applications in North America and
internationally. Acuity Brands, Inc. was founded in 2001 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


AGILITY ENERGY: Conditional Class Certification Sought in "Hunter"
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as RICKEY HUNTER, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
the Plaintiff, vs. AGILITY ENERGY, INC.; and PERRY TAYLOR, TODD
HANSEN, JESSICA HANSEN, DILLION PING, and HEATHER STEWART,
individually and as officer, director, shareholder and/or principal
of AGILITY ENERGY, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-00618-TS-PMW (D. Utah), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:

   1. conditionally certifying Plaintiff's proposed collective;

   2. approving Plaintiff's proposed notice ans its distribution
      process to the putative collective members; and

   3. directing Defendants to produce computer readable file with
      the following information for all putative opt-in
      plaintiffs: names, last known mailing addresses, alternate
      addresses, all telephone numbers (work, cell, and personal),

      all known email addresses (work and personal), dates of
      birth, social security numbers, and dates of employment for
      all putative class members employed at any time during the
      three years preceding the granting of this motion to the
      present.[CC]

Plaintiff's Attorneys:

          April L. Hollingsworth, Esq.
          HOLLINGSWORTH LAW OFFICE, LLC
          1881 S 1100 E
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 415 9909
          E-mail: april@aprilhollingsworthlaw.com

               - and -

          James A. White, Esq.
          Robert R. Barravecchio, Esq.
          Alexander M. White, Esq.
          VALLI KANE & WHITE LLP
          600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7180

ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Jail Sued Over Treatment of Suicidal Inmates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Ruggiero, writing for East Bay Times, reports that a federal
class-action lawsuit was filed on Dec. 21 against Alameda County's
two jails, alleging that the suicidal inmates are striped naked,
thrown into solitary cells that don't contain anything in them
except for a hole for a toilet.

The lawsuit, filed by the law firm Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld
against Alameda County claims that the county's jail system "is
broken" especially for inmates with mental health issues, and that
these bad practices lead to death and terrible suffering.

Alameda County Sheriff's spokesman Sgt. Ray Kelly said on Dec. 21
that the department is aware of the lawsuit, and was expecting it
since the law firm has filed similar suits elsewhere.

"We're not surprised by this," Kelly said. "They've filed a series
of lawsuits throughout California."

He said the sheriff's office will work with the plaintiffs, county
and the court system. He also said that the county is in the
process of building a new mental health facility at Santa Rita
Jail.

Earlier this year, Santa Clara County settled a similar lawsuit
with an inmates rights group, which alleged brutal treatment of
prisoners, shabby medical care and excessive use of solitary
confinement. Santa Clara County paid $1.6 million in attorneys
fees, plus $200,000 a year for monitoring the county's compliance
with the remedial plan.

The lawsuit in Alameda County alleges that suicidal inmates are
stripped naked and given only a smock to cover themselves and
placed into "safety cells." These cells do not contain any
furniture, and only a hole in the ground for them to use as a
bathroom, the lawsuit says.

". . . . meaning that prisoners have to sleep and eat on the same
floor that they must also urinate and defecate on and are also
unable to wash their hands after going to the bathroom," the
lawsuit states.

The inmates are allegedly not allowed to leave these cells, and can
not take any personal items in with them, such as reading material
or even toilet paper. Although they are only supposed to be in
there for up to 72 hours, the lawsuit states inmates are kept in
there for as long as a week.

The lawsuit alleges this means that some inmates stop reporting
suicidal feelings for fear of going into these cells.

"Instead of working to ensure that prisoners with psychiatric
disorders receive necessary care and treatment, county personnel
punish these prisoners by placing them in isolation with little or
no out of cell time, access to the outside or meaningful treatment
from mental health professionals," said Ernest Galvan, Esq. --
egalvan@rbgg.com -- an attorney for the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit asks for remedies from the county that include:
stopping the use of the "safety cells," have the county declare
that these practices violate constitutional rights and give
prisoners with psychiatric disabilities access to jails
programming, including mental health care.[GN]


ALAMEDA, CA: Deprives Prisoners of Sleep, Upshaw et al. Complain
----------------------------------------------------------------
TIKISHA UPSHAW; TYREKA STEWART; and ANDREA HERNANDEZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
ALAMEDA COUNTY; ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; SHERIFF GREGORY J.
AHERN; ASSISTANT SHERIFF D. HOUGHTELLING; COMMANDER TOM MADIGAN;
CAPTAIN D. HESSELEIN; CAPTAIN TARA RUSSELL; CAPTAIN D. SKOLDKVIST;
DEPUTY WATSON; DEPUTY STINSON; DEPUTY SENSIBA; DEPUTY HENDERSON;
DEPUTY GUERRA; DEPUTY CRANDALL; DEPUTY CHANDRA; DEPUTY BURBANK; and
DOES 1 THRU 50, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-07814-JCS (N.D. Cal.,
Dec. 13, 2018) alleges that the Defendants violated the Eighth
Amendment and State standards by deliberately depriving,
preventing, interrupting and disturbing the sleep of prisoners at
Alameda County jails.

According to the complaint, in the cells, the lights are never off.
Even at night the lights are only slightly dimmed and the lighting
is bright enough to read. Outside of the cells are tier lights. The
jail schedule calls for the overhead tier lights, and the lights in
the common areas to go out at 11 p.m., and breakfast is served
between 4 and 4:30 a.m. This schedule designed by the Defendants at
Santa Rita jail prevent any prisoner from being able to have sleep
durations of more than 5.5 hours a night.

In addition, although the schedule theoretically permits a sleep
duration of up to five and a half hours; on a regular basis, and
with great frequency, sheriff deputies routinely disrupt prisoners'
limited sleep duration, often hourly, through their activities and
conduct including repeatedly shining bright white flashlights into
prisoners' eyes; banging keys and flashlights on metal doors;
forcing prisoners to wake up and acknowledge the presence of
sheriff deputies; turning on and leaving on overhead lights;
yelling and shouting; creating loud noises; operating machines;
making announcements over the public address system; and having
prisoner activities including medical appointments and medication
distribution at 3 a.m.

Alameda County is a county in the state of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yolanda Huang, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF YOLANDA HUANG
          499 14th Street, Suite 300
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 839-1200
          Facsimile: (510) 444-6698
          E-mail: yhuang.law@gmail.com

               - and -

          Dennis Cunningham, Esq.
          115A Bartlett St.
          San Francisco, CA 94110
          Telephone: (415) 285-8091
          Facsimile: (415) 285-8092
          E-mail: denniscunninghamlaw@gmail.com


AMERICAN HOTEL: Gorss Motels Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as GORSS MOTELS, INC., a
Connecticut corporation, individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, vs. AMERICAN
HOTEL REGISTER COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01011 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to certify a class of:

   "all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing
   of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of
   material advertising the commercial availability or quality of
   any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendants,

   (3) from whom Defendants did not obtain "prior express
   invitation or permission" to send fax advertisements, and (4)
   with whom Defendants did not have an established business
   relationship, and/or (5) which did not display a proper opt-out

   notice."

The Court said, "The Plaintiff hereby submits its Motion for Class
Certification pursuant to Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011) (holding plaintiffs "can move to certify the
class at the same time that they file their complaint" and "the
pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to
buy off the named plaintiffs"), overruled in part by Chapman v.
First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) (overruling
Damasco "to the extent [it] holds that a defendant's offer of full
compensation moots the litigation or otherwise ends the Article III
case or controversy" but not commenting on effect of a
"placeholder" motion if plaintiff's individual claim becomes moot
for some other reason); Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct.
663, 672 (Jan. 20, 2016) (holding “an unaccepted settlement offer
or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a
would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be
accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is
warranted").

The Defendants sent Plaintiff and others a standardized form
advertisement. The Plaintiff anticipates that the proposed class
definition will change after discovery defines the precise contours
of the class and the advertisements that were sent. The Plaintiff
requests leave to submit a brief and other evidence in support of
this motion after discovery about the class elements has been
completed.[CC]

Plaintiff's Attorneys:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          Ross M. Good, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: 847 368-1500
          Facsimile: 847 368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com
                  rgood@andersonwanca.com

AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Faces Donelson Suit in D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ameriprise Financial
Services, Inc. The case is captioned as MARK DONELSON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; MARK SACHSE; JAMES M.
CRACCHIOLO; KELLI HUNTER PETRUZILLO; NEAL MAGLAQUE; and PATRICK
HUGH O'CONNELL, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01023-HFS (W.D. Mo.,
Dec. 31, 2018). The case is assigned to District Judge Howard F.
Sachs.

Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. offers brokerage, investment
and financial advisory services. The company is based in
Minneapolis, Minnesota. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc.
operates as a subsidiary of AMPF Holding Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James F.B. Daniels, Esq.
          MCDOWELL RICE SMITH & BUCHANAN, PC
          605 West 47th Street, Suite 350
          Kansas City, MO 64112-1900
          Telephone: (816) 753-5400
          Facsimile: (816) 753-9996
          E-mail: jdaniels@mcdowellrice.com


APOGEE ENTERPRISES: Mayer Class Complaint Has Not Yet Been Served
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Apogee Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 10, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 1, 2018, that the class action
complaint filed by Murray Mayer has not been served on any named
defendant.

On November 5, 2018, Murray Mayer, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action
lawsuit against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and its
Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota.

The complaint generally alleges that, throughout the purported
class period of June 28, 2018 to September 17, 2018, the Company
and the named executive officers made materially false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
particularly with respect to the company's Architectural Glass
business segment and alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint seeks unspecified sums of damages, award of counsel
fees and costs, and equitable relief.

Apogee Enterprises said, "As of the date of filing of this Report,
this complaint has not been served on any named defendant. If and
when the complaint is served on the Company, we intend to
vigorously defend against this matter."

Apogee Enterprises, Inc. designs and develops glass and metal
products and services in the United States, Canada, and Brazil. It
operates through four segments: Architectural Framing Systems,
Architectural Glass, Architectural Services, and Large-Scale
Optical Technologies (LSO). The company was founded in 1949 and is
headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.


ARRIS INT'L: Agnes-Sampson Securities Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Louise Agnes-Sampson individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Arris International
PLC, Robert J. Stanzione, Bruce McClelland, Andrew W. Barron, J.
Timothy Bryan, James A. Chiddix, Andrew T. Heller, Jeong Kim,
Barton Y. Shigemura, Doreen A. Toben, Debora J. Wilson, and David
A. Woodle, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-12205, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta) on Jan. 14, 2019. The Northern District of Georgia Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00243-WMR to the proceeding. The
suit alleges Securities Exchange Act violation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge William M Ray, II.

The case is a class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated public shareholders of
ARRIS International plc against ARRIS and the members of the
Company's board of directors for their violations of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection
with the acquisition of ARRIS by CommScope Holding Company, Inc.

Arris International plc is a US-based telecommunications equipment
manufacturing company incorporated in England and Wales that
provides cable operators with data, video and telephony systems for
homes and businesses.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

Attorneys for Defendants:

          J. Timothy Mast, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP-ATL
          600 Peachtree St., NE
          Atlanta, GA 30308-2216
          Telephone: (404) 885-3312
          Facsimile: (404) 962-6796
          E-mail: tim.mast@troutmansanders.com

               - and -

          Mary M. Weeks, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP-ATL
          Bank of America Plaza, Suite 3000
          600 Peachtree St., NE
          Atlanta, GA 30308-2216
          Telephone: (404) 885-3000
          E-mail: mary.weeks@troutmansanders.com

ASF CONSTRUCTION: Sacasari Seeks Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------
Franklin Sacasari, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, the PLAINTIFF, vs. ASF Construction &
Excavation Corp., d/b/a ASF Construction and Andre Renha-Fernandes,
the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 7:19-cv-00268 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2019),
seeks to recover overtime premium pay, back wages, unpaid wages,
and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Sacasari's starting pay was at $14 per
hour, and was given a raise to $17 per hour in mid-2016, and a
further raise to $22 per hour in December 2016. The Plaintiff was
paid at these regular rates pf pay for all their hours worked,
regardless of the number hours they worked.  ASF Construction
failed to pay Plaintiff any overtime "bonus" for hours worked
beyond 40 in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michael Samuel, Esq.
          SAMUEL & STEIN
          38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 563 9884
          E-mail: michael@samuelandstein.com

ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE: Moody Suit Wins Conditional Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
DE'ON MOODY ET AL, the Plaintiff, vs. ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE GROCERS
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-10290-JTM-KWR (E.D. La.), the
Hon. Judge Triche Milazzo entered an order on Jan. 11, 2019:

   1. conditionally certifying Plaintiff's Complaint to proceed as
      a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
      defining the the class:

      "all individuals employed by AWG from October 7, 2014 to the

      present, who held the position of supervisor in AWG's Pearly

      River facility.” It is further ordered that Defendant shall

      provide Plaintiff in electronic form the names, last known
      addresses, e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers of
potential
      collective action plaintiffs within 14 days of the filing of
      this Order"; and

   2. directing the parties to submit within 30 days of the Order
      a joint proposed notice form that includes a proposed length

      for an opt-in period.

The case is a collective action for unpaid wages under the FLSA.
The AWG is a national food wholesaler that operates a warehouse
complex in Pearl River, Louisiana, as part of its distribution
network. The Plaintiff began working for Defendant as a selector in
2006. In this position, his job duties included loading and
unloading delivery trucks and repackaging delivery pallets. The
position entitled him to compensation at an hourly rate. He
regularly worked overtime hours and was compensated by Defendant
accordingly.[CC]

AVIS BUDGET: Fails to Safeguard Private Data, Kramer Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
STEVE KRAMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
37-2018-00067024-CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Super., Dec. 31, 2018) is a class
action against the Defendant for failing to promulgate or maintain
adequate policies and procedures to safeguard the Private Data of
consumers, including the Plaintiff and the Class members, who
rented vehicles on a short-term basis from Avis Rent a Car, Budget
Rent a Car, Zipcar, and Payless Car Rental and who paired their
smartphones or mobile devices with the vehicles' GPS technology and
automotive infotainment systems during the period from December 31,
2015, to the present.

Avis Budget Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
car and truck rentals, car sharing, and ancillary services to
businesses and consumers worldwide. The company was formerly known
as Cendant Corporation and changed its name to Avis Budget Group,
Inc. in September 2006. Avis Budget Group, Inc. was founded in 1946
and is headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          George V. Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
                  ggranade@reesellp.com

               - and -

          David A. Carroll, Esq.
          Anthony J. DiRaimondo, Esq.
          Robert E. Opdyke, Esq.
          RICE REUTHER SULLIVAN & CARROLL, LLP
          3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1200
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Telephone: (702) 732-9099
          Facsimile: (702) 732-7110
          E-mail: dcarroll@rrsc-law.com
                  adiraimondo@rrsc-law.com
                  ropdyke@rrsc-law.com


AZZ INC: Continues to Defend Mullins Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------
AZZ Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 8, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended November 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend
itself against a putative class action suit entitled, Logan Mullins
v. AZZ, Inc., et al.

On January 11, 2018, Logan Mullins, acting on behalf of himself and
a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's securities between April 22, 2015 and January 8, 2018,
filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas against the Company and two of its
executive officers, Thomas E. Ferguson and Paul W. Fehlman. Logan
Mullins v. AZZ, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-00025-Y.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's SEC
filings contained statements that were rendered materially false
and misleading by the Company's alleged failure to properly
recognize revenue related to certain contracts in its Energy
Segment in purported violation of (1) Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 and (2) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The plaintiffs seek an award of compensatory and punitive damages,
interests, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company denies the allegations and believes it has strong
defenses to vigorously contest them. The Company cannot predict the
outcome of this action nor when it will be resolved. If the
plaintiffs were to prevail in this matter, the Company could be
liable for damages, which could potentially be material and could
adversely affect its financial condition or results of operations.

AZZ Inc. provides galvanizing and metal coating services, welding
solutions, specialty electrical equipment, and highly engineered
services to the power generation, transmission, distribution,
refining, and industrial markets. The company operates through two
segments, Energy Segment and Metal Coatings. AZZ Inc. was founded
in 1956 and is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas.


B&E KARING: Arambula FLSA Suit Moved to District of New Mexico
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Eustolia Arambula, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. B&E Karing Hands, Inc. also
known as: Karing Hands, Inc.; and Emma Sanchez also known as: Irma
Sanchez, the Defendants, Case No. 18cv02662, was removed from the
Third Judicial District Court to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico (Las Cruces) on Jan. 10, 2019.  The District
of New Mexico Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00020-GJF-SMV
to the proceeding.  The suit alleges Fair Labor Standards Act. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Magistrate Judge Gregory J.
Fouratt.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Christopher Charles Benoit, Esq.
          TEXAS RIO GRANDE LEGAL AID, INC.
          1331 Texas Avenue
          El Paso, TX 79901
          Telephone: (915) 585-5118
          Facsimile: (915) 544-3789
          E-mail: chris@coylefirm.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Raul A. Carrillo, Jr., Esq.
          Steven E. Jones, Esq.
          CARRILLO LAW FIRM PC
          P.O. Box 457
          Las Cruces, NM 88004
          Telephone: (575) 647-3200
          Facsimile: (575) 647-1463
          E-mail: raul@carrillolaw.org
                  sjones@carrillolaw.org

BCFS EDUCATION: Perez Sues over Time Shaving Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA PEREZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BCFS EDUCATION SERVICES, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00027 (W.D. Tex., Jan., 11, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has violated the FLSA by
failing to pay its employees in accordance with the guarantees and
protections of the FLSA. The Defendant has failed and refused to
pay its hourly employees at time-and-one-half their regular rates
of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours within a workweek
by purposefully and intentionally reducing the hours worked by
these employees (time shaving). Because there are other putative
plaintiffs who are similarly situated to the Plaintiff with regard
to the work performed and the Defendant's compensation policies.

The Defendant has also violated Texas state law by receiving and
accepting valuable services from Plaintiff and Class Members in the
form of hours worked under 40 in a week. The Defendant's time
shaving scheme operated to deprive Plaintiff and Class Members of
wages they were due for work performed under 40 hours per week.
This obligation to pay employees for valuable services rendered for
work under 40 hours in a week derives not from the FLSA, but from
the common law of Texas, the lawsuit says.

BCFS is a global system of health and human services non-profit
organizations with locations and programs throughout the U.S. as
well as Eastern Europe, Latin America, Southeast Asia, and
Africa.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
          MORELAND VERRETT, P.C.
          The Commissioners House at Heritage Square
          2901 Bee Cave Road, Box L
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: doug@morelandlaw.com

BELLMORE GARDENS: Underpays Landscapers, Valle Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
JAIME DAVID VALLE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BELLMORE GARDENS, INC. d/b/a
ISLAND GREENERY; and GENE JUDD, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00055-AKT (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 3, 2019) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, interest, maximum
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Valle was employed by the Defendants as landscaper.

Bellmore Gardens, Inc. d/b/a Island Greenery is a corporation
organized under the laws of the State of New York. The company
provides landscaping services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591


BETTERNOI, LLC: Pilarski Suit Wins Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
Peter Pilarski, the Plaintiff, vs. BetterNOI, LLC, et al., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08659 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
Rebecca R. Pallmeyer entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion
for class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on January 11,
2019, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted.
The Plaintiff is directed promptly to submit a proposed order and
proposed form of class notice. Status hearing is set for March 19,
2019 at 9:00 a.m.  The Parties are encouraged to discuss
settlement.[CC]

BIG BELLY HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Regina Finn Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
REGINA FINN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BIG BELLY HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC; INDUSTRY
SOCIAL, LLC; and ERIC DOUGLAS, Defendants, Case No.
0:18-cv-63174-RLR (S.D. Fla., Dec. 31, 2018) is an action against
the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Fin was employed by the Defendants as bartender,
manager and marketer.

Big Belly Hospitality Group, LLC is engaged in the restaurant
business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth Olivia Hueber, Esq.
          MICHAEL L. FEINSTEIN, PA
          200 SE 18th Court
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 767-9662
          Facsimile: (954) 764-4502
          E-mail: Elizabeth@feinsteinlaw.net


BNSF RAILWAY: Wins Summary Judgment in Guerrero Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned RITA GUERRERO, Individually
and as the Special Administrator of the Estate of CELSO N.
GUERRERO, the Plaintiff, vs. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01044-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Michael
M. Mihm entered an order on Jan. 3, 2018, granting Defendant's
motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiff argues that Celso's "under pay" status makes the
commuter rule inapposite. The Defendant disputes that status.
Regardless of who is correct on this point, the issue is not
dispositive. See Parker v. Long Island R.R., 425 F. 2d 1013, 1015
(2d Cir. 1970) (noting that if an employee is compensated for time
spent traveling home, that fact is one factor that may be
considered in the scope of employment analysis).  The court held
that, "even assuming Celso was in under pay status, the Plaintiff
points to no authority -- and the Court is unaware of any --
suggesting that the CBA at issue should take precedence over the
federal judiciary's well-established interpretation of FELA which
resulted in the commuter rule. The Court is required to apply the
common law principles determined by federal courts in deciding
whether Celso was acting within the scope of his employment. Wilson
v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, & Pacific R. Co., 841 F. 2d 1347,
1352 (7th Cir. 1988). The Plaintiff's arguments to the contrary are
unavailing. Moreover, although in her pleadings she consistently
characterizes Celso's decision to work on Sunday, February 1, 2015
as something he was coerced into doing, she admits that Burwell
"requested" his presence, that Celso wanted the overtime, and that
he could have declined to take it. The undisputed facts of this
case necessitate granting summary judgment in favor of the
Defendant on this issue."[CC]

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Courts Continue to Split in Applying Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JDSUPRA reports that Courts are still going both ways on applying
Bristol-Myers Squibb to class actions. Two recent decisions
highlight this split.

The first -- and we'll always start with the good news -- comes out
of the District of Massachusetts in Roy v. FedEx Ground Package
System, Inc. There, the court held that Bristol-Myers Squibb
applies to collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and limited opt-in notices to drivers who worked in the
forum state. In doing so, the court rejected the idea that FLSA
actions are materially different from the mass tort action in
Bristol-Myers Squibb. Although the court hedged a bit on whether
Bristol-Myer would apply in every context, it quoted Chavez v.
Church & Dwight Co. for the proposition that "[n]othing in
Bristol-Myers suggests that its basic holding is inapplicable to
class actions."

Apart from its narrow (but important) application in the FLSA
context, Roy aligns with the view that Bristol-Myers Squibb does
not announce a limited rule, but rather defines what due process
means in the context of personal jurisdiction. It joins these other
2018 decisions:

   -- Practice Management Support Services, Inc. v. Cirque du
Soleil, Inc., 301 F. Supp. 3d 840 (N.D. Ill. 2018) ("It not clear
how Practice Management can distinguish the Supreme Court's basic
holding in Bristol–Myers simply because this is a class action."

   -- Mussat v. IQVIA, Inc., 2018 WL 5311903 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 26,
2018) ("Whether it be an individual, mass, or class action, the
defendant's rights should remain constant.")

But not all courts are in agreement. In Jones v. Depuy Synthes
Products, Inc., one judge in the Northern District of Alabama
declined to apply Bristol-Myers Squibb to a class action at the
motion-to-strike stage. While the court in Jones disagreed with
many of the arguments class-action plaintiffs have used to avoid
Bristol-Myers Squibb (such as the assertion that Bristol-Myers
Squibb does not apply to federal courts sitting in diversity), it
ultimately concluded that, at least at the early stage of the case,
Rule 23 provided adequate procedural safeguards for defendants' due
process rights.

Jones joins with two other cases refusing to apply Bristol-Myers
Squibb in the class context:

   -- Hospital Auth. of Metro. Gov't of Nashville v. Momenta
Pharms., Inc., 2018 WL 6378457 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 5, 2018)

   -- Dennis v. IDT Corp., 2018 WL 5631102 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 18,
2018)

From these cases, we see a new trend emerging: Many lower courts
are taking a "wait and see" approach in addressing the
applicability of Bristol-Myers Squibb. That approach was followed
in Jones and also in In re Samsung Galaxy Smartphone Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation, where the court dismissed one
plaintiff's claims but also observed, "given that the law is still
evolving in this area, the Court is willing to consider any
developments that take place during the pendency of the stay [the
court was ordering]." Thus, while defendants can and should
continue to make early attacks on overbroad, multi-state putative
classes, they should also recognize that courts may be more willing
to apply Bristol-Myers Squibb to narrow the class at the class
certification stage, rather than on the pleadings at the outset.
Until the courts of appeal or the U.S. Supreme Court settle this
issue, defendants should definitely continue to assert and preserve
personal jurisdiction arguments, even if district courts defer
consideration of those arguments at the pleading stage.

In the meantime, the battle over applying Bristol-Myers Squibb will
shift to the courts of appeal, where we are watching for the first
decisions to be handed down. Molock v. Whole Foods Market,
currently on interlocutory appeal in the D.C. Circuit, is a likely
early candidate. We continue to monitor these developments closely.
[GN]


CAPUTO'S NEW FARM: Westfield Denies Coverage for BIPA Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY, the Plaintiff, vs. CAPUTO'S NEW FARM
PRODUCE, INC., d/b/a CAPUTO'S FRESH MARKETS, and EVAN KRAUSE, on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, the
Defendants, Case No. 2019CH00232 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Jan. 8, 2019),
seeks a declaration that Westfield owes no duty to defend or
indemnify Caputo's under a policy of insurance Westfield issued to
it, with respect to a class action lawsuit filed by Mr. Krause
alleging that Caputo's violated the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1 by unlawfully storing his and other
employees' biometric data, including fingerprints and handprints.

On September 14, 2018, Mr. Krause sued his employer in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, Cause No. 2018 CH 11660, on behalf
of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals, naming
Caputo's and ADP LLC as defendants.  The complaint alleges that Mr.
Krause worked as the Maintenance Director for all Caputo's
locations from May of 2010 until September 4, 2018, and that
Caputo's requires employees, including Mr. Krause, to scan their
fingerprints into a database, which is then used as a means of
authentication of employees as part of Caputo's time tracking
system. Caputo's also allegedly failed to properly inform its
employees of the purpose and length of time for which their
fingerprints were being stored, in violation of BIPA.

Westfield is an insurance company incorporated under the laws of
the State of Ohio.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Westfield Insurance Company:

          David S. Osborne, Esq.
          Lauren E. Rafferty, Esq.
          LINDSAY, PICKETT & POSTEL, LLC
          10 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1301
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 800-6025
          Facsimile: (312) 629-1404
          E-mail: dosbome@lpplawfirm.com
                  lrafferty@lpplawfirm.com

CARMAX INC: Wage & Hour Class Suits in Calif. Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
CarMax, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended November 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend five wage-and-hour class action lawsuits in California.

CarMax entities are defendants in five proceedings asserting wage
and hour claims with respect to CarMax sales consultants and
non-exempt employees in California. The asserted claims include
failure to pay minimum wage, provide meal periods and rest breaks,
pay statutory/contractual wages, reimburse for work-related
expenses and provide accurate itemized wage statements; unfair
competition; and Private Attorney General Act claims.

On September 4, 2015, Craig Weiss et al., v. CarMax Auto
Superstores California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West
Coast, Inc., a putative class action, was filed in the Superior
Court of California, County of Placer. The Weiss lawsuit seeks
civil penalties, fines, cost of suit, and the recovery of
attorneys' fees.

On June 29, 2016, Ryan Gomez et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a
putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California, Los Angeles. The Gomez lawsuit seeks declaratory
relief, unspecified damages, restitution, statutory penalties,
interest, cost and attorneys' fees.

On September 7, 2016, James Rowland v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a
putative class action, was filed in the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. The Rowland
lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, restitution, statutory
penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees.  

On October 31, 2017, Joshua Sabanovich v. CarMax Superstores
California, LLC et. al., a putative class action, was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus. The Sabanovich
lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, restitution, statutory
penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees.

On November 21, 2018, Derek Mcelhannon et al v. CarMax Auto
Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast,
Inc., a putative class action, was filed in Superior Court of
California, County of Alameda. The Mcelhannon lawsuit seeks
unspecified damages, restitution, statutory and/or civil penalties,
interest, cost and attorneys' fees.  

The company was unable to make a reasonable estimate of the amount
or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in
these matters.

CarMax, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retailer of
used vehicles in the United States. The company operates in two
segments, CarMax Sales Operations and CarMax Auto Finance. CarMax,
Inc. was founded in 1993 and is based in Richmond, Virginia.


CCL CONTRACTS: Zepeda Seeks Unpaid Wages for Consultants
--------------------------------------------------------
EMILIO ZEPEDA, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. CCL CONTRACTS CONSULTANCY, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 4:19-cv-00073 (S.D. Tex., Jan, 9, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, CCL staffs out workers to its clients.
But neither CCL (nor its clients) insure these workers are paid in
accordance with the FLSA. Instead, CCL (and its clients) suffers or
permits these workers to work more than 40 hours in a week without
paying them overtime. CCL owes these workers, including Emilio
Zepeda, unpaid overtime for every hour they have worked in excess
of 40.

Over the past three years, CCL has employed many Consultants like
Zepeda who received straight time for all hours worked. CCL paid
its Consultants the same hourly rate for the all the hours they
worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek. CCL paid its
Consultants according to the same "straight time" for all hours
worked policy that it paid Zepeda. Because they were subject to the
same illegal pay practice, the Consultants are similarly situated
to Zepeda, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

CHARTER COMMS: Leeb Can Partly Compel Discovery in TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronnie L. White of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery in the case,
GREG LEEB, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., d/b/a SPECTRUM,
Defendant, Case No. 4:17CV2780 RLW (E.D. Mo.).

Leeb filed the putative class action complaint against Charter for
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").  He claims that Charter caused autodialed and prerecorded
voice calls to be made to the cell phones of the Plaintiff and
other consumers without the prior express consent of the called
party.

Specific to the Plaintiff, he alleges that Charter called him
several times in an attempt to collect amounts past due on an
account in another person's name, despite the Plaintiff's lack of
consent, requests by the Plaintiff to stop calling his number, and
wrong number notifications logged into Charter's system.  He
further alleges that some calls played a prerecorded message, while
others left an automated telephone message.  According to the
Plaintiff, Charter used an automatic telephone dialing system under
the TCPA to call him and the putative class members.  The Amended
Complaint alleges violations of the TCPA for artificial/prerecorded
voice calls (Count I) and autodialer calls (Count II).

With respect to the putative class, the Plaintiff seeks to certify
a class consisting of (a) all persons in the United States whose
cellular telephone number, (b) on or after Nov. 28, 2013, (c)
Charter or someone on its behalf called in connection with debt
collection using (1) an unattended message, (2) TCN, or (3)
LiveVox, (d) where Charter or any of its vendor's records show data
indicating that the recipient was a non-customer, third party,
wrong number, or asked for calls to stop.

The Plaintiff claims that common questions exist with respect to
the class such as whether the calls were made using an autodialer;
whether the calls were made using a prerecorded message; and
whether Charter had prior express consent to call the cell phone
numbers.

The Court issued a Case Management Order ("CMO") in the case on May
24, 2018.  On July 27, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel
Discovery seeking Interrogatory responses and responses to Requests
for Production of documents. The Plaintiff seeks an answer to
Interrogatory No. 1, and responses to Requests for Production
("RFP") Nos. 1-3, 7-9, and 19.  Defendant Charter opposes the
motion, arguing that the Plaintiff seeks discovery on issues going
well beyond the issues and time period framed by the Complaint.

With respect to RFP No. 19, the Plaintiff seeks all communications
and documents related to complaints of any kind (e.g., consumer,
regulatory, pre-litigation, litigation), concerning outbound
telephone communications to persons who allegedly did not want or
consent to receive such calls, and any associated investigation or
action taken by you (or others on your behalf) with regard to
such.

Judge White finds that such information could be relevant and
proportional to the needs of the case with respect to the
Plaintiff's allegations that Charter willfully or knowingly
violated the TCPA in placing calls to persons who did not want or
consent to receive such calls regarding debt collection.  However,
the request as written asks for complaints of any kind concerning
outbound telephone communications to persons who allegedly did not
want or consent to receive such calls.  As stated by Charter, the
request relates to a number of potential fact patterns, such as
different types of calls and methods of calling not relevant to the
scope of the allegations in the case.  Thus, the Judge will deny
the Plaintiff's motion to compel responses to RFP No. 19.

The Plaintiff requests production of "all communications and other
documents pertaining to TCPA, without regard to time;" "all
documents relating to efforts to comply with the TCPA;" and "all
deposition transcripts, declarations, interrogatory responses, and
any other sworn or unsworn materials relating to the TCPA."  He
makes no attempt to further define the documents requested, nor
does he limit the type or form of communication under the TCPA.
Similar to RFP No. 19, the Judge finds that RFPs Nos. 7, 8, and 9
are overly broad and are not limited to the class allegations
contained in the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.  Therefore, he will
deny this request.

The Plaintiff also seeks all documents, records, data, recordings
and other materials relating to him or his number, as well as
screenshots of the user interface for any contact management system
or software that contains data relating to him or his number.   The
Judge holds that Charter correctly notes that Zitko testified there
were no freeform notes related to the Plaintiff's telephone number.
Thus, the Plaintiff's motion with respect to RFP Nos. 1 and 3 will
be denied.


Finally, the Plaintiff has narrowed Interrogatory No. 1 to request
that Charter produce account and call records for accounts where
there were automated calls to phone numbers logged as wrong number
before the call was made.  The Judge finds that the production of
the names and numbers of the potential class members is relevant to
ascertaining the potential class members as set forth in the
Amended Complaint.  To the extent that privacy concerns are at
issue, including those under the Cable Privacy Act ("CPA"), the
Judge notes that a protective order has been entered in the case.
Further, the Plaintiff has stated his willingness to accept
anonymized information.  

The Judge will grant the Plaintiff's motion to compel with respect
to Interrogatory No. 1 and RFT No. 2 only as to the names and cell
phone numbers of the putative class members and as narrowed by the
Plaintiff and as set forth.  The parties will meet and confer to
determine whether additional protective measures are required and
how such privacy protection can be achieved.

Accordingly, Judge White granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery.  He denied the Plaintiff's
Motion to Compel Requests for Production Nos. 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, and
19.  He granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel responses to
Interrogatory No. 1 and Request for Production No. 2 is granted as
to the narrowed Interrogatory set forth in the Plaintiff's reply
and the Memorandum and Order, with any personal identifying
information to be limited to names and cell phone numbers of
recipients.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 9, 2019 Memorandum and Order is
available at https://is.gd/3xNaCr from Leagle.com.

Greg Leeb, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Alexander H. Burke --
aburke@burkelawllc.com -- BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC & Nathan D.
Sturycz -- nathan@sturyczlaw.com -- STURYCZ LAW GROUP.

Charter Communications, Inc., doing business as Spectrum,
Defendant, represented by Matthew D. Guletz --
mguletz@thompsoncoburn.com -- THOMPSON COBURN, LLP.


CHEETAH MOBILE: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court and further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Cheetah Mobile Inc. (NYSE: CMCM)
Class Period: April 26, 2017 - November 27, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 29, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cheetah-mobile-inc-loss-form?wire=3

Allegations: Cheetah Mobile Inc. made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Cheetah
Mobile's apps had undisclosed imbedded features which tracked when
users downloaded new apps; (2) Cheetah Mobile used this data to
inappropriately claim credit for having caused the downloads; (3)
the foregoing features, when discovered, would foreseeably subject
Cheetah Mobile's apps to removal from the Google Play store; (4)
accordingly, Cheetah Mobile's revenues during the relevant period
were in part the product of improper conduct and thus
unsustainable; and (5) as a result, Cheetah Mobile's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

To learn more about the Cheetah Mobile Inc. class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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


CHICAGO, IL: Rashford Sues over Cannabis Ordinance Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Renae Rashford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. City of Chicago, the Defendant, Case
No. 2019CH00390 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. Jan. 11, 2019), alleges
that Defendant violated the Cannabis Ordinance.

The Plaintiff brings this suit against the City of Chicago for its
practice of fining individuals for violations of Municipal Code of
Chicago Section 7-24-099 (the Cannabis Ordinance). The Act states
that "any person who violates this section with respect to
[knowingly possessing] more than 10 grams but not more than 40
grams of any substance containing cannabis is guilty of a class B
misdemeanor". Moreover, the Ordinance states that "any person who
violates this section shall be subject to a fine of not less than
$250.00 nor more than $500.00 for the first offense, and $500 for
the second and each subsequent violation occurring within a period
of 30 days".

Consequently, Chicago residents who violate the Ordinance are
subject to a fine of not less than $250 even though the State Act
provides that an offender is subject to a fine of not more than
$100. The Plaintiff was issued a ticket for possessing less than 10
grams of marijuana in 2017. The Plaintiff was fined $250 and paid
the ticket in 2017.

As a result, the City has collected fines and penalties from
Plaintiff and class members to which it is not entitled. The City
knowingly appreciated and accepted this benefit, which has resulted
and continues to result in an inequity to Plaintiff and members of
the class. The City has unjustly received a benefit belonging to
Plaintiff and class members, who have therefore suffered a
commensurate detriment constituting money damages. The City's
retention of this benefit violates the fundamental principles of
justice, equity and good conscience, the lawsuit says.

Chicago, on Lake Michigan in Illinois, is among the largest cities
in the U.S. Famed for its bold architecture, it has a skyline
punctuated by skyscrapers such as the iconic John Hancock
Center.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Steven R. Smith, Esq.
          5514 N. Wayne Ave.
          Chicago, IL 60640
          Telephone: (312) 622-5545

               - and -

          Nathaniel A. Frenkel, Esq.
          659 W. Randolph St.
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Telephone: 847 612 7632

CHLOE USA: Hong Chuang Wang Seeks Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------
Hong Chuang Wang, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CHLOE USA INC d/b/a MIYABI
ASIAN BISTRO, Shangzhou Chen, and "John Doe", the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00281 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 10, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law, arising from the Defendants' various willful and
unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL
by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their
employees, including Plaintiffs, compensation for all hours worked
and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff.

          Xiaoxi Liu, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
          136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: 718-353-8588
          E-mail: xliu@hanglaw.com

CLEAR FINANCE: Stillwater Design Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Stillwater Design, Inc., a California corporation, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
vs. Clear Finance Technology Corporation, a Canadian corporation,
and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
18STCV04227, has been removed from the Los Angeles County Superior
Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on Jan. 11, 2019. The
Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-00251 to the proceeding. The suit demands $5,000,000 as a
relief for fraud-related violation.

Clear Finance Technology Corp provides financial and banking
services which includes managing cash flow, tracking taxes,
accessing credit, and generating income for freelancers and
independent professionals. The company is based in Toronto,
Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for Clear Finance Technology Corporation:

          Laura Alexandra Stoll, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          601 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90046
          Telephone: (213) 426-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 623-1673
          E-mail: lstoll@goodwinlaw.com

COLES COUNTY, IL: Perry et al. File Petition for Writ of Certiorari
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Yvonne Juris, writing for Law360, reported that a class of Illinois
property owners has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a
decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
barring a suit that alleges an Illinois county disproportionately
raised taxes on industrial properties.

The Supreme Court case, Robbie Perry, et al., Petitioners vs. Coles
County, Illinois, the Respondent, Case No. 18-903 (U.S.), was filed
on Jan. 11, 2019, from the Seventh Circuit decision in Case No.
17-3615.  A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit decision is
available at https://is.gd/6Ommdz

The Seventh Circuit upheld a lower court order dismissing Perry et
al.'s lawsuit, which alleges violation of the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as a result of Coles County
placing a disproportionate tax on commercial and industrial
properties in Mattoon Township.  The Seventh Circuit analyzed
plaintiffs' claim solely on comity principles and held that the
district court appropriately abstained from hearing the action.

A Petition for writ of certiorari has been filed.  Coles County's
response is due February 11, 2019.

The petitioners seek clarification from the U.S. Supreme Court on
when and how the exception to the comity doctrine for inadequate
and incomplete state court remedies applies. The Court has stated
that, under the comity doctrine, local taxpayers seeking relief on
Equal Protection Clause property tax claims under 42 U.S.C. section
1983 should be remitted to their state court remedies only "if
their federal rights will not thereby be lost." Fair Assessment,
454 U.S. at 116 n.8. However, beyond this statement, there is no
U.S. Supreme Court holding applying the exception to the comity
doctrine on the grounds that the state court remedies in a
particular case are legally insufficient. The Court should clarify
when and how the exception to the comity doctrine for inadequate
and incomplete state court remedies is applied in a particular
case. Additionally, there is an opportunity for the Court, in light
of the pending Knick case, to reconsider whether the rules
delineating the boundaries between the federal courts and the state
courts should be the same for local eminent domain claimants as for
local property taxpayers. The petitioners believe they should be,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Petitioners:

          Erick G. Kaardal, Esq.
          Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson
          P.A. 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 3100
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          E-mail: kaardal@mklaw.com

CORE CIVIC: Faces Peter Tia Suit in Central District of California
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Core Civic. The case
is captioned as PETER R. TIA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CORE CIVIC also known as:
CCA Inc.; HCCF INMATE alias BROKE LEG; Hawaii Prisoner JOHN KNIGHT;
HCCF LT. BAKER in individual capacity; HCCF LT. BAKER in official
capacity; LT. BAKER HCF in Hawaii employee retired in individual
capacity; LT. BAKER HCF in Hawaii employee retired in official
capacity; WTDF Employee MARK STAGGS in individual capacity; and
WTDF Employee MARK STAGGS in official capacity, Defendants, Case
No. 2:18-cv-10788-ODW-AS (C.D. Cal., Dec. 31, 2018). The case is
assigned to Judge Otis D. Wright, II and referred to Magistrate
Judge Alka Sagar.

CCA Inc. offers project management and financial consulting
services to government agencies and private companies. The company
was founded in 1984 and is based in Seattle, Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CREATE GLORY: Faces Zhang Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Create Glory, Inc.
The case is captioned as YU ZHANG, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CREATE GLORY, INC.
doing business as: Akio Sushi; and DINGWANG CHEN, Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-07446-MKB-CLP (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 31, 2018). The case is
assigned to Judge Margo K. Brodie and referred to Magistrate Judge
Cheryl L. Pollak.

Create Glory, Inc., doing business as Akio Sushi, owns and operates
a restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324
          Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
          E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com


CROSS ROADS: Court Dismisses Bihari TCPA Class Suit w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James V. Selna of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California dismissed with prejudice the case, PAUL
BIHARI, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CROSS ROADS OF THE WEST GUN SHOW,
Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-00718-JVS-E (C.D. Cal.), as to named
Plaintiff Bihari's individual claims, and without prejudice as to
the putative class action claims alleged by Plaintiff Bihari.

Each Party will bear his/its own attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 9, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/5TiikY from Leagle.com.

Paul Bihari, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gene J. Stonebarger,
Stonebarger Law, APC, Prescott Littlefield --
pwl@kearneylittlefield.com -- Kearney Littlefield LLP, Thomas A.
Kearney -- tak@kearneylittlefield.com -- Kearney Littlefield LLP &
Richard D. Lambert, Stonebarger Law APC.

Cross Roads of the West Gun Show, Defendant, represented by David
George Hagopian -- dhagopian@cdflitigation.com -- Carothers DiSante
and Freudenberger LLP & Jeffrey L. Sikkema --
jsikkema@cdflitigation.com -- Carothers DiSante and Freudenberger
LLP.


DANSKE BANK: ADR Prices Inflated, Plumbers Pension Fund Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
PLUMBERS & STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 773 PENSION FUND, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DANSKE
BANK A/S, THOMAS F. BORGEN, HENRIK RAMLAU-HANSEN, JACOB
AARUP-ANDERSEN and OLE ANDERSEN, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00235 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2019), seeks to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers
of Danske Bank American Depositary Receipts between January 9, 2014
and October 23, 2018, inclusive.  During the Class Period, the
Company was the largest financial institution in Denmark. It
conducted a large volume of financial business, including
transactions in the fields of asset management, investment,
pensions, mortgage finance, insurance, and real estate brokerage
and leasing, including with customers who reside or are domiciled
outside Denmark.

Between at least 2012 and March 2016, due to its lax controls and
its new Chief Executive Officer's drive to report outsized profits
at all costs, Danske Bank was facilitating money laundering through
its Estonian bank branch. All the while, its senior executives were
ignoring the outcry of Estonian financial regulators who stormed
its Estonian Branch in 2014 and sent Danske Bank a scathing
340-page report that listed a multitude of violations -- which the
Company did not even bother to translate for three years. Though a
whistleblower brought the illegal Estonian money laundering to the
attention of the Company's senior executives in December 2013, and
Danish financial regulators had been investigating the misconduct
since at least 2014, Danske Bank was intentionally less than
forthcoming with the Danish financial regulators investigating its
misconduct and throughout the Class Period was actively concealing
the extent and severity of its culpability from investors.

Meanwhile, with the impact that the Company's illicit business
practices had had on its previously reported financial results and
the full extent of its impending regulatory culpability concealed,
Danske Bank ADRs traded at artificially inflated prices, as the
Company sought and obtained several corporate debt rating increases
to facilitate its raising of hundreds of millions of dollars by
issuing and selling bonds in the European bond markets. The
Company's misconduct is now being investigated by regulators in
five countries -- including by the U.S. SEC, Treasury Department
and Department of Justice -- and Danske Bank now faces billions of
dollars in potential fines and penalties. Its own recently
published internal review -- not started until September 2017 --
found that the scandal was much larger than initially anticipated
and had been facilitated by a lack of internal controls in its
operations, ultimately demonstrating that more than $230 billion
had flowed from Russia and other countries through Danske Bank's
tiny Estonian branch -- more than all the corporate profits in
Russia in a year. As the market learned the full extent of the
Company's prior reliance on illicit profits and its resulting
exposure to regulatory action between September 2017 and October
23, 2018, the market price of Danske Bank ADRs plummeted, erasing
more than $2.54 billion in market capitalization.

Danske Bank A/S is a Danish bank. It was founded October 5, 1871 as
Den Danske Landmandsbank. Headquartered in Copenhagen, it is the
largest bank in Denmark and a major retail bank in the northern
European region with more than five million retail customers.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mmary K. Blasy, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: 631 367-7100
          Facsimile: 631 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

DENTSPLY SIRONA: Feb. 19 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until February 19, 2019 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Dentsply
Sirona, Inc. (NasdaqGS: XRAY), if they purchased the Company's
shares between February 20, 2014 and August 7, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  This action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

                          What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Dentsply and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost
to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-xray/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by February 19, 2019.

                          About the Lawsuit

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

On August 7, 2018, the Company revealed a wide range of negative
information to investors, including that it was the subject of an
investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission; that three
of its top executives were stepping down; it was lowering its
guidance, and recording a significant goodwill impairment charge.

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

The case is Boynton Beach General Employees' Pension Plan v.
Dentsply Sirona, Inc. et al, 18-cv-07253.

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


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
disclosed the filing of a class action lawsuit against Dentsply
Sirona, Inc. ("Dentsply" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: XRAY ) for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between February 20,
2014 and August 7, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before February 19, 2019.

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

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. Dentsply conspired with its top
distributors in a scheme to artificially increase the cost of the
Company's products while suppressing competitors at the same time.
The Company also engaged in a "channel-stuffing" effort which
distorted its sales numbers, financial reports, and future
guidance. These activities resulted in an SEC investigation, the
resignation of three top executives, and the lowering of its
guidance. 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 Dentsply, investors
suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20181221005558/en/

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


DIRECT ENERGY: Shelton et al.'s TCPA Suit Moved to N.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
A case, James Everett Shelton and Jon Frey on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Kaa Energy, Inc.
and Direct Energy, LP, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04375, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio (Cleveland) on Jan. 11, 2019. The Northern District of Ohio
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00081-JG to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge James S. Gwin. The suit
alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act/Junk Fax
Prevention Act.

Direct Energy is a North American retailer of energy and energy
services. The company was founded in 1986 and has more than four
million customers in Canada and the United States. Direct Energy is
a subsidiary of UK-based utility company Centrica.[BN]

Attorneys for James Everett Shelton:

          Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
          Jonathan P. Misny, Esq.
          MURRAY, MURPHY, MOUL & BASIL
          1114 Dublin Road
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 488-0400
          Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
          E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com
                  misny@mmmb.com

               - and -

          Clayton S. Morrow, Esq.
          MORROW & ARTIM, P.C.
          304 Ross St., 7th Fl.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-1250

               - and -

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          BRODERICK PARONICH
          99 High Street, Ste. 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (508) 221-1510
          Facsimile: (617) 830-0327
          E-mail: anthony@broderick-law.com

Attorneys for Direct Energy, LP:

          Michael D. Matthews, Jr., Esq.
          William B. Thomas, Esq.
          MCDOWELL HEATHERINGTON
          1001 Fannin Street, Ste. 2700
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 337-5580
          Facsimile: (713) 337-8850
          E-mail: matt.matthews@mhllp.com
                  william.thomas@mhllp.com

               - and -

          Steven M. Lucks, Esq.
          FISHKIN LUCKS LLP
          The Legal Center
          One Riverfront Plaza, Suite 410
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 536-2800

E & L ROLLING: Underpays Laborers, Saldivar Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
MAXIMO SALDIVAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. E & L ROLLING GATES CORP.; MARIA MORALES;
and PEDRO MORALES, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00054 (E.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 3, 2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay
the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Saldivar was employed by the Defendants as laborer.

E & L Rolling Gates Corp. is a corporation organized under the laws
of the State of New York. The Company is engaged in the business of
installing doors and windows. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591


EL NUEVO JUANA: Rodriguez's FDCPA Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Barbara C. Rodriguez, and other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. El Nuevo Juana Cafe, Inc., Juana
Angeles, and Pablo Almonte, the Defendants, Case No.
CACE-18-027682, was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward
County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale) on Jan. 11, 2019. The Southern
District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
0:19-cv-60114-MGC. The suit alleges Fair Labor Standards Act
violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Marcia G.
Cooke.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Carlos D. Serrano, Esq.
          Nathaly Saavedra, Esq.
          Peter Michael Hoogerwoerd, Esq.
          REMER, GEORGES-PIERRE PLLC
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          E-mail: cs@rgpattorneys.com
                  nl@rgpattorneys.com
                  pmh@rgpattorneys.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Miguel Angel Morel, Esq.
          Littler Mendelson, PC
          333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 400-7500
          Facsimile: (305) 602-2552
          E-mail: MAMorel@littler.com

ELECTRICITY MAINE: ZAIC Refuses Insurance Coverage for Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York corporation with its
principal place of business in Schaumburg, Illinois, for itself and
as successor by merger to Assurance Company of America, the
Plaintiff, vs. ELECTRICITY MAINE LLC, a Maine limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Auburn, Maine;
EMILE CLAVET, a citizen of the State of Maine; KEVIN DEAN, a
citizen of the State of Maine; SPARK HOLDCO LLC, a Maine limited
liability company with its principal place of business in Auburn,
Maine; PROVIDER POWER LLC, a Maine limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Auburn, Maine; and KATHERINE
VEILLEUX and JENNIFER CHON and JAMES TILTON and ROCKY COAST FAMILY
ACUPUNCTURE, P.A., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, citizens of the State of Maine, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00009-NT (D. Maine, Jan. 8, 2019), seeks judgment
declaring that ZAIC has no duty to defend Electricity Maine LLC,
Emile Clavet, Kevin Dean, Spark Holdco LLC, or Provider Power LLC
in a Class Action; and for such additional relief as may be
appropriate under the circumstances.

According to the complaint, a Class Action Complaint was filed in
Maine District Court by Katherine Veilleux and Jennifer Chon,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
against Electricity Maine LLC, Emile Clavet, Kevin Dean, Spark
Holdco LLC, and Provider Power LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-571-NT (D.
Maine, November 18, 2016).  On December 26, 2018, the Class Action
Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Class Action Complaint, adding
two new named Plaintiffs and eliminating four counts from the
Complaint.

Assurance Company of America issued to Electricity Maine LLC,
effective from Nov. 1, 2011 to Nov. 1, 2012, a commercial insurance
policy, No. PAS 04961118, including commercial general liability
coverage and commercial umbrella coverage (the "Assurance Policy").
At the request of Electricity Maine LLC, Assurance Company of
America non-renewed the Assurance Policy on April 25, 2012.
Thereafter, through mergers, ZAIC succeeded to the rights and
responsibilities of Assurance Company of America with respect to
the Assurance Policy.

Farmers Insurance Exchange is administering the Class Action claim
on behalf of ZAIC, with respect to the Assurance Policy. ZAIC
issued to Nudevco Partners, LLC, effective from April 27, 2015 to
April 27, 2016, a commercial insurance policy, No. GLO 9819548-01,
providing commercial general liability coverage. Effective July 8,
2015, by Endorsement No. 005, Spark Holdco LLC was added as a named
insured on this insurance policy. ZAIC issued to TexEx Energy
Investments, LLC, effective from April 27, 2016 to April 27, 2017,
a commercial insurance policy, No. GLO 9819548-02, providing
commercial general liability coverage. Effective April 14, 2016, by
Endorsement No. 004, Electricity Maine LLC was added as a named
insured on this insurance policy. Policies No. GLO 9819548-01 and
GLO 9819548-02 will be referred to as the "Zurich Policies." The
Defendants, Electricity Maine LLC, Emile Clavet, Kevin Dean, Spark
Holdco LLC, and Provider Power LLC have tendered to ZAIC and ZAIC
through Farmers Insurance Exchange the defense of the Class Action
,the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for Zurich American Insurance Company:

          John S. Whitman, Esq.
          465 Congress Street
          PO Box 9545
          Portland, ME 04112-9545
          Telephone: (207) 774-7474
          E-mail: jwhitman@rwlb.com

EMBRAER-BOEING: Judge Overturns Injunction Blocking Deal
--------------------------------------------------------
Gram Slattery, writing for Reuters, reports that a Brazilian judge
overturned on Dec. 21 a decision that put the brakes on planemaker
Embraer's (EMBR3.SA) proposed sale of 80 percent of its commercial
aviation division to Boeing Co (BA.N), as the judicial
back-and-forth surrounding the deal continued.

According to public news agency Agencia Estado, Federal Judge
Therezinha Cazerta suspended a decision which had suspended the
sale earlier in the week. Her decision came in response to a
request from Brazil's solicitor general, known as the AGU, which
argued that the injunction would hurt the economy and the previous
decision represented government overreach into the free market.

Legal challenges to the deal, which would reshape the global
passenger aviation market, have been plentiful and are common in
Brazilian dealmaking in general.

Boeing and Embraer said on Dec. 17 they had finalised the terms of
the agreement, valuing the Brazilian planemaker's commercial
division at $5.26 billion (4.2 billion pounds). The agreement needs
approval from the Brazilian government because it holds a so-called
golden share in Embraer that gives it veto power over strategic
decisions and any change in its controlling interest. The
planemaker formally sought that approval on Dec. 24 and it is
expected within 30 days.

On Dec. 20, a judge issued the now overturned injunction blocking
the proposed deal in response to a class action filed by Embraer's
union in Sao Jose dos Campos, where the planemaker is based.

Earlier in December the same judge issued a similar injunction
blocking the deal, only to see the injunction swiftly
overturned.[GN]


ESTES EXPRESS: Faces Magnitsky Labor Suit in Sacramento
-------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Estes Express Lines. The case is captioned as NICK MAGNITSKY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ESTES EXPRESS LINES; ESTES WEST; G.I. TRUCKING
COMPANY; and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
34-2018-00247448-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 31,
2018).

Estes Express Lines, Inc. provides freight transportation solutions
in the United States and internationally. The company offers
regional, national, and international and offshore
less-than-truckload (LTL) services; time critical services,
including expedited, guaranteed, and time/date definite services;
and volume and truckload services, such as volume LTL, truckload,
truckload brokerage, and dedicated truckload services. The company
was founded in 1931 and is based in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 335-2402
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: info@wilshirelawfirm.com


EXPEDIA INC: Sued over Fees & Taxes for Online Hotel Reservation
----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA WOODELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. EXPEDIA, INC., EAN.COM, LP,
TRAVELSCAPE, LLC and HOTELS.COM L.P., the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00051 (W.D. Wash., Jan. 11, 2019), seeks to collect and
return the secret overpayment of "Taxes & Fees" to Defendants that
were unwittingly made by Reservations.com's customers.

According to the complaint, at a time where almost everyone is
connected to the internet, millions of consumers book hotel rooms
online. They do so primarily for convenience and in order to shop
for the best price. One online booking company is Reservations.com.
Reservations.com differs from more traditional online travel
companies in that it does not have any direct contractual
interaction with hotels; instead, Reservations.com obtains all of
its hotel room inventory from Defendant Expedia, Inc., and its
subsidiaries, including Defendants EAN.com, LP ("EAN"),
Travelscape, LLC, and Hotels.com L.P., as well as other third-party
suppliers. The Defendants obtain hotel room inventory through
"merchant model" contracts with hotels which give Defendants the
right to sell room reservations at retail rates generally set by
Defendants. The Defendants pay the hotels a wholesale (or "net")
rate, and then typically remit taxes on that net rate to the hotels
after the hotel stay is complete. The Defendants profit from the
markup on the room, and a "service fee" that is part of the bundled
"Taxes & Fees" Defendants charge when they sell reservations on
their own websites. When a consumer uses Reservations.com's website
or call center to purchase a room reservation that comes from
Defendants' inventory, the consumer pays a "Service Fee" of $14.99
per room to Reservations.com, and a nightly "Tax Recovery Charges &
Fees" amount to Defendants (at various times, this amount has been
labeled "Taxes & Fees," "Tax & Fees," and "Tax").

The "Taxes & Fees" are represented to be monies "the hotels must
pay to the government," and even without this representation a
reasonable consumer would understand "Taxes & Fees" to be monies
owed to the government. When Reservations.com sells a room
reservation that comes from Defendants' inventory, the consumer's
credit card is charged $14.99 by Reservations.com, and the balance
-- the room charge plus the "Taxes & Fees" charge -- by Defendants.
The Plaintiff's complaint focuses exclusively on the falsely
inflated "Taxes & Fees" or "Tax" charges collected by Defendants.
The $14.99 per room "Service Fee" charged by Reservations.com is
not at issue in this litigation.

This tax overcharge practice is not of recent origin. Expedia
subjected the Plaintiff to a tax overcharge in 2016. The practice
continued in 2017, when, for example, a room booked at the Hyatt
Regency Orlando cost $518.30 for the room and $108.63 for "Taxes &
Fees" on reservations.com. The actual tax owed to Orlando was
$69.97 (at the governing 13.5% rate) and hence, at a minimum,
$38.71 was apparently a secret tax overcharge. The tax overcharge
practice continues to this day. Reservations.com does not pay taxes
to local governments on the hotel rooms booked through its website.
Rather, the room rates and "Taxes & Fees" are fields populated on
the Reservations.com website by Defendants. At the time of booking,
Defendants collect the "Taxes & Fees" charge directly from
Reservations.com's customers, and Defendants later remit the (much
lower) actual taxes and fees to either the hotels or -- in some
jurisdictions -- directly to the government.

As part of the tax overcharge scheme, Defendants unlawfully collect
and retain the "Taxes & Fees" overcharge. The Plaintiff brings this
action on behalf of a nationwide class of all similarly situated
individuals and entities who have booked and paid for hotel rooms
obtained through Defendants using Reservations.com's website and
call centers. Reservations.com represents that 4 million rooms have
been booked through its website. If one takes the overcharge of
$23.88 on the room at the W hotel and multiplies it by 4 million,
the Defendants have collected over $95 million dollars in unlawful
"tax" charges, the lawsuit says.

Expedia is an American global travel technology company. Its
websites, which are primarily travel fare aggregators and travel
metasearch engines, include CarRentals.com, CheapTickets,
Expedia.com, HomeAway, Hotels.com, Hotwire.com, Orbitz,
Travelocity, trivago, and Venere.com. [BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Andrew Volk, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  andrew@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

FACEBOOK INC: Luis Licea Suit Transferred to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Luis Licea, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Facebook Inc., a Delaware
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-10326, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco) on Jan. 9, 2019. The Northern District
of California Court assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00117-LB to the
proceeding. The suit demands $500,000 in damages. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler.

Facebook, Inc. is an American online social media and social
networking service company based in Menlo Park, California. Its
website was launched on February 4, 2004, by Mark Zuckerberg, along
with fellow Harvard College students and roommates Eduardo Saverin,
Andrew McCollum, Dustin Moskovitz, and Chris Hughes.[BN].

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Ebby Shahrokh Bakhtiar, Esq.
          LIVINGSTON BAKHTIAR
          3435 Wilshire Blvd Ste 770
          Los Angeles, CA 90010

               - and -

          Thomas V Girardi, Esq.
          GIRARDI KEESE
          1126 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977-0211
          E-mail: tgirardi@girardikeese.com

Attorneys for Facebook Inc.:

          Elizabeth Lee Deeley, Esq.
          LATHAM AND WATKINS LLP
          505 Montgomery Street Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
          Telephone (415) 391-0600
          Facsimile: (415) 395-8095
          E-mail: elizabeth.deeley@lw.com

FFE TRANSPORTATION: Dennis Thomas Suit Moved to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Dennis Thomas, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FFE Transportation Services Inc., a
Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. stk-cv-18-14897, was
removed from the San Joaquin Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento) on Jan.
9, 2019. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:19-cv-00062-JAM-CKD. The suit alleges job-related
violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John A. Mendez.

FFE Transportation is the primary operating subsidiary of Frozen
Food Express Services, Inc. The company is a Dallas, Texas-based
over-the-road transport company founded in 1946. It provides
temperature controlled transportation services for over-the-road
transportation.[BN]

Attorneys for Dennis Thomas:

          Sarah Sam Kanbar, Esq.
          BEESON, TAYER AND BODINE, APC
          520 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: skanbar@beesontayer.com

Attorneys for FFE Transportation Services Inc.:

          Melissa Hughes, Esq.
          THARPE & HOWELL, LLP
          15250 Ventura Blvd., Ninth Floor
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 205-9955
          Facsimile: (818) 205-9944
          E-mail: mhughes@tharpe-howell.com

FINISAR CORP: Tenvold Balks at Merger Deal with II-VI Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------
PETE TENVOLD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. FINISAR CORPORATION, MICHAEL HURLSTON,
MICHAEL C. CHILD, ROGER C. FERGUSON, MICHAEL L. DREYER, THOMAS E.
PARDUN, JERRY S. RAWLS, ROBERT N. STEPHENS, HELENE SIMONET,
MUTATION MERGER SUB INC., and II-VI INCORPORATED, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00050-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 9, 2019), seeks to enjoin
the Defendants from taking any steps to consummate a proposed
transaction, including filing a definitive proxy statement with the
Securities and Exchange Commission or otherwise causing a
Definitive Proxy to be disseminated to Finisar's shareholders,
unless and until material information discussed is included in the
Definitive Proxy or otherwise disseminated to Finisar's
shareholders, and in the event the proposed transaction is
consummated without the material omissions being remedied, and
seeks to recover damages resulting from the Defendants'
violations.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have violated Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by causing a materially incomplete and
misleading preliminary proxy statement to be filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 28, 2018. The Proxy
recommends that Finisar shareholders vote in favor of a proposed
transaction whereby Finisar is acquired by II-VI Incorporated. The
Proposed Transaction was first disclosed on November 9, 2018, when
Finisar and II-VI announced that they had entered into a definitive
merger agreement pursuant to which II-VI will acquire all of the
outstanding shares of common stock of Finisar for $15.60 in cash
and 0.2218 shares of II-VI common stock. The deal is valued at
approximately $3.2 billion and is expected to close in the middle
of 2019.

The Merger Consideration does not properly compensate shareholders
for their investment in Finisar. Despite years of steady growth,
the Board agreed to sell the Company for approximately $26.00 per
share. Yet an analyst recently set a price target for Finisar at
$33.00 per share, and the Company's financial advisor implied a per
share equity value as high as $33.37 for Finisar. Furthermore, the
Proxy is materially incomplete and contains misleading
representations and information in violation of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the Proxy contains
materially incomplete and misleading information concerning the
sales process, financial projections prepared by Finisar
management, as well as the financial analyses conducted by Barclays
Capital Inc., Finisar's financial advisor.

Finisar Corporation is a manufacturer of optical communication
components and subsystems. In 2008, Finisar merged with Optium
Corporation.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
          Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq.
          ROWLEY LAW PLLC
          50 Main Street, Suite 1000
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 400-1920
          Facsimile: (914) 301-3514

FINISAR CORP: Wheby Balks at Merger Deal with II-VI Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------
EARL WHEBY, JR., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FINISAR CORPORATION, ROBERT N.
STEPHENS, MICHAEL HURLSTON, MICHAEL C. CHILD, ROGER C. FERGUSON,
TOM PARDUN, JERRY S. RAWLS, MICHAEL L. DREYER, and HELENE SIMONET,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00064-UNA (D. Del., Jan 10, 2019),
stems from a proposed transaction announced on November 9, 2018,
pursuant to which Finisar Corporation will be acquired by II-VI
Incorporated and Mutation Merger Sub, Inc.

On November 8, 2018, Finisar's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with II-VI.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Finisar's
stockholders will receive $15.60 per share in cash and 0.2218x
shares of Parent common stock for each share of Finisar common
stock they hold. On December 28, 2018, the Defendants filed a proxy
statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement
omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading, the lawsuit says.

Finisar Corporation is a manufacturer of optical communication
components and subsystems. In 2008, Finisar merged with Optium
Corporation.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
          Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq.
          ROWLEY LAW PLLC
          50 Main Street, Suite 1000
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 400-1920
          Facsimile: (914) 301-3514

FLORIDA FIRE COLLEGE: Sued Over Contaminated Drinking Water
-----------------------------------------------------------
Erik Sandoval, writing for WKMG News 6 & ClickOrlando, reports that
six workers at the Florida State Fire College in Ocala have filed a
class-action lawsuit, claiming the drinking water made them very
sick.

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection said it
conducted tests on the drinking water at the site on NW Gainesville
Road in August, and found chemicals used in fire retardant were
present.

The chemicals perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) were found in ground water samples
earlier this year in small concentrations in Brevard County.

The same chemicals were found by the DEP at the Fire College in
August.

According to the DEP, the chemicals are deemed potentially unsafe
if they're found at levels higher than 70 parts per trillion.

According to the lawsuit filed in federal court in Ocala, the
chemicals were found at the Fire College at levels of 270,000 parts
per trillion.

Five of the plaintiffs claim in the lawsuit they now have thyroid
disease as a result of the exposure, and one of them claims she has
end-stage kidney disease.

News 6 found out the Florida Department of Health is now getting
involved.

The agency said investigators have identified three other
properties near the Fire College where drinking water has also
tested positive for the chemicals, including one home.

The agency said it is trying to sample the water at more than 90
additional properties, but some of the residents have not
responded.

The lawsuit was filed against the manufacturers of the fire
retardant foam, including 3M and Tyco Fire Products.

"We are aware of the class action lawsuit filed today and are in
the process of reviewing the filing," said Fraser Engerman,
spokesman for Tyco. "Tyco and Chemguard acted appropriately and
responsibly in connection with products containing PFOA, including
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs).  AFFFs have prevented
catastrophic fires and saved many lives, which is why the U.S.
military and firefighting professionals have chosen to use them for
decades and continue to use them today."

3M has not returned requests for a comment.

Marion County health officials are asking residents nearby to have
their water tested.

Call 352-644-2623 for additional information.[GN]


FRESH MARKET: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Arvilla et al. Allege
-----------------------------------------------------------
BETH ARVILLA; PATRICK RYAN; CHRISTINE THOM; THOMAS BROOKS; and
THOMAS LEE SOUZA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE FRESH MARKET, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-03129-VMC-AAS (M.D. Fla., Jan. 2, 2019)
is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff
and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of
40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Arvilla was employed by Defendant as deli manager; the
Plaintiff Ryan as meat cutter; the Plaintiff Thom as baker; the
Plaintiff Brooks as meat manager/cutter; and the Plaintiff Souza as
produce manager.

The Fresh Market, Inc. operates as a specialty grocery retailer in
the United States. The company was founded in 1982 and is
headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina. As of April 27, 2016,
The Fresh Market, Inc. was taken private. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
          William J. Sheslow, Esq.
          WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
          11020 Northcliffe Boulevard
          Spring Hill, FL 34608
          Telephone: (352)683-2016
          Facsimile: (352) 600-7533
          E-mail: lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
                  will@theFLlawfirm.com


GARRETT DESIGNS: Reyes Seeks Overtime Compensation
--------------------------------------------------
JAKE REYES, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
the PLAINTIFF, vs. GARRETT DESIGNS, LLC AND JOHN GARRETT,
INDIVIDUALLY, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 1:19-cv-00027 (W.D. Tex.,
Jan. 9, 2019), alleges that the Defendant failed to pay overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants provide commercial and
residential landscaping services in and around Austin, Texas. The
Defendants employed Reyes during the three-year period preceding
the filing of this Complaint. The Defendants paid Reyes and those
similarly situated on an hourly basis. They consistently worked
over 40 hours per week. However, Defendants failed to pay overtime
premiums for any hours worked over 40 per week, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
          MORELAND VERRETT, PC
          2901 Bee Cave Rd, Box L
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: doug@morelandlaw.com

GENERAL MILLS: Paracha Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Natasha Paracha and On Behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. General Mills, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-07659, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida (Ft Lauderdale) on Jan. 8, 2019. The Southern District
of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:19-cv-60063-DPG to the
proceeding. The suit alleges fraud-related violation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Darrin P. Gayles.

General Mills, Inc., is an American multinational manufacturer and
marketer of branded consumer foods sold through retail stores.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Stewart Weltman, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          E-mail: sweltman@weltmanfirm.com

               - and -

          Carrie A. Laliberte, Esq.
          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Manfred Patrick Muecke, Jr., Esq.
          Patricia Nicole Syverson, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN AND BALINT PC
          2325 East Camelback Road Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (606) 274-1100
          E-mail: eryan@bffb.com
                  mmuecke@bffb.com
                  psyverson@bffb.com

               - and -

          Jordanna G. Thigpen, Esq.
          JOHNSON AND JOHNSON LLP
          439 North Canon Drive Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 975-1080

Attorneys for General Mills, Inc.:

          Charles C. Sipos, Esq.
          David T. Biderman, Esq.
          Mica D. Klein, Esq.
          Steven Kichong Hwang, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue Suite 4900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (205) 359-3983
          E-mail: CSipos@perkinscoie.com
                  DBiderman@perkinscoie.com
                  MicaKlein@perkinscoie.com

GENERAL MILLS: Sued over Mislabeled Organic Farm Products
---------------------------------------------------------
BRUCH REED; ERIK DAYTON; LEAH BOGERT; TIFFANY MARTIN; HEATHER
CARSON; JOEL HAGANS; FLORIN CARLIN; MAX ELLIOTT; LISA SCHMID; and
JUNE COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. GENERAL MILLS, INC.; SMALL PLANET FOODS,
INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00005-JCC
(W.D. Wash., Jan. 2, 2019) alleges that the Defendants consistently
mislead consumers into believing that all or a substantial portion
of the ingredients in Cascadian Farm products are grown on an
organic farm in Skagit Valley, a small region in the state of
Washington along the Skagit River near the Cascade Range, and that
the farm and its business have continued in operation for decades
without being sold to and effectively replaced by a huge
corporation.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have owned and
controlled the Cascadian Farm brand for over 15 years and the
packaged Cascadian Farm products sold throughout the U.S. are not
grown on a farm in Skagit Valley or near the Cascades. Rather,
because the Defendants are multinational agrobusinesses, their food
products are sourced from large industrial farms in other places in
the U.S. and the world.

The Defendants own and maintain some property in Washington State
historically associated with the Cascadian Farm brand for the
purpose of misleading consumers about the relationship of the
products at issue to that farm and the surrounding region.

General Mills, Inc. manufactures and markets branded consumer foods
worldwide. The company was founded in 1866 and is based in
Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen M. Raab, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          113 Cherry Street, Suite 55150
          Seattle, WA 98140-2205
          Telephone: (415) 639-9090
          E-mail: stephen@gutridesafier.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Smith et al. Sue over Defective Injection Pumps
---------------------------------------------------------------
CALVIN SMITH; and JACQUELINE BARGSTEDT, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GENERAL MOTORS
COMPANY; Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00021-JCS (N.D. Cal., Jan. 2,
2019) alleges that the Defendant manufacture and sell defective CP4
Bosch-manufactured fuel pumps.

According to the complaint, beginning with the 2011 model year, the
Defendant began manufacturing and selling trucks with
factory-installed "CP4" Bosch-manufactured fuel pumps. The CP4 fuel
pump was a cost-saving measure: it uses less fuel by exerting
higher fuel pressures. But U.S. diesel fuel does not provide enough
lubrication for the CP4 pump to work reliably, and the CP4 pumps
consistently fail. When they do, they often shed tiny particles of
metal throughout the entire fuel system, requiring replacement of
the whole system -- including the CP4 pump, the fuel injectors, the
injection lines, and the fuel rails -- leading to repair costs
exceeding $10,000. Even with those repairs made, the defect is not
resolved; after time, the replacement CP4 pump will lead to
recurrence of the same problem and still more costs to the
consumer.

The Defendant has long known about the defect but never warned the
truck-buying public. The Defendant stayed silent even as the CP4
pump failures have reached a level of consistency and inevitability
that various writers have called a "ticking time bomb," with even
the relatively restrained saying "it's literally just a matter of
time until your CP4 pump fails." Affected consumers have thus
purchased trucks that are far less valuable than they would be
without the defective CP4 pumps, and are also forced to incur
highly-expensive repairs when the pumps inevitably fail.

General Motors LLC was incorporated in 2009 and is based in
Wilmington, Delaware. General Motors LLC operates as a subsidiary
of General Motors Company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          David Stein, Esq.
          Steven Lopez, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
                  ds@classlawgroup.com
                 sal@classlawgroup.com


GRAMMER AG: 'Popping' Headrest Caused Concussions, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Chmura, Christine Roher and Joe Rojas, writing for NBC 6
South Florida, report that some drivers say the headrests on their
car seats forcefully smacked them in the head, without warning. Now
an attorney is filing a class-action lawsuit against an automaker
over "active headrests."

The headrests were designed to reduce whiplash. However, some
drivers warn they've been activating randomly.

A number of drivers are coming forward with claims their car
headrests have a serious safety issue and should be recalled.

Among the drivers who say they were hurt is Shawn Alger, owner of a
2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee.

"I love the car," Alger said. "It's a nice car."

It came fully loaded. But Alger recently customized the headrest
with a tight-grip cover.

"I put a nice little Bungee on there, pretty tight, so it can't
come apart," he said.

"Come apart" is what Alger says the headrest did while he was
driving to work one morning. He says the headrest suddenly burst
open.

"All of a sudden, I felt a hit in the back of the head," he said.
"I was freaked out a little. I was like, 'What, is somebody in the
car?' And I looked back. There was nobody back there. There were no
cars behind me."

Alger says the blow to the back of his head left him dazed and in
pain.

"I started feeling nauseous," he said. "I had a headache and
everything. I ended up going to the ER. I had a concussion."

Alger has company. Laura Baca told our NBC Responds colleagues in
Los Angeles she was parked in her 2014 Chrysler Town and Country
van when the headrest spontaneously burst open.

"It hurt really bad," Baca said. "I was just sitting there on the
phone, and all of a sudden I got hit in the back of the head, and
it pushed me completely forward."

NBC Responds searched the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's complaint database and found dozens of other
Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge drivers with similar stories.

So, why would a headrest pop open? Some are actually designed to in
an accident. Through crash tests, engineers developed what they
call the "active head restraint" to reduce whiplash. The front part
snaps out a few inches to stop your neck from moving too much in a
rear-end collision. But Alger says his "active headrest" deployed
randomly, while he was on the road. Baca says she was parked when
it happened to her.
Sacramento attorney Stuart Talley says there's a problem with how
the headrests were made.

"What our experts have told us, and what we believe, is that the
plastic is deteriorating over time," Talley said.

Talley is suing Fiat Chrysler over the headrests. He points to a
tiny plastic bracket inside each headrest. Talley believes one side
of this latch can wear out and shatter spontaneously, propelling
the spring-loaded headrest into the driver's head.

"No wonder I had a concussion," Alger said.

The owner's manual for Alger's Jeep tells him, "Do not drive" with
a deployed headrest. It must be "reset by an authorized dealer
immediately".

Alger told us his headrest couldn't be reset; it had to be
replaced. Alger said Jeep made him pay for it -- about $900 --
despite his warranty.

So, why the Bungee around his new headrest? Alger says it's the
same design as the old one.

"It could happen again," Alger said.

NBC Bay Area learned the headrests are made by Grammer, a German
automotive supply company. Grammer declined to comment for this
story.

Fiat Chrysler sent us this statement:

FCA U.S. vehicles meet or exceed all federal safety requirements.
Customer safety is paramount at FCA US. Active head restraints
enhance vehicle safety. Evaluations confirm that even in the rare
event of inadvertent deployment there is no unreasonable risk of
injury. Absent such risk, there is no safety defect. FCA US
strongly objects to any alternate characterization.

Fiat Chrysler declined to say how many Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep
vehicles have these headrests. Talley, the attorney, believes the
number is in the millions. When asked if it was investigating, the
NHTSA sent the following statement:

Safety is the NHTSA's top priority. The agency is aware of this
issue and will take further steps as appropriate. Consumers are
encouraged to report suspected safety defects and routinely check
their vehicle for open recalls.[GN]


GRUBHUB INC: Faces Tiffin EPS Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GrubHub Inc. The case
is captioned as TIFFIN EPS, LLC; and TIFFIN MOUNT AIRY, LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. GRUBHUB INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-05630-PD
(E.D. Pa., Dec. 31, 2018). The case is assigned to Honorable Paul
S. Diamond.

GrubHub Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides an online
and mobile platform for restaurant pick-up and delivery orders in
the United States. The company was formerly known as GrubHub
Seamless Inc. and changed its name to GrubHub Inc. in February
2014.  GrubHub Inc. was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Catherine Pratsinakis, Esq.
          DILWORTH PAXSON LLP
          1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 575-7000
          Facsimile: (215) 575-7200
          E-mail: cpratsinakis@dilworthlaw.com

               - and -

          Marie-Theres Difillippo, Esq.
          DILWORTH PAXSON LLP
          1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 575-7000
          E-mail: mdifillippo@dilworthlaw.com


HCL TECHNOLOGIES: Can Compel Arbitration in Voll Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, granted HCL's motion to
compel arbitration in the case, REESE VOLL, Plaintiff, v. HCL
TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-04943-LHK
(N.D. Cal.).

Voll brings a putative class action against the Defendants for
employment discrimination on the basis of race.  In the United
States, HCL contracts with U.S. companies to provide IT-related
services.  It secures contracts with companies and then hires
individuals to fill positions to service the client.  After such a
position ends, those employees are placed in an unallocated status.
From that status, individuals must again seek new positions within
HCL, going through an application and interview process, just as
external applicants must.  According to the Plaintiff, HCL has a
policy of terminating employees who are in an unallocated status
for over four weeks.

The Plaintiff, who has over 25 years of experience in information
technology, began working for HCL in November 2014.  HCL hired the
Plaintiff for its internal Solution Architecture Practice S.W.A.T.
Team.  The Plaintiff's team's role was to transition and transform
the IT infrastructure of HCL clients and to resolve issues faced by
those accounts.

The Plaintiff alleges that he faced a hostile work environment
during his tenure at HCL.  In July 2016, the Plaintiff's
supervisor, who was South Asian, informed him that he was being
removed from his position servicing PepsiCo and placed into
unallocated status.  The Plaintiff reached out to HCL for updates
regarding his employment, but never received a position.  Then, on
Aug. 26, 2016, after the Plaintiff had been in an unallocated
status for approximately a month, HCL terminated the Plaintiff.
From 2016 through 2018, the Plaintiff applied to multiple positions
at HCL, and although HCL interviewed him for one position, he was
never hired.

The Plaintiff alleges that HCL discriminates against individuals
who are not South Asian in hiring, promotion, and termination
decisions.  For example, he alleges that HCL shows a preference for
South Asian individuals on H-1B visas and that non-South Asian
individuals are often displaced from their current positions in
favor of South Asian and visa-ready individuals.  That practice,
according to him, leads to HCL's disproportionate termination of
non-South Asian individuals.

In 2015, HCL amended its dispute resolution agreement, which
includes an arbitration clause.  On Dec. 1, 2015, HCL sent the
amended agreement to all employees, including the Plaintiff, via
email.  In the email, HCL informed recipients that HCL America has
modified the Dispute Resolution Agreement (also known as the
Arbitration Agreement) applicable to both the company and to all
employees.  On Dec. 1, 2015, when HCL distributed the revised
dispute resolution agreement to its employees, the Plaintiff was
employed with HCL and had an @hcl.com email address.

On Aug. 15, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant putative class
action against HCL.  He seeks to represent the class of all
individuals who are not of South Asian race who applied for
positions with (or within) HCL in the U.S. and were not hired, who
were employed by HCL in the U.S. and sought a promotion but were
not promoted, and/or who were employed by HCL in the U.S. and were
involuntarily terminated.

The Plaintiff brings a single cause of action for employment
discrimination on the basis of race under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981,
the Civil Rights Act of 1866.  On Sept. 5, 2018, HCL filed a motion
to compel arbitration.  On Sept. 19, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an
opposition.  On Sept. 26, 2018, HCL filed its reply.

HCL moves the Court to compel arbitration and stay the lawsuit
under the FAA or, in the alternative, to dismiss the Plaintiff's
claims for improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(3). Because the Court grants HCL's motion to compel
arbitration, the Court does not reach HCL's venue argument.

Judge Koh finds that the Plaintiff's lack of memory as to whether
he "recalls" receiving the Dec. 1, 2015 email and Arbitration
Agreement, does not even directly contradict HCL's evidence that he
in fact received the email.  Under these circumstances, no material
facts are in dispute, and the JUdge is not faced with a situation
where additional discovery on the existence of an agreement to
arbitrate is warranted.

Further, as the Plaintiff does not dispute, the Arbitration
Agreement clearly encompasses his claim for employment
discrimination on the basis of race. The Arbitration Agreement
covers claims for discrimination or harassment on the basis of race
and claims arising under any statutes or regulations applicable to
applicants, to employees, or to the employment relationship.
Therefore, the Judge must grant HCL's motion to compel arbitration
of the Plaintiff's claim and will stay the lawsuit pursuant to 9
U.S.C. Section 3.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Koh granted HCL's motion to compel
arbitration and stayed the lawsuit.  The parties will notify the
Court within seven days of an arbitration ruling.  The Clerk will
administratively close the case file.  It is an internal
administrative procedure that does not affect the rights of the
parties.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 9, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/5da1HV from Leagle.com.

Reese Voll, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Lee Low --
dlow@kotchen.com -- Kotchen and Low LLP.

HCL Technologies Limited & HCL America, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Douglas J. Farmer -- doug.farmer@ogletree.com --
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Jason Phillip Brown --
jason.brown@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, P.C., Brian Davis Berry --
brian.berry@ogletreedeakins.com  -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak
& Stewart, P.C. & Sarah L. Zenewicz -- sarah.zenewicz@ogletree.com
-- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C..


HEALTHPLUS SURGERY: Single Free Blood Test Not Enough, Kinlock Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID KINLOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTHPLUS SURGERY CENTER, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. ESX-L-000074-19 (N.J. Super., Essex Cty., Jan. 3, 2019)
alleges that the Defendant's offer for a single free blood test is
wholly inadequate to ensure the health and safety of the Plaintiff
and the class.

According to the complaint, on September 7, 2018, the New Jersey
Department of Health ordered the Defendant to close its facility
due to its failure to properly clean and disinfect medical hardware
and instruments. On December 17, 2018, the Defendant mailed out
form notices to patients who had received surgical procedures at
the Defendant's facility between January 1, 2018 to September 7,
2018.

The Defendant's form notice goes on to offer a single free blood
test to the Plaintiff and the class. The Defendant has not offered
any additional testing nor offered to pay for any type of
medicines, treatments or other prophylactic measures. The
Defendant's proposal is wholly inadequate given the seriousness of
the diseases to which the class has been exposed, the nature of the
danger and the danger and the standard of medical care for persons
potentially exposed to diseases.

Healthplus Surgery Center, LLC is incorporated in the State of New
Jersey. The Company offers surgical procedures. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
          Joseph A. Osefchen, Esq.
          DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 797-9951

               - and –

          Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
          100 Century Parkway, Suite 305
          Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 596-4100


HEALTHPLUS SURGERY: Sued over Improper Sterilization Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
C.S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. HEALTHPLUS SURGERY CENTER, LLC; YAN MOSHE; BETTY
McCABE; JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, JOHN DOE 3, and JOHN DOES, 4-14,
Defendants, Case No. BER-L-009289-18 (N.J. Super., Bergen Cty.,
Dec. 31, 2018) alleges that the Defendants' ambulatory surgery
center has poor drug storage methods, with an outdated infection
control plan and unacceptable sterilization practices.

According to the complaint, investigation revealed multiple
violations and infractions of the Defendants that jeopardized the
safety of their patients including, the failure to "ensure
adherence to transmission-based precautions," disinfectant
procedures that did not "allow for sterilant to come in contact
with all surfaces of each medical instrument," and improper storage
of sterilized instruments and other items which threatened their
cleanliness.

As a result of the various violations, infractions, and failures of
the Defendants detailed by the New Jersey Department of Health, the
Plaintiff and other individuals who received medical treatment from
the Defendants between January 1, 2018 and September 7, 2018, and
their spouses/sexual partners were exposed to harmful and
potentially fatal pathogens, including but not limited to HIV,
hepatitis B, and hepatitis C, require additional medical treatment
and testing, and must live with the fear and uncertainty of the
additional harms and losses that may result from their exposure to
these potentially fatal pathogens.

Healthplus Surgery Center, LLC is organized as a limited liability
company under the laws of the State of New Jersey. The Company
operates an ambulatory surgery center located at 190 Midland
Avenue, Saddle Brook, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented:

          Michael J. Epstein, Esq.
          THE EPSTEIN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          340 West Passaic Street
          Rochelle Park, NJ 07662
          Telephone: (201) 845-5962


HHLP BLUE MOON: Faces Gomez's ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HHLP Blue Moon
Lessee, LLC. The case is captioned as ANDRES GOMEZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HHLP
BLUE MOON LESSEE, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-25480-UU (S.D. Fla., Dec.
31, 2018). The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge Ursula Ungaro.

HHLP Blue Moon Lessee, LLC is a limited liability company organized
under the laws of the State of Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
          JESSICA L.KERR, P.A.
          DBA THE ADVOCACY GROUP
          200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 282-1858
          Facsimile: (844) 786-3694
          E-mail: service@advocacypa.com


HOME CARE OF DENVER: Pena Seeks OT Wages for Clinicians
-------------------------------------------------------
CAROLINE PENA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. HOME CARE OF DENVER, LLC, d/b/a/ ALL
STATE HOME HEALTH and JET HEALTH, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00069-NYW (D. Colo., Jan. 9, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the
Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act by
knowingly misclassifying their Registered Nurses, Physical
Therapists, Occupational Therapists, Speech Language Pathologists,
Medical Social Workers and employees in other similarly-designated
skilled care positions as overtime-exempt, and knowingly failing to
pay them any overtime premium wages for the hours they worked over
40 in any workweek or over 12 in any workday, despite paying them
under a wage scheme that is plainly inconsistent with their
classification as overtime exempt.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' compensation plans,
which are based on time estimates for visits and not the actual
time Clinicians spend working, do not accurately account for the
time Plaintiff and other Clinicians spend on a wide array of
work-related tasks they were required to perform on a regular
basis, including: preparing for patient visits; communicating with
patients, physicians and case managers about scheduling,
patient-care and logistical matters; coordinating patient care with
other providers; traveling between patients' homes; documenting
information from patient visits; or ordering, organizing and
retrieving equipment and supplies used during their home visits.
Together with patient visits, on average Plaintiff and other
Clinicians worked well in excess of 40 hours each workweek and more
than 12 hours in given workdays, but did not receive compensation
for all time worked including overtime. Instead, Plaintiff and
other Clinicians were subject to the unlawful pay policies and
practices, regardless of the actual hours each Clinician actually
worked, the lawsuit says.

All State Home Health provides Home Health Care Services in
Englewood, Colorado and to residents in neighboring counties.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Collective and Class:

          Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF
          BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
          2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
          Fort Collins, CO 80528
          Telephone: (970) 214-0562
          E-mail: bgonzales@coloradowagelaw.com

               - and -

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 f
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  tbecvar@stephanzouras.com

IEC US: Crego et al Seek Unpaid Wages & OT for Hourly Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS VALENZUELA, and SERGIO CREGO, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, vs. IEC
US HOLDINGS, INC., a Florida corporation d/b/a FLORIDA CAREER
COLLEGE, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-20151-RNS (S.D. Fla., Jan.
10, 2019), seeks relief under federal law pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and declaratory and
injunctive relief.

The case is a collective action brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated current and former
hourly employees of FCC in Florida. The Plaintiffs are hourly
employees of FCC's 10 campuses located in Miami, Pembroke Pines,
West Palm Beach, Lauderdale Lakes, Hialeah, Orlando, Tampa, Margate
and Boynton Beach. Specifically, Plaintiffs Valenzuela and Crego
worked in conjunction with the Hialeah campus. Defendant FCC has
failed to pay Plaintiffs their minimum hourly rate of pay for all
hours of work they performed in addition to overtime as required by
federal law.  The uncompensated time includes, but is not limited
to, time spent performing their regular work duties in excess of 40
hours per week and not getting paid any overtime, the lawsuit
says.

FCC operates a group of 10 college campuses in the State of Florida
that have thousands of students enrolled.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Manuel A. Avila, Esq.
          MANUEL A. AVILA, ESQ. & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          11120 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 200
          Miami, FL 33176
          Telephone: 305 249-1111
          Facsimile: 305 647-0686
          E-mail: MAvila@AvilaLegal.com

               - and -

          Brian P. McCafferty, Esq.
          KENNEY & MCCAFFERTY LAW FIRM
          1787 Sentry Park West
          Building 18, Suite 410
          Blue Bell, PA 19422
          Telephone: (215) 367-4333
          Facsimile: (215) 367-4335
          E-Mail: cafstar@aol.com

IVARY MANAGEMENT: Underpays Applicators, Reyes Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
ARTURO REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IVARY MANAGEMENT COMPANY dba RENAISSANCE
STONE CARE & WATERPROOFING; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 19CV340357 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty.,
Jan. 2, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal
and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Reyes was employed by the Defendants as applicator.

Ivary Management Company dba Renaissance Stone Care & Waterproofing
is a California corporation specializing in providing water
proofing services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alireza Alivandivafa, Esq.
          1925 Park East, Suite 1990
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 570-2238
          Facsimile: (310) 300-1015

               - and -

          Azad M. Marvazy, Esq.
          LIGHT LAW GROUP, APC
          1925 Park East, Suite 1990
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 241-3422
          Facsimile: (424) 273-8884


JONATHAN LORD: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Fernandez Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JONATHAN LORD CORP.; CAROLE KENTRUP; and
KATHY DANCIK, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-07457 (E.D.N.Y., Dec.
31, 2018) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Fernandez performed non-exempt duties including food
preparation and packaging.

Jonathan Lord Corp. is a corporation organized under the laws of
the State of New York. The Company offers bread, cake, and desserts
to customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          825 Veterans Highway, Suite B
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588
          E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com


L3 TECHNOLOGIES: $275K Deal in Estes FCRA Suit Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH ESTES, an individual, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. L3 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; and
L3 UNIDYNE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02356-H-LL (S.D.
Cal.), Judge Marilyn L. Huff of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California granted Estes (i) motion for final
approval of class action settlement, and (ii) motion for attorneys'
fees, costs, and class representative enhancement payment.

The Defendants provide a broad range of communication and
electronic systems products for military, homeland security, and
commercial use.  The Plaintiff was hired through the Defendants'
San Diego office to work as a mechanic.  He began work in September
2017 in Camp Pendleton, California.  As part of his job
application, the Plaintiff filled out the Defendants' "Background
Investigation Consent" form, which purported to permit the
Defendants to obtain a consumer report verifying the Plaintiff's
background experience.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Background Investigation Consent
form did not constitute valid consent for purposes of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") because it included the liability
release provision in addition to authorizing Defendants to obtain a
consumer report.  Additionally, he alleges that the Defendants
violated California Labor Code Section 226(a) by issuing wage
statements to him that did not contain the name and address of the
legal entity that was his employer.

The Plaintiff brought the class action on behalf of himself and two
proposed classes: (1) an "FCRA Class," defined as "all persons in
the United States who filled out theDefendants' standard
'Background Investigation Consent' form that included an
authorization and a liability release clause at any time during the
period beginning five (5) years prior to the filing of the
Complaint to the present time"; and (2) a "Wage Statement Class,"
defined as "all employees who are employed or have been employed by
Defendants in the State of California who worked one or more pay
periods since one (1) year prior to the filing of the First Amended
Complaint in this action and continuing to the present."  In his
complaint, the Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, statutory and
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On Feb. 9, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint.
On May 9, 2018, the parties engaged in a full-day mediation.
There, the parties reached a tentative settlement and subsequently
engaged in extensive negotiations about the terms and conditions of
settlement.  On June 25, 2018, the Plaintiff moved for preliminary
approval of the settlement.

On Aug. 1, 2018, the Court issued an order certifying the class for
settlement purposes, conditionally granting preliminary approval of
the class settlement, approving class notice, appointing the claims
administrator, and scheduling a final approval hearing.  In its
order, the Court conditioned its preliminary approval on the
parties submitting (1) evidence demonstrating that a driving nexus
indeed exists between the putative class and the currently proposed
cy pres beneficiaries, Bet Tzedek's Employment Rights Project; or
(2) an alternative cy pres recipient(s) that satisfies the Ninth
Circuit's standards.  

The parties presented evidence showing that Bet Tzedek's Employment
Rights Project seeks to enforce minimum labor standards in the
workplace by assisting low-wage workers through a combination of
individual representation before the Labor Commissioner, litigation
in state and federal court, legislative advocacy, and community
education," and works on cases involving wage-and-hour violations
and FCRA violations.  The Court concluded that Bet Tzedek is a
suitable cy pres beneficiary in the case and granted preliminary
approval of the class settlement.

The proposed settlement has been submitted as a formalized
stipulation with the present motion.  The total amount of the
settlement is $275,000.   The settlement allocates $5,000 as an
enhancement award to the named Plaintiff, $91,666.67 in attorneys'
fees, and $6,000 in litigation costs, leaving a Net Settlement
Amount of $172,333.33 for the classes.  The Plaintiff's counsel
states that the Defendants have separately agreed to pay for all
settlement administration costs and therefore, the settlement
administration costs will not be deducted from the Net Settlement
Amount.

For the FCRA claims, each of the 764 FCRA Class members receives
$75, totaling to $57,300 of the Net Settlement Amount.  The
remaining $115,033.33 will be divided pro rata per Wage Statement
Class member based on the number of Eligible Itemized Wage
Statements that she/he received as compared to the total number of
Eligible Itemized Wage Statements that each Wage Statement Class
member has received in California at any time during the Wage
Statement Period.

On Oct. 12, 2018, filed his instant motions.  The Court held a
hearing on the matter on Jan. 9, 2019.

Judge Huff certified the settlement class and granted final
approval of the settlement.  All persons who satisfy the class
definition, except those class members who timely and validly
excluded themselves from the class, are settlement class members
bound by this judgment.  The form and method of notice satisfied
the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
U.S. Constitution, including the Due Process Clause.

She granted the class counsel $91,666.67 in attorneys' fees and
$6,000 in expenses.  She granted the class representative Plaintiff
Estes an enhancement payment of $5,000.  The attorneys' fees,
expense awards, and enhancement payment will be paid out of the
settlement fund created by Defendants L3 Technologies, Inc. and L3
Unidyne, Inc.

The Court will issue a final judgment consistent with Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 58.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 9, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Rp6tu6 from Leagle.com.

Joseph Estes, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eric B. Kingsley --
eric@kingsleykingsley.com -- Kingsley and Kingsley.

L3 Technologies, Inc. & L3 Unidyne, Inc., Defendants, represented
by Chet A. Kronenberg -- ckronenberg@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher
and Bartlett LLP.


LEAFFILTER: Misclassifies Installers as Contractors, Young Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LEAFFILTER NORTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, LLC
& LEAFFILTER NORTH, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10055 (D.
Mass., Jan. 10, 2019), seeks overtime compensation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Young worked for the Defendants as an installer, installing gutter
protection systems on homes throughout Massachusetts.  Young
contends that the Defendants misclassify him and other installers
as independent contractors.  The Plaintiff contends that the
Defendants also violate the Massachusetts Independent Contractor
Statute, the Massachusetts Wage Act, and the Massachusetts Overtime
Law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Shafran, Esq.
          RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP
          92 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: 617-723-7700
          Facsimile: 617-227-0313

MADISON COUNTY, AL: Sheriff Faces Korb Suit in N.D. Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against the Madison County, Alabama.
The case is captioned as CHANDLER KORB, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VICTOR FLORES DE
LEON, JR.; SHERIFF BLAKE DORNING, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE
SHERIFF OF MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA; MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA; and
MADISON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Case No. 5:18-cv-02133-HNJ (N.D.
Ala., Dec. 31, 2018). The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge
Herman N. Johnson, Jr.

The Madison County Sheriff's Department provides the primary law
enforcement service for Madison County, Mississippi. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric J Artrip, Esq.
          Teresa Ryder Mastando, Esq.
          MASTANDO & ARTRIP LLC
          301 Washington Street, Suite 302
          Huntsville, AL 35801
          Telephone: (256) 532-2222
          Facsimile: (256) 513-7489
          E-mail: artrip@mastandoartrip.com
                  teri@mastandoartrip.com


MARRIOTT EMPLOYEES: Claims in Payne Consumer Credit Suit Narrowed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Wendy Bettlestone of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part
Marriott Employees Federal Credit Union ("MEFCU")'s motion to
dismiss the case, KATHERINE N. PAYNE AND ARTHUR COATES, Plaintiffs,
v. MARRIOTT EMPLOYEES FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Civil Action
No. 18-4009 (E.D. Pa.).

Payne and Coates bring a putative class action against MEFCU,
arguing that MEFCU's practices related to a "mini-loan" product
violate the Truth in Lending Act.  Specifically, they allege (1)
that MEFCU's financial disclosures to the Plaintiffs understated
the "finance charge" and "annual percentage rate" on mini-loans in
violation of 15 U.S.C. Sections 1605, 1638, and (2) that MEFCU
failed to disclose that it would acquire a security interest in the
share accounts or wages of employees who received mini-loans in
violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1638(a)(9) and 12 C.F.R. Section
1206.18(m).

The Plaintiffs have both been members of MEFCU for many years.
Over the course of their membership, they have applied for various
"mini-loans" from MEFCU.  Mini-loans are a financial product that
provide MEFCU members quick access to $500.  In exchange, the
members must make five monthly payments of $90, and a final payment
of $79.23, for a total of $529.23.  Additionally, MEFCU members
must pay a $35 "application fee" each time they apply for a new
mini-loan.

These figures are critical to key calculations that feature on
MEFCU's disclosures that it provides to applicants for mini-loans:
the "finance charge" and the "annual percentage rate."  The finance
charge is the cost of consumer credit as a dollar amount, which
MEFCU calculates as $29.23.  The APR is the cost of credit as a
yearly rate, which MEFCU calculates as 18%.

These calculations as disclosed by MEFCU, however, do not include
the $35 application fee -- the Plaintiffs contend that were the
application fee included, the finance charge would rise to $64.23,
and the APR would rise to 46%.  A key legal question at issue in
the motion to dismiss turns on the nature of the application fee.

The Plaintiffs assert two important facts about the fee in their
Complaint: (1) Various members of MEFCU who have applied for
mini-loans report that the application fee is only charged if their
applications are approved; and (2) MEFCU grants mini-loans to
applicants without performing credit checks, credit investigations,
or appraisals.

Pending now is MEFCU's motion to dismiss, which primarily argues
that its disclosures complied with TILA.  The motion to dismiss
also argues, in the alternative, that even if the disclosures were
inadequate, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to actual damages.

As to whether the fee is being charged to "all applicants," Judge
Bettlestone finds the allegations give rise to the reasonable
inference that the $35 fee was not charged to all applicants and
that it was not related to costs associated with processing
applications.  Therefore, MEFCU's argument must be rejected.

Next, she finds that at least at this stage of the proceedings, it
is entirely unclear from the documents provided to the Plaintiffs
what security interest MEFCU would obtain by making the loan.  This
is not a "clear" disclosure as required by Regulation Z, and
therefore MEFCU's motion to dismiss on this point will be denied.

Finally, she finds that the the contours of actions made in
reliance on inadequate disclosures that could give rise to a
showing of detrimental reliance under TILA remain unclear; while
the Third Circuit has identified certain specific actions in
Vallies v. Sky Bank (e.g., successfully negotiating a better deal
or foregoing the loan entirely), nothing precludes additional
actions not noted in that case from establishing detrimental
reliance, such as arranging one's finances differently, taking out
fewer loans, or some other reasonable action in response to a
creditor's misrepresentation.  The Plaintiffs have not pleaded any
facts that would meet this floor.  Therefore, MEFCU's motion must
be granted as to actual damages and the Judge needs not determine
the required elements for detrimental reliance in the TILA context.
The dismissal of the claim for actual damages will be without
prejudice.

For these reason, Judge Bettlestone granted in part and denied in
part MEFCU's the motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 9, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/gMVNQy from Leagle.com.

KATHERINE N. PAYNE & ARTHUR COATES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, represented by ROBERT P.
COCCO -- rcocco@rcn.com -- LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. COCCO PC,
PHILLIP ROBINSON -- info@maylandconsumer.com -- CONSUMER LAW CENTER
LLC & SCOTT C. BORISON -- info@legglaw.com.

MARRIOTT EMPLOYEES FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant, represented by
ANDREW S. KESSLER -- Kessler@LitchfieldCavo.com -- LITCHFIELD CAVO
LLP & THOMAS JUSTIN CHAPMAN -- ChapmanJ@LitchfieldCavo.com --
LITCHFIELD CAVO LLP.


MBT FINANCIAL: Named as Defendant in Viky Suit in Michigan
----------------------------------------------------------
MBT Financial Corp. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2019, that the
company is facing a derivative and putative class action entitled,
Gaylord Viky v. Michael J. Miller et al.

On January 4, 2019, the law firm of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP provided
to Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP, attorneys for MBT, a copy of a
complaint filed on December 20, 2018, on behalf of Gaylord Viky
("Viky"), a purported MBT stockholder, on behalf of Viky and all
MBT stockholders other than the named defendants and their
affiliates.

The complaint is a derivative and putative class action filed in
the Circuit Court for the County of Monroe, Michigan, captioned
Gaylord Viky v. Michael J. Miller et al., naming each MBT director
(collectively, the "Individual Defendants"), and MBT as defendants.
The complaint alleges that the Individual Defendants have breached
their fiduciary duties to the Purported Class by omitting certain
material information from First Merchants' Registration Statement
on Form S-4 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"SEC"), which includes First Merchants' prospectus with respect to
the shares of First Merchants' common stock to be issued to MBT
stockholders in the proposed merger and the MBT proxy statement for
the MBT special stockholders' meeting to be held on February 14,
2019.  

The relief sought by the complaint includes preliminary and
permanent injunction from proceeding with, consummating, or closing
the proposed merger, rescission and rescissory damages if the
proposed merger is completed, and damages, including attorneys' and
experts' fees.

MBT Financial said, "The defendants believe the allegations in the
complaint are without merit and intend to defend against them
vigorously. Currently, however, it is not possible to predict the
outcome of the litigation or the impact the litigation may have on
MBT, First Merchants or the proposed merger, if any."

MBT Financial Corp. operates as the bank holding company for the
Monroe Bank & Trust that provides retail and commercial banking,
and trust services to small and middle-market businesses and
middle-income individuals. It offers checking and savings accounts,
time deposits, and IRAs; and commercial loans, personal loans, real
estate mortgage loans, and installment loans. The company was
founded in 1858 and is headquartered in Monroe, Michigan.


MBT FINANCIAL: Pill Balks at Merger Deal with First Merchants
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID PILL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MBT FINANCIAL CORP., H. DOUGLAS
CHAFFIN, KRISTINE L. BARANN, PETER H. CARLTON, JOSEPH S. DALY,
JAMES F. DEUTSCH, MICHAEL J. MILLER, TONY SCAVUZZO, DEBRA J. SHAH,
JOHN SKIBSKI, and JOSEPH S. VIG, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-10076-LVP-RSW (E.D. Mich., Jan. 9, 2019), seeks to enjoin
Defendants from taking any steps to consummate a proposed merger
transaction or, in the event the proposed transaction is
consummated, to recover damages resulting from Defendants'
conduct.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on October
10, 2018, pursuant to which MBT Financial Corporation will be
acquired by First Merchants Corporation. On October 9, 2018, the
Company's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an
Agreement and Plan of Reorganization and Merger with First
Merchants. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, in an all-stock
transaction valued at approximately $291 million, the owners of the
outstanding shares in MBT will receive a fixed exchange ratio of
0.275 shares of First Merchants common stock for each share of MBT
they hold completion of the Merger, MBT will be integrated into
First Merchants as a wholly owned subsidiary of First Merchants. On
December 21, 2018, Defendants and First Merchants filed a proxy
statement on a Schedule 14A with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission. The lawsuit contends that the Proxy omits
certain material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders it false and misleading, in violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful course of
conduct in violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
14a-9, absent injunctive relief from the Court, the Plaintiff and
the other members of the Class will suffer irreparable injury by
being denied the opportunity to make an informed decision as to
whether to vote in favor of the Merger, the lawsuit says.

MBT Financial Corp. operates as the bank holding company for the
Monroe Bank & Trust that provides retail and commercial banking,
and trust services to small and middle-market businesses and
middle-income individuals.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Robert J. Abb, Esq.
          Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
          Robert J. Abb, Esq.
          VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C.
          79 Alfred Street
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: 313-578-1200
          Facsimile: 313-578-1201

MDL 2741: Vacant Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled SAMUEL VACANT, Plaintiff, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02079 (Filed Dec. 13,
2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on Jan. 9, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00119-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

MDL 2741: Walker Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled WAYNE WALKER, Plaintiff, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.  4:18-cv-02080 (Filed Dec.
13, 2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Jan. 9, 2019.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00120-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

MDL 2795: Filing of Sur-Reply in CenturyLink Securities Suit Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE CENTURYLINK SALES PRACTICES AND SECURITIES
LITIGATION. This Document Relates to Civil File Nos. 17-2832,
17-4613, 17-4614, 17-4615, 17-4616, 17-4617, 17-4618, 17-4619,
17-4622, 17-4943, 17-4944, 17-4945, 17-4947, 17-5046, 18-1562,
18-1565, 18-1572, 18-1573, MDL No. 17-2795 (MJD/KMM) (D. Minn.),
Judge Michael J. Davis of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a
Sur-Reply to Defendant and Proposed Intervenors' Motion to Compel
Arbitration and Enforce Class-Action Waivers.

An oral argument on the underlying motion to compel arbitration has
been set for March 6, 2019.

The Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to the motion to compel
arbitration on Aug. 23, 2018.  The Defendant filed its Reply in
support of the motion to compel arbitration on Nov. 21, 2018.  On
Dec. 13, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed the current motion for leave to
file a sur-reply.

The Plaintiffs assert that, in the Reply, the Defendant changed the
basis for its motion seeking to compel arbitration from seeking
relief under Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") to
seeking relief under Section 3 of the FAA.  The Defendant agrees
that the Plaintiffs should be entitled to file a sur-reply
addressing this issue.

Judge Davis will grant the Plaintiffs' motion.  The parties agree
that the Defendant has submitted a new legal theory and certain new
evidence that the Plaintiffs should be permitted to address.
Additionally, the question of whether the Plaintiffs agreed to
arbitration clauses is the key question in this hotly contested
motion.  A party cannot rely on a sham declaration created after
damaging deposition testimony to create a fact issue.  However, the
Judge cannot judge the propriety of the Plaintiffs' proposed new
declarations without reviewing the declarations and comparing them
to the deposition testimony, none of which are currently before the
Court.

Thus, at this point, he will grant the Plaintiffs' request to file
the sur-reply and declarations.  By permitting them to file the
declarations, the Judge is not yet ruling on the admissibility or
evidentiary significance of these declarations.  The Defendants
will be permitted ample time to respond, and the Court will rule on
the parties' arguments when a full record is before it.

Because the parties seek to add significant additional briefing and
evidence and to substantially extend the briefing schedule, the
Judge cancels the oral argument currently set for March 6, 2019.
The parties will contact the Court to obtain a new hearing date
that will permit the parties to fully address these new issues and
allow the Court sufficient time to prepare for oral argument.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, Judge Davis granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply.  The Plaintiffs
will file a sur-reply not exceeding 8,000 words by Jan. 18, 2019.
The Plaintiffs' sur-reply will address the argument that the
Defendant has withdrawn its motion to compel arbitration under
Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act; that the Defendant has
requested to stay these actions pursuant to Section 3 of the FAA;
and any arguments or supporting documents that rely on discovery
obtained or produced after Aug. 23, 2018.  The Plaintiffs may
submit conformed declarations in light of discovery that occurred
after Aug. 23, 2018; however, the admissibility and significance of
these declarations will be decided after Defendant has had the
opportunity to respond to the sur-reply.

The Defendant will be permitted to file a response to the surreply.
The response will be filed by Feb. 22, 2019, and will not exceed
8,000 words.  The oral argument currently set for March 6, 2019, is
cancelled, and the parties will contact the Court to reschedule
oral argument at a later date.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 9, 2019 Memorandum of Law and
Order is available at https://is.gd/1ltil7 from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by
Benjamin Jared Meiselas -- meiselas@geragos.com -- GERAGOS &
GERAGOS, pro hac vice, Brian C. Gudmundson --
brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Carolyn G.
Anderson --  carolyn.anderson@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed,
William A. McNab, Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, PLLP, Daniel C. Hedlund
-- dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Francois
Michel Blaudeau, Southern Institute for Medical &Legal Affairs LLC,
Hart L. Robinovitch -- hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman
Reed, PLLP, James McDonough, III -- JMcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com --
Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC, Lori G. Feldman, Geragos & Geragos,
pro hac vice, Mark J. Geragos -- geragos@geragos.com -- GERAGOS &
GERAGOS, pro hac vice, Mark M. O'Mara, O'Mara Law Group, Michelle
J. Looby -- mlooby@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson  Gluek PLLC,
Richard M. Hagstrom -- rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com -- Hellmuth &
Johnson & Roxanne Barton Conlin -- efile@roxanneconlinlaw.co --
Roxanne Conlin & Associates, P.C.

Defendant's Primary Outside Counsel, Defendant, represented by
David M. Aafedt -- daafedt@winthrop.com -- Winthrop & Weinstine,
PA, David A. Vogel -- dvogel@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, pro hac
vice, Douglas P. Lobel -- dlobel@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, pro hac
vice, Jeffrey M. Gutkin -- jgutkin@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Joseph
M. Windler -- jwindler@winthrop.com -- Winthrop & Weinstine, PA &
William A. McNab -- wmcnab@winthrop.com -- Winthrop & Weinstine,
PA.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Bookers Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH RAY BOOKER and TAMMY BOOKER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00033-DJH (E.D. Mo., Jan.
14, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennifer A. Moore, Esq.
          Ashton Rose Smith, Esq.
          MOORE LAW GROUP, PLLC
          One Riverfront Plaza
          401 West Main Street, Suite 1810
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 657-7100
          Facsimile: (502) 657-7111
          E-mail: jennifer@moorelawgroup.com
                  ashton@moorelawgroup.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Walker Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
DWIGHT WILKINSON, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00034 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 11, 2018), seeks
to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONTANA: Amended Bid for Class Certification in DiFrancesco Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL DiFRANCESCO and ASHLEY DA VIS, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TIM FOX, in
his official capacity as Attorney General of Montana; SARAH GARCIA,
in her official capacity as Administrator of the Motor Vehicle
Division; and MICHELE SNOWBERGER, in her official capacity as
Bureau Chief of the Driver Services Bureau, Defendants, Case No. CV
17-66-BU-SEH (D. Mont.), Judge Sam E. Haddon of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Montana, Butte Division, denied the
Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification.

The Plaintiffs claim that the Montana Motor Vehicle Division
("MVD") is running a wealth-based driver's license suspension
scheme that traps some of the state's poorest residents in a cycle
of poverty.  The Complaint asserts, inter alia, that: (1) the MVD
automatically and unlawfully suspends the driver's license of
people who owe court-ordered fines, costs, and restitution even if
they simply cannot afford to pay; (2) the suspensions remain
imposed until the fine is paid or waived; and (3) payment of a $100
reinstatement fee before the license can be reinstated is required
unless the fee is waived.

The Amended Complaint pleads, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, that
the Montana statutory framework violates: (1) the Plaintiffs' right
of Equal Protection and Due Process by discriminating based on
wealth; (2) Due Process by infringing on the Plaintiffs' right to
intrastate travel; (3) Equal Protection by discriminating based on
wealth without a legitimate state purpose; (4) Equal Protection by
employing "extraordinary collection" practices; and (5) procedural
Due Process by not providing an ability-to-pay hearing prior to
suspending driver's licenses.

The Plaintiffs seek: (1) a declaratory judgment that the state's
practice of suspending licenses in accordance with Montana law is
illegal and unconstitutional; (2) a preliminary and permanent
injunction against Defendants' continued enforcement of the
challenged statutes; (3) an injunction reinstating Plaintiffs'
driver licenses; and (4) attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs have moved for certification of the class of all
individuals whose Montana driver's licenses are, or will be,
suspended for nonpayment of a fine, cost, or restitution under
Mont. Code Ann. Snecti 61-5-214(1)(b) and who were, or will be,
unable to afford to pay the fine, cost, or restitution at the time
of suspension.

In the alternative, they seek certification of two subclasses,
defined as:

     (1) Current Class Members, who will be members of the class as
of the date of certification: All individuals whose Montana
driver's licenses are currently suspended for nonpayment of a fine,
cost, or restitution under Mont. Code Ann. Section 61-5-214(1)(b)
and who were unable to afford to pay the fine, cost, or restitution
at the time of suspension; and

     (2) Future Class Members, who will be added to the class when
their claims become ripe: All individuals whose Montana driver's
licenses will be suspended for nonpayment of a fine, cost, or
restitution under Mont. Code Ann. Section 61-5-214(1)(b) and who
are unable to afford to pay the fine, cost, or restitution at the
time of suspension.

Judge Haddon finds that all the potential class members in the case
would benefit from an injunction issued on behalf of the
individually named Plaintiffs.  Any judgment implicating the
constitutionality of Montana's driver's license revocation or
reinstatement statutes would be binding on all the Defendants and
to the benefit of all the potential class members.  He holds no
useful need or purpose is served by the certification of the
Plaintiffs' proposed class.  The costs and complexities associated
with maintaining a class action outweigh the benefits class
certification is intended to provide.  Hence, the class
certification is inappropriate and unnecessary.  Accordingly, he
denied the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 9, 2019 Memorandum and Order is
available at https://is.gd/Y7ljoi from Leagle.com.

Michael DiFrancesco, on behalf of imself and others similarly
situated & Ashley Davis, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Phil Telfeyan --
ptelfeyan@equaljusticeunderlaw.org. -- EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW, pro
hac vice, Rebecca Ramaswamy, EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW, pro hac vice,
Robert Farris-Olsen -- rfolsen@mswdlaw.com -- MORRISON, SHERWOOD,
WILSON & DEOLA, PLLP & Scott L. Peterson, MORRISON, SHERWOOD,
WILSON & DEOLA, PLLP.

Tim Fox, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Montana,
Sarah Garcia, in her official capacity as Administrator of the
Motor Vehicle Division & Michele Snowberger, in her official
capacity as Bureau Chief of the Driver Services Bureau, Defendants,
represented by Robert Thomas Cameron, CHRISTENSEN & PREZEAU, PLLP &
Hannah E. Tokerud, MONTANA ATTORNEY GENERAL.


MONTGOMERY & MCCRACKEN: Waleski Suit Moved to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A case, Stanley Waleski, on his own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Montgomery,
McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP, Leonard A. Busby, and Natalie D.
Ramsey, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01144, was removed from
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Foley Square) on Jan. 11, 2019. The Southern District of New York
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00309-AJN to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Alison J. Nathan.

Montgomery & McCracken is a full service law firm with attorneys in
Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey & Delaware.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Ashley C Keller, Esq.
          Travis D. Lenkner, Esq.
          Seth A 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

               - and -

          Scott M. Hare, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT M. HARE
          Frick Building
          437 Grant Street, Suite 1806
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 338 8632
          E-mail: scott@scottlawpgh.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Daniel T. Brier, Esq.
          MYERS BRIER & KELLY, LLP
          425 Spruce Street, Suite 200
          Scranton, PA 18503
          Telephone: (570) 342-6100
          E-mail: dbrier@mbklaw.com

               - and -

          Donna A. Walsh, Esq.
          Suzanne Conaboy, Esq.
          MYERS BRIER & KELLY, LLP
          425 Spruce Street, Suite 200
          Scranton, PA 18503
          Telephone: (570) 342-6100
          E-mail: dwalsh@mbklaw.com
                  sconaboy@mbklaw.com

               - and -

          Emily G. Moniton, Esq.
          Robert P Johnson, Esq.
          THOMPSON HINE LLP
          312 Walnut Street, Suite 1400
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 352-6769
          E-mail: Emily.Montion@ThompsonHine.com
                  Rob.Johnson@ThompsonHine.com

MRK 1200 COLLINS: Faces Gomez's ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRK 1200 Collins
Avenue LLC. The case is captioned as ANDRES GOMEZ, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MRK 1200
COLLINS AVENUE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-25484-FAM (S.D.
Fla., Dec. 31, 2018). The lawsuit alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge
Federico A. Moreno.

MRK 1200 Collins Avenue LLC is engaged in the hotel business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica L. Kerr, Esq.
          THE ADVOCACY GROUP
          200 S.E. 6th St., Ste. 504
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 282-1858
          E-mail: service@advocacypa.com


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Removes Teiner Suit to E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of CHRISTOPHER TEINER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONWIDE
CREDIT, INC., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk (Case
No. 622414/2018) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on January 2, 2018. The clerk of court for the
Eastern District of New York assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-00031-JFB-GRB. The case is assigned to Judge Joseph F.
Bianco and referred to Magistrate Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown.

Nationwide Credit, Inc., a collection agency, provides customer
relationship and accounts receivable management services. The
company was founded in 1947 and is based in Tempe, Arizona.
Nationwide Credit, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Altisource
Portfolio Solutions S.A. [BN]

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
          775 Park Avenue, Suite 255
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 335-1107
          E-mail: mpash@verizon.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Benjamin Samuel Noren, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 471-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 935-1166
          E-mail: bnoren@hinshawlaw.com

               - and -

          Ellen Beth Silverman, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 471-6229
          Facsimile: (212) 935-1166


NFL: In Finkelman Suit, Tickets Sold within Meaning of Sec. 35.1
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Josh Finkelman, on behalf of himself and the Putative
class, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. National Football League; NFL
Ventures, L.P.; NFL Properties, L.L.C., NFL Ventures, Inc.; NFL
Enterprises, L.L.C., Defendants-Respondents, Case Nos. A-38
September Term 2017, 080501 (N.J.), Judge Anne M. Patterson of the
Supreme Court of New Jersey has issued an opinion concluding that
the Super Bowl tickets sold to lottery winners were the only 2014
Super Bowl tickets designated by the NFL for "release for sale to
the general public" within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 56:8-35.1

In the appeal, the Judge reviews questions certified by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  The Third Circuit
certified the questions in the course of its review of Finkelman's
putative class action against Defendants, arising from the NFL's
distribution of tickets to the 2014 Super Bowl.

The reformulated certified questions are:

     1) Is the term person who has access to tickets to an event
prior to the tickets' release for sale to the general public, as
that term is used in [section 35.1, limited to ticket brokers and
resellers?

    2) Are tickets to an event that are sold to winners of a
lottery released for sale to the general public within the meaning
of section 35.1, and, if so, are tickets distributed to selected
entities withheld from sale to the general public within the
meaning of section 35.1?

In a putative class action complaint filed in the district court,
the Plaintiff and another class representative alleged that the
Defendants committed an unlawful practice under section 35.1 by
withholding more than 5% of Super Bowl tickets from sale to the
general public.  The Plaintiff contended that some of the tickets
allocated to the NFL teams not playing in the Super Bowl were sold
to ticket brokers, who in turn sold those tickets on the secondary
market at inflated prices.  He asserted that, as a result of the
Defendants' violation of section 35.1, the two tickets he purchased
on the secondary market were bought at an inflated price: t$2,000
for each ticket, more than twice each ticket's face value of $800.


The Plaintiff sought certification of a class including all persons
who paid for, or will pay for, or could not afford to pay for
tickets to the 2014 Super Bowl in excess of the printed ticket
price."

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the district court granted
the Defendants' motion to dismiss.  The Third Circuit affirmed in
part and reversed in part the district court's decision.  It
affirmed the determination that the other class representative
lacked standing but reversed as to the Plaintiff, finding that he
also lacked standing.  The panel therefore dismissed the
Plaintiff's claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

In an amended complaint, the Plaintiff expanded his allegation that
the NFL violated section 35.1 in its distribution of tickets to the
2014 Super Bowl and supported that allegation with an expert's
report.  The district court again granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6).

The Plaintiff again appealed the district court's judgment.  After
addressing the district court's rulings on standing and causation,
the Third Circuit issued its certified question in accordance with
Rule 2:12A-1.

The Court accepted the certified question and reformulated it
pursuant to Rule 2:12A-2.  It also granted the motion of the New
Jersey Business and Industry Association ("NJBIA") to appear as
amicus curiae.

The Plaintiff contends that section 35.1 is not limited to ticket
brokers and resellers because the Legislature's definition of
"person" is broader than its definition of "ticket broker."  The
NFL agrees that section 35.1 does not limit the definition of a
"person" to ticket brokers and resellers.  It contends, however,
that Super Bowl tickets purchased by lottery winners were not
released to the general public for purposes of section 35.1.  
Amicus curiae NJBIA argues that the NFL was not a "person" with
access to tickets released for sale to the general public within
the meaning of section 35.1. It asserts that even if the NFL's
lottery constitutes a sale of tickets to the general public under
the statute, the NFL did not withhold any of "those tickets" from
the lottery, and therefore did not violate section 35.1.

The certified questions concern the section 35.1, a chonsumer
protection statute that regulates ticket sales to sports and
entertainment events.  Section 35.1 provides: It will be an
unlawful practice for a person, who has access to tickets to an
event prior to the tickets' release for sale to the general public,
to withhold those tickets from sale to the general public in an
amount exceeding 5% of all available seating for the event.

The law was in force when the Super Bowl was held in New Jersey on
Feb. 2, 2014.  The Legislature, however, has since repealed section
35.1, effective Feb. 1, 2019.

Judge Patterson finds that the plain language of the Ticket Resale
Law clearly establishes that the Legislature did not intend to
limit section 35.1's reach to ticket brokers and resellers.  The
Legislature intended certain provisions of the Ticket Resale Law to
specifically address the activities of ticket brokers, and
accordingly used that term.  Section 35.1's plain language thus
evinces a legislative intent to apply the statute not only to
ticket brokers and resellers, but also to a broader class of
individuals and entities with access to tickets to an event prior
to the tickets' release for sale to the general public.
Accordingly, she concludes that the term "person who has access to
tickets to an event prior to the tickets' release for sale to the
general public," as that term is used in section 35.1, is not
limited to ticket brokers and resellers, and answers the first
certified question in the negative.

The Judge next considers whether the tickets sold to winners of the
NFL's lottery were released for sale to the general public within
the meaning ofsection 35.1.  The record reveals that the NFL
conducted its 2014 Super Bowl ticket lottery in order to make a
limited number of tickets available to the general public.
Applying section 35.1's plain language, it is clear that the ticket
lottery effected a "release" of tickets for sale to the "general
public" for purposes of section 35.1.  Thus, when the NFL made 1%
of the 2014 Super Bowl tickets available for sale to the lottery
winners it "released" those tickets for sale.  She thus concludes
that the tickets sold to the winners of the 2014 Super Bowl lottery
were released for sale to the general public within the meaning of
that provision, and answers the first component of the second
certified question in the affirmative.

Her inal inquiry is whether the tickets distributed to selected
entities -- in the case, the 99% of 2014 Super Bowl tickets given
to NFL teams, corporations, broadcast networks, media, sponsors,
and the Super Bowl host committee -- constitute tickets to an event
prior to the tickets' release for sale to the general public that
are withheld from sale to the general public within the meaning of
section 35.1.  She finds that no person had access to those tickets
prior to the tickets' release for sale to the general public, and
no person could withhold those tickets from sale to the general
public in advance of such a sale.  Accordingly, the Judge concludes
that tickets distributed to selected entities were not withheld
from sale to the general public within the meaning of section 35.1,
and answers the second component of the second certified question
in the negative.

Judge Patterson held that in responding to the certified questions,
she strives to advance the consumer protection objectives expressed
by the Legislature when it enacted section 35.1, consistent with
the limits imposed by the statutory text.  If her interpretation of
section 35.1 does not reflect the Legislature's intended goal in
the regulation of ticket distribution for New Jersey events, the
Legislature may elect to replace the repealed statute with a
provision that clarifies the State's public policy with respect to
that issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 9, 2019 Opinion is available at
https://is.gd/SVIvre from Leagle.com.

Bruce H. Nagel -- bnagel@nagelrice.com -- argued the cause for
appellant (Nagel Rice, attorneys; Bruce H. Nagel, Robert H. Solomon
, and Greg M. Kohn -- gkohn@nagelrice.com -- on the briefs).

Jonathan D. Pressment -- jonathan.pressment@haynesboone.com --
(Haynes and Boone) of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice,
argued the cause for respondents (Haynes and Boone and Fox
Rothschild, attorneys; Jonathan D. Pressment, of counsel and on the
briefs, and William Feldman, a member of the New York, Texas, and
District of Columbia Bars, admitted pro hac vice, on the briefs,
and Karen A. Confoy -- kconfoy@foxrothschild.com -- and Allison L.
Hollows -- ahollows@foxrothschild.com -- on the briefs).

Jeffrey S. Jacobson -- jjacobson@kelleydrye.com -- argued the cause
for amicus curiae New Jersey Business and Industry Association
(Kelley Drye & Warren, attorneys; Jeffrey S. Jacobson, on the
briefs).


NOVA LIFESTYLE: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, is investigating
potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Nova
Lifestyle, Inc. (NASDAQ:NVFY) resulting from allegations that Nova
Lifestyle may have issued materially misleading business
information to the investing public.

On December 21, 2018, Andri Capital published an article reporting
evidence of fictitious sales at Nova Lifestyle. Based on Andri
Capital's research, Nova Lifestyle "booked sales of over $50
million in recent years to two companies that either have been
dissolved or do not exist[.]" The report also states that "other
supposedly large customers of [Nova Lifestyle] do not seem to
recognize doing business with Nova LifeStyle (possibly for over $60
million since 2011)." On this news, Nova Lifestyle's stock has
fallen sharply during intraday trading on December 21, 2018.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by Nova Lifestyle investors. If you purchased
shares of Nova Lifestyle please visit the firm's website at
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1475.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.

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]


NUTRISYSTEM INC: Gusinsky Sues over Misleading Financial Report
---------------------------------------------------------------
VLADIMIR GUSINSKY REV. TRUST, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NUTRISYSTEM, INC.,
MICHAEL J. HAGAN, DAWN M. ZIER, ROBERT F. BERNSTOCK, PAUL GUYARDO,
JAY HERRATTI, MICHAEL D. MANGAN, BRIAN P. TIERNEY, ANDREW WEISS,
PATRICIA HAN, BENJAMIN A. KIRSHNER, TIVITY HEALTH, INC., and SWEET
ACQUISITION, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00069-UNA (D.
Del., Jan. 10, 2019), stems from a proposed transaction announced
on December 10, 2018, pursuant to which Nutrisystem, Inc. will be
acquired by Tivity Health, Inc. and Sweet Acquisition, Inc.

On December 9, 2018, Nutrisystem's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Tivity.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Nutrisystem's
stockholders will receive $38.75 in cash and 0.2141 shares of
Parent common stock for each share of Nutrisystem they own. On
January 8, 2019, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction.  The Registration
Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and
misleading, the lawsuit says.

Nutrisystem, headquartered in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania, is a
commercial provider of weight loss products and services.
Initially, the company offered weight loss counseling and products
in brick and mortar centers.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

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

ONTARIO: Suit Over Mental Health Program Obtains Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
Len Gillis, writing for The Daily Press, reports that a Timmins
family is leading the way in a lawsuit against the Government of
Ontario over the lack of care and support provided when a
developmentally disabled person becomes an adult.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled that Timmins
businessman Marc Leroux, acting on behalf of his daughter Briana
Leroux, has the right to move forward with a class action lawsuit.

Leroux had initiated a Motion for Certification for the lawsuit
alleging the government was taking far too long in providing care
and assistance for his daughter Briana, who is 20 years old and
lives with her father in Timmins, as he is also her litigation
guardian.

"Briana is developmentally disabled," said the court document. "She
was diagnosed with a rare brain disorder when she was two. Brianna
remains non-verbal and functions at the level of a three-year-old.
She requires constant care for everything from eating, basic
mobility and personal hygiene. Briana will be developmentally
disabled for the rest of her life."

The court document also stated that the family counts on the
financial support and social services that government provides
through the Ministry of Community and Social Services MCSS,

In an interview with The Daily Press last year, Leroux said he had
heard that the wait could last as long as four years. In the
meantime, he had to take time away from his work as a real estate
broker to provide basic care for his daughter.

"You can't just call a babysitter," he said in 2017. "Most of the
time, we just had to stay home. That's what makes it difficult, not
only for me, but for all the parents with children like Briana."

Ontario Justice Edward P. Belobaba, who approved the certification,
noted that when Briana turned 18 and her family was required to
deal with the MCSS, Briana was duly assessed and approved for
support and services by the appropriate Developmental Services
Office (DSO).

"She was then placed on waitlists with no estimate as to how long
she would have to wait for the approved services. Her father's
evidence, when he swore the affidavit in this action a year ago,
was that Briana at that point had been without services for one and
a half years," said the court.

"Given that no support or services were forthcoming from the MCSS,
the plaintiff (Marc Leroux) tried to provide the round-the-clock
care himself. His evidence is that, even with his flexible work
schedule as a realtor in Timmins, he was quickly driven to the
breaking point and had to apply for emergency support. The
application for emergency support was successful, but was capped
after two extensions, despite the ongoing urgency.

The lawsuit is seeking $110 million in damages along with the
acknowledgement that the province has failed those adults who are
eligible for assistance by putting them on unreasonably long wait
lists, said the court document.

In his decision Justice Belobaba wrote that Briana had been
provided for with government assistance for most of her life. He
said turning 18 did not change her condition or her need for care.

"Although a meaningful milestone for many, turning 18 has no
medical or other significance for developmentally disabled persons.
Nothing changes when they become 18 -- they remain disabled, with
the same mental age and the same need for support and services. The
only difference is that now they have to deal with the MCSS," he
wrote.

The court also noted that Leroux has filed his claim based on three
causes of action: negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and breach
of a section of the Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms as it
relates to "security of the person".

It was also revealed that while Leroux was acting primarily for the
sake of his daughter, his was not the only family in that
situation.

"The plaintiff has filed several recent public reports that make
clear that the problems identified by the plaintiff and his four
co-affiants (other persons in the class-action) are systemic and
are shared by literally thousands of Ontario families whose loved
ones include developmentally disabled persons," said the court
document.

Justice Belobaba wrote "In my view, there is enough in the
pleadings, generously interpreted, to support at least a
possibility of success for two of the claims"; those being
negligence and the Charter of rights. He said the weakest argument
was the breach of fiduciary duty.

While the case and Leroux's claims have yet to be tested in court,
Justice Belobaba also commented on the fact that the Ontario
government had not filed a defence.

"The defendant has not yet filed its statement of defence and the
plaintiff may be proven wrong as this action proceeds. Each of the
alleged deficiencies -- the waitlists, the bad databases, flawed
computer programs and faulty prioritization and matching processes
-- may all be traced eventually to inadequate funding but at this
stage in this proceeding there is no evidence from the defendant
that this is in fact the case," Belobaba wrote.

"In short, at this point in this proceeding, there is ample
evidence before the court that the core complaint is not about
inadequate funding but about defects or problems in the operation
and administration of a social assistance system that have
class-wide commonality," he continued.

The Daily Press tried but was not successful in getting comments
from Leroux on his reaction to the court's decision or what the
timeline would be as the court case moves forward.[GN]


ORLANDO, FL: OUC Faces Suit on Toxins Exposure
----------------------------------------------
Amanda Ober, writing for WESH Orlando, reports that a class-action
lawsuit filed against the Orlando Utilities Commission claims the
company exposed thousands of homeowners to cancerous toxins.

Developers are accused of polluting as many as 30,000 people with
toxic byproducts from the utility's coal-fired power plants.

The lawsuit was brought by residents in Stoneybrook, Avalon Park,
Eastwood and other neighborhoods north of the Stanton Energy
Center.

Studies reveal coal plant pollution -- including polonium -- has
resulted in child cancer rates up to 10 times higher than national
average, the suit claims.

"This came to us from a group of residents in the area who had
found each other as their children were being treated for cancer,.
Some of the children were dying from what was happening and they
came to us and said help us, " attorney Leslie Kroeger said.

"This area is marketed as the perfect environment to raise your
child but, despite being told this was a safe place for our family,
our property was inundated with toxic contaminants from the coal
plant," said Michelle Irizarry, a plaintiff in the suit and a
resident of Avalon Park.

Kroeger said the suit does not seek to shut the coal plant down but
to change the way OUC handles the coal-ash.

"We don't believe OUC handled that properly and is still not
handling that properly. There are still pollutants coming out as we
speak right now," Kroeger said.

An OUC representative responded with the following statement:

"(OUC's) operations are highly regulated by both the state and
federal governments. OUC meets or exceeds all permitting
requirements. Due to the pending litigation, we cannot get into any
additional detail."[GN]


PANALPINA INC: Portuondo's FLSA Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A case, ALAIN PORTUONDO And Other Similarly Situated Individuals,
the Plaintiff, vs. PANALPINA, INC., doing business as: PANALPINA
(FLORIDA), INC., A Foreign Profit Corporation; FRANK HERCKSEN,
Individually; ROBERT J. ERNEST, Individually; ALEXANDER HOTZ,
Individually; and THAYNE WORSLEY, Individually, the Defendants,
Case No. 18-039857-CA-01, was removed from the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit, to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (Miami) on Jan. 11, 2019. The Southern District of Florida
Court Clerk Assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-20159-UU to the proceeding.
The suit alleges Fair Labor Standards Act violation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Ursula Ungaro.

The Panalpina Group is one of the world's leading providers of
supply chain solutions.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          Max Lloyd Horowitz, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com
                  mhorowitz@rgpattorneys.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Aaron Jarett Reed, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 400-7500
          Facsimile: (305) 603-2552
          E-mail: AReed@littler.com

PAPA JOHN'S: Jamiah Greer Sues over "No Hire" Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------
A case, JAMIAH GREER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC., the
Defendant, seeks damages for Defendants' violations of the Sherman
Act and the Clayton Act.

According to the complaint, PJI owns and operates approximately 700
pizza restaurants in the United States under the "Papa John's"
brand. More than 90% of PJI's 22,400 employees work in these
restaurants according to PJI's 2017 Annual Statement. PJI also
licenses the Papa John's brand to franchisees who operate
approximately 2,600 restaurants nationwide. PJI's franchisees
collectively employ approximately 50,000 individuals who are
responsible for running the daily operations of their stores. One
of the largest expenses associated with running a Papa John's
restaurant are labor costs. These costs are so significant that PJI
acknowledged in its 2017 annual report that "higher labor costs and
increased competition for qualified team members" presented a
substantial risk to its business. To address this issue, PJI and
its franchisees sought to artificially reduce their labor costs
during the Class Period by entering into an agreement not to
compete for individuals employed by other Papa John's restaurants.
This "No Hire Agreement" was a standardized part of every franchise
agreement entered between PJI and its franchisees since at least
2008.

The lawsuit contends that PJI benefited financially from the Papa
John's No Hire Agreement because the policy reduced its cost of
labor, thereby: (1) increasing the value of Papa John's franchises,
which enabled PJI to license a greater number of franchises and
collect greater royalties from franchisees, and (2) substantially
increasing PJI's profit margins on company-owned stores. The
unlawful acts caused Plaintiff and the Class to suffer substantial
injury by being unable to benefit from a competitive market for
their supply of labor and were deprived of increased compensation,
conditions of employment, and benefits, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          Christian Levis, Esq.
          Roland R. St. Louis, III, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
                  clevis@lowey.com
                  rstlouis@lowey.com

PFIZER INC: Al Haj Seeks to Certify Class of Robitussin Buyers
--------------------------------------------------------------
KARMEL AL HAJ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PFIZER INC., the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-06730 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:

   1. certifying a Nationwide Class, consisting of:

      "all persons residing in the United States who purchased
      Robitussin Maximum Strength Cough + Chest Congestion DM for
      personal or household use"

      In the alternative, certifying two alternative multi-state
      classes, including:

      (1) a Consumer Protection Multi-State Class, consisting of:

      "all persons residing in California, Colorado, District of
      Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan,
      Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,
      New York, and Washington who purchased Robitussin Maximum
      Strength Cough + Chest Congestion DM for personal or
      household use"; and

      (2) an Unjust Enrichment Multi-State Class, defined as:

      "all persons residing in Arkansas, Colorado, District of
      Columbia, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico and New York
      who purchased Robitussin Maximum Strength Cough + Chest
      Congestion DM for personal or household use";

      As a second alternative, certifying an Illinois Subclass
      under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices
      Act and/or the law of unjust enrichment in Illinois, defined

      as:

      "all persons residing in Illinois who purchased
      Robitussin Maximum Strength Cough + Chest Congestion DM for
      personal or household use";

   2. appointing her as the class representative; and

   3. appointing her attorneys as class counsel.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
          Emily R. Brown, Esq.
          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (708) 628-4960
          E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com
                  dank@hbsslaw.com
                  emilyb@hbsslaw.com
                  steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Darren Malek, Esq.
          VERITAS LAW GROUP
          Kalamazoo Building, 5th Floor
          107 W. Michigan Avenue
          Kalamazoo, MI 49007
          Telephone: (269) 270-3500

PIER 1: Continues to Defend Town of Davie Pension Plan Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pier 1 Imports, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 1, 2018, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Town of Davie
Police Pension Plan, Plaintiff, v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc., Alexander
W. Smith and Charles H. Turner, Defendants.

Putative class action complaints were filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas – Dallas
Division against Pier 1 Imports, Inc., Alexander W. Smith and
Charles H. Turner in August and October 2015 alleging violations
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The lawsuits, which have been consolidated into a single action
captioned Town of Davie Police Pension Plan, Plaintiff, v. Pier 1
Imports, Inc., Alexander W. Smith and Charles H. Turner,
Defendants, were filed on behalf of a purported putative class of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired stock of Pier 1
Imports, Inc. between April 10, 2014 and December 17, 2015.

The plaintiffs seek to recover damages purportedly caused by the
Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5  promulgated thereunder.

The complaint seeks certification as a class action, unspecified
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.

On August 10, 2017, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint, while providing the plaintiffs an
opportunity to replead their complaint. An amended complaint was
filed with the court on September 25, 2017.

On June 25, 2018, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
the amended complaint, with prejudice. The plaintiffs subsequently
filed a notice of appeal and a related appellate brief; the Company
plans to file its reply brief in January 2019.

Pier 1 Imports said, "Although the ultimate outcome of litigation
cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that this
lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend against it
vigorously."

Pier 1 Imports, Inc. engages in the retail sale of decorative
accessories, furniture, candles, housewares, gifts, and seasonal
products. The company was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in
Fort Worth, Texas.


PIER 1: Settles Wage-and-Hour Class Suits in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Pier 1 Imports, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 1, 2018, that the company has
settled the wage-and-hour lawsuits in California.

The Company was a defendant in lawsuits in federal courts in
California containing various class action allegations under
California state wage-and-hour laws. These lawsuits sought
unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys'
fees.

The Company settled these cases as expected on terms favorable to
the Company in view of the claims made, the continuing cost of
litigation and an assessment of the risk of an adverse trial court
or appellate decision.

The Company recognized expense of $6,600,000 in the second quarter
of the prior fiscal year attributable to the legal and regulatory
proceedings.

Pier 1 Imports, Inc. engages in the retail sale of decorative
accessories, furniture, candles, housewares, gifts, and seasonal
products. The company was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in
Fort Worth, Texas.


PINNACLE CONDO: Fla. App. Affirms Class Certification in Haney Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, The Pinnacle Condominium Association, Inc., Appellant,
v. Richard Haney, et al., Appellees, Case No. 3D17-2723 (Fla.
App.), Judge Richard Suarez of the District Court of Appeal of
Florida for the Third District affirmed the trial court's Nov. 9,
2017 non-final order certifying a class of condominium unit owners
encumbered by a settlement agreement in a prior cause.

On appeal, the Appellant argues that the trial court abused its
discretion in certifying the class because the Appellees, the
putative class representatives, failed to fulfill the numerosity,
typicality, and adequacy requirements of rule 1.220(a).  

Judge Suarez finds the Appellant's arguments to be unfounded.

First, numerosity speaks to whether the members of the class are so
numerous that separate joinder of each member is impracticable.
The Appellant incorrectly suggests the trial court was required to
make findings as to the individual ability of each putative class
member to bring separate actions.  The plain language of rule
1.220(a)(1) requires no such thing.  Moreover, as the Florida
Supreme Court has made clear, no specific number is needed to
sustain the numerosity requirement, and class certification is
proper if the class representative does not base the projected
class size on mere speculation.  The projected class size of 230
members is based on record evidence and not on speculation.  Thus,
the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Appellees
satisfied the numerosity element by determining the putative class
members were so numerous as to make separate joinder of each member
impracticable.

Second, the key inquiry for a trial court when it determines
whether a proposed class satisfies the typicality requirement is
whether the class representative possesses the same legal interest
and has endured the same legal injury as the class members.  The
Appellant contends that one of the putative class representatives
may not have been encumbered by the subject settlement agreement
underlying the proposed class action.  However, as was noted at the
relevant hearing on the motion to certify the class, the Appellees
produced affidavits attesting to said putative class member's
encumbrance. Appellant produced no such evidence to the contrary.
The claims of the putative class representatives are typical of the
claims of each member of the class.  Therefore, the trial court
properly concluded the Appellees satisfied the typicality
requirement.

Third, adequacy rests on whether the representative party can
fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of each
member of the class.  The Appellant argues the trial court failed
to address the Appellees' "unreasonable delay" in moving for class
certification, and instead only relied on the qualifications of
class counsel. On the contrary, the trial court's order
specifically finds that the class counsel have acted in a diligent
and timely manner.  This finding is supported by competent,
substantial evidence.  A trial court's determination as to the
qualifications of class counsel to adequately represent a class
will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of clear abuse of
discretion.  Absent such a showing here, the trial court's adequacy
determination stands.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Suarez holds that the trial court did
not abuse its discretion in certifying class.  He therefore
affirmed.  Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for
rehearing.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 9, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/0t2Onf from Leagle.com.

Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Kathryn L. Ender --
kathryn.ender@csklegal.com -- and Therese A. Savona --
therese.savona@csklegal.com -- for appellant.

Baron & Herskowitz, and Jon Herskowitz, for appellees.


PITT STREET: Vega Sues Unsolicited Telemarketing Telephone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
TONY VEGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PITT STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC D/B/A EXIT
REALTY ASSOCIATES, a Virginia Limited Liability Company, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-20106-JEM (S.D. Fla., Jan. 9, 2019),
alleges that, to gain advantage over its competitors and increase
its revenue, the Defendant engages in unsolicited telemarketing,
with no regard for consumers' privacy rights, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

On or about May 3, 2018, the Defendant caused prerecorded message
to be transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending
in 7326. Because the Plaintiff did not answer his telephone after
it rang, a voicemail containing a prerecorded message was left on
Plaintiff's phone. The following is a screenshot of the transcript
of the voicemail that was left in Plaintiff's voicemail box. The
prerecorded call at issue, which was left as a voicemail, was
transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular telephone, and within the time
frame relevant to this action. When Plaintiff listened to the
voicemail he was easily able to determine that it was a prerecorded
message. Defendant's prerecorded call constitutes telemarketing
because it encourages the future purchase or investment in
property, goods, and/or services, i.e., discussing potential
employment opportunities with Plaintiff. In short, the prerecorded
message constitutes telemarketing because it ultimately leads to
the promotion of goods or services even though a portion of the
prerecorded message discusses potential employment opportunities.
The prerecorded call Plaintiff received originated from a telephone
number owned and/or operated by or on behalf of Defendant.

At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with his
express consent to be contacted with a prerecorded call. The
Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user of the 7326 Number, and
is financially responsible for phone service to the 7326 Number.
Thew Defendant's prerecorded call was sent to a cellular telephone
with a 305 area code, which means Defendant knew, or should have
known, that it was making calls into this District. The 305 area
code serves all of Miami, Florida, Miami-Dade County, and the part
of Monroe County in the Florida Keys.

Defendant's unsolicited prerecorded call caused Plaintiff actual
harm, including invasion of his privacy, aggravation, annoyance,
intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. Defendant's
prerecorded message also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused
disruption to his daily life, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1 st Avenue, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: 305-479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          19495 Biscayne Blvd. No. 607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 305-975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

QUICKEN LOANS: Tucker Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
CARRIE TUCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. QUICKEN LOANS INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00017-DJH (D. Ariz., Jan. 3, 2019) seeks legal and
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Quicken
Loans Inc. in transmitting SMS text messages en masse to
Plaintiff's cellular telephone and the cellular telephones of
thousands of other individuals across the country, without prior
"express written consent" within the meaning of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant directed the unsolicited
text messages received by Plaintiff into this district by
transmitting the messages to a cellular telephone number that is
assigned an area code (480) which corresponds to a location in this
district. The Plaintiff received Defendant’s unsolicited text
messages on her cellular device in this district.

Between in or about November 2018 and the present, Defendant
transmitted or caused to be transmitted, by itself or through an
intermediary or intermediaries, numerous SMS text message
advertisements to the 5236 Number without Plaintiff's prior express
written consent, including without limitation the messages depicted
in the following screenshots extracted from Plaintiff's cellular
device, the lawsuit says.

Quicken Loans Inc., is a mortgage lending company headquartered in
the One Campus Martius building in the heart of the financial
district of downtown Detroit, Michigan.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Scott I. Palumbo, Esq.
          PALUMBO WOLFE & PALUMBO, P.C.
          2800 N. Central Ave., Suite 1400
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 265-5777
          Facsimile: (602) 265-7222
          E-mail: pwsp@palumbowolfe.com

               - and -

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 357-2107
          Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com

R POWER HOLDINGS: Faces Gomez ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against R Power Holdings,
Inc. The case is captioned as ANDRES GOMEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. R POWER
HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-25483-KMW (S.D. Fla.,
Dec. 31, 2018). The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge Kathleen M.
Williams.

R Power Holdings, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica L. Kerr, Esq.
          THE ADVOCACY GROUP
          200 S.E. 6th St., Ste. 504
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 282-1858
          E-mail: service@advocacypa.com


RITE AID: Class Certification Motion in Stafford Suit Due June 19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 1, 2018, that a class certification
motion in the case, Byron Stafford v. Rite Aid Corp., is due June
19, 2019.

The Company is involved in two putative consumer class action
lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, alleging that it has overcharged customers'
insurance companies for prescription drug purchases, resulting in
overpayment of co-pays.  

The first lawsuit, Byron Stafford v. Rite Aid Corp., Case No.
17-CV-01340-AJB-JLB, was filed on June 30, 2017, and the second
case, Robert Josten v. Rite Aid Corp., Case No.
18-CV-00152-AJB-JLB, was filed on January 23, 2018.  

Each lawsuit alleges that (1) the Company was obligated to charge
the plaintiffs' insurance companies a "usual and customary" price
for their prescription drugs; and (2) the Company failed to do so
properly because the prices it reported were not equal to or
adjusted to account for the discount prices that Rite Aid offers to
uninsured and underinsured customers through its Rx Savings
Program.  

On December 19, 2017, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss Stafford's complaints with leave to amend for failure to
plead compliance with the applicable statutes of limitations. After
Stafford amended the complaint on January 9, 2018, the Company
filed another motion to dismiss on January 23, 2018, and a similar
motion to dismiss Josten's complaint on March 16, 2018.  

The court granted the motion to dismiss most of Josten's claims for
failure to plead compliance with the applicable statute of
limitations but granted leave to amend. The court denied the motion
to dismiss Stafford's claims, opened discovery and set a June 19,
2019 deadline for his class certification motion.  

Rite Aid said, "At this stage of the proceedings, the Company is
not able to either predict the outcome of these lawsuits or
estimate a potential range of loss with respect to the lawsuit and
is vigorously defending these lawsuits."

Rite Aid Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates a chain of
retail drugstores in the United States. It operates through two
segments, Retail Pharmacy and Pharmacy Services. Rite Aid
Corporation was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Camp Hill,
Pennsylvania.


RITE AID: Settlement in Hall Suit Granted Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 1, 2018, that the court in the
case, Hall v. Rite Aid Corporation, has granted final approval of
the settlement.

In the employee seating lawsuit (Hall v. Rite Aid Corporation, San
Diego County Superior Court), the parties reached a class action
settlement for $18 million plus institution of a two-year pilot
seating program for front-end checkstands. On September 14, 2018,
the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. On
November 16, 2018, the court granted final approval of the
settlement.

Rite Aid Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates a chain of
retail drugstores in the United States. It operates through two
segments, Retail Pharmacy and Pharmacy Services. Rite Aid
Corporation was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Camp Hill,
Pennsylvania.


RITE AID: Wilson Class Action Suit Terminated
---------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 1, 2018, that the class action
entitled, Wilson v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., has been terminated.

After the announcement of the then proposed merger between the
Company and Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. ("WBA"), a putative
class action lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania in the Court of
Common Pleas of Cumberland County (Wilson v. Rite Aid Corp., et
al.) by a purported Company stockholder against the Company, its
directors (the Individual Defendants, together with the Company,
the Rite Aid Defendants), WBA and Victoria Merger Sub Inc.
(Victoria) challenging the transactions contemplated by the merger
agreement.

The lawsuit was terminated on November 30, 2018.

Rite Aid Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates a chain of
retail drugstores in the United States. It operates through two
segments, Retail Pharmacy and Pharmacy Services. Rite Aid
Corporation was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Camp Hill,
Pennsylvania.


RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TN: Certification of 4 Classes Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
K.W., EXREL KANISA DAVIS; A.B., EXREL SANDRA BRIEN; AND J.B., EXREL
JAQUELINE B RINKLEY, DYLAN J. GEERTS, the Plaintiffs, vs.
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TENNESSEE, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-1975
(M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for certification of
putative Classes pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 23:

* Illegal Custodial Arrest Classes:

      The Injunctive Arrest Class (for declaratory and injunctive
      relief):

      "all juveniles who may, because of Rutherford County's
      policies or de facto practices, be illegally taken into
      custody by Rutherford County Sheriff's deputies for a status

      or misdemeanor delinquent charge where such juveniles have a

      Tennessee state law right to be released with a summons or
      citation in lieu of custodial arrest because (a) no law
      enforcement officer personally witnesses the offense, (b)
      the alleged offense is not one of the few named misdemeanors

      for which a warrantless arrest is specifically authorized
      even if the offense occurs outside the presence of an
      officer, (c) the offense is not one of the categorical
      exceptions to T.C.A. section 40-7-118's mandatory "cite and
      release" requirement, and (d) no court orders has issued an
      arrest order prior to the custodial arrest being conducted";
      and

      The Damages Arrest Class (for compensatory damages):

      "all persons who have been taken into custody as juveniles
      by Rutherford County Sheriff's deputies for unruly or
      misdemeanor delinquent charges where such juveniles had a
      Tennessee state law right to be released with a summons or
      citation in lieu of a custodial arrest because (a) no law
      enforcement officer personally witnessed the alleged
      offense, (b) the alleged offense was not one of a few named
      misdemeanors for which a warrantless arrest is specifically
      authorized even if the offense occurred outside the
      officer's presence, (c) the alleged offense was not one of
      the categorical exceptions to T.C.A. section 40-7-118's
      mandatory "cite and release" requirement, and (d) the arrest

      was not made pursuant to a previously-issued court arrest
      order"; and

* Detention Classes:

      The Injunctive Detention Class (for declaratory and
      injunctive relief)

      "all juveniles who may, because of Rutherford County's
      policies or de facto practices, be securely detained
      pretrial as a juvenile in Subject to the one-year
      limitations period for "civil actions brought under the
      federal civil rights statutes," which period is in turn
      tolled by Plaintiffs' and putative class members' minority
      until their respective 18th birthdays circumstances that do
      not meet the prerequisites for secure detention under T.C.A.

      section 37-1-114(c) and the United States Constitution"; and

* Damages Detention Class (for compensatory damages):

      all persons who have, because of Rutherford County's
      policies or de facto practices, been securely detained
      pretrial as a juvenile in circumstances that did not satisfy

      any of the categorical prerequisites for secure detention
      listed in T.C.A. section 37-1-114(c)(1) – (6).[CC]

Counsels for Plaintiff:

          Wesley B. Clark, Esq.
          2706 Larmon Dr.
          Nashville, TN 37204
          Telephone: 615-984-4681
          Facsimile: 615-514-9674
          E-mail: wesley@brazilclark.com

               - and -

          Kyle F. Mothershead, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KYLE MOTHERSHEAD
          414 Union St., Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: 615 982-8002
          Facsimile: 615 229-6387
          E-mail: kyle@mothersheadlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark J. Downton, Esq.
          2706 Larmon Dr.
          Nashville, TN 37204
          Telephone: 615 984-4681
          Facsimile: 615 514-9674
          E-mail: lawyerdownton@gmail.com

Counsels for Defendant:

          Randall Mantooth, Esq.
          Michael Holder, Esq.
          Leitner, Williams, Dooley & Napolitan, PLLC
          201 4th Avenue North, Suite 1100
          4th & Church Building
          Nashville, TN 37219
          E-mail: randy.mantooth@leitnerfirm.com
                  Michael.holder@leitnerfirm.com

RYB EDUCATION: Zhang Sues over Misleading Financial Report
----------------------------------------------------------
YIQING ZHANG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RYB EDUCATION, INC., CHIMIN CAO,
YANLAI SHI, PING WEI, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA), MORGAN
STANELY & CO. INTERNATIONAL PLC, CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL
CORPORATION HONG KONG SECURITIES LIMITED, and BNP PARIBAS
SECURITIES CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 717923/2018 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Jan. 10, 2019), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1933.

The case is a securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of
RYB pursuant and traceable to the Company's Registration Statement
and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's initial
public offering completed on or about September 27, 2017. On or
about August 30, 2017, RYB filed with the SEC its initial
Registration Statement on Form F-1 with the SEC. Following
amendments filed with the SEC on September 13, 2017 and September
22, 2017, the SEC declared the Registration Statement effective on
September 26, 2017. The next day, on September 27, 2017, RYB filed
its Prospectus in connection with the IPO. The initial Form F-1 and
subsequent amendments are referred to collectively as the
"Registration Statement."

On or about September 27, 2017, RYB offered 5,500,000 American
Depositary Shares. RYB engaged defendants Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc, China
International Capital Corporation Hong Kong Securities Limited, and
BNP Paribas Securities Corp. to serve as underwriters for the IPO,
setting the per-ADS offering price of $18.50. RYB stated that it
expected to receive net proceeds of approximately $90.2 million
from the IPO and that the Company intended to use such net proceeds
for "general corporate purposes and working capital and potential
acquisitions." Ultimately, RYB reported that it had received net
proceeds of $90.1 million from the closing of the IPO. In the
Registration Statement and Prospectus, RYB states that it is a
provider of early childhood education in the People's Republic of
China for children from age 0 to 6 years old and describes itself
as "the largest early childhood education service provider in
China, as measured by annual total revenues in 2016." Just prior to
the IPO, RYB stated that it now operates a total of 853 |"play and
learn" centers in its network after having begun operations almost
two decades ago.
.
The Registration Statement and Prospectus attribute RYB's
commercial success to its "established and highly standardized
operations system," which is intended to "ensure service quality,"
and to its "best-in-class teaching staff specialized in early
childhood education," among other things. The Company touts its
maintenance of "high standards in selecting, certifying and
training" its teaching staff and the "stringent" vetting process
that each teaching candidate must complete prior to becoming an RYB
certified teacher. In addition to the claims about the quality of
its teachers, RYB represented to investors that it had "established
and strictly implemented security and safety protocols" to protect
its young and vulnerable students while on campus, and that such
standards were "strictly enforce[d]" across its network of learning
centers. Unbeknownst to the market, however, RYB's statements in
the Registration Statement and Prospectus about its teaching staff,
teacher training, and safety and security protocols were false and
misleading. Teachers received inadequate training from RYB in terms
of disciplining and administering punishment to students. The
Company also employed teachers who were not certified to teach in
its learning centers. RYB's safety and security protocols were also
deficient because it relied heavily on surveillance technology that
was not adequately staffed or monitored and was not upgraded,
uniformly implemented, or even implemented at all in some of its
learning centers.

The inadequacies of RYB's teaching staff, teacher training, and
safety and security protocols began to reveal themselves to the
market on or about November 24, 2017, when Reuters reported that
Chinese police were investigating claims of sexual molestation and
needlemarks on children at an RYB kindergarten in Beijing. In the
days that followed, further details of the incident emerged and
additional corrective disclosures were made to the market. Such
news caused RYB shares to plummet, and RYB ADSs currently trade
over 56% below the IPO price.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff brings claims against
RYB, certain of RYB's executive officers and directors who signed
the Registration Statement and/or authorized and/or participated in
making the false or misleading statements made therein, and the
Underwriter Defendants pursuant to sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 1 of
the Securities Act of 1933. Section 11 of the Securities Act
provides investors with the ability to hold issuers, officers,
underwriters, and others liable for damages caused by untrue
statements of fact or material omissions of fact within
registration statements at the time they become effective, while
section 12(a)(2) provides buyers of securities an express remedy
for material misstatements or omissions made by any seller or
solicitor in connection with the offer or sale of the issuer's
securities involving a prospectus or oral communications. Section
15 extends joint and several liability to those who controlled any
person held liable under section 11 or section 12(a)(2), the
lawsuit says.

RYB Education is a publicly listed company for preschool education
in the People's Republic of China. As measured by annual total
revenues in 2016, the company is the largest provider of early
childhood education service in China.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

SARAH LAWRENCE: Faces Delacruz Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sarah Lawrence
College. The case is captioned as EMANUEL DELACRUZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SARAH
LAWRENCE COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00023-PGG-DCF
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 2, 2019). The lawsuit alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge Paul
G. Gardephe and referred to Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman.

Sarah Lawrence College provides educational services. The College
offers degree programs in child development, health advocacy, human
genetics, theatre, women's history, and law. Sarah Lawrence College
operates in the State of New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
          Gottlieb & Associates
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (917) 796-7437
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com


SERVICE COMPANIES: Mijares et al. Seek to Certify Supervisors Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL MIJARES, MARIAN GODOY, JOANDERSON BENCOMO, ANOAS DIONICIO,
on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THE SERVICE COMPANIES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-02024-RBD-TBS (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to issue an order:

   A. conditionally certifying a collective action of:

      "current and former shift supervisors who worked for
      Defendant -- at any of its locations -- during the three
      years prior to the filing of Plaintiffs' Complaint who
      were not paid overtime premium for hours worked over
      40 in a work week";

   B. directing Defendant to produce, in an electronic readable
      format, to the undersigned counsel within 14 days of the
      Order granting this Motion a list containing the full names,

      last known addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail
      addresses of putative class members who worked for Defendant

      for the three years preceding the filing of Plaintiffs'
      Complaint and the present;

   C. authorizing Plaintiffs' counsel to send initial notice,
      to all individuals whose names appear on the list produced
      by the Defendant's counsel by first-class mail;

   D. directing Defendant to post at all of its business locations

      a copy of the initial notice;

   E. authorizing the Plaintiffs' counsel to send a follow-up
      notice, to all individuals whose names appear on the list
      produced by the Defendant's counsel but who, by the 14th day

      prior to the close of the Court-approved notice period, have

      yet to opt in to the instant action; and

   F. providing all individuals whose names appear on the list
      produced by Defendant's counsel a total of 90 days from the
      date the notices are initially mailed to file a Consent to
      Become Opt-In Plaintiff form; and

   G. granting other and further relief as the Court deems just
      under the circumstances.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  twells@wfclaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Lindsay Denise Swiger, Esq.
          Erika R. Royal, Esq.
          Holland & Knight, LLP
          50 North Laura Street, Suite 3900
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Email: Lindsay.swiger@hklaw.com
                 Erika.royal@hklaw.com
                 juliana.nwafor@hklaw.com

SEVIER COUNTY, TN: Whitlock Seeks to Certify Paramedics & EMT Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY WHITLOCK, Individually, and on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all other similarly situated current and former
employees, the Plaintiff, vs. SEVIER COUNTY, TENNESSEE, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00233-HSM-HBG (E.D. Tenn.), the
Plaintiff ask the Court to conditionally certify a class of:

   "all current and former Paramedics and Emergency Medical
   Technicians of Defendant's EMS Department who work (or have
   worked) for Defendant any time during the applicable
   limitation's period covered by the Collective Action Complaint
   (i.e. two years for FLSA violations, three years for willful
   Fair Labor Standards Act violations, up to and including the
   date of final judgment in this matter, and who is a Named
   Plaintiff and those who elect to opt-in to this action pursuant

   to the FLSA."

The individuals comprising this class have been subject to
Defendant's common policy and practice of not compensating its
Paramedics and Emergency Medical Technicians for all compensable
hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, in violation of the
FLSA.

The Plaintiff also requests the Court's assistance in notifying
Putative Opt-in Plaintiffs of their right to join this action in
accordance with 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). It is likely the
Defendant subjected around 100 individuals to the same unlawful and
exploitive pay practices as Plaintiff, and Court-supervised notice
is necessary to properly notify these individuals of their right to
join this FLSA collective action litigation.  Therefore, this Court
should follow well-settled Sixth Circuit authority and order that
Defendant produce to Plaintiff's Counsel the name, last known
address, e-mail address, social security number, dates of
employment, and telephone number of each Putative Opt-in
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff also requests that the Court approve Plaintiff's
proposed Notice and authorize Plaintiff to send Notice by U.S. mail
and e-mail to the members of the conditionally certified
class.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  pjackson@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com

               - and -

          Robert P. Williams, Esq.
          R.P. WILLIAMS LAW FIRM, PLLC
          265 North Lamar Blvd, Suite W-South
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 234-3838
          Facsimile: (662) 769-9992
          E-mail: robert@williamslawms.com

SHASTA COUNTY, CA: Must Give Free Tampons to Inmates, Suit Demands
------------------------------------------------------------------
Action News Now reports that Shasta County is just one out of more
than 20 counties in California listed as part of a class action
lawsuit asking jails to provide free tampons for female inmates.

The 109-page lawsuit was filed in Sacramento Superior Court by Bay
Area attorney Paula Canny, Esq. earlier this week.

Canny said she was appalled to learn that so many counties in
California charged for the feminine products when state and federal
facilities do not.

"So my lawsuit is suing the Sacramento County Sheriff to be
precluded from charging $0.25 for a tampon and to direct the State
Board of Community Corrections to tell every county that is still
charging that they're not lawfully permitted to charge inmates for
tampons."

Canny says under certain statutes, jails are required to provide
female inmates with tampons and/or pads.

But some counties have interpreted that to mean one or the other,
which she says is incorrect and hopes her lawsuit will clarify.

We spoke with Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko and Shasta County
supervisor Les Baugh who both said they could not comment on
pending litigation.

But they did say the county does supply feminine napkins at no
charge to inmates.

Other counties that charge for tampons included in the lawsuit
are:

  -- El Dorado
  -- Fresno
  -- Imperial
  -- Kings
  -- Lassen
  -- Los Angeles
  -- Placer
  -- Sacramento
  -- San Joaquin
  -- Sutter
  -- Tehama
  -- Tulare
  -- Tuolumne
  -- Ventura
  -- And Yolo

Alameda, Madera, Marin and Modoc counties do not currently sell or
provide tampons to inmates.

Monterrey, Orange, San Bernardino, Sierra and Siskiyou counties did
not respond to Canny's policy requests.[GN]


SHIFTPIXY INC: Unit Still Defends Ramirez Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
ShiftPixy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 11, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2018, that the company's
subsidiary, Shift Human Capital Management Inc., continues to
defend a class action suit filed by Maribel Ramirez.

On May 1, 2018, claimant, Maribel Ramirez, filed a class action
lawsuit, naming the company's subsidiary, Shift Human Capital
Management Inc., and its client as defendants, claiming that she
was forced to work hours for which she was not paid and denied
lunch breaks, and rest periods, etc., to which she was entitled,
and also claiming in separate government complaints that she was
discriminated against and wrongfully terminated.

This lawsuit is in the initial stages; the financial impact to the
Company, if any, cannot be estimated. No liability has been
recorded for this matter at this time.

ShiftPixy said, "In the event of an unfavorable outcome the
Company's client is obligated contractually to indemnify the
Company for misreported hours and portions of the claim would be
covered under the Company's employment practices liability
insurance.

ShiftPixy, Inc. provides employment services for businesses; and
workers in shift or other part-time/temporary positions in the
United States. The company also operates as a payroll processor,
human resources consultant, and administrator of workers'
compensation coverages and claims. It primarily serves restaurant,
hospitality, and maintenance service industries. The company was
founded in 2015 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


SNAP INC: Court Denies DiBiase's Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled re: Snap Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:17-cv-03679-SVW-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stephen V. Wilson
entered an order on Jan. 10, 2019:

   1. granting Lead Plaintiff DiBiase's motion to withdraw
      Steinberg as named Plaintiff and denying Plaintiff DiBiase's

      motion to add Allen and Dandridge as Plaintiffs; and

   2. denying Lead Plaintiff DiBiase's motion for class
      certification, Iuso's motion for leave to intervene, and
      Stewart and Weisman's motion to renew motion for appointment

      as Lead Plaintiff and approval of selection of counsel.

The Court said, "The withdrawals of DiBiase and Steinberg mean that
the putative class lacks both any Named Plaintiffs and also (and
more importantly) a Lead Plaintiff. Based on its interpretation of
the The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), the Court
believes that it must apply the guidelines of the PSLRA in
appointing a new Lead Plaintiff. It is not inconceivable that a
lead plaintiff appointed originally might turn out to be an
inadequate class representative and that a change might have to be
made. Ordering such a change would be consistent with the district
court's continuing duty to see that a class is adequately
represented by counsel.  Reopening the Lead Plaintiff process will
"permit this Court to make a reasoned analysis under the PSLRA
rather than to summarily accept the submissions provided by Lead
Counsel for the former Lead Plaintiff." The Court thus denies Lead
Plaintiff DiBiase's motion to add Allen and Dandridge as Named
Plaintiffs at this time. The Court will allow 21 days -- until
January 31, 2019 -- for any party to move for appointment as Lead
Plaintiff."[CC]

SUNRISE SENIOR: Van Cleave Suit Moved to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A case, Christian Van Cleave an individual, on behalf of himself
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc., a Virginia Corporation DOES
1-50, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
37-02018-00061960-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (San Diego) on Jan. 8, 2019. The Southern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00044-BEN-NLS to the proceeding. The suit alleges labor
law-related violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Roger
T. Benitez.

Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc., formerly known as Sunrise
Assisted Living Management Inc., operates as a subsidiary of
Sunrise Senior Living Inc. The company provides senior living and
health care services. Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc. is
based in McLean Virginia.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Shani Or Zakay, Esq.
          Zakay Law Group, APLC
          5850 Oberlin Drive, Suite 230A
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 892-7095
          Facsimile: (858) 404-9203
          E-mail: shani@zakaylaw.com

Attorneys for Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc.:

          Michele L Maryott, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612-4412
          Telephone: (949) 451-3945
          Facsimile: (949) 475-4668
          E-mail: mmaryott@gibsondunn.com

T-MOBILE USA: Underpays Salespersons, Salian et al. Suit Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
AARON SALIAN; and ARIYA HAJIHEIRDARI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. T-MOBILE USA, INC.; and
DOES 1 to 100, Defendants, Case No. 19CV340413 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., Jan. 2, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for
unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as salespersons.

T-Mobile USA, Inc. provides wireless voice, messaging, and data
services in the United States. It offers wireless communication
services through its 4G and 4G LTE network, as well as provides
individual, family, mobile Internet, and prepaid plans. The company
also engages in the online retail of phones, tablets and devices,
and accessories. In addition, it offers dealership and retail
opportunities. The company was incorporated in 1999 and is based in
Bellevue, Washington. T-Mobile USA, Inc. operates as a subsidiary
of T-Mobile US, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam M. Rose, Esq.
          Theodore R. Tang, Esq.
          Manny M. Starr, Esq.
          FRONTIER LAW CENTER
          23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2074
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 914-3433
          Facsimile: (818) 914-3433
          E-mail: adam@fronteirlawcenter.com
                  theodore@fronteirlawcenter.com
                  manny@fronteirlawcenter.com


TENARIS SA: Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Tenaris S.A. ("Tenaris" or the "Company") (NYSE: TS).  Such
investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 9980.

The investigation concerns whether Tenaris and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.

On November 27, 2018, news outlets reported that an Argentine judge
had indicted Paolo Rocca, Tenaris's chairman and majority
shareholder, in connection with a wide-ranging bribery scandal
involving the government of Argentina.

Following this news, Tenaris's American depositary receipt price
fell $2.64, or 9.78%, to close at $24.36 on November 27, 2018.

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


TESORO REFINING: April 4 Filing Due of Valliere Deal Prelim OK Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JON VALLIERE, EILEEN FOSTER, ANTONIO GARCIA, and
SAMANTHA WEST, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
current and former employees, Plaintiffs, v. TESORO REFINING AND
MARKETING COMPANY LLC, TESORO LOGISTICS GP, LLC, and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, JINETRA BONNER, individually, on behalf
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TESORO
REFINING & MARKETING COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company; and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-00123-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California has entered
the parties' stipulated order extending the deadline to file the
Plaintinffs' Motion for Order Granting Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement.

The Preliminary Approval Motion will be filed by Feb. 13, 2019, and
it will be heard on April 4, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., or alternatively,
on (TBD), 2019 at 2:00 p.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 9, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/lbytlm from Leagle.com.

Antonio Garcia, Eileen Foster, Samantha West, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated current and former employees & Jon
Valliere, Plaintiffs, represented by Cornelia Dai, Hadsell Stormer
& Renick, LLP, Randy R. Renick --  rrr@hadsellstormer.com --
Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP, Jay Edward Smith -- js@gslaw.org --
Gilbert & Sackman, A Law Corporation & Joshua Finley Young --
jyoung@gslaw.org -- Gilbert & Sackman, A Law Corporation.

Jinetra Bonner, individually, on behalf herself and all others
similarly situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Kristina A. De
La Rosa, Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Michael David Singer --
msinger@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Randy R. Renick,
Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP, Diana Marie Khoury --
dkhoury@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer, James Jason Hill --
jhill@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer & Timothy Douglas
Cohelan -- tcohelan@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer.

Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LLC & Tesoro Logistics GP, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Mary Deanna Manesis --
Mmanesis@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Timothy Michael Rusche
-- trusche@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & William James
Dritsas -- wdritsas@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


TITLEMAX: Davis et al. Suit Moved to Southern District of Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Jessica Davis, Jimanika West, Erika Brinkley, and Kimberly
Taylor, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. TitleMax of Alabama, Inc. and TMX Finance, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00488, was removed from the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Alabama to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Alabama (Mobile) on
Jan. 11, 2019. The Southern District of Alabama Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00007-KD-M to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge Kristi K. DuBose.

The Plaintiffs brought this collective action on behalf of all
persons throughout the country who were or are employed by
Defendant during the applicable three-year statute of limitations;
and have not been lawfully compensated at 1.5 times the regular
rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Andrew P. Campbell, Esq.
          CAMPBELL, GUIN, WILLIAMS, GUY & GIDIERE, LLC
          505 N. 20th Street North, Suite 1600
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 803-7329
          E-mail: andy.campbell@campbellguin.com

               - and -

          J. Doyle Fuller, Esq.
          P.O. Box 62
          Montgomery, AL 36101
          E-mail: jdf@jdoylefuller.com

               - and -

          Jacob Alexander Fuller, Esq.
          Susan Glasscock Copeland, Esq.
          FULLER & COPELAND, P.C.
          2851 Zelda Road
          Montgomery, AL 36106
          Telephone: (334) 270-0020
          E-mail: jacob@fullercopeland.com

               - and -

          John C. Guin, Esq.
          CAMPBELL GUIN LLC
          505 No. 20th Street North, Suite 1600
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 224-0757
          E-mail: john.guin@campbellguin.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Charles A. Powell, IV, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          420 20th St. N., Suite 2300
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 421-4703
          Facsimile: (205) 278-8775
          E-mail: cpowell@littler.com

TRANSITAMERICA SERVICES: Court Narrows Claims in Alvarez FCRA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALBERT C. ALVAREZ, Plaintiff, v. TRANSITAMERICA
SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-03106-EJD
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted in
part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss causes of
action 5 through 9, 11, and the portion of 10 that is based on
Counts 5 through 9 of the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.

Alvarez brings the putative class action suit against the
Defendants, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA"), and wage and hour violations under California law.  The
Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly
employee from approximately April 13, 2015, until he was terminated
on May 28, 2017.  He was not provided with meal periods and rest
periods that complied with California law when he was required to
work double shifts and/or to fill in for other employees.

The Complaint includes several claims for violations of California
state and hour laws, as well as derivative claims for waiting time
penalties, violation of the California Private Attorneys General
Act ("PAGA"), and unfair competition. More specifically, causes of
action 5 through 11 state claims under California law for: Failure
to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure
to Pay Hourly Wages; Failure to Provide Accurate Written Wage
Statements (Lab. Code §§ 226(a)); Failure to Timely Pay All Final
Wages; Unfair Competition; and Civil Penalties.

The Defendants removed the action asserting federal question
jurisdiction.  Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Defendants now move to
dismiss causes of action 5 through 9, 11, and the portion of 10
that is based on Counts 5 through 9 of Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint ("Complaint").  The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's
claims are preempted by the federal Railway Labor Act.

Judge Davila granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss with leave
to amend as to the fifth and sixth causes of action, and the
portions of the eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh causes of action
that are based on the fifth and sixth causes of action; and denied
as to the seventh cause of action and the portions of the eighth,
ninth, tenth and eleventh causes of action that are based on the
seventh cause of action.

Among other things, he finds that to the extent the fifth cause of
action challenges the validity of the Plaintiff's "agreement" and
"written policies" with the Defendants regarding meal periods, the
claim requires interpretation of the CBAs.  The only plausible
sources of any meal agreement or policies between the parties are
the CBAs referenced by the Defendants.  The validity of the meal
agreement and policies cannot be determined without interpretation
of the CBAs.  Therefore, the fifth cause of action is preempted and
subject to dismissal insofar as it challenges the validity of the
Plaintiff's agreement and "written policies" with the Defendants
regarding meal periods.  The Plaintiff's fifth cause of action is
dismissed with leave to amend.

The Plaintiff's rest period claim is also based upon the
Defendants' policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and class
members to work double shifts that did not permit them to take
their rest period.  To the extent the Plaintiff intends to pursue a
rest period claim based on this alternative theory, the Defendants
have not established that the claim would be preempted.  The
Defendants have not pointed to any term or provision in the CBAs
that must be interpreted or applied in order to determine
Defendants' rest period obligations when an employee is working a
double shift or filling in for another employee.  That the CBAs'
provisions regarding rest periods may need to be consulted for
information will not result in preemption.  The sixth cause of
action is dismissed with leave to amend.

At the pleading stage, the Defendants' argument is unpersuasive
because Defendants have not identified any particular term within
the CBAs that will require application or interpretation to decide
whether the Plaintiff was required to work off-the-clock.  Instead,
the Defendants cite to provisions in the CBAs that may affect
calculation of damages in the event the Plaintiff prevails on the
merits of the off-the-clock claim.  The potential need to consult
the CBAs for damages computation, however, does not mean the claim
is preempted.

Finally, the Plaintiff asserts several claims that are derivative
of his substantive claims.  The preemption analysis set forth for
the fifth through seventh causes of action applies to the
derivative claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 9, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/7yI63k from Leagle.com.

Albert C. Alvarez, on behalf of himself and all others similarily
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh --
info@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group, Howard Scott Leviant --
scott@setarehlaw.com  -- Setareh Law Group & William Matthew Pao --
william@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

TransitAmerica Services, Inc., a Missouri corporation & Herzog
Transit Services, a Missouri corporation, Defendants, represented
by Brendan Timothy Sapien -- Brendan.Sapien@lewisbrisbois.com --
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard Smith LLP & Jeffrey Scott Ranen --
Jeffrey.Ranen@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard Smith
LLP.


TREEHOUSE FOODS: Tarara Class Cert. Bid Shelved Pending Mediation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Annemarie Tarara, et al.,
the Plaintiff, vs. Treehouse Foods, Inc., et al., the Defendants,
Case No.: 1:16-cv-10632 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow
Jr. entered an order striking a motion to certify class without
prejudice.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on January 9, 2019,
the parties' joint letter, by agreement of the parties the current
stay will remain in place pending the outcome of the anticipated
mediation. The Court directs the parties to file a joint status
report on the status of the efforts to mediate their dispute no
later than March 29, 2019. In the meantime, Plaintiff's motion to
certify class is stricken without prejudice to refiling at any time
if the mediation is not successful.[CC]

TRISTATE LOGISTICS: Samantha Sanders Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Sanders, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Tristate Logistics of
Arizona, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company; Tristate
Logistics of Nevada, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company;
Tristate Logistics, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; C&A
Holdings, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; Elliot Auto
Supply Co., Inc., a Minnesota Corporation; Factory Motor Parts
International, LLC, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company; The Bon
Air Trust, a Nevada Trust; Carlos Jorge and Jane Doe Jorge, a
Married Couple; and Elliot Badzin and Jane Doe Badzin, a Married
Couple, Case No. 2:19-cv-00157-ESW (D. Ariz., Jan. 9, 2019), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in the regular
policy and practice of misclassifying their Couriers/Warehouse
Workers as independent contractors rather than employees.
Specifically, the Defendants subjected Plaintiff and the Collective
Members to their policy and practice of misclassifying their
Couriers/Warehouse Workers, who were employees, as independent
contractors and then failing and/or refusing to pay them overtime
for time they worked in excess of 40 hours per week, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
          Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
          BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
          P.O. Box 97066
          Phoenix, AZ 85251
          Telephone: (480) 382-5176
          Facsimile: (480) 304-3805
          E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
                  chris@bendaulaw.com

               - and -

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

TSR INC: Paskowitz Class Action Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------
TSR, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 11, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended November 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself against a class action suit initiated by Susan
Paskowitz.

On October 16, 2018, the Company was served with a complaint filed
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens County, by
Susan Paskowitz, a stockholder of the Company, against the Company;
Joseph F. Hughes and Winifred M. Hughes; current and former
directors Christopher Hughes, Raymond A. Roel, Brian J. Mangan,
Regina Dowd, James J. Hill, William Kelly, and Eric Stein; as well
as stockholders Zeff Capital, L.P. ("Zeff"), QAR Industries, Inc.
("QAR") and Fintech Consulting LLC ("Fintech," and collectively
with Zeff and QAR, the "Zeff Group").

The complaint purports to be a class action lawsuit asserting
claims on behalf of all minority stockholders of the Company. Ms.
Paskowitz alleges the following: the sale by Joseph F. Hughes and
Winifred M. Hughes of an aggregate of 819,491 shares of the
Company's common stock ("controlling interest") to Zeff, QAR and
Fintech was in breach of Joseph F. Hughes' and Winifred M. Hughes'
fiduciary duties and to the detriment of the Company's minority
stockholders; the members of the Board of Directors of the Company
named in the complaint breached their fiduciary duties by failing
to immediately adopt a rights plan that would have prevented Joseph
F. Hughes and Winifred M. Hughes from selling their shares and
preserved a higher premium for all stockholders; Zeff, QAR, and
Fintech are "partners" and constitute a "group." Ms. Paskowitz also
asserts that the Zeff Group aided and abetted Joseph F. Hughes' and
Winifred M. Hughes' conduct and ultimately seeks to buy out the
remaining shares of the Company at an unfair price.

The complaint filed by Ms. Paskowitz on October 11, 2018 seeks
declaratory judgment and unspecified monetary damages. The
complaint requests declarations from the court that: (1) Joseph F.
Hughes' and Winifred M. Hughes' sale of their controlling interest
to the Zeff Group was in breach of their fiduciary duties, and that
those shares may not be voted or sold back to the Company pending
further court order; (2) the members of the Board named in the
complaint breached their fiduciary duties by failing to timely
adopt a stockholder rights plan, which resulted in the loss of the
ability to auction the Company off to the highest bidder without
interference from the Zeff Group; and (3) the Zeff Group must make
a number of disclosures regarding their plans for the Company,
their relationships with one another, and any agreements with
Joseph F. Hughes and Winifred M. Hughes.

The complaint has not assigned any monetary values to alleged
damages, but it seeks: (1) for Joseph F. Hughes and Winifred M.
Hughes, and the Zeff Group, to disgorge any benefit they received
from the sale of the Hughes' controlling interest; (2) for the
Board of Directors of the Company to pay damages equal to the
reduced value of the class members' shares as auctionable assets;
and (3) reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

TSR said, "Although the Company is named as a defendant, there are
no claims or damages allegations against the Company, and the
complaint states that it names the Company solely to effectuate
equitable relief if granted."

TSR, Inc. provides contract computer programming services in the
New York metropolitan area, New England, and the Mid-Atlantic
region. TSR, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is based in Hauppauge,
New York.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Has Deal With Drivers in Individual Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ingrid Lunden, writing for TechCrunch, reports that Uber is
reportedly on track to go public in the first quarter next year,
and in the lead up to that, it's sewing up some loose ends.

TechCrunch has learned that Uber has offered a tentative settlement
to pay out 11 cents for every mile driven for Uber (including
adjacent services like Uber Eats) to drivers who have been in
individual arbitration with the company over their employment
classification. Drivers were pursuing individual arbitration after
an appeals court ruled in September that they could not combine
their cases into a class action lawsuit.

Uber has declined to comment for this story, and one of the firms
representing drivers, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, has not yet responded
to our request for comment.

In a case that now goes back years and covers nine states, some
160,000 drivers had been seeking to be classified as employees
rather than independent contractors, partly in order to get
compensated for expenses related to driving for the company, such
as gasoline used and vehicle maintenance.

Another big complaint in the case involved tips: drivers said Uber
would not allow them to take or keep tips from passengers. (The
claim preceded June 2017, when Uber formally introduced tips in its
app, netting some $600 million extra for drivers in one year.)

Uber's settlement of 11 cents per mile for all on-trip miles that
were driven for Uber bypasses addressing those specific details.
Notably, drivers who accept the settlement sign documents to
release all claims against Uber related to employee
misclassification.

The settlement is tentative depending on a sufficient number of
drivers signing the agreement (we do not know what the minimum
would be — so if you're a relevant driver, you should check your
mailboxes and respond if you want compensation), among other
factors, and it could take up to six months for payments to get to
drivers.

On one hand, this an okay result in what was a challenging
situation for litigating drivers. A class action lawsuit, combining
several people into one case, would have gained economies of scale
in terms of legal costs, and that could have meant a stronger
recovery payout for the group.

But with the appeals judges striking down that possibility, it
would have been left to individual drivers to pursue their own
cases against the company. That is an expensive and time-consuming
process and might not have seen as many plaintiffs willing to
fight.

It may have been unpalatable for Uber, too. With the company
gearing up for a public listing and all the scrutiny that comes
with that, drawing a line under these cases with a settlement is a
better result than multiple, years-long arbitration cases.

It's also an important step in Uber repairing its image with
current and potential drivers.

The company went through a huge crisis last year that highlighted
questionable management and bad company culture when it came to
female employees, treatment of drivers, interfacing with regulators
and more.

(In fact the tipping was introduced as part of the company's wider
efforts to repair its business and image among drivers, passengers
and employees. It also included appointing a new CEO.)

Having a loyal and growing base of drivers is essential to Uber
scaling its business, and this settlement is one signal to drivers
that Uber is trying to do right by them.

Still, it seems that the bargaining power here may have been more
on Uber's side.

Uber, valued at $72 billion as of its last funding and potentially
as high as $120 billion in an IPO, is one of the world's biggest
privately-held tech companies. The 11 cents per mile it's offering
as a settlement is estimated to be only one-third of what a driver
could have recovered for just one of the claims, expense
reimbursement, had he or she pursued the arbitration rather than
opted for the settlement.

Securing rights for the growing number of contract workers in the
labor market has been one of the more controversial aspects of the
boom in "gig-economy" businesses. It will be interesting to see how
and if more of these kinds of cases come to light, and if
regulators start to wade in, in cases where employers have
not.[GN]


UNITED KINGDOM: Court Orders Filing of 1st Amended Epperson Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRIS JONATHON EPPERSON, Plaintiff, v. BRITISH
EMBASSY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01432-DAD-EPG (E.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California has issued an order
for the Plaintiff to (i) file a First Amended Complaint; or (ii) to
notify the Court that he wishes to stand on the complaint, subject
to the findings and recommendations to the district judge
consistent with the Order.

On Oct. 17, 2018, Epperson, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis,
commenced the action alleging claims against the British Embassy,
the Foreign Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Russia, James Wilson, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler, and Geoffrey
Binney. Magistrate Judge Grosjean has screened the Complaint and
determined that the Plaintiff has failed to state any cognizable
claim.

She  finds that the Complaint does not contain a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.  The allegations in the Complaint are vague and ambiguous,
making it difficult for the Court to determine what, if any,
cognizable claims are included in the Complaint.  The Plaintiff
must state the facts of the alleged conduct which purportedly
caused harm.  He must allege the who, what, when, where, and why of
his claim against the Defendants.  The Plaintiff's vague list of
terms and lack of any factual detail violates Rule 8 of the Federal
Rules of Procedure.

In addition, the Defendants named in the Complaint include the
British Embassy in Washington D.C., the Foreign Commonwealth Office
located in London, United Kingdom, and the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Russia.  It is unclear from the information contained in
the Complaint whether any of these foreign entities would be
subject to the Court's jurisdiction in the matter.  Without more
information clarifying any potential claims against these three
state entities, it is not clear whether one of the specific
exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity would allow for the
Complaint to move forward as to the state entity Defendants.

Finally, the Magistrate finds that the civil cover sheet completed
by the Plaintiff indicates that the Complaint is a class action
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.  She holds that the
Plaintiff cannot bring a class action.  Unless the Plaintiff can
provide facts demonstrating that he is statutorily authorized to
pursue a claim on behalf of a class, he must amend his complaint to
proceed as an individual litigant.

Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Grosjean ordered that the
Plaintiff may file a First Amended Complaint, curing the
deficiencies identified if he believes additional true factual
allegations would state a claim, within 30 days from the date of
service of the order.  If he chooses to file an amended complaint,
he will caption the amended complaint "First Amended Complaint" and
refer to the case number 1:18-cv-01432-DAD-EPG.

Alternatively, within 30 days from the date of service of the
Order, the Plaintiff may notify the Court that he wishes to stand
on the Complaint, subject to the Court issuing findings and
recommendations to the assigned district court judge recommending
that the case be dismissed for failure to state a claim.  If he
fails to file an amended complaint or notify the Court that he
wishes to stand on the Complaint within 30 days from the date of
service of the order, the Court will issue findings and
recommendations to the assigned district court judge recommending
that the case be dismissed for failure to state a claim and failure
to comply with a Court order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 9, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/OLNNxL from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Dismissal of Contract Claim in Turping Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PETER TURPING, DICK CARTMELL, PHILIP ISAACS, GREG
BROWN, JOHN BONGERS, AND OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, Case
No. 2018-1005 (Fed. Cir.), JUdge Raymond T. Chen of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the U.S. Court of
Federal Claims' decision dismissing the Appellants' contract claim
against the U.S. government.

During World War II, the Hanford Nuclear Reservation was
established by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the state of
Washington to produce nuclear material for use in atomic weapons.
After the war, Hanford continued to be used by the Government for
nuclear work, but eventually the Department of Energy assumed
responsibility for managing Hanford.

Since 1947, DOE and its predecessors engaged contractors, whose
employees performed work at Hanford.  Each time the work performed
by one contractor was transferred to another contractor, the
employees that performed the work would stay the same, and they
would typically keep their same pay and benefits, including
retirement benefits.

In 1987, DOE awarded a contract moving the management and operation
of Hanford to a contractor, Westinghouse Hanford Co. ("WHC"), and
directed WHC to create the Hanford Multi-Employer Pension Plan
("MEPP").  The MEPP was a contract between "Employers," defined
with specific contractor and subcontractor names including WHC, and
"Employees," who were employed by the Employers.  The Government is
not listed as a party to the MEPP.

On Aug. 6, 1996, DOE announced that the Hanford Management Contract
would be transferred from the current contractor, WHC, to a new
contractor (Fluor Daniel Hanford or FDH).  The majority of workers
received the same post-retirement benefits when the 1996 contract
changeover occurred.

On Aug. 30, 1996, however, some WHC employees were provided with an
"Offer Letter" from Lockheed, which was to be a subcontractor to
FDH.  The Offer Letter stated if one's employee benefits for the
position are different than the current site benefit program, a
summary is enclosed, but no summary was enclosed.  The Offer Letter
required the WHC employees to sign it by Sept. 9, 1996, if they
wanted to accept employment with Lockheed.

In September 1996, many former employees of WHC, including the
Appellants, accepted employment at Lockheed and were informed by
Lockheed that, upon their retirement, they would not receive
retirement benefits -- including medical benefits, death benefits,
and pension compensation -- that were previously afforded under the
MEPP.

Despite being told earlier in October 1996 that the Appellants were
no longer parties to the MEPP, on Oct. 10, 1996, the Appellants
were informed that they would in fact remain in the MEPP.  Instead
of calculating their pension benefits based on their total years in
service, however, their benefits would be calculated using the
highest five-year salary during their employment at Hanford (the
high-five rule).  This was solidified in an amendment to the MEPP,
made retroactive to the end of September 1996.  The Lockheed
employees were told that they could not challenge the new changes
to their benefits until they retired.

In October 2014, Turping retired from Lockheed and notified the
Plan Administrator that he intended to begin withdrawing pension
benefits from the MEPP.  The Plan Administrator used the high-five
rule to calculate Mr. Turping's pension benefits, rather than
calculating the benefits using his entire term of service at
Hanford. Id.

In July 2016, the Appellants, including Mr. Turping, filed a class
action lawsuit against the Government under the Tucker Act,
alleging, inter alia, that they had an implied-in-fact contract
with the Government and that the Government breached that contract
when it refused to provide Appellants pension benefits based on
their total years in service.  The Government subsequently filed a
motion to dismiss the Appellants' amended complaint under Rules of
the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).  The
Claims Court granted the Government's motion, and the Appellants
timely appealed.

Judge Chen agrees with the Claims Court that performance occurred
when each participant received his or her benefits, i.e., on the
participant's "Normal Retirement Date."  Because Mr. Turping did
not retire until 2014, which is fewer than six years before he
filed this lawsuit, the Appellants' contract claims are not barred
by the statute of limitations.

The Appellants also did not bring an action against the
Government's alleged breach of Article 26 or its alleged federal
law violations.  Accordingly, these instances of potential
contractual nonperformance are not relevant to the analysis.  The
JUdge must focus on the claim that is in front of him in the
appeal, and that is the Appellants' allegation that the Government
breached its implied-in-fact contract, the performance of which
took place at retirement.

As to implied-in-fact contract, the Judge finds that the Government
funds Lockheed and other Employers to manage Hanford, but there is
no evidence that the Government intended to be contractually
obligated to Lockheed's or other Employers' employees, either
through the MEPP or by other means.  Without this mutuality of
intent, the Appellants fail to meet their burden of proving that an
implied-in-fact contract exists between the Government and
Lockheed's employees.

Because he determines no mutuality of intent exists, the Judge does
not reach the question of whether the other required elements of an
implied-in-fact contract exist in the case.  He has reviewed the
Appellants' other arguments, but finds them unpersuasive.
Accordingly, he affirmed the Claims Court's decision finding that
no implied-in-fact contract exists.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 9, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/AeCiE1 from Leagle.com.

DOUGLAS E. McKINLEY, JR. -- doug@mckinleylaw.com -- Law Office of
Douglas E. McKinley, Jr., Richland, WA, argued for
plaintiffs-appellants.

ALBERT S. IAROSSI, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for
defendant-appellee. Also represented by STEVEN J. GILLINGHAM,
ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR., JOSEPH H. HUNT.


UPMC JAMESON: Tackles Nursing Home Move Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------
Jacob Ruffo, writing for New Castle News, reports that UPMC Jameson
experienced a roller coaster year in 2018.

In June, news surfaced that the health system would move moving its
school of nursing up the road to a new, state-of-the-art location.

Five months later, though, UPMC Jameson was named as the defendant
in a class-action lawsuit involving an allegedly improper
sterilization procedure.

Jameson has yet to say much about the new home for its school of
nursing. Indeed, word about the move actually came out of a meeting
of the Neshannock Township Zoning Hearing Board of Appeals, which
approved a special exemption request of Wish Department LLC to
renovate a building it owns at 2414 Wilmington Road. In a
statement, the company said that it "has reached agreement with the
UPMC to develop a new, state-of-the-art site for both the UPMC
Schools of Nursing and Radiology."

The nursing school, which opened 1929, also been located adjacent
to the hospital at 1211 Wilmington Ave. since its beginning. The
new site -- which once was the home of Commerical Printing -- is
just about a mile up the road.

Though the move my not be a large one on a map, it signifies a huge
potential growth for the schools. Jayne Sheehan, director of
Jameson Hospital School of Nursing, part of the UPMC Schools of
Nursing, said at the time of the announcement that the move is part
of a plan to expand the size of the classes.

"This coming school year, we will have a class of 55 students, and
we aim to further expand our class sizes," Sheehan said.

"Our goal is to grow our school of nursing to fuel the future nurse
pipeline for the region," Sheehan said.

According to communications director Lisa Lombardo, the hospital
plans to release a statement outlining all of the details of the
new school in early January. This will include the exact date the
school will be open, though Lombardo did say that it will be open
"in late January." Lombardo also said it will be ready by the time
the next semester starts.

As for the lawsuit filed last month, it alleges the hospital put
more than 200 patients at risk of being infected with HIV,
hepatitis A, B, and C, gonorrhea and chlamydia as proper
disinfection and sterilization techniques for ultrasound probes
were not followed from October 2017 to October 2018

In late October and early November, the hospital sent alerts to 211
former patients about a process being improperly performed.
Attorney Dallas Hartman Jr., Esq. took to Facebook on Oct. 31 to
get the news out that the firm is accepting calls from those
receiving these warnings, and he is now representing the plaintiffs
in the suit.

"Nothing has advanced on that. I haven't heard anything else about
it," Lombardo said.

UPMC Jameson also offered affected patients free precautionary
blood and urine testing as a result of the potential outbreak.[GN]


VENTURA CAPITAL: Website Not Accessible, Gomez Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VENTURA CAPITAL ONE, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-25481-UU (S.D. Fla., Dec. 31, 2018) alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Website
reservations systems fails to provide information about the
accessible features of the Hotel and its rooms to persons with
disabilities. Moreover, even if the Defendant's reservation systems
did provide information about the accessible features of the Hotel
and its rooms to persons with disabilities, the Website itself has
several other access barriers that prevent persons with
disabilities from fully, equally and independently navigating the
Website and completing a room reservation.

Ventura Capital One, LLC owns and operates a Cavalier Hotel. The
company was incorporated in 2014 and is based in Miami Beach,
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica L. Kerr, Esq.
          THE ADVOCACY GROUP
          200 S.E. 6th St., Ste. 504
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 282-1858
          E-mail: service@advocacypa.com


VIRGINIA COLLEGE: Robinson Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of Alabama
------------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Keven Robinson, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Virginia College LLC and Education
Corporation of America, the Defendant, Case No. 18-90888, was
removed from the Jefferson County Circuit Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Southern). The
Northern District of Alabama Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-00064-RDP to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon.
Judge R. David Proctor.

Virginia College operates as an educational institution. The
College offers bachelor degree in animation, business
administration, criminal justice, health service management,
management information systems, and network management, as well as
master degree in paralegal, health care, and information
technology.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Taylor C Bartlett, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS
          2224 1st Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 326-3336
          Facsimile: (205) 380-8085
          E-mail: taylor@hgdlawfirm.com

               - and -

          W. Lewis Garrison, Jr, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC
          2224 1st Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 326-3336
          Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
          E-mail: wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Brandt Petar Hill, Esq.
          MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C.
          1901 Sixth Avenue North, Ste. 2400
          Regions Harbert Plaza
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 254-1866
          Facsimile: (205) 254-1999
          E-mail: bhill@maynardcooper.com

               - and -

          Ollie A Cleveland, III, Esq.
          MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC
          1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 2400
          Birmingham, AL 35203-2618
          Telephone: (205) 254-1000
          Facsimile: (205) 254-1999
          E-mail: tcleveland@maynardcooper.com

WALGREEN CO: 9th Cir. Flips Enforcement of Wage & Hour Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: WALGREEN CO. WAGE AND HOUR LITIGATION. DOLORES
ZAMORA, Class member, Plaintiff in state court proceeding,
Appellant, v. WALGREEN CO., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-56049
(9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (i)
reversed the district court's order granting Walgreen's motion to
enforce a prior wage and hour class action settlement; and (ii)
vacated the district court's order enjoining Zamora's California
state court action, which asserts a Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA") representative claim.

The Appellate Court finds that the district court erred by
concluding that the wage and hour settlement release barred
Zamora's state court action.  Though the release is broadly
written, it is enforceable only as to subsequent claims based on
the identical factual predicate as that underlying the claims in
the settled class action.  The release's language encompasses
Zamora's state court action because it released any PAGA claim and
included a covenant not to participate in a PAGA action.  But the
release is not enforceable as to Zamora's state court action
because the two actions do not share an identical factual
predicate.  The wage and hour litigation concerned Walgreens's
provision of meal and rest periods, payment of wages and overtime
compensation, provision of accurate wage statements, and
reimbursement of business expenses.  That litigation omitted any
allegations regarding Walgreens's failure to provide its cashiers
with suitable seating. That both actions use the same legal
mechanisms to assert claims says nothing about the factual
predicate for each case.

Nor does the district court's injunction fall within the
relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act.  The Appellate
Court holds that an injunction may issue under the relitigation
exception if res judicata would bar the state court proceedings.
Here, it finds that res judicata does not apply because the two
actions do not involve the same claim or cause of action.  The two
actions do not arise from the same transactional nucleus of facts,
involve the purported infringement of the same right, or require
substantially the same evidence, as each action concerns factually
distinct violations of the different Wage Order provisions.

Zamora will recover her costs of appeal from Walgreens.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 9, 2019 Memorandum is available
at https://is.gd/JJLrHJ from Leagle.com.


WASHINGTON: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Fisk Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BECKY FISK, plaintiff, and LINDA BOWMAN; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JAY INSLEE, Governor; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-35957 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, affirmed the district court's
order granting summary judgment to the State of Washington and the
Service Employees International Union 775 ("SEIU").

Appellants Bowman, Nathaniel Israel, and Susan Nott are former SEIU
members.  When they enrolled in the union, they signed membership
cards that authorized SEIU to deduct union dues for at least a full
year and provided the Appellants could opt out of dues payments
only during a 15-day window each year.  Each of the Appellants
resigned from the union before their dues authorizations elapsed,
and the union continued to deduct dues from their paychecks until
the full year had passed or the appropriate 15-day window arrived.
The Appellants brought a putative class action alleging violations
of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights because they were
unable to immediately cease dues contributions when they resigned.

The Ninth Circuit holds that the Appellants' non-damages claims are
not moot.  Although no class has been certified and SEIU and the
State have stopped deducting dues from them, the Appellants'
non-damages claims are the sort of inherently transitory claims for
which continued litigation is permissible.  Indeed, claims
regarding the dues irrevocability provision would last for at most
a year, and the Court has previously explained that even three
years is too short to allow for full judicial review.  Accordingly,
the Appellants' non-damages claims are not moot simply because the
union is no longer deducting fees from them.

The Court also holds that the Appellees' deduction of union dues in
accordance with the membership cards' dues irrevocability provision
does not violate the Appellants' First Amendment rights.  Although
the Appellants resigned their membership in the union and objected
to providing continued financial support, the First Amendment does
not preclude the enforcement of "legal obligations" that are
bargained-for and "self-imposed" under state contract law.  The
provisions authorizing the withholding of dues and making that
authorization irrevocable for certain periods were in clear,
readable type on a simple one-page form, well within the ken of
unrepresented or lay parties.  Moreover, temporarily irrevocable
payment authorizations are common and enforceable in many consumer
contracts, and the Court concludes that under state contract law
those provisions should be similarly enforceable.

Next, the Court finds that the Appellants' complaint expressly
challenges only the dues irrevocability provision and the continued
deduction of dues after they resigned.  In the wake of Janus v.
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees,
Council 31, 138 S.Ct. 2448 (2018), they now wish to argue that
their consent to the deduction of dues was impermissible from the
outset and violated their First Amendment rights.

Importantly however, this claim is not properly before the Court
and so it needs not address the adequacy of the Appellants'
putative waivers.  As their counsel himself acknowledged at oral
argument, this broader claim is a departure from the actual
allegations of the complaint, which was never amended.  Nowhere in
the complaint do the Appellants allege that they did not initially
consent to the dues deductions, nor did they object to any fees
deducted prior to their resignations or seek recovery of
pre-resignation dues deductions.  The Appellants are necessarily
bound by the allegations and claims in their complaint.  Because
the Appellants' complaint impliedly concedes that they initially
agreed to pay union dues and only objects to later attempts to
escape the terms of that membership card agreement, the Court needs
not inquire into whether their initial decision to enter into the
agreement constituted an adequate waiver.

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order
granting summary judgment to Washington state and SEIU.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 9, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Ltm7mK from Leagle.com.


WILCO LIFE: Anderson Suit Moved to Southern District of Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Vanessa Anderson individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, vs. Wilco Life Insurance
Company, the Defendant, Case No. 2018ECV0446, was removed from the
Superior Court of Columbia County, Georgia, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Georgia (Augusta) on Jan. 11,
2019. The Southern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:19-cv-00008-JRH-BKE to the proceeding. The suit demands
$5,000,000 and alleges insurance contract violation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge J. Randal Hall.

Wilco Life Insurance Company provides supplemental health
insurance, life insurance, and annuity products.[BN]

Attorneys for Wilco Life Insurance Company:

          Elizabeth J. Campbell, Esq.
          Locke Lord, LLP
          3333 Piedmont Road, NE, Suite 1200
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 870-4600
          Facsimile: (404) 872-5547
          E-mail: ecampbell@lockelord.com

WRIGHT BROS: Bid to Send Notice to Delivery Drivers Class Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Scott Honaker, et al., On
Behalf Of Themselves And Those Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff,
vs. Wright Bros. Pizza, Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-01528-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs move the Court
for an order allowing them to send notice of the action to the
following similarly situated employees on Jan. 11, 2019:

   "all similarly situated current and former delivery drivers
   employed at the Wright Bros. Domino's stores owned, operated,
   and controlled by Defendants, during the three years prior to
   the filing of this action and the date of final judgment in
   this matter who elect to opt-in to the action"

Defendants own and operate at least five Domino's pizza franchises
in Ohio. They pay the drivers minimum wage, or very close to it,
but do not adequately reimburse for expenses that the drivers incur
while using their own cars to complete deliveries. This
"under-reimbursement" results in the delivery drivers' wages being
below minimum wage.[CC]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          www.billerkimble.com
          OF COUNSEL TO MARKOVITS, STOCK &
          DEMARCO, LLC
          4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
          Columbus, OH 43219
          Telephone: (614) 604-8759
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
                  akimble@billerkimble.com
                  pkrzeski@billerkimble.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 ***